Davin News Server

On 3/13/25 20:43, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-03-13 16:41, pothead wrote:
>> On 2025-03-13, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 20:56:30 -0000 (UTC), pothead
>>> <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trump is correct.
>>>> Unless absolutely necessary.
>>>> When the US depends upon other countries for needed goods then it gives
>>>> up all control.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think is going to happen to the myriad of products, say 
>>>> prescription
>>>> drugs for example, if the USA gets in a war with China?
>>>
>>> That's *exactly* why trade is good and why the US has spent the past
>>> eighty or so years evolving free trade.  Each nation becomes too
>>> dependent on the others to risk going to war with them.
>>
>> True, but for various reasons "free trade" is no longer equal and 
>> equitable.


Question:  when was it *ever* "equal and equitable"?


>> China in particular devaluing their currency is one example.
>> How does the US compete with a country that is effectively using slave 
>> labor?
> 
> Hmmmm... ...you know who CHOOSES to buy those Chinese products, right?
> 
> And who CHOOSES to move their manufacturing there?

Gosh, you're making it sound like a lot of American Corporations decided 
to abandon US workers by offshoring.

>>> If a nation is your only source of wheat, you dare not invade them.
>>> When you're their only source of corn, they dare not invade you.
>>
>> It comes down to a matter of priorities. So do we need Nike sneakers 
>> from China
>> or do we need prescription drugs. And what do they need from the USA?
>> they get to choose as well.
> 
> Tell me:
> 
> Where is Nike's headquarters?

Pharma manufacturing is also something that has a lot of policy 
manipulation.  At one point, there were huge tax breaks to offshore it 
from the USA to Puerto Rico, for example.


>>> It amazes me that the Magas and haters don't get that.  It's as if
>>> they'd rather live in a combative world risking war than to play nice
>>> with the other kids.
>>
>> People, including Trump want FAIR TRADE. Why should goods we export to 
>> some country have taxes, tariffs on them that are high while goods 
>> they export to the USA do not?
> 
> Give an example.

He should also include non-physical trade, known as "Services".  The USA 
is a huge 'exporter' of these.


>> The same applies to NATO. Countries need to pay their fair share 
>> assuming of course they are able of doing such. 

Of course, the whole concept of "fair share" started back with Obama, as 
he was who got the EU members to agree to the 2% GDP target.  It had an 
aspirational goal of meeting this benchmark in ten (10) years, which for 
2014 is FY2025.

And FYI, you don't need to believe me on this:  it is explicitly 
documented on NATO's own website:

"In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of 
their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help 
ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was 
taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid 
broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment 
Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meeting this 2% of GDP 
guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers."

<https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm>


The implications of this is that all of the bitching about this that DJT 
did during his first term was grossly dishonest because the FY25 
deadline had not yet transpired for any country to have been delinquent.


>> IMHO NATO needs to be updated. It's a cold war agreement that is 
>> getting stale.

Events since 2014 illustrate otherwise. See the above text for examples.

This might have had a decent argument 15-25 years ago when Russia was 
actually a NATO "PfP" member ... but that ship has long since sailed: 
they got kicked out when they invaded their neighbors.


>>> The supreme example of 'trade is good' is that there has not been a
>>> war between major powers since 1945.
>>
>> True, however as I've stated above, things have changed drastically in 
>> recent times.
>> China wants to dominate the world, no secret, and the USA at least 
>> under Biden
>> has been falling right into the trap. China's only interest in 
>> renewable energy
>> is selling stuff to the USA and making us dependent upon it.
>> Rare earth minerals, batteries, as well as other green energy materials.
>> This is suicide IMHO.

That statement is very poorly informed, and one can find proof of it in 
Open Literature, such as the following:

<https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/defining-dods-role-in-gray-zone-competition>


>> Especially since we are sitting on decades worth of fossil fuels.

Claimed the frog, as the water began to boil around him...  /s


>> Fair trade will benefit all.  
>
> You're seeing the "benefits" already...
> 
> ...with an economy that was going strong suddenly predicted to go into 
> recession.

Indeed.

Industry is "hair on fire" behind closed doors; they're starting their 
public pushback based on a "National Security" narrative.  Likewise, 
the Markets will probably have to drop by another -10% before they think 
that they can safely say the obvious part out loud without being 
targeted for retribution.

The simplest reality here is that one can't go build an automotive 
manufacturing plant in 30 days to adjust to a new tariff.
Industry needs such policy changes to be slow, steady & predictable, in 
order to build the business plan & implement, such as a ramping up at a 
rate of +1%/year.  Without being suitably deliberative, all that can be 
done in a shakedown for kickbacks by tariff exemptions, which absolutely 
does not benefit the Nation, but only a few individuals in power who are 
the bribe recipients.

-hh