Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:31 am 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?

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:59 am On a fundamental level - is he wrong?

OyinbO wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:37 am

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:59 am On a fundamental level - is he wrong?

Very much so.

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:00 am 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.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:51 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:00 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:37 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:51 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:00 am 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.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:45 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:37 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:51 am

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

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:37 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:51 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:00 am 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.

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:30 am

OyinbO wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:37 am

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:59 am 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

Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:48 pm

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:30 am

OyinbO wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:37 am

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.