On 2025-04-24 09:23:35 MajorJohn_reborn said:
US will not comply with a nuclear deal with Iran.
They never complied with JCPOA either under any administration, not just Trump's prior administration. Iran would be making a mistake to enter into a new agreement.
Agree - Gaddafi naively dismantled his nucleur programme & died like a rat in the sewer!
The US never ever upholds the treaties it signs !
The exorbitant, unrealistic tarrifs Trump called for.
Not as a politician but, a businessman.
The businessman rocks the world, makes countries look inward and re-evaluate their role on the global markets and possibly change economic structures and build news alliances and trade agreements with others, never considered.
"Come to the negotiating table"...was the call.
Just like a businessman would. Let's talk about "discounts and pricing ".... America being the Big Brother , the little ones shiver and shake and deals are reevaluated....well, to risk a short term rocky ride, is a norm in those corporate boardrooms. Trump just bought it to the oval office. A businessman man elected to the seat of Presidency.
Latest ...a "tarrif" reevaluation between USA / UK.
And many we have not heard about...yet.
The courage to break away from the American purse strings and NATO'S clicky bullish influences on what can and cannot be. I wonder how many can.
The global markets are reacting all the time and that dip seems to be on the rise again.
But now, silence on wars we have lived and watched for years, broadcast on all major channels. The devastating tragedies innocent people are exposed to , for no other reason than politicians and conglomerates playing monopoly with the lives of innocents.
Our focus shifted to another.
That between Pakistan and India. Both nuclear armed countries...and those in seats of power calling for calm.
I wonder what sort of alliances will take place in this crisis and who will be whose friend or foe....here I am thinking about BRICS.
Just like in the case of the crisis between China and Taiwan.
Why are some news more scary and worthy of coverage than others.
What gullible sheep we are. How small and puppeteered be we.
RB.
As a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute aptly noted, "The actual substantive items that they negotiated are pretty narrow... In some sense you could say they basically took the status quo, made marginal changes and called it a deal." That's not just a damning assessment --- it's also a familiar playbook. It mirrors the performative overhaul of NAFTA, where cosmetic tweaks were rebranded as transformative change.
The deal is so vague and short on details to be almost meaningless - at the press conference most substantive questions were met with "that's still to be worked out". There's a reason actual trade deals take literal years to negotiate. (If you didn't watch the press conference do yourself a favour and see if you can find a clip of the look on Donny's face when a reporter with a scottish accent asks, "Are you overstating the reach and significance of this deal because you're a president who needs a result at a difficult time?". Its priceless - and not surprisingly his response is incoherent nonnsense)
Despite nearly a decade of intermittent discussions on trade, most U.S.-based analysts agree that the tangible benefits of this agreement are negligible. Yet, predictably, one of America's most compliant allies rushed to accommodate the White House's agenda --- an unsurprising development given the asymmetry of power and the domestic political theatre in play.
What makes this entire episode even more incoherent is the administration's apparent belief in a zero-sum view of trade --- a view long debunked by economists, yet somehow central to Donald Trump's worldview. If trade is indeed a zero-sum game, it's hard to rationalize why you'd want to undercut one of the few countries with whom you actually run a surplus. There is no strategic logic here, only tactical impulsiveness.
Ironically, those most hurt by this so-called "deal" are the very industries Trump claims to defend. U.S. automakers --- many of whom manufacture vehicles or source major components from Mexico and Canada --- were quick to express alarm. Thursday's announcement drew an unusually sharp rebuke from the industry, which pointed out that the plan gives UK-made cars a competitive price edge over American vehicles assembled in North America. In effect, the White House has thrown its domestic auto industry under the bus in order to score a short-term political headline.
Paul Ashworth, Chief North America Economist at Capital Economics, captured the underlying reality: the announcement signals "rising desperation" in the White House to unwind tariff policies before they inflict deeper economic harm.
And let's not forget the context: this is just one "deal" --- and that's using the term in its most diluted sense --- with a country representing 3% of US trade, in a grand promise of 90 trade deals in 90 days. At day 29, he's now only 28 behind the required run rate...
Edited: 2025-05-09 21:04:53
On 2025-05-09 19:35:54 Teletubby said:
It takes a remarkable blend of sycophancy and frankly economic illiteracy to refer to this announcement as a "trade deal" --- let alone to herald it as a "win" for the United States like the Foxes of the world want to pretend. In reality, the scope of the agreement is extraordinarily limited. Even some people within the Trump admin are calling it a "framework of a deal" (or even a "concept of a deal" lol) rather than an actual deal
As a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute aptly noted, "The actual substantive items that they negotiated are pretty narrow... In some sense you could say they basically took the status quo, made marginal changes and called it a deal." That's not just a damning assessment --- it's also a familiar playbook. It mirrors the performative overhaul of NAFTA, where cosmetic tweaks were rebranded as transformative change.
The deal is so vague and short on details to be almost meaningless - at the press conference most substantive questions were met with "that's still to be worked out". There's a reason actual trade deals take literal years to negotiate. (If you didn't watch the press conference do yourself a favour and see if you can find a clip of the look on Donny's face when a reporter with a scottish accent asks, "Are you overstating the reach and significance of this deal because you're a president who needs a result at a difficult time?". Its priceless - and not surprisingly his response is incoherent nonnsense)
Despite nearly a decade of intermittent discussions on trade, most U.S.-based analysts agree that the tangible benefits of this agreement are negligible. Yet, predictably, one of America's most compliant allies rushed to accommodate the White House's agenda --- an unsurprising development given the asymmetry of power and the domestic political theatre in play.
What makes this entire episode even more incoherent is the administration's apparent belief in a zero-sum view of trade --- a view long debunked by economists, yet somehow central to Donald Trump's worldview. If trade is indeed a zero-sum game, it's hard to rationalize why you'd want to undercut one of the few countries with whom you actually run a surplus. There is no strategic logic here, only tactical impulsiveness.
Ironically, those most hurt by this so-called "deal" are the very industries Trump claims to defend. U.S. automakers --- many of whom manufacture vehicles or source major components from Mexico and Canada --- were quick to express alarm. Thursday's announcement drew an unusually sharp rebuke from the industry, which pointed out that the plan gives UK-made cars a competitive price edge over American vehicles assembled in North America. In effect, the White House has thrown its domestic auto industry under the bus in order to score a short-term political headline.
Paul Ashworth, Chief North America Economist at Capital Economics, captured the underlying reality: the announcement signals "rising desperation" in the White House to unwind tariff policies before they inflict deeper economic harm.
And let's not forget the context: this is just one "deal" --- and that's using the term in its most diluted sense --- with a country representing 3% of US trade, in a grand promise of 90 trade deals in 90 days. At day 29, he's now only 28 behind the required run rate...
Edited: 2025-05-09 21:11:49
BUT, he went the complete wrong way trying to solve this with tariffs. He should have cut fiscal expenditure (big time even when it is unpopular - and even more than DOGE will accomplish) and/or raised other taxes....
He raised tariffs. That and the way he has done it, has cost him and the US a ton of credibility. A ton. Now the bond market is punishing him badly with higher yields. With high debt, this is exactly what he and the US cannot afford.
Higher bond yields and a Fed unable to cut rates, is just starting to force his hand. And it will get a lot worse. With his credibility in tatters and debt and interest cost rising rapidly, he is between a rock and a hard place.
He might have been a great developer and might have previously done great deals. But he has fucked this up big time.
Not all risks pan out. But the ones you care to have pan out, WILL respond in a negative or positive fashion and that's all that matters....doo the "small" fry matter? Of course they do but they will fall in line with what their puppet masters dictate.
Is it the place to do so in the seat of Presidency?
I think it was time. Time to shake the WHOLE world up .
RB.
On 2025-05-10 07:51:07 Russian Bridgitte said:
A businessman takes risks. Calculated risks.
Not all risks pan out. But the ones you care to have pan out, WILL respond in a negative or positive fashion and that's all that matters....doo the "small" fry matter? Of course they do but they will fall in line with what their puppet masters dictate.
Is it the place to do so in the seat of Presidency?
I think it was time. Time to shake the WHOLE world up .
RB.
Calculated risks indeed. These are not "calculated risks", they are poorly informed fools errands. Even the technical implementation of the tariffs is a disaster.
Importers in the US are suddenly being charged tariffs on transactions invoiced from before the tariff was announced, saddling the buyer with a massive, unexpected fee. This was so avoidable by simply basing it on the invoice date of which there is copy is already present in the customs documentation pack.
If he wanted to fix the trade imbalance he would have to look at what is wrong with the US economy. It is very little to do with the cost of labor and a great deal to do supply chain and operational overheads. But that is where Trump's sponsors are making their money.
Trump and co are a bunch of idiots.
Edited: 2025-05-11 07:07:09
Or
The glib words of a politican. The mouthpiece to corporates and conglomerate eg. Weapon manufactures, pharmaceutical drug manufacturers and the like.
Economists I see as seers, specialised seers, hypothetical mathematics based on what has been, could be and market followers.
I think I am a seer....GRIN.
No disrespect toward the Economists or financial advisers. No different to the weather outcasts.
Be prepared ....in case of.
RB.
Reply
Legend
Hover mouse over icons for description
