I believe another problem with the USSR economy - in addition to the fact that the workers didn't actually have much power - was that the people in the production chain with the least power were the customers.
The benefits of a genuinely free market are that the customers exercise power in getting goods and services that they actually want, which is the ultimate point of the economy.
(In an ideal economy the order of power should be consumer, worker, investor. In capitalism it's investor, consumer, worker.)
Tariffs for Mexico and Canada all over the BBC news today. The general consensus is that Donny’s bark is worse than his bite. There will be tariffs but not as bad as he says. They are also saying China and the UK and the EU need to be ready.
And who will the forest blame when this massive tax axe falls on them? Not the mad t-axeman that's for sure! (Satire alert!) Because he's lowering taxes, cutting government expenditure ain't 'e! And he's taxing all these goddam foreigners trying to rip us off with their goddam cheap trash, that'll learn 'em. So why's everything so goddam expensive and in short supply and crap when you get it?
And who will the forest blame when this massive tax axe falls on them? Not the mad t-axeman that's for sure! (Satire alert!) Because he's lowering taxes, cutting government expenditure ain't 'e! And he's taxing all these goddam foreigners trying to rip us off with their goddam cheap trash, that'll learn 'em. So why's everything so goddam expensive and in short supply and crap when you get it?
Yep the general consensus is that this is bad for USA. Could be very bad. Souring relations with friendly countries, could make Brexit look like a walk in the park
The most convincing analysis I've read is that Trump sees tariffs as a weapon for extracting concessions, a game of chicken where he's driving a truck versus his opponents' Mini. Sure it hurts the US: but it hurts other countries more, so they will choose to do what Trump wants in order to see the tariffs reduced.
Other countries will develop new trading partners or strengthen the existing ties with them. For instance, China bought a number of Boeing planes over the years. Airbus should pick up more orders or the Russian United Aircraft Corporation,
It may hurt specific businesses who deal mostly with the US, but outwith Canada and Mexico (possibly some other Central American countries) where the US is a very big local market most nations will trade far more with other nations than they do with the US.
Of course, it will also hurt the US economy, and it's difficult to know how much more hurt will be inflicted even on a close trading partner like Canada than will be inflicted at home.
As has been said many times, in war there are no winners. That applies to trade wars as well.
But, from reporting over here I'm not sure that Trump is thinking of tariffs as protecting the US economy, much less the global economy which will also take a hit. The narrative over here is that he's willing to let the US take that economic hit to be seen to be trying to get Canada and Mexico to take more action against smuggling and migration. Not that it's at all clear what else they can do. Which basically means he wants to risk a global economic downturn, and an economic hit to the US risking millions of US jobs, for a gesture which will do nothing to reduce the flow of people and drugs across the US borders.
Well, in the Canadian / Mexican context it's going to be interesting to see how it interacts with NAFTA, although I see that Canada is already trying to throw Mexico under the bus.
The issue for the US is that there a number of sectors (notably the auto industry) which rely on intermediate parts from Mexico and Canada, and then a bunch of lower margin sectors which import raw materials. They're about to see a large cost increase, which in turn they'll pass on for consumers (and probably take the opportunity to further hike prices)
Similarly with the tariffs on Chinese goods - that's going to result in higher prices for consumers on all sorts of things. China is likely to be affected less, as they can probably make up the corresponding drop in exports in other markets.
While not as large of a problem with Canada, there has been a steady stream of undocumented people coming South from Canada. Just the other day two men were charged with the deaths of an Indian family who froze to death trying to cross the border in North Dakota. Many times, the migrants are from the North are from Commonwealth countries, India, and China.
While not as large of a problem with Canada, there has been a steady stream of undocumented people coming South from Canada. Just the other day two men were charged with the deaths of an Indian family who froze to death trying to cross the border in North Dakota. Many times, the migrants are from the North are from Commonwealth countries, India, and China.
Lindsay Graham has threatened that if any US ally follows through on the ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu the US will crush that country financially once the republicans are in power.
I say bring it on. There are plenty of Davids out there ready with a sling shot
Can we hope that if he messes with the economy like this, a silver lining will be rejection of his ilk in the midterms and a loss for his ilk in 2028? Silver lining, maybe? (He can’t run again, can he? Or does that only apply to two terms adjacent to each other?))
Can we hope that if he messes with the economy like this, a silver lining will be rejection of his ilk in the midterms and a loss for his ilk in 2028? Silver lining, maybe? (He can’t run again, can he? Or does that only apply to two terms adjacent to each other?))
The 22nd Amendment states:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
So, plain reading of the text would lead one to assume that no person shall be elected to the office more than twice. It says nothing about being consecutive. On the other hand, strictly speaking, it does not say a person cannot RUN for office multiple times. The person just cannot be ELECTED more than twice.
More remarkable is the provision about somebody holding the office for more than two years of somebody else's elected term. So if, for example, Trump were to somehow die in 2025 or 2026, with Vance then assuming the office of President, then Vance could only be elected President in his own right once.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
So, plain reading of the text would lead one to assume that no person shall be elected to the office more than twice. It says nothing about being consecutive. On the other hand, strictly speaking, it does not say a person cannot RUN for office multiple times. The person just cannot be ELECTED more than twice.
The Constitution also states that oatbreaking insurrectionists can't hold any office, yet here we are.
Can we hope that if he messes with the economy like this, a silver lining will be rejection of his ilk in the midterms and a loss for his ilk in 2028? Silver lining, maybe? (He can’t run again, can he? Or does that only apply to two terms adjacent to each other?))
The 22nd Amendment states:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
So, plain reading of the text would lead one to assume that no person shall be elected to the office more than twice. It says nothing about being consecutive. On the other hand, strictly speaking, it does not say a person cannot RUN for office multiple times. The person just cannot be ELECTED more than twice.
More remarkable is the provision about somebody holding the office for more than two years of somebody else's elected term. So if, for example, Trump were to somehow die in 2025 or 2026, with Vance then assuming the office of President, then Vance could only be elected President in his own right once.
Thank God! So that also means… Because she would be president for only like about a month and a half… If Biden stepped down and let Harris take office, she could be the first female president and (if it seemed wise, which it might not be) to run twice more.
(Someone suggested the idea of Biden stepping down because of his pardon of his son, Harris then becoming the first female president even if for a short while, on another thread.)
If Donny tries to crush the EU he is in for a surprise. The EU can manage very well from stuff within its borders and from other allies. Unlike the UK, US culture has less of an influence (with the possible exception of Germany) throughout the EU. As each country shares borders there is more to be gained from working with each other, than a massive superpower like The US or China
A gentle reminder that in Purgatory, for the sake of good discussion, we don’t mess with people’s names, but call them by their given names, or the names they choose to be publicly called by.
A gentle reminder that in Purgatory, for the sake of good discussion, we don’t mess with people’s names, but call them by their given names, or the names they choose to be publicly called by.
The EU can manage very well from stuff within its borders and from other allies. Unlike the UK, US culture has less of an influence (with the possible exception of Germany) throughout the EU. As each country shares borders there is more to be gained from working with each other, than a massive superpower like The US or China
Whilst that is true, the US is a major destination for EU exports - more so as trade with both Russia and China have started to decline.
A gentle reminder that in Purgatory, for the sake of good discussion, we don’t mess with people’s names, but call them by their given names, or the names they choose to be publicly called by.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Can we refer to them descriptively? Like "the orange monster" or such for Trump?
I think this is the right place for this question. It is all but certain that Lord Peter Mandleson will be new UK ambassador to the US. On paper this a good choice for the new Labour Government. He is experienced across several sectors and was one of the architects of Tony Blair’s New Labour. The question that news outlets like the BBC are skirting around is how he and his husband will be seen by a Trump administration? From this side of the pond there seems to be some, let’s say push back by MAGA supporters against the LBTQ+ community. Will this be a factor or will political reality win out.
I think this is the right place for this question. It is all but certain that Lord Peter Mandleson will be new UK ambassador to the US. On paper this a good choice for the new Labour Government. He is experienced across several sectors and was one of the architects of Tony Blair’s New Labour. The question that news outlets like the BBC are skirting around is how he and his husband will be seen by a Trump administration? From this side of the pond there seems to be some, let’s say push back by MAGA supporters against the LBTQ+ community. Will this be a factor or will political reality win out.
Vetoing (de facto) another country’s choice of ambassador to you is almost always a bad look. Unless they’re a terrorist or something.
I’ve got very little time for Mandelson but for what it’s worth I think he’s a fairly sensible choice for this job. He’s an operator. And if he can’t do a good job because he’s openly married gay then I’m on his side all day long and what a time to be alive.
I think this is the right place for this question. It is all but certain that Lord Peter Mandleson will be new UK ambassador to the US. On paper this a good choice for the new Labour Government.
Not necessarily. I don't think his sexuality should be an issue, but his age and track record of - at the very least - being a very poor judge of character should rule him out.
It is my understanding that a country to which a perspective ambassador has to issue credentials to receive the new ambassador. In other words, the country can refuse to receive the proposed ambassador. An example would be if a country names a known spy to be the ambassador to another country. The other country has every right to say "Umm, no thank you."
Now, in the case of the new ambassadors Trump has named, many of them are not qualified, Fact is, some of them are insulting to the receiving country. Would, say Greece refuse to receive Guilfoyle? They could, but they would do at their peril. On the other hand, if she is still in the inner Trump circle, they may use her to their advantage.
It is my understanding that a country to which a perspective ambassador has to issue credentials to receive the new ambassador. In other words, the country can refuse to receive the proposed ambassador. An example would be if a country names a known spy to be the ambassador to another country. The other country has every right to say "Umm, no thank you."
Now, in the case of the new ambassadors Trump has named, many of them are not qualified, Fact is, some of them are insulting to the receiving country. Would, say Greece refuse to receive Guilfoyle? They could, but they would do at their peril. On the other hand, if she is still in the inner Trump circle, they may use her to their advantage.
Well countries can refuse, but this is a bit like the monarchy wrt the British government - in practice they usually don’t.
Not because of ‘peril’ but just because countries (including the USA) don’t go round vetoing nominees for ambassadors or foreign ministers just because they don’t like them.
The classic example is Rhodesia’s PK van der Byl. No one recognised him or indeed the state he purported to represent, but on the quiet they still dealt with him. So even when an entire country is completely beyond the pale in reality you deal with who is in front of you. Never mind the individual.
Would, say Greece refuse to receive Guilfoyle? They could, but they would do at their peril. On the other hand, if she is still in the inner Trump circle, they may use her to their advantage.
Would, say Greece refuse to receive Guilfoyle? They could, but they would do at their peril. On the other hand, if she is still in the inner Trump circle, they may use her to their advantage.
This. Unless really egregious (like being the subject of an International Arrest Warrant) countries just don’t go round not recognising ambassadors. It’s got nothing to do with a hierarchy of ‘power’ - you could be the ‘greatest’ country on earth or the ‘least’ but no one does it. On paper you *could*, but good luck with that as anything other than a once in a blue moon exception…
The thing is Trump is such a wild card you never know if he will decide to not accept them. Sadly I remain unconvinced that the new ambassador will not get any prejudice for his sexuality, but I hope I am proved wrong.
The President-elect also has intentions towards Canada, apparently. If he wants to do a del, he should cross the Atlantic and discuss terms with the Dominion's Head of State, who can find accomodation for him in the Tower of London.
The President-elect also has intentions towards Canada, apparently. If he wants to do a del, he should cross the Atlantic and discuss terms with the Dominion's Head of State, who can find accomodation for him in the Tower of London.
The President-elect also has intentions towards Canada, apparently. If he wants to do a del, he should cross the Atlantic and discuss terms with the Dominion's Head of State, who can find accomodation for him in the Tower of London.
That would be mixing governments which is like wearing clothing of mixed fibres, it's not permitted. Besides, His Canadian Majesty has no opinion other than that which his Canadian ministers provide him.
Should his Canadian Majesty require to detain someone at his pleasure in a place of suitably depressing confinement, Bordeaux Prison in Montréal would serve the purpose. rambling building from 1908 with lots of stone, a dome and 1500 inmates. It's also a former hanging prison and Authur Ellis, the Dominion Executioner was traditionally based there.
I should note that this isn't Canada's first rodeo with an annexationist United States. Two formal invasions, the Pig War in British Columbia, the Trent Affair, the Fenian Raids (informal invasion), the Treaty of Washington of 1871, topped off with War Plan Crimson of the 1920's.
I should note that this isn't Canada's first rodeo with an annexationist United States. Two formal invasions, the Pig War in British Columbia, the Trent Affair, the Fenian Raids (informal invasion), the Treaty of Washington of 1871, topped off with War Plan Crimson of the 1920's.
I believe this is currently Round Seven.
No, it’s not, because this isn’t an “annexationist United States” to start with. It’s at most a president-elect who has done his typical bloviation, this time about how wonderful it would be for the people of Canada “if” Canada became the fifty-first state. Never mind that a president has no official role in admission of new states.
A clueless president-elect with absolutely no filter does not an annexationist United States make.
I should note that this isn't Canada's first rodeo with an annexationist United States. Two formal invasions, the Pig War in British Columbia, the Trent Affair, the Fenian Raids (informal invasion), the Treaty of Washington of 1871, topped off with War Plan Crimson of the 1920's.
Not to mention a certain beloved, three-named Toronto politician recruiting literal armed militias in the taverns of Buffalo for his grand struggle to push liberty northward and forward.
(And now immortalized in Queen's Park, of all places, by the same sculptor who did the Vimy Memorial. You can guess who might've had an interest in pushing that particular patriotic project.)
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
The BBC is funded by a flat fee, so not "from each according to their means".
I think public fire services are socialist. Police is more difficult because it depends on whether you see them as providing a public service or acting as the enforcement arm of the state.
When I made my Oath of Allegiance it was to Her Majesty the Queen, not the government. I was free to vote for whoever I liked.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Comments
The benefits of a genuinely free market are that the customers exercise power in getting goods and services that they actually want, which is the ultimate point of the economy.
(In an ideal economy the order of power should be consumer, worker, investor. In capitalism it's investor, consumer, worker.)
Yep the general consensus is that this is bad for USA. Could be very bad. Souring relations with friendly countries, could make Brexit look like a walk in the park
I'm not entirely sure it would hurt other countries more.
Of course, it will also hurt the US economy, and it's difficult to know how much more hurt will be inflicted even on a close trading partner like Canada than will be inflicted at home.
As has been said many times, in war there are no winners. That applies to trade wars as well.
But, from reporting over here I'm not sure that Trump is thinking of tariffs as protecting the US economy, much less the global economy which will also take a hit. The narrative over here is that he's willing to let the US take that economic hit to be seen to be trying to get Canada and Mexico to take more action against smuggling and migration. Not that it's at all clear what else they can do. Which basically means he wants to risk a global economic downturn, and an economic hit to the US risking millions of US jobs, for a gesture which will do nothing to reduce the flow of people and drugs across the US borders.
The issue for the US is that there a number of sectors (notably the auto industry) which rely on intermediate parts from Mexico and Canada, and then a bunch of lower margin sectors which import raw materials. They're about to see a large cost increase, which in turn they'll pass on for consumers (and probably take the opportunity to further hike prices)
Similarly with the tariffs on Chinese goods - that's going to result in higher prices for consumers on all sorts of things. China is likely to be affected less, as they can probably make up the corresponding drop in exports in other markets.
While not as large of a problem with Canada, there has been a steady stream of undocumented people coming South from Canada. Just the other day two men were charged with the deaths of an Indian family who froze to death trying to cross the border in North Dakota. Many times, the migrants are from the North are from Commonwealth countries, India, and China.
Largely a further reduction in barriers/tariffs with some protectionist carve outs for certain sectors (the auto industry again).
A supporting report of undocumented migrants coming from Canada.
Report of Indian family freezing to death
I say bring it on. There are plenty of Davids out there ready with a sling shot
Don't give the Supreme Court any ideas.
The 22nd Amendment states:
So, plain reading of the text would lead one to assume that no person shall be elected to the office more than twice. It says nothing about being consecutive. On the other hand, strictly speaking, it does not say a person cannot RUN for office multiple times. The person just cannot be ELECTED more than twice.
More remarkable is the provision about somebody holding the office for more than two years of somebody else's elected term. So if, for example, Trump were to somehow die in 2025 or 2026, with Vance then assuming the office of President, then Vance could only be elected President in his own right once.
The Constitution also states that oatbreaking insurrectionists can't hold any office, yet here we are.
Thank God! So that also means… Because she would be president for only like about a month and a half… If Biden stepped down and let Harris take office, she could be the first female president and (if it seemed wise, which it might not be) to run twice more.
(Someone suggested the idea of Biden stepping down because of his pardon of his son, Harris then becoming the first female president even if for a short while, on another thread.)
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Sorry I will use Trump from now on
Whilst that is true, the US is a major destination for EU exports - more so as trade with both Russia and China have started to decline.
Can we refer to them descriptively? Like "the orange monster" or such for Trump?
Doublethink, Admin
Vetoing (de facto) another country’s choice of ambassador to you is almost always a bad look. Unless they’re a terrorist or something.
I’ve got very little time for Mandelson but for what it’s worth I think he’s a fairly sensible choice for this job. He’s an operator. And if he can’t do a good job because he’s openly married gay then I’m on his side all day long and what a time to be alive.
Not necessarily. I don't think his sexuality should be an issue, but his age and track record of - at the very least - being a very poor judge of character should rule him out.
In what way that actually, bottom line, in the real world, counts?
Now, in the case of the new ambassadors Trump has named, many of them are not qualified, Fact is, some of them are insulting to the receiving country. Would, say Greece refuse to receive Guilfoyle? They could, but they would do at their peril. On the other hand, if she is still in the inner Trump circle, they may use her to their advantage.
Well countries can refuse, but this is a bit like the monarchy wrt the British government - in practice they usually don’t.
Not because of ‘peril’ but just because countries (including the USA) don’t go round vetoing nominees for ambassadors or foreign ministers just because they don’t like them.
The classic example is Rhodesia’s PK van der Byl. No one recognised him or indeed the state he purported to represent, but on the quiet they still dealt with him. So even when an entire country is completely beyond the pale in reality you deal with who is in front of you. Never mind the individual.
Unqualified or underqualified ambassadors are not uncommon. I touched on the domestic implications of the Guilfoyle nomination elsewhere, but the usual practice is to accept the ambassador and conduct any serious diplomacy through their deputies.
This. Unless really egregious (like being the subject of an International Arrest Warrant) countries just don’t go round not recognising ambassadors. It’s got nothing to do with a hierarchy of ‘power’ - you could be the ‘greatest’ country on earth or the ‘least’ but no one does it. On paper you *could*, but good luck with that as anything other than a once in a blue moon exception…
But not for long.
That would be mixing governments which is like wearing clothing of mixed fibres, it's not permitted. Besides, His Canadian Majesty has no opinion other than that which his Canadian ministers provide him.
Should his Canadian Majesty require to detain someone at his pleasure in a place of suitably depressing confinement, Bordeaux Prison in Montréal would serve the purpose. rambling building from 1908 with lots of stone, a dome and 1500 inmates. It's also a former hanging prison and Authur Ellis, the Dominion Executioner was traditionally based there.
I should note that this isn't Canada's first rodeo with an annexationist United States. Two formal invasions, the Pig War in British Columbia, the Trent Affair, the Fenian Raids (informal invasion), the Treaty of Washington of 1871, topped off with War Plan Crimson of the 1920's.
I believe this is currently Round Seven.
A clueless president-elect with absolutely no filter does not an annexationist United States make.
Not to mention a certain beloved, three-named Toronto politician recruiting literal armed militias in the taverns of Buffalo for his grand struggle to push liberty northward and forward.
(And now immortalized in Queen's Park, of all places, by the same sculptor who did the Vimy Memorial. You can guess who might've had an interest in pushing that particular patriotic project.)
When I made my Oath of Allegiance it was to Her Majesty the Queen, not the government. I was free to vote for whoever I liked.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.