Davin News Server

On 2025-03-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> 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"?

During the 50's and 60's it was "reasonable". It started to go downhill
in the 70's and really downhill big time in the 80's.

>
>>> 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.

They did.
And the reason is that there was no incentive to manufacture here in USA.
Corporations are tied to profits and stock holders.
Make a pair of Nike sneakers for $100 in China vs $125 in USA is a win.


>>>> 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.

This is the big one.
Even if the pharma isn't totally manufactured offshore, many times the ingredients
are.
We need to bring this back to USA 100%.


>
>>>> 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.

Sure. Consulting is a huge, somewhat under the radar, biz.


>>> 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.


My feelings regarding tariffs and trade are that trade needs to be free and fair.
If China for example is devaluing their currency or using slave labor to produce
products, that s not fair trade.



>
>>> 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.


I stand by my statement.
NATO is a mess right now.
And it needs to be fixed as China, Iran, Russia are aligning to fight the USA.
It will happen.
We need to be prepared.



>
>>>> 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


-- 
pothead
Filter Free For A While.