All Things Trump: The Return Of The King

[JimC]

Cunt wrote...

That's actually not a bad idea.

[Tero]

Musk better not say tariifs are stupid again. It could be El Salvador next. He would need to pay half a trillion to get out. Bukele won't take Tesla stock.

[pErvinalia]

Trump is coming.

I hope he cleans up after himself.

[Tyrannical]

Threatening those tariffs wouldn't have worked because no one would have believed it. Calculating a reciprocal tariff purely according to the size of a trade deficit? It was ridiculous, mocked by economists and serious people around the world.

So he had to actually do it, to prove that he would, and then pause them while deals are forced on panicking exporters.

And it's going to work, Trump is going to negotiate favorable trade deals in a matter of weeks or months. Without his shock and awe, things would be much slower. They'll be some shake ups in the short term, but Trump will get increased manufacturing back to the US.

Sure. Put enough pressure on Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh etc and those sweatshop jobs will come flooding back to the US - and of course those countries have a trading surplus with the US, because very few people in those places can actually afford to buy US-made products. The other thing is that wages and the standard of living in those place are really really low, so if those jobs are coming state-side and those goods are going to be made in the US they're going to be significantly more expensive - unless companies can get away with paying the same kind of wages - which probably means that the poor American workers stitching the t-shirts and gluing training shoes aren't likely to be able to afford the products they're producing. How that's going to be good for the economy is something the idiots in charge obviously don't want to think about.

I guess at the simplest level, Trump will ask what will you give the US to help balance trade

Things that they may import now, could they be imported from the US now or in the future?
Are there mining or construction opportunities that could go to a US company?
Territorial waters, are there US companies you can partner with there for business opportunities?

At the more complicated level, robotic AI enhanced factories powered by coal

AI Overview
Thailand's top ten imports include machinery, mineral oils and fuels, industrial machinery, iron & steel, precious stones & metals, plastics, motor vehicles & parts, and copper. Additionally, electrical machinery and equipment, and chemicals and related products are also significant import categories.

AI Overview
In 2023, Vietnam's top imports included electrical machinery, nuclear reactors and machinery, plastics, mineral fuels, and iron and steel. Other significant imports are computers, electrical products, and textile fabrics.

[Brian Peacock]

Threatening those tariffs wouldn't have worked because no one would have believed it. Calculating a reciprocal tariff purely according to the size of a trade deficit? It was ridiculous, mocked by economists and serious people around the world.

So he had to actually do it, to prove that he would, and then pause them while deals are forced on panicking exporters.

And it's going to work, Trump is going to negotiate favorable trade deals in a matter of weeks or months. Without his shock and awe, things would be much slower. They'll be some shake ups in the short term, but Trump will get increased manufacturing back to the US.

Sure. Put enough pressure on Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh etc and those sweatshop jobs will come flooding back to the US - and of course those countries have a trading surplus with the US, because very few people in those places can actually afford to buy US-made products. The other thing is that wages and the standard of living in those place are really really low, so if those jobs are coming state-side and those goods are going to be made in the US they're going to be significantly more expensive - unless companies can get away with paying the same kind of wages - which probably means that the poor American workers stitching the t-shirts and gluing training shoes aren't likely to be able to afford the products they're producing. How that's going to be good for the economy is something the idiots in charge obviously don't want to think about.

I guess at the simplest level, Trump will ask what will you give the US to help balance trade

Things that they may import now, could they be imported from the US now or in the future?
Are there mining or construction opportunities that could go to a US company?
Territorial waters, are there US companies you can partner with there for business opportunities?

At the more complicated level, robotic AI enhanced factories powered by coal

...

Indeed. So it's a shakedown of some of the poorest people in the world - and it's basically their fault "Don't make me hit you with my ring hand."

[Sean Hayden]

How much does it cost to make a 100 dollar pair of shoes halfway around the world? What’s to stop you making it here, besides much smaller profit margins, and is that what the left is saying: hey idiots they can’t exploit others for profit you better get with the program!?

Resources, processing, distribution, transport, storage all have to be accounted for before assembly, which includes premises, energy, machinery, training, quality control, packaging, and staff of course - then there's the retail side with more distribution, storage, staff, display, advertising etc etc. There's a lot of costs. Volume sellers can probably afford to make less on each item than smaller or niche sellers. I don't think the left (well, me) is saying that it can't be done, that the US can't reboot the manufacturing base it's systematically outsourced to some of the poorest countries in the world, just that's it's unlikely shareholders will be happy to see their dividends go down - 'specially considering that about 90% of US listed company profits go on shareholder dividends and/or stock buy-backs.

Of course they don’t want to, and it would probably be suicide given competitors aren’t going to follow. But that’s not the point. The point is the tension between saying the system is exploitative , and then arguing on its behalf when it’s threatened.

Our tendency is to suggest that our hand is forced, that doing otherwise would be more harmful. But this is always the case —always. How can that be?

[Tero]

Fox News presents evidence man was a gang member: he had tattoos and wears his hat backwards.

[Brian Peacock]

How much does it cost to make a 100 dollar pair of shoes halfway around the world? What’s to stop you making it here, besides much smaller profit margins, and is that what the left is saying: hey idiots they can’t exploit others for profit you better get with the program!?

Resources, processing, distribution, transport, storage all have to be accounted for before assembly, which includes premises, energy, machinery, training, quality control, packaging, and staff of course - then there's the retail side with more distribution, storage, staff, display, advertising etc etc. There's a lot of costs. Volume sellers can probably afford to make less on each item than smaller or niche sellers. I don't think the left (well, me) is saying that it can't be done, that the US can't reboot the manufacturing base it's systematically outsourced to some of the poorest countries in the world, just that's it's unlikely shareholders will be happy to see their dividends go down - 'specially considering that about 90% of US listed company profits go on shareholder dividends and/or stock buy-backs.

Of course they don’t want to, and it would probably be suicide given competitors aren’t going to follow. But that’s not the point. The point is the tension between saying the system is exploitative , and then arguing on its behalf when it’s threatened.

Our tendency is to suggest that our hand is forced, that doing otherwise would be more harmful. But this is always the case —always. How can that be?

Yeah, I get that. A lot of the commentaries have spent the last couple of weeks pointing and laughing at Trump for breaking something that was already broken. Tariffs aren't necessarily bad in themselves - they can raise revenues and protect certain sectors. They can even protect economies more broadly by insulating it from destabilising external forces. What's false though is telling stories about how the world's hegemonic superpower with custodianship of the world's reserve currency is actually the put upon partner, or even the victim when it comes to its trading relationships with somewhere like Vietnam - therefore a massive hike in tariffs are a necessary moral as well as economic corrective.

[Tero]

[Svartalf]

well, wasn't the CIA behind the dictatorships in Chilé and Argentina?

[Tero]

Slashing rules

But first, we’re covering a White House plan to slash regulations.

By Coral Davenport

An agency proposes a regulation — say, establishing minimum staffing levels for nursing homes. Then economists analyze it, the public comments on it, lawyers revise it and, finally, the agency enacts the rule. It generally takes a few years, start to finish, and the same is true for the process to repeal a rule.

President Trump has no patience for that pace. During his first term, he wanted to erase hundreds of rules on the environment, financial oversight and more. But he grew frustrated when some of the rollbacks took almost the entirety of his term to complete. Then, to his chagrin, the Biden administration restored many of them.

So this time around, Trump plans to quickly and permanently kill rules across the more than 400 federal agencies that regulate almost every aspect of American life, from flying in airplanes to processing poultry.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain how his plan works and which agencies it might affect.

Government, slashed
Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and an architect of the Project 2025 blueprint, is overseeing the White House’s deregulation effort. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is executing it.

An image of Russell Vought, a bald man with a beard and brown-framed glasses.
Russell Vought Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
In some cases, the administration believes it can simply revoke rules outright, without following the traditional yearslong process. In others, it plans to effectively nullify rules by directing agencies to stop enforcing them while the slow, legal unwinding process plays out.

Experts say parts of that plan are probably illegal. But it could quickly affect Americans’ lives regardless, as companies stop complying with rules concerning the environment, transportation, food, workplace safety and more without fear of government penalties.

The ‘kill list’
The White House’s first step is to identify regulations it can cut. Federal agencies must put together lists of rules that might run afoul of recent Supreme Court decisions — or that just don’t align with the administration’s priorities.

Vought will then compile the rules into one master deregulation list — a so-called kill list. The administration plans to immediately revoke or stop enforcing those rules.

Two images side-by-side. On the left: workers at a factory. On the right: chickens inside a barn.
Workers in Dearborn, Mich., and a chicken processing farm in Laurel, Miss. Brittany Greeson and William Widmer for The New York Times
Musk has also developed an artificial intelligence tool to comb through the 100,000-plus pages of the Code of Federal Regulations and identify rules that are either outdated or legally vulnerable.

Some of the likely candidates for the list:

Dozens of Environmental Protection Agency rules designed to curb climate change and chemical pollution in air, water and wetlands.
A Mine Safety and Health Administration rule to protect miners from inhaling harmful dust from crystalline silica, a mineral used in cement, smartphones and kitty litter.
Labor Department rules that increased the number of workers who are eligible for sick leave, minimum wage and overtime pay.
A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule that expanded background checks for gun sales.
A Federal Trade Commission rule on “junk fees,” which forbids hotels and ticket vendors from advertising misleading prices without disclosing other fees.

Legal basis
Many industry groups are thrilled. “This is a real opportunity to rebalance the regulatory environment,” said Marty Durbin, senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

And while some expect that the plan to swiftly revoke regulations will be caught up in the courts, they are more optimistic about the other approach — to simply stop enforcing rules while they are legally unwound.

That method relies on an obscure 1985 Supreme Court decision, Heckler v. Chaney, which concluded that if a federal agency does not enforce a regulation, that regulation is generally beyond the review of the courts.

That case could serve as a basis for the administration’s deregulation efforts, even as Trump pushes it further than any previous administration has, said Lisa Heinzerling, who served in the E.P.A. during the Obama administration. The consequences of the cuts, she added, “will be huge.”

NYT

[Sean Hayden]

How much does it cost to make a 100 dollar pair of shoes halfway around the world? What’s to stop you making it here, besides much smaller profit margins, and is that what the left is saying: hey idiots they can’t exploit others for profit you better get with the program!?

Resources, processing, distribution, transport, storage all have to be accounted for before assembly, which includes premises, energy, machinery, training, quality control, packaging, and staff of course - then there's the retail side with more distribution, storage, staff, display, advertising etc etc. There's a lot of costs. Volume sellers can probably afford to make less on each item than smaller or niche sellers. I don't think the left (well, me) is saying that it can't be done, that the US can't reboot the manufacturing base it's systematically outsourced to some of the poorest countries in the world, just that's it's unlikely shareholders will be happy to see their dividends go down - 'specially considering that about 90% of US listed company profits go on shareholder dividends and/or stock buy-backs.

Of course they don’t want to, and it would probably be suicide given competitors aren’t going to follow. But that’s not the point. The point is the tension between saying the system is exploitative , and then arguing on its behalf when it’s threatened.

Our tendency is to suggest that our hand is forced, that doing otherwise would be more harmful. But this is always the case —always. How can that be?

Yeah, I get that. A lot of the commentaries have spent the last couple of weeks pointing and laughing at Trump for breaking something that was already broken. Tariffs aren't necessarily bad in themselves - they can raise revenues and protect certain sectors. They can even protect economies more broadly by insulating it from destabilising external forces. What's false though is telling stories about how the world's hegemonic superpower with custodianship of the world's reserve currency is actually the put upon partner, or even the victim when it comes to its trading relationships with somewhere like Vietnam - therefore a massive hike in tariffs are a necessary moral as well as economic corrective.

Thanks for indulging this bit of naivete Brian. I agree that the tariffs are probably immoral. But it is problematic that our defense of workers in this instance also benefits their antagonist. If for no other reason than workers are so susceptible to rising costs because of businesses that sold them out to compete.

[Cunt]

in the last four years, there are endless examples of left-wing violence (tesla burnings/Trump Butler shooting/Trump golf course attempted assassination by Routh/Ukraine/Luigi/trantifa)

I'm wondering what examples of 'right-wing violence' are being used to try to make it sound like the right is the violence party? I can't think of much of it.

Was it all a lie by Demmies?

[L'Emmerdeur]

This appears to be based entirely on selective amnesia and feelings. Not solid comparative data nor unbiased evidence. If I went a similar route I could start throwing out examples like the Tree of Life synagogue shooting and multiple right wing politically motivated mass shootings in the US, then go on to point out the massacre in Norway, in New Zealand, etc. That's not going to get anywhere, it's just empty yapping.

On the other hand we have scientific studies which refute your claims, but then that means listening to people who've devoted their lives to learning and understanding, and we all know they're untrustworthy, right?

In short, our individual-level examination found that among radicalized individuals in the United States, those adhering to a left-wing ideology were markedly less likely to engage in violent ideologically motivated acts when compared to right-wing individuals. By contrast, we found no such difference between Islamist and right-wing individuals. Reanalyzing the data with left-wing individuals being a reference category showed that the difference between Islamist and left-wing individuals was also significant .

...

Despite the limitations of our data, the finding that right-wing and Islamist cases are more violent than left-wing cases may have special relevance for the current time period. The surge in Islamist terrorism following the 9/11 attacks, driven by groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, has been widely perceived as resulting in the increased deadliness of worldwide terrorism attacks. More recently, there has been growing evidence of a rising tide of populist-driven right-wing extremism in countries around the world. Nearly 50 years ago, Jenkins noted that “terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people listening, and not a lot of people dead.” Three decades later, Jenkins modified his original observation and made it more in keeping with our results from right-wing and Islamist extremists: “many of today’s terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people dead.”

[source]

The above is one example, but as noted in that paper, their findings are consistent with previous examinations of politically motivated violence.

[Cunt]

This appears to be based entirely on selective amnesia and feelings.

Or your misunderstanding.

I was asking about the last 4 years.

Not solid comparative data nor unbiased evidence. If I went a similar route I could start throwing out examples like the Tree of Life synagogue shooting and multiple right wing politically motivated mass shootings in the US, then go on to point out the massacres in Norway, in New Zealand, etc. That's not going to get anywhere, it's just empty yapping.

I think all your examples are further back than 4 years.

I was also thinking about the US, since many don't see the left/right divide the same way across the pond.

On the other hand we have scientific studies which refute your claims, but then that means listening to people who've devoted their lives to learning and understanding, and we all know they're untrustworthy, right?

In short, our individual-level examination found that among radicalized individuals in the United States, those adhering to a left-wing ideology were markedly less likely to engage in violent ideologically motivated acts when compared to right-wing individuals. By contrast, we found no such difference between Islamist and right-wing individuals. Reanalyzing the data with left-wing individuals being a reference category showed that the difference between Islamist and left-wing individuals was also significant .

...

Despite the limitations of our data, the finding that right-wing and Islamist cases are more violent than left-wing cases may have special relevance for the current time period. The surge in Islamist terrorism following the 9/11 attacks, driven by groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, has been widely perceived as resulting in the increased deadliness of worldwide terrorism attacks. More recently, there has been growing evidence of a rising tide of populist-driven right-wing extremism in countries around the world. Nearly 50 years ago, Jenkins noted that “terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people listening, and not a lot of people dead.” Three decades later, Jenkins modified his original observation and made it more in keeping with our results from right-wing and Islamist extremists: “many of today’s terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people dead.”

[source]

The above is one example, but as noted in that paper, their findings are consistent with previous examinations of politically motivated violence.

Are they saying that Islamist terrorism is right-wing?

I guess it is, but more often I see them aligned with left-wing groups.

Anyway, the list I offered was in the recent past, and all left-wing. Look at how many want to celebrate the guy who shot someone in the back on the street. Luigi has a lot of open support, for a guy who allegedly murdered someone he thought had the wrong kind of job. Maybe the left should be more explicit about condemning murderers...