Politics

RobertDyck · 2025-07-10 10:02:49

Calliban,
I don't know if I should say this on the internet, but those with technical nuclear knowledge already know it. You don't need enriched uranium to make a bomb. A bomb can be made with pure plutonium. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was uranium, but the one dropped on Nagasaki was plutonium. Spent fuel rods from a reactor contain plutonium. Low enriched uranium is mostly U-238, which will not fission. But if an atom of U-238 is hit by a moderated neutron, it will absorb it to become U-239. That decays in two steps over days to become Pu-239. That is fissile, and can be separated. Some of the Pu-239 will be split (consumed) in the reactor, but it can be done. A commercial power reactor isn't as efficient as a military breader reactor, but again it can be done. Ukrainian nuclear engineers are very knowledgeable, and Ukrainians in general have proven themselves to be very resourceful during this war.

tahanson43206 · 2025-07-10 10:17:55

For RobertDyck re #2976

The Russians took over at least one commercial reactor. That may be the reason they took that action, aside from disrupting supply of power to the victim population.

I don't know how many reactors Ukraine has, so Russia probably doesn't control all of them, but the many attacks by drones and missiles are surely having a negative effect.

It's amazing to me that Ukraine is putting up the level of fight they are, but they are (apparently) part of the same stock that comprise most of the population of Russia. I assume that if it is possible at all, there must be people in Ukraine working on this. The people of Ukraine have reason to be ** very ** unhappy with Russia.

(th)

kbd512 · 2025-07-10 10:31:02

RobertDyck,

If you question whether or not you should state something in an open forum, then maybe you shouldn't. We don't discuss making weapons of mass destruction on this site, whether chemical, biological, or nuclear. Discussion of using nuclear materials for peaceful purposes is fine and ultimately necessary for space exploration.

Edit for clarification:
Discussing what course of action you think the Ukrainians should take to defend their nation is fine, but posting details about making weapons of mass destruction is not.

Last edited by kbd512 (2025-07-10 10:37:06)

RobertDyck · 2025-07-10 11:02:20

I don't know nut'in more 'bout nuclear weapons than I posted. That it.

Reactors as of Mar 4, 2022. Zaporizhzhia has been been occupied by Russians and shut down. Coolant water was from the reservoir that drained when the dam was blown. Obviously which areas are occupied by Russian troops has changed. But it shows where the reactors are. There was one nuclear power plant under construction in Crimea before the invasion in 2014, but obviously the invasion halted construction. Ukraine is having trouble generating enough electricity to power homes, apartments, businesses, etc. Most of Ukraine's thermal power plants (coal burning) have been destroyed.

RobertDyck · 2025-07-10 17:10:49

Trump is at it again. This time he threatens a 200% tariff for any pharmaceuticals that do not move manufacturing to the US. Australia exports $2 billion to the US each year, one of their top 5 exports. But in Canada, pharmaceutical manufacture crosses the border 2 or 3 times before reaching patients. In 2018, Canadians spent $725 per year for insulin, while Americans spent $3,490, according to the Mayo Clinic. There is no way Canada can let the US dictate terms. If Trump really wants to do this, then Canada will have to find other partners to make pharmaceuticals, and American drugs can get more expensive.

Australia is making a big harry deal. Canada's new Prime Minister is quietly negotiating, creating carve-outs for Canada. But mostly it means Canadian manufacturers must find alternate partners, not US partners. We won't move anything to the US. Again, at the price US charges, there's no way.

Details: Canada has shorter patent periods for pharmaceuticals. That means generic copies can be made sooner. Part of the NAFTA negotiation was to force Canada to increase the patent period, but Canada never did increase it as much as the US. In Canada, it's illegal for a drug manufacturer to give kick-backs to pharmacists, and that is strictly enforced. One scheme is name-brand drug companies demand generic drugs removed off store shelves, and give kick-backs for sale of name-brand drugs. The large pharmacist company can get a fine, the salesman can be jailed, and the pharmacist can lose his license for years. These are the drug price regulations that I'm aware of. Canada's healthcare system does not subsidize drugs, instead prices are kept reasonable.

2015 comparison of drug prices in Canada to other countries. Again, the point is we can't let the US dictate.

::Edit:: Many Americans have imported pharmaceuticals from Canada to get reasonable prices. There are entire online pharmacies in Canada that do nothing but mail-order into the US. With US prices being 3.5 times the Canadian price, a 200% tariff will hurt Americans a lot, but in many cases the Canadian drugs will still be cheaper.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-07-10 17:20:00)

Void · Yesterday 09:46:26

I am not eager to get into a silly tit for tat conversation. To some degree it is "He said she said".

An alternate story I have heard is that Americans are charged more to create money for research. Then supposedly, the products that might have been created to some extent in America are sold at a cheaper price in other countries. Somehow this became politically possible in our country. It seems that some of our leadership wants to change that so that Americans get charged similar to other countries, and that more research money will come from other countries.

I have no idea how that is to be arranged. Perhaps Tariffs can be involved. However, I think that it is very true that whoever has the most research money can attract the best talents from around the world. So, then who will have the best research money, and how will they get it?

On America's side more young workers than Canada, per capita. P. Zeihan thinks that is important. I think that Americas market is why the Orange Man can do the tariffs. (So far).

We also have the issue of AI and extended robotics (Humanoid in many cases).

Who has the best AI might be able to create the new drugs and methods of medicines. For the moment that might be the USA, at least in part.

Robot Labor, I guess we will have to see who benefits more from it the USA or Canada.

Getting along though, Canadians have always had a bit of arrogance. It is not unnatural to favor your own group though. And we are not interested in taking away your Macaroni and Cheese, or your Teddy Bears.

But sometimes your words do smell, (Just a bit), arrogant, Robert.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 09:59:32)

kbd512 · Yesterday 10:54:00

President Trump's tariffs are intended to make it cheaper for American businesses to return manufacturing to America. All industrialized nations require robust domestic manufacturing bases. The end goal is to make America self-sufficient so that it does not need to import anything from other countries. If other nations are upset that America's government is now creating conditions favorable to American businesses manufacturing their products here in America, for consumption by Americans, that's their problem.

Rather than treating this as an opportunity to make themselves self-sufficient as well, other nations like Canada are treating it as a pissing contest with President Trump. President Biden's administration was busily implementing the same policies for microchips, munitions to feed the war in Ukraine, and other tech items we feel we need. RobertDyck is upset that Canada will ultimately need to become self-sufficient, even though Canada has the energy, raw materials, education, manufacturing base, and technology to make Canada broadly self-sufficient. It will cost more money to do, but at the end of the day Canadians will have an independent and self-sufficient nation that is uniquely Canadian and not dependent on remaining in the good graces of any other nation.

Maybe Canadians don't think that will ultimately benefit Canada, but I would like the counter-arguments for why it won't benefit Canada. I would also like those arguments from the standpoint of long-term generational prosperity- something that goes beyond the "here and now". A lot of problems have been artificially created by very short-term thinking.

America is now treating our military and economic alliances as, "Let's collaborate if all parties think they're getting fair value for whatever they contribute, or go our separate ways and remain as friends / colleagues if we don't think any particular deal is mutually beneficial."

As an American, I don't want my own fellow Americans to continue to suffer through this systematic "siphoning off of accumulated wealth". I do not want Canadians to suffer, either. I have no bone to pick with Canada or Canadians. That said, my first and most important loyalty and duty is to my fellow Americans. I cannot control how people in other nations view America's imposition of tariffs on foreign-made products. Foreign nations have imposed tariffs on American products for many decades now. If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander.

If tariffs are "good / necessary" when Canada applies them to American-made products, then they cannot be "bad / pointless" when America applies them to Canadian-made products, by that very same logic. Regardless or moral valuation on trade policies, what we're presently doing is slowly but surely draining the wealth out of America. That process will inevitably end, so whatever benefits it brought to other nations will end as well.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 13:41:49

kbd512,
I'm sorry you don't understand anything outside the lower 48 states of the US. Many Americans have that problem. The US has demanded ever increasing economic integration with Canada, and it has hurt many Canadian industries. But overall it has been beneficial to Canada's economy, because those business that survive can sell into the US. Trade has had greater benefits than harm. But now Trump wants to take away all the benefits.

Trade is always beneficial. In the middle ages, Venice was a single city-state located in a swamp at the northern end of the Adriatic Sea. They did extensive trade, and became rich because of that trade. They didn't have large farms or agricultural products to export, didn't have ores or metals, didn't have much of anything to export. All they had was trade. But they became very wealthy. That's what trade can do.

Modern industry depends on scale. Large scale allows for expensive equipment that has high up-front cost, but low operating cost and low per-unit cost. It's called "economies of scale"; large volume drives prices down. Large volumes only work if there are customers to buy that product. The US has a large market, but it's nothing compared to the rest of the planet. The US has a population of 342,092,585 while the world has a population of 8,129,256,264 as of this minute, and according to the website of the US Census Bureau. 342 million might sound large, but it's small compared to 8 billion. Even if you refuse to trade with Russia and its allies, but do continue trade with China and India, that reduces potential trade population by 143.8 million for Russia + 9.178 for Belarus + 90.6 million for Iran = 162.578 million. Russia's population today might be a little smaller due to the war and due to young men leaving to avoid the war, but it's still over 140 million. That leaves the remaining world population still close to 8 billion. Reducing your market from the world to just the US will drastically damage the US economy. You will become poor.

You claimed Canada should become "self sufficient", which means Canada would cut itself off from the rest of the world. Canada won't do that. Canada is not a vassal state of the US, Canada has been a trading partner, an equal and peer. Population of the US is 9 times Canada (not 10 times), so the US is bigger, but Canada has been a modern industrial economy for as long as industry existed. But Canada will not pay tribute to the US.

Canada is working to increase trade with other countries. As I said before, 80% of all aluminum used in North America comes from Quebec. The largest aluminum smelter is Alcoa, which has several facilities that together produce 43% of all aluminum in Quebec, and that company is 100% American owned. The second largest producer makes 27%, and Alcoa owns 75% of them. Together Alcoa controls 70% of aluminum production in Quebec. Their response to Trump's tariffs is to sell their product overseas, not to the US. Let me emphasize this point: an American company will not sell their product to the US, because of Trump's tariffs.

Canada is negotiating trade to other countries. It already has a trade agreement with Europe, and is working to increase that trade. Canada can also trade with Australia, sell oil to China, and others.

Canada has sold the vast majority of its oil to the US, at well below world market price. The US has made great profit from Canada, at Canadian expense. Halting import of Canadian oil will increase the price of gasoline at the pump. Just adding a tariff will do the same. American oil refineries are built for heavy oil, not the light oil from fracking. That's because American oil used to be heavy, but that heavy oil mostly ran out. Converting American refineries to process light oil from fracking will cost billions. That cost will be passed on to the consumer, again increasing the price of oil at the pump. And even if the US does that, total amount of oil the US produces is still not quite enough to fulfill US market demand. If you don't import oil from Canada, you'll have to get it from somewhere else. At a higher price.

Softwood lumber: The US tried to halt all Canadian softwood lumber when George W. Bush was president. They discovered the US cannot produce enough lumber to satisfy the US market. The US just doesn't have enough forests left. Forests have been cut down to clear farmland, for cities, suburbs, shopping malls, factories, other uses. Look at a map of forests in the US over time. The US has significant forests in the early 1980s, but today it's much smaller. When George W. Bush was president, blocking Canadian lumber just meant lumber had to be imported from Europe. At higher prices, plus cost of shipping across the Atlantic.

Trump is cutting the US off. But by offending military allies, and trade partners. The US will soon be isolated, weak, and poor. Putin has convinced Trump to do this, because Putin wants Russia to be the sole superpower in the world. The world must make trade deals that benefit Russia, even if that trade does not include Russia. Putin wants to militarily conquer and annex all of eastern Europe, either conquer or control central Europe, conquer and annex the Caucasus, conquer and annex central Asia. Even though none of those countries want Russia to rule them. This will be massive war. To do this, the US must stay out of the way. And the US must become an insignificant nobody for Russia to establish a worldwide hegemony. Putin has tricked Trump into doing what's necessary to do it. Trump is beginning to wake up to Putin's bullshit, but it's too slow.

You think Russia is the great saviour to protect the US from wokeism? Think again. The average working person in Russia earns $14,500 per year. They have 13% income tax, but low tax won't compensate for being poor. Working individuals in Moscow live in a small apartment. Only rich executives can afford a house. Corporate owned or government owned farms have running water and central heat, but private farms don't. They have a hand pump in the yard for water, and an outhouse. They have wood burning or coal burning stove for heat. This is what you want America to become? I'm not defending wokeism, I'm saying Russia is not your saviour.

So trade and tariffs. Negotiating with Trump is irrelevant because it doesn't matter what agreement you come to, Trump will abrogate the deal and make some new demand the very next day.

kbd512 · Yesterday 16:31:31

RobertDyck,

I'm sorry you don't understand anything outside the lower 48 states of the US.

If you think incessantly talking down to other people is going to convince others of your arguments, then you lack the ability to make intellectual arguments. Sometimes people who disagree with you are not your adversaries and for them to take you seriously, you need to demonstrate some basic level of respect for opinions you do not share.

You made no arguments about why Canada should not be self-sufficient. You showed me your fears / feelings / beliefs, tied to an incoherent comparison between Russia and America. I can't argue with any of your feelings because it's typically not very rational. You seem to think being self-sufficient equates to poverty, weakness, and isolation. Most Americans do not. You used a nation which has been a communist dictatorship for the past 100 years as your shining example of what America will become, were we to revert back to the same governance and business practices which made America prosperous following WWII. If that's the entirety of your argument, then you effectively equate American governance and economics during its most prosperous era with Russian governance and economics of the same era, where they became worse off than they were under their Czar.

If Canada had domestic manufacturing to supply its own people with the goods and services they need, "needs" being in a separate category than "wants", they would be measurably worse-off than if someone else provided most of them because...

Well, what's the reasoning here?

40 million people cannot generate economies of scale?

California's GDP is around $4T, despite a near-identical population to that of Canada. Only 16% of its economy is trade-related. There must be something more to achieving economies of scale than shipping most of the manufacturing jobs overseas. Having an infinite number of equally meaningless purchasing options at the store doesn't equate to economic prosperity.

Canada's GDP is $2T and 67% of its economy is trade-related.

How is it possible for California to have double the GDP of Canada, an almost identical population to that of Canada, much worse education, and only 1/4 the trade of the Canadian economy?

Who is trade overall beneficial to?

You guys have 4X more trade than an equally-sized population, but half the total annual wealth generation. I'm certain that the import / export business is beneficial to someone, but clearly not to the average Canadian's bottom line.

The US has demanded ever increasing economic integration with Canada, and it has hurt many Canadian industries.

Something America could not do if Canada maintained its own industries to serve its own people, first and foremost. Maybe you still don't get it yet, but I don't want America to dictate economics.

But overall it has been beneficial to Canada's economy, because those business that survive can sell into the US.

Your first sentence indicates that trade with the US has been harmful to "many Canadian industries", and in the very next sentence you assert that it's overall beneficial to the Canadian economy.

Trade has had greater benefits than harm.

For whom and under what circumstances? Pick one line of logically consistent reasoning and then stick with it. Trade benefits specific people under specific circumstances.

But now Trump wants to take away all the benefits.

How is America imposing tariffs on Canada "taking away all the benefits"?

Was Canada "taking away all the benefits" by imposing tariffs on America?

Trade is always beneficial.

These sorts of all / every / never statements are generally BS. They're more articles of faith or self-interest than universal truths.

Reducing your market from the world to just the US will drastically damage the US economy. You will become poor.

Most people in the US are already poor, specifically because American businesses were incentivized to offshore manufacturing. They were more interested in achieving those "economies of scale" than they were about whether or not their own workers had jobs to pay for the products they were making.

You claimed Canada should become "self sufficient", which means Canada would cut itself off from the rest of the world. Canada won't do that.

Why not? Comparing America with Russia is not a valid "why not". Both America and Russia traded with their allies during the Cold War. One nation invented nuclear weapons and power, transistors, microchips, personal computers, GPS, smart phones, lasers, while the other worked a lot of people to death and visited every imaginable privation on them for ideological reasons and/or to "control" their lives. In America, you can come and go at any time. In Russia you get imprisoned or shot for trying to leave your own village.

Canada is not a vassal state of the US, Canada has been a trading partner, an equal and peer.

Canada is clearly not equal to the US if somehow one American can "take away all the benefits". That said, I don't want Canada to be a vassal state of the US, either.

If Canada wants to join the Union of States, that's fine with me. If Canada were to join the US, they would be treated like any other state in the union. The character and nature of Canada would not fundamentally change, despite all the nonsense to the contrary. Texas was still Texas before and after it became part of the United States.

If Canada wants to continue to be Canada, that's equally fine with me. The real issue is Canada's declining population.

But Canada will not pay tribute to the US.

That's good to hear. I never suggested or thought that Canada should "pay tribute". I don't want us to resent each other, but it seems like you have a bone to pick with America.

Canada is working to increase trade with other countries.

Also good to hear.

The largest aluminum smelter is Alcoa, which has several facilities that together produce 43% of all aluminum in Quebec, and that company is 100% American owned. The second largest producer makes 27%, and Alcoa owns 75% of them. Together Alcoa controls 70% of aluminum production in Quebec. Their response to Trump's tariffs is to sell their product overseas, not to the US. Let me emphasize this point: an American company will not sell their product to the US, because of Trump's tariffs.

You're telling me that Alcoa values corporate profits over patriotism. Lots of corporate managers value money over their own people. If that's the type of thing you want more of, then continue supporting it and see where you end up.

Canada has sold the vast majority of its oil to the US, at well below world market price. The US has made great profit from Canada, at Canadian expense.

If you or your fellow Canadians feel they're getting a bad deal from America, then I think Canada should quit doing that. Sell your oil to the communists in China if they're offering a better price.

Converting American refineries to process light oil from fracking will cost billions. That cost will be passed on to the consumer, again increasing the price of oil at the pump. And even if the US does that, total amount of oil the US produces is still not quite enough to fulfill US market demand.

I think we'll manage.

The US tried to halt all Canadian softwood lumber when George W. Bush was president. They discovered the US cannot produce enough lumber to satisfy the US market. The US just doesn't have enough forests left.

We should start growing bamboo instead of cutting down all the remaining trees.

Trump is cutting the US off. But by offending military allies, and trade partners. The US will soon be isolated, weak, and poor.

America's allies can choose to be offended or choose to recognize that if all the trade with America results in American economic decline, it's no longer beneficial to Americans.

As far as isolation is concerned, America is no more or less isolated than Canada is. I hear lots of talk about how weak America is, all of it coming from radical leftists, and their talk is only tacit personal admission that they're weak. Poverty can be rectified by not shipping all your manufacturing jobs overseas. Everyone in America is not going to an inventor, scientists, lawyer, or medical doctor. Society is made up of all type of people, and many of them aren't going to become independently wealthy. Meanwhile, it'd sure be great if they had jobs that paid living wages to support a family with.

Putin has convinced Trump to do this, because Putin wants Russia to be the sole superpower in the world.

You and your fellow leftists have convinced yourselves that President Trump is somehow beholden to Putin or deeply cares about what Putin wants. He doesn't. He's willing to negotiate if he thinks it's in the best interest of the American people, or to walk away if the thinks it's not.

You think Russia is the great saviour to protect the US from wokeism?

As you noted, Russia can barely feed its own people. If they cannot save themselves from their own self-destructive tendencies in the leaders they elevate to positions of power, then what makes you think anyone here in America believes that Russia can "save Americans" from anything at all? Do you have any slight clue how bizarre this sounds to any real American?

Leftists living in America don't even perceive themselves as Americans, which is why they routinely burn the flag, torch their own neighborhoods, and generally act like the cretins they've always been. So that you're not forever trapped in your own three pound universe, maybe ask people what they truly think every so often before ascribing beliefs to them that they've never had. Get your information about public sentiment from average people, rather than radicals with agendas.

I'm not defending wokeism, I'm saying Russia is not your saviour.

I'm glad we both agree on this point. Russians won't save Americans from anyone or anything because they have zero ability to save themselves from their own irrationality.

So trade and tariffs. Negotiating with Trump is irrelevant because it doesn't matter what agreement you come to, Trump will abrogate the deal and make some new demand the very next day.

Canada went right back to doing what they were doing prior to his first administration, after President Biden was elected. That's why your agreements were renegotiated from the moment he took office for his second term. Canada had an agreement, they reneged on it the moment he left office, and now the terms are worse than they were to begin with. Defense obligations have been reneged on for a very long time, and now the piper (Putin) has arrived and the bill is due. Making yourself militarily "weak" in the eyes of men like Putin is to invite a war, because he's constantly calculating his odds of taking what he wants by force.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 18:50:44

YouTube: Ronald Reagan on tariffs. Click image for video.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 18:56:00

Tyler Bucket calls himself a typical American. He reacts to various videos about Canada and Canadian culture. This is more political than his usual content. Here he reacts to a letter that Trump wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Carney. Trump posted on Truth Social. Again, click image for video.

Void · Yesterday 20:56:39

I don't know the importance of the talking boy. But Reagan was to a large degree appropriate for those times. But I think he was useful, not a genius. I feel that he missed the importance of respecting the privacy of citizens, even if he was powerful. That was a fault. A very bad one. But he did his part in history and I tend to believe that when someone dies, you try not to hold grudges on them.

I am not an expert on tariffs, I am willing to see what our Orange President can accomplish. These days are not the days of Reagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o … ted_States
Quote:

The USA used tariffs historically for different purposes12:
Revenue period (ca. 1790–1860): To raise revenue for the federal government.
Restriction period (1861–1933): To restrict trade.
Reciprocity period (from 1934 onwards): To promote trade and reciprocity with other countries.

In my opinion the great depression was when the former Northern Establishment fell. The influx of stranger immigrants was simultaneous, and the beginning of the rise of the South from ashes began.

WWII Had the European Empires including the Soviet Empire bleed each other almost to death. Then we stepped in. I don't hold us in contempt for that; Europe was full of arrogant people who looked down on us anyway.

In Peter Zeihans story, we had to keep Europe out of the Soviet hands, or we would be next. So, then free trade at our expense. We had plenty being the last one standing, and it was better to be screwed over financially than to be obliterated. We had our own resources including Oil, and then we had to plunder the world for resources for the "West". It was that or die.

The Soviet Union fell, and as P. Ziehan said an empire of resources fell into the world markets.

All along the way we received contempt from the European Leftists and from Canida as well.

I believe that we were led into Viet Nam by the Europeans and then left to die there.

The so called civil rights movement degenerated into a new plantation method where descendants of former slaves were conducted into northern cities in order for Southern Hierarchy to come to drain wealth from the ghettos. And from time to time these things are stirred up to damage our interest by outsiders.

I believe that Johnson may have been evil.

But God protected us anyway, to a reasonable degree and despite the hatred of those who do not like us we have done OK.

I believe that we are in the Asian pulse and no longer in the African pulse. What was correct for the previous saeculum is not necessarily correct for this one. And so now you may understand why we desire useful relations with the Russians, China and others. To some extent Canada and Greenland might be considered colonial residue from Europe. But I would never act on that. You are developing into another America, I believe. You will not have our name or as you say are not like us, but you live on the same continent and have had and will have similar experiences.

There is a "Roman" problem. We need to be careful about this. I do not have a hatred for Italy, in fact I am beginning to appreciate them more now.

But the "Roman" problem is that the Empire was never able to assimilate that which was north of them. But they keep trying to conquer them. Over and over and over again.

Ireland-South/Scotland-North, London-South, Stockholm-North, France-South, Poland-North, Rome-South, Moscow-North, and so on. A ethnic mirror. The Hierarchal Farmer South vs. the Warrior descendants of the Yamnaya. Yes, I know there is mixing, for instance the Germans are almost equal parts of the South and the North and then also have the Western Hunter-Gatherer mixed in. But I think WWII was southern mischief. The Roman Empire was split long ago, and going to war with war peoples is about as stupid as you could be, to force the Russians to submit.

And so Canada is an echo of that. And the USA is an echo of that, but we found a way to unity. We tried to unify Europe but the dumb asses just wanted to go on a farmer conquest again.

And yes we have problems with that arm of our collective population. We have just been being patient with them if we can.

But we are withdrawing our unifying force from Europe and maybe from Canada as well.

And thing are crumbling.

Why should we give tribute to a long dead Roman Empire? One that took our peoples for slaves in history.

Brussels is in the line of the Romanoid cities, Dublin, London, Paris, Rome, Athens, Cairo. (Of these the Greeks were the most like us in history but not necessarily now.

So, if we choose to live the way we want to I think we will give it a try. And for the moment we have plenty of hammers to persuade jerks to leave us alone.

I hope you people can figure your things out in Canada OK. I don't hate you but not gonna play sucker anymore if we don't have to .

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 21:26:44)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 22:01:14

Void,
The US has been taking Canada for everything it can take for a long time. We have tried to form a fair partnership. The US has demanded all Canadian oil go to the US, and at a price far below world market price. All lumber must go to the US, and American house construction firms loved it, but US saw mills complained. US logging companies complained as well, even though the US doesn't have enough forests to provide enough lumber. Canadian lumber companies suffered greatly under tariffs and restrictions imposed by George W. With everything, the US insisted that the US benefit, that Canada get screwed. But Canada found a way to survive. Canadian large retailers got bought out or forced into bankruptcy. Well, in some cases. Eaton's was a major Canadian department store, but the 3rd generation of the family that owned it was not keeping up with new technology. The British company Woolworth was bought out by a Canadian firm in the 1960s, became a large discount retailer called Woolco. But Woolco was bought out by Walmart in 1994. Zellers was another large discount retailer, but bought out by Target, opening March 2013, closed January 2015. They really screwed up; long story.

Free trade is good for everyone, mostly for the US. It isn't a "cost", it's a benefit. It has reduced cost of goods, and increased the overall economy. Trump's tariffs have already started a recession in the US. Definition of recession is negative economic growth (shrinkage) for two consecutive quarters, so it won't be confirmed until September. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a major contributor to the Great Depression. Will the US suffer a major recession, or go into full depression? Yet to be seen.

Void · Today 10:31:28

I have been uncomfortable with some of the things that happened to the UK after WWII, I guess I have no joy if Canada, is done similar.

The Heavy Oil though, is a blessing to the USA, but we also present a market for it. It has to compete with the other inner continent energy sources.

You might think it is weird, but I hope Western Canada will make pipelines for energy to the Pacific and to the Hudson Bay. (Also part of the Pacific).

I wonder if other nations have the refineries for Heavy Oil.

It is obvious that in a war situation the USA likely could blockade this oil if Canada had for instance joined a currently not known powerful entity across an ocean. This would drop the price of energy for us as well. (Not a blockade)

It is in our interest that Canada be strong but not to be our enemy.

China is suffering an apparent fall but seems to be willing to work with the USA even with tariffs applied.
Europe is looking dark: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xZ9QQPnLlUkz/

The point is we cannot predict for sure how world politics will reform the world. Could something as dangerous as NAZI arise again? Well, I don't think we expected it last time.

A weak Canada is not in our interests. So, if Canada improves it's military and allows Oil pipelines, Natural gas pipelines, it may have useful strength then, and possibly be of use to us in defending the continent.

It was natural for Canada to like the USA when it helped to protect the British Empire. But would you like us in a different situation where the UK was on the other side, or was defunct?

Recent interactions with Canada have not been reassuring. Immediate talk of linking up with Europe and also understandable anger. But you did not pass the pinch test. How much can we trust you?

So, Orange Man revising the economics, might be needed in order to create a world where we can survive even if the old situation no longer exists.

The demographics of the world also indicate a general economic decline is likely. China and Europe may not really be able to do much more that suffer and struggle.

But the Orange Man will not hold office forever. Perhaps things will turn again after that.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Today 10:48:51)

kbd512 · Today 11:32:04

RobertDyck,

Isn't President Trump doing Canada a favor by encouraging Canada to seek more profitable trade deals with other nations?

Free trade is good for everyone, mostly for the US.

Yes, free trade has been so "good" for Americans that since offshoring of American manufacturing jobs began during the 1970s, real wages haven't increased, relative to inflation, except ever so briefly during President Trump's first term in office. We're all too stupid to notice that we're somehow getting "poorer" despite all those "cheap" goods pouring in from overseas. In other news, water is no longer "wet". Sorry, but all the pathetic attempts at "jedi mind tricks" no longer work on people who have to choose between rent, food, gas money to drive to work, and health care. Free trade has been great for rich people- just one more way to exploit desperate people elsewhere in ways they're not allowed to here in America due to labor laws. For everyone else, it's become yet another "utopia". I can buy lots of things I don't need with money I don't have, but I can't buy an appliance that lasts longer than 5 years.

When you pay your neighbor to make something you truly need (need vs want, endless choice vs meaningful choice), the benefit is that he gets to use the money to support his family, you get your coffee machine, and because his company actually makes coffee machines, any coffee machine manufacturing innovations are likely something that our fellow countrymen get to benefit from, rather than someone living in a foreign land. I don't need or want an internet connected coffee machine with 50 different settings and more lights than a Christmas tree. I could care less if it sings to me in the morning. I'm buying it because I want a hot cup of coffee in the morning. If it can do that, reliably, for the next 20 years or so, then it was something worth spending my money on. It wouldn't matter if it costs $100 vs $50 when it lasts 4X longer because it's not loaded with useless features nor made from the cheapest materials imaginable.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a major contributor to the Great Depression.

While specific overall percentages for "trade as a percentage of the economy" in 1929 are not readily available, it is clear that international trade was a relatively small part of the overall economic activity in the U.S. during that year, which saw a decline in total trade to GDP of just 6.4% on average from 1929-1970, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
While global trade declined significantly during the Great Depression, the initial year of 1929, and the period leading up to it, saw trade as a less dominant force in the U.S. economy.

Industrial production declined by 50 percent, international trade plunged 30 percent, and investment fell 98 percent.

The US didn't engage in enough trade immediately before and during the Great Depression for trade to make much difference to the overall US economy. For starters, most Americans couldn't afford imported goods. We didn't export much, either. Productive output nonetheless decreased by half and investments fell to near-zero.

This popular line of argumentation about Smoot-Hawley is frequently used to explain the worsening of the Great Depression, yet there's clear evidence that trade was never a sufficiently large part of the American economy to explain away a 10 year long event. To this day, trade continues to be a minor part of the overall US economy. The real issue is that when it comes to making things that truly matter, all the raw materials inputs required to create the machines, we largely stopped doing that.

We're not allowed to open new mines, smelters, and other heavy industry inputs required to make things in quantity. The Democrats are largely to blame for that. We tried to open a Lithium mine and they did everything in their power to prevent that. The same applies to coal, oil, natural gas, and lumber. I'm willing to meet Democrats half-way on the lumber issue by growing our own bamboo in the Southern US because I don't want all of our tress cut down, either. You won't find anyone who thinks cutting down all the trees is a good idea, except maybe the green energy advocates who want to clear-cut forests for their wind and solar projects.

Green energy tech is finally dead because they fixated on so much stuff that simply did not matter and imported all of it from overseas. They could've built solar thermal power plants that operated 24/7/365, and the fact that they used more steel and concrete would've been shrugged off as acceptable because they last for 75 years like any other thermal plant and require the type of maintenance that ordinary people can do. More electricity without having to burn something is more better, but only when you get it through sustainable means and it's boringly reliable. That's not what they did, and now there's no more money to finish the over-arching idea, because they're focused on meaningless details while ignoring the important ones.

All that potential, all the money, all that intellectual effort... squandered. That's the real travesty.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2976 2025-07-10 10:02:49

Re: Politics

#2977 2025-07-10 10:17:55

Re: Politics

#2978 2025-07-10 10:31:02

Re: Politics

#2979 2025-07-10 11:02:20

Re: Politics

#2980 2025-07-10 17:10:49

Re: Politics

#2981 Yesterday 09:46:26

Re: Politics

#2982 Yesterday 10:54:00

Re: Politics

#2983 Yesterday 13:41:49

Re: Politics

#2984 Yesterday 16:31:31

Re: Politics

#2985 Yesterday 18:50:44

Re: Politics

#2986 Yesterday 18:56:00

Re: Politics

#2987 Yesterday 20:56:39

Re: Politics

#2988 Yesterday 22:01:14

Re: Politics

#2989 Today 10:31:28

Re: Politics

#2990 Today 11:32:04

Re: Politics

Board footer