Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[tegs07]

59 minutes ago, edstraker123 said:

But do you buy the insurance policy you may never claim on or fund the hospital that might keep your kids alive now or let your granny put the heating on in the winter ?

It is a conundrum, but I'm not sure I trust politicians to make a decision that isn't in their own self interest or the media not to be hyping a paid for agenda.

It’s interesting the difference between the Polish perspective and the UK. I guess if hostile tanks and bombs were in Wales we might take things a little more seriously.

 

Edit: Even as a potential peace keeping force in Ukraine UK is impotent. We simply don’t have the resources.

Edited Sunday at 23:18 by tegs07

[Steve Browning]

I fear the spare bass analogy is a little simplistic. The spare bass money is not going to pay for nurses, teachers, social workers, dentists, doctors etc.

 

We should be combining with the other European countries to create a pan-Eurupean force. I would doubt that this island would be invaded from anywhere other than one of our European neighbours. 

 

 

[Agent 00Soul]

The UK and France also are nuclear powers and that seems to be the biggest insurance policy of all. Once you are in the nuclear club no one is going to attack you directly. Proxy wars yes, an invasion no.

 

Edited Monday at 07:04 by Agent 00Soul

[edstraker123]

8 hours ago, tegs07 said:

I guess if hostile tanks and bombs were in Wales we might take things a little more seriously.

But isn't that just what Russia did as Nato expanded ever closer to its border ?

[edstraker123]

1 hour ago, Steve Browning said:

We should be combining with the other European countries to create a pan-Eurupean force

A european union - that sounds like a great idea 😄

[Steve Browning]

Just now, edstraker123 said:

A european union - that sounds like a great idea 😄

Quite!!

[Agent 00Soul]

3 minutes ago, edstraker123 said:

A european union - that sounds like a great idea 😄

In retrospect, one of the big things that the EU got wrong as it evolved is not developing its own military separate from NATO.

[SumOne]

.

Edited Monday at 08:16 by SumOne

[SumOne]

12 minutes ago, Agent 00Soul said:

In retrospect, one of the big things that the EU got wrong as it evolved is not developing its own military separate from NATO.

 

Not to sound like a Farage (the word should be an entry in the Profanisaurus), but the impression I get is that the EU would needs much more of an 'all or nothing' thing for an effective EU army. It would be almost impossible to get agreement from 27 states for any quick, decisive action, perhaps some non-lethal 'peacekeeping' army could get agreement, but nothing that would scare Putin. It just seems the EU member needs/opinions/budgets are too varied to all be properly united on anything other than slowly agreed non-politically charged (or at least not so obviously newsworthy/ political to voters) things like regulatory policy.  I mean, really, how much do  Slovakia and Ireland, or Estonia and Malta, or Cyprus and Belgium really have in common? It's all a bit artificial. But I suppose the same could be said for NATO.

Edited Monday at 08:20 by SumOne

[Buddster]

5 hours ago, edstraker123 said:

But isn't that just what Russia did as Nato expanded ever closer to its border ?

Well, rather than just building up forces on the boarder, Russia went and invaded a sovereign country, killing thousands of civilians and occupying captured land, as much to do with Putins rhetoric that Ukraine should be part of Russia as it was about NATO. 

[TimR]

15 hours ago, edstraker123 said:

But do you buy the insurance policy you may never claim on or fund the hospital that might keep your kids alive now or let your granny put the heating on in the winter ?

It is a conundrum, but I'm not sure I trust politicians to make a decision that isn't in their own self interest or the media not to be hyping a paid for agenda.

 

There is the problem in a nutshell.

 

Me me me.

 

What about funding the NHS so that OTHER people can work, be productive, live longer etc. So they're not a burden on the social security and long term ill requiring unpaid carers to stay at home away from work?

 

This is the bit the US don't get. They just throw unproductive and ill people to the wolves in some mistaken belief that they should have been born with a better immune system and worked harder. 

 

I'm probably a bit niave, but funding overseas aid is supposed to prevent overwhelming migration.

[Agent 00Soul]

16 minutes ago, TimR said:

They just throw unproductive and ill people to the wolves in some mistaken belief that they should have been born with a better immune system and worked harder.

 

To be fair, insurance companies do that to gainfully employed middle-class people these days too.  Luigi Mangione came from an elite background.

[Woodinblack]

26 minutes ago, TimR said:

I'm probably a bit niave, but funding overseas aid is supposed to prevent overwhelming migration.

 

That and Its a really cost effective way of spreading soft power - Oh all those bags of grain that are feeding me have a USA flag on, they must be the good guys, yes they can have a military base here.  Oh USA are giving us money to develop our economy on the basis we don't attack israel, ok, thats fine.

 

China still understand this only too well

[SumOne]

The most tricky thing about overseas aid seems to be communicating the value to voters.

 

Voters can see their money being spent on a new boat/wall whatever and news footage of them stopping and deporting migrants. It is much more tricky to show in a 'soundbite' sort of way that long-term supporting vaccinations/education/farming/industry/rule-of-law etc. abroad has made it a better place for people to stay and stopped so many wanting to migrate in the first place (and that a lot of charity campaigns will be quite short-term, e.g. give money now to feed people starving in a crisis today, rather than less newsworthy long-term aid programmes that strategically help build up a country to not have war/famine in the first place).

 

That is just one aspect of it, there are all the soft power and other advantages that are hard to quantify and communicate  e.g. reducing risk - reducing the chance of of pandemics etc.  

 

I think most politicians can see that foreign aid is generally a good use of tax money - but not a good way or getting themselves elected.

 

It is one of those times that a country like China has an advantage - they will do it  strategically long-term without worrying about votes. 

 

... the fact that China does a lot of international aid work without disclosing the cost probably says a lot - it isn't to brag, isn't to appease domestic voters, so are they just doing it from the goodness of their hearts? or are they doing it because it will strategically benefit China?

Edited Monday at 21:34 by SumOne

[Musicman666]

On 18/02/2025 at 00:08, SumOne said:

The most tricky thing about overseas aid seems to be communicating the value to voters.

 

Voters can see their money being spent on a new boat/wall whatever and news footage of them stopping and deporting migrants. It is much more tricky to show in a 'soundbite' sort of way that long-term supporting vaccinations/education/farming/industry/rule-of-law etc. abroad has made it a better place for people to stay and stopped so many wanting to migrate in the first place (and that a lot of charity campaigns will be quite short-term, e.g. give money now to feed people starving in a crisis today, rather than less newsworthy long-term aid programmes that strategically help build up a country to not have war/famine in the first place).

 

That is just one aspect of it, there are all the soft power and other advantages that are hard to quantify and communicate  e.g. reducing risk - reducing the chance of of pandemics etc.  

 

I think most politicians can see that foreign aid is generally a good use of tax money - but not a good way or getting themselves elected.

 

It is one of those times that a country like China has an advantage - they will do it  strategically long-term without worrying about votes. 

 

... the fact that China does a lot of international aid work without disclosing the cost probably says a lot - it isn't to brag, isn't to appease domestic voters, so are they just doing it from the goodness of their hearts? or are they doing it because it will strategically benefit China?

china has one of the worst track records domestically when it comes to charity, any foreign policy engaging in charity is just pure leverage rather than playing to a domestic audience. 

[SumOne]

2 hours ago, Musicman666 said:

china has one of the worst track records domestically when it comes to charity, any foreign policy engaging in charity is just pure leverage rather than playing to a domestic audience. 

Exactly my point. If people really want a selfish 'charity begins at home' view to international aid, then actually they could just look at what China does -  it does a lot of foreign aid and isn't doing it for  votes or as altruism, it is for the quid-pro-quo. It is worthwhile, even from a selfish perspective.

 

Trump and Farage types say they are against foreign aid is because that view plays well with a lot of voters. They don't actually care about what is best for their country, or other countries, they care about themselves short term - getting votes.

Edited Tuesday at 18:18 by SumOne

[Obrienp]

38 minutes ago, SumOne said:

Exactly my point. If people really want a selfish 'charity begins at home' view to international aid, then actually they could just look at what China does -  it does a lot of foreign aid and isn't doing it for  votes or as altruism, it is for the quid-pro-quo. It is worthwhile, even from a selfish perspective.

 

Trump and Farage types say they are against foreign aid is because that view plays well with a lot of voters. They don't actually care about what is best for their country, or other countries, they care about themselves short term - getting votes.

Agree; the way China operates locks the recipients into their debt and their orbit. Often it comprises of a mix of aid and loans, or an offset agreement in return for access to natural resources,  making the recipient country reliant on China. Very often they are countries that the West has little interest in (no natural resources, unsympathetic regime, just wealthy enough not to qualify for aid but with poor credit ratings). Once in China’s orbit, it is going to be very difficult to get them back. 
 

WRT your second point, I am seeing memes on Facebook sponsored by Reform with the message: “ Don’t forget to pay your taxes this year: other countries are relying on you”. The thing that is really upsetting, is that people I know, who are decent folks, are sharing this shiz, including the drummer in one of my bands! 

[kodiakblair]

3 hours ago, Musicman666 said:

any foreign policy engaging in charity is just pure leverage rather than playing to a domestic audience. 

Is that any worse than our policy, give folk enough to stay alive but keep them forever needy ?

 

Nobody does charity from goodwill. 

 

Take Trump's foreign aid nonsense. His government will cancel their contracts with the American farmers, those folks will face a really tough time of it. When the foreign aid starts up again the farmers will be offered lower prices, they either comply or go bust. If they go bust, there's a few large corporations only too happy to score prime arable land for pennys.

 

Trump's MAGA could happen but it only applies to latter day cattle barons and plantation owners.

[Musicman666]

2 hours ago, kodiakblair said:

Is that any worse than our policy, give folk enough to stay alive but keep them forever needy ?

 

Nobody does charity from goodwill. 

 

Take Trump's foreign aid nonsense. His government will cancel their contracts with the American farmers, those folks will face a really tough time of it. When the foreign aid starts up again the farmers will be offered lower prices, they either comply or go bust. If they go bust, there's a few large corporations only too happy to score prime arable land for pennys.

 

Trump's MAGA could happen but it only applies to latter day cattle barons and plantation owners.

well yes but my point was that at least countries that have a domestic environment that engages in charity on an individual personal level would suggest that any charitable acts carried out by their country would in some way garner brownie points for their next election ... so unlike china it's not always just pure unadulterated leverage. 

[tauzero]

7 hours ago, Obrienp said:

Agree; the way China operates locks the recipients into their debt and their orbit. Often it comprises of a mix of aid and loans, or an offset agreement in return for access to natural resources,  making the recipient country reliant on China. Very often they are countries that the West has little interest in (no natural resources, unsympathetic regime, just wealthy enough not to qualify for aid but with poor credit ratings). Once in China’s orbit, it is going to be very difficult to get them back. 

 

I've been wondering whether the Palestinians will make any overtures to China (after all, everybody else has let them down).

[prowla]

So, Meta is asking Trump to review EU regulation.

[TimR]

13 hours ago, kodiakblair said:

Nobody does charity from goodwill. 

 

They do. Foreign Aid is a legal requirement. It's set by the UN and the the OECD. As part of the UN the US are required to pay. Trump is breaking yet another legal obligation. 

[Agent 00Soul]

14 hours ago, kodiakblair said:

Trump's MAGA could happen but it only applies to latter day cattle barons and plantation owners.

He’s in his honeymoon period after the election and his voters are delirious with joy.  The same way Obama supporters were after he got elected the first time.  Either that or it really is the Beatlemania I mentioned a few days ago here.  No matter; they’ll learn…

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/18/trump-birthday-holiday-republican-bill

[kodiakblair]

6 hours ago, Agent 00Soul said:

He’s in his honeymoon period after the election and his voters are delirious with joy

Maybe he'll get lucky and as the joy fades another pandemic will come along to distract his folk, they'll be too busy dying to see what a complete and utter f##k up he is 🙂

[chris_b]

3 minutes ago, kodiakblair said:

Maybe he'll get lucky and as the joy fades another pandemic will come along to distract his folk, they'll be too busy dying to see what a complete and utter f##k up he is 🙂

 

He's already got one.

 

Bird flu is decimating US poultry flocks, 162,586,638 reported cases so far. Egg prices are rising when Trump said he would reduce them on day one! I don't think that will pass unnoticed.

 

They've also had crossover and at least one human death.