| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | They tried it with Pope Joan. |
I don't get why Pope Joan is any more or less believable than Joan of Arc. For some reasons Protestants (?) debunked Pope Joan but seemed more ok with Joan of Arc, was this becauuse, despite opting for male clothing, armour etc, she did not, or so it is said, deny her biological sex....?
It's the same Joan cult. Must be. Presumably Arc is the latter version of the former Pope Joan.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The exciting good news is that the US is close to a Trade Agreement with South Korea. That's the first of the 192 or so they need, having locked themselves into a trade embargo with China, and 191 trade disagreements with all other nations.
The not so good news is that they already had a free trade, tariff-free agreement on virtually all goods with South Korea, and that the new agreement will only be temporary until and if it gets Congressional approval. Trump has been doing all this under emergency Presidential powers.
I helped draft the said agreement.
" We the undersigned hereby undertake not to put tariffs on each other's imports as previously agreed over 10 years ago."
Historic.
Still, you gotta start somewhere.
190 to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
As the bloke on Newsnight said, "If they can't get a trade deal with Britain, how are they going to manage with anyone else?" Others may call us pushovers, we prefer the phrase 'special relationship'.
Somebody else on Newsnight thought Rachel Reeves should try her best to 'get on personally' with President Trump. A special relationship, if you will. If you get my drift.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
As Wiley recalls it, the target was quite conservative, it was a mere 90 trade deals of the most willing (ie those that basically had free trade deals with the US anyway) during the 90 day tariff pause.
90 deals in 90 days.
They could actually sign them now.
" We the undersigned hereby undertake not to put tariffs on each other's imports as stated in our previously agreed trade deal"
The problem is, that isn't going to give both sides a win. So there has to be some cover.
"After lots of tough negotiations, and the personal intervention of PM Starmer and President Trump, a historic trade deal has finally been arranged, one day before the final deadline, that would have plunged us into crisis."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
If I were you, Wiley, I would wait and see. Trump may not know what he's doing but, by gummee, he's a lucky cove. You can't argue with that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | If I were you, Wiley, I would wait and see. Captain Smith may not know what he's doing but, by gummee, he's a lucky cove. You can't argue with that. |
Yes. Godspeed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The footage of Trump and Zelensky going companionably one-on-one at the Pope's funeral made for great television and universal accolades but both parties should be aware of the dangers of parleying without witnesses.
A previous US president, Harry Truman, had a heart-to-heart with Douglas MacArthur at Wake Island in 1950 and, according to the Korean generalissimo, acceded to all his recommendations. Truman could only fume when he later found out from the MSM what he had agreed to.
Though I imagine it would be more likely to be the (American) president that 'adjusts' what they have agreed to on this occasion. In fact, now I come to think about it, Trump has many of the traits of MacArthur and Zelensky is Harry Truman to the T.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Trump has many of the traits of MacArthur |
I hope that "understanding the role of logistics in war" is one of these shared traits, as many ships carrying containers are soon no longer going to be arriving in American ports with full containers. The long distances involved mean that when you start a trade embargo with China, this will take 30-40 days......
Let us pray he has at least put in place some prior management of supply chains.
You would not start a trade war without doing that, surely?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
As the Daily Express almost said on its masthead every day during 1938 and most of 1939
| "There will be no trade war either this year or next." | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Trump wrote: |
“We’ll be reducing taxes very substantially because the money is so great coming in from tariffs that I’ll be able to reduce taxes almost completely.” |
This is certainly outside of the orthodox paradigm, as the thinking is that consumption taxes are regressive (poor people spend all their wages on essentials) whereas income taxes are progressive (higher earners pay more). Most nations would not be wanting to do this. The difficuly as I see it is that many of these poorer folks actually voted for Trump. You are going to have inflation. He will hit his base.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | Trump wrote: “We’ll be reducing taxes very substantially because the money is so great coming in from tariffs that I’ll be able to reduce taxes almost completely.”
This is certainly outside of the orthodox paradigm |
I cannot agree with this as theory no matter how much orthodoxy disapproves of tariffs in practice. Tariffs will be adding a 'purchase tax' in the guise of a higher price on all domestic goods, thus eliminating the need for overt taxes.
| as the thinking is that consumption taxes are regressive (poor people spend all their wages on essentials) whereas income taxes are progressive (higher earners pay more). |
This may be so but it is not what Trump is saying. He is simply converting a one-off price hike into an ongoing source of state revenue.
| Most nations would not be wanting to do this. |
Most nations are in dire need of this since electorates won't wear normal tax raising measures and hence public services are falling into disrepair everywhere. Of course they still will if Trump uses the windfall to reduce taxes commensurately but sensible governments will use it to attend to the revival of public services.
| The difficuly as I see it is that many of these poorer folks actually voted for Trump. You are going to have inflation. He will hit his base. |
Again, I disagree. First of all there is no correlation between 'the poor' and 'Trump supporters'. Republicans poorer than Democrats? I don't think so.
But insofar as the poor do vote for tariffs, they will benefit from the revival of public services, of which they are far and away more the beneficiaries than the non-poor. They will have to pay the higher prices, that's true, but it is a stealth tax so they'll manage one way or another uncomplainingly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Again, I disagree. First of all there is no correlation between 'the poor' and 'Trump supporters'. Republicans poorer than Democrats? I don't think so.
|
It used to be the case there was no correlation, ie you got conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, but these days the poorest states are overwhemingly Republican, the richest Democrat.
| 19 of the 20 richest states are solidly Democratic, while 19 of the 20 poorest states are solidly Republican. It is clear that the GOP has become the party of poor states, while the Democrats have become the party of prosperous states. |
Trump needs to avoid policies like tariffs that makes poorer states poorer. Unless he can score a quick victory and return manufacturing to these areas (NB and then he won't be getting the revenue from tariffs), long term tariffs will turn out to be a vote loser for the GOP, regardless of how inept the oppostion are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I will cautiously accept your rich/poor correlation. [It is similar to our own Red Wall Boris calculus.] But remember Trump is unconcerned with re-election this time. He should have got everything through by the time the midterms sweep away his majorities in the House and Senate.
I think, in general, you are overestimating the subtlety of Trumpian economics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Local election day! How I love 'em. I can spend all day safe in the knowledge my non-participation will be masked by everyone else's, and all night relishing the results.
Which will have nothing to do with the proper purpose of democracy: keeping good governments and getting rid of bad ones. Every single council will live or die depending what's going on at Westminster, not Much Mincing-in-the-Wold. It is difficult to think of a sillier method of choosing one's (local) governors.
Not that it would matter much if your council got its just desserts for doing a good or a bad job--that is overwhelmingly decided by how much Westminster is giving it and how much Westminster allows it to raise taxes.
But all that said, tonight's results should be exceptionally well worth staying up for...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Local election day! How I love 'em. |
Not happening here. Or any of the most important areas in the country. They have been cancelled. This was done on the grounds that these elections were for bodies “that won’t exist” in the near future, as they the government intends to reorganise them.
This is going to be yet another case of the new manager comes in, heyho no previous experience in the sector, decides on a radical reorganisation to improve efficency, lots of promises on consultation. Nothing happens pending re-organisation, other than a few capable folks leave, re-organisation finally take places, extra tier of management. Oh dear, it's actually more costly, not less. New bod now leaves to create havoc elsewhere.
Twas always such.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
