In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
The US presumably wants rules that don’t allow for labels saying “Contains chlorinated chicken”.
ON topic - some will say it’s unfair to judge the House of Lords by the calibre of its members. That’s like judging Glastonbury by the state of the toilets—technically accurate, but missing the point. The Lords isn’t there to lead or innovate or represent. It’s there to exist, immovably, like a stately ghost with an expense account.
And in that spectral drawing room of ceremonial irrelevance, Amanda Spielman isn’t a misfit—she’s practically furniture. The kind that insists you remove your shoes before sitting, quotes Ofsted reports at dinner, and still believes phonics can fix poverty. Her critics cry foul, but that’s only because they haven’t realised the game was abandoned mid-play decades ago.
Look at the recent appointments. We’ve gone from bishops and war heroes to whatever floated past a minister’s WhatsApp at 2am. One minute you’re at a party holding a tray of canapés; the next, you’re Baroness Vol-au-Vent of Southwark. Spielman, at least, has the distinction of failing upwards in a recognisable direction—education, that most British of oxymorons.
So let’s not clutch our pearls. Let’s hand her the ermine, the title, the right to nap through bills on cybercrime. She belongs. Not despite her record—but because of it. In a chamber increasingly defined by its theatrical pointlessness, her appointment is less a scandal and more a reassuring reminder: the great British tradition of rewarding confident mediocrity is alive and well.
I have been writing numerous headers and posts on here about the mediocrity of so much of our governing class for years, rewards for failures, how many of the useless gits get shoved into the Lords and even why it was unfair to expect Welby to resign when he was just following in this great British tradition. And I don't even get a hat-tip.
😡
So my photo of the day -
I don't think you have any where near exclusive rights to that claim. Many on here have been making it for years. Just as I have been writing headers for years about the root causes of Brexit and Trump but certainly don't claim any exclusive rights to those ideas and would not even think of complaining if others make similar points in their own headers.
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
Anyway EDF have awarded us with free electricity from 8.00am to noon today so the washing machine, dishwasher and dryer are working overtime !!!!!
The Net Zero programme working the way it should, then. The more solar panels and wind farms, the more frequent these events will be.
Someone should point this out to the Leader of the Opposition. And to the other leader of the opposition.
It's funny how BigG was celebrating an easing of Net Zero on the last thread even as he enjoys the bounty of plentiful green energy. We're down at only 2GW gas at the moment on a relatively still day, thanks to 3GW from our closest ally France and 7GW from solar.
Beyond a certain point gas gets very difficult to eliminate though - I mean it still isn't eliminated even when we have a negative price for electricity. I just don't se how we get to net zero - net quite low, sure. But Zero seems economically mad to me. And yes I have panels myself
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
That is a really poor article. The author is claiming universal VAT (which also applies to domestic goods) and universal import duties equate to Trump's tariffs. Don't the US already levy import taxes?
Vat is counted as a tariff by MAGAs because with domestically produced goods you can claim back the VAT on the whole production chain, whereas on imports the foreign producers can't claim it back on their costs. Or something like that.
That's because the domestic producers are using components on which VAT has been levied asked and can discount the already paid tax.The total tax should come to the same thing. If the US doesn't zero rate export goods that's its problem.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
The US presumably wants rules that don’t allow for labels saying “Contains chlorinated chicken”.
If it gives the country of origin then that will be assumed.
In any case food is more expensive in the USA - how much US produce could be sold here even if it was the same standard ?
This is an unusually articulate header by @rcs1000
It has a certain prose-style, that I recognise. Almost as if he got serious assistance in the writing from somewhere else. Indeed I am sure he did
I don't know, it seems to be a more polished version of his below-the-line style.
Alistaire Cooke (letter from America) when asked to describe his writing style said 'I try to avoid adverbs and adjectives whenever possible' On thast basis it scores well.
Orwell’s 6 Rules
From “Politics and the English Language”
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
5 is a bit nationalist (a facet of his character to which Orwell seemed entirely oblivious).
His Note On Nationalism are still one of the best dissections of that topic.
What 5 refers to, I think, is the scattering of French and Latin as an attempt to intellectualise. See the mention of jargon and scientific words as well.
Israel really seems to have gone a bit mental. Presumably these are two Labour MPs who are not Labour Friends of Israel and therefore have not accepted the Israeli dollar (shekel). I’m sure Bibi is quaking in his boots after facing the watery wrath of David Lammy.
Kemi Badenoch has said she agrees with the Israeli decision. What a foolsh thing to do. All her MPs will now be asked if they agree with her. I'd be surprised if even Farage would step into that rabbit hole
Surely any country is able to refuse entry to any foreign citizen, for whatever reason.
So we should also send back any Israeli politician from Netanyahu’s party as they are genocide supporters .
Aren't we obliged by our ICC membership to detain a few of them ? That certainly applies to Netanyahu.
ON topic - some will say it’s unfair to judge the House of Lords by the calibre of its members. That’s like judging Glastonbury by the state of the toilets—technically accurate, but missing the point. The Lords isn’t there to lead or innovate or represent. It’s there to exist, immovably, like a stately ghost with an expense account.
And in that spectral drawing room of ceremonial irrelevance, Amanda Spielman isn’t a misfit—she’s practically furniture. The kind that insists you remove your shoes before sitting, quotes Ofsted reports at dinner, and still believes phonics can fix poverty. Her critics cry foul, but that’s only because they haven’t realised the game was abandoned mid-play decades ago.
Look at the recent appointments. We’ve gone from bishops and war heroes to whatever floated past a minister’s WhatsApp at 2am. One minute you’re at a party holding a tray of canapés; the next, you’re Baroness Vol-au-Vent of Southwark. Spielman, at least, has the distinction of failing upwards in a recognisable direction—education, that most British of oxymorons.
So let’s not clutch our pearls. Let’s hand her the ermine, the title, the right to nap through bills on cybercrime. She belongs. Not despite her record—but because of it. In a chamber increasingly defined by its theatrical pointlessness, her appointment is less a scandal and more a reassuring reminder: the great British tradition of rewarding confident mediocrity is alive and well.
I have been writing numerous headers and posts on here about the mediocrity of so much of our governing class for years, rewards for failures, how many of the useless gits get shoved into the Lords and even why it was unfair to expect Welby to resign when he was just following in this great British tradition. And I don't even get a hat-tip.
😡
So my photo of the day -
I don't think you have any where near exclusive rights to that claim. Many on here have been making it for years. Just as I have been writing headers for years about the root causes of Brexit and Trump but certainly don't claim any exclusive rights to those ideas and would not even think of complaining if others make similar points in their own headers.
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
Not claiming exclusivity. Just a hat tip. Not least because this header is so similar to one I wrote about Welby last November in its sardonic "this is not the system failing but the system working as it's meant to" tone.
Anyway it and @ydoethur's were fun to read. So have a nice day all.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
It would end up in processed foods, takeaways etc. In about 24 hours after sale being legalised.
This is an unusually articulate header by @rcs1000
It has a certain prose-style, that I recognise. Almost as if he got serious assistance in the writing from somewhere else. Indeed I am sure he did
I don't know, it seems to be a more polished version of his below-the-line style.
Alistaire Cooke (letter from America) when asked to describe his writing style said 'I try to avoid adverbs and adjectives whenever possible' On thast basis it scores well.
Orwell’s 6 Rules
From “Politics and the English Language”
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
5 is a bit nationalist (a facet of his character to which Orwell seemed entirely oblivious).
No renouned English language writer including Orwell and the bard himeslf would get past rule 1. He must have penned them in a bad mood
That is a really poor article. The author is claiming universal VAT (which also applies to domestic goods) and universal import duties equate to Trump's tariffs. Don't the US already levy import taxes?
Vat is counted as a tariff by MAGAs because with domestically produced goods you can claim back the VAT on the whole production chain, whereas on imports the foreign producers can't claim it back on their costs. Or something like that.
That's because the domestic producers are using components on which VAT has been levied asked and can discount the already paid tax.The total tax should come to the same thing. If the US doesn't zero rate export goods that's its problem.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
As long as it is clearly labelled. "US chicken washed in bleach to remove the crusty bacteria".
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
This seems to me to be quite informative about the orientation of JD Vance. It's a rebuttal of the Washington Consensus, and I think middle income countries will have something to say about that.
Vance explains that "the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things."
But he laments that it didn't quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn't want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure.
Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn't to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production. https://x.com/walshrac/status/1902634536283901963
The problem with that plan, assuming that was the plan, was that the people of other countries were as intelligent, potentially as educated, likely as hard working and certainly cheaper to employ as those in western countries.
It was inevitable that the level of their production they would be able to do would steadily increase in value.
I don't even think that was the plan. I think the plan has always been that the main beneficieries of globalisation were the multinational companies. Indeed I think the whole point of globalisation as far as its original architects and instigators were concerned was exactly the opposite of what Vance claims. They saw that the best way to massively increase their markets was to drag Middle Income and Third world countries up to the level of the First world. This is certanly what has been happening with China. No bad thing in itself but it also required a considerable amount of dragging down of First World countries - or at least of the living standards of their citizens. Which again is exactly what has happened.
If Vance didn't know that was the inevitable result of Globalisation then he is even dumber than he looks.
Did globalisation have "architects and instigators"? It seems to me more a nearly inevitable consequence of improving technologies in communication, shipping, and so on -- which makes it possible to do things like building products in complex cross border supply chains and have it be cheaper to do so than to do it all in one place. Once it's cheaper to do something in way X than way Y, way X becomes very hard to stop from taking over -- you can try to put the brakes on it by adding costs and barriers, but people who want to make money are always going to be trying to erode those one way or another.
I think the rise in living standards in places like China is a side effect, not an intentional goal.
This is an unusually articulate header by @rcs1000
It has a certain prose-style, that I recognise. Almost as if he got serious assistance in the writing from somewhere else. Indeed I am sure he did
I don't know, it seems to be a more polished version of his below-the-line style.
Alistaire Cooke (letter from America) when asked to describe his writing style said 'I try to avoid adverbs and adjectives whenever possible' On thast basis it scores well.
Orwell’s 6 Rules
From “Politics and the English Language”
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
5 is a bit nationalist (a facet of his character to which Orwell seemed entirely oblivious).
No renouned English language writer including Orwell and the bard himeslf would get past rule 1. He must have penned them in a bad mood
As with all language rules, they're not really rules.
That is a really poor article. The author is claiming universal VAT (which also applies to domestic goods) and universal import duties equate to Trump's tariffs. Don't the US already levy import taxes?
Vat is counted as a tariff by MAGAs because with domestically produced goods you can claim back the VAT on the whole production chain, whereas on imports the foreign producers can't claim it back on their costs. Or something like that.
That's because the domestic producers are using components on which VAT has been levied asked and can discount the already paid tax.The total tax should come to the same thing. If the US doesn't zero rate export goods that's its problem.
I think the issue is that US states use old fashioned sales taxes, whereas the rest of the world seems to have moved onto VAT
That is a really poor article. The author is claiming universal VAT (which also applies to domestic goods) and universal import duties equate to Trump's tariffs. Don't the US already levy import taxes?
Vat is counted as a tariff by MAGAs because with domestically produced goods you can claim back the VAT on the whole production chain, whereas on imports the foreign producers can't claim it back on their costs. Or something like that.
That's because the domestic producers are using components on which VAT has been levied asked and can discount the already paid tax.The total tax should come to the same thing. If the US doesn't zero rate export goods that's its problem.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
I don't think this is the generally the case. Sales tax normally only applies to the final consumer. Products that will be resold are exempt. Sales taxes are levied by states and it is up to each state how they apply it. It is isn't in their interest to discourage businesses exporting to the rest of the USA as well as abroad from investing in their state.
Israel really seems to have gone a bit mental. Presumably these are two Labour MPs who are not Labour Friends of Israel and therefore have not accepted the Israeli dollar (shekel). I’m sure Bibi is quaking in his boots after facing the watery wrath of David Lammy.
Kemi Badenoch has said she agrees with the Israeli decision. What a foolsh thing to do. All her MPs will now be asked if they agree with her. I'd be surprised if even Farage would step into that rabbit hole
Surely any country is able to refuse entry to any foreign citizen, for whatever reason.
Badenoch said she did not know the 2 Labour mps involved as they were elected last July but affirmed any country's right to refuse entry to any foreign citizen
Most Lords have achieved success in business, law, academia, the media, science, sport, culture, education, religion, politics etc. Even if the success of some like Spielman is debatable.
Having an appointed second chamber also often leads to better debates focused on the facts not point scoring as is often the case in the elected Commons. Focused on revising not making legislation
I think it would be helpful if we could unlink the appointed second chamber with the honours system. Too often the main motivation for giving someone a peerage is to recognise their achievement or reward their service rather than because they'll make a good member of the second chamber. We could have chamber peerages which come with a 10 year seat in the Lords and ceremonial peerages which just have the title
I think that makes sense to a degree. In a sense we had that with most hereditary lords no longer sat in the house of peers.
Its also why whilst honours should not (but totally are) bought and sold, selling peerages is much more troublesome given the implicit power a peer has, albeit in a relatively limited way per individual.
As a Lib Dem I think we should publish a price list for honours. That way it's all clear and fair and above board, as well as a nice little earner for the government. (I do stop short of favouring having the proceeds going to party coffers :-))
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
You won’t be allowed to know it’s there.
Of course you will.
British chicken has union flags on the packaging and would be cheaper.
So who is going to buy chicken which is lower quality, more expensive and imported ?
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
The issue is that there are many circumstances where you may not know if it is chlorinated chicken or not. Restaurants and bars, ready meals, takeaway food, workplace canteens. Unless there is a legal requirement to clearly label such food - something that would almost certainly run foul of non tarrif barrier rules - then it would be extremely difficult to avoid.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
It would end up in processed foods, takeaways etc. In about 24 hours after sale being legalised.
Maybe, but how would it be cheaper than the cheapest chicken already available? I've understood that food prices in the US are already higher than here, then add the cost of shipping.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
Which is fair and a lot more sensible than the US position which is: the distortions caused by having VAT means you most stop applying VAT to US goods.
Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is for the US to expect THE ENTIRE BLOODY WORLD to do exactly what the US wants in their own countries?
I honestly hope we don't get a trade deal with the US, we need to trade less with them not more, that US has gone stark raving mad.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
Actually that isn't the European position. VAT gets zero rated when goods are exported from the EU and the UK as well.
Every country can do what it wants in its own interest. If America thinks it's worth trashing its international trade with big impacts on its economy no-one can stop it.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
The EU isn't trying to change the US tax system through the introduction of tariffs, so no, it isn't.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
All the MAGAts are saying, but robots. Which is stupid in just about every way.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
That’s fine as long as no trade deal requires the removal of origin labelling (I would prefer to extend this to restaurants too).
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
The EU isn't trying to change the US tax system through the introduction of tariffs, so no, it isn't.
I don’t think they’re trying to change the European tax system. They’re using the argument for domestic consumption to justify the tariffs.
Most Lords have achieved success in business, law, academia, the media, science, sport, culture, education, religion, politics etc. Even if the success of some like Spielman is debatable.
Having an appointed second chamber also often leads to better debates focused on the facts not point scoring as is often the case in the elected Commons. Focused on revising not making legislation
I think it would be helpful if we could unlink the appointed second chamber with the honours system. Too often the main motivation for giving someone a peerage is to recognise their achievement or reward their service rather than because they'll make a good member of the second chamber. We could have chamber peerages which come with a 10 year seat in the Lords and ceremonial peerages which just have the title
I think that makes sense to a degree. In a sense we had that with most hereditary lords no longer sat in the house of peers.
Its also why whilst honours should not (but totally are) bought and sold, selling peerages is much more troublesome given the implicit power a peer has, albeit in a relatively limited way per individual.
As a Lib Dem I think we should publish a price list for honours. That way it's all clear and fair and above board, as well as a nice little earner for the government. (I do stop short of favouring having the proceeds going to party coffers :-))
ON topic - some will say it’s unfair to judge the House of Lords by the calibre of its members. That’s like judging Glastonbury by the state of the toilets—technically accurate, but missing the point. The Lords isn’t there to lead or innovate or represent. It’s there to exist, immovably, like a stately ghost with an expense account.
And in that spectral drawing room of ceremonial irrelevance, Amanda Spielman isn’t a misfit—she’s practically furniture. The kind that insists you remove your shoes before sitting, quotes Ofsted reports at dinner, and still believes phonics can fix poverty. Her critics cry foul, but that’s only because they haven’t realised the game was abandoned mid-play decades ago.
Look at the recent appointments. We’ve gone from bishops and war heroes to whatever floated past a minister’s WhatsApp at 2am. One minute you’re at a party holding a tray of canapés; the next, you’re Baroness Vol-au-Vent of Southwark. Spielman, at least, has the distinction of failing upwards in a recognisable direction—education, that most British of oxymorons.
So let’s not clutch our pearls. Let’s hand her the ermine, the title, the right to nap through bills on cybercrime. She belongs. Not despite her record—but because of it. In a chamber increasingly defined by its theatrical pointlessness, her appointment is less a scandal and more a reassuring reminder: the great British tradition of rewarding confident mediocrity is alive and well.
I have been writing numerous headers and posts on here about the mediocrity of so much of our governing class for years, rewards for failures, how many of the useless gits get shoved into the Lords and even why it was unfair to expect Welby to resign when he was just following in this great British tradition. And I don't even get a hat-tip.
😡
So my photo of the day -
I don't think you have any where near exclusive rights to that claim. Many on here have been making it for years. Just as I have been writing headers for years about the root causes of Brexit and Trump but certainly don't claim any exclusive rights to those ideas and would not even think of complaining if others make similar points in their own headers.
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
The point has indeed been made frequently and Cyclefree makes it powerfully.
However, I would find it even more interesting if, having identified the issue, someone could offer a theory on how this might be changed, perhaps by a new Government with a parliamentary majority.
ON topic - some will say it’s unfair to judge the House of Lords by the calibre of its members. That’s like judging Glastonbury by the state of the toilets—technically accurate, but missing the point. The Lords isn’t there to lead or innovate or represent. It’s there to exist, immovably, like a stately ghost with an expense account.
And in that spectral drawing room of ceremonial irrelevance, Amanda Spielman isn’t a misfit—she’s practically furniture. The kind that insists you remove your shoes before sitting, quotes Ofsted reports at dinner, and still believes phonics can fix poverty. Her critics cry foul, but that’s only because they haven’t realised the game was abandoned mid-play decades ago.
Look at the recent appointments. We’ve gone from bishops and war heroes to whatever floated past a minister’s WhatsApp at 2am. One minute you’re at a party holding a tray of canapés; the next, you’re Baroness Vol-au-Vent of Southwark. Spielman, at least, has the distinction of failing upwards in a recognisable direction—education, that most British of oxymorons.
So let’s not clutch our pearls. Let’s hand her the ermine, the title, the right to nap through bills on cybercrime. She belongs. Not despite her record—but because of it. In a chamber increasingly defined by its theatrical pointlessness, her appointment is less a scandal and more a reassuring reminder: the great British tradition of rewarding confident mediocrity is alive and well.
I have been writing numerous headers and posts on here about the mediocrity of so much of our governing class for years, rewards for failures, how many of the useless gits get shoved into the Lords and even why it was unfair to expect Welby to resign when he was just following in this great British tradition. And I don't even get a hat-tip.
😡
So my photo of the day -
I don't think you have any where near exclusive rights to that claim. Many on here have been making it for years. Just as I have been writing headers for years about the root causes of Brexit and Trump but certainly don't claim any exclusive rights to those ideas and would not even think of complaining if others make similar points in their own headers.
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
Satire is as old as the hills. This morning's header was a good effort I thought in contrast to the Leon pastiche which was rather obvious and childish.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
The EU isn't trying to change the US tax system through the introduction of tariffs, so no, it isn't.
Good morning from a dark extremely early CDMX. Dan Neidle’s article on this topic is a fascinating read and well worth it - goes way beyond the current MAGA misapprehensions. I learned quite a lot and I’m supposed to be a tax policy expert.
"The best place to watch the drama of Britain’s fastest changing postcode is next to Rainham’s 12th-century Norman church. At quarter past six, a tube-carriage haul of glum commuters is dumped at the station, where Essex meets the London sprawl. The final slog home is a curious walk of shame: past the gated Georgian pomp of Rainham Hall, and a sign for the Prawn Hub takeaway, mocked up in glaringly familiar colours. Barrack rows of new builds await them, following the pylons out to the desolate Rainham Marsh, where once upon a time, the Britain of the Nineties dreamt of building its own Disneyland.
What’s it like living here? I ask two men skulking off to the pub through the graveyard, past a pair of Lithuanian builders drinking cans. “It used to feel like a lovely English village,” says one. “Now it’s a fucking shithole and I can’t wait to get out.”"
ON topic - some will say it’s unfair to judge the House of Lords by the calibre of its members. That’s like judging Glastonbury by the state of the toilets—technically accurate, but missing the point. The Lords isn’t there to lead or innovate or represent. It’s there to exist, immovably, like a stately ghost with an expense account.
And in that spectral drawing room of ceremonial irrelevance, Amanda Spielman isn’t a misfit—she’s practically furniture. The kind that insists you remove your shoes before sitting, quotes Ofsted reports at dinner, and still believes phonics can fix poverty. Her critics cry foul, but that’s only because they haven’t realised the game was abandoned mid-play decades ago.
Look at the recent appointments. We’ve gone from bishops and war heroes to whatever floated past a minister’s WhatsApp at 2am. One minute you’re at a party holding a tray of canapés; the next, you’re Baroness Vol-au-Vent of Southwark. Spielman, at least, has the distinction of failing upwards in a recognisable direction—education, that most British of oxymorons.
So let’s not clutch our pearls. Let’s hand her the ermine, the title, the right to nap through bills on cybercrime. She belongs. Not despite her record—but because of it. In a chamber increasingly defined by its theatrical pointlessness, her appointment is less a scandal and more a reassuring reminder: the great British tradition of rewarding confident mediocrity is alive and well.
I have been writing numerous headers and posts on here about the mediocrity of so much of our governing class for years, rewards for failures, how many of the useless gits get shoved into the Lords and even why it was unfair to expect Welby to resign when he was just following in this great British tradition. And I don't even get a hat-tip.
😡
So my photo of the day -
I don't think you have any where near exclusive rights to that claim. Many on here have been making it for years. Just as I have been writing headers for years about the root causes of Brexit and Trump but certainly don't claim any exclusive rights to those ideas and would not even think of complaining if others make similar points in their own headers.
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
Satire is as old as the hills. This morning's header was a good effort I thought in contrast to the Leon pastiche which was rather obvious and childish.
You are making yourself look extremely foolish, but you're probably used to that
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
Which is fair and a lot more sensible than the US position which is: the distortions caused by having VAT means you most stop applying VAT to US goods.
Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is for the US to expect THE ENTIRE BLOODY WORLD to do exactly what the US wants in their own countries?
I honestly hope we don't get a trade deal with the US, we need to trade less with them not more, that US has gone stark raving mad.
Especially as (IIRC) in the US one sees prices advertised as (for example) $2.99, and it turns out to be $2.99 plus two or three lots of taxes, making the goods more like $4.50 or so.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid. Americans don't and won't work in factories for Cambodian wages. So presumably these are going to be robotised factories. Which doesn't mean more jobs for Americans just fewer jobs for Cambodians
If Trump wants to "level the playing field" and make America wealthy again he should look at massive American corporations - eg Apple - that book all their profits in Ireland or Amsterdam or the Kerguelen Islands - and thereby pay almost nothing - and force them to reshore that cash
That would be justified and also economically sensible, and good for America (even if it fucks Ireland, but hey ho)
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
I think what feels quite a jolt is the reality of America First. There is no noblesse oblige.
We’ve had decades of global trading rules where preferential tariffs for poor countries have been the norm, and often unilateral. Not least because they combine doing good with rich country consumer self interest.
MAGA makes no distinction between rich high wage and poor low wage economies.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
"The best place to watch the drama of Britain’s fastest changing postcode is next to Rainham’s 12th-century Norman church. At quarter past six, a tube-carriage haul of glum commuters is dumped at the station, where Essex meets the London sprawl. The final slog home is a curious walk of shame: past the gated Georgian pomp of Rainham Hall, and a sign for the Prawn Hub takeaway, mocked up in glaringly familiar colours. Barrack rows of new builds await them, following the pylons out to the desolate Rainham Marsh, where once upon a time, the Britain of the Nineties dreamt of building its own Disneyland.
What’s it like living here? I ask two men skulking off to the pub through the graveyard, past a pair of Lithuanian builders drinking cans. “It used to feel like a lovely English village,” says one. “Now it’s a fucking shithole and I can’t wait to get out.”"
ON topic - some will say it’s unfair to judge the House of Lords by the calibre of its members. That’s like judging Glastonbury by the state of the toilets—technically accurate, but missing the point. The Lords isn’t there to lead or innovate or represent. It’s there to exist, immovably, like a stately ghost with an expense account.
And in that spectral drawing room of ceremonial irrelevance, Amanda Spielman isn’t a misfit—she’s practically furniture. The kind that insists you remove your shoes before sitting, quotes Ofsted reports at dinner, and still believes phonics can fix poverty. Her critics cry foul, but that’s only because they haven’t realised the game was abandoned mid-play decades ago.
Look at the recent appointments. We’ve gone from bishops and war heroes to whatever floated past a minister’s WhatsApp at 2am. One minute you’re at a party holding a tray of canapés; the next, you’re Baroness Vol-au-Vent of Southwark. Spielman, at least, has the distinction of failing upwards in a recognisable direction—education, that most British of oxymorons.
So let’s not clutch our pearls. Let’s hand her the ermine, the title, the right to nap through bills on cybercrime. She belongs. Not despite her record—but because of it. In a chamber increasingly defined by its theatrical pointlessness, her appointment is less a scandal and more a reassuring reminder: the great British tradition of rewarding confident mediocrity is alive and well.
I have been writing numerous headers and posts on here about the mediocrity of so much of our governing class for years, rewards for failures, how many of the useless gits get shoved into the Lords and even why it was unfair to expect Welby to resign when he was just following in this great British tradition. And I don't even get a hat-tip.
😡
So my photo of the day -
I don't think you have any where near exclusive rights to that claim. Many on here have been making it for years. Just as I have been writing headers for years about the root causes of Brexit and Trump but certainly don't claim any exclusive rights to those ideas and would not even think of complaining if others make similar points in their own headers.
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
Not claiming exclusivity. Just a hat tip. Not least because this header is so similar to one I wrote about Welby last November in its sardonic "this is not the system failing but the system working as it's meant to" tone.
Anyway it and @ydoethur's were fun to read. So have a nice day all.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
Which is fair and a lot more sensible than the US position which is: the distortions caused by having VAT means you most stop applying VAT to US goods.
Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is for the US to expect THE ENTIRE BLOODY WORLD to do exactly what the US wants in their own countries?
I honestly hope we don't get a trade deal with the US, we need to trade less with them not more, that US has gone stark raving mad.
Especially as (IIRC) in the US one sees prices advertised as (for example) $2.99, and it turns out to be $2.99 plus two or three lots of taxes, making the goods more like $4.50 or so.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
The EU isn't trying to change the US tax system through the introduction of tariffs, so no, it isn't.
Good morning from a dark extremely early CDMX. Dan Neidle’s article on this topic is a fascinating read and well worth it - goes way beyond the current MAGA misapprehensions. I learned quite a lot and I’m supposed to be a tax policy expert.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
I think what feels quite a jolt is the reality of America First. There is no noblesse oblige.
We’ve had decades of global trading rules where preferential tariffs for poor countries have been the norm, and often unilateral. Not least because they combine doing good with rich country consumer self interest.
MAGA makes no distinction between rich high wage and poor low wage economies.
Somewhat of a rose-tinted view of globalised trade.
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
This is an unusually articulate header by @rcs1000
It has a certain prose-style, that I recognise. Almost as if he got serious assistance in the writing from somewhere else. Indeed I am sure he did
I don't know, it seems to be a more polished version of his below-the-line style.
Alistaire Cooke (letter from America) when asked to describe his writing style said 'I try to avoid adverbs and adjectives whenever possible' On thast basis it scores well.
Orwell’s 6 Rules
From “Politics and the English Language”
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
5 is a bit nationalist (a facet of his character to which Orwell seemed entirely oblivious).
Mutatis mutandis this pretty much cuts the mustard, or fits the bill, in ameliorating the worst effects or outcomes of the ghastly things which are written by so many.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
Which is fair and a lot more sensible than the US position which is: the distortions caused by having VAT means you most stop applying VAT to US goods.
Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is for the US to expect THE ENTIRE BLOODY WORLD to do exactly what the US wants in their own countries?
I honestly hope we don't get a trade deal with the US, we need to trade less with them not more, that US has gone stark raving mad.
Especially as (IIRC) in the US one sees prices advertised as (for example) $2.99, and it turns out to be $2.99 plus two or three lots of taxes, making the goods more like $4.50 or so.
With the customer expected to add a 15% tip.
In a shop? Really? In an earlier life I ran community pharmacies, one of them with quite a big cosmetic section and no-one tipped my staff. Actually, there was one occasion. We'd got in a line of cheap wigs to go with the hair colours and so on, and one lady wanted hers 'dressed'; she'd some sort of problem IIRC. One of our female staff had worked in a hairdressers, so did the job, and the customer tipped her. Twenty five years, god knows how many transactions, and that was the only time I saw a tip.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
I think what feels quite a jolt is the reality of America First. There is no noblesse oblige.
We’ve had decades of global trading rules where preferential tariffs for poor countries have been the norm, and often unilateral. Not least because they combine doing good with rich country consumer self interest.
MAGA makes no distinction between rich high wage and poor low wage economies.
Somewhat of a rose-tinted view of globalised trade.
Has anyone here heard of or read anything by Charles Amos? Quite a bizarre character who I first saw on tv defending cousins having children together. I think he has an interesting view on life
Substack is full of dating advice; rarely, though, is there advice to lonely people on getting more company. I present the market fundamentalist solution: Lonely people should buy company with dinner and drinks.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
It is very stupid. Clothing - and especially cheap clothing - is a minuscule part of the US economy. There is zero competitive advantage in the US pursuing this.
Against that, even if you set aside the possible serious damage to the economies of some of the world's poorer countries, it makes a significant part of Trump's base poorer.
And the likelihood of any increase in US apparel manufacturing over the rest of Trump's term - also close to zero.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid. Americans don't and won't work in factories for Cambodian wages. So presumably these are going to be robotised factories. Which doesn't mean more jobs for Americans just fewer jobs for Cambodians
If Trump wants to "level the playing field" and make America wealthy again he should look at massive American corporations - eg Apple - that book all their profits in Ireland or Amsterdam or the Kerguelen Islands - and thereby pay almost nothing - and force them to reshore that cash
That would be justified and also economically sensible, and good for America (even if it fucks Ireland, but hey ho)
America has already been on a worldwide mission to raise CT in countries beholden to it (in an effort to reshore profits) - Ireland got the soft treatment for what appear to be special reasons, but the thumbscrews were definitely used on the UK - look at what happened to Truss's plan to cancel the CT rise.
Perhaps Trump genuinely wants to have Americans making things. I wish someone would come in with the same ambitions for the UK.
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
How about 'lots of obesity' as a good sign of middle income level ?
That would likely work in western countries as well - the poorer districts (ie closer to world middle income areas) having more obesity than the more affluent districts.
And ditto, but in reverse, for the poorest countries.
It's feeling a bit like post-2016 Alasatir Meeks this morning on here with his regular articles entitled - and I paraphrase only slightly - 'leavers are dreadful oiks, barely human, and I simply loathe them'.
Well it's passed the test of time pretty well.
*Sigh* Look, Roger, I like you. I suspect I'd like you if I met you in real life. I value your place on this board. Please bear all this mind when I say this:I fear you haven't learned anything at all about your fellow countrymen in the past 8 years. You can't simply say everyone you disagree with are idiots. No doubt some leavers are idiots, but that is equally true of some remainers. You just need to remember that some voters have different priorities or make different assessments than you do.
Trump is not Brexit, and the issues are very different but what they have in common is a blank incomprehension on the part of one set of voters about the other. We'd do well to try to bridge that gap. I don't believe all Trump voters are idiots. The article I linked to earlier is, I think, a good start.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
It’s harder to see what the advantage is in on-shoring cheap textile production.
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
A few small changes:
- can you drink the tap water: no - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: not really, the vast majority of the people crossing the border to the US these days are from countries other than Mexico - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes - overarmed police riding round in Jeeps with mounted machine guns: yes - pharmacies that will sell absolutely anything, no prescription required: yes
I posted this interview yesterday before having had chance to listen to the whole thing but Scott Bessent is probably the best advocate for the Trump administration at the moment. Far more gravitas and experience than JD Vance.
He makes a good case for what Trump is trying to do economically:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reportedly looking for a way out of the Trump administration following the Republican president’s disastrous tariff rollout damaged his “credibility,” alleged MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle on Friday.
....
Ruhle suggested that Bessent, who built his $521 million fortune managing massive hedge funds, can’t stomach Trump’s “absurd tariff math,” which some critics have slammed as a “kindergarten-level understanding” of international trade.
According to Ruhle’s sources, Trump is “not listening” to his treasury secretary, “the odd man out” in the president’s inner circle.
NEW: Investors may be running for the hills, but Bessent is NOT. In response to talk that Secretary Bessent is potentially eying an exit to the Fed- A senior official inside the administration telling me. “Secretary Bessent is more committed than ever to his role as treasury secretary - he is meeting with the president several times a day and communicating with the rest of the cabinet. Obviously this week’s market reaction is painful - but this is about an economic reset. The secretary has no interest in moving to the Fed and his core focus of addressing our crippling debt/deficit”
I trust the "inside sources" more than the "senior official" trying to do damage control.
The fact that they feel that they need to do damage control means that the rumours about Bessent's exit are real.
How long will it be before the tariffs are walked back ? No one voted to be poorer - or rather, a lot of Americans did, back in November, but precious few of them would have voted to be poorer, had they realised the full consequences of what they were doing.
Hopefully after a realignment of nations. The US have shown themselves to be unreliable. Time for a new beginning. (We can dump Israel at the same time)
I think most want a realignment of nations across the globe, but it will take years and do we have the leaders capable of such a dramatic change ?
Oddly enough, realignments can happen very quickly - look at 1989 when Eastern Europe aligned itself away from Moscow toward the West, happened in a few weeks.
The next realignment seems unlikely to be so positive.
It's hard to know - you could argue the re-alignment of European nations in the late 19th century didn't end well for the continent but the re-alignment post 1945 has served us pretty well.
Were you happy with the situation 1945-90 (or thereabouts) in Eastern Europe?
Inasmuch as the division of Europe between the Cold War Superpowers kept the peace for 45 years and when the Warsaw Pact collapsed the resulting transformation was remarkably peaceful, yes.
It wasn't ideal for Eastern Europe, granted, but had a full scale confrontation between the superpowers occurred in Europe, it wouldn't have been ideal for anyone. The Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall divided Europe but it also maintained the peace.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
It’s harder to see what the advantage is in on-shoring cheap textile production.
It's feeling a bit like post-2016 Alasatir Meeks this morning on here with his regular articles entitled - and I paraphrase only slightly - 'leavers are dreadful oiks, barely human, and I simply loathe them'.
Well it's passed the test of time pretty well.
*Sigh* Look, Roger, I like you. I suspect I'd like you if I met you in real life. I value your place on this board. Please bear all this mind when I say this:I fear you haven't learned anything at all about your fellow countrymen in the past 8 years. You can't simply say everyone you disagree with are idiots. No doubt some leavers are idiots, but that is equally true of some remainers. You just need to remember that some voters have different priorities or make different assessments than you do.
Trump is not Brexit, and the issues are very different but what they have in common is a blank incomprehension on the part of one set of voters about the other. We'd do well to try to bridge that gap. I don't believe all Trump voters are idiots. The article I linked to earlier is, I think, a good start.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
It’s harder to see what the advantage is in on-shoring cheap textile production.
In the world Trump is selling the textile jobs are paying $60k for those who feel left behind.
In the world Trump delivers the textile jobs are done by illegal immigrants for below minimum wage with employers able to exploit them with threats of deportation to them and their family.
It's not the export goods that are the issue but the inputs. Most US businesses aren't exempt from paying sales tax on their inputs.
Whatever it is it is a US problem, either at a federal or state level they could fix the problem. The US position seems to equate to "you must trade and tax exactly the same way we do, or else." That is completely nuts.
That's the European position: if you have distortions caused by not having a VAT system then just adopt VAT.
Which is fair and a lot more sensible than the US position which is: the distortions caused by having VAT means you most stop applying VAT to US goods.
Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is for the US to expect THE ENTIRE BLOODY WORLD to do exactly what the US wants in their own countries?
I honestly hope we don't get a trade deal with the US, we need to trade less with them not more, that US has gone stark raving mad.
Especially as (IIRC) in the US one sees prices advertised as (for example) $2.99, and it turns out to be $2.99 plus two or three lots of taxes, making the goods more like $4.50 or so.
With the customer expected to add a 15% tip.
15%....more like 20-25% these days if you don't want the death stare and the inplied threat of we will never serve you ever again. And that's just from the self service check out machines.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
I've won the Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest again and I am name checked in today's newspaper. For a clue that I originally used in the 2009 Politicalbetting Xmas Xword. It's not political though.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid. Americans don't and won't work in factories for Cambodian wages. So presumably these are going to be robotised factories. Which doesn't mean more jobs for Americans just fewer jobs for Cambodians
If Trump wants to "level the playing field" and make America wealthy again he should look at massive American corporations - eg Apple - that book all their profits in Ireland or Amsterdam or the Kerguelen Islands - and thereby pay almost nothing - and force them to reshore that cash
That would be justified and also economically sensible, and good for America (even if it fucks Ireland, but hey ho)
Very slightly tangential, but worth remembering...
That is, *why* the US created NAFTA in the first place.
You see, it used to be that all those migrants pouring over the border were Mexican. And whenever Mexico had a total economic meltdown, it resulted in massive movements of people over the border.
The US government (of both colours) thought "hmmm... if Mexico was less poor, they wouldn't have constant financial crises that we needed to bail them out of, *and* there would be far fewer people trying to cross illegally into the US.
And it worked!
Between the end of the 1990s and 2016, the number of people crossing the Southern border collapsed, largely because American firms built factories to supply low value added goods to the US market. (And these factories employed Mexicans.)
It even began to give Mexico a functioning economy beyond tourism and drug smuggling.
But then three things happened:
Firstly, lots of non-Mexicans started trying to cross Mexico to get into the US. Second, the Americans got addicted to opiates and Third, Donald Trump got elected
And the combination of those things have sent it all to shit.
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
Have you come across the sword fire swallowers who are scattered around road junctions? Apparantly their life expectancy is mid thirties. Though one of my favourite capitals it has extremely poor and extremely rich living in very close proximity which makes it third world. You'll see armed guards outside the haciendas and peope living on pavements opposite. Having said that their use of colour is spectacular and the zoo if it's still there is wonderful. Are the VW's still everywhere?
PS. If you get the chance the bull fights using horses are spectacular.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
It’s harder to see what the advantage is in on-shoring cheap textile production.
Nike trainers aren't particularly cheap afaicr.
As Flight of the Conchords noted "They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers. But what's the real cost? 'Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper. Why are we still paying so much for sneakers When you got them made by little slave kids"
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid. Americans don't and won't work in factories for Cambodian wages. So presumably these are going to be robotised factories. Which doesn't mean more jobs for Americans just fewer jobs for Cambodians
If Trump wants to "level the playing field" and make America wealthy again he should look at massive American corporations - eg Apple - that book all their profits in Ireland or Amsterdam or the Kerguelen Islands - and thereby pay almost nothing - and force them to reshore that cash
That would be justified and also economically sensible, and good for America (even if it fucks Ireland, but hey ho)
America has already been on a worldwide mission to raise CT in countries beholden to it (in an effort to reshore profits) - Ireland got the soft treatment for what appear to be special reasons, but the thumbscrews were definitely used on the UK - look at what happened to Truss's plan to cancel the CT rise.
Perhaps Trump genuinely wants to have Americans making things. I wish someone would come in with the same ambitions for the UK.
US policy on CT has been very contradictory. They were initially at the forefront of Pillar 2 and now declare they hate it, having discovered that the panoply of US tax credits and incentives brings it into scope as one of those sub-15% countries it had been deriding.
I don't believe even Trump believes that the realistic outcome will onshore low value garmant making. One big thing he has done (that isn't getting much attention), scrapping the de minimis. That is huge for the likes of Shein but also how is US customs going to deal with it in theory every package is subject to tariffs however low value.
Somebody i know who runs a number of e-commerce stores in the US is very concerned because as a US citizen they will be on the hook for everything and of they break the rules easy for them to be fined, delisted from Amazon etc. But says even before this loads of dodgy Chinese outifts would hide behind shell companies and its whack a mole and with no US presence impossible to stop them breaking the law / rules.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
There is a problem, which I am sure Trump won't solve well, with the modern world's extreme version of applying Adam Smith/David Ricardo to much though not all of job activity.
Neither Smith nor Ricardo - two great architects of the moden interdependent global systems and trade - would have envisaged the extent to which their ideas are true when applied with modern technology.
It is intellectually feasible to imagine entire nations who have outsourced almost all trad working class bloke activity to abroad and to AI/robotics.
But this fails to deal with the nature of the bloke, left stranded by the system. This is not sustainable, and needs a new Smith/Ricardo to formulate and theorise.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
That asks the question as to why they left in the first place.
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
A few small changes:
- can you drink the tap water: no - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: not really, the vast majority of the people crossing the border to the US these days are from countries other than Mexico - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes - overarmed police riding round in Jeeps with mounted machine guns: yes - pharmacies that will sell absolutely anything, no prescription required: yes
That’s illegal crossings, the equivalent of our small boats. Still plenty of Mexicans overstaying visas but arriving legally. It remains a source (and a destination). Like Turkey.
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
Have you come across the sword fire swallowers who are scattered around road junctions? Apparantly their life expectancy is mid thirties. Though one of my favourite capitals it has extremely poor and extremely rich living in very close proximity which makes it third world. You'll see armed guards outside the haciendas and peope living on pavements opposite. Having said that their use of colour is spectacular and the zoo if it's still there is wonderful. Are the VW's still everywhere?
PS. If you get the chance the bull fights using horses are spectacular.
I don't believe even Trump believes that the realistic outcome will onshore low value garmant making. One big thing he has done (that isn't getting much attention), scrapping the de minimis. That is huge for the likes of Shein but also how is US customs going to deal with it in theory every package is subject to tariffs however low value.
Presumably things are going to get clogged up rather quickly.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
You won’t be allowed to know it’s there.
Of course you will.
British chicken has union flags on the packaging and would be cheaper.
So who is going to buy chicken which is lower quality, more expensive and imported ?
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
I'm surprised about city air. When I was there everyone except the local crew and me (I was a heavy smoker) got ill with the fumes.
I don't believe even Trump believes that the realistic outcome will onshore low value garmant making. One big thing he has done (that isn't getting much attention), scrapping the de minimis. That is huge for the likes of Shein but also how is US customs going to deal with it in theory every package is subject to tariffs however low value.
Presumably things are going to get clogged up rather quickly.
They couldn't keep up before when they could ignore low value itema so it could well descend into total chaos.
It is a loophole that the Chinese exploit but it seems Trump solution (as so often) doesn't really consider things properly
I posted this interview yesterday before having had chance to listen to the whole thing but Scott Bessent is probably the best advocate for the Trump administration at the moment. Far more gravitas and experience than JD Vance.
He makes a good case for what Trump is trying to do economically:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reportedly looking for a way out of the Trump administration following the Republican president’s disastrous tariff rollout damaged his “credibility,” alleged MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle on Friday.
....
Ruhle suggested that Bessent, who built his $521 million fortune managing massive hedge funds, can’t stomach Trump’s “absurd tariff math,” which some critics have slammed as a “kindergarten-level understanding” of international trade.
According to Ruhle’s sources, Trump is “not listening” to his treasury secretary, “the odd man out” in the president’s inner circle.
NEW: Investors may be running for the hills, but Bessent is NOT. In response to talk that Secretary Bessent is potentially eying an exit to the Fed- A senior official inside the administration telling me. “Secretary Bessent is more committed than ever to his role as treasury secretary - he is meeting with the president several times a day and communicating with the rest of the cabinet. Obviously this week’s market reaction is painful - but this is about an economic reset. The secretary has no interest in moving to the Fed and his core focus of addressing our crippling debt/deficit”
I trust the "inside sources" more than the "senior official" trying to do damage control.
The fact that they feel that they need to do damage control means that the rumours about Bessent's exit are real.
How long will it be before the tariffs are walked back ? No one voted to be poorer - or rather, a lot of Americans did, back in November, but precious few of them would have voted to be poorer, had they realised the full consequences of what they were doing.
Hopefully after a realignment of nations. The US have shown themselves to be unreliable. Time for a new beginning. (We can dump Israel at the same time)
I think most want a realignment of nations across the globe, but it will take years and do we have the leaders capable of such a dramatic change ?
It may be quicker than you think.
Mr Trump burnt down the USA's international accumulated political capital in a fortnight, burnt down his relationships with allies of a century in a month, and has gone a long way to destroying democracy and the rule of law in the USA itself in about 6-8 weeks.
Now he's well on the way to killing their science base, and has perhaps hard wired in a recession beyond the 1930s.
Not really related but a reply on that thread about people expecting too much evidence due to tv (the csi effect) and a common follow up.
also the idea that circumstance evidence = weak evidence. No! A strong chain of circumstantial evidence is about as strong as you can get for e.g. murder short of discovering the perpetrator either in the act or in the possession of a collection of trophies and a detailed diary.
On juries, we have the specific problem that academic research into how our juries reach their decisions is effectively illegal. What is said in the jury room stays in the jury room, by law.
On the subject of bringing industries back on shore, tariffs are a very inefficient way of doing it.
Why?
Because how can you, as a business owner be sure that the tariff policy will continue? If you build a factory to make MAGA hats, and then the tariffs come down, then you are really stuffed, because you've spent all this money on a factory and it can't compete.
Which is why most industrial support in countries like China is via subsidised finance. You want to build a $100m factory, well the government will set you up with one of the State supported banks, who'll lend you $95m for 20 years at 3%.
That funding - which is what the Germans did in East Germany too - is much more effective at stimulating a domestic manufacturing industry because your loan is set in stone for the next 20 years. It's not like a tariff which might get pulled if the President cuts a deal with the Vietnamese government, or if a new administration gets in with different priorities.
On the subject of bringing industries back on shore, tariffs are a very inefficient way of doing it.
Why?
Because how can you, as a business owner be sure that the tariff policy will continue? If you build a factory to make MAGA hats, and then the tariffs come down, then you are really stuffed, because you've spent all this money on a factory and it can't compete.
Which is why most industrial support in countries like China is via subsidised finance. You want to build a $100m factory, well the government will set you up with one of the State supported banks, who'll lend you $95m for 20 years at 3%.
That funding - which is what the Germans did in East Germany too - is much more effective at stimulating a domestic manufacturing industry because your loan is set in stone for the next 20 years. It's not like a tariff which might get pulled if the President cuts a deal with the Vietnamese government, or if a new administration gets in with different priorities.
Even if the tariffs are here to stay (and i don't believe they are). Trump v1 whacked big tariffs on washing machines and factories were opened in the US to make them, but per job created it was incredibly expensive way of getting a few 1000 jobs back on shore. I can't remember the exact numbers but it was many $100ks per job.
That's not the same as thinking we need to secure ship building or eneegy production. Washing machines are here nor there.
Israel really seems to have gone a bit mental. Presumably these are two Labour MPs who are not Labour Friends of Israel and therefore have not accepted the Israeli dollar (shekel). I’m sure Bibi is quaking in his boots after facing the watery wrath of David Lammy.
Kemi Badenoch has said she agrees with the Israeli decision. What a foolsh thing to do. All her MPs will now be asked if they agree with her. I'd be surprised if even Farage would step into that rabbit hole
Surely any country is able to refuse entry to any foreign citizen, for whatever reason.
Badenoch said she did not know the 2 Labour mps involved as they were elected last July but affirmed any country's right to refuse entry to any foreign citizen
Not sure what the problem is with her view
The issue is they were members of a parliamentary delegation, which are fairly essential to maintaining understanding and diplomatic relations between those with whom we want to maintain strong relations with. Especially when matters are so fraught - as we need MPs to be as well-informed as possible.
They should only really be refused with very good reason - for example, say, Galloway when was an MP, given his involvement with those who make no secret of their intention to kill Israelis.
Yang and Mohamed don't appear to have taken any stances beyond fairly common concerns about the humanitarian situation and the standard calls for a ceasefire. Neither as far as I can tell are even members of the Labour Friends of Palestine Group.
Worth noting too that the Israeli Immigration Ministry is controlled by Smotrich's far right party so is not exactly a rational actor in the same way, say even Likud usually is (whatever you think of it).
It is pretty stupid and self-defeating for Israel. Turning away MPs who though maybe critical of Israeli policies are hardly the ranters and ravers, is only likely to make other MPs less sympathetic to listening to the Israeli point of view.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
You won’t be allowed to know it’s there.
Of course you will.
British chicken has union flags on the packaging and would be cheaper.
So who is going to buy chicken which is lower quality, more expensive and imported ?
They can criticize what they want but the UK government isn't going to make it illegal for UK supermarkets to put union flags or the world 'British' on UK produce.
Nor does that deal with the fundamental fact that US food tends to cost more.
Elon must be moonlighting in Downing Street given this contradictory and self-harming cut. Who will pay for foreign Leons to photograph beer next to empty plates?
Taking of rich and poor countries it’s interesting gauging where Mexico sits on that spectrum from early impressions (though capital cities are never wholly representative).
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe - Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly - Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes - Shanty towns: no - city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no - homeless children: no - source of undocumented migrants: yes - average age of cars over 10 years: marginal - taxis only take cash: no - Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba - random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
Have you come across the sword fire swallowers who are scattered around road junctions? Apparantly their life expectancy is mid thirties. Though one of my favourite capitals it has extremely poor and extremely rich living in very close proximity which makes it third world. You'll see armed guards outside the haciendas and peope living on pavements opposite. Having said that their use of colour is spectacular and the zoo if it's still there is wonderful. Are the VW's still everywhere?
PS. If you get the chance the bull fights using horses are spectacular.
All the cars seem to be Japanese hybrids.
Taxis with the passenger seat missing. It was 20 years ago
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid
It may or may not work, but it isn't especially stupid. The US is not the UK. The relatively low cost of energy and the relative flexibility of the labour market means its not beyond the bounds of possibility that textile manufacturing could be on-shored to some degree.
There is a problem, which I am sure Trump won't solve well, with the modern world's extreme version of applying Adam Smith/David Ricardo to much though not all of job activity.
Neither Smith nor Ricardo - two great architects of the moden interdependent global systems and trade - would have envisaged the extent to which their ideas are true when applied with modern technology.
It is intellectually feasible to imagine entire nations who have outsourced almost all trad working class bloke activity to abroad and to AI/robotics.
But this fails to deal with the nature of the bloke, left stranded by the system. This is not sustainable, and needs a new Smith/Ricardo to formulate and theorise.
Before leaving to go on holiday I got partway through Brad DeLong's book that's an economic history of the 20th century. One of his central themes is the interplay between the two ideas "capitalist market forces are massive engines of prosperity if you let them go" and "people insist that they have rights beyond what the market assesses their worth to be". The need to do something for those left stranded by the system isn't new but the answers probably won't come from the theorists on the "engines of prosperity" side of the debate; the welfare state was the 20th century attempt at an answer.
Elon must be moonlighting in Downing Street given this contradictory and self-harming cut. Who will pay for foreign Leons to photograph beer next to empty plates?
So many of the decisions by this government are very odd if your stated objective is growth, growth, growth.
Elon must be moonlighting in Downing Street given this contradictory and self-harming cut. Who will pay for foreign Leons to photograph beer next to empty plates?
50m? Easy, just offer asylum to Americans who want to live in a sane country.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
People don’t have to buy chlorinated chicken though. I don’t see the issue. Give the consumer resistance I cannot see it being sold here in numbers to make it worthwhile even if it was allowed.
Consumer resistance might stop chlorinated chicken being sold directly to supermarket customers but in practice it would be sold to food processing companies instead, and the customer would have no idea what is in their meat pie, kebab or kyev kyiv.
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
You won’t be allowed to know it’s there.
Of course you will.
British chicken has union flags on the packaging and would be cheaper.
So who is going to buy chicken which is lower quality, more expensive and imported ?
The US has repeatedly used the NAFTA courts to strike down Canadian laws regarding food labelling - i.e. getting rid of a law that required GM foods to be labeled as such.
That is a really poor article. The author is claiming universal VAT (which also applies to domestic goods) and universal import duties equate to Trump's tariffs. Don't the US already levy import taxes?
Vat is counted as a tariff by MAGAs because with domestically produced goods you can claim back the VAT on the whole production chain, whereas on imports the foreign producers can't claim it back on their costs. Or something like that.
That makes it a non tariff trade barrier - which it certainly is. But it's not anywhere near close to the headline VAT percentage (and will vary considerably between industries) - and a retaliatory tariff is an incoherent and self-harming response to it anyway.
It’s not a trade barrier - VAT is simply a sales tax collected via a method that makes it hard to avoid so maximises the percentage of tax successfully collected
In the meantime Starmer is taking the benefit of Brexit by prioritising trade deals with the US, India and Australia
How is Starmer's post Brexit "deal" with the US going? Ten percent on all imports from the UK compared to zip in the other direction.
The art of the deal.
Well it seems Darren Jones on Sky confirms it is a Brexit divided
And you do not mention the 20% on the EU
"He is hurting us less than the other guy" does not make it free trade. Somebody who is imposing tariffs on the UK is not interested in free trade.
So given we apply tariffs to US goods coming into the U.K. presumably we’re not interested in free trade either ?
One can be interested in free trade while still having other concerns and wanting reciprocity. The test of whether the UK is interested in free trade with the US, and vice versa, is whether we’re moving towards lower tariffs.
So we’re interested but not interested enough to do anything about it.
Let’s see what happens.
I reckon we should just get rid of them and see what happens. Call his bluff.
As you noted in another post, Trump wants a win. That implies we should negotiate something that looks like a win to him, which might involve dropping our tariffs. Just dropping them unilaterally might not work, however. Where’s the leverage in a future negotiation if we’ve already dropped them?
The other issue is that there are trade barriers other than tariffs. Trump has said he wants the UK to drop food safety standards. I can see resistance to doing that from UK consumers.
Lee Anderson's been on that one, citing lettuce.
I'm not sure if he's checked how many people don't want US needs-to-be-chlorine-washed chicken (off the top of my head: 80-90%) here, and what this does for his attempted populism.
We'll see how the "patriots" react, and what happens to the different factions of his voting coalition.
If 80-90% don't want it I'd have thought it wouldn't sell ?
You won’t be allowed to know it’s there.
Of course you will.
British chicken has union flags on the packaging and would be cheaper.
So who is going to buy chicken which is lower quality, more expensive and imported ?
They can criticize what they want but the UK government isn't going to make it illegal for UK supermarkets to put union flags or the world 'British' on UK produce.
Nor does that deal with the fundamental fact that US food tends to cost more.
Has much changed from the days of the horse meat scandal where when the shit hit the fan the only supermarket in the UK who could actually trace their meat supplies was Morrisons (and now they are owned by US private equity who are asset stripping, so i doubt that is true). And the reality of even big brands was very messy where the meat in your frozen meal came from e.g. a Romanian meat processing place that mixed horse and beef of questinable origins very casually
That all been said it is always about the chlorinated chicken, but nobody seems bothered that Iceland stuff mostly comes from places like Thailand and lots of supermarket meat is cheap Brazilian, neither of which if we are honest is going to be top quality. That how Iceland does meals for a pennies.
Yes, those evil Cambodians with their gdp per capita of about 3 cents a year, stealing the opportunities of Americans on $80,000 a year, who want to work in factories 14 hours a day, sewing hoodies together
God help us
Why are you so shocked by this - of course this is an aim of tariffs.
Because it is stupid. Americans don't and won't work in factories for Cambodian wages. So presumably these are going to be robotised factories. Which doesn't mean more jobs for Americans just fewer jobs for Cambodians
If Trump wants to "level the playing field" and make America wealthy again he should look at massive American corporations - eg Apple - that book all their profits in Ireland or Amsterdam or the Kerguelen Islands - and thereby pay almost nothing - and force them to reshore that cash
That would be justified and also economically sensible, and good for America (even if it fucks Ireland, but hey ho)
Which is why America (and Trump) sees British and other foreign taxes on American corporations as hostile.
Comments
I see it rather as reassurance that my views are valid and that others agree with them - often rather more articulately than my efforts.
In any case food is more expensive in the USA - how much US produce could be sold here even if it was the same standard ?
What 5 refers to, I think, is the scattering of French and Latin as an attempt to intellectualise. See the mention of jargon and scientific words as well.
That certainly applies to Netanyahu.
Anyway it and @ydoethur's were fun to read. So have a nice day all.
"US chicken washed in bleach to remove the crusty bacteria".
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com
·
27m
good morning I have the complaint of a one thousand year old woman
why have carboot sales in London become so trendy that you now have to buy tickets online in advance and/or queue for 45 minutes to get in
I just want to idly look at things for half an hour in a car park
leave me alone
https://bsky.app/profile/youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com/post/3lm55bvfgfs2q
I think the rise in living standards in places like China is a side effect, not an intentional goal.
Not sure what the problem is with her view
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/global-trade-explorer-what-are-the-most-important-trade-corridors?sector=02m&eco=usa&year=2023&eco2=chn&toggle=i&sub-sector=T2M
US imported $610billion of electronics in 2023. Mostly China, Taiwan, S Korea.
British chicken has union flags on the packaging and would be cheaper.
So who is going to buy chicken which is lower quality, more expensive and imported ?
Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer says Trump wants to onshore garment factories from Vietnam and Cambodia to the United States
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1908240308845879423
Perhaps a Labor secretary might more sensibly suggest that the US workforce is upskilled so that they can do high value manufacturing for high pay.
Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is for the US to expect THE ENTIRE BLOODY WORLD to do exactly what the US wants in their own countries?
I honestly hope we don't get a trade deal with the US, we need to trade less with them not more, that US has gone stark raving mad.
God help us
Every country can do what it wants in its own interest. If America thinks it's worth trashing its international trade with big impacts on its economy no-one can stop it.
Which is stupid in just about every way.
However, I would find it even more interesting if, having identified the issue, someone could offer a theory on how this might be changed, perhaps by a new Government with a parliamentary majority.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/04/02/no-vat-isnt-a-tariff-but-the-us-would-benefit-from-adopting-it/
What’s it like living here? I ask two men skulking off to the pub through the graveyard, past a pair of Lithuanian builders drinking cans. “It used to feel like a lovely English village,” says one. “Now it’s a fucking shithole and I can’t wait to get out.”"
https://unherd.com/2025/04/reform-is-coming-for-dagenham/
Getting up at 3.45 isn’t so bad when your body clock’s still on UK time.
If Trump wants to "level the playing field" and make America wealthy again he should look at massive American corporations - eg Apple - that book all their profits in Ireland or Amsterdam or the Kerguelen Islands - and thereby pay almost nothing - and force them to reshore that cash
That would be justified and also economically sensible, and good for America (even if it fucks Ireland, but hey ho)
We’ve had decades of global trading rules where preferential tariffs for poor countries have been the norm, and often unilateral. Not least because they combine doing good with rich country consumer self interest.
MAGA makes no distinction between rich high wage and poor low wage economies.
Interesting that he makes the same point I did - that Trump introducing VAT would have been a smarter policy.
Is it actually possible under the federal system, though ?
Here’s the checklist
- can you drink the tap water: maybe
- Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly
- Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes
- Shanty towns: no
- city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no
- homeless children: no
- source of undocumented migrants: yes
- average age of cars over 10 years: marginal
- taxis only take cash: no
- Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba
- random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
Overall giving very middle income vibes. Around Turkey level, below Greece but above Morocco.
In an earlier life I ran community pharmacies, one of them with quite a big cosmetic section and no-one tipped my staff.
Actually, there was one occasion. We'd got in a line of cheap wigs to go with the hair colours and so on, and one lady wanted hers 'dressed'; she'd some sort of problem IIRC. One of our female staff had worked in a hairdressers, so did the job, and the customer tipped her. Twenty five years, god knows how many transactions, and that was the only time I saw a tip.
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/preferential-tariff-scheme-between-eu-and-developing-countries_en
Something we made pains to retain post Brexit.
As I said, it’s both good and completely economically logical for a consumer market that wants cheap food and clothing.
Substack is full of dating advice; rarely, though, is there advice to lonely people on getting more company. I present the market fundamentalist solution: Lonely people should buy company with dinner and drinks.
https://x.com/mrcharlesamos/status/1908817685770907823?s=46&t=CW4pLmMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Advice to Lonely People: Buy Company
Just friends but not like before
https://t.co/lgOA9rdX2E
Clothing - and especially cheap clothing - is a minuscule part of the US economy. There is zero competitive advantage in the US pursuing this.
Against that, even if you set aside the possible serious damage to the economies of some of the world's poorer countries, it makes a significant part of Trump's base poorer.
And the likelihood of any increase in US apparel manufacturing over the rest of Trump's term - also close to zero.
Perhaps Trump genuinely wants to have Americans making things. I wish someone would come in with the same ambitions for the UK.
That would likely work in western countries as well - the poorer districts (ie closer to world middle income areas) having more obesity than the more affluent districts.
And ditto, but in reverse, for the poorest countries.
Look, Roger, I like you. I suspect I'd like you if I met you in real life. I value your place on this board. Please bear all this mind when I say this:I fear you haven't learned anything at all about your fellow countrymen in the past 8 years. You can't simply say everyone you disagree with are idiots. No doubt some leavers are idiots, but that is equally true of some remainers. You just need to remember that some voters have different priorities or make different assessments than you do.
Trump is not Brexit, and the issues are very different but what they have in common is a blank incomprehension on the part of one set of voters about the other. We'd do well to try to bridge that gap. I don't believe all Trump voters are idiots. The article I linked to earlier is, I think, a good start.
- can you drink the tap water: no
- Taxi touts at airport arrivals: a few, but fairly orderly
- Risk of travellers diarrhoea: yes
- Shanty towns: no
- city air smells of unfiltered vehicle fumes: no
- homeless children: no
- source of undocumented migrants: not really, the vast majority of the people crossing the border to the US these days are from countries other than Mexico
- average age of cars over 10 years: marginal
- taxis only take cash: no
- Cash is crumpled and dog-eared: tba
- random dangerous looking cables slung between houses: yes
- overarmed police riding round in Jeeps with mounted machine guns: yes
- pharmacies that will sell absolutely anything, no prescription required: yes
It wasn't ideal for Eastern Europe, granted, but had a full scale confrontation between the superpowers occurred in Europe, it wouldn't have been ideal for anyone. The Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall divided Europe but it also maintained the peace.
In the world Trump delivers the textile jobs are done by illegal immigrants for below minimum wage with employers able to exploit them with threats of deportation to them and their family.
https://www.gq.com/story/american-giant-made-in-usa-t-shirt-interview
You can’t price compete with the low cost countries for T-shirts or other cheap items.
All a tariff wall will do is put the price of t-shirts up massively. Which will screw poor consumers in the US.
Do you spend £25 on your t-shirts? - there are one available that are made in the U.K. at that price. Cloth woven here etc.
Lay on the drink (6)
That is, *why* the US created NAFTA in the first place.
You see, it used to be that all those migrants pouring over the border were Mexican. And whenever Mexico had a total economic meltdown, it resulted in massive movements of people over the border.
The US government (of both colours) thought "hmmm... if Mexico was less poor, they wouldn't have constant financial crises that we needed to bail them out of, *and* there would be far fewer people trying to cross illegally into the US.
And it worked!
Between the end of the 1990s and 2016, the number of people crossing the Southern border collapsed, largely because American firms built factories to supply low value added goods to the US market. (And these factories employed Mexicans.)
It even began to give Mexico a functioning economy beyond tourism and drug smuggling.
But then three things happened:
Firstly, lots of non-Mexicans started trying to cross Mexico to get into the US.
Second, the Americans got addicted to opiates
and
Third, Donald Trump got elected
And the combination of those things have sent it all to shit.
PS. If you get the chance the bull fights using horses are spectacular.
"They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers.
But what's the real cost?
'Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper.
Why are we still paying so much for sneakers
When you got them made by little slave kids"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEK0UZH4cs
Somebody i know who runs a number of e-commerce stores in the US is very concerned because as a US citizen they will be on the hook for everything and of they break the rules easy for them to be fined, delisted from Amazon etc. But says even before this loads of dodgy Chinese outifts would hide behind shell companies and its whack a mole and with no US presence impossible to stop them breaking the law / rules.
Neither Smith nor Ricardo - two great architects of the moden interdependent global systems and trade - would have envisaged the extent to which their ideas are true when applied with modern technology.
It is intellectually feasible to imagine entire nations who have outsourced almost all trad working class bloke activity to abroad and to AI/robotics.
But this fails to deal with the nature of the bloke, left stranded by the system. This is not sustainable, and needs a new Smith/Ricardo to formulate and theorise.
It is a loophole that the Chinese exploit but it seems Trump solution (as so often) doesn't really consider things properly
Why?
Because how can you, as a business owner be sure that the tariff policy will continue? If you build a factory to make MAGA hats, and then the tariffs come down, then you are really stuffed, because you've spent all this money on a factory and it can't compete.
Which is why most industrial support in countries like China is via subsidised finance. You want to build a $100m factory, well the government will set you up with one of the State supported banks, who'll lend you $95m for 20 years at 3%.
That funding - which is what the Germans did in East Germany too - is much more effective at stimulating a domestic manufacturing industry because your loan is set in stone for the next 20 years. It's not like a tariff which might get pulled if the President cuts a deal with the Vietnamese government, or if a new administration gets in with different priorities.
That's not the same as thinking we need to secure ship building or eneegy production. Washing machines are here nor there.
They should only really be refused with very good reason - for example, say, Galloway when was an MP, given his involvement with those who make no secret of their intention to kill Israelis.
Yang and Mohamed don't appear to have taken any stances beyond fairly common concerns about the humanitarian situation and the standard calls for a ceasefire. Neither as far as I can tell are even members of the Labour Friends of Palestine Group.
Worth noting too that the Israeli Immigration Ministry is controlled by Smotrich's far right party so is not exactly a rational actor in the same way, say even Likud usually is (whatever you think of it).
It is pretty stupid and self-defeating for Israel. Turning away MPs who though maybe critical of Israeli policies are hardly the ranters and ravers, is only likely to make other MPs less sympathetic to listening to the Israeli point of view.
Nor does that deal with the fundamental fact that US food tends to cost more.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14575873/Agency-promoting-Britain-abroad-sees-budget-slashed-40-cent-immediate-effect-urged-50-million-foreign-visitors-2030.html
Elon must be moonlighting in Downing Street given this contradictory and self-harming cut. Who will pay for foreign Leons to photograph beer next to empty plates?
kyevkyiv.That all been said it is always about the chlorinated chicken, but nobody seems bothered that Iceland stuff mostly comes from places like Thailand and lots of supermarket meat is cheap Brazilian, neither of which if we are honest is going to be top quality. That how Iceland does meals for a pennies.