Watching Trump - Tariffs - your thoughts

[Livingbytheocean]

Did I actually hear him use the word rape in his presidential address?

I have been blindsided listening to the ‘content’ by the flippant use of that word.

Jo Cherry, definitely.

We need to make white goods repairable. Boilers discarded after a decade. Washing machine after three years. It's madness.

We bought a drawer freezer in 1977. It's still going strong after one repair.

Washing machine top loader did 12 hard years Hotpoint. Miele similar. We throw out kettles, toasters that die after a few years, ditto irons.

It's madness.

@Alexandra2001 it’s why I don’t believe in the concept of PLCs- I think it creates a great deal of short termism simply to keep stock prices up - and if pension funds and insurance companies had to actually find stuff to invest in longer term to make them money then they might actually fund more ‘built to rent’ developments, at sensible rates to keep them full or look at leisure centres or other things of social use.

I also think the concept makes it easy for politicians to put through policies to manipulate markets , crash share prices enabling their very wealthy mates to buy up ‘cheaply’ and keep the money circus going - and then change back policy etc
look at Rees Mogg and Somerset capital and carrions hedge funders -a ton of money betting on the Brexit outcome and betting on shares crashing. Bugger the economy- let’s make some quick cash.
wouldnt suprise me if some of Trumps mates and people in office are up to similar at moment.

Definitely, and I think quite a few of them wouldn't mind seeing traditional currencies collapse in favour of crypto, which allows them to essentially have untraceable wealth with untraceable sources.

Previous reply hidden because I mentioned a source of currency that they are enamoured of. I think some of them wouldn't mind seeing a collapse of traditional currency in favour of one that allows them untraceable wealth from untraceable sources.

I'm slightly convinced that's why they seem so unbothered by the economic collapse they're heralding in

Trump and China are playing Tit for Tariff.

It's going to end in tears.

@user5566774 I remember one year when M&S had made £600mikkion profit - but god forbid it was down from the previous few years- the way it was reported by analysts anyone would think they were making a loss and all the talk was of ‘cuts’ they would have to make- absolutely salivating at the thought of ‘cuts’ - purely to push the stock back up and keep the money circus happy - my view is at £600 million profit you are doing nicely thank you and don’t desparately need to make any cuts. It’s the same with employers NI - many of these huge profit makers can easily absorb it and still make huge profits- they choose to pass it to consumers just to keep their stock and profits hugely high because of the system we have.

I genuinely don’t understand the whole tariffs thing but Trump is the most hideous man. I’m quite glad Musk seems to have stepped away as I’ve no idea what part he was playing, apart from watching Tesla sales dive.

It's not so much tariffs in themselves I mean as being "seat of the pants", but the way they are being managed. I'm in an area that will be heavily affected by them, and there seems to be no clarity or continuity. One day they are on, the next they are off, then they are on but differernt, all with a side of, we are going to take over your country.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of a total restructuring of the global economy, but I think any set of policies ideally will be clear and consistent if the people instituting them know what they are trying to accomplish. To me it seems like they have a kind of overall vision, but that they haven't been able to work out the details, or there are competing ideas in the administration so they keep changing their minds.

It comes of as very fly-by-night and I think that could easily undermine their goals.

It's very much up Vance's ally though, he, and some of the others in Trump's group of advisors have been very influenced by Catholic social economics, and Distributism. Which doesn't fit neatly into modern left or right camps, but it certainly has a focus on putting a leash on unrestrained capitalism.

Globalism and movement of labour work directly against unionism, the left used to understand that. Now they push those ideas - mainly because "the left" these days is made up of the professional middle classes, for whom movement of labour is a real advantage to their careers and globalism gives them lots of cheap shit.

It's not a trick that the working classes have abandoned left wing parties, it's because they no longer have interests in common.

@TempestTost whilst I agree somewhat with your take on voters to the left ( and I’m a centre left voter myself) and how it’s changed, I don’t think right wing politics usually has the working class voters interests at heart either- plenty of it is ideology lead or finance lead and equally self interested and works nicely ‘for the few’ - usually those that are already comfortably off- some of it works too if you are extremely driven and more than happy to shit on others , but I wouldn’t say that’s where the majority of the working class.are at -

No.

Refusal to take responsibility runs from the top down.

People knew how unhinged and reckless Trump is and yet they voted him in. And somehow they want to blame other people for their own reckless choice.

Ridiculous.

There is certainly the big business neoliberal right as well, they've been dominant there for some time though I think that's more balanced now, in that there seems to be other sorts of conservatism making an argument against the libertarian economic model.

(I also think working class voters are often less interested in wealth transfers through centralized programs than the professional classes think they are, - what they really want are good jobs with good wages so they can afford a stable decent life.)

There were a lot of Democrat voters who abstained because they didn't feel they could vote for Harris.

I just want to know what the penguins of McDonald and Herd Islands have been trading in. Whatever it is Trump really wants to go after them. I stand with the penguins!

No. As was repeatedly said in the run up to the election, you're on a long flight and the flight attendant offers you a choice between a plate of dog shit with ground glass and a plate of chicken, which isn't your favourite, you don't say, not keen on chicken, I'll take the dog shit.

She absolutely wiped the floor with his insane old ass in the debate. If you were still unable to see her total superiority in every way, it's on you.

It was a binary choice. Everything that's happening was predicted and predictable. So fuck that.

And.. there were a lot of Democrats that didn't vote, because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Harris.

There are a few things the Deocrats did that would have made a significant difference on this:

They could have insisted Biden step down when they say his state - which we now know his inner circle was aware of - so there was time to have proper primaries.

They could have thought - maybe it's not a great idea to run the most unpopular VP ever as our candidate.

they could also have thought, maybe it's not the best idea to have a candidate who tried to run last time, but failed so badly she dropped out at the first state.

These are basic things the Democrats chose to do, and that tells you how important they thought it was to oppose Trump.

I agree Biden should have been pushed aside and there should have been a primary.

However

Actually, Vance is the most unpopular vice president ever.
It's not at all unusual for candidates to drop out of primaries and then run successfully.

Black woman you thought was imperfect vs a twice-impeached, demonstrably lying, convicted felon and adjudicated perpetrator of sexual assault who fomented a violent insurrection, has bankrupted six businesses, is banned along with his adult children from ever running another charity for misusing funds, who spent most of the campaign dancing to YMCA and ranting dementedly and incomprehensibly about Hannibal Lecter, Arnold Palmer's dick and immigrants eating cats and dogs.

Clear binary choice. If anyone couldn't see that, it's on them.

@TempestTost

"And.. there were a lot of Democrats that didn't vote, because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Harris."

Harris had an incredibly short run up to the election, and she lost the election partly because the majority of men - particularly young men, voted for Trump.

Hillary Clinton was the only qualified candidate in 2016. Again, she lost because a significant majority of men voted for Trump.

Why can't people acknowledge that misogyny is a problem in American politics? That there are significant numbers of men who can't bring themselves to vote for a woman candidate?

Also worth pointing out that whatever Harris's qualities or lack thereof, almost all incumbents across the world were battered or voted out of office last year because of inflation.

I find it unbelievable that the people think Kamala lost because she's crap are the same folks who think it's perfectly reasonable that people would elect a lying traitor, a demagogue, a wannabe autocrat and a felon into office.

Hope they’re still happily eating that plate of shit chosen over the chicken.

Can you imagine voting for a man you managed to bankrupt casinos into charge of the US economy

@user5566774 totally agree - but hey ‘groceries, it’s a beautiful word’ I’ve been laughing ever since hearing that this week- the guys off his chump - I can understand all reasons why those defending didn’t much like the opposition- but the Republicans themselves should be ashamed they even allowed a felon and a batshit one at that to be their candidate. Mind you anyone half decent or with any moral compass and not just concerned for their own status or bank account has disowned or left the party

Well, yes, candidates always lose because people don't vote for them. If you run for office you need people to want to vote for you.

Most Democrat insiders, including Obama, thought Harris was crap, had never been VP material, and couldn't win. Despite his berating male voters over misogyny for not liking her, which looks a bit shitty now given that he didn't think she was any good either.

I don't think misogyny is the issue with either of them. Hillary wasn't ever personally popular, even when Bill was president, she always rubbed people the wrong way, and she was just not a natural or warm communicator. I can't really think of a president from Reagan on who was as wooden and unnatural as either Harris or Clinton, which arguably is an unfair requirement, but it's a significant factor in how people respond. (Trump is a deeply weird communicator, but I'd never call him staid or unnatural.)

Hilary also ran a disastrous campaign, full of missteps like completely ignoring the fly-over states - against advice. The Harris campaign was much better run, but she had other baggage - she was associated with Biden for one thing and there was a perception that she was involved in covering up his health problems, she was associated especially with some of the failures of Biden's administration (or, if you like, things the public saw as failures.) And both Harris and Hilary were very associated with the establishment at times when the American public wanted something different - Trump, and Obama (in his first campaign), in contrast, were both perceived as being outside the establishment and that was an advantage.

If Dolly Parton ran for president today, I think she's probably get a higher % of the vote than anyone ever. For whatever reason, the Democrats seem to pick women who are unlikely to win.