Davin News Server

On 3/14/25 21:10, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-03-14 17:58, pothead wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You should look at a chart of tax rates in your country by year...

Income tax rates are another element of the overall fiscal picture and 
yes, the marginal rates were much much higher than today's:  they were 
still at 70% for top brackets until Reagan cut them in 1981.  Indeed, if 
Reagan's, Bush's, and Trump's cuts had not been enacted, we arguably 
would have had +$45T greater revenues, which means that we notionally 
could have been completely debt-free by today.

In any event, the era of low tariffs was a post-WW2 initiative, which 
had its own challenges domestically because the Marshall Plan resulted 
in the USA investing in our foreign competitors -- witness how our Steel 
industry was failing by the 1970s, in no small part because we chose to 
not reinvest in its infrastructure, so the post-WW2 rebuilding resulted 
in newer & more efficient facilities than we had at home.

But by 1963, there was politics back in tariffs, with the "chicken war" 
which still to this day affects the Automotive industry (25% tariff on 
LTVs from what's now EU).

However, Reagan/Bush pushed the pendulum further by abandoning domestic 
protections and eliminated remaining quotas.  Its not a coincidence that 
that's when the light industry followed heavy industry overseas as well 
as was the watershed that gutted the US middle class...but of course, 
none of this offshoring was recognized as the "fault" of the GOP!  /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.
> 
> So like the drug problem, you want to blame other countries...
> 
> ...when the problem is really internal.

Indeed.  It really would have been interesting to have seen what might 
have transpired if the US would have had tariffs based on metrics that 
domestic industry were required to operate under.  For example, making 
sneakers in a highly polluting plant gets a +10% tariff penalty.  Do it 
in a worker environment that's not OSHA compliant is another +5%, etc. 
No SS/Medicare?  Add +12.5%  The concept is to level the playing field 
through tariffs which are tied to unambiguous costs that are being 
imposed on our own domestic industries.


>>>>>> 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%.

There's other fragility elements in the supply chains ... I forget just 
which one it was, but our primary provider of IV and Saline was in North 
Carolina and shut down by Hurricane Helene's swath.  Bottom line is that 
robust supply chains require redundancy which always increases costs.


>>>>>> 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.

Oh, its not merely consulting, but basic services like banking, etc.


>>>>> 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.


Which relates to NATO and the politics of 2% of GDP ... how?


>>>>> 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.

Can you actually articulate what this so-called "mess" actually is?
And make sure that it is integral to NATO, and not within the purview of 
the domestic matters of any partner nation.



>> It will happen.
>> We need to be prepared.
> 
> Russia is getting Trump to surrender for them.

Which is unequivocally the USA's biggest security risk in the world today.


-hh