Indonesia has made an agreement with Trump. They will be paying lower tariffs while the US will be paying zero tariffs to import to them. Trump called this a win/win.
Trump's recent threat to impose a 50% tax on Brazil because he feels the Brazilian government is unjustly persecuting their ex president Bolsonaro appears to be backfiring. First, from the Brazilian side, the current president, Lula, is seeing a resurgence is public support, and their justice department is imposing more restrictions on Bolsonaro.
Then on the American side, i.t weakens Trump's argument that he has the power to impose emergency tariffs for economic reasons. We already have a trade surplus with Brazil. It is not about economics; it is about personality.
Then too, Brazil provides about 1/3 of all the coffee that comes into the United States, and 1/2 of all the orange juice consumed in the US. Personally, I can skip my OJ but I cannot abide my coffee. While we do not drink coffee from Brazil ourselves, an increase the price of coffee beans from Brazil will also drive up the cost of coffee beans imported from other countries.
Then too, Brazil is a key player in the BRICS economic group that wants to move away from the US Dollar as the world monetary standard.
Trump knows how to shoot himself in the foot. Right now, he is in so much guicksand, he doesn't seem to be interested in Canada becoming the 51st state or acquiring Greenland at the moment.
Not sure about the total impact on international tourists coming into the US, but I am thinking the US has seen at least a 30% drop in Canadians visiting us. But with the loss of foreign tourism, we Americans are beginning to see a reduction in domestic airfares and cheaper motel rates. Mrs Gramps and I are planning a trip to the New England states this fall which will help with our costs.
With all that is happening in the US. With Trump’s government taking people (including children) off the streets and all the rest, is it time to start treating the US government like say Russia? Is it time for sanctions etc?
To clarify my last question. I am asking a hypothetical question here. Not calling for sanctions. Has the situation in the US gotten so bad that outside countries need to start doing things? If not how long until they do?
With all that is happening in the US. With Trump’s government taking people (including children) off the streets and all the rest, is it time to start treating the US government like say Russia? Is it time for sanctions etc?
Not really. Not without huge damage to the countries imposing them (which may be the moral thing to do but at the same time they do have electorates). China has done far, far worse - for decades - and no one is rushing to do to them what has been done to Russia in terms of sanctions.
Arguably Russia has only been treated like Russia because it’s such a basket case that it’s economically cheap enough to do so…
Well, it means other countries are looking for other sources of food. China would normally buy 80% of American soybeans. Now, that market has dried up. Our farmers are really hurting.
I think in Europe it increasingly means that a substantial fraction of people are saying "Trump is great! We should have our own version of Trump here!". And indeed Trump and his acolytes are actively interfering to make this happen using both direct and indirect means. V. bad direction of travel.
I think China will use its global economic muscle to offset, at least to some extent, the aggressive and misguided use of tariffs by the Trump administration. In the process, the US may well lose its dominant economic position in the world.
Even if the Democrats win in 2028, I’m not sure the US will be able to repair the damage until the GOP returns to the Reagan view of global trade. And that requires the GOP to undertake a massive internal clear up exercise, both in terms of policies and dominant people.
And of course there is the continuing danger to stable institutions in the US arising from the revenge agenda. That won’t do the global US reputation any good either. Not just on the economic front.
Could you expand on that? I ask as one of the citizens who paid for that ad.
Sensible words coming from an American president I loathed -- I thought I recognized the voice, then thought, No, can't be -- but yeah, it was Reagan. The image of a bridge almost complete, not quite meeting in the middle, with an American flag on one side and a Canadian flag on the other. Another bridge at the end -- I'm not familiar enough with the border to know which one it is, but I understand the imagery of bridges.
All of this coming from one of our two nearest neighbors, reaching out to us, caring more about the average American than the US regime does. In the middle of a baseball game being played by the one Canadian team in the league. It felt like people calling out from a long distance, Hey, remember sensible thoughts?
Sensible words coming from an American president I loathed -- I thought I recognized the voice, then thought, No, can't be -- but yeah, it was Reagan.
China used that exact same Reagan quote in a social-media attack on Trump's tariffs earlier this year, to obvious minimal effect. Granted, the Canadian one uses better imagery and music, and might be more effective in a TV ad during a Canada/USA World Series.
And on that note...
All of this coming from one of our two nearest neighbors, reaching out to us, caring more about the average American than the US regime does. In the middle of a baseball game being played by the one Canadian team in the league. It felt like people calling out from a long distance, Hey, remember sensible thoughts?
Normally, I'd be cynical and say that the makers of the ad probably don't care what happens to American jobs and are just piling on the schmaltz to get a better deal for Canada. But from what I know of Doug Ford's business connections, and also what I've actually heard him say in his own voice, he might actually be sentimental about the Canada-US relationship.
Reagan was surely a disastrous president - though far outclassed in that respect by trump - and was not the brightest and best. He was a mediocre actor who got lucky with scriptwriters and his PR handlers, but that ad was well done and works brilliantly.
Reagan was surely a disastrous president - though far outclassed in that respect by trump...
I think he sorta paved the way for Trump, though, at least on the cultural front. MAGA is basically Reagan's 1980s-ized 1950s, revived for the 2020s, and this time in a far more chaotic and destructive fashion.
Where Trump has most sharply diverted from Reaganism has been on some economic and foreign-policy issues, with results good or bad depending on what you thought of the Reaganite position in the first place.
It seems to me that it is the widespread public acceptance of personal corruption and depravity as well as incompetence in a president that distinguishes this presidency from all others. It is bigger than the man himself, and may well outlive him.
It seems to me that it is the widespread public acceptance of personal corruption and depravity as well as incompetence in a president that distinguishes this presidency from all others. It is bigger than the man himself, and may well outlive him.
Right, the graft is a serious distinction. I was focussing moreso on ideological differences in my comments.
I think it may take as much as fifty years for the US to regain its former place in the world.
It never will. Bonds are being formed by nations that totally bypass the US, and even if we get some trade back, it will not all come back. We're just no longer trustworthy, and trust once broken is hellishly hard to restore. And if the world economic markets shift away from the dollar, we'll just be a has-been former empire.
It seems to me that it is the widespread public acceptance of personal corruption and depravity as well as incompetence in a president that distinguishes this presidency from all others. It is bigger than the man himself, and may well outlive him.
To me it is the widespead public acceptance of public disregard for things that I always thought were fundamental to the US such as respect for the results of elections and the rule of law which make this presidency particularly worrying, much more than the personal graft of Trump (bad though that is). Comparatively Nixon was a beacon of integrity and a self-sacrificial martyr to the principles of the American republic.
Reagan was surely a disastrous president - though far outclassed in that respect by trump...
I think he sorta paved the way for Trump, though, at least on the cultural front. MAGA is basically Reagan's 1980s-ized 1950s, revived for the 2020s, and this time in a far more chaotic and destructive fashion.
It seems to me that it is the widespread public acceptance of personal corruption and depravity as well as incompetence in a president that distinguishes this presidency from all others. It is bigger than the man himself, and may well outlive him.
Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush all paved the way for Trump. They suffered no personal consequences for the massive corruptions of, respectively, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and starting a war under false pretenses while operating an international network of secret torture prisons. (That last one sounds like rampant hyperbole when it's just a bare, non-euphemistic statement of the facts.) Given those precedents it's hard to see how any Republican* president wouldn't conclude he could act with impunity secure in his own immunity.
Trump is trying to influence the pending Argentinian midterm elections this coming weekend. He has promised at least $20 billion in funds for Argentina on the provision that Javier Milei is able to retain power. The US Treasury says the total funds will be $40 billion.
Milei, though, is very unpopular with a 60% disapproval rating.
I think it may take as much as fifty years for the US to regain its former place in the world.
It never will. Bonds are being formed by nations that totally bypass the US, and even if we get some trade back, it will not all come back. We're just no longer trustworthy, and trust once broken is hellishly hard to restore. And if the world economic markets shift away from the dollar, we'll just be a has-been former empire.
I think it may take as much as fifty years for the US to regain its former place in the world.
It never will. Bonds are being formed by nations that totally bypass the US, and even if we get some trade back, it will not all come back. We're just no longer trustworthy, and trust once broken is hellishly hard to restore. And if the world economic markets shift away from the dollar, we'll just be a has-been former empire.
This is very sad 😔
I will point out that people were lining up to invest in China mere years after the Red Guards had stopped smashing up schools and killing teachers. Granted, it helped that Deng Xiaoping had the power to forcibly suppress a revival of "ultra-leftism".
Well, enough for all the western capitalist nations to build zillions of factories in China and borrow truckloads of money from Chinese banks. So I would say, on a day-to-day level(*), yes, people trust China.
(*) Whether people are entirely comfortable with the long-term geopolitical implications of China's economic rise is another question.
There is also the thought Trump may buy Argentinian beef in order to lower the price of beef at the supermarket.
The incoming Argentinian beef deal is already being attacked by industry lobbyists and some of the usual dissident Republicans, eg. Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
During the series between the Blue Jays and the Mariners, an announcer with a familiar voice detailing the fault of imposing tariffs. The advertisement was produced by the province of Ontario. It has been shown several times now in the American market. Welp, guess who got mad and has canceled future talks with the North People. I think someone needs to remind DJT Ontario produces about 1/3 of the electrical power the United States uses. Just might be a very cold winter coming up.
Well, enough for all the western capitalist nations to build zillions of factories in China and borrow truckloads of money from Chinese banks. So I would say, on a day-to-day level(*), yes, people trust China.
It's a question of uncertainty, or maybe indeterminacy. There's a consensus that China can be relied upon to act in predictable ways over the medium to long term, which is why people are willing to invest.
The issue is that until the GOP changes complexion, it's unclear whether a agreement made with the US wouldn't simply be reversed by the next administration (it's a macro version of the problem the UK has with concluding any deeper agreement with the EU).
People in former Allied nations trust Japan and Germany. I don't think defeatism is helpful.
This is true, but that was on the other side of complete military defeat, (some of) the perpetrators being put on trial and the exigencies of the Cold War making it imperative to absorb these nations back into the sphere of the First World.
Trusting a trading partner is about whether you think they will hold up their end of the deal. Broken promises might make you think twice but if you decide that they see it to be in their own interest to see the next deal through you still go ahead, perhaps with a contingency plan just in case.
I think that the USA will recover its international trade once (if) the current madness ends, just as other countries which were once pariah did. See examples above.
I think that the USA will recover its international trade once (if) the current madness ends, just as other countries which were once pariah did. See examples above.
But the current madness includes the state of one of the political parties; you can't make medium to long term investments if you think the conditions are likely to change every four years.
Trusting a trading partner is about whether you think they will hold up their end of the deal. Broken promises might make you think twice but if you decide that they see it to be in their own interest to see the next deal through you still go ahead, perhaps with a contingency plan just in case.
There's also a question of, as it were, reliable unreliability. If you know the deal will be broken in modest, predictable ways you can factor that in, a bit like "wastage", i.e. shoplifting, in retail. The problem the US has is Trump and the GOP won't just shave a bit off the top or do the metaphorical equivalent of pocketing a couple of packs of gum, there's a good chance they'll ram raid the shop and make off with all the fags and booze and the entire shelf of fillet steak.
Comments
Then on the American side, i.t weakens Trump's argument that he has the power to impose emergency tariffs for economic reasons. We already have a trade surplus with Brazil. It is not about economics; it is about personality.
Then too, Brazil provides about 1/3 of all the coffee that comes into the United States, and 1/2 of all the orange juice consumed in the US. Personally, I can skip my OJ but I cannot abide my coffee. While we do not drink coffee from Brazil ourselves, an increase the price of coffee beans from Brazil will also drive up the cost of coffee beans imported from other countries.
Then too, Brazil is a key player in the BRICS economic group that wants to move away from the US Dollar as the world monetary standard.
Trump knows how to shoot himself in the foot. Right now, he is in so much guicksand, he doesn't seem to be interested in Canada becoming the 51st state or acquiring Greenland at the moment.
Not sure about the total impact on international tourists coming into the US, but I am thinking the US has seen at least a 30% drop in Canadians visiting us. But with the loss of foreign tourism, we Americans are beginning to see a reduction in domestic airfares and cheaper motel rates. Mrs Gramps and I are planning a trip to the New England states this fall which will help with our costs.
Not really. Not without huge damage to the countries imposing them (which may be the moral thing to do but at the same time they do have electorates). China has done far, far worse - for decades - and no one is rushing to do to them what has been done to Russia in terms of sanctions.
Arguably Russia has only been treated like Russia because it’s such a basket case that it’s economically cheap enough to do so…
Which sort of makes my point. They do whatever they want within their own borders…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_CVvzExpM
I think China will use its global economic muscle to offset, at least to some extent, the aggressive and misguided use of tariffs by the Trump administration. In the process, the US may well lose its dominant economic position in the world.
Even if the Democrats win in 2028, I’m not sure the US will be able to repair the damage until the GOP returns to the Reagan view of global trade. And that requires the GOP to undertake a massive internal clear up exercise, both in terms of policies and dominant people.
And of course there is the continuing danger to stable institutions in the US arising from the revenge agenda. That won’t do the global US reputation any good either. Not just on the economic front.
Could you expand on that? I ask as one of the citizens who paid for that ad.
We might rememberg the palace that Nicolae Ceausescu built for himself in Bucharest, and the Christmas gift he received from his people in 1989.
Sensible words coming from an American president I loathed -- I thought I recognized the voice, then thought, No, can't be -- but yeah, it was Reagan. The image of a bridge almost complete, not quite meeting in the middle, with an American flag on one side and a Canadian flag on the other. Another bridge at the end -- I'm not familiar enough with the border to know which one it is, but I understand the imagery of bridges.
All of this coming from one of our two nearest neighbors, reaching out to us, caring more about the average American than the US regime does. In the middle of a baseball game being played by the one Canadian team in the league. It felt like people calling out from a long distance, Hey, remember sensible thoughts?
China used that exact same Reagan quote in a social-media attack on Trump's tariffs earlier this year, to obvious minimal effect. Granted, the Canadian one uses better imagery and music, and might be more effective in a TV ad during a Canada/USA World Series.
And on that note...
Normally, I'd be cynical and say that the makers of the ad probably don't care what happens to American jobs and are just piling on the schmaltz to get a better deal for Canada. But from what I know of Doug Ford's business connections, and also what I've actually heard him say in his own voice, he might actually be sentimental about the Canada-US relationship.
Overall, I agree, it is a very good ad.
I think he sorta paved the way for Trump, though, at least on the cultural front. MAGA is basically Reagan's 1980s-ized 1950s, revived for the 2020s, and this time in a far more chaotic and destructive fashion.
Where Trump has most sharply diverted from Reaganism has been on some economic and foreign-policy issues, with results good or bad depending on what you thought of the Reaganite position in the first place.
Right, the graft is a serious distinction. I was focussing moreso on ideological differences in my comments.
It never will. Bonds are being formed by nations that totally bypass the US, and even if we get some trade back, it will not all come back. We're just no longer trustworthy, and trust once broken is hellishly hard to restore. And if the world economic markets shift away from the dollar, we'll just be a has-been former empire.
To me it is the widespead public acceptance of public disregard for things that I always thought were fundamental to the US such as respect for the results of elections and the rule of law which make this presidency particularly worrying, much more than the personal graft of Trump (bad though that is). Comparatively Nixon was a beacon of integrity and a self-sacrificial martyr to the principles of the American republic.
Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush all paved the way for Trump. They suffered no personal consequences for the massive corruptions of, respectively, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and starting a war under false pretenses while operating an international network of secret torture prisons. (That last one sounds like rampant hyperbole when it's just a bare, non-euphemistic statement of the facts.) Given those precedents it's hard to see how any Republican* president wouldn't conclude he could act with impunity secure in his own immunity.
* This does not extend to Democratic presidents, who will be held accountable for getting extra-marital blowjobs or wearing a tan suit.
Milei, though, is very unpopular with a 60% disapproval rating.
Should he lose power, all bets are off.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-argentina-bailout
There is also the thought Trump may buy Argentinian beef in order to lower the price of beef at the supermarket.
To say nothing about American soybean farmers losing the Chinese market to Argentina.
This is very sad 😔
I will point out that people were lining up to invest in China mere years after the Red Guards had stopped smashing up schools and killing teachers. Granted, it helped that Deng Xiaoping had the power to forcibly suppress a revival of "ultra-leftism".
Well, enough for all the western capitalist nations to build zillions of factories in China and borrow truckloads of money from Chinese banks. So I would say, on a day-to-day level(*), yes, people trust China.
(*) Whether people are entirely comfortable with the long-term geopolitical implications of China's economic rise is another question.
The incoming Argentinian beef deal is already being attacked by industry lobbyists and some of the usual dissident Republicans, eg. Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
It's a question of uncertainty, or maybe indeterminacy. There's a consensus that China can be relied upon to act in predictable ways over the medium to long term, which is why people are willing to invest.
The issue is that until the GOP changes complexion, it's unclear whether a agreement made with the US wouldn't simply be reversed by the next administration (it's a macro version of the problem the UK has with concluding any deeper agreement with the EU).
This is true, but that was on the other side of complete military defeat, (some of) the perpetrators being put on trial and the exigencies of the Cold War making it imperative to absorb these nations back into the sphere of the First World.
I think that the USA will recover its international trade once (if) the current madness ends, just as other countries which were once pariah did. See examples above.
But the current madness includes the state of one of the political parties; you can't make medium to long term investments if you think the conditions are likely to change every four years.
There's also a question of, as it were, reliable unreliability. If you know the deal will be broken in modest, predictable ways you can factor that in, a bit like "wastage", i.e. shoplifting, in retail. The problem the US has is Trump and the GOP won't just shave a bit off the top or do the metaphorical equivalent of pocketing a couple of packs of gum, there's a good chance they'll ram raid the shop and make off with all the fags and booze and the entire shelf of fillet steak.