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:

And that's exactly what happened today isn't it. Hedge funds delevered by selling their treasury bonds. It's absolutely wild. — fdrake

The safety trade is being out of the dollar. Gold has been a great asset of safety.

And people are buying necessities before the prices start rising.

I think he's one of a committee, or more likely the figurehead, allowed his tantrums. Otherwise it's all his show, and I do not think he is remotely near that able. — tim wood

When you read books about his first administration, they portray a very clear picture, which is repeated again and again.

First of all, every US administration looks to those inside it as chaotic, perhaps with the exception of the Eisenhower administration. This is because there is so much decision making going through the White House all the time. Yet some administration are more chaotic than others. And Trump belongs to the "more chaotic" ones. This is simply because of the man himself. To assume that Trump is a figurehead, then the question is whose figurehead is he? What is the real committee here? Trump holds power in the GOP. At least still.

14th amendment precludes it. It puts into question the validity of my claim compared to your claim either because of the identity of the holder or the type of instrument. But also, it would breach the terms of the issuance itself and therefore result in a contractual breach. — Benkei

Thank's! Learn something new every day.

And naturally it would have a devastating effect even without the legal breaches. Trust in the US would be shaken, even if I'm of the opinion that the US could genuinely default some day and the present monetary system would be abandoned. Then the story about the trustworthiness would be change that US is credible, because it defaults only in few hundred years. And the lenders would come again, after licking their wounds. And if we call the going off the gold standard what it really was, a default, then the US does these defaults only in +50 years or so.

Question: does anyone think that Trump knows what a tariff is or how it works? — tim wood

I think he doesn't understand it. A political leader who thinks that enlarging the territory of the USA is a great idea at this time of age isn't the brightest one around, even if he can communicate so well with his base. People shouldn't themselves go down the rabbit hole and believe some deep conspiracy here.

The question: given what he is doing and has done, and what he says and how he says it, and the company he surrounds himself with and what they say and do, what makes sense as to what is ultimately intended? Putting all the parts together, what is the most likely structure that they all fit? — tim wood

I think we are witnessing a story of a quite ignorant yet great populist orator with ardent followers, who is unfit for the positions he is in now. And power has simply gone to his head, because of the acolytes and the yes men around him, who follow every whim he makes.

As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei

And when have existing laws have limited the actions of Trump? He already has the idea of ruling by executive decree and then fighting in courts, if it comes to that.

There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei

If there is the ability to have sanctions, to freeze assets, why not this then? If there's no law specifically against it.

Now at this point this is just theoretical (thank God), but with Trump, these things can happen. In an economic crisis, the US President does have a lot power.

My only suggestion to require that a prospective voter show he can function as an adult, either through education, service, or work, a one-time basic test that a person can take as many times as it takes to pass, if they fail. A person needs a licence to drive a car, both the car and himself required to keep and maintain certain standards of ability and care. Is it so outrageous or difficult to have similar standards to drive the state? — tim wood

Basically in a democracy, this can be done if people really are OK with this. Far easier it is to think of this from the perspective of who can run for a political position in elections. The case of Marine Le Pen in France shows that this is a current issue.

As I noted the difference in voting rights between the US and Finland, Finnish prison inmates can vote, American inmates cannot. And both countries are basically OK with their laws on this. This basically goes back to differences in the idea of legal punishment, where in the US you have this history of punishing criminals, where the Nordic approach is much more liberal in also "helping" the felon to get out of crime, even if both countries do naturally detain criminals for the security of other people and the society. Trump's evictions of immigrants into prisons in El Salvador is the case point of punishment and threat of punishment being far more important in American politics.

Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy. — Benkei

This might be changing now. Saudi-Arabia's financial minister said already in 2023 that the Kingdom was open for selling oil in other currencies than the dollar. Note that the Saudi currency Rial, as the other currencies are pegged to the dollar.

A further question is if Trump would not simply pay China the treasuries it's holds. It's an incredible stupid idea, but note what Trump has earlier stated about this, even if then the issue was walked back:

(the Guardian, Feb 16th 2025) “We’re even looking at Treasuries,” the president told reporters. “There could be a problem … It could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought.”

The suggestion was that opening up the US Treasury’s data to Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” team had identified a money-saving wheeze: why not walk away from some of America’s debt obligations – a “selective default”, as economists call it.

Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. Of course it will take also itself a hit, but then if this is a security threat (which it is, actually), countries are totally fine with seeing their economies taking a hit. The people will understand.

We've already seen that imposing sanctions toward Russia (which I deem justified), has already made a lot of countries unsure about the international finance system as they fear they might also be put up with sanctions or excluded from the system. Now, if the US goes and attacks China by a selective default, that would have monumental effects. Yet perhaps Trump would like the dollar to cost less.

Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt? — Benkei

Because I genuinely think that Trump believes in the false idea of trade being a bad thing, when the US has a trade deficit. He truly believes in tariffs having the effect of luring in manufacturing into the US. With a default, it might be that even the fringe thinkers like Peter Navarro see it as a bad idea. But who knows. It can be the next thing Trump does after this.

We ought to assume that Trump is informed, and actually knows this. Therefore we can ask what is his real intention behind the use of tariffs. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we ought to assume this? What could you give evidence for this. This doesn't seem like a bluff or only a negotiating tactic. If countries want to make deals, Trump might go with those, but he looks to be perfectly happy having the tariffs and truly assumes that the tariffs will lure manufacturing back to the US.

One person, one vote. Fair enough. Why not give the vote to infants, then? The idea is that a minimum competency is required to vote. I'm suggesting that age is not enough. In a society where pretty much everyone receives a standard education, I think it's reasonable to require some mastery of that education, and a relatively easy test. — tim wood

In my country, age is actually enough because for any adult citizen of the country voting is a Constitutional right. How severely handicapped a person is doesn't limit this at all.

Here's the real issue: there are many cases, where basically the court decides that someone is incapable of taking care of themselves and for their own protection, they are put under a guardian (I don't know what the legal terms in UK or US is for this), even in adulthood. Multitude of examples of this. Now of being under custody of a guardian/trustee (like a child), of course goes against human rights, like having the right to own property and decide oneself about it.

Yet it's a totally different issue if everybody has to show that they are able to own property. That there is like a driver's exam if you think of driving a car or a motorcycle, there's an obvious need to check one's abilities as one can do enormous damage with them. Yet we don't to have to get a permit or have an exam to buy a kitchen knife.

With your thinking, it would be similar to argue that in order for us to own property, we first have to show that we are capable of owning property, eligible to take care of that property. And only then do we have the right to own property. In my country the only limitation is that a person who has a guardian cannot be a candidate. But for example dementia etc doesn't limit the right to vote.

And I think that in truth, far more easier to have everybody to have the right to vote. Keep it simple.

Either that or the incompetents get to vote, and may even get to run the asylum. Which is happening as we speak in the USA! — tim wood

Look, this is simply a problem with all democracies. It does ask a lot from it's citizens. End of story. In my country the Parliament can change the Constitution, so basically there is no limitation on the laws they can make. They can decide that all naturally redhead women and witches and thus are a threat to the security of the nation, thus they have to be imprisoned.

We have only the common sense of the people as the true safety valve here.

But even on this humble forum, authors are promoting or are otherwise cheerleading for the ostracism of human beings on the basis of whom they voted for. — NOS4A2

Assassination culture? Sorry, but sounds quite similar to the "rape culture" that suddenly had become so widespread when we had the "the woke" saying earlier.

After saying that, I think that the US is in deep trouble as it's losing it's ability to come together in any issue and on any occasion. This issue is really serious, actually. Americans are truly losing the so important social cohesion of coming together as a nation. Just for comparison, my country actually came together when the COVID-pandemic hit. And the people and the political parties came together in a dramatic way when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. It was Social-Democrat lead administrations both in Finland and Sweden that pushed for NATO membership, even if the left has been traditionally against NATO membership.

Yet in the US Covid seems to just have divided the country. Now the incoming recession and the stagflation is clearly the result of a political decision of the US President. We would not face this incoming global recession as we do now otherwise.

This just energizes the polarization onto a higher level. To think that everything imported from China has an over 100% tariff is going to immediately hurt. Breakups of supply chains can even happen.

The worst thing here is that I don't see any way of the tensions easing here.

I think he truly think what he says.

Once you have trade barriers, factories will sprout in the US to take care of the demand. You simply cannot turn his head on this.

Again we think that in the end we will get a result that we got in Trump's first administration, the follower to NAFTA, the USMCA. Believing the end result like that is to believe that after everything, the Hail Mary pass will give Trump (and the World, actually) a touchdown.

A couple of ideas I have are for the requirement to pass a one-time test to earn the right to vote. And it would have to be difficult enough to fail, at least at first, a lot of people. Perhaps requiring the equivalent of a very good high-school education to pass. Or four years' military service. Or four years' college plus two years' full-time employment. Or just a term of full-time employment, maybe six years. — tim wood

Perhaps not.

Just imagine how that "earned right" could and would be abused.

Universal suffrage and one man (or woman) and one vote, is quite simple to understand. Full-time employment? Military service? How about the old fashioned way for example Prussia had it: the amount of taxes you pay, the amount of votes you get. Would that be good? I don't think so. Requirements for voting other than being a citizen are difficult. With other requirements, you easily lose credibility and invite corruption.

I can think of a multitude of ways the system of voting requirements would be abused. Above all, there would be then the caste of those "not eligible" to vote. What would that do for the credibility of whole system? Now, in many US states felons lose their voting rights while incarcerated, and this isn't seen as problem. Even if the US has huge inmate population (while in my country also the prison inmates can vote). But something else?

This has the same problem as with Plato's society. There are no safety valves.

To assume that the system is thought to somehow work without a glitch is fatally and quite dangerously wrong. As if the "philosopher kings" making the decisions would be really chosen from the "most capable". Even the term aristocracy, which means that power is vested in a minority of those believed to be best qualified, and what aristocracy means in reality and has historically meant, shows us how the idea of "most capable" doesn't work. Not only Plato's ideas like raising children apart from their biological parents is unrealistic (and bad), it simply is bad when you have to make such assumptions for the society to work. That we would need better humans in the future for the system to work show that the idea is dangerous. A real life experiment close to Plato's system is the story of Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. Once Janissaries didn't have to be in celibacy and were allowed to have children, guess from whose children came the next generation of elite troops? Hint: not from orphans taken from Christian families and brought up only to serve the Sultan. Hence the corruption went so far that one Sultan in 1826 easily wiped away and killed the Janissaries with a new army copied from the West.

What's the answer then?

We just have to hope that people are reasonable. Yet there is a minority who would go with the radicals. For them the system doesn't work and they feel it's against them. Hence many will opt for radical options as if "anything would be better than this". And if they elect the "totally something else" option, it's bad thing.

How do they loose power and how are these people out who voted for them made a tiny fringe?

Only by failure.

Failure creates shame and guilt. At worst, fear of punishment could be added to that when the failure has been especially bad and deadly.

Just ask yourself, how many of all those that voted for Mussolini or Hitler continued after WW2 to enthusiastically support their former leaders and ideology? Hardly any. The fascists of Italy and the "Werewolves" continuing the fight for the Third Reich in Germany simply vanished. We can see this even in the rules of this forum.

The unfortunate reality is that once people with bad ideas are voted into power, the only way for them to lose their power and their support is after everybody has to seen how utterly bad the ideas were.

I think we should talk to Trump. There is a lot of misunderstanding between Europe and the new US administration. — ChatteringMonkey

There's no misunderstanding. Or the misunderstanding won't be erased by talk, but only by actions.

Trump is his own reality show that where he plays the center stage, which he just loves.

What he basically can do is make a lousy deal to the US, if he looks like a winner at first. I'm not sure there's going to be Hail Mary passes.

That this whole "Liberation Liquidation day" would indeed be "a negiotiation tactic" is simply too much of a Hail Mary even to imagine, hence Musk is trying to resurrect his totally collapsed popularity / credibility.

Still the stagflation hasn't gripped the global economy. Still this could be fixed, but with every day the window of opportunity get's smaller.

Likely Trump will stop like a deer in headlights and think that he portrays credibility and determination by sticking with his much beloved tariffs and simply thinks that the "green chutes" of his brilliant trade policy will emerge later.

Beginning of the end for Musk?

US President Donald Trump's billionaire advisor Elon Musk said on Saturday he hopes in the US and Europe could eventually establish “a very close, stronger partnership” and reach a “zero-tariff zone situation.”

Musk was speaking via video link the party congress of Italian far-right party League, which is in a ruling coalition led by Premier Giorgia Meloni.

"I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America," Musk told Matteo Salvini, the LEGA party leader, via video conference.

Where did all the bellicose MAGA rhetoric go? Assuming Trump would be logical, this is totally against what the US President wants. After all, according to the Trump, the EU was formed to screw the US.

These corporate types, who could care less about making things in America again and just wanted to free themselves from high taxes and Biden’s regulatory crusade (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc) had every reason to believe Trump’s second term would be a repeat of the first. I certainly thought it would be, and like many was stunned to find out that he actually took his half-assed 19th century mercantilism seriously and was willing got to go the distance with it (at least so far). His current all-out tariff war may not have been a surprise to North Carolina MAGA supporters, but it sure as hell was to many wealthy businesspeople who voted for him, and are now regretting it mightily. — Joshs

Many took the wrong lessons from Trump's first administration.

First time Trump came to office totally unprepared (as he didn't think he would win) and chose to his administration a lot of "ordinary" Republicans and people that weren't at all MAGA-people, starting from secretary of state Rex Tillerson or secretary of defense general Mattis, just to give two examples. Rex Tillerson might have dealt with a lot with Russians, but he naturally took his job as serving the US government. Generals like Mattis, Kelly, McMaster were basically from the same mold as the joint chiefs of staff in the military are made from. Hence you had "the adults in the room" that wouldn't go to attack the NATO alliance or cozy up with the Russians.

Now there is nothing like that at all. The current administration truly listens to what Trump wants and tries to fulfill his ideas. This is what people should start to understand here. Republicans are literally afraid of Trump and don't want to be seen as foes of the President. With other Presidents, the own party might have been quite critical and sometimes against the administration, but not now in MAGA-land.

Trump might have been following the stock market at first when it was going up, but now any fears he would have of the stock market going down doesn't matter. Because the stock market has plummeted. Just like Trump won't budge now when the US economic indicators turn negative and we can talk about a real recession. The reason is that Trump will likely believe that this is the "Detox"-period, the pain that has to be passed before the it comes better.

Trump can (and likely will) live inside his White House cocoon and not turn away from his beloved tariffs even if no investments are made in the US domestic sector, if the economy turns into a recession and even if all prices end up increasing and not only "the imports". This is why the US can continue make similar decisions like it did on "Liberation Day".

The problem I see with the Trump plan is more that it, like everything his administrations do, doesn't seem well thought out, is implemented chaotically, and will likely be subject to all sorts of favoritism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or the thoughts themselves are absurd and chaotic, but nobody dares to say to the Donald if something is genuinely a terrible counterproductive idea.

What could you say about the plan of Canada becoming the 51st state of the US? Is it just a plan implemented chaotically? No, it's totally absurd and ludicrous plan. Canadians don't want that. What else would there be than the solution that Putin had for Ukraine? To think it's just a jab at Trudeau won't fly.

Yet nobody is willing to say this to the President, so he can always ramble about it if asked about it. At first we thought it was just brilliant marketing of simple slogans like "Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it". We are used to have "election rhetoric" and promises that aren't kept. But Trump did ask and pleaded the Mexican president to do it and pay at least something. Hence Trump really means what he says.

It should be obvious after the "Day of Liberation" now. He isn't playing some 4D Chess some people think he is doing. The tariffs were not a negotiating tactic, just like he didn't write the "Art of the Deal". No American politician has ever been so straight forward in telling what he wants. He truly wants trade barriers to grow domestic production because international trade is bad. He wants the territory of the US to be larger.

We make a mistake when we think Trump isn't for real and isn't meaning what he says.

F) Not likely. A nation's stability is also proportional to its size. A nation as large as the US takes longer to "fall" than smaller nations. — Christoffer

This isn't about a fall like let's say Yugoslavia. What I mean is the similar kind of political instability that Latin America can have. Latin America has had it's share of political instability, but no Latin American country has become a failed state, even if Venezuela could be said to be on the way. Above all, Latin American countries do work... somehow fairly OK. It's not the kind of political instability that you find in Africa. For a long time we haven't seen something comparable to a real revolution in Latin America.This is just an observation, when you just look at what has happened in the US already, even if it has been the richest country in the World, it has been prone to political violence, riots and so on.

As a young boy, I've seen the huge smokestacks what widespread burning and arson do in an American riot. I witnessed myself the 1980 Miami riots, a not so well known incident anymore.
(Miami riots, 1980)


Yet the fact is that the US has a very violent past with it's presidential assassination attempts and political violence, it's lynchings and riots. Things can get indeed out of hand in the US, even if it's a prosperous country. Not everywhere, but in many cities the tensions that could spark off something are there. Add to this what Trump can do.. and has done. There are simply too many guns that deadly accidents can happen. You already had close calls during the George Floyd riots, and deaths. Add to this an administration that goes down hard on "criminals" or "terrorists" without due process, and the end result can be a real tragedy. And I call it tragedy, because a lot of it might be at first unintentional. Yet we have to contemplate how Trump would react to large scale protests or riots. It might be different than last time.

This doesn't at all mean that the US is going to anarchy or a true revolution such like the Russian revolution or the French revolution. But political instability? Yes. It's economy will be just hurt, but will endure even the Trump tariffs easily. And the fall from being the sole Superpower to being the largest Great power isn't so huge either, even if it is dramatic.

What's the probability of:

a) The World economy tanking, but especially the US economy going down
b) US prices going up (with "a" above that's stagflation)
c) Democrats winning the midterms, but Trump totally disregarding then the Congress
d) People protesting in large numbers against Trump
e) Trump using force against these protesters and MAGA-supporters clashing with demonstators
f) The US ending up with political instability like a country in Latin America.

Just asking... of course it might not happen, but one scenario.

Well that's an interesting gloss. so they probably do want kids, but ... their position in the world, or the condition of the world is such that they do not want them. — unenlightened

I think here the political situation or climate change are a very minor factor.

The bigger factor is simply the cultural change in the society and that you don't need children to take care of yourself when you get older. Starting a family is a big decision today and people tend to leave it quite late. And if they have children, few have more than two. Also loneliness is an endemic.

That the future is bad? I don't think that's really a reason for many.

I agree.

And why invest in a country that severely damages it's own economy on purpose? China is already putting limits for Chinese companies to invest in the US. But this might be a totally voluntary thing to do: the US isn't a rapidly growing market, so why invest there?

Far more lucrative is for European corporations to turn for example to the growing European defense market, just like Volkswagen did. (See Volkswagen Ready to Enter Military Production Exploring Defense Equipment Supply)

Again something that Trump himself did. That US defense industry corporations are down and European defense industry like Rheinmetall is well up over +100% tells where we are heading.

The US is utterly untrustworthy and totally unpredictable in it's actions during the time Trump is in power, so the reasonable thing would be to stear clear away from this self-inflicted trainwreck. When the Trump price hikes hit the US consumer, they aren't going to be delighted.

Also what should be noted is the political impact of this. Now there's a clear reason why the economy will be hurt in many countries. It's because of Trump's actions. This means that people aren't going to be disappointed in their own governments, because the culprit is so evident.

No one has utilized so many tariffs — NOS4A2

When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were implemented, which were one of the causes for the Great Depression, all imports to the US was like 5% of GDP. Now it's over 13% of GDP. And then the World wasn't so interconnected. And during that time, there wasn't so much international trade globally. And tariffs between non-US states were higher too.

I'm not sure how you could avoid stagflation now. If the American consumer has been worried about rising egg prices, wait until you see what this will bring on... starting with your morning coffee. Prior to these tariffs, Trump already had a negative effect on the economy with things like travel to the US was declining. The dollar is weakening to the euro and investments are going away from the US. Not the usual thing when recession is coming.

Now presumably he will do deals. Deals in which he will extract something from other countries in return for a reduction in tariffs. — Punshhh

Or then double down if other countries put tariffs on the US. The US has a surplus on services trade, so likely that will be hit. And then when the economic growth goes negative, Trump will insist that it's just a time for "detoxing". As @Josh put it so well, tariffs here aren't just a way to bargain for a better deal for Trump, it really is the way he incorrectly thinks that manufacturing gets back to the US.

And this is the main ludicrous line here: if you just raise trade barriers and leave the US manufacturers to produce things for Americans, you're missing out on the Global market.

Trump only won the election because his core MAGA supporters were joined by libertarian free-market neo-liberal business types who believed Trump basically shared their economic perspective, and just used tariffs as a bargaining chip. — Joshs

This is so true.

Perhaps this is the more suitable thread to discuss this.

I just wonder how an issue like Donald Trump and what he is doing could be, as you said " substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, - Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact." Because I assume he will, as he has done all of his political career, raise emotions, a lot of critique. And I hope that those who support him can also have a say.

And I'll just repeat what I said earlier on the new thread:

Just think if we would have this kind of forum in the 1930's, where people anonymously participated from both sides of the Atlantic. Do you think it wouldn't get to repetition and flame wars if people commented about the Great Depression, economic policies to fight the great depression, authoritarianism and rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Or if the topic was the invasion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War or isolationism in the US?

It's obviously good to moderate this, yet, I'm sorry to say this, but we are indeed living through quite dramatic times and things really are rapidly changing.

Americans are in for a real ride now. At least for others, it's just the exports to the US going down the drain... for the US consumers, a bit different.

The president’s proposals for tax cuts include no taxes on tips, no taxes on social security, no taxes on overtime, and more recently, no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year. — NOS4A2

Yet the average salary in the US is half of that, if not a bit less. And for those inflation will be an issue. Stagflation? How much?

If history is any indication, very little of this will be occurring soon, but maybe Trump can set the ball rolling. — NOS4A2

Maybe, but I'm not seeing how you would avoid a recession here. Trump of course can make quick turnarounds and people are OK with that. But otherwise what I'm anticipating is just a huge trade war.

Let's just remember that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were similar or less (depends on what Trump does today) and, above all, the World had far less international trade and globalization as it has today.

It would be ironic if protectionism ends protectionism, on both sides of the border, but this is the best outcome in my view. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail. — NOS4A2

I hope that. And here Trump could perhaps do a real turnaround. But how cool heads prevail, we'll see in the following weeks and months.

....and NOPE.

EU 20%
China 34%
Vietnam 46%
Japan 24%
India 26%

and so on... :shade:

Hooray for Mercantilism! :vomit:

This thread is intended as a fresh starting point for substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, - Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact. — Benkei

Wasn't it the longest thread in PF or is there a thread longer? Over 24 200 replies and over 800 pages... and it wasn't the first Trump thread, only a common Trump-thread put together in 2018.

But even if it's evidence-based and engagement grounded in fact, I'm not sure you will get it to tone down.

Just think if we would have this kind of forum in the 1930's, where people anonymously participated from both sides of the Atlantic. Do you think it wouldn't get to repetition and flame wars if people commented about the Great Depression, economic policies to fight the great depression, authoritarianism and rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Or if the topic was the invasion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War or isolationism in the US?

Anyway, perhaps the "Day of Liberation" is an apt point to restart the Trump discussion, or perhaps in a month we have forgotten it.

And now for a quick dose of reality to the Trump nonsense:

(The Guardian) Moscow has described the latest US peace proposals as unacceptable to the Kremlin, highlighting the limited progress Donald Trump has made on his promise to end the war in Ukraine since taking office in January.

Sergei Ryabkov, a foreign policy adviser to Vladimir Putin, said some of Russia’s key demands were not being addressed by the US proposals to end the war, in comments that marked a rare acknowledgment from the Russian side that talks with the US over Ukraine had stalled in recent weeks.

“We take the models and solutions proposed by the Americans very seriously, but we can’t accept it all in its current form,” Ryabkov was quoted by state media as telling the Russian magazine International Affairs.

Why would they talk about peace if they aren't under pressure or face the consequence of losing? Basic Russian thinking, which the "useful idiots" don't seem to understand.

Every time I point out what kind of an awful country the United States is, people look for ways to twist the facts so they don't have to acknowledge its long list of transgressions. — Tzeentch

Then we could have a conversation of the Bush policies and the response after 9/11. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is quite different from Korea and even from Vietnam, or the retaking of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

Pol Pot's power grab, which the US then supported in full knowledge of what Pol Pot was about. — Tzeentch

Is that really so?

During the 1970–1975 war, the United States provided $1.18 billion in military assistance to the Khmer National Armed Forces in their fight against the Khmer Rouge

It was Lon Nol, that the US backed up in the fight against Pol Pot. And Sihanouk claims (likely correctly) that the coup against him by Lon Nol was backed up by the CIA.



Only for the US to then, far later, to be in good terms with Sihanouk again. Which just shows how clueless the US can be in it's machinations. The US is simply one actor, even if important, that is one among many and often doesn't get it's agenda through. Here's Sihanouk with Reagan later.



So get your history and historical perspective correct, Tzeentch.

The Trump/Musk backed judge in Wisconsin lost. First real test of voter sentiment. — Mikie

Wow. Even handing out money didn't work. Which is totally disgusting and I'm really happy of the outcome.



Seems the time for Musk to quietly leave the arena and stop making it worse for his companies.

Is climate change a political "hot potato" which has bias around it? — Agree-to-Disagree

What do you think?

Climate change / Environmental policy in general
Nuclear energy / energy policy in general
Genetical research... human genome research
gain of function research
Economics... the old name "political economy" describes well the nature of this subject.
International relations / security policy

Many things can become "hot potato" issues. Usually you can see it when two sides bring totally opposite views that are "based on facts". Especially when the create a very emotional response.

And many things do have a moral character and a moral question behind them.

Do notice that many people who consider themselves to be either left / progressive or right / conservative are actually moderates and quite centrist, that do oppose violence and breaking the law, be it arson or vandalism by protesters or officials not caring about due process or rights when deporting people.

Actually many people are disgusted about both sides.

So again, you just have no idea? — Tzeentch

I know something about the history in South East Asia. Do you?

Pol Pot was supported by Mao and finally the Vietnamese kicked him out and into the jungles of Cambodia until even his supporters got enough of him. Vietnam retreated from Cambodia I think in 1989. And as usual, the US fucked up it's inconsistent Machiavellian policies and operations starting first with the Sihanouk regime and then with the fear of the Soviet backed Vietnamese. What else is new? Giving a list of literature on the US involvement doesn't refute in any way the fact that the major supporter of the Khmer Rouge was Mao's China.

Just to put into context the pathetic actions of the US in South-East Asia after the withdrawal from South Vietnam, here's a factoid from WIKILEAKS:

A WikiLeaks dump of 500,000 U.S. diplomatic cables from 1978 shows that the administration of President Jimmy Carter was torn between revulsion at the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge and concern with the possibility of growing Vietnamese influence should the Khmer Rouge collapse.

But did they give aid, just like the US gave intel to Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war? CIA did many stupid things, but then one has to look at the real military supporter of the Khmer Rouge.

Yet this doesn't seem to get through. Of course, again everything, EVERYTHING has to happen because of and only by the Americans, as there are no other actors, only proxies or victims. Would you even know or notice the Cambodian–Vietnamese War that actually put the end to the Khmer Rouge? And that this resulted in the Sino-Vietnamese border war? Unimportant because the US wasn't involved and hence something that the American historians won't look so hard into.

Anything without the Americans seems to be totally meaningless for you. That's your biggest problem. And this is the insane navel-grazing that either some Americans and anti-Americans fall into where they cannot see any other actors than their hated USA.

Pol Pot was possibly even worse, and guess who he was funded by? — Tzeentch

Mao.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were supported for many years by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its chairman, Mao Zedong; it is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which the Khmer Rouge received came from China, including at least US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid in 1975 alone.

So... what is your point to @tim wood?

The US is exceptional. So exceptional in fact, that they get to commit a little genocide every now and then. Just a little. Or a lot. — Tzeentch

Well, there is the policies the US has done in the Middle East, in Central America and so on. Indeed much criticism there, which I've said myself. US Middle Eastern policy has been a giant horrible train wreck. In Latin America, the history is quite ugly also.

As I've said, Russia can have cordial relations for example with other BRICS countries and has had close ties since the time of the Soviet Union with India. I'm sure Putin hasn't been overtly hostile against India. Why would he be?



Yet it seems so utterly difficult to find and accept both positive and negative aspects from the policies of one country by some commentators here. Some can criticize one country (like US), but never say anything bad against another (like Russia), which simply shows that one isn't objective at all.

:smile:

There are also a lot of incorrect "facts", misinformation, disinformation, etc. How do you know that your experience of reality is correct and complete? — Agree-to-Disagree

- First, ask questions that have simple answers. It's the questions one poses that are important.
- Use Occam's razor
- New information has changed our World view many times through history. Yet that doesn't mean that the best theories we have now are useless.

If I'm proven wrong later and corrected, then that's good. I learn something new.

If there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation, 99% of it is detectable, if you have some basic knowledge of what basically should have been taught to you in school. And usually it's just something that is simply biased, someone pushing some agenda, not straight up lies. The easiest way to push an agenda is simply to select the facts and stay silent of anything that would question your objective or show the complexity behind the issue. Once you notice this, it's quite easy to live in an environment with mis- or disinformation.

Above all, if some issue is a political "hot potatoe", it's evident that there will be that bias around it. Give some time and the focus will be some other issue and you have a clearer view later.

and shouldn't be seen as a moderator comment. — Benkei

That's good to hear.

It's always the Americans that have no clue about what their own country gets up to. — Tzeentch

Especially when it's something that they actually did do well, which helped the World. Because they do hear about the things they did do wrong.

Funny that those good actions are usually attacked and absolutely hated especially by the MAGA-people:








But that all might be a distant memory in the future. Some Americans see all the above as failures. Actually the repulsive cartoons of Ben Garrison depict extremely well the how the MAGA-cult and the alt-right sees the World around them and their President. Notice the Vladimir Putin as the dove of peace.