morty
Moderator
Staff member
Don't start me lol. Also "The Govt are providing this for free" is nonsense, what it actually means is other taxpayers are paying for your snotty little rugrat.
morty
Moderator
Staff member
So is everybody feeling financially better off today?
F
Fen Canary
Active Member
I really can’t see what the yanks are trying to achieve with these tariffs. There seems to have been so little thought put into them beyond looking at the trade deficit with that nation and setting the tariffs at a higher or lower rate.
I’ve nothing against tariffs, but they’re a tool to be used as part of a targeted larger strategy such as protecting essential industries such as steel, energy and agriculture. Theres no point attaching large tariffs to items you’d struggle to grow yourself such as coffee or bananas for instance.
The Americans approach just seems incredibly haphazard and will end up hurting them more in the long run I feel. At the moment the trade deficits they currently run end up getting turned into debt which are bought by other countries allowing the yanks to live far beyond their means. If Trump starts a trade war and other nations stop buying the US debt (some sell off has started already) then America is in deep trouble and will have to severely curtail their spending, especially on research subsidies and the military
I’ve nothing against tariffs, but they’re a tool to be used as part of a targeted larger strategy such as protecting essential industries such as steel, energy and agriculture. Theres no point attaching large tariffs to items you’d struggle to grow yourself such as coffee or bananas for instance.
The Americans approach just seems incredibly haphazard and will end up hurting them more in the long run I feel. At the moment the trade deficits they currently run end up getting turned into debt which are bought by other countries allowing the yanks to live far beyond their means. If Trump starts a trade war and other nations stop buying the US debt (some sell off has started already) then America is in deep trouble and will have to severely curtail their spending, especially on research subsidies and the military
morty
Moderator
Staff member
Argentina and Israel have agreed tariff free trade with the US, and Vietnam has dropped tariffs on US cars, so the plan might be starting to work. It will be interesting to see if the EU fancies a trade war...
F
Fen Canary
Active Member
Argentina and Israel are US lackeys though, both entirely dependent on the States so thats not a big surprise. Also Vietnam isn’t buying large numbers of American cars, it’s a poor country reliant on mopeds and the few cars you see (at least on my travels there) are all Japanese and Korean so it’s not much of a concession.
The reason Vietnam has such a large imbalance in trade is because numerous sportswear firms manufacture their clothing there, so unless the Americans are going to start working for Vietnamese wages those companies still aren’t going to move back to the States, as even with the tariffs it will still be cheaper to manufacture them abroad (not to mention sourcing the materials to do so).
If it gets too bad they’ll simply move to another poor country not currently hit with tariffs as large and the trade imbalance will move to a different nation such as Pakistan
morty
Moderator
Staff member
I saw this explanation:-
This is the best explanation I've read about what Trump is doing. Just an explanation, not for or against.
What the tariffs? Or: why most people misunderstand the deeper plan behind the tariffs.
The “Mar-a-Lago Accord” is a comprehensive plan by the Trump administration to fundamentally reorganize the global trade and financial system. What appears on the surface to be chaotic arbitrariness - such as the sudden introduction and rapid suspension of tariffs against Mexico and Canada - is actually part of a larger, well-thought-out strategy.
This plan is based on the ideas of Stephen Miran, a Harvard graduate and former fund manager who was nominated by Trump to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In a 40-page paper entitled “A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System”, Miran laid the foundations for this new economic policy.
The core criticism: the US bears a disproportionate burden on the rest of the world by providing military protection for allies and providing the foundation of the global financial system without being adequately compensated. The expensive US dollar is identified as the main problem - it makes American exports more expensive, imports cheaper and has led to an exodus of industry from the American heartland.
The tariffs serve as central leverage in a plan with two main objectives: Firstly, a massive debt restructuring of the USA is to take place. Foreign creditors are to be forced to exchange their US government bonds for new 100-year bonds without interest payments. This is intended to reduce the enormous US debt burden of 36 trillion dollars, whose interest payments now even exceed military spending.
Secondly, global trade is to be realigned in favor of the USA. A “traffic light system” is being introduced for this purpose: Countries will be divided into “green”, “yellow” and “red” categories. Nations that fully comply with Trump's demands - for example by purchasing the 100-year bonds and avoiding business with sanctioned countries such as Russia - will be placed in the “green box” and receive duty-free access to the US market. Countries that only partially comply with the requirements or ignore them are placed in the “yellow” or “red” box and face high punitive tariffs (up to 20%) or the withdrawal of military protection.
Another dimension of the plan concerns control over raw materials, which are seen as the new “currency of power”. Trump's interest in Greenland (with its deposits of rare earths),his claims to the Panama Canal and his comments about Canada as a potential 51st state fit into this picture of resource dominance.
The architects of the plan concede that its implementation will be painful at first. Miran warns of “considerable economic and market volatility”, while Bessent explains that the economy could “roll down a bit”. Trump himself spoke of initial “minor disruptions” before his promised “golden age” arrives. The stock markets have already reacted with massive slumps - in two and a half weeks alone, the value of US shares has fallen by around four trillion dollars, with the seven largest tech companies losing more than 750 billion dollars in value.
The plan behind the tariffs therefore involves much more than “just” additional revenue from the tariffs. It is about the strong dollar, the high debt burden and the reorganization of power politics. The tariffs are only the means of exerting pressure.
This is the best explanation I've read about what Trump is doing. Just an explanation, not for or against.
What the tariffs? Or: why most people misunderstand the deeper plan behind the tariffs.
The “Mar-a-Lago Accord” is a comprehensive plan by the Trump administration to fundamentally reorganize the global trade and financial system. What appears on the surface to be chaotic arbitrariness - such as the sudden introduction and rapid suspension of tariffs against Mexico and Canada - is actually part of a larger, well-thought-out strategy.
This plan is based on the ideas of Stephen Miran, a Harvard graduate and former fund manager who was nominated by Trump to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In a 40-page paper entitled “A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System”, Miran laid the foundations for this new economic policy.
The core criticism: the US bears a disproportionate burden on the rest of the world by providing military protection for allies and providing the foundation of the global financial system without being adequately compensated. The expensive US dollar is identified as the main problem - it makes American exports more expensive, imports cheaper and has led to an exodus of industry from the American heartland.
The tariffs serve as central leverage in a plan with two main objectives: Firstly, a massive debt restructuring of the USA is to take place. Foreign creditors are to be forced to exchange their US government bonds for new 100-year bonds without interest payments. This is intended to reduce the enormous US debt burden of 36 trillion dollars, whose interest payments now even exceed military spending.
Secondly, global trade is to be realigned in favor of the USA. A “traffic light system” is being introduced for this purpose: Countries will be divided into “green”, “yellow” and “red” categories. Nations that fully comply with Trump's demands - for example by purchasing the 100-year bonds and avoiding business with sanctioned countries such as Russia - will be placed in the “green box” and receive duty-free access to the US market. Countries that only partially comply with the requirements or ignore them are placed in the “yellow” or “red” box and face high punitive tariffs (up to 20%) or the withdrawal of military protection.
Another dimension of the plan concerns control over raw materials, which are seen as the new “currency of power”. Trump's interest in Greenland (with its deposits of rare earths),his claims to the Panama Canal and his comments about Canada as a potential 51st state fit into this picture of resource dominance.
The architects of the plan concede that its implementation will be painful at first. Miran warns of “considerable economic and market volatility”, while Bessent explains that the economy could “roll down a bit”. Trump himself spoke of initial “minor disruptions” before his promised “golden age” arrives. The stock markets have already reacted with massive slumps - in two and a half weeks alone, the value of US shares has fallen by around four trillion dollars, with the seven largest tech companies losing more than 750 billion dollars in value.
The plan behind the tariffs therefore involves much more than “just” additional revenue from the tariffs. It is about the strong dollar, the high debt burden and the reorganization of power politics. The tariffs are only the means of exerting pressure.
S
Sonyc
Active Member
I read about Miran a couple of weeks ago. I felt that what appeared to be a chaotic economic policy must have a grounded set of principles (even though dumbed down to phrases such as making America great or liberation day for the masses). I refer back to my first few comments on it and my sense remains ...that it is a huge gamble. So risky that you'd even think it necessary to do on your own people, who you profess to be concerned about.
The danger (as an idiot like me sees it) is making the US look very unreliable. You then risk countries looking to trade around you, or disconnect from you (as is already being planned for in China and an example closer to home is Eutelsat). The conditions are created for other alliances (China, Japan, South Korea meeting up recently).
Money talks in the end of course but I believe you also risk damaging relationships to such a great degree (the basis of most economic decisions) and these take a long time to repair.
Trump has said he is a disruptor and so he may well be. But do that in your own realm, in your own business and don't play it out like some game on your own citizens. Citizens who are being affected by healthcare changes, potentially higher consumer prices.
For the UK we're not just caught in the crossfire of 10% traits (worse for cars, steel) but from the multiplier effect from other trading partners. It's ironic too that in terms of the US/UK trade balance it's already in the US' favour and has been for a while (can't recall the source).
It's a very depressing spectacle and only one that's going to get worse for an awful lot of ordinary people (whilst the very rich will do fine). Such a trite English thing to say perhaps but the whole thing is Shakespearean. As it was for the recent and famous narcissist Johnson over here.
There again (for balance) I could be entirely wrong and "all shall be well and all shall be well" to quote our Julian.
T
Trosher
New Member
As a 'newbie' interesting to see the 'politics' and a reminder, that under the surface of an FC, is the local socio-politic - in general, politics is doomed or the current model needs to be thrown on the tip - and not to support politics BUT: It is worthy to note that Norwich has the record of the longest labour majority city of any city, in Britain ( fact checkers please check but it is 98 years straight until Greens and Liberals took places in the early 2000s ?)
Not that the 'Labour' is important but it just reflects the mindset of the area ( as well as Greens and Liberals were the next up not the Tories ). Add to this the rich history of rebellion, Kett's of course, though others. Up to today though, the modern version of 'socialism' is not really anything like it was up until the Bliar era. Labour also used to equal community togetherness and endeavour. Now it seems to equal the opposite.
How many also know that Norwich is also the only British city to have been entirely excommunicated from the Catholic Church? The catholic priort was leveled and ransacked by locals *( our ancestors! ) as the monks hoarded foodstores while the people starved.in the 13th century. Old 'politics' maybe but reflects into the future?
That's why a few of us reckon that a club that represents the Norwich Over the Water area, would be a great idea. That side of town, always has been an area of alternativeness and was a whigs and radicals area, or just the proletariat thinkers and so on, scurried away the watering holes discussing important matters. Anyone who ever lived that side, would also get it.
Which Is why a NOWFCC ( Norwich Over the Water Football & Community Club ) is also a great idea. Representing the people of Norwich North and in general, the fine city. Any thoughts on that ? Any thoughts on a fan organised breakaway club in the future? Of course,not to put NCFC aside, just as a complementary club.
As for politics in general, totally remodel it, chuck most of it out, the money will also crash in football one day. People love their clubs but also are underlyingly done with the 'politic-corporatism' of FC's. FC's were founded on being social clubs, winning was a bonus and a laugh.
Not that the 'Labour' is important but it just reflects the mindset of the area ( as well as Greens and Liberals were the next up not the Tories ). Add to this the rich history of rebellion, Kett's of course, though others. Up to today though, the modern version of 'socialism' is not really anything like it was up until the Bliar era. Labour also used to equal community togetherness and endeavour. Now it seems to equal the opposite.
How many also know that Norwich is also the only British city to have been entirely excommunicated from the Catholic Church? The catholic priort was leveled and ransacked by locals *( our ancestors! ) as the monks hoarded foodstores while the people starved.in the 13th century. Old 'politics' maybe but reflects into the future?
That's why a few of us reckon that a club that represents the Norwich Over the Water area, would be a great idea. That side of town, always has been an area of alternativeness and was a whigs and radicals area, or just the proletariat thinkers and so on, scurried away the watering holes discussing important matters. Anyone who ever lived that side, would also get it.
Which Is why a NOWFCC ( Norwich Over the Water Football & Community Club ) is also a great idea. Representing the people of Norwich North and in general, the fine city. Any thoughts on that ? Any thoughts on a fan organised breakaway club in the future? Of course,not to put NCFC aside, just as a complementary club.
As for politics in general, totally remodel it, chuck most of it out, the money will also crash in football one day. People love their clubs but also are underlyingly done with the 'politic-corporatism' of FC's. FC's were founded on being social clubs, winning was a bonus and a laugh.