Trump Watch 2.0

[Proposition Joe]

Explain to me like I'm 5 years old, why is he obsessed with tariffs and slapping them on everyone left, right and centre, even if it raises prices of products for American consumers?

[Chicken Dhansak]

Because he wants to create more American jobs by producing these same imports within the USA.

[Qin]

No one wins in a trade war, thats been proven time & again, over many years. Trump constantly shows his lack of understanding over many things.

[Currywurst and Chips]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/26/poli ... index.html

[Hoover Attack]

Explain to me like I'm 5 years old, why is he obsessed with tariffs and slapping them on everyone left, right and centre, even if it raises prices of products for American consumers?

Because this will make America great again.

[Mistadobalina]

Judging by what he says and who he's targeting, it's as simple as him seeing every trade deficit as a loss for America. And because he owes a lot of his success to winning round angry voters from ex industrial and resource extraction areas, he thinks whacking massive tariffs will bring back those jobs as they won't be undercut by cheaper foreign products.

How the EU stuff will play out will be fascinating because the links between his administration and the nationalist parties in Europe are pretty deep but also completely incompatible in their aims. You're going to have the afd, national rally, Fidesz etc shilling for a guy who will want to steamroller their economies.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

On a fundamental level - is he wrong?

[Dunners]

It's part of a wider strategy that will see the end of multilateralism, and bring in the new era of unilateralism whereby the US is the main power-broker and chooses to engage with individual nations on a purely transactional basis. The way politics, international trade, security, and even capitalism, have been managed since WWII is over. The US has decided that the current system exposes them to too many downsides, and not enough upsides, so they are ending it.

There will be short- to medium-term pain for US consumers. Any gains from tariffs will be lost to reciprocal action from other countries and increases in domestic goods prices. Plus, the process of reindustrialising will be inflationary, so expect to see their central bank intervening (which could have nasty second-order effects on the £).

But longer-term, they will be less plugged in (and therefore exposed) to the "international world order". It will also disrupt and potentially undermine the cohesiveness of any other trading blocks, such as the EU. And, there will be massive opportunity to consolidate wealth and power within the US system for those in a position to do so.

[OyinbO]

On a fundamental level - is he wrong?

Very much so.

[Orient_Man_And_Boy]

Dunners: your last sentence says it all ….

[Proposition Joe]

Thanks all. Clearly a thorny issue.

[Long slender neck]

I am none the wiser.

[Proposition Joe]

Oh yeah, me neither.

[StillSpike]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/currenc ... 025-02-03/

[Rich Tea Wellin]

On a fundamental level - is he wrong?

Very much so.

I mean I’m totally on board with the nationalism is bad, as is introversion but everyone relies on china for basically everything, for example. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to control one’s destiny in the current political world

[Max B Gold]

It's part of a wider strategy that will see the end of multilateralism, and bring in the new era of unilateralism whereby the US is the main power-broker and chooses to engage with individual nations on a purely transactional basis. The way politics, international trade, security, and even capitalism, have been managed since WWII is over. The US has decided that the current system exposes them to too many downsides, and not enough upsides, so they are ending it.

There will be short- to medium-term pain for US consumers. Any gains from tariffs will be lost to reciprocal action from other countries and increases in domestic goods prices. Plus, the process of reindustrialising will be inflationary, so expect to see their central bank intervening (which could have nasty second-order effects on the £).

But longer-term, they will be less plugged in (and therefore exposed) to the "international world order". It will also disrupt and potentially undermine the cohesiveness of any other trading blocks, such as the EU. And, there will be massive opportunity to consolidate wealth and power within the US system for those in a position to do so.

The rich always make money from chaos and war.

Will this retreat into isolationism mean that there will be a reduction in the 725 overseas military bases the US operate from?

[Dunners]

It's part of a wider strategy that will see the end of multilateralism, and bring in the new era of unilateralism whereby the US is the main power-broker and chooses to engage with individual nations on a purely transactional basis. The way politics, international trade, security, and even capitalism, have been managed since WWII is over. The US has decided that the current system exposes them to too many downsides, and not enough upsides, so they are ending it.

There will be short- to medium-term pain for US consumers. Any gains from tariffs will be lost to reciprocal action from other countries and increases in domestic goods prices. Plus, the process of reindustrialising will be inflationary, so expect to see their central bank intervening (which could have nasty second-order effects on the £).

But longer-term, they will be less plugged in (and therefore exposed) to the "international world order". It will also disrupt and potentially undermine the cohesiveness of any other trading blocks, such as the EU. And, there will be massive opportunity to consolidate wealth and power within the US system for those in a position to do so.

The rich always make money from chaos and war.

Will this retreat into isolationism mean that there will be a reduction in the 725 overseas military bases the US operate from?

The US will operate from wherever it likes, except where the host country is willing to pay it substantial fees to maintain a presence.

If you own territory that it decides is of strategic importance, the you have three choices:

1 - Cooperate, and agree to increase your defence spending for that territory in accordance with whatever treaty the US shoves under your nose.
2 - Sell it to the US.
3 - Prepare for invasion.

This is what is happening to Denmark right now over Greenland.

[Proposition Joe]

If countries can be bought and sold, where would be good for us to snap up? One of the former Caribbean colonies?

[Dunners]

We're currently struggling to give the Chagos Islands away.

But I reckon we stick to what we know. Invade France.

[Max B Gold]

It's part of a wider strategy that will see the end of multilateralism, and bring in the new era of unilateralism whereby the US is the main power-broker and chooses to engage with individual nations on a purely transactional basis. The way politics, international trade, security, and even capitalism, have been managed since WWII is over. The US has decided that the current system exposes them to too many downsides, and not enough upsides, so they are ending it.

There will be short- to medium-term pain for US consumers. Any gains from tariffs will be lost to reciprocal action from other countries and increases in domestic goods prices. Plus, the process of reindustrialising will be inflationary, so expect to see their central bank intervening (which could have nasty second-order effects on the £).

But longer-term, they will be less plugged in (and therefore exposed) to the "international world order". It will also disrupt and potentially undermine the cohesiveness of any other trading blocks, such as the EU. And, there will be massive opportunity to consolidate wealth and power within the US system for those in a position to do so.

The rich always make money from chaos and war.

Will this retreat into isolationism mean that there will be a reduction in the 725 overseas military bases the US operate from?

The US will operate from wherever it likes, except where the host country is willing to pay it substantial fees to maintain a presence.

If you own territory that it decides is of strategic importance, the you have three choices:

1 - Cooperate, and agree to increase your defence spending for that territory in accordance with whatever treaty the US shoves under your nose.
2 - Sell it to the US.
3 - Prepare for invasion.

This is what is happening to Denmark right now over Greenland.

Bullies

[StillSpike]

The rich always make money from chaos and war.

Will this retreat into isolationism mean that there will be a reduction in the 725 overseas military bases the US operate from?

The US will operate from wherever it likes, except where the host country is willing to pay it substantial fees to maintain a presence.

If you own territory that it decides is of strategic importance, the you have three choices:

1 - Cooperate, and agree to increase your defence spending for that territory in accordance with whatever treaty the US shoves under your nose.
2 - Sell it to the US.
3 - Prepare for invasion.

This is what is happening to Denmark right now over Greenland.

Bullies

Easily dealt with.

Take option 2, agree to sell it, and once the cheque clears just don't send them the land. Take the phone off the hook and change your email address.

[Pugwash]

It's part of a wider strategy that will see the end of multilateralism, and bring in the new era of unilateralism whereby the US is the main power-broker and chooses to engage with individual nations on a purely transactional basis. The way politics, international trade, security, and even capitalism, have been managed since WWII is over. The US has decided that the current system exposes them to too many downsides, and not enough upsides, so they are ending it.

There will be short- to medium-term pain for US consumers. Any gains from tariffs will be lost to reciprocal action from other countries and increases in domestic goods prices. Plus, the process of reindustrialising will be inflationary, so expect to see their central bank intervening (which could have nasty second-order effects on the £).

But longer-term, they will be less plugged in (and therefore exposed) to the "international world order". It will also disrupt and potentially undermine the cohesiveness of any other trading blocks, such as the EU. And, there will be massive opportunity to consolidate wealth and power within the US system for those in a position to do so.

The rich always make money from chaos and war.

Will this retreat into isolationism mean that there will be a reduction in the 725 overseas military bases the US operate from?

The US will operate from wherever it likes, except where the host country is willing to pay it substantial fees to maintain a presence.

If you own territory that it decides is of strategic importance, the you have three choices:

1 - Cooperate, and agree to increase your defence spending for that territory in accordance with whatever treaty the US shoves under your nose.
2 - Sell it to the US.
3 - Prepare for invasion.

This is what is happening to Denmark right now over Greenland.

4. New World Order, form an Alliance with China & Russia & crush the U.S.A -It's not my choice, just the option you missed. After all theres only 300 million of them & billions of everyone else

[Dunners]

On a fundamental level - is he wrong?

Very much so.

I mean I’m totally on board with the nationalism is bad, as is introversion but everyone relies on china for basically everything, for example. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to control one’s destiny in the current political world

For an inter-dependant, cooperative world - which is what the free trade era has sort of delivered, you need one of two things to happen:

1 - For everyone to get along and exist in a kumbaya state of bliss.
2 - For someone to act as enforcer and to knock other people's heads together when they step out of line, and ensure shipping lanes are patrolled.

1 was never an option, because people and reasons. 2 was performed by the US, with plenty of missteps (Vietnam) and abuses (Iraq) of power along the way. And everyone else bitched and whined.

The US are now done with 2. It is therefore logical for the US to conclude that it should de-risk, and "control one’s destiny". This is their choice, but for everyone else it means a return to a geopolitical situation that will be more similar to the 19th century, but with added tech and nukes.

For middle-powers, like Britain, this is going to take some getting used to. But this country's traditional role has been to stand slightly apart from other blocs and alliances, and to intervene to prevent either the French or Russians from achieving total dominance of the European plain. If (when) the EU disintegrates, that reality could return. Occasionally we'd fire cannons at the Spanish just for a bit of a laugh.

Only this time we have a senior partner, the US, with a substantial stake in our financial services, real estate, security, and agricultural sector. Breaking free from this grip would require us to risk the wrath of the US and to find a suitable alternative Sugar Daddy.

[Max B Gold]

Very much so.

I mean I’m totally on board with the nationalism is bad, as is introversion but everyone relies on china for basically everything, for example. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to control one’s destiny in the current political world

For an inter-dependant, cooperative world - which is what the free trade era has sort of delivered, you need one of two things to happen:

1 - For everyone to get along and exist in a kumbaya state of bliss.
2 - For someone to act as enforcer and to knock other people's heads together when they step out of line, and ensure shipping lanes are patrolled.

1 was never an option, because people and reasons. 2 was performed by the US, with plenty of missteps (Vietnam) and abuses (Iraq) of power along the way. And everyone else bitched and whined.

The US are now done with 2. It is therefore logical for the US to conclude that it should de-risk, and "control one’s destiny". This is their choice, but for everyone else it means a return to a geopolitical situation that will be more similar to the 19th century, but with added tech and nukes.

For middle-powers, like Britain, this is going to take some getting used to. But this country's traditional role has been to stand slightly apart from other blocs and alliances, and to intervene to prevent either the French or Russians from achieving total dominance of the European plain. If (when) the EU disintegrates, that reality could return. Occasionally we'd fire cannons at the Spanish just for a bit of a laugh.

Only this time we have a senior partner, the US, with a substantial stake in our financial services, real estate, security, and agricultural sector. Breaking free from this grip would require us to risk the wrath of the US and to find a suitable alternative Sugar Daddy.

All of that assumes the US is capable of delivering. I'm not so sure they will remain stable internally.

[Max B Gold]

The yella bellied Canadians hit back

NEW: Ontario just banned US companies from billions in government contracts.

The province is also ripping up its contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Welcome to the weird world of rooting for Doug Ford.