The trade war is back on

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

This is the mentality we are up against, a press secretary who apparently believes that tariffs are a tax cut for Americans:

 

Notice her typical Republican tactic of lying and then going on the attack:   After the reporter challenges her obvious nonsensical statement about tariffs she claims to be insulted and threatens to not call on that reporter again. Another example of Trump administration sinking to new lows. Not to mention they plant fake news propagandists from right wing “alternative media” in the audience to ask loaded softball questions 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Here’s a decent summary of of the Trump team’s ‘thinking’ on tariffs:

Quote

Kent Lassman is chief executive of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and he wrote a section of Project 2025. Sitting in his Washington, D.C., office this week, he expressed concern.

 

“The assumption is they have an end game,” he said, referring to the White House. Mr. Lassman has been privy to enough conversations to know that isn’t the case. “I want to caution you from thinking they have a grand strategy.”

 

It is even suggested they were surprised by Canada’s response!

Quote

Already it’s clear the tariff hawks miscalculated on two fronts. No one seemed to think other countries would retaliate forcefully, nor did they appreciate how their own president would respond when that happened. So far, Mr. Trump is playing victim in the economic war he started, and after Ontario slapped a 25-per-cent surcharge on electricity exports to the U.S. on Monday, Mr. Trump threatened to double his own tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50 per cent within 24 hours.

 

 

 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-donald-trump-is-hijacking-the-tariff-strategy-his-party-wrote-and/#comments

Edited March 15 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Here’s a decent summary of of the Trump team’s ‘thinking’ on tariffs:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-donald-trump-is-hijacking-the-tariff-strategy-his-party-wrote-and/#comments

I don't know how accurate that is, based on what we're hearing from our own politicians who have now visited American politicians and are trying to get their head around what's going on it does seem like they have an end game in mind. And while trump's personal attack are all focused on Canada the tariffs are being applied worldwide.

Trump believes the way the world should work is that country should be incentivized to do business with each other but to have most of their products made and consumed close to home. He wants to try and force more industry to come back to America and do business there rather than the current global supply chain concept made elsewhere and then shipped to the US. The tariffs are supposed to inspire that and basically do a global reset on the global economy.

I do not for a minute believe that is how this is going to turn out. I cannot think of an instance in history where restricting trade and reducing people's ability to do business with each other has led to greater prosperity. In fact generally speaking the opposite is true

But that is his plan and that it seems to be his hope and that is his end game. Which means the tariffs are probably never coming off. They might be eased or there might be some sort of deals made but  trump is an isolationist.  He does not want global trade, he prefers the us to only focus on the us. 

[Legato]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I don't know how accurate that is, based on what we're hearing from our own politicians who have now visited American politicians and are trying to get their head around what's going on it does seem like they have an end game in mind. And while trump's personal attack are all focused on Canada the tariffs are being applied worldwide.

Trump believes the way the world should work is that country should be incentivized to do business with each other but to have most of their products made and consumed close to home. He wants to try and force more industry to come back to America and do business there rather than the current global supply chain concept made elsewhere and then shipped to the US. The tariffs are supposed to inspire that and basically do a global reset on the global economy.

I do not for a minute believe that is how this is going to turn out. I cannot think of an instance in history where restricting trade and reducing people's ability to do business with each other has led to greater prosperity. In fact generally speaking the opposite is true

But that is his plan and that it seems to be his hope and that is his end game. Which means the tariffs are probably never coming off. They might be eased or there might be some sort of deals made but  trump is an isolationist.  He does not want global trade, he prefers the us to only focus on the us. 

We need a modern day Robin of the Hood, there's a nasty sheriff in town

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Legato said:

Trump believes the way the world should work is that country should be incentivized to do business with each other but to have most of their products made and consumed close to home. He wants to try and force more industry to come back to America and do business there rather than the current global supply chain concept made elsewhere and then shipped to the US. The tariffs are supposed to inspire that and basically do a global reset on the global economy.

Sure he wants this for America but he clearly also wants to force other countries to make their resources available to America and to buy more American made products. Whatever isolationism he exudes is cancelled out by his predatory inclinations.

He's made it perfectly clear he wants to dominate the global economy, not what you've described which is how things should be and as you say will never be achieved by slapping tariffs on everyone in sight.

[Legato]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure he wants this for America but he clearly also wants to force other countries to make their resources available to America and to buy more American made products. Whatever isolationism he exudes is cancelled out by his predatory inclinations.

He's made it perfectly clear he wants to dominate the global economy, not what you've described which is how things should be and as you say will never be achieved by slapping tariffs on everyone in sight.

The bong influence again, that was not my post.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

We need a modern day Robin of the Hood, there's a nasty sheriff in town

I think I've said this before but the biggest problem I see with his plans such as they are is that they have a beginning and an end but no middle.

He knows he wants to tariff and he hopes that in the end corporations will all move back to the us. But he doesnt' quite understand that the costs of doing that probably aren't in the interests of the corporations for what they'll see as a short term (four year) issue or that if it causes recession the last thing the businesses will want to do is spend money to build new facilities. 

It reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes from south park. Phase one, steal Underpants. Phase two ????, phase 3 profit. Well what's phase 2? Uhhhhhh....

 

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, Legato said:

The bong influence again, that was not my post.

It may as well have been, but you're right it was intended for @CdnFox

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think I've said this before but the biggest problem I see with his plans such as they are is that they have a beginning and an end but no middle.

He knows he wants to tariff and he hopes that in the end corporations will all move back to the us. But he doesnt' quite understand that the costs of doing that probably aren't in the interests of the corporations for what they'll see as a short term (four year) issue or that if it causes recession the last thing the businesses will want to do is spend money to build new facilities. 

It reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes from south park. Phase one, steal Underpants. Phase two ????, phase 3 profit. Well what's phase 2? Uhhhhhh....

 

Never seen that before, good analogy.

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It may as well have been,

Why?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Sure he wants this for America but he clearly also wants to force other countries to make their resources available to America and to buy more American made products. Whatever isolationism he exudes is cancelled out by his predatory inclinations.

 

He absolutely wants to have access to resources that aren't available in America. That is true. But that doesn't change anything that I've said.

Quote

He's made it perfectly clear he wants to dominate the global economy, not what you've described which is how things should be and as you say will never be achieved by slapping tariffs on everyone in sight.

No he hasn't. But I'm glad to see that you're really getting a lot of use out of that whole "Legalize pot" thing

None of his actions are actually focused on forcing other people to buy American Products. Everything is about creating a world where American consumption is created by americans and not imported.

I wish you would take the time to actually read and learn something before you comment on it

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Never seen that before, good analogy.

 

I feel like this is where the bad advice from Bad advisors tag is going to get stuck on him in the history books. Someone is convinced him that if you make life miserable for anybody who's production takes place outside of America that magically they will move their stuff to America and make profit. But he's not actually providing a path for that, and he forgets that a lot of those products are made outside the usa but also consumed outside the usa. 

Take the car industry for example. It is almost impossible to imagine how they could untangle things and move their production to america from Canada and Mexico anytime in the next decade. But let's say they magically could.

Canada is one of the number one consumers of American cars. In fact we are the absolutely largest customer for American Vehicles outside of America by a landslide.

We currently tariff Chinese vehicles and other vehicles to protect the American Industries and because Canadians work for those companies quite a bit building cars and parts

So if that goes away, are we buying American cars anymore? Is there any reason to tariff Chinese electric vehicles for example? Could we ask them to do some of the assembly here in Canada?  America could very easily find itself losing far more jobs than it gains moving business to America.

One example out of many. He's got the first part, make businesses outside of America uncomfortable, and he's got the end part which is american businesses are all in America, make profit. But he's missing the middle part where that transition is practical and affordable and businesses will want to do it in a timely fashion especially for manufacturing.

 

Quote

Why?

Because eyeball is an !diot, he gets stoned and he doesn't even know who he's replying to, and you're not part of his tribe so you must be wrong. Same as any lefty🙄

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Legato said:

Why?

You seem quite like of mind with what CdnFox wrote.

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No he hasn't.

Yes he has.

“We are going to forge the freest, most advanced, most dynamic and most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth,”

You're saying this statement and the view he's expressed doesn't also encompass the economy?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes he has.

“We are going to forge the freest, most advanced, most dynamic and most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth,”

You're saying this statement and the view he's expressed doesn't also encompass the economy?

You literally just proved that you're wrong. Where in that statement does he say anything about controlling anyone else? In fact he specifically ignores everyone else and says that he is going to Make the united states the freest most advanced civilization to exist on the face of the earth. He mentions it being the most dominant but not dominating anyone else meaning that it will be the top of the heat but not that it controls anyone or forges a global Nation under his rule or anything.

He literally just spelled out that he's going to make America the greatest and most powerful, not that he intends to take over anyone else. He's 100% focused on making America great again and if that comes as a surprise to you at this point you need to give up following politics and follow something more your speed like a snail.

He wants America to have all of the power but he wants America to focus on Americans making and buying American stuff. He wants his economy to be as much isolated as possible will have to give them to him But he is absolutely not interested in a worldwide global economy, he's focused on an American economy that is self-sufficient

So you're done looking stupid or did you want to keep going?

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Where in that statement does he say anything about controlling anyone else?

Where he says most dominant.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He literally just spelled out that he's going to make America the greatest and most powerful, not that he intends to take over anyone else.

He's said he will use economic force to annex Canada. Annex in the context of someone else's territory means control btw.

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where he says most dominant.

dom·i·nant

/ˈdämənənt/

adjective

 

1. most important, powerful, or influential.

    

   As I said he absolutely wants to be the most powerful and important nation on earth. But the word does not mean that he is in control of anyone else. He just wants to be the guy that nobody wants to mess with.

    

   But there's no talk about an empire, there's no talk about controlling anyone else, everything in that sentence absolutely every other word is about making America great again.

    

   Gosh, he Should have run with that as his slogan! oh wait......

    

   If you want to control every other economy you don't try and drag every industry back to America. In fact the opposite is true any expansionary empire in the history of man seeks to move their businesses into other countries.

    

   What he wants to do is make sure that if a product can be made in America and create a job in America that that's what happens and that America's economy is as isolated as it can reasonably be, and then sell things to other people if you have extra and also force them to sell you goods that you need that you don't have and can't make such as certain minerals or water or other things.

    

   What he doesn't realize is those things are diametrically opposed. If his market is cut off from the rest of the world the rest of the world stops dealing with him and finds other markets to deal with. That will substantially reduce the amount of money being made in America and reduce America's influence around the world tremendously. He hasn't realized that His plan is flawed but that is what he wants to do.

   7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

   He's said he will use economic force to annex Canada.

   Absolutely. Manifest destiny is been an American idea going back to the times before they're even was a Canada.

   But the reason for that is in his mind it should have been America all the way along. If you listen to him talk about it he talks about how we had a perfect great big country and some jerk came along with a pen and drew a line across it and it was a mistake. He doesn't see this as expansion, he sees this as correcting a mistake and Canada should never have existed in the first place and it's time to bring it back into the fold. His whole argument is that is so integrated with America that it might as well be a state anyway so why are we screwing around with this.

    

   Sorry kid you are so off base here that you might as well give yourself a free:Inspection while you have your head stuck up there anyway

[Legato]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

You seem quite like of mind with what CdnFox wrote.

Like minded to those who exhibit common sense irrespective of names

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Legato said:

Like minded to those who exhibit common sense irrespective of names

Good lord, he'll never understand that.  You might as well attempt to explain pythagorean theorem to a Labradoodle.

[Barquentine]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

there's no talk about controlling anyone else

And yet: US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that BRICS nations could face 100% tariffs from the United States "if they want to play games with the dollar." (by using another currency)

[Aristides]

[Aristides]

On 3/15/2025 at 6:24 PM, CdnFox said:

You literally just proved that you're wrong. Where in that statement does he say anything about controlling anyone else? In fact he specifically ignores everyone else and says that he is going to Make the united states the freest most advanced civilization to exist on the face of the earth. He mentions it being the most dominant but not dominating anyone else meaning that it will be the top of the heat but not that it controls anyone or forges a global Nation under his rule or anything.

He literally just spelled out that he's going to make America the greatest and most powerful, not that he intends to take over anyone else. He's 100% focused on making America great again and if that comes as a surprise to you at this point you need to give up following politics and follow something more your speed like a snail.

He wants America to have all of the power but he wants America to focus on Americans making and buying American stuff. He wants his economy to be as much isolated as possible will have to give them to him But he is absolutely not interested in a worldwide global economy, he's focused on an American economy that is self-sufficient

So you're done looking stupid or did you want to keep going?

WTF does “most dominant” mean to you?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

WTF does “most dominant” mean to you?

The strongest. The one with the most power. But that does not mean the same thing as control. 

Militarily the US is obviously dominant in the world. No other nation's military comes close. No one wants to pick a fight with them. Including england and france.  Does that mean they have control over england and france? Does that mean they've taken over england and france?

Nope.  but is sure as hell means england and france won't be taking over them either, 

You are confusing 'Dominant" with "Dominate". The words are similar but not the same. 

But hey, don't let facts hold you back. 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The strongest. The one with the most power. But that does not mean the same thing as control. 

Militarily the US is obviously dominant in the world. No other nation's military comes close. No one wants to pick a fight with them. Including england and france.  Does that mean they have control over england and france? Does that mean they've taken over england and france?

Nope.  but is sure as hell means england and france won't be taking over them either, 

You are confusing 'Dominant" with "Dominate". The words are similar but not the same. 

But hey, don't let facts hold you back. 

Of course it does. To dominate is to control. Just like what he is trying to do to us, Denmark and Panama right now.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Of course it does. To dominate is to control.

Dominate is not the same word as dominant. 

Here. I'll do it for you .

dom·i·nate

/ˈdäməˌnāt/

verb

 

1. have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.

   "the company dominates the market for operating system software"

    

   And now....

    

   dom·i·nant

   /ˈdämənənt/

   

   adjective

    

   1. most important, powerful, or influential.

      "they are now in an even more dominant position in the market"

       

      The first is about control. The second is about being the most powerful and influential.  The biggest.  Or the biglyest in this case perhaps 

       

      Again, he wants to be the most powerful and most important market in the world so that nobody can interfere with them or stand against them. That is extremely different than wanting to control them. It's more about that nobody can control him rather than him controlling everyone else

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dominate is not the same word as dominant.

Dominate is what Trump wants and is threatening to do, with force.

It's worse than just wanting to be the biggest.