Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 02 2025 18:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Europe is trying to build up our own computer/tech sector. US tariffs on Taiwan semiconductors could be great if they stick around for a while.
I don't see where the tariffs hit Taiwan. I see mentions of Mexico, Canada and China. Is Taiwan just being lumped in with China because Trump is too ignorant to understand the difference (and with it a rather important part of US foreign policy)?
On February 02 2025 18:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Europe is trying to build up our own computer/tech sector. US tariffs on Taiwan semiconductors could be great if they stick around for a while.
I don't see where the tariffs hit Taiwan. I see mentions of Mexico, Canada and China. Is Taiwan just being lumped in with China because Trump is too ignorant to understand the difference (and with it a rather important part of US foreign policy)?
Despite being allies, he has for 40 years been publicly stating that allies also take advantage of the US economically, Japan being the main example in Asia he uses, and to a lesser extent Korea - threats of tariffs on Taiwan are related to wanting to reshore US manufacturing. The stumbling block in Taiwan's case is for example with TSMC, it's not just a case of the supply chain not making things in the US, even though it could. Rather, at the moment Taiwan is unique in being able to make some of the most advanced stuff so it would be tariffing something that can't be substituted until after domestic research/investment.
He knows China and Taiwan are different which is evident from when he criticizes China for wanting Taiwan and Taiwan for not appreciating US defense enough.
On February 02 2025 02:05 oBlade wrote: The drive of a company is to produce profits. Whether that's someone working for themselves who are their own shareholder, a family business, or a MNC conglomerate with billions invested from others paying dividends to issued stock. Capitalism drives productivity because the more productive company outcompetes the less productive one, and the more productive one earns more of said revenues -> profits.
When things go haywire, any stakeholder will turn the system to their advantage. Some monopolists like Standard Oil would be happy to beat the competition to death while extorting everyone else. You also have teachers' unions in the US opposing returning to the classroom after covid, making themselves impossible to fire due to seniority, making themselves impossible to fire despite being bad teachers or engaging in misconduct so they sat around in rubber rooms all day collecting paychecks even though they were removed from teaching. There is not an angel and devil in the management/labor tug of war. Even among those who consider others' interests, nobody is completely selfless.
Not everyone can be rich, that's a fact of life, it's not solved by making everyone equal and no one rich. Capitalism makes people less poor than the past, and than other countries.
There's a difference between making a profit, and being productive, not to mention that excess production isn't inherently good. You see this in things like shitty unhealthy food being pushed to customers, shitty consumer goods that are designed to be disposable rather than reliable, shitty software that is aimed to maximize 'engagement' rather than generate any positive outcomes for the individuals and the society.
There's no evidence that capitalism makes people less poor. Technological progress makes people less poor, and capitalism certainly isn't a requirement for technological progress to happen.
On February 02 2025 09:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Nice moves by Trump. First, he bullshits about how Canada must secure its border to stop Fentanyl when everyone knows hardly any Fentanyl comes through Canada. At the start, Trump claims the tariffs are all about better border security on its northern border. Its total BS. Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada takes Trump's blapping as true and real. Then, Canada beefs up its border hoping to prevent tariffs. After the improved border security is in place Trump reveals his cards. Tariffs are all about lowering the trade deficit with Canada. Now, Trump can use Canada's own improved border security to stop black market Canadian products from being smuggled over the border. LOL. Well played by everyone's favourite flim flam man. Justin Trudeau got suckered. LOL. Fentanyl? you gotta be kidding me. LOLOL.
Trudeau and Ford are making bad moves now. They are not reacting correctly. They need to be the USA's best friend.
How long before sticking Canadian quarters in US vending machines becomes a crime? Soon a Canadian quarter is going to be worth less than 15 cents.
Canada used to know how to be best friends with both US Republicans and US Democrats. They lost that ability about 10 years ago. The Canadian people are about to pay a very heavy price. They voted for two guys in Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau who do not know how to deal with Republicans. It is going to get ugly in the Great White North.
It seems to me that your criteria for patting Trump on the back is if he hurts Canada/Trudeau, even if that means Trump is also hurting Americans as collateral damage.
Trump intends to improve the lives of Americans with the tariffs. He did a decent job in his first term. I'm willing to see how the tariffs play out rather than automatically assume they will be harmful. I think they'll prolly work well for the USA... however... i'll wait for the results to come in.
Canada is fucked. And, Canada has earned this. Military is important to Republicans and Justin Trudeau did not take Trump's 2% request seriously. Previous PMs and Premiers were far better at dealing with Republicans than Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford.
On February 02 2025 09:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trudeau and Ford are making bad moves now. They are not reacting correctly. They need to be the USA's best friend.
Holy Jumpin' Jesus Murphy. The USA announced that tariffs to Canada will increase if Canada retaliates.
Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau need to STFU and carefully plan their next moves.
Plenty did take that seriously and start pushing towards that 2%, didn’t stop Trump from pulling the rug on Ukraine the second he was back in.
Trump is a real critical factor here, his being a Republican is somewhat incidental. International relations is full of friction points, be they ideological or just good old-fashioned squabbling for power.
What folks generally didn’t have to contend with a President who makes huge sweeping calls with his gut, or whose relationships being frosty or friendly almost entirely depends on who he personally gets on with.
People haven’t magically lost the diplomatic arts, they’re just dealing with someone who doesn’t think long-term, doesn’t respect historic alliances and whose sole approach to diplomacy is pressure with the leverage of a power imbalance. You could throw in a more regular Republican, a Mitt Romney into that position and sure there’ll still be friction, but I’d wager folks would have a much easier time dealing with that hypothetical administration. Even if it wanted to do similar things.
Where Kremlinology was once a fine art needed to figure out what was up in the auld Soviet Union, now increasingly people are having to develop skills in Trump whispering.
Also I mean, Trudeau and Ford are Canadians last time I checked. The course of action you’re recommending is, I assume an extremely unpopular one over there with Canadians.
On February 02 2025 18:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Europe is trying to build up our own computer/tech sector. US tariffs on Taiwan semiconductors could be great if they stick around for a while.
I don't see where the tariffs hit Taiwan. I see mentions of Mexico, Canada and China. Is Taiwan just being lumped in with China because Trump is too ignorant to understand the difference (and with it a rather important part of US foreign policy)?
Despite being allies, he has for 40 years been publicly stating that allies also take advantage of the US economically, Japan being the main example in Asia he uses, and to a lesser extent Korea - threats of tariffs on Taiwan are related to wanting to reshore US manufacturing. The stumbling block in Taiwan's case is for example with TSMC, it's not just a case of the supply chain not making things in the US, even though it could. Rather, at the moment Taiwan is unique in being able to make some of the most advanced stuff so it would be tariffing something that can't be substituted until after domestic research/investment.
He knows China and Taiwan are different which is evident from when he criticizes China for wanting Taiwan and Taiwan for not appreciating US defense enough.
Yes because he just fundamentally seems to not understand things and how they actually function.
He’s consistent at least on this topic, although consistently wrong.
The US’ pre-eminent status isn’t just because it’s so great and big and powerful, it’s that it’s cultivated these alliances and made itself effectively indispensable. Even if the odd one is asymmetric, it’s a net benefit overall in preserving that status.
Trump can’t understand this, or chooses to ignore it. It’s why he’s so skeptical of the EU as well, alongside his NATO posturing, or tariffing historical allies.
He doesn’t understand that people line up with the US because they’re so powerful, influential, and they give them shit. It’s not out of some ideological alignment or viewing the US as some aspirational exemplar as was the case at times last century.
Indeed you straw poll Europeans now, or, I’d imagine Canadians and a degree of extrication from America’s influence is probably a rather desirable option for many. That’s not a win for America, especially an America that wants to upset the apple cart re China.
Hey the cards are still very much up in the air, we’ll see how things develop.
Sitting alongside this as well, you’ve Israel who are the weird exception to that pivot and just have to be backed to the hilt for, some reason. But I digress.
Although yes, I think you are correct that Trump considers Taiwan and China to be different entities, his rhetoric does seem to consistently reflect that.
On February 02 2025 18:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Europe is trying to build up our own computer/tech sector. US tariffs on Taiwan semiconductors could be great if they stick around for a while.
I don't see where the tariffs hit Taiwan. I see mentions of Mexico, Canada and China. Is Taiwan just being lumped in with China because Trump is too ignorant to understand the difference (and with it a rather important part of US foreign policy)?
Despite being allies, he has for 40 years been publicly stating that allies also take advantage of the US economically, Japan being the main example in Asia he uses, and to a lesser extent Korea - threats of tariffs on Taiwan are related to wanting to reshore US manufacturing. The stumbling block in Taiwan's case is for example with TSMC, it's not just a case of the supply chain not making things in the US, even though it could. Rather, at the moment Taiwan is unique in being able to make some of the most advanced stuff so it would be tariffing something that can't be substituted until after domestic research/investment.
He knows China and Taiwan are different which is evident from when he criticizes China for wanting Taiwan and Taiwan for not appreciating US defense enough.
Ok, so it's just all of y'all having a collective brainfart. Insofar as I can see, Trump has imposed tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. He has not imposed tariffs on Taiwan. He has threatened to do so and may only be looking for the correct legal loophole that allows him to do so, but they aren't there yet.
On February 02 2025 02:05 oBlade wrote: The drive of a company is to produce profits. Whether that's someone working for themselves who are their own shareholder, a family business, or a MNC conglomerate with billions invested from others paying dividends to issued stock. Capitalism drives productivity because the more productive company outcompetes the less productive one, and the more productive one earns more of said revenues -> profits.
When things go haywire, any stakeholder will turn the system to their advantage. Some monopolists like Standard Oil would be happy to beat the competition to death while extorting everyone else. You also have teachers' unions in the US opposing returning to the classroom after covid, making themselves impossible to fire due to seniority, making themselves impossible to fire despite being bad teachers or engaging in misconduct so they sat around in rubber rooms all day collecting paychecks even though they were removed from teaching. There is not an angel and devil in the management/labor tug of war. Even among those who consider others' interests, nobody is completely selfless.
Not everyone can be rich, that's a fact of life, it's not solved by making everyone equal and no one rich. Capitalism makes people less poor than the past, and than other countries.
There's a difference between making a profit, and being productive, not to mention that excess production isn't inherently good. You see this in things like shitty unhealthy food being pushed to customers, shitty consumer goods that are designed to be disposable rather than reliable, shitty software that is aimed to maximize 'engagement' rather than generate any positive outcomes for the individuals and the society.
I believe you're still not delineating an individual company from the system of capitalism. One is a component of the other. A piece.
Like the goal of a nation's army might be to defend the nation, to win wars.
The goal of an individual soldier this second might be to throw a grenade and blow up a guy in a tower. You can't look at that guy and go "So the goal of an army is to kill that guy? How does that defend the nation?" - a part of something is not the same as the whole thing. Zoom out for the big picture.
Yes "excess" is not good. It's in the word. It means too much. Nevertheless, you would almost always, as a citizen, individual consumer, rather have surpluses than shortages. "Productivity" and "production" are different, be careful. Productivity is essentially efficiency. You would rather have a LOT of cheap food available produced cheaply, than a LITTLE shitty food available because it can only be produced expensively. If your goal is feeding people. But even the judgment of things as "shitty" is looking down on the microeconomic choices made by humans - if their decision making is so bad that they use a shitty app - why are we to think their decision making under communism would be more reliable? Unless we're mandating what they do with no free choice.
Another one of your points seems to be planned obsolescence. (designed to be disposable rather than reliable, you said) Like appliances and so on, I presume. Some suffer a decrease in quality. Well, decrease compared to what? A few decades ago of appliances made.... under capitalism.
Some companies might focus on short term greed over long term interests. They suffer in the long term. The corrective mechanisms are generally there. Things also don't happen overnight.
These issues pop up but we don't live in an anarchist system. We have a political system in parallel to our economy. It's there to keep the economy between the guardrails. If it's behaving slowly on problems you care about -or better, problems that everyone cares about - the issue is not fundamentally in the economy.
On February 02 2025 19:56 Salazarz wrote: There's no evidence that capitalism makes people less poor. Technological progress makes people less poor, and capitalism certainly isn't a requirement for technological progress to happen.
This is a good rebuttal to make, because for obvious reasons we can't do things like rerun history and make X capitalist country communist, and make the USSR capitalist and see how the timelines diverge and which one does better. But we do know the USSR's for example education and space program and chess dominance and what have you - are from the same USSR that genocided and killed millions of its own including in famine due to the state failing to manage the means of production efficiently. Same things in China.
Progress comes because people innovate. People innovate not because of historical inevitability, or destiny, but because they have the economic freedom to innovate. What do I mean by that? Prosperity. Plenty. They aren't thinking from their stomach 24/7 and spending their life trying not to die that day. The more prosperity we have, the more we allow humans to work at higher and more abstract levels of value. It took billions of people until Newton and Leibniz developed calculus. Not because they had brains that the other billions of people didn't have. But because they had the leg room to work on something other than a) finding a place to sleep that night and b) finding a meal to eat that day.
This is why innovation historically has come from capitalist nations. Because they incentivize productivity. Capitalism creates the wealth. Wealth creates the environment to move forwards. What about now? The US innovates and the EU regulates. Because the incentives of capitalism aren't there. Social democracy can manage the wealth, maybe. That's a trade a society can make, if they want to decide they've had enough innovation/growth, take a break, and want to try and have a flat, balanced society for a while.
The #1 driver in history is people being the breadwinner. People working to take care of themselves, their families, and their people.
Whether you're in a totalitarian political system or a beautiful democratic cooperative, imagine Newton getting through either of these:
There's a group of people. Some grain farmers, some shepherds, carpenters to make a mill, etc. One of them is run by a king managing their micro economy. One guy comes along saying "hey I want my job to be math thinker, there might be a way to make a calculus that would help all of us." The king whips him and says, pick the wheat you lazy bastard. At best, a person with higher charisma and less skill, like some kind of witch doctor, tricks the king into giving them his ear. So the king trades some grain to this wise sorcerer in exchange for making it rain and keeping the tornado gods away. While little Newton works with the wheat.
Now imagine it's an anarcho-Python cooperative instead. No king. They decide together who will do what jobs. Some of the jobs are easier so they draw lots for those (like mill/grain inspector, sheepdog trainer). One guy comes along saying "hey I want my job to be math thinker, there might be a way to make a calculus that would help all of us." They laugh at this obvious lazy bastard, and don't even let him draw lots. He's a grain farmer. At best, a person with higher charisma and less skill, like some kind of witch doctor, convinces them actually to give them free grain in exchange for making it rain and keeping the tornado gods away. While the little Newton works with the wheat.
Try the reverse? The king wants some innovation. He orders precocious little Newton to invent a box that he can put in the house of every family in the kingdom, and the king's face will appear in the box, and noise will come out of the box, of the king speaking, and that will keep all the subjects more loyal to the king. Newton fails completely and gets hanged for fraud and grain embezzlement so the king can save face.
The television may seem to be something we take for granted, but the way you get to it is totally divorced from how either a central authoritarian, or democratic cooperative, manages resources. You need a guy with free time. He has to play around with magnets and wires, and discover the principles of electricity, which are Maxwell's equations. He then needs to figure out that electrons in the electricity make phosphor emit light when you shoot them at a flat screen of it. He can then use the fact that you can embed signals in electromagnetic waves, because of the frequency and amplitude parameters, to reconstruct an image of the king in each box.
This stuff doesn't just "happen" and also can't be ordered, it's cultivated by the ambition of individuals, incentivized in an environment of cooperation and competition, and standing on the shoulders of prosperity created by the people doing the same before them.
On February 02 2025 18:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Europe is trying to build up our own computer/tech sector. US tariffs on Taiwan semiconductors could be great if they stick around for a while.
I don't see where the tariffs hit Taiwan. I see mentions of Mexico, Canada and China. Is Taiwan just being lumped in with China because Trump is too ignorant to understand the difference (and with it a rather important part of US foreign policy)?
Despite being allies, he has for 40 years been publicly stating that allies also take advantage of the US economically, Japan being the main example in Asia he uses, and to a lesser extent Korea - threats of tariffs on Taiwan are related to wanting to reshore US manufacturing. The stumbling block in Taiwan's case is for example with TSMC, it's not just a case of the supply chain not making things in the US, even though it could. Rather, at the moment Taiwan is unique in being able to make some of the most advanced stuff so it would be tariffing something that can't be substituted until after domestic research/investment.
He knows China and Taiwan are different which is evident from when he criticizes China for wanting Taiwan and Taiwan for not appreciating US defense enough.
Ok, so it's just all of y'all having a collective brainfart. Insofar as I can see, Trump has imposed tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. He has not imposed tariffs on Taiwan. He has threatened to do so and may only be looking for the correct legal loophole that allows him to do so, but they aren't there yet.
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Plenty did take that seriously and start pushing towards that 2%, didn’t stop Trump from pulling the rug on Ukraine the second he was back in.
Many countries hit the 2% target and Canada did not. Canada is a military free rider. Justin Trudeau fails to see how important this is to the USA and particularly Republicans. IF Justin Trudeau insists on being the USA's best friend THEN it must go far above the 2% line while also vastly improving the quality of its military equipment. Justin Trudeau never took Trump seriously. After listening to Trudeau's fucked up flanders field speech last night he is taking Trump seriously now. And its too late.
Trump quotes here. "they have a very small military. they rely on our military. we basically protect Canada"
Canada is one of the few countries that didn't hit the 2% target. And its not just the 2% its also the structure of the Canadian military that is an issue. Justin Trudeau did one of his "we project that by 2057 we'll hit our target goal" moves. Canadians laughed and looked down upon the military. For Republicans the military is sacred.
The Liberal Party of Canada does not understand Republicans. Justin Trudeau acknowledged he is "perplexed" why the USA is doing this. Over 10 years Justin has bungled Canada's most important relationship. At least, Justin openly admits he is a moron.
Great Liberal leaders like Bob Rae, Pierre Trudeau, Ken Dryden, and Jean Chretien were always great at being friends with US Republicans. It should not be that hard. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US Border.
I used to believe Justin Trudeau was an average leader of average intelligence who looked bad because he was following some great Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers. It looks like Justin Trudeau is a moron due to having some big blind spots.
A huge percentage of Canadians are great at dealing with US Republicans. For me personally, it is critical to the business I run and also I married into a Republican family.
To quote the great 20th Century philosopher, Michael Jordan, "Republicans buy shoes too".
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Also I mean, Trudeau and Ford are Canadians last time I checked. The course of action you’re recommending is, I assume an extremely unpopular one over there with Canadians.
This is a factor in why I left Canada. 10 years ago I thought the country was going down the wrong path. Great leaders like Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Bob Rae and even Hazel Mccallion had the balls and the power to do very unpopular things that were the right thing to do. Things critical to the country. Because they were great leaders they also had enough rope to implement many unpopular decisions. From Mulroney's GST and pursuit of the Free Trade Agreement to Chretien's toughening up on crime and Chretien's massive reduction in Unemployment Insurance benefits... these leaders made the necessary tough unpopular moves. Jean Chretien was so right wing and yet called himself a Liberal. LOL. He is a total bad ass.
Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford, and Dalton Mcguinty stopped making the proper tough choices. Justin Trudeau has been in such a weak position for so long he surrounds himself with other weak leaders lest a coup occur.
The US protects Canada from what? Angry middle fingers from overseas? Canada is practically an island fortress. The only threat to Canada is the US under Trump.
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Plenty did take that seriously and start pushing towards that 2%, didn’t stop Trump from pulling the rug on Ukraine the second he was back in.
Many countries hit the 2% target and Canada did not. Canada is a military free rider. Justin Trudeau fails to see how important this is to the USA and particularly Republicans. IF Justin Trudeau insists on being the USA's best friend THEN it must go far above the 2% line while also vastly improving the quality of its military equipment. Justin Trudeau never took Trump seriously. After listening to Trudeau's fucked up flanders field speech last night he is taking Trump seriously now. And its too late.
Trump quotes here. "they have a very small military. they rely on our military. we basically protect Canada"
Canada is one of the few countries that didn't hit the 2% target. And its not just the 2% its also the structure of the Canadian military that is an issue. Justin Trudeau did one of his "we project that by 2057 we'll hit our target goal" moves. Canadians laughed and looked down upon the military. For Republicans the military is sacred.
The Liberal Party of Canada does not understand Republicans. Justin Trudeau acknowledged he is "perplexed" why the USA is doing this. Over 10 years Justin has bungled Canada's most important relationship. At least, Justin openly admits he is a moron.
Great Liberal leaders like Bob Rae, Pierre Trudeau, Ken Dryden, and Jean Chretien were always great at being friends with US Republicans. It should not be that hard. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US Border.
I used to believe Justin Trudeau was an average leader of average intelligence who looked bad because he was following some great Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers. It looks like Justin Trudeau is a moron due to having some big blind spots.
A huge percentage of Canadians are great at dealing with US Republicans. For me personally, it is critical to the business I run and also I married into a Republican family.
To quote the great 20th Century philosopher, Michael Jordan, "Republicans buy shoes too".
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Also I mean, Trudeau and Ford are Canadians last time I checked. The course of action you’re recommending is, I assume an extremely unpopular one over there with Canadians.
This is a factor in why I left Canada. 10 years ago I thought the country was going down the wrong path. Great leaders like Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Bob Rae and even Hazel Mccallion had the balls and the power to do very unpopular things that were the right thing to do. Things critical to the country. Because they were great leaders they also had enough rope to implement many unpopular decisions. From Mulroney's GST and pursuit of the Free Trade Agreement to Chretien's toughening up on crime and Chretien's massive reduction in Unemployment Insurance benefits... these leaders made the necessary tough unpopular moves. Jean Chretien was so right wing and yet called himself a Liberal. LOL. He is a total bad ass.
Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford, and Dalton Mcguinty stopped making the proper tough choices. Justin Trudeau has been in such a weak position for so long he surrounds himself with other weak leaders lest a coup occur.
You entirely ignored my point that despite hitting, or pushing for that 2%, Trump still went ‘OK some of you did that, but fuck you anyway.’ to various European nations.
Trudeau isn’t a hall of fame statesman, but he’s not an idiot. He’s not actually perplexed, he likely knows what the craic is. The Europeans do as well, they just can’t publicly say that Trump is volatile, an unreliable ally and has a weird obsession with tariffs.
Which is where the latter are tentatively moving (well some) to pull away from relying on the US and establishing more coordinated defence structures on a pan-European basis. Europe is fragmented itself, and even if it wasn’t, that’s a medium through rather long term pivot to make. We may not see that bear any fruit, but that it’s increasingly being brought to the table is pretty illuminating in itself.
This is Trump’s genius ‘America First’ policy at work, and we’ll likely be seeing much more of it no doubt. Use your leverage, and actually gain concessions and one for the win column, but keep pushing anyway and alienate allies.
It’s why for his second term I shall predict that this administration won’t have any joy in negotiating a genuinely complex foreign policy triumph. If it can’t be won through the sledgehammer of overwhelming force, it ain’t happening.
Some problems are hard to solve even with the requisite skills and temperament, a damn sight harder if you don’t possess them.
I mean looking at the press release/fact sheet Acrofales linked a few posts ago: 1. We’ll impose tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, we’ll secure borders and tariffs will ensure they do as well. This will alleviate issues with the drug trade, illegal migration as well as general illicit trade. 2. There is no step 2.
Aside from nitpicking on all 3 rather different countries being lumped together, these are problems, and complex ones to solve. More capable administrations have tried and failed various different methods.
Here, there is no plan. At least as presented here, perhaps it’s more fleshed out, or will be. Nada. It’s posturing to make the gaggle of clapping seals that constitute much of Trump’s base happy.
(Who oddly had seemingly no issue with Trump pardoning a drug dealer/facilitator on day 1)
You still have to wield the hammer at times, it just can’t be all that’s in your armoury. You’re gonna have to work with those countries as well when appropriate. You’re also going to have to look at why Americans are fentanyl fiends in the first place, fancy that! I’d wager most Euros don’t even know what fentanyl is, some may have familiarity with it in a ‘the drug America has a problem with’ but not much more.
Anyway that digression aside, be it on a state relationship, or a cross-border business relationship, folks can negotiate mutually beneficial arrangements with Republicans, and long have. Because ultimately most are regular, reasonable and rational human beings.
You seem to have missed the whole memo on Trump now being the man at the wheel and the current holy avatar of the GOP, and that’s quite a different state of affairs indeed.
It is not a vehicle driven by a particularly consistent, rational set of policies. Especially in the foreign policy domain.
By all means consider Trudeau et al. shit politicians, no skin off my back really. But in this specific issue what exactly are they meant to do?
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Plenty did take that seriously and start pushing towards that 2%, didn’t stop Trump from pulling the rug on Ukraine the second he was back in.
Many countries hit the 2% target and Canada did not. Canada is a military free rider. Justin Trudeau fails to see how important this is to the USA and particularly Republicans. IF Justin Trudeau insists on being the USA's best friend THEN it must go far above the 2% line while also vastly improving the quality of its military equipment. Justin Trudeau never took Trump seriously. After listening to Trudeau's fucked up flanders field speech last night he is taking Trump seriously now. And its too late.
Trump quotes here. "they have a very small military. they rely on our military. we basically protect Canada"
Canada is one of the few countries that didn't hit the 2% target. And its not just the 2% its also the structure of the Canadian military that is an issue. Justin Trudeau did one of his "we project that by 2057 we'll hit our target goal" moves. Canadians laughed and looked down upon the military. For Republicans the military is sacred.
The Liberal Party of Canada does not understand Republicans. Justin Trudeau acknowledged he is "perplexed" why the USA is doing this. Over 10 years Justin has bungled Canada's most important relationship. At least, Justin openly admits he is a moron.
Great Liberal leaders like Bob Rae, Pierre Trudeau, Ken Dryden, and Jean Chretien were always great at being friends with US Republicans. It should not be that hard. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US Border.
I used to believe Justin Trudeau was an average leader of average intelligence who looked bad because he was following some great Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers. It looks like Justin Trudeau is a moron due to having some big blind spots.
A huge percentage of Canadians are great at dealing with US Republicans. For me personally, it is critical to the business I run and also I married into a Republican family.
To quote the great 20th Century philosopher, Michael Jordan, "Republicans buy shoes too".
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Also I mean, Trudeau and Ford are Canadians last time I checked. The course of action you’re recommending is, I assume an extremely unpopular one over there with Canadians.
This is a factor in why I left Canada. 10 years ago I thought the country was going down the wrong path. Great leaders like Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Bob Rae and even Hazel Mccallion had the balls and the power to do very unpopular things that were the right thing to do. Things critical to the country. Because they were great leaders they also had enough rope to implement many unpopular decisions. From Mulroney's GST and pursuit of the Free Trade Agreement to Chretien's toughening up on crime and Chretien's massive reduction in Unemployment Insurance benefits... these leaders made the necessary tough unpopular moves. Jean Chretien was so right wing and yet called himself a Liberal. LOL. He is a total bad ass.
Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford, and Dalton Mcguinty stopped making the proper tough choices. Justin Trudeau has been in such a weak position for so long he surrounds himself with other weak leaders lest a coup occur.
No wonder Trump got elected, when this is how people see the world.
If hitting 2% military spending was really the goal, there would have been hundreds of much less destructive ways to go about. Going straight for the nuclear option because you think it makes you look tough is the biggest small dog energy a country and its leaders can have.
Previously if they got 2% it’d be part of a global NATO strategy or a combined arctic security strategy intended to augment the existing resources of the US alliance and fill whatever gaps might be open. Now, assuming that Canada has the money to increase spending in the middle of a trade war, it’ll be spent on things that as a deterrent to the US. Not the same 2%.
Canada can exit the Paris Accord and bring it's energy production costs back to 90s levels (adjusted to inflation). Profits and tax revenue will soar... Canada will have all money it needs to fulfill any military obligations.
An entire 'made in Canada' movement can begin with super cheap energy costs as it's foundation.
By exiting the Paris Accord Canada's ACTIONS indicate they are the USA's BFF. Just like they were in 1988 when the first FTA was struck.
Canada wants to cripple itself and produce energy with 1 hand tied behind its back while the average Canadian suffers. Meh. Clowns been doing this since they demolished the Lakeview Generating Station in 2007. Meh.
It is ironic that Canada peaked during Mike Harris's "Common Sense Revolution" while Donald Trump invokes one of his own.
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Plenty did take that seriously and start pushing towards that 2%, didn’t stop Trump from pulling the rug on Ukraine the second he was back in.
Many countries hit the 2% target and Canada did not. Canada is a military free rider. Justin Trudeau fails to see how important this is to the USA and particularly Republicans. IF Justin Trudeau insists on being the USA's best friend THEN it must go far above the 2% line while also vastly improving the quality of its military equipment. Justin Trudeau never took Trump seriously. After listening to Trudeau's fucked up flanders field speech last night he is taking Trump seriously now. And its too late.
Trump quotes here. "they have a very small military. they rely on our military. we basically protect Canada"
Canada is one of the few countries that didn't hit the 2% target. And its not just the 2% its also the structure of the Canadian military that is an issue. Justin Trudeau did one of his "we project that by 2057 we'll hit our target goal" moves. Canadians laughed and looked down upon the military. For Republicans the military is sacred.
The Liberal Party of Canada does not understand Republicans. Justin Trudeau acknowledged he is "perplexed" why the USA is doing this. Over 10 years Justin has bungled Canada's most important relationship. At least, Justin openly admits he is a moron.
Great Liberal leaders like Bob Rae, Pierre Trudeau, Ken Dryden, and Jean Chretien were always great at being friends with US Republicans. It should not be that hard. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US Border.
I used to believe Justin Trudeau was an average leader of average intelligence who looked bad because he was following some great Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers. It looks like Justin Trudeau is a moron due to having some big blind spots.
A huge percentage of Canadians are great at dealing with US Republicans. For me personally, it is critical to the business I run and also I married into a Republican family.
To quote the great 20th Century philosopher, Michael Jordan, "Republicans buy shoes too".
On February 02 2025 20:14 WombaT wrote: Also I mean, Trudeau and Ford are Canadians last time I checked. The course of action you’re recommending is, I assume an extremely unpopular one over there with Canadians.
This is a factor in why I left Canada. 10 years ago I thought the country was going down the wrong path. Great leaders like Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Bob Rae and even Hazel Mccallion had the balls and the power to do very unpopular things that were the right thing to do. Things critical to the country. Because they were great leaders they also had enough rope to implement many unpopular decisions. From Mulroney's GST and pursuit of the Free Trade Agreement to Chretien's toughening up on crime and Chretien's massive reduction in Unemployment Insurance benefits... these leaders made the necessary tough unpopular moves. Jean Chretien was so right wing and yet called himself a Liberal. LOL. He is a total bad ass.
Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford, and Dalton Mcguinty stopped making the proper tough choices. Justin Trudeau has been in such a weak position for so long he surrounds himself with other weak leaders lest a coup occur.
No wonder Trump got elected, when this is how people see the world.
If hitting 2% military spending was really the goal, there would have been hundreds of much less destructive ways to go about. Going straight for the nuclear option because you think it makes you look tough is the biggest small dog energy a country and its leaders can have.
If folks can’t see by now that Trump’s tough guy act is for his own image and popularity rather than being conducive to sensible foreign policy I doubt they’re gonna learn anytime soon.
On February 03 2025 01:24 KwarK wrote: So to you Canada, one of the largest oil producers in the world, is too invested in green energy and reducing carbon emissions?
Absolutely. Ontario's energy production costs rose by an order of magnitude once they stopped burning coal and adopted 10,000 green energy initiatives. The average Ontario citizen is getting crushed. Manufacturing is way way down.
Canada can EITHER 'save the universe' by remaining in the Paris Accord OR it can compete on a level playing field with the USA. Canada can not do both.
On February 03 2025 01:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Canada can exit the Paris Accord and bring it's energy production costs back to 90s levels (adjusted to inflation). Profits and tax revenue will soar... Canada will have all money it needs to fulfill any military obligations.
By exiting the Paris Accord Canada's ACTIONS indicate they are the USA's BFF. Just like they were in 1988 when the first FTA was struck.
Canada wants to cripple itself and produce energy with 1 hand tied behind its back while the average Canadian suffers. Meh. Clowns been doing this since they demolished the Lakeview Generating Station in 2007. Meh.
What military obligations?
If the US decides to go down the path of giving NATO the finger over a conflict that is its entire raison d’etre, then what military obligations does a country like Canada have to a nation that shirked its own?
I mean we’re not exactly there just now, although the direction of travel ain’t too promising.
I already outlined this in my previous post. ‘If you want us to have your back, get your GDP defence spend up to 2% if you want us to have your back’ is a very, very different negotiation lever than ‘get your defence spend up to 2% and we still might just say fuck it anyway.’
On February 03 2025 01:24 KwarK wrote: So to you Canada, one of the largest oil producers in the world, is too invested in green energy and reducing carbon emissions?
Absolutely. Ontario's energy production costs rose by an order of magnitude once they stopped burning coal and adopted 10,000 green energy initiatives. The average Ontario citizen is getting crushed. Manufacturing is way way down.
Coal contains negative value. The externalities like the health problems for miners, radioactive particles in exhausts etc. are more expensive than the value of the electricity.
The key to predicting what Trump will do seems to be listen to what he says he will do.
There will be tarifs on Europe, China and Taiwan and probably Japan as well. Key would be to prepare for it instead of hopeing it won't happen. If you can use it for advantage then do so. Ideally start coordinating with other countries to divert trade to them, or coordinate counter sanctions on the US. China and EU is not on friendly trade terms right now but if they did work together they could wreck entire sectors of the US economy.
EPT
