SharperDingaan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 15 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: Especially for you here SD [ @SharperDingaan ] : This is the best one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS0wFiWpU4U SD
John Hjorth Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Sweet said: No offense taken. I’m referring to the tariffs, he puts tariffs on, so what? May hurt us but it hurts the US too. Just ignore him. Thank you, @Sweet, That's exactly the point, which is also why it's meaningless. The man is a complete idiot. I simply don't rule out anything from him any longer. I know there are CofB&F members active in this topic arguing that there are also positive economic effects of tariffs. To that I just *shrug* and shake my head, and move on. I suppose they have no formal or real education in macro economics. The man is so dumb that he by this threat activates the whole EU area, not singular, individual, specific countries with new tariffs. It's simply amazing how stupid this is. Edited January 16 by John Hjorth
LC Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said: The Canada-China thing, and Canada-India thing later (assumed) is not a bad thing for the US. Stronger NA partners, more economically independent of the US, and more able to contribute to 'The Golden Dome' over NA. What cannot be publicly done directly between the US-China, can now be easily done via US-Canada-China. Not a bad thing. Canada doesn't have to buy US cars, it can make/buy Chinese instead for domestic use and/or export. Less reliance on US capital for the cost of the infrastructure build out is not a bad thing either; they also can't get the oil they own out ... without the pipe/docks required. Crops/Fishers have a market again, and a way of getting product to market. The US just pays world price less transport cost ... no more forced deep discounting by people struggling to keep their jobs. SD From the US perspective: the States go from being Canada's gateway to international trade and affairs, to being downgraded into one amongst many gateways (China, India, EU, etc.). The States lose control, tensions increase and Canada becomes a sandlot for the US and other international powers to stake their flags. I think it reduces stability of North America. Could be good for Canada if they are paid well for being the middleman, but could also go poorly if it becomes fought over as a vassal state between these larger powers. A hypothetical: China-Canadian relations improve greatly, economically at first (this has already been happening). Later, China invades/claims Taiwan. The US strongly objects due to national security concerns (AI chips etc.), threatens military action. Canada becomes caught in the middle. On one hand Canada is now much more economically tied to China vs. the US, but on the other hand Canada shares a huge land border with the US. Does China supplement Canada border security? How would the US respond to that? It all becomes very murky (I know, you like these opportunities!) and very unstable. Just my two cents! Edited January 16 by LC
dealraker Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 20 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: Thank you, @Sweet, That's exactly the point, which is also why it's meaningless. The man is a complete idiot. I simply don't rule out anything from him any longer. I know there are CofB&F members active in this topic arguing that there are also positive economic effects of tariffs. To that I just *shrug* and shake my head, and move on. I suppose they have no formal or real education in macro economics. The man is so dumb that he by this threat activates the whole EU area, not singular, individual, specific countries with new tariffs. It's simply amazing how stupid this is. LOL, in my area John...not the brightest of the bunch of characters...we went to a county commissioners meeting recently, my entire family of businessmen went. It was about the use of Covid funds to build a 65 million dollar sportsplex way out in the middle of nowhere. The chairman of the commissioners quickly got overwhelmed and angry with the questions he was asked (he's 3 timer bankruptcy asphalt paving contractor) about this use of funds and stopped the discussion with: "I'm like Donald Trump; I know what's good for you and you are too stupid to know." That works for a lot of people, they want the big boss daddy who knows all to simply life for them (one-stop shopping). We are just down the road from a city that's literally bankrupt from building their massive sports complex...wrong location (like ours). Lots of promises for the economic benefits...down the road..........way down the road. In the meantime several of the commissioners are contractors bidding related to the 65 mil. Edited January 16 by dealraker
cubsfan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said: All hail to Greenland and the Democratic Penguins Republic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWMnNoHshRA SD That's frickin' hilarious!
cubsfan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 25 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: Thank you, @Sweet, That's exactly the point, which is also why it's meaningless. The man is a complete idiot. I simply don't rule out anything from him any longer. I know there are CofB&F members active in this topic arguing that there are also positive economic effects of tariffs. To that I just *shrug* and shake my head, and move on. I suppose they have no formal or real education in macro economics. The man is so dumb that he by this threat activates the whole EU area, not singular, individual, specific countries with new tariffs. It's simply amazing how stupid this is. It's quite amazing how naive you are. The tariffs are working out in a spectacular fashion thus far. All the tariff "experts" look like total morons. You rely on those "academic experts" that are nothing but "intellectual, yet idiot", as Taleb would say.
Spooky Posted January 16 Posted January 16 45 minutes ago, LC said: From the US perspective: the States go from being Canada's gateway to international trade and affairs, to being downgraded into one amongst many gateways (China, India, EU, etc.). The States lose control, tensions increase and Canada becomes a sandlot for the US and other international powers to stake their flags. I think it reduces stability of North America. Could be good for Canada if they are paid well for being the middleman, but could also go poorly if it becomes fought over as a vassal state between these larger powers. A hypothetical: China-Canadian relations improve greatly, economically at first (this has already been happening). Later, China invades/claims Taiwan. The US strongly objects due to national security concerns (AI chips etc.), threatens military action. Canada becomes caught in the middle. On one hand Canada is now much more economically tied to China vs. the US, but on the other hand Canada shares a huge land border with the US. Does China supplement Canada border security? How would the US respond to that? It all becomes very murky (I know, you like these opportunities!) and very unstable. Just my two cents! Agreed. Canada will have to walk a very fine line with China or risk getting the Greenland treatment.
Spooky Posted January 16 Posted January 16 30 minutes ago, cubsfan said: The tariffs are working out in a spectacular fashion thus far. All the tariff "experts" look like total morons. Where is the data to back up this claim? The "experts" were wrong that the tariffs would be inflationary. What they failed to see is the demand destruction and weakness that tariffs cause offsets their inflationary impact.
NnnnotSoSmart Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) Nobel Prize winner gives prize to the real Nobel Prize Winner. Trump Accepts Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize During White House Visit https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/machado-leaves-white-house-visit-with-little-to-show-4948d90f?st=GhFHcP&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Waiting for Obama to give his to Trump as well. Still waiting.... Edited January 16 by NnnnotSoSmart
Sweet Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Hjorth said: Thank you, @Sweet, That's exactly the point, which is also why it's meaningless. The man is a complete idiot. I simply don't rule out anything from him any longer. I know there are CofB&F members active in this topic arguing that there are also positive economic effects of tariffs. To that I just *shrug* and shake my head, and move on. I suppose they have no formal or real education in macro economics. The man is so dumb that he by this threat activates the whole EU area, not singular, individual, specific countries with new tariffs. It's simply amazing how stupid this is. Even if the Trump did decide to take Greenland (can he with executive power?). What’s likely to happen short term - NATO split. Long term, Democrats will get back into power one day, and maybe try to repair damage in relationships, and you might very well find that Greenland ends up back in Danish hands. As for right now. Danish should kindly ask the US to vacate the base, and get a pan European force in there instead. Edited January 16 by Sweet
Spooky Posted January 16 Posted January 16 3 minutes ago, Sweet said: Even if the Trump did decide to take Greenland (can he with executive power?). What’s likely to happen short term - NATO split. Long term, Democrats will get back into power one day, and maybe try to repair damage in relationships, and you might very well find that Greenland ends up back in Danish hands. As for right now. Danish should kindly ask the US to vacate the base, and get a pan European force in there instead. Trump has 3 years left on his term. You are advising people to just sit on their hands and let him do what he wants? Look how much damage he has caused already in the 1st year of his term.
cubsfan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 9 minutes ago, Spooky said: Where is the data to back up this claim? The "experts" were wrong that the tariffs would be inflationary. What they failed to see is the demand destruction and weakness that tariffs cause offsets their inflationary impact. Oh really? Where is the US recession, where is the economic collapse that NYT, WSJ, Financial Times and all the financial talking hears predicted? According to them, the USA was going to be in a depression by last summer. ROFL
Spooky Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 minute ago, cubsfan said: Oh really? Where is the US recession, where is the economic collapse that NYT, WSJ, Financial Times and all the financial talking hears predicted? According to them, the USA was going to be in a depression by last summer. ROFL I sent you the data on jobs for 2025. GDP looks OK but not amazing, mostly a result of data centre construction. Bank earnings disappointing. I wouldn't say the tariffs are putting you in a better economic position than you would have been without them. Would be better for you to scrap them.
gfp Posted January 16 Posted January 16 3 minutes ago, Spooky said: I sent you the data on jobs for 2025. GDP looks OK but not amazing, mostly a result of data centre construction. Bank earnings disappointing. I wouldn't say the tariffs are putting you in a better economic position than you would have been without them. Would be better for you to scrap them. Job growth is going to be flatlined for a long time. There is a brutal structural shift just staring in Labor. GDP is booming, that's why I stopped with my long bond trades.
Spooky Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 minute ago, gfp said: Job growth is going to be flatlined for a long time. There is a brutal structural shift just staring in Labor. GDP is booming, that's why I stopped with my long bond trades. Interesting. What goes into the Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate? Wondering why the spike. Greg Ip at WSJ making a case the administration wants to run the economy hot: https://www.wsj.com/economy/trump-wants-to-run-the-economy-hot-theres-a-good-chance-hell-succeed-85244f23?st=knyvJs&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Inflationary forces to pick up again?
Grenville Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 hour ago, dealraker said: LOL, in my area John...not the brightest of the bunch of characters...we went to a county commissioners meeting recently, my entire family of businessmen went. It was about the use of Covid funds to build a 65 million dollar sportsplex way out in the middle of nowhere. The chairman of the commissioners quickly got overwhelmed and angry with the questions he was asked (he's 3 timer bankruptcy asphalt paving contractor) about this use of funds and stopped the discussion with: "I'm like Donald Trump; I know what's good for you and you are too stupid to know." That works for a lot of people, they want the big boss daddy who knows all to simply life for them (one-stop shopping). We are just down the road from a city that's literally bankrupt from building their massive sports complex...wrong location (like ours). Lots of promises for the economic benefits...down the road..........way down the road. In the meantime several of the commissioners are contractors bidding related to the 65 mil. ... lol
John Hjorth Posted January 16 Posted January 16 18 minutes ago, Spooky said: Where is the data to back up this claim? The "experts" were wrong that the tariffs would be inflationary. What they failed to see is the demand destruction and weakness that tariffs cause offsets their inflationary impact. @Spooky, The person claiming so obviously isen't reading global macro data sets, [by region, country] on a regular basis [weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, whatever]. So ... - let it go!
Spooky Posted January 16 Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: @Spooky, The person claiming so obviously isen't reading global macro data sets, [by region, country] on a regular basis [weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, whatever]. So ... - let it go! True. I have been posting way too much!
SharperDingaan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Greenland just calls the bluff, as does Canada. Greenland could quite easily kick the US out of the Pitiffuk Space Base, and hand over its administration to NATO. The US still has access via its NATO membership, and if it wants to launch/recover rockets .... pays a fee as it does now. To use force is to not only declare war on NATO, but also have a NATO member hard up against the entire width of its northern border. As they say in Texas ..... all hat, no cattle. Similarly, 'annexing' Canada by force is no different to 'annexing' Greenland; a declaration of war on NATO. Yet oddly, lots of press when talking about Greenland .... almost utter silence when talking of Canada ? How does that actually happen ? .... if freedom of the press is truly as loudly proclaimed ? Canada can easily point to its support of US policy for years, but like everything ... there is a time limit; the US had its opportunity, couldn't get off the pot, times have changed, and the world has moved on. Orange Boy will not be there forever. SD
cubsfan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 29 minutes ago, Spooky said: I sent you the data on jobs for 2025. GDP looks OK but not amazing, mostly a result of data centre construction. Bank earnings disappointing. I wouldn't say the tariffs are putting you in a better economic position than you would have been without them. Would be better for you to scrap them. That's half the story. You still have not explained what happened to the US recession. The other half of the story is the amazing results of tariffs in regards to US foreign policy.
cubsfan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 18 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: @Spooky, The person claiming so obviously isen't reading global macro data sets, [by region, country] on a regular basis [weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, whatever]. So ... - let it go! Yup, total silence from you on the disastrous US economy as a result of tariffs. Bury your head in the sand and go back to reading your macro economic theory.
cubsfan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 17 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said: Greenland just calls the bluff, as does Canada. Greenland could quite easily kick the US out of the Pitiffuk Space Base, and hand over its administration to NATO. The US still has access via its NATO membership, and if it wants to launch/recover rockets .... pays a fee as it does now. To use force is to not only declare war on NATO, but also have a NATO member hard up against the entire width of its northern border. As they say in Texas ..... all hat, no cattle. Similarly, 'annexing' Canada by force is no different to 'annexing' Greenland; a declaration of war on NATO. Yet oddly, lots of press when talking about Greenland .... almost utter silence when talking of Canada ? How does that actually happen ? .... if freedom of the press is truly as loudly proclaimed ? Canada can easily point to its support of US policy for years, but like everything ... there is a time limit; the US had its opportunity, couldn't get off the pot, times have changed, and the world has moved on. Orange Boy will not be there forever. SD Good luck canceling the lease. That will be a tough one.
John Hjorth Posted January 16 Posted January 16 47 minutes ago, NnnnotSoSmart said: Nobel Prize winner gives prize to the real Nobel Prize Winner. Trump Accepts Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize During White House Visit https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/machado-leaves-white-house-visit-with-little-to-show-4948d90f?st=GhFHcP&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Waiting for Obama to give his to Trump as well. Still waiting.... Thank you for posting this, @NnnnotSoSmart, This is, as far as I know, unprecedented, never seen before. I wonder what the Nobel Prize Commitee thinks about this? Urgent crisis commitee meeting? LOL! And how will POTUS react, if he experiences a commitee reaction he does not like? All I know is that here, medals are hung on heroes, and orders are hung on idiots, and needs to be returned at EOL. What about prizes? LOL!
Sweet Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 hour ago, Spooky said: Trump has 3 years left on his term. You are advising people to just sit on their hands and let him do what he wants? Look how much damage he has caused already in the 1st year of his term. Compared to what Spooky, pretending you’re going to sell Greenland? Military action. You let me know what the good alternatives are.
Sweet Posted January 16 Posted January 16 5 hours ago, Hoodlum said: Initial agreement between Canada and China look promising. Canada is allowing 49k China vehicles into Canada (3% of total vehicles sold) with the expectation that a manufacturing facility would be built within 3 years. Some farmers and fisheries will benefit from significantly reduced or eliminated tariffs. Next up with be India in the next few months. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/01/16/prime-minister-carney-forges-new-strategic-partnership-peoples To help deliver the full potential of these partnerships, and build up our domestic manufacturing sector, Canada will allow up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles (EV) into the Canadian market, with the most-favoured-nation tariff rate of 6.1%. This amount corresponds to volumes in the year prior to recent trade frictions on these imports (2023-2024), representing less than 3% of the Canadian market for new vehicles sold in Canada. It is expected that within three years, this agreement will drive considerable new Chinese joint-venture investment in Canada with trusted partners to protect and create new auto manufacturing careers for Canadian workers, and ensure a robust build-out of Canada’s EV supply chain. With this agreement, it is also anticipated that, in five years, more than 50% of these vehicles will be affordable EVs with an import price of less than $35,000 {Canadian dollars}, creating new lower-cost options for Canadian consumers. Agri-food and trade are foundations of the longstanding relationship between Canada and China – and China continues to be our second-largest export market. To renew and strengthen that relationship, Prime Minister Carney and President Xi secured a preliminary agreement-in-principle with landmark measures to remove trade barriers and reduce tariffs: By March 1, 2026, Canada expects that China will lower tariffs on Canadian canola seed to a combined rate of approximately 15%. China is a $4 billion canola seed market for Canadian producers, and this change represents a significant drop from current combined tariff levels of approximately 85%. Canada expects that Canadian canola meal, lobsters, crabs, and peas will not be subject to relevant anti-discrimination tariffs from March 1, 2026, until at least the end of this year. This is daft. It makes no sense to be cosying up to Xi and China just because you don’t like Trump.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now