Also, there seems to be more focus on defensive weaponry, like detecting and shooting down incoming bombs and drones. With less (effective) weaponry to strike back, it's a precarious situation. Sufficient aid to put the invaders on the defense would help. — jorndoe

The positive thing is that Ukraine's defense industry is really kicking into gear too. It's said to have 300 000 working in the military-industrial complex and producing like well over million drones annually, which production is increasing. FPV drones are now killing more than artillery, which indeed is quite a revolution in military affairs. Yet these drones are controlled by human drone flyers, the next step is likely going to be swarms of drone controlled/assisted by AI. The main weakness is control: hence optical wires are usually needed, even if naturally there is also the issue with short range and payload limitations.




What is notable is that the losses that Russia has endured has lowered it's abilities. The casualty rates have had a toll on Russia. Rarely do Russians operate at night and vast numbers of the new recruits seem to get inadequate training. Once Russia basically put itself behind the Gerasimov-line, it also hindered it's ability to do maneuver warfare.

This is a decidedly social conflict, as I see it and politicians just pick up on this (knowing they aren't the right arbiter) to get less-intelligent people to vote for their buzz-word speeches. — AmadeusD

Wait a minute.

Isn't politics all about moral issues to what existing laws don't give us direct straight forward answers? Isn't politics about what is wrong and what is right or what is beneficial to us and to our society? Yes. we think of politicians to be these corrupt power hungry narcissists, but in reality shouldn't politicians be the arbiters of social conflicts?

I would also, in some degree, reject that definition. It seems designed to play into a leftist "if you disagree you're a bigot" type thinking. Ironic LOL (but also probably partially bias on my part). — AmadeusD

Lol. Well, I've voted all my life for the conservative party in my country, but I'm not surprised that Americans or Brits would see me as a leftist.

Is Putin going for a Molotov-Ribbentrop type deal with Trump? — jorndoe

Putin would be drooling to get one. And yes, basically that's what he is trying to get.

Europe better get its act together. — jorndoe

Hope it will do that.

(Deutsche Welle, 11th April 2025) Acting German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced a new military aid package from Germany at a meeting of the Ukraine Contact Group in Brussels.

According to Pistorius, more guided missiles and ground surveillance radars will be delivered to Ukraine this year.

The package will also include a further 100,000 rounds of artillery ammunition, 300 reconnaissance drones, 25 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 15 Leopard 1A5 main battle tanks, 120 Manpads ground-based air defense systems and 14 artillery systems.

In recent days, 30 additional Patriot guided missiles have also been delivered to Ukraine, the minister added.

*******
The European Union and its member states have committed more than €23 billion ($26.2 billion) in military aid to Ukraine so far this year, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said.

It is a higher amount than €20 billion of support for Ukraine last year, she added in a post on social media.

If the US commitment wanes and the US won't supply, what will happen? The rounds used in the war are in the millions. Will be a very difficult late summer and fall.

Nope. I didn't say that.

These things are quite subtle in many ways. Just as were the issues when FBI looked for moles in CIA, while actually the worst traitor was in the FBI.

It's something you can see only later. Same thing actually with a lot of institutions in the US too.

Today, it seems odd to me that something like trans rights, such a relatively small issue, can generate so much outrage and energy, while something like economic inequality, which affects umpteen millions, evokes far less passion. You can't help but wonder to what extent culture war politics are just a great way to distract us from real structural problems and get us fighting among ourselves about toilet use, while the corporations and the billionaires continue to expand their power and finances. — Tom Storm

I totally agree.

And this is why it seems to me much more of a manufactured issue as the intent is clearly to get supporters to rally around a cause and get them voting. Especially if the economy isn't so great and there are true problems in the society, Cultural War issues might be a safe bet for the politicians. Homosexuality is a minority issue, yet being trans is even a smaller minority. Yet, as you stated, these issues evoke outrage and passion, which aren't typically the feelings from something like financial and monetary policy, which actually affects us all every day. (Perhaps with Trumpnomics and the Trade War sillyness we will really get there.)

Perhaps I would add that usually once when a political movement achieves it's actual clear goals, then the next "wave" of the movement have to go with something new, and in the end it becomes rather silly. Just think about what liberalism was fighting for at the time of Adam Smith compared to the anarcho libertarians of today or the suffragettes to the feminists of today.

You can argue that the politicians respond to Culture War issues that people are already talking about. I would be here a bit more skeptical. I would argue that it's the political parties and the politicians who make many Culture War issues an issue that the people then start to heatedly to debate. Here the initiator of a debate usually has an agenda why to make something part of the "Culture War". The Culture War is something that divides Democracts, but unites Republicans and thus it's the Republicans that promote in the US the Culture War debate. In other countries the rhetoric of a Culture War is mimicked by conservative and religious parties.

Just look at the definition of Culture War:

A culture war is a form of cultural conflict (metaphorical "war") between different social groups who struggle to politically impose their own ideology (moral beliefs, humane virtues, and religious practices) upon mainstream society, or upon the other. In political usage, culture war is a metaphor for "hot-button" politics about values and ideologies, realized with intentionally adversarial social narratives meant to provoke political polarization among the mainstream of society over economic matters, such as those of public policy, as well as of consumption.

As practical politics, a culture war is about social policy wedge issues that are based on abstract arguments about values, morality, and lifestyle meant to provoke political cleavage in a multicultural society.

Notice the role of politics in this definition above.

The Hegseth issue continues to fester, as he's plainly, utterly incompetent for the role of CEO of the largest organisation in the world. But, hey, since when do facts matter for Trump? Besides, he won't give the media the satisfaction of a resignation. He'll dig in with the usual fire hydrant of mendacity. — Wayfarer

What I find here really showing how Hegseth is crumbling is the following issue, which just shows that he is totally incapable of handling such a position that he is in now:

(Guardian) John Ullyot, who resigned last week after initially serving as Pentagon spokesperson, said in a opinion essay published by Politico on Sunday that the Pentagon has been overwhelmed by staff drama and turnover in the initial months of the second Trump administration.

Ullyot called the situation a “full-blown meltdown” that could cost Hegseth, a 44-year-old former Fox News host and national guard officer, his job as defense secretary.

The notable fact is that Ullyot is one of the Hegseth-guys that came in with the new administration. And it's been those in the MAGA-team that have now been fired from the Pentagon. So now Hegseth is battling out with his own people.

(NBC News) On Friday, according to Ullyot, Hegseth’s chief of staff, Joe Kasper, was removed from his position following the firings of several other senior aides to Hegseth, including deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick and senior adviser Dan Caldwell, as well as the chief of staff to the deputy secretary of defense, Colin Carroll. (Selnick, Caldwell and Carroll said in a statement Saturday: “We are incredibly disappointed by the manner in which our service at the Department of Defense ended. Unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on our way out the door.”)

“In the aftermath [of the firings], Defense Department officials working for Hegseth tried to smear the aides anonymously to reporters, claiming they were fired for leaking sensitive information as part of an investigation ordered earlier this month,” Ullyot wrote. “Yet none of this is true.” Ullyot said that he was not part of the purge and that he opted to leave the Pentagon when he turned down a position Hegseth had offered him.

So guess we will see how this goes...

This is a highly inconvenient truth, as far as Trump is concerned. He's right in saying that the process of giving all these unauthorised arrivals their due is highly impractical and he's saying that completely over-riding their constitutional rights is, therefore, justified. That is what is at issue. i think this will be the arena in which the impending constitutional crisis in the form of defiance of the Courts will manifest. — Wayfarer

It is already manifesting itself with these issues. And Trump doesn't make it less tense by hinting that US citizens could be sent to foreign prisons like in El Salvador. After all, they want El Salvador to build more prisons.

I somewhere read that there are now less people deported than under Biden, because people obviously aren't so eagerly trying to get into the US. But this is one of those facts I tried to state earlier before Trump came to power: in order to truly deport millions of people you truly have to have people with huge organizational skills to create a huge process which does include the legal system firing on all cylinders. That would be a huge complex thing to orchestrate. Trump is not that kind of organizer, and neither are his lackeys. We already saw his abilities in the way he failed to "build the Wall". So then it's these "photo-op" deportations to El Salvador that are made in response.



It's all a bit ad hoc, all not really thought well, but more of actions improvised on the spot. That is the way how a Trump administration works.

And btw for @NOS4A2, about Kash Patel and the FBI, well, I think in the long run I'm not going to be so wrong... assuming that the director of the FBI matters to the FBI. Of course the actual result of his tenure can be seen and read about only afterwards.

(MSNBC) Since taking office, Patel has misstated key elements of the FBI’s recent work. He reportedly confused intelligence and counterintelligence. He said he planned to spend a lot of time in Las Vegas, where he’s been living, even as others were told that remote work is prohibited. He ordered officials to relocate 1,500 employees from Washington, D.C., and when told the bureau didn’t have the resources for such a restructuring, he reportedly told his subordinates to simply figure out a way to execute his directive.

Perhaps most importantly, the FBI director has taken steps to break down the firewalls that used to exist between his office and the White House. NBC News reported that Patel went so far as to ask about creating a possible hotline that would facilitate direct communication between him and Trump.

In case that weren’t quite enough, NBC News reported on Patel also placing Brian Auten, a government expert on Russia, on leave — which was notable because Auten’s name appeared on Patel’s published list of alleged “deep state” actors.

But I guess Kash is having himself a great time going to UFC matches and wants the UFC to get involved in the physical training of FBI agents.

(ABC News) Newly-installed FBI Director Kash Patel, whose proclaimed plans to overhaul the nation's premier law enforcement agency have rattled many within the bureau, has proposed enhancing the FBI's ranks with help from the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the martial-arts entertainment giant whose wealthy CEO, Dana White, helped boost President Donald Trump's reelection, according to sources who were told of Patel's proposal.

On a teleconference Wednesday with the heads of the FBI's 55 field offices, Patel suggested that he wants the FBI to establish a formal relationship with the UFC, which could develop programs for agents to improve their physical fitness, said sources who had been briefed on Wednesday's call.

At least it isn't Vince McMahon and the WWF-entertainment, seen below in a mock fight with Donald Trump.

I just don't see things this way and find it quite hard to put myself in a position to see it that way.
The 'culture wars' are certainly not a 'tool' of any kind. They spring up out of the the tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing. Its certainly cyclical, and has some hallmarks of a 'game', but that seems patently not what's happening.

People get fired up because its hte future of their country they're debating. — AmadeusD

Talk shows, podcasters and other commentators etc. can surely debate Culture war issues, but do notice how the Culture War is played and handled by the politicians. And you already said it yourself: "tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing". What politicians do or decide is inherently political. And when it is thought to be negative, it is in the interest of the other side of the political field to embrace the issue and use it. Otherwise something like Colin Kaepernik taking the knee or if corporations have DEI training would be such an issue. In fact, in Trump's second election victory not only inflation, but also Culture War issues played a big part (apart from the Dem's struggling and finally replacing Biden with Harris). As I said, it's far more easier to get the voters interested in Culture War issue than economic or foreign policy issues, which one needs a lot of information to judge (or to get angry about). But trans-athletes, burning the flag or use of toilets? Far more easier to have your own view about those things.

The politics of the Culture War is shown when you can put the issue at hand into an accusation of the opposition: "Look at what this administration is doing to X." That's where you see how these issues are used in politics.

People get fired up because its the future of their country they're debating. Not sure this needs any further justification or explanation. — AmadeusD

And that would not be political??? Isn't that the centerpiece of a politics?

I think that's an over-simplification, although there is certainly truth in it. — T Clark

Well, add to it the wooing the nativist/isolationist people in America who distrust the democratic institutions and opt for an authoritiarian leader to make things right. That's what the current so-called conservative party is that the Republican party under Trump is.

Because the rest of the "policies" are a collected assortment of brainfarts of an old vindictive populist to whom power has gone to his head.

How does your view from Finland match up with Tzeentch's from the Netherlands? Is it a difference between the two countries or a difference in political ideology? — T Clark

Of course the two countries have a totally different history among the other differences. First issue that comes up is that Netherlands is really multicultural and far more permissive compared to Finland. But what I agree with @Tzeentch is that "money doesn't grow on trees". Hence in order to have a welfare state, you have to have a functioning strong economy that can compete in global market to create that income that allows a welfare state to exist. Even if you would have the situation of "money growing in the trees" and a society that has abundant income from natural resources like oil, it also creates problems like the the Dutch Disease that the Dutch themselves could avoid, but the Venezuelans didn't.

Do Europeans get better lives for their higher taxes? — T Clark

When I talked about this with Finns living in the US, the complexity of this came apparent. Naturally they liked living far larger homes and paying less taxes than in Finland. But then getting children educated or the what to do if you lose your job and get ill are problems that aren't such a financial disaster in Finland as in the US. The highest tax levels aren't so different, actually, what is the difference is that at far lower income you hit the highest tax bracket in the Nordic countries than the US.



The ugly reality is that when it comes to education and health care, the OECD-country example of having universal health care is far less costly than the system in the US. Hence I think that for the taxes paid the people in the Northern Europe usually get more services than what the Americans tax payer gets. For example, the Finnish universal health care costs well under 50% of what the US health care costs are per capita. Talk about a racket in the US case.

Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Especially the so-called "conservatism" in the US could be described more accurately to be simply lobbying efforts for the super rich disguised in an traditional political movement that has it's ideological roots in conservatism.

Yet not every country is like the US. Many countries do have strong trade unions and the left has been in power, usually that left being the Social Democrats. (The socialism of Marxism-Leninism is totally different and in the realm of authoritarian/totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes.)



Conservatism differs a lot in these countries, especially in those where Social Democracy has enjoyed an upper hand in politics and where administrations are made up by coalitions of parties. You can easily see this in the difference between US regulation and EU regulation. The above description of regulation simply doesn't cut it when you look at Nordic countries and many EU countries, even if they have right-wing governments.

That's bullshit. It was formulated as a letter, not as a topic for discussion. Unless perhaps, they use AI to write up their discussion topics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Likely is bullshit.

But the stupidity of the administration should never be underestimated as this administration has severe difficulties in communication in general:

(CNN, 21st April 2025) Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed plans about a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen on a second Signal group chat, this one on his personal phone and including his wife, lawyer and brother, three people familiar with the chat told CNN.

The chat was set up during Hegseth’s tumultuous confirmation hearing process as a way for his closest allies to strategize, two of the people familiar with the matter said. But Hegseth continued using the chat, which had more than a dozen people in it, to communicate after he was confirmed, the people said.

-

Similar to the first Signal chat, which was revealed publicly by The Atlantic after its editor was mistakenly included by national security adviser Mike Waltz, the military plans Hegseth shared in the second chat were about strikes against the Houthis, the people said.

Good that the wife, the brother and former colleagues on Fox got the launch times of those air strikes too. Hey, some of us just have being a reporter in our blood! We have to spread the good news.

Then they just stop firing and sit where they are. Or is Ukraine the aggressor? — Punshhh

That's the insane bullshit promoted. And I guess many MAGA diehards believe that.

If only people would listen and look what Russia and Putin actually say, the case would be more clear. Russia has declared Ukrainian oblasts to be integral parts of Russia. And these oblasts have territories that are still in Ukrainian hands, so even the minimum objectives aren't yet met. Better objective would be that Ukraine would lose it's entrance to the Black Sea. And then of course Putin wants that rump Ukraine would be controlled by a Russian puppet regime. Putin already had a puppet in waiting, but that didn't make it.

With Trump assisting Putin, why wouldn't Putin continue the war?

So Putin declares an Easter ceasefire, end at Sunday midnight.

Such a good Christian.

But anyway, 36 hours is better than nothing, if it lasts.

The neoconservative left? Hmm... :chin:

Well, there's so many ways this could be answered, so it would be useful to know what are issues and fields you are interested in. Is the threoretical problems and overcoming them the issue? Or practical issues? Economic and social consequences? I'll answer first about theoretical issues in the article and then about real world consequences.

Whatever is said, it's still the limitations that computers using algorithms have. With algortihms and ultra-quick computation, computers/AI can dominate games (that have rules) and find use masses amounts data. Yet not everything is like that all. For example, from the article, one difficulty:

"In the era of human data, language-based AI has largely focused on short interaction episodes: e.g., a user asks a question and (perhaps after a few thinking steps or tool-use actions) the agent responds," the researchers write.

"The agent aims exclusively for outcomes within the current episode, such as directly answering a user's question."

There's no memory, there's no continuity between snippets of interaction in prompting. "Typically, little or no information carries over from one episode to the next, precluding any adaptation over time," write Silver and Sutton.

Perhaps it could be argued that the engineers have really tried to tackle the "Turing Test", but this test doesn't give us much information, only that we can be fooled in some interactions. Yet the above shows that AI still lacks subjectivity, understanding of role itself has and awareness of what the discussion is about, the role of the interaction itself. Let me try to explain this to you.

You @180 Proof put the question to me and to others like @Carlo Roosen, @Wayfarer @noAxioms @punos and @Christoffer, fellow members here on the PF. You will likely participate as we have seen in earlier threads, and hopefully will others.

Yet assume if you had put this discussion thread up to six 12-year olds in your local school that would want to are interested about AI. You would be the adult in the conversation and understanding that you are talking to children, you would take a different role. You wouldn't be offended if the some replies would be a bit ignorant, as obviously every 12-year old doesn't know the basics like how computers work. Now think if you started had this conversation with the DeepMind scholars David Silver and Richard Sutton themselves along with four other top notch AI scientists. Again this would change things, you might want to use the time learn specifically more about the issue. For us a discussion has a larger surrounding, a reason to have it and understanding of the other participants.

In fact you see this problem in the forum itself, where we all are total strangers to everybody else. Especially in Math someone can have an idea that is actually false (and provably false) and is answered immediately by few other members that there's a mistake. Yet many times the response isn't "OK, thanks", but the person getting angry and insisting he or she is correct. To others are like you is perhaps a natural starting point in an anonymous forum. In a school or university environment, if you are one of the pupils of the class and the math teacher says that you are incorrect and you get the subtle messaging from the class that indeed they share teachers view, you won't start continue to insist that you are right. Or few do that.

Hence perhaps something like this Silver and Sutton are trying to argue with Age of Experience, "Agents will inhabit streams of experience, rather than short snippets of interaction", and draw an analogy "between streams and humans learning over a lifetime of accumulated experience, and how they act based on long-range goals, not just the immediate task".

And what is that? Subjectivity, having that consciousness, understanding one's role in the World. Life time learning based on experience. Again really big questions that we haven't yet answered.

Then about the real World effects:

However, they suggest there are also many, many risks. These risks are not just focused on AI agents making human labor obsolete, although they note that job loss is a risk. Agents that "can autonomously interact with the world over extended periods of time to achieve long-term goals," they write, raise the prospect of humans having fewer opportunities to "intervene and mediate the agent's actions."

Of course there's always the cost-cutting capitalist, who tries in every way to get his or her expenses and cost way smaller in order to have a bigger profit. What would be a better and cooler way to get rid of those expensive workers by relying on AI and lights out factories? Well, that's basically the same song that has been played since the industrial revolution by everyone hoping to be the next Henry Ford.

The other "risk" is a bit more confusing to me.Would it be like the admin here finally being fed up with the low quality postings of us and getting the best philosophical AI to post on this site, which then the AI would dominate? An end result of having 95% of the discussion threads being written by AI usually countering other AI? Well, how about the use of troll farms and AI to dominate political rhetoric? Something that is a problem already. Likes and the number of repost do influence the algrorithms controlling the social media already.

On the positive side, they suggest, an agent that can adapt, as opposed to today's fixed AI models, "could recognise when its behaviour is triggering human concern, dissatisfaction, or distress, and adaptively modify its behaviour to avoid these negative consequences."

Well, again some of those things and interactions that are obvious to us, but very difficult for a computer using an algorithm.

I think your assessments are based more on sentiment than on facts. — frank

Now there are no facts on how much one coffee will be next year.

It will cost 10% more. — frank

Want to bet on that? Perhaps one virtual coffee? Especially something like coffee can be tricky. :chin:

So helping the economy wasn't the point. — frank

Yes. When one doesn't understand the basic reasons why the US has had a long standing trade deficit and when one thinks that "Trade is bad", then your actions likely won't help the economy. Especially when you have around you only sycophants and nobody to limit your harmful ideas.

You still can't have stagflation with a labor shortage. That doesn't make any sense. — frank

In general, of course some special fields can still have a labor shortage, but that is because of a mismatch between the existing labor force and what labor is needed.

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.