Politics

kbd512 · 2025-04-02 11:18:11

RobertDyck,

Watch the video link I posted where Tucker Carlson is talking to Bob Lighthizer. It concisely explains President Trump's thinking, which he has thought was the underlying problem that has destroyed the American middle class since NAFTA was created. His thinking hasn't changed since he was 35 years old, which was near the start of the dismantling of American manufacturing when we started shutting down American steel mills. He's not the only American who has correctly identified how our trade policies have destroyed our middle class. Those trade policies also hurt Canadian and Mexican workers. They've made the wealthiest amongst us even more wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. 25 years ago the wealth disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class was about 30X. Today, it's 72X and growing. The American middle class, the actual workers who make things, represent about 2/3rds of the entire working age population. The wealthiest amongst us represent about 1% of the total population.

The belief amongst our leftists was that America was going to become a "knowledge economy", where everything was invented here and made overseas. For the left, especially the radical left, hard work in a factory is "icky". They have no appreciation for what it takes to provide for their lifestyles. For most people, hard work in a factory is how you earn a living wage to raise a family. That idea failed American workers, most of whom are high school graduates who don't have the money or aptitude to pursue advanced degrees. That system almost entirely benefited people with college degrees in our upper class. Most innovation occurs around manufacturing, which means you actually have to make things in order to innovate. Beyond that, our leftists don't seem to understand that relying on everyone else to make the things you need to live a reasonably good life, or endlessly manipulating them to obtain their resources or products, is yet another example of their non-working ideas.

I understood your claim about trade. Your claim does not accurately represent objective reality. The reality is that following the implementation of NAFTA, foreigners now own more of America than Americans do. Whether that was the true intent of the trade deals President Clinton made or an unintended consequence, middle class Americans have suffered the consequences of our wild trade imbalances ever since. We're fed up with the false claims of leftists such as yourself, and we're not having any more of it.

I understand that you want Canada to be treated as a special case, rather than part of the larger overall problem. That's not going to happen. This is the new thinking of American leadership. It's what we, the American workers, have been asking for, for quite some time now, but not getting much traction. It's the entire reason President Trump was elected twice. Even President Biden's administration took multiple measures to return manufacturing to America. That means regardless of who our next leaders are, they are aligned on what they must do to return prosperity to the average American worker, even while one side is bashing the man presently working towards that goal for political points. We cannot keep doing what we have been doing and expect different results.

Your are not going to get a radically different trade policy, regardless of who is in charge after President Trump leaves office. You either get it or you don't. The older members of the Democrat Party are also starting to come around to what President Trump is doing. Canada can fight this every step of the way, or accept it and move forward.

Calliban,

Do you view shutting down the few remaining British steel mills as folly as well?

If so, then reverse course, impose tariffs on imported steel, and reshore your steel manufacturing industry.

That is the entire point of the American tariffs. There will be some temporary pain along the way. We're all going to learn how to be self-sufficient again. We're making a deliberate choice that is ultimately in the best interests of the average American worker, rather than the privileged upper class, which virtually everyone on this forum belongs to.

We all claim that we believe in democracy and doing what is best for the majority. Do we, or are we only clutching at our pearls and considering ourselves?

We're trying something that's worked for us in the past, to see if it produces a better result for the average person of ordinary means and ability. People such as ourselves may not end up any better off than we were before, but if that means the majority of our people live better lives, then it's the price of general prosperity.

RobertDyck · 2025-04-02 12:41:04

Here's a nice image of Havana Cuba. An example of what you can expect in an isolated economy that does not trade with the rest of the world. No, it's not an old image from the 1950s, it's today. The few people who can afford a car are driving those, because that's all they can get.

kbd512 · 2025-04-02 14:10:32

RobertDyck,

Cuba looks that way because it's a communist dictatorship that the rest of the western world decided to quit propping up after their people deliberately chose to be communists. Their fellow communists abandoned them, in much the same way that Russia and China abandoned Viet Nam when that country refused to be a puppet state of Russia or China.

America's ever generous leadership gave Cuba's leadership a choice. Start respecting your people more and we'll help you in every possible way, or don't, in which case you're on your own. Cuba's leadership decided that brutality towards their own people was more important than the prosperity of their own people. Our offer remains on the table. Americans have no animosity towards the Cuban people, but our leadership will continue to refuse to act as willing participants in the oppression of the Castro regime.

Communists are radical leftists who ultimately destroy whatever they're given power over, because their basic idea is to make everyone a serf who exclusively serves the interests of the privileged few. Communism is the closest modern analogue to a monarchy with absolute power and no care whatsoever for the welfare of the monarch's people. That is communism in actual practice, regardless of the seductive but entirely false poisonous nonsense dripped into the heads of the young dumb college students it's taught to. The literal handful of intelligent free-thinkers who manage to learn how to think for themselves, in spite of the idiocy they're taught in school, eventually view it as the insanity that it's always been. Unfortunately, most of the people they brainwash remain as zombies until the brutal reality of communism beats the stupid out of their soft heads. The handful of "true believers" become the next generation of brutal jack-booted thugs who terrorize their fellow communists / leftists into accepting the edicts of their unintelligentsia.

Large parts of America now look like Cuba thanks to our own radical leftists, essentially communists who conceal their true nature whenever it serves their interests. When their repulsive ideology is rejected by the masses, they immediately become violent while their fellow communists in politics and media whitewash their violent outbursts directed at their fellow citizens. Ordinary Americans have grown tired of their behavior. We're plotting a new course for our people, so that ordinary Americans can enjoy the prosperity that their ancestors enjoyed.

Edit:

Cuba mainly exports nickel, cane sugar, cigars, fuel, beverages, metallic ores, fish, cement, oil and thyroid extract. Cuba’s main exports partners are Venezuela, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, France, Ivory Coast, Brazil, Russia and Italy.

Since Cuba exports products to Canada, maybe you, as a Canadian, can tell me why Cuba's free trade with Canada hasn't made Cubans prosperous enough to buy new cars. Better yet, maybe you can tell me why you made a false claim about a country that Canada trades with.

Edit #2:
Cuba exports around $2B worth of goods and services and imports $8B to $10B worth of goods and services, so that really doesn't lend any credibility to your argument about trade deficits not hurting the local economy, does it?

Trading Economics - Cuba Exports

I look forward to reading your reasoning behind your false attribution of Cuba's economic situation to "not engaging in free trade". On the contrary, Cuba's trade policy appears remarkably similar to the trade policy of the US, with equally disastrous results.

Last edited by kbd512 (2025-04-02 14:39:22)

RobertDyck · 2025-04-02 15:17:44

So Trump made his speech. Again he lied. He has the best lies, the biggest lies, huge!!! Again he claims Canada "rips off" America by $200 billion per year. So reality...
Office of the United States Trade Representative: Canada Trade Summary

U.S. total goods trade with Canada were an estimated $762.1 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to Canada in 2024 were $349.4 billion, down 1.4 percent ($5.0 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from Canada in 2024 totaled $412.7 billion, down 1.4 percent ($5.9 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $63.3 billion in 2024, a 1.4 percent decrease ($926.9 million) over 2023.

So this means the trade deficit is $63.3 billion per year. Total trade is $762.1 billion.

Trump claimed Canada charges 250% to 300% for dairy. That is also not true. Canada charges no tariff what so ever on US dairy, as long as quantity remains below an agreed amount. Last year (2024) the US exported
CTV News: Fact check: What Trump doesn’t mention about Canada’s dairy tariffs

Canada is also the second-largest U.S. export market for dairy, purchasing about US$1.1 billion worth in 2024. That figure has grown steadily over the past decade, from about US$625.5 million in 2015.

If the US were to dump so much dairy into Canada, it would destroy the Canadian dairy industry, then higher tariffs apply. Those limits are detailed in the USMCA. But the limit is so high that the US has never gotten close.
FactCheck.org: Trump’s Misleading Claim on Canadian Dairy Tariffs

CBC News: What Trump gets wrong about Canada-U.S. dairy trade

What did the U.S. gain from Canada in dairy trade?
Under CUSMA, Canada provides new tariff rate quotas exclusive to the United States.
The U.S. gained more market access in Canada for its products, with Canada agreeing not to apply tariffs on certain amounts of U.S. dairy product imports per year such as:
Fluid milk.
Cheese.
Cream.
Skim milk powder.
Butter and cream powder.
Concentrated and condensed milk.
Yogurt and buttermilk.
Powdered buttermilk.
Products of natural milk constituents.
Ice cream and ice cream mixes.
Other dairy.
Whey.
Canada also eliminated two milk price classes and guarantees that the price of skim milk solids used to produce non-fat dry milk, milk protein concentrates and infant formula will be set no lower than a level based on the United States price for non-fat dry milk.
Canada also committed to adopt measures designed to limit the impact of any surplus skim milk production on external markets.

Trump doesn't like supply management in Canada. That makes me uncomfortable as well, but it highly political. If any Canadian politician in Quebec or Ontario tried to get rid of it, that would be the end of his political career.

Calliban · 2025-04-02 15:26:55

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
Do you view shutting down the few remaining British steel mills as folly as well?
If so, then reverse course, impose tariffs on imported steel, and reshore your steel manufacturing industry.

I regard the shutting of the UKs remaining blast furnaces as an unmittigated disaster. Russian and Ukrainian pig iron is no longer available for import. So closing these furnaces means increasing reliance on China. That is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is the impending collapse of the Chinese economic system as their workforce shrinks away over the next decade. Imagine how stupid it would have been to have closed a blast furnace back in 2019, because it was marginally cheaper to import iron from Ukraine. That would have gone down in history as a terrible decision. Yet, we seem poised to do exactly that, having learned nothing from five years of supply chain disruption.

I think your point about supporting local industries is correct. Having regional self-sufficiency is a sensible goal. There are arguments about economies of scale in support of globalisation, which are valid enough. But there are other considerations that need to be accounted for when considering the benefits and disbenefits of allowing products to be produced by multinational companies based on short term economic decision making. The distribution of wealth is just as important as the total wealth generated. How much difference would an extra million dollars make to Warren Buffet's life? And reliance on home industry reduces geopolitical risks to supply chains. Another benefit to fostering home industries is maintaining technological expertise. A nation cannot be at the forefront of metallurgical science without a metal industry. So I am fully onboard with Trump's strategic aims of rebuilding US industry. Even if it does nothing to increase GDP, it has other important benefits. If tariffs on China and Europe are needed to achieve that, so be it.

My question is specifically about the wisdom of imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico. I will admit that most of my thinking has been shaped by the podcasts produced by Peter Zeihan, who many people have mixed feelings about. But he makes some very good points about manufacturing needing labour at different price points and skill levels. Manufacturing has the advantage of paying good wages to people engaged in high end processes, like chip development. But do you really want to be employing Americans on $5/hr in product assembly? Those are the sorts of low income jobs that can be done in unskilled countries. To produce finished goods, intermediate products often have to cross multiple borders. It may be possible for workers in the US to fulfil all points on the supply chain. But is it desirable?

On the specific case of Canada. The US and Canadian economies are highly integrated. Canada has a population 1/9th that of the US and is full of minerals, oil resources and lumber that would appear to me to be very useful. It is hard to see the Canadian economy stealing that many jobs from the US. There aren't really enough Canadians for that to be a major concern. And it supplies a lot of what is needed for North American reindustrialisation. So tariffs against Canada would seem to make American reindustrialisation harder. The timing is bad as well. The Chinese dominate global materials processing capacity and their capabilities are going to disappear. Canada could help fill that gap. So how does it make sense raising tariffs against Canada if the object is to rebuild US manufacturing?

Last edited by Calliban (2025-04-02 15:49:45)

RobertDyck · 2025-04-02 15:36:36

Trump said "for some reason" income tax was created in 1913. The reason was World War 1. The US didn't enter the war until 1917, but income tax was created to prepare.

Canada entered World War 1 in 1914 when Britain entered the war. However, Canada didn't introduce income tax until 1917. The Canadian bill that created income tax was the "Temporary War Income Tax Act". I like to point out the acronym spells TWIT Act. I have a copy of a letter from the Canadian Finance Minister who created income tax, begging future Finance Ministers to get rid of it. It was supposed to be temporary for the war only. But cost of WW1 was so great it wasn't paid off until 1939. WW2 started in 1939, so income tax could be abolished. No Canadian federal government even tried to pay down the debt after WW2 until Paul Martin became Finance Minister in 1993. The election was October 1993, but the cabinet ministers were sworn-in the first working day of January 1994. I could complain about how Canadian governments have screwed that up since 2006, but that's Canadian politics.

If Trump wants to get rid of income tax, tariffs aren't the way to do it. Reduce government spending, eliminate the deficit and create a surplus that can be used to make payments against the debt. That's how. When the debt is reduced significantly, interest payments will come down. That will free more money that can be used to make larger payments against, the debt, so interest payments come down faster. Eventually government could restore some of the spending that was cut, but be careful. Politicians will want to restore it all, and it cannot be fully restored ever, or government will go right back into deficit. In the early 2000s (2001 to 2006) Paul Martin split the government surplus between further payments against the debt, new spending, and tax cuts.

RobertDyck · 2025-04-02 17:27:12

YouTube video from CBC News: Is Trump right about Canada charging 250% tariffs? | About That
12 minute, 55 second video. Very clear and simple. Canada bought so much dairy from the US, only Mexico bought more. Canada bought US$1.14 billion last year. Yet, not a single dollar was paid in tariff. Not one penny.

kbd512 · 2025-04-02 17:28:29

Calliban,

A country that cannot make its own steel products for construction can hardly be described as self-sufficient. There are clearly other considerations at play besides the absolute lowest cost achievable, such as not handing money over to countries like Russia and China, which are exclusively run by people who engage in bad faith business practices. What happens to the UK's defense industry, for example, when they cannot make their own steel forgings? How many times do the lessons of WWI and WWII need to be re-learned?

I don't want to employ Americans at $5 per hour to make things, but our Democrats recently imported 10 to 15 million people who can't speak English, but also need jobs in order for them to become a net benefit to our economy. I never agreed to that, they just did it without our consent, which is one of many reasons why they were booted out of office. My hope is that these illegals will become American citizens, be paid a living wage after going through the process of learning the language and marketable skills, and that the tariffs being imposed will cut the anti-social business practices of our wealthy elites off at the knees, so that these new prospective Americans can also live long and prosper from the American experiment.

Do I think it's desirable to pay one of my fellow American workers more money for his or her high quality labor / product so that he or she can afford to raise a family and own their own home?

Let me think about that... Yes, I believe that's exactly what I've wanted for quite some time now. I'm writing this on an Apple computer that was made in 2010. If it cost me $3,000 vs $1,500, but the end result was that I handed my money over to my fellow Americans, rather than Chinese people jumping off the roof of Apple's FoxConn factory in China because their living conditions are so horrific, then I can live with that. I won't lose any sleep over the fact that I have fewer meaningless choices, or can't afford to buy a new computer the instant a newer model arrives in stores.

Peter Zeihan's beliefs about the tariffs are indelibly colored by his politics. He still thinks America should be involved in Globalism 2.0. He runs his own little program in his mind, which auto-deletes any evidence that disagrees with his beliefs, because he's a leftist. Leftists have only two factory default responses to any scrap of information that disagrees with their inner monologue about the way the world works. They either totally ignore the information, or they totally freak out.

Take RobertDyck, for example:

What is he so upset about? He routinely voices his utter disdain for America and Americans, and blames American influence for what his country's politicians do or don't do. You'd think he'd be thrilled that America and Canada are going to run their own separate programs. His country is finally getting the opportunity to prove just how superior they are to Americans. He tells us all the time how great Canada is. This is the perfect opportunity for him to put his money where his mouth is. He can continue to be "all Canadian, all the time", with no undue influence from yucky Americans. I would think he'd be stoked. What is he doing instead? He's whining endlessly about President Trump. He can't think of anything else more important to do with his time than to complain about something that is unlikely to ever affect him.

Canada can't help rebuild American manufacturing, and neither can Mexico. Only America can rebuild American manufacturing. The smarter people in the room have already seen the writing on the wall and decided to get with the program, rather than fight tooth and nail against it. I want Canada to rebuild Canadian manufacturing for Canadians. I want Mexico to rebuild Mexican manufacturing and agriculture for Mexicans. These are not mutually exclusive end goals. The people of all nations can benefit from maintaining their own self-sufficiency.

America is not moving towards yet another form of co-dependence. We're all going to have to stand on our own two feet, for the good of everyone, but especially our rapidly deteriorating middle class, which was historically the labor force, thus the true engine of our economies, and the creators of the next generation of works and innovators.

Is this self-sufficiency idea really so scary to everyone else? If so, why?

Calliban · Yesterday 03:37:31

kbd512 wrote:

Is this self-sufficiency idea really so scary to everyone else? If so, why?

The larger a country is in terms of population and quality of natural resource base, the easier it is to become self sufficient. Other things come into it too. A country with a younger demographic has a larger domestic market. Internal geography and the ease of transportation between provinces is also important. The US is fairly well positioned to reshore a large chunk of its manufacturing needs. Canada is far less so. The UK is somewhere in between. Canada has the following problems:

1) A smaller population.
2) Population spread across a huge geographic area, with difficulty shipping goods between provinces. This is why Alberta ends up trading more with the US than the rest of Canada.
3) An older demographic, with a much smaller consumer market.

That said, Canada does lead the world in some specific technologies and has huge natural resources. But exploiting these resources is often complicated by accessibility. So Canada is going to remain far more dependant on international trade than the US. That is how it looks to me.

So if US Canadian trade is diminishing, I think the liklihood is that Canada will look to establish closer trading relationships with other countries. It won't solve all of their problems, but it would be easier than trying to go it alone. Difficulty of trade between provinces is a tough problem to solve because of the sheer size of Canada and the tough geography that it has. More and better railways perhaps? Capsule pipelines?

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 03:56:46)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 04:02:19

Well, Trump's big announcement was a giant nothing-burger for Canada. No new tariffs. That's good. Auto tariffs have so many exceptions, will there be any? All car manufacturers in Canada are American. The two bus manufacturers I mentioned in my city are Canadian. Well, were. When I worked for New Flyer in 1992 they were bought by a Dutch firm. In 1974/'75 a Canadian manufacturer produced a car. Factory in New Brunswick. I thought it was beautiful, but they didn't make a go of it. Canada and US auto industry are so integrated it's practically impossible to separate them. And specialization means reduced cost for everyone. Larger market, good for everyone. Hopefully it means no tariffs.

Softwood lumber keeps coming up. When George W. Bush was president, the US imposed heavy tariffs. That was in violation of the NAFTA. The US found they couldn't produce enough lumber to fulfill the US market, they had to import lumber from Europe. Because shipping across an ocean is expensive, that cost more. Stupid idea. Canada has vast forests.

USGS forest map:

Canadian forests:

Void · Yesterday 09:19:02

You have not included the Aspin Parklands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_parkland
Image Quote:

A little of that in Minnesota as well: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/biomes/tallgrass.html
https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involv … kull-lake/
Image Quote: MRCC050810_F034_4000x2200.jpg?crop=0%2C0%2C4000%2C2200&wid=4000&hei=2200&scl=1.0

Temperate Savanah, I guess.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 09:26:37)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 12:44:54

kbd512,
Wikipedia: Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

The Tariff Act of 1930, commonly known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, was a highly protectionist trade measure that was signed into law in the United States by President Herbert Hoover on June 17, 1930. Named after its chief congressional sponsors, Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, the act significantly raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods in an effort to shield American industries from foreign competition during the onset of the Great Depression, which began in 1929. The act was a major factor in the reduction of American imports and exports by 67% during the Depression.
Hoover signed the bill against the advice of many senior economists, yielding to pressure from his party and business leaders. Although intended to bolster domestic employment and manufacturing, the tariffs instead exacerbated economic difficulties. Many of America's trading partners retaliated with tariffs of their own, leading to a sharp decline in global trade. U.S. exports plummeted, worsening the depression rather than alleviating it. Economists and historians widely regard the act as a policy misstep that deepened the global economic crisis of the 1930s. It contributed to a broader shift in U.S. trade policy, ultimately paving the way for more liberal trade agreements, including the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

Calliban · Yesterday 14:39:02

On the topic of economic localism:
https://www.amazon.com/Conserver-Societ … 856492761/

I read Ted Trainer's book in my early 20s. That was over 20 years ago!

Trainer is a radical environmentalist. He presents a vision of a sustainable society achieved by simplifying the economy, adopting low consumption of disposible goods and generally making as much as possible locally. This means towns growing most of their own food using horticulture and sourcing water locally. Sewage is dealt with locally using anaerobic digesters, with the water and sludge used to fertiluse the same ground the food came from. Most goods will be produced locally, within the town itself. The townsfolk would establish comittees that will look for ways of replacing imports with locally produced goods. Goods will be designed for repairability and long life. This reduces the amount of manufacturing needed.

I would recommend the book. I think Trainer's vision of self-sufficient towns is rather extreme. It would mean living simpler and much poorer lives. But in real life, a spectrum of solutions is possible. It is certainly possible for a nation of 1million+ people to be self-sufficient in basic goods. High-tech goods that require a lot of engineering are more difficult. But it would still be possible for a nation like Canada to produce basic cars, mobile phones, computers and even aircraft. They may not be as capable as globally available models, or as cheap. But it could be done. Maybe this is the way to go from now on. It would save a lot of natural resources. But it would inevitably mean less specialisation and lower wages.

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 14:53:19)

kbd512 · Yesterday 14:56:48

RobertDyck,

Total freak-out to giant nothing burger in the span of a day. Try to imagine all the other things you could've done with that 24 hours of your life that you're never getting back. You could've worked on your large ship design, caught up on some sleep, spent some quality time with your girlfriend, or even read a good book. Any of those things would've been a better use of your time. We already went through 4 years of total freak-outs over President Trump that were, in the end, only giant nothing burgers. This is how you burn-out your emotional response center. If you go from total freak-out mode to giant nothing burger mode with every news cycle, you're going to lose your mind.

My father, who was also a life-long Democrat until relatively recently, spent many days losing his cool over President Biden?

For what?

I wasn't half as upset over President Biden's follies as he was. I think President Biden was unfit because he couldn't remember who he was, where he was, or what he was doing, and everybody kept lying about what was so obvious to any child casually observing him. Old age was unkind to him, but it's unkind to everyone in different ways.

Chill out already. The world is changing because it has to change, or the results will be even worse if it doesn't. Trying to endlessly delay the inevitable won't stop it from happening. Eventually, the piper has to be paid.

Calliban · Yesterday 15:06:22

Gail Tverberg makes the case that the global trading system is fracturing due to resource depletion. This happens because reductions is energy consumption tend to undermine the benefits offered by international trade.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2025/03/31/a … -collapse/

Void · Yesterday 16:26:32

A very nice post Calliban.

While working for a couple of large corporations for a total of 40 + years, I noted that with each new big boss guy, their always had to be a new cunning plan. Sometimes it seemed even to flip flop.

But what you have said, is about similar to ranching grass eating animals. When one pasture gets overused, you then have to find another or get less wealthy.

An example of interest I am looking at just now is the Anaconda Desert in Chile. I am thinking that if you can overcome the lack of water, then the clockwork nature of solar there might make it relatively energy efficient as for the productivity of the solar energy. The ability to get water from the sea is said to have improved quite a lot because of the efforts from Israel. I know that you frown on solar in general, but if it is what is available, then predictability is valuable. I expect that a place that gets little rain has almost clockwork like solar. It will be seasonal, but you will know that probable hours of sunshine, so you could save on battery or other types of storage.

So, I don't necessarily see a poverty stricken world, but a changed one.

Hope you don't mind my post.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 16:31:54)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 16:31:38

bafkreib2n3vfznyruflvxr2fpinwe3tsdzpdcvhe3upi25rw4egnnkwud4@jpeg

Void · Yesterday 16:38:43

You made me look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

As we are in a simulation I did some math. 1837 + 85 = 1922 and 1922 + 85 = 2007.

1492 + 512 = 2004.

1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2>>>>>>>>>>1 or 0

Oh well, it's not the worst simulation imaginable.

A teacher once told our class that power switches east to west and back again every 500 years.

Ending Pending

I use the number 85 as the duration of a saeculum for the 4th turning, and I also believe in a flip-flop of saeculum, so that you have a + and a - period. They are inverse.

We shall see. My intuition says that it may not be appropriate to emulate what was done after WWII.

So, perhaps even to some extent the inverse of that.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 16:54:55)

kbd512 · Yesterday 16:41:51

Calliban,

I read the article and the comments. The sky is forever falling with Gail Tverberg and her ilk. All they're really telling us is that they're worthless at solving problems. They're great at pointing out problems and complaining, but offer no solutions. Solutions require hard work and ingenuity, and they don't want any part of that.

kbd512 · Yesterday 16:45:50

RobertDyck,

Tell us why Canada has 200%+ tariffs on certain products.

If tariffs are so terrible when America imposes them, how do they benefit Canadians when Canada imposes such tariffs?

Edit:
This is not a rhetorical question. I want an honest answer about why Canada imposes tariffs on certain products. If the answer is, "because it protects our local industry so that we continue to have a local industry for reasons of self-sufficiency and providing jobs to our own people", then you understand full well why President Trump is doing what he's doing, and take no issue with the practice when Canada is doing it.

Last edited by kbd512 (Yesterday 17:38:54)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 21:21:38

kbd512,
Canada imposes 0% tariffs on dairy from the US. There is a limit: if the US were to dump vast quantities of dairy that put the Canadian dairy industry out of business, then high tariffs would apply. But the US has never exported that much or even got close. US cheese got close last year, but did not exceed the limit, so absolutely no tariff.

As I explained earlier, there's an example why. In 2003 one cow tested positive for Mad Cow disease. The accusation was the animal came from Canada, so importantion of all cattle from Canada was banned. An investigation was done, the infected animal came from a farm in Washington State, not Canada. But restrictions on Canada remained in place. To this day any Canadian cattle alive at that time cannot be imported to the US. This demonstrates dependence on the US is not safe. Some trade is good, but Canada must have enough domestic production that if all imports from the US were cut off, we would be fine. So there's a limit. But again, the US has never exceeded those limits. In fact, although US cheese got close, no other US dairy got anywhere near to those limits.

So again, zero tariff.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 21:46:03

Canada does not take jobs from the US. As I explained, when US car manufacturers wanted to sell cars in Canada, Canadian regulators required a factory in Canada to make cars for sale in Canada. That was at the time of a model-T Ford. But then they integrated manufacturing. I gave a long-winded explanation earlier; if you want more, read it. Cars and parts are sent both ways across the border. Canadians are not taking car manufacturing jobs from the US.

kbd512 · Yesterday 23:22:40

RobertDyck,

The Fulcrum - Business Democracy - Just the Facts: Canadian Tariffs

Before President Trump took office, what tariffs did Canada impose on U.S. goods, and what percentages were there on various products exported to the US?
Before January 1st, Canada had tariffs on certain U.S. products, primarily in sectors protected under its supply management system. These included:
Dairy Products: Tariffs ranged from 200% to 300% on items like milk, cheese, and butter to protect Canadian dairy farmers.
Poultry and Eggs: Similar high tariffs were applied to chicken, turkey, and eggs.
Grain Products: Some grains faced tariffs, though these were generally lower than those on dairy and poultry.
These tariffs were part of Canada's long-standing trade policies to support domestic industries.
...
In 2023 and 2024, was the amount the U.S. imported from Canada greater or less than what the U.S. exported to Canada…i.e., What is the level of trade imbalance?
In both 2023 and 2024, the United States imported more from Canada than it exported to Canada, resulting in a trade deficit:
2023: U.S. exports to Canada totaled approximately $354.4 billion, while imports from Canada were about $418.6 billion, leading to a trade deficit of $64.3 billion.
2024: U.S. exports to Canada were around $349.4 billion, and imports from Canada reached $412.7 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $63.3 billion.

Let's carry this trade imbalance forward for a decade... $600B is an enormous amount of money. Persistent trade deficits drain the wealth and jobs out of an economy, which is precisely what has been done to working class Americans, and we're tired of it.

The Fulcrum - Governance and Legislation - Trump's Trade Deficit

QUESTION: Has the overall United States trade deficit increased or decreased in the last 4 years?
The U.S. trade deficit has increased over the last four years.
Here's a brief overview:
2020: The trade deficit was $-626.39 billion.
2021: It increased to $-858.24 billion.
2022: The deficit rose further to $-971.12 billion.
2023: The trade deficit continued to grow, reaching $-1,030 billion. Up 31%
This is roughly a 64% increase.
The trade deficit has been widening due to a combination of factors, including increased imports and relatively slower export growth.

To reiterate, we're sick of the wealth being drained out of America to prop up the economies of other nations. 10 trillion dollars over 10 years is equivalent to 40% of our nation's entire annual GDP, for every 10 years we keep participating in this insanity. The entire US GDP is 25 to 28 trillion dollars per year. That problem will not be solved by continuing to do what we've always done, so we're trying something different.

As I explained to you before, with regards to the motor vehicle issue, shipping cars and parts, hundreds or even thousands of miles, when they could be made locally just as easily, is one of the reasons why we burn so much fuel every year. Shipping tens of millions of cars half-way around the world was and is a dumb idea. Shipping heavier but much lower value goods like pig Iron is an even dumber idea, but right now we're doing that as well. Fuel is not so cheap and plentiful anymore, specifically because we've done things like that for decades. It's either time to acknowledge the limits of our energy resources, or it's time to build massive hydrocarbon fuel synthesis plants so that fuel is as cheap and plentiful as it was back in the 1960s.

Calliban · Today 04:31:23

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
I read the article and the comments. The sky is forever falling with Gail Tverberg and her ilk. All they're really telling us is that they're worthless at solving problems. They're great at pointing out problems and complaining, but offer no solutions. Solutions require hard work and ingenuity, and they don't want any part of that.

There is plenty of truth in that. Gail's message board seems to attract people that hate the world and want it to burn so that they can each live as king of the ashes. They are openly hostile to anyone that turns up wanting to talk about solutions. It is what turned me against the whole peak oil crowd during the 2007 - 2009 crash. In 2005, conventional oil production peaked. The price of oil went to $140/barrel. It did cause a severe recession. The doomers were ecstatic that the system they loathed was crashing down. They were disappointed when enterprising engineers developed tight oil in the Permian and prevented the world from turning into a Soylent Green distopia. I thought saving the world was the whole point of participating about peak oil discussions. Apparently, I was wrong.

I stopped talking to these people some time ago because they just aren't interested in doing anything proactive. We saw the same thing a decade earlier with the whole Y2K issue. A problem was identified. Doomers formed fan groups talking about the end of civilisation and how to position themselves to rule in a road warrior future. The time came, 1999 turned into 2000. The world didn't end because behind the scenes, people had actually prepared and fixed the problem. The doomers were actually disappointed that their cult had lost its disaster.

I still read Gail's board because she does, in spite of her following, have a good grasp of the energy problem hanging over industrial civilisation. But I don't go there looking for solutions. I come here instead.

Last edited by Calliban (Today 04:35:49)

Calliban · Today 04:52:24

I think one of the reasons these sorts of trade imbalances occur, is that competitive advantages shift. But asset inertia tends to lock trading relationships in place. Another big problem is demographic ageing. Countries with older populations can still produce a lot of stuff, but their consumer bases have shrunk relative to what they were in previous decades. This tends to create trade imbalances with export surpluses in the exporting country and trade deficits in the younger, consuming country. The US has a younger demographic than most of its trading partners. Hence the imbalance.

There really aren't any easy solutions to this because population structures evolve slowly. US tariffs are terrible news for net exporting countries with older demograpics. It means that the market that these countries depend on has disappeared. But of course, tariffs have only bought doomsday forward. Countries with ageing demographics are dying. Unless they can somehow reverse the demographic decline with pro-natal policies, their days are numbered. If they can, then their own internal markets will slowly recover. So in the long run, Trump's tariffs may be viewed by history as a bitter but necessary medicine that forced exporting nations to confront internal problems. But the road to recovery will be long and painful. It takes less than a day to make a car for export. But it takes thirty years to grow a man.

Last edited by Calliban (Today 04:55:45)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2901 2025-04-02 11:18:11

Re: Politics

#2902 2025-04-02 12:41:04

Re: Politics

#2903 2025-04-02 14:10:32

Re: Politics

#2904 2025-04-02 15:17:44

Re: Politics

#2905 2025-04-02 15:26:55

Re: Politics

#2906 2025-04-02 15:36:36

Re: Politics

#2907 2025-04-02 17:27:12

Re: Politics

#2908 2025-04-02 17:28:29

Re: Politics

#2909 Yesterday 03:37:31

Re: Politics

#2910 Yesterday 04:02:19

Re: Politics

#2911 Yesterday 09:19:02

Re: Politics

#2912 Yesterday 12:44:54

Re: Politics

#2913 Yesterday 14:39:02

Re: Politics

#2914 Yesterday 14:56:48

Re: Politics

#2915 Yesterday 15:06:22

Re: Politics

#2916 Yesterday 16:26:32

Re: Politics

#2917 Yesterday 16:31:38

Re: Politics

#2918 Yesterday 16:38:43

Re: Politics

#2919 Yesterday 16:41:51

Re: Politics

#2920 Yesterday 16:45:50

Re: Politics

#2921 Yesterday 21:21:38

Re: Politics

#2922 Yesterday 21:46:03

Re: Politics

#2923 Yesterday 23:22:40

Re: Politics

#2924 Today 04:31:23

Re: Politics

#2925 Today 04:52:24

Re: Politics

Board footer