Yea. Americans will just pay more for coffee. We're going to have that coffee though. We can't function without it. — frank

Take a picture what the coffees cost now in your local coffee shop and compare it to the prices same time in 2026. Take also a measurement of the coffee cup that is medium or large. Now, do you think the price and the cup size will stay the same until April 2026?

The point wasn't to help the economy. Do you remember what Trump actually said the point of the tariffs was? — frank

I thought the reason was to have domestic manufacturing come back to the US and the US "not to be ripped off by foreigners". (Whatever that second thing means)

You can't have stagflation and a labor shortage at the same time. — frank

Notice that every recession starts from high point of last economic boom years. Large scale unemployment is the issue that comes later. Just look where unemployment was in 1929 and 1930. It was well under 5%, and times with full employment, which means a huge labour shortage:


Took years back then to rise to 25% unemployment.

Let's remember that changes in the economic cycle take time. So we cannot be certain what will happen. Only many months into a recession we will understand how bad it will be.

I think your example is a good one in terms of "point and laugh", but not a great one in terms of consequence. I think politicians lying about their academic career is worse, for example. — AmadeusD

The so-called "Culture War" has been a way to heat up political debate and get supporters of a party to be active. It has been used in the US for a long time. During the Bush senior era in 1990's, I remember it was a political debate about burning the US flag. The "Culture War" debate is a way to rally your supporters around one's party, when economic or other policy differences don't get people fired up. The debate around bathrooms might get the interest of those that aren't interested in foreign policy matters.

But here's the problem: When JD Vance went to the Munich Security conference and gave basically a "Culture War" speech on the absence of free speech in Europe, that wasn't at all what the attendees heard. What they heard was deep differences in security policy between the US and Europe and obviously openly hostile intervention into the domestic politics of EU countries. It would be similar if the EU would suddenly start to "support the Democrats in the US in the Constitutional Crisis that is happening in the US because of the Trump regime, which is an existential threat for democracy and the Republic in the US." How would Republicans and MAGA people react to that? Likely in the similar fashion that Germans responded to Vance's speech. They would be also first flabbergasted and immediately angry about such intervention into domestic politics.

Another problem is that the actions of the Trump administration are taken as a whole. Hence when Trump campaigned against DEI during the elections is one thing, but now the actions against DEI implemented by the Trump administration are in the same category with things like extraditing people to El Salvador and not caring about what the SCOTUS says on the issue.

I maybe either too dumb or too tired to know what you're saying here? — AmadeusD

Ok. If everybody agrees on something, there isn't much discussion then, is there? But if you come with really extreme views, a lot people might comment as it's obvious that many don't share the extreme views, hence this creates discussion. Two people with totally opposing ideas creates a heated debate, not the one where they understand each others points and discuss some subtle differences.

The computer algorithms used is simply to get people hooked on to what they are following.

Its more acceptable to talk shit about "right wing" concepts and people. — AmadeusD

Well, there was a lot of talk especially during the times of Biden about wokeness and the woke, even here on PF. Now when the Trump administration is fighting wokeness with deleting photos of the B-29 "Enola Gay" because of the name, it's different. Talk of an overreaction.

It's been noted (by the reddit crowd) that tariffs can't bring in revenue and simultaneously increase incentives to manufacture in the US. — frank

Well, if tariffs give incentives to domestic manufacture, then Americans wouldn't buy imported good, so how would then tariffs bring tax revenue? And if the tariff revenues are so large that they can for example help in balancing the budget, I don't think that then Americans will have any domestic alternative for the imported goods. Hawaii cannot produce your coffee, for example.

So I think that this isn't just a reddit crowd, this is just common sense.

Besides, if everything that is imported is for Americans will be at least 10% higher, how would that help the economy, where the American consumer already has doubts about the future?

Anyway, I think that Trump's tariff stupidity and clear disregard at all trade agreements simply creates distrust towards the US. This might start with tariffs, but end in a debt crisis and a dollar crisis.

I honestly don't think he has framed the latest tariffs as a method of extortion. I think he truly wants to shut down imports. — frank

His administration want desperately to frame it as a negotiation tactic. That it was planned all a long to happen like this.

Perhaps Trump wants the trade balance to be just positive for the US, but in the end 145% tariffs are basically a trade embargo. But this was what he has wanted since the 1980's: tariffs! And just to put into context that this "retreat" is still that is in place now is far more bigger than Smoot-Hawley tariffs were, here's Paul Krugman and just how bad the situation is.



And are nations lining up to "kiss his ass", as Trump publicly put it, to get better deals? I don't think so. I think they will just wait for the pain to get in from the China trade war and the high 10% tariffs. The effects of policy usually can be seen in six to twelve months, but I guess now three months will do.

Yet we shouldn't forget just why Trump did his famous 180 degrees and call his Tariff-the-World program off for 90 days. It was the bond market. By Trump words, it was "qeesy", yet it seems this was a full panic. Everybody in Trump realm is denying this, but it's obvious what happened and it was the events in the treasury market.

The most alarming issue is that many in Trumpworld would like to see the dollar having a lower value. The argument would be that this would improve the competitiveness of American manufacturing. Here lies are threat. The dollar isn't just your average currency, it's one pillar that makes the US to be so prosperous in the first place. And if it considerably loses value, the reserve currency role is threatened. If US treasuries isn't the place markets go for the safety trade, then it puts the US in a bad situation. Usually when the stock market plunges, the safety trade is treasuries. This time it wasn't. That is very telling.

And let's see how bad that Trump stagflation will be.

But isn’t lending to building companies inherently greater risk and lower reward than lending for mortgages? — Wayfarer

Yes, but still Trump could build a lot of buildings. And not all builders are such failures. Besides, you do need the apartments and housing in the first place for mortrages. And if you have population growth, there truly is a need for more housing. Banks do want to have companies also as their customers.

I had thought that would be a better investment from the bank’s perspective. — Wayfarer

From the banks perspective rising home/real estate prices are really a good thing. This is because if a lender cannot pay, they'll just take the home and sell it on a profit. And this is the reason just why mortrages appear to be with so little risk. When the real estate prices increase, the bank doesn't make any losses, even if some lenders default. This is why builders are good customers to banks, when prices rise. Also when those building the homes are smaller companies, they are perfect customers for banks. Larger corporations don't need banks as they simply can go directly to the financial markets.

Trump had vague ideas about tarriffs early in his first term and asked Kushner to do some research on it. — Wayfarer

It's noteworthy that Trump has had this thing for tariffs even earlier. He was in first in the "Japan will overcome us" -camp and wanted tariffs to be implemented against the Japanese in the 1980's. This then changed to China. But otherwise, as Trump doesn't read books and isn't aware of economics, it's very likely that Navarro got involved as described.

If that's the case, I've definitely missed it being more than a small, almost fringe, group. Though it may just be that these people are not commentators. — AmadeusD

Remember the algorithms, what makes a debate. It's not those who agree.

Yet when it comes to the Trump administration (and Musk's role in it), there's a lot of criticism around even from the moderates.

As ↪Wayfarer said, it's very much a supply-side deficit.

The Libs blaming immigration and foreign investment is bullshit. — Banno

Yes, that obviously is that.

One reason can simply be that the banks and financial institutions do not want engage in competition.

Thus there are no aggressive banks that will loan either to builders that would rapidly increase the supply or discard loan requirements and start giving money to everybody, which would create a bubble. To create the classic housing bubble (and bust), you need aggressive banks that will hand out NINJA-loans (loans for people with no income, job or assets). Hence real estate bubble usually happen when the financial sector is deregulated.

So I guess the supply-side deficit can be either kept in place by banks or the government, or then likely with both agreeing on this. The drawback of this is that for new home buyers and for renters the situation is difficult. Yet if a large portions of Australians own their home, it's sound politics from the politicians to keep their voters happy by having their property wealth increasing.

Is your definition of "terrorist" just "enemy combatant"? Do you disagree with the proposition that all insurgents are terrorists? — Leontiskos

I don't think you understand my point here at all.

Who is defined basically just a troll or a crackpot, a criminal, a terrorist, an illegal/legal combatant depends on the political situation and the general acceptance of the issue. I've tried now to explain with examples that for a long time.

I think political scientists also have to reckon with logical validity. Suppose, as seems reasonable, that a terrorist is not merely an enemy combatant; and it is not true that all insurgents are terrorists. — Leontiskos

Legality of a combatant is defined by the Geneva Protocols and Hague Regulations. What also here is crucial is what the response is. Some Anders Breivik doing a deadly terrorist attack in Norway was a criminal case and Breivik is in prison for his action in Norway. The UK engaged with the provincial IRA in Northern Ireland was a de facto insurgency, but the UK government kept it as an de jure criminal case against the IRA members, however reached a political solution in Northern Ireland, which has held. The US invading Afghanistan faced a de facto insurgency against the Taliban, and basically negotiated peace directly with the Taleban turning the back on the Republic of Afghanistan, which then the latter simply collapsed with the Taleban offensive.

In all cases from Breivik to the IRA and to the Taleban, at some stage they were named to be terrorists, yet the end result was totally different.

What more is there to say about terrorism? But just because we have covered terrorism, that doesn’t mean we have covered the notion of dismissal. — Leontiskos

Dismissal works actually the same way. If one person holds a view that everybody else thinks is wrong and false, we will dismiss him either being a troll or some crackpot. Yet if there are many people who hold this view, then comes issues like is it a proper thing to say, is it acceptable in the Overton window of our society. If it's something that millions of people hold a similar view in our society, then we will likely give respect to the view, even if we personally oppose it.

Maybe once climate change sets in that area will become a center of civilization. — frank

Ah yes, the hope of the Northern Passage! And great uninhabited real estate, just once the Arctic Sea climate is similar to the Mediterranean, you can plant palm trees to give shade. :cool:

(Beautiful Northern Norway and Lofoten Islands with their pristine beaches!)

The peripheral islands will be the Americana zone. — frank

Until that happens, enjoy the decadence.

Often, champions of liberalism (I speak here of political theorists and popular authors) utterly fail at seeing even the haziest outlines of the apparent unfreedom critics see in liberalism. That's what this thread is about. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Didn't Leibniz believe in his work Theodicy that we were living in the best of all worlds? Start of the 18th Century wouldn't feel so optimal to us. Well, hopefully future generations 300 years from now feel the same way of our time compared to theirs.

It's easy to show what is wrong. The hard part is what to do about it. We seem to fall to the "I can fix it"-leader.

The problem for them is that the main political structure, the European Union, is a complete disaster and will not facilitate unity unless it is completely restructured. — Tzeentch

Russia is a complete disaster and should be completely restructured. :smile:

Russia's leaderships insistence on imperialism is the cause of the bleeding the country is now going through. How different would it have been if Russia would simply have admitted that the era of the Russian Empire, that it kept alive by the Soviet tyranny, is over. It should have taken a truly critical look not only at the Marxism-Leninism, but the Tzarist imperialism before that. Yet it never understood how to behave in a post-colonial world. It didn't create and uphold CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, like the British did with their Commonwealth. It didn't even opt for the French model. No, Putin who see the collapse of the Soviet Union as the biggest tragedy of the Century went on a mission reconquer the pieces of the Empire. And not even in the way of neo-colonialism, but 19th Century imperialism of annexing territories and deeming large countries like Ukraine being artificial constructs.

Just look what on the map is the heartland in it's center: Kazakhstan, Mongolia and former Dzungaria, now China and being the northern part of Xinjiang.



A more remote and desolate place you cannot find. This idea, stupid as it is, forgets the most important geopolitical reality that is simply based on physics: for millennia it has been possible to move far more stuff by water than over land. That's why a connection to the sea is so important, so crucial. That's why major cities and urban areas have a large and usually long river going through them. The Kazakhstan-Mongolia-Xinjiang is the total opposite of this... and hence this has been a quite backward area for human development, even if the Silk road did give us places like Samarkand. Unfortunately for Russia many of the largest rivers that actually are navigable flow to the Arctic Sea. Now if a river starting from Urals would stream to the Baltic Sea, or heck, to the Atlantic, World history and Russian history would be totally different.

In fact, the United States, shows just how much nice geography has fallen to the northern part of the Continent. The US has access to the two largest oceans that are it's moats and it's connections to the World. It has rivers like the Mississippi that venture deep inland and navigable (unlike the Congo, for example). Hence in the map "Periphery Islands" are not the periphery. It is the "heartland" in that Russophile map from Mackinder's Heartland Theory.

Mackinder came up with his theory in the start of the 1900's. He argued against British view on the importance of Sea routes and naval power as " traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland".

Well, even if there is now the attempts from China to create a new Silk Road, even today 120 years from Mackinder's ideas the physics still prevails and sea transport trumps land transport in efficiency.



So heartland, my ass.

Hopefully this wasn't considered flaming. :halo:

Sure, yet there are differences. I came across this: — Banno

Is this btw actual policy? Not to build new homes and hence keep the housing prices going steadily up?

Just check in the table UK. Same thing. Not much growth in housing. Big housing bubble there too. Also in Sweden, which also hasn't increased it's housing stock. Is this intentional by the political leadership?

Because if you let it to the markets, you would have a rapid boom and then a bust.

It keeps home owners happy voters. Rising prices home owners feel prosperous, even if they own just one home. Yet if the bubble bursts, there's a lot of bad consequences for banks and the financial sector as buying a home is the most expensive people usually done. The larger economy takes also a hit, because people might not own stocks, but they usually own a home. A bursting housing bubble is like applying a hand brake when braking: no matter if you have ABS brakes, that hand brake and you can lose control of the vehicle.

If you think that every insurgent is a terrorist, then I think you must have an idiosyncratic definition of 'terrorist,' no? — Leontiskos

No, I think you misunderstood my point here.

Naturally those who fight the insurgents will likely call them terrorists. Even to admit that there is an insurgency is an admittance that give the other side justification of being an "enemy combatant". Enemy combatant isn't your ordinary criminal. Best example of this is Northern Ireland. In the UK the time is simply called "The Troubles". Yet in fact in it's official history the British military has written that what happened in Northern Ireland was an insurgency.

Yet naturally this wasn't ever acknowledged during the time. Hence the provincial IRA members fighting the British and the Unionists were treated as criminals, not enemy combatants. This lead to IRA members holding hunger strikes in prison.

In the end the British did seek and get a political solution, and people like Gerry Adams became a politician, even if he was in his earlier life the Officer commanding (OC) of the 2nd battalion of the Belfast Brigade from 1971-1972, became the adjutant for the brigade in 1972, and had become the OC of the brigade by 1973. So here you have a leader of a terrorist organization becoming a respected politician.

Best example how "terrorists" can become accepted politicians is the case of the friendship of Winston Churchill and the South African president Jan Smuts. When they first met, Churchill was a British prisoner-of-war and Smuts his Boer interrogator during the Boer war. (This friendship also shows that a good interrogator doesn't torture, but creates a confidential and trusting relationship at best with whom he interrogates.)

But it's hard to see how any of this is related to the OP, or where it is going. — Leontiskos

It is related to the OP in the way that just what is accepted and what isn't changes. I assume that you are thinking of the question from a philosophical perspective and assume there would be a fit for all occasions answer. Yet the simple fact is that when issues are political (as they usually are), just what is acceptable and what isn't changes through time.

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.
— Tzeentch

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise. — Mr Bee

Somehow the "madman Trump" option with the "US foreign policy elite" being limited to "Trump acolytes in his administration" seems to be a satisfying answer here.

Russia has tried since 1991 to align itself with the West; they thought that was the winning strategy. In 2014 this stopped because the Ukraine conflict created an unbridgable gap. — Tzeentch

I would disagree here.

The window where Russia would have truly aligned itself to the West has long been shut. I think that time ended during the Kosovo war. The rift happened already in the Yeltsin years. And it was was totally evident with the Russo-Georgian war in 2008. I've always said that for Russia align to the West, we would have needed truly larger than life leaders both in Washington and in Moscow. When the leader of the FSB and his KGB friends got into power, the window was totally shut. But there was in the 1990's a firm belief that this could happen. I remember a German military attache saying that it might be a possibility that Russia would join NATO. I myself and other Finns (then Finland non-aligned) were dumbfounded by the remark.

The West has simply fooled itself to think that Russia would align itself with the West and wouldn't see the West as an adversary, thus all the "reboots" of the US-Russo relations done by Bush and Obama (and of course, by Trump). This has been a disastrous mistake, just like when the West thought that China (and the Chinese Communist Party) would somehow change.

That conflict is now coming to end, and it's a legitimate question whether the Russian-Chinese alliance will hold, and whether it will hold in the long-term. Or whether a normalization between Russia and the West will cause a drift back to the pre-2014 status quo. — Tzeentch

This is Trumpian or Russophile daydreaming, as if the relations between Europe and Russia would normalize. Russia is an existential threat for too many European countries. If Putin is ousted and Russia finally has it's revolution and the Russian's discard the disastrous attempts to retake their Empire, then those relations could improve. Even if that would happen, who knows, still likely many would be wary about a Pro-Western Russia. There would be the threat of a Putinist takeover.

And this is actually the real damage that is now happening to US - Western relations: even if the Trump administration sooner or later ends, there's still this feeling that Americans can choose a nativist-isolationist leader again, who is as hostile to the West as Trump is now.

Personally, I don't think the Russians will be as interested in close ties with the West as they were in 1991, simply because China was a developing nation back then, whereas today it is increasingly the center of global affairs together with other Asian countries like India. — Tzeentch

Those countries that have now sent troops and "volunteers" to fight alongside Russian troops in Ukraine show very clearly which are the countries that are the true allies of Russia.

That alliance is the Anti-American alliance, now clearly formed and visible. It's just the hallucinations of the crazy people to think that somehow now Russia would want closer ties with the US. What it only wants is to drive a wedge between the US and it's allies, and Trump here is the best thing ever that has happened to Putin.

But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. — Tzeentch

No, this attempt is another form of self-mutilation, shoot oneself in the foot, just as is the crazy idea of declaring sky high tariffs against the whole World and then think it would create prosperity as domestic manufacturing would increase. Just look how long it took for Trump to blink and postpone the tariffs for 90 days. This is similar nonsense, that only a moron can do.

A Russia-China alliance, accompanied by support from Iran, India and several Central Asian nations, unite 2/3rds of Eurasia - essentially a fail condition for the American empire, which can only flourish if the rest of the world remains divided. — Tzeentch

It's likely the reality, with the execption of India, which has and will go it's own way. Just remember that China has as an close ally Pakistan, not India. And China and India have tensions along there border. Yet in the debate club called BRICS both China and India can happily coexist.

This is just assisted by Trump trying to destroy every alliance the US has with other countries... perhaps with the exception of the US-Israeli alliance.

To inhibit the expressions of terrorist should be understandable.
— ssu

Not really. "Terrorist organization sues Finland over free speech rights," isn't exactly a common headline. — Leontiskos

Sorry, I don't understand your point. :sad:

For example, the law distinguishes manslaughter from murder, but with terrorism there is no such distinction. The law does not distinguish terrorists who were acting in good faith from terrorists who were acting in bad faith. — Leontiskos

OK, now I understand what you were after.

Well, do notice that when "terrorism" isn't confined to a tiny cabal of people who we would call homicidal maniacs, it becomes a totally different thing. I already mentioned here the power of numbers. Just think of an insurgency: the insurgents are still terrorists, criminals, but an insurgency isn't just a string of terrorist attacks. Then the case is that the terrorists are "illegal combatants", but usually insurgencies eithers succeed to win the war or there is a political settlement, and the terrorist become people who you can negotiate with (even if at the start this was an impossibility). In a political settlement the terrorists become politicians themselves. There are so many examples of this in history that I don't know where to start.

Traitor and a terrorist are quite different things. To be prosecuted about treason is really different from terrorism, so here I'm not sure what you are thinking about.

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. — Tzeentch

This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity.

And if the US would be serious about China, it would try to tighten the alliances it has in the Pacific, not start trade wars with it's allies. (Because yes, putting up 10% tariffs and threatening higher ones in 90 days is to start a trade war with others too.)

Why Trump wants to cut the alliances and alienate the friends of the US and then grovel in front of the Russians who view him as an useful idiot is beyond me. Russia knows clearly well how weak and capricious Trump is how easily the US can change it's policies after Trump. Yet it seems that many are eagerly enthusiastic about these developments when the US is clearly shooting itself in the foot.

Well, there's a discussion now in Germany about acquiring nuclear weapons. That isn't likely, but what is likely that the nuclear deterrence of Europe will be discussed a lot. France naturally has long time talked about strategic autonomy. Before it was a French pipe dream, now it's a serious alternative.

Okay. Incidentally, how do you see the issue of speech impinging on the question of terrorism? Are you thinking of cases where we inhibit a terrorist's forms of expression? — Leontiskos

To inhibit the expressions of terrorist should be understandable.

Yes, but the question here is whether there is an specific need to evaluate the perpetrator's culpability. If we do that, then we are involved in a moral judgment of the person, and we don't always do that. In the case of the terrorist I don't think we really care about their culpability. We don't care if they acted in "good faith" or "bad faith." — Leontiskos

I think we should always evaluate the perpetrators culpability. Many times it can be easy, when it's someone that uses violence to instill fear. Sometimes it's difficult. I'm not sure why you insist that we wouldn't care about the culpability of someone. In politics and legislation there are always moral question that we try to answer to the best of our knowledge.

Will the split between UK and EU widen?

Hopefully not.

The UK is actually doing a lot especially when it comes to Ukraine with EU countries. Ukraine is the really one disagreement here with the US and the UK is quite on the side of the EU. And remember that the tariffs are in effect with the UK too. I think there should be a way to form back the close ties. I think best example would be a free trade zone between USMCA and UK and EU. In fact the present Trump chaos might give us reason to think so. After following this quite disastrous tariff policy, the outcome can be something different. Just like the first Trump tariffs in the end resulted in the USMCA.

And note that the EU is really a union. It is made up of sovereign states which have to find common ground. It isn't an Imperial player.

Okay, thanks for answering.

The idea here is apparently that we should ban, imprison, or deport someone whose ideas and views will cause a sufficient level of harm, such as a terrorist or someone who aids and abets terrorists. This is similar to this option:

I dismiss KK because entertaining them and their viewpoint will lead to harm.
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Yes, exactly.

We should put the bar very high. Naturally there is a lower bar, typically dealt with civil lawsuits, exist where for example I ridicule you and you go to court because of slander. But it's still the same reason.

We should notice from the terrorism example just how extremely rare this should be. There are huge numbers of people that are suicidal, but only a minimal amount who would harm people when killing themselves or take on such lunatic ideas that terrorists in Western countries promote. However, if we want to keep these rare events at a minimum, then government do check what basically is otherwise "free speech".

Now, do you see this as a moral or non-moral move? — Leontiskos

Preventing harm to others is a moral move. How could it be non-moral?

Or in other words, we are going to deport the terrorist, and we need to undertake no moral evaluation of their intentions before doing so. Maybe the terrorist was acting in good faith or was a victim of poor education - it makes no difference to the decision. The police and the terrorist are not at cross purposes in that deeper sense. They are playing the same game, in different directions. If this is right then they are deported but not excluded in the deeper sense, and I will say more about this below. — Leontiskos

Laws have to have a moral basis, don't you think?

Terrorist see themselves as having a just moral cause, naturally.

The terrorists might be non-legal combatants, but they truly feel their cause is justified. For example, the West German RAF (Red Army Fraction) thought that West Germany was still a successor state of the Nazi Germany, and they had total reason to fight it. Their objective was to "wake up" the real Proletariat, which would be woken up when the workers would feel how the German (Nazi) government would attack them. With the Islamic State the dedication is even more convinced as they see themselves fighting for God and the Ummah.

In the end, the morality is just a numbers game. If you and me believe that the state of Switzerland is actually the reincarnate of Nazi Germany and we should join a fight to liberate the Swiss from nazism, then we are seen as lunatics. If millions of people, including many Swiss people and foreigners would think that present Switzerland is this reincarnate, it wouldn't be just lunacy. Usually when millions of people think somehow of reality, then we have to respect that view.

As for the goal, well I’m not sure they have one, but rather a trajectory. — Punshhh

The lofty goals might be to get manufacturing back to the US and a third term for Trump, but it's just a trajectory that they have put into motion. Now on what trajectory the US and the Global economy is on is the question, but it doesn't look so good.

What it will look like, a skip fire. — Punshhh

And what is said about Skip fires?

Skips are not designed to have fires started in them and the fire can quickly rage out of control while it could cause damage to the skip which means that you could find yourself facing a fine for the damage.

Furthermore, depending on where you have your skip positioned, the extreme heat at the bottom of the skip can cause surfaces such as tarmac to melt. If you have your skip located on a public highway, you might find that you are billed for the damage and the relaying of a new surface.

Others seem now to just look how Trump's fire will go and how the starter of the fire will handle his smoky effort. The US and China are now in a full blown trade war and other countries are looking at 10% tariffs. Already Trump has backed down on some electronics like smartphones. And likely many we will wait until those 90 days will pass and see what Trump will do next.

The bond market and the so-called "bond vigilantes" put Trump to back down already from his ultra-high tariffs. And this is the interesting and crucial part here: how will the US treasury market behave in the future? "The flee to safety" wasn't to the US bond market, as it usually has gone to when the market corrects. Gold has gone up. The Swiss franc is already showing signs of being one "harbour for safety" as the US dollar has plummeted to the franc quite dramatically.



Likely again the small European country will have it's exports industry howling for a devaluation and the interest rates might get to be negative again.

How other countries deal with the new situation is going to be interesting. Diversification to new trading partners will be the hot topic now.

Then give a definitive answer. Answer the OP. That's what it's there for. I gave my answer in post #2. — Leontiskos

Definitive answer to “What is it about this type of person that justifies dismissal?” or "At what point is a moral dismissal justifiable?" That's your question in the OP?

When one's statement really can be harmful to others. Not when those statements are just annoying, incorrect or wrong. One can have moderation and then have real dismissal/banning etc. Something that becomes a legal matter.

Dismissing / banning someone for one's ideas and beliefs shouldn't happen lightly as we understand how important freedom of speech is for our society to function. The reasoning for dismissal / banning should be to prevent harm to be done to others. The intent should be clear. Naturally people will have different views on just what is reasonable evidence for dismissal. Every case is likely unique.

Yet the question really should be: does this or can this truly harm someone? Because people can indeed have different views, think about the World differently and come to different conclusions. That's inevitable.

We can argue that "sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words can't" or think that "Hate Speech" rules have gone too far, but we shouldn't forget that there is the actual threat of harm done to others.

Here the example of how the Islamic State franchises it's terrorism shows how dangerous this can be. One can get the materiel of the organization from the net and one can simply say to be a follower of the Islamic State, make a terrorist strike and the terrorist organization will happily take credit for one's actions. One doesn't have to get in contact with the organization. This strategy from the IS makes it totally understandable that various police and intelligence services do try to survey the net and social media and find possible sites and people who help or create a place for terrorist organizations to spread their message.

I don't find that to be a reasonable stance. We know of all sorts of things that were illegal and yet should have been done, such as freeing slaves. — Leontiskos

We were talking about terrorism. Yet you say then later:

It sounds like you guys don't believe that opposing murder or terrorism is a rational act. That in opposing murder or excluding a murderer we are acting like "priests," not "philosophers," and that there is no rational justification for opposing murder or terrorism, or dismissing/excluding those who engage in these acts.

Is that right? If so, Aquinas would find this quite amazing. — Leontiskos

Make up your mind.

It sounds like you have no answer to the OP, or that you want to discuss a different OP. Do you have answers to Q1 or Q2 of the OP? Or are you saying that cultural taboos and laws are unquestionable and rationally opaque, and cannot be inquired into? — Leontiskos

I think you didn't understand my point.

My point is that for Q1 and Q2 you can get definitive answer and everything isn't just a rhetorical game. These accusations aren't just insults that someone hurls at others when they disagree with them. Yet there has to reasonable evidence for this, because far too much these accusations are hurled on others as a way to win a debate / silence others.

Okay, so you think we should dismiss (or act negatively towards) a site or person that gathers funds to Al Qaeda and Isis? — Leontiskos

Yes. Leontiskos, you and I go to jail if we gather funds to terrorists. Being OK with that happening wouldn't be good for the administrator of this site.

If this site has moderation rules like the following: "Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.", then something that is considered far more dangerous than hate speech (described in the moderation rules) surely isn't allowed.

(In fact, the US pushed this legislation so much here in Europe that lawyers here not that giving financial aid to Al Qaeda would get you longer prisoner terms than first degree murder.)

Questions about the breadth of the moral sphere aside, it seems clear to me that when someone wishes to dismiss or exclude someone with a charge like, "Racist!," they are almost always involved in a moral judgment. The implication is that the racist has done something (morally) wrong, and as a consequence of that wrongness they are being dismissed, excluded, etc.

This thread is meant to tease out exactly what is going on in that sort of phenomenon. If we had to break it down rationally, what is it about a racist, or a Nazi, or a liar, or a betrayer (etc.) that rationally justifies some form of dismissal or exclusion? — Leontiskos

Behavior in the social media has come to this. It's one way to silence people. And as I noted the moderation rules of this site, it's obvious what kind of accusation it is here to charge another member of being a racist here.

Calling someone racist is actually very much an American phenomenon, which has then spread especially through the Anglosphere. This is because segregation is something that the US hasn't gotten over and racism is still an issue in the US. In other countries these issues can differ. For example in Germany the accusation of being a Nazi can be pretty serious: denying that the Holocaust happened can get you five years in prison. Germans, who do have this painful history, do take it quite seriously.

My point here is that moral judgments start from things that universally are considered not only being unmoral, but even criminal. Us not tolerating them doesn't mean that we are against free speech. Even if we put here "question about the breadth of the moral sphere aside" as you said, we shouldn't forget them. It's similar to talking about the Overton window. We understand that when there is a window, there's also part which isn't in the window, but perhaps "the Overton Wall".

I have declared zero successes, to be sure, nor have I made any predictions of future events. That’s a fool’s game, yet it is absolutely pertinent to the lucrative anti-Trump racket. — NOS4A2

You have made, perhaps unintentionally, predictions of the future.

The racket goes like this: predict a future Trump calamity, like a depression or nuclear war or fascist takeover. When it never arrives, promote oneself and one’s own failed prophesies as part of the efforts that helped stop it. Rinse, repeat. — NOS4A2

You don't have to be the advocate here for Trump, and I think it just blinds you from noticing for example what I say, because you assume the juxtaposition of people being either supporters of Trump or the haters of Trump.

What I'm worried about is that I don't see any kind of way for the polarization that is happening in the US to end. And that's not just because of the Trump supporters, it takes two opposing camps for polarization to happen. I really don't see a way how these two camps would come closer to each other.

And that the two biggest economies stop trading with each other will cause a huge difficulties for the global economy. It doesn't make much sense. Now Trump can easily turn this back: he above all, can make a total 180 degree turn and we'll say it's the famous 4D chess.

So the idea that Elon Musk has purposed would be a great idea. I myself would think that a free trade area of USMCA + UK + EU would be a great idea. The way things are now looks like the possibility of a global recession is quite real, even if things can still change.

And I if I'm wrong, then great! That's wonderful news.

For me the most interesting question asks from whence the moral disapproval arises. — Leontiskos

Think not first about "moral disapproval", think first about something that would be clearly illegal by current legislation. How about a site that gathers funds to Al Qaeda and Isis? Or a discussion not about kittens, but about certain human beings. Would you participate there? Would you be totally OK that some would have these thoughts and spread them publicly... because we have freedom of speech?

The rational grounds are simply things like public security and safety, for starters. Far later come things where would have a discussion about if the issue is morally right or wrong.

Americans are extremely prone to simply painting their own domestic politics onto other parts of the world — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Never has this been so apparent as today.

or that he cites as exemplary "anti-imperialist work" narratives that do exactly this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Anti-imperialist work" usually starts with the juxtaposition of the imperialist (Here, the US) and it's victim. The victim has little if any agency as the focus is on the actions of the imperialist. The focus of the Americans is thus solely on the Americans and their decisions and actions.

This creates a situation is where even in historical research a lot is not looked at.

I stumbled on a good example of this when Stephen Kotkin, a historian I enjoy listening, suddenly gave a huge praise to a Finnish historian Pekka Hämäläinen calling it one of the most important historical studies done at present as the Fin had wrote about Native Americans. Hämäläinen's viewpoint wasn't to list the atrocities that the European settlers did and how the US treated Native Americans, but focused on the tribes as independent actors, who had to adopt with lightning pace to new technologies and to a new situation basically by reinventing themselves. In his books The Comanche Empire and Lakota America, Hämäläinen treats native civilizations as polities making war and alliances.

Perhaps the fault is the idea that prevails so clearly in the works of Noam Chomsky. His first political book The Responsibility of Intellectuals tells in it's name what Chomsky views his role. Chomsky has stated clearly in interviews that he doesn't criticize other nations because it's not his job. He only criticizes the US, because he is an American. That if one criticizes that actions of let's say Turkey, then it is fitting for a Turkish dissident.

First of all, self criticism is good. Yet if one takes on this kind of role that Chomsky takes, one does get quite a biased US focused narrative of events where everything evolves around the US (and Washington and the Military-Industrial Complex and "the Blob").

This actually has bad consequences. You can see it now at the present how many Americans have a totally different understanding of events in Europe as Europeans have. And as now the Trump administration is truly going after what could be called classic imperialism and a trade war, the alliances the US has are really transforming.

Now we know for certain that influential scientific journals, the “experts” and authorities whom we are taught to listen to, privately believed the lab-leak theory but publicly refuted it. — NOS4A2

Those pushing for gain of function research and involved even distantly to the Wuhan lab had the most incentive to hide it. So for a long time the media went with it.

The most likely explanation is simply a lab accident.

This may true, but it isn't necessarily true; and I don't believe that religions were created with this in mind: they were seeking the truth the best way they could. — Bob Ross

But wouldn't that be philosophy, the love of wisdom, and science?

Just because we can retrospectively determine that they got a ton of stuff wrong, given our understanding now, doesn't mean they were making stuff up to "get answers to questions they can't get a 'logical' one for". — Bob Ross

What I mean here is that you simply cannot get a logical, objective answer to what is morally right and wrong. It's not a question of retrospect or our ignorance. The question is inherently subjective, hence you cannot get an objective answer to. Science can tell us what the World is like. Not how it should be.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa, in Stockholm today, draws parallels to Rodrigo Duterte and warns about how the slide into authoritarianism can happen faster than people realize. — Christoffer

It's a good and interesting parallel.

I visited Philippines when I was 16 with my parents who were on a work trip there. We stayed in a nice skyscraper hotel in Makati in the business district of Manila. Few months later there was a military coup attempt and the visitors of the hotel were taken hostage by the rebelling military forces for a while. The coup failed and the hostages were released.

That was what Philipines was like in the 1980's after the ouster of the dictator Marcos, when Philippines was under the shaky times of Corazon Aquino. This just shows what kind of democracy the Philippines is. However now Duterte is now under custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet on the other hand, Bongbong Marcos, the son of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, is the current president. Democracy has survived, sort of, in the Philippines. Can we say that the Philippines is a democracy? Yes, perhaps not the most well functioning example of a justice state, but still.

Perhaps this is the most likely outcome of the Trump era: the US won't face authoritarianism like a dictatorship of Mussolini or Hitler, but a situation where the institutions of the Republic continue... sort of. Yet by any measurement of just how democratic the US is will simply plunge.

What are you guys' thoughts? — Bob Ross

Abrahamic religions, just as all religions, are made for people living in a society. Religions give us answers to questions that we cannot get logical answers, like what is morally right or wrong or how one should live ones life well. Earlier, they gave us stories of our genesis, which we didn't have any understanding of. And of course, religions tell us what happens to us when we die.

The eternal damnation or eternal bliss is one answer to make people follow the moral rules how to live given by the religion. Some would say it's a way to control people.

I understand that this wasn't the answer you are looking for, but perhaps a more of a theological discussion. Eternity creates naturally many questions: what is life after death, when it's not 40 million years, not 5 billion years, but eternity. :wink:

Lol.

We haven't been even three months in on a four year term, and here you are eagerly trying to declare Trump a success and declaring my views to be wrong...because nothing of them has happened in less than three months. Let's just look at what at least a couple years give us under Trump. Let's just enjoy all the winning Americans will be through then.

Besides, let's just look at the forecast you have made:

(2 months ago)

I just want to submit the following for discussion.

Talks are now occurring in Canada in regards to zero tariffs, which is exactly what the president wants. — NOS4A2

Does he want zero tariffs? EU would be open to them. Trump isn't at all interested. He wants tariffs and domestic manufacturing. Trade is bad. But as I said, it's just been few months...

Canada might even be the 51st state. — NOS4A2

Let's see just what happens to this forecast of yours.

And are you walking around in Canada with your Maga hat on, @NOS4A2?

I remember you predicting that of all the wars that Trump is lusting to have, a war with Panama was the second likeliest one. Given that the US and Panama recently partnered to secure the canal and deter China, with a special nod to Panama’s sovereignty, I’m curious if your fears abated or if they still remain. — NOS4A2

If the other side surrenders or caves in, there's not going to be a war. And what I've been talking about is that Trump lusts territory for the US. The old colonial way...

Panama seems to be attempting to hold back Trump, which now seems to be blocking the building of permanent bases. And it should be noted that prior to Trump's annexation plans, Panama was open to joint-operations to patrol the lawless Panamanian - Colombian border. But Hegseth's visit to Panama just shows how hell bent Trump is to enlargen the territory of the US and the administration tries to sooth his desires.

The reality is that if Panama would oppose US actions, nobody in the World would care much about it. Just look at yourself: does the media interview Panamanians about what they think about Trump's actions? Greenlanders were talked to, but not Panamanians. The World is totally used to the US being a bully in it's backyard.

(A demonstrator stood over a burning poster with images of Hegseth, Trump, and Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino, during a protest against Hegseth's visit to Panama.)

(France 24, 11th April 2025) US troops will be able to deploy to a string of bases along the Panama Canal under a joint deal seen by AFP Thursday, a major concession to President Donald Trump as he seeks to reestablish influence over the vital waterway.

The agreement, signed by top security officials from both countries, allows US military personnel to deploy to Panama-controlled facilities for training, exercises and "other activities."

The deal stops short of allowing the United States to build its own permanent bases on the isthmus, a move that would be deeply unpopular with Panamanians and legally fraught.

But it gives the United States broad sway to deploy an unspecified number of personnel to bases, some of which Washington built when it occupied the canal zone decades ago.

The real question if the US truly goes forward with taking back the Canal Zone. Far more unlikely is annexing all of Panama. Here likely the White House will try to behave like "the adult in the room" and try to limit the most delusional ideas of Trump. I guess Panama, just like Denmark and Greenland, try to just stay low and have Trump going off at others and forgetting his most delusional ideas.

And let's see if we get the drone war against the Mexican Cartels or US strikes on Iran. All what you wanted so much when voting for Trump.

Even before Trump the debt was likely to fall into a death spiral. Studies have shown that, without the Bush and Trump I tax cuts, revenue would have been better than neutral. THEY DO NOT CARE.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

And no they will likely never default. Instead, they will debase the currency to meet the debt. In fact they have been floating this idea for years now. — hypericin

Debasing the currency is just one way to default. So is hyperinflation too. And the actual policy that has been talking about is high inflation, not hyper inflation (as that simply means that the belief in the currency has evaporated). Few years with 20% inflation make wonders on the debt!

Anyway, I think it's more about being short sighted and hoping that the crisis won't come now. After all, the system that went off the gold standard in 1971 has continued to this day. So why not 10 years more?

Let’s start with the premise: “free trade is good for economies with excess production and trade surpluses.” That is a misunderstanding of how trade works. Free trade isn’t some rigged game that only benefits surplus countries. — Benkei

If it would be this way, then colonies of European empires would have enjoyed an absolutely great economic time, because they had huge trade surpluses. They exported huge amounts of resources, but usually got far less imports manufactured items from their colonial masters. That some poor country exports a lot to the US compared to the few imports from the US (as the country is poor), doesn't make it so that the poor country is stealing from the US (as Trump thinks).

The US receives massive foreign capital inflows. Foreigners buy US Treasury bonds, stocks, real estate and invest in businesses. Those inflows keep interest rates low, fund domestic investment and support the dollar’s global role. In other words, the trade deficit is not some evidence of decline. It is the accounting counterpart of America’s central role in the global financial system. That is just how the balance of payments works. — Benkei

Exactly. And this is the part that many Americans do not understand. How important to all of this is the role of the dollar and just why it is so.

Note the difference when some country exports stuff to Sri Lanka and to the US. In Sri Lanka, the exporter gets Sri Lankan rupees, which he mainly can use either inside the country, or then exchange into a currency his preference. From the US he gets dollars, which he can also use in the US or he can use for example to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

Let's assume that the governments of Sri Lanka and the US both spend recklessly and have huge deficits and basically print more money. Who do you think of the foreigners that export to these countries get a bit nervous about this? The one's holding lot of Sri Lankan rupees or the one's holding US dollars? In fact, for Sri Lanka it's foreign currency reserves that the central bank has are important, because Sri Lanka is a poor country. The US on the other hand is the largest economy and it's dollar is the reserve currency.

The US didn’t create the global economic order to rack up trade surpluses. It created the order to prevent another world war, contain communism and entrench a rules-based system in which it would remain the institutional and financial center, regardless of whether it was exporting more goods than it imported. That strategy worked. — Benkei

It worked so well that Nixon could take the US dollar off the gold standard and the credibility of the US dollar didn't collapse. Oil was sold in dollars as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States had pegged their currencies to the dollar... because of the alliances/security guarantees the US had with them (called Twin Pillars back then).

Now, of course, Trump is making his best effort to do away with these alliances that have been crucial for the US.

I think there's a structural problem with Western health services as nearly all Western countries face problems with their health services. Our nations are so prosperous that there indeed is the ability for there to be an universal health care system. And the alarming example of how costly a private system or some hybrid can be we can see from the United States, where the cost are higher, often multiple times higher than in other OECD countries per capita.

Yet the structural problem is that the system is intended and developed for a situation where the population is growing. If Western countries would have the demographic pyramid of many African countries, this wouldn't be a problem. The larger younger generations could by taxes and other payments take care of the current retiring and retired generations. Because it's natural that after the brief encounter with the system as we are born, it is more likely that we will be customers of the health care system at old age.

That our population doesn't grow and basically is getting smaller makes huge economic problems, but also a problem with health care services. What happens after the boomers are all dead, that's a different situation.

Another issue is that this health care and welfare spending is consumption, and it doesn't create something to the future like true investment or education. Perhaps we should look at it as a necessity for the whole democratic society to chug along, as without the welfare state and transition payments, you will get at worst violent political upheaval, even a revolution. But that is something that we don't think about. We make the hypothetical "what if" only with defense expenditure: having no military, any large country would put itself to peril as a hostile country could take charge of "security" itself.

Yet it's obvious what a welfare state does give: security and social cohesion. When you don't have anybody begging on the streets, when you don't have homeless people in the streets, you don't have that wealth inequality so apparent. You do have lower crime rates and less fear. That welfare state can also alienate people and create a class of people that are dependent of welfare is in my view a smaller problem than having homeless people around on the streets where you live. The issue is that it simply costs a lot, because the services cannot be done by robots.

I'm not so sure they care about that either. — hypericin

I think they have to care. At least at some point.

You see, the interest on the debt is already a higher spending issue on the budget than defense spending. At that, no DOGE or whoever can touch (even if they tried), because not meeting the interest payments is default.

The interest on the debt is on the average now 3,3% which is over 1% higher than five years ago. Just an additional 1% of interest and the whole debt thing is worse. Think if it would be double, 6,6% which is on the long run quite normal. That would basically double the expenses. And let's remember that we have come from literally from the lowest historical interest rates of all time and now the cycle is going up.

What they really got scared was the treasury selloff.

(Barrons, 9th April 2025) The selloff in U.S. government bonds gathered speed on Wednesday, with the 30-year Treasury yield set to rise the most in more than 40 years as a paradigm shift in trade policy upends the bond market.

Yields on the 30-year government debt were up 0.144 percentage point to 4.858% on Wednesday morning, putting them on pace to gain 0.467 point over a three-day period. If the market closes at current levels, it would be the largest three-day gain since January 1982.

The Trump administration might not care about the stock market, but the government does care a lot of the interest on the US debt!

EDIT: also I forget but obviously the EU raised retaliatory tariffs as well. So when do we get the 100% tariff? — Benkei

That isn't yet sure. And let's remember that the EU response was for the tariffs raised before Trump's "Liberation Day".

Eu moves a bit slowly.

Exactly.

Trump finally blinked.

But let's remember that now Trump has that trade war with China and still he has those tariffs with everybody at 10%. That 10% + China trade war will have an effect on the US economy.

It's not going to be the absolute disaster of a lifetime. Just your normal Trump disaster. :wink: