Because Kamala

[urbanoid]

5 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

  I'm sorry but you have not, at least not yet. Access to cheap (de-facto free, as money were coming back to Western assets) and stable energy supply was one of the few competitive advantages of European industry vs. Asian one (not only Chineese). Now we see China&Co continue to grow, while industry of Germany is in trouble. May be it will be fixed, may be not - who knows.  But without this decades of free energy China's dominance would have came sooner, not later.

Germany’s economy goes from bad to worse ( https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/10/15/how-the-german-economy-went-from-bad-to-worse?ysclid=m2wipyqgqy191560714 )

Poland, a country much poorer than Germany, has largely abandoned import of Russian oil and gas before the war already, we survived it and kept developing - quite nicely I might add. And even if I agreed with your claims of 'free resources for the West' (I don't), they weren't ever free for us.

Germany has made a lot of bad bets, including closing ~30 GW of nuclear power for ideological reasons AND throwing half a trillion euros or so on absurd Energiewende. Their problems are self-inflicted, but the reasons for them aren't limited to Russian resources (or lack thereof). 

[Mr King]

51 minutes ago, bojan said:

Never mind rare earths if you get a scurvy.

 

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the pandemic that China manufactures most of our prescription medications. There were shortages on many of them during the lock downs.

[futon]

The US has always had a money angle on things. Cheap labor is a fundamental factor to it. Growth projection goals maintain a thirsty lust for cheap labor.

The other fundamental factor is access to a big market. So selling potential is high and growth projection goals maintain a thirsty lust for access to big markets.

For those reasons, the US has been interested into utilizing China since the late 1800s, declared principles be damned. The hypocrisy opens the door to miscalculations and a break down of integrity. What is said is not believable at face value. It takes an extordinary amount of rhetoric to make a point believable. Brinkmenship becomes more common.

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Poland, a country much poorer than Germany, has largely abandoned import of Russian oil and gas before the war already, we survived it and kept developing - quite nicely I might add. 

Well, let's wait and see how well will Poland do with general  Western Europe economy in trouble. Too early to make conclusions now.

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

 And even if I agreed with your claims of 'free resources for the West' (I don't), they weren't ever free for us.

If you mean for Poland - then yes, i can hardly imagine somebody from Russia reinvesting looted assets into Poland, for obvious reasons.  There are far better places for that South-West from Poland. Still, for the West as system resources were free, and since Poland is part of this economic system - it was also benefiting from it.

6 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Germany has made a lot of bad bets, including closing ~30 GW of nuclear power for ideological reasons AND throwing half a trillion euros or so on absurd Energiewende. Their problems are self-inflicted, but the reasons for them aren't limited to Russian resources (or lack thereof). 

This "ideological reasons" were not the results of some alien space rays or random natural factors, but product of general mix of incompetence and arrogance that became the feature of West policy following the "victory in Cold War".  The same way as "Whites" lost Civil War for the same reasons that  Russian Empire collapsed - they have failed to understand what and why really happened in 1917.

     The same breed of politicians who have closed NP in Germany have managed to turn own puppets in control of Russia into enemies. Well, probaby we must be grateful for them. 

[futon]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

When/If we go to war with China, they're going to suffer more because we'll be intercepting and stopping ALL of their marine based commerce. Their exports will grind to a halt short of what can be shipped out through Russia. 

They have a higher suffer tolerance for Taiwan.

So it isn't enough deterrance. 

Also, don't be surprised if the global south does not comply to stop receiving goods from China for very long.

 

[Ivanhoe]

45 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

It is stunning to see US politicians labeling each other almost "new Hitler" and calling half of country's citizens "garbage". 

This meme applies;

 

[Ivanhoe]

I guess this goes here;

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-fumes-over-white-house-leak-secret-missile-plan-ny-times
 

Quote

 

Despite all the recent billions in US taxpayer monies recently sunk into Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky is fuming after key controversial aspects to his 'victory plan' pitched to Biden administration officials were leaked to The New York Times.

The following is the leaked content made public for the first time in the Tuesday NY Times piece:

In one part not made public, Mr. Zelensky proposed a “nonnuclear deterrence package” in which Ukraine would get Tomahawk missiles, a totally unfeasible request, a senior U.S. official said. A Tomahawk has a range of 1,500 miles, more than seven times the range of the long-range missile systems called ATACMS that Ukraine got this year. And the United States sent only a limited number of those, senior U.S. officials said.

On the whole, the NYT report comes off scathing and negative toward Zelensky, calling his recent tour to lobby Washington and the West in favor of his victory plan a failure. But then it comments that the plan was likely set up to fail.

 

Perhaps a sign the honeymoon is over?

 

[DKTanker]

2 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I guess this goes here;

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-fumes-over-white-house-leak-secret-missile-plan-ny-times
 

Perhaps a sign the honeymoon is over?

 

Not a sign the honeymoon is over, a sign that the powers that be don't want the war to end.  Can't allow Ukraine having leverage to bring Russia to the negotiating table before the cash cow has been milked dry.

[Stargrunt6]

3 hours ago, Mr King said:

 

Trump is breaking the GOP convention of "if they go low, we go high."

Re tariffs, my biggest concern would be with cars.  I don't want people to be forced to buy a lot of inferior domestic cars because the imports are too high.

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

13 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Trump is breaking the GOP convention of "if they go low, we go high."

Re tariffs, my biggest concern would be with cars.  I don't want people to be forced to buy a lot of inferior domestic cars because the imports are too high.

 

My understanding is that most "imports" are made in the US.

[Rick]

8 hours ago, Mr King said:

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the pandemic that China manufactures most of our prescription medications. There were shortages on many of them during the lock downs.

Generic meds.

[Ivanhoe]

6 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

My understanding is that most "imports" are made in the US.

Parts and assemblies come from all over, a lot of final assembly is in North America (CDN, US, MX).

The thing about tariffs is that they are harmful in the long run, but can be helpful in the short run if used as a foreign policy cudgel.

There's little point in imposing punitive tariffs on imports if our industrial base* isn't capable of backfilling demand.

* Industrial base being workers, infrastructure, tax and regulatory environment, etc.

[bojan]

23 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

U.S. has Florida, California and Arizona for citrus fruit.

Ascorbic acid is used in far, far, far more than Vit C pills. eg., it is probably most commonly used preservative (anti-oxidant) for food. Another thing is that US (and most other) heavily hybridized fruit has pathetically small amounts of vitamin C, since they were mostly hybridized for sweetness and size, and ascorbic acid is counter productive to both.

23 hours ago, Mr King said:

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the pandemic that China manufactures most of our prescription medications. There were shortages on many of them during the lock downs.

Both US and Europe. Even worse, even those medicines that are produced in US and Europe use mostly Chinese made precursors. And there is no going back to producing those until shit really hits a fan, it is either environmental regulations or a simple fact that US and European manufacturing of such "simple" chemicals are not economically competitive.

 

[rmgill]

The longer we go the worse it will be when it comes to a head. . 
 

However, Americans can get stuff done when push comes to shove. 

Edited October 31, 2024 by rmgill

[Tim the Tank Nut]

the other issue with these Chinese made medicines is always quality.  Consistency from batch to batch and quality control just aren't Chinese skillsets.  Whether the ability is there or not the mental capacity to make good stuff isn't there.  "If we can skim 10% of the resins out of the product and stick it to the Westerner then it's more profit for us." is just how they are.  Allowing the pharmaceutical industry to offshore is something we will eventually be very sorry for.

 

[futon]

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

The longer we go the worse it will be when it comes to a head. . 
 

However, Americans can get stuff done when push comes to shove. 

I hope so because the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea, all three of them right now are getting really tense.

[bojan]

13 hours ago, rmgill said:

The longer we go the worse it will be when it comes to a head.

I am all for every country producing at least basic medicines "in house", from bases to the final product, but I just don't see how it is going to happen, because corporations will always choose profit unless really forced to play by the extremely strict set of rules, but than it is government control of the industry.

Quote

However, Americans can get stuff done when push comes to shove. 

"Can" and "Will" are two different things.

[rmgill]

Kamala voters who are paranoid and delusional about what Trump will do…

In their own words…

 

[urbanoid]

LOL

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

On 11/1/2024 at 8:33 AM, bojan said:

I am all for every country producing at least basic medicines "in house", from bases to the final product, but I just don't see how it is going to happen, because corporations will always choose profit unless really forced to play by the extremely strict set of rules, but than it is government control of the industry.

The needle can be moved somewhat with tax incentives and such. Plus, for reasons unknown ($) USian regulators don't seem to care about QC/QA for meds manufactured overseas; either hold both domestic and foreign fab to the same low standard, or same high standard.

"Can" and "Will" are two different things.

Very true.

 

[Skywalkre]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:44 AM, Rick said:

Show me an economist that has ran a small business before becoming an economist then I will put more faith in said economist. It has been demonstrated that Trump on the economy was better than Harris/Biden on the economy. I admit to not following this as closely as you and rmgill have but from what I read most of the tariff talk is on China. 

If Trump had actually won back in '20 he still would have dealt with inflation.  No serious economist thinks inflation hit just because of the actions of the Biden administration (if that were true, does that mean they were responsible for inflation across the entire globe?  we weren't the only ones to deal with it).  The Biden administration certainly made decisions that didn't help, and are deserving of criticism for those moves, but inflation can't be thrown entirely on their shoulders.

As for the tariff talks, truth be told Trump likely hasn't put any serious thought into it because as mentioned already it's just a terrible idea (and he may legitimately not understand how they work).

Take a look at where the money comes from that the government collects.  This year the government has collected almost $5 trillion.  About 50% comes from income tax, the area he's talked about getting rid of.  Next largest source is Medicare/SS taxes at 35%.  Then corporate income taxes at about 11%.  Current tariffs aren't even 2%.

As DKTanker already pointed out tariffs are inflationary for a couple of reasons.  If you make foreign goods more expensive then the new 'cheapest' option is more expensive than what consumers were paying before.  The added pressure on those items incurs supply side issues on those manufacturers and you end up with inflation like we just had with COVID.  The amounts of tariffs Trump is talking about would also drive away imports in the long run meaning even less revenue from said tariffs.  He's floated this idea before, and economists have lambasted it before.  Some estimates were we'd be lucky to get 10% of the amount we currently get from income taxes through the tariffs he's talking about.  The joke on places like reddit is that Putin or Xi must've whispered this idea to him because it'd be a great way to bankrupt us pretty quickly.

There's also the issue that tariffs hurt consumers the most who are at the bottom since basically all their money goes towards consumption and now everything is more expensive.  All told, it's just a horrible idea.

It's a great segue into how a lot of what Trump has been pushing economically makes no sense given the supposed concern of Rs on the Hill in the last year around fiscal responsibility.  Remember all those diehard Rs who were willing to let the government default or shut down because we couldn't get our spending under control?  Trump's plans on getting rid of taxes on tips, SS, and OT (if implemented, obviously he'd need Congress' help to do this) would add $2-3 trillion onto the debt over the coming decade (this coming from a guy who says the paltry aid, amounting to something like $100 billion/year to Ukraine is somehow bankrupting us).  Then throw in this tariff idea and... it's all a recipe for disaster.

[Skywalkre]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:46 PM, rmgill said:

There's a Federal Excise tax on firearms and Ammo (FAET). 2023's revenue on JUST that sector was $1 Trillion. 

You're misreading that (shock, surprise).  That link shows FAET collected just barely over $1 billion back in '22.

[Ivanhoe]

Her eloquence is guaranteed to impress world leaders;

 

[rmgill]

Oh. Yeah. The Inflation Reduction act was one of Trump’s policies? 
 

I half wonder if sky is a proxy. 

[Rick]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

If Trump had actually won back in '20 he still would have dealt with inflation.  No serious economist thinks inflation hit just because of the actions of the Biden administration (if that were true, does that mean they were responsible for inflation across the entire globe?  we weren't the only ones to deal with it).  The Biden administration certainly made decisions that didn't help, and are deserving of criticism for those moves, but inflation can't be thrown entirely on their shoulders.

I agree with your last paragraph. Another, perhaps more realistic way of saying this is Biden made inflation worse than necessary. 

As for the tariff talks, truth be told Trump likely hasn't put any serious thought into it because as mentioned already it's just a terrible idea (and he may legitimately not understand how they work).

What tariffs against what (Chinese) products is the key question.

Take a look at where the money comes from that the government collects.  This year the government has collected almost $5 trillion.  About 50% comes from income tax, the area he's talked about getting rid of.  Next largest source is Medicare/SS taxes at 35%.  Then corporate income taxes at about 11%.  Current tariffs aren't even 2%.

Thank you for the chart. Now for a complimentary one for you. 

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending 

We have a spending problem, not an income problem.

As DKTanker already pointed out tariffs are inflationary for a couple of reasons.  If you make foreign goods more expensive then the new 'cheapest' option is more expensive than what consumers were paying before.  The added pressure on those items incurs supply side issues on those manufacturers and you end up with inflation like we just had with COVID.  The amounts of tariffs Trump is talking about would also drive away imports in the long run meaning even less revenue from said tariffs.  He's floated this idea before, and economists have lambasted it before.  Some estimates were we'd be lucky to get 10% of the amount we currently get from income taxes through the tariffs he's talking about.  The joke on places like reddit is that Putin or Xi must've whispered this idea to him because it'd be a great way to bankrupt us pretty quickly.

There's also the issue that tariffs hurt consumers the most who are at the bottom since basically all their money goes towards consumption and now everything is more expensive.  All told, it's just a horrible idea.

It's a great segue into how a lot of what Trump has been pushing economically makes no sense given the supposed concern of Rs on the Hill in the last year around fiscal responsibility.  Remember all those diehard Rs who were willing to let the government default or shut down because we couldn't get our spending under control?  Trump's plans on getting rid of taxes on tips, SS, and OT (if implemented, obviously he'd need Congress' help to do this) would add $2-3 trillion onto the debt over the coming decade (this coming from a guy who says the paltry aid, amounting to something like $100 billion/year to Ukraine is somehow bankrupting us).  Then throw in this tariff idea and... it's all a recipe for disaster.

Good points on spending. You have to start somewhere on spending and I would suggest the first would be the elimination of the Dept. of Education. Second would be the elimination of welfare to single parents.