What positive changes are you looking forward to as outcomes of the USA 2024 presidential election?

Trace Oswald wrote:

Judith Browning wrote:

...and what about all those folks who were promised lower grocery prices?  What about the cost of eggs?

Has any president ever taken office and fulfilled their campaign promises in the first 2 weeks?  Did anyone think Trump would take office and prices on everything would immediately drop?  That seems to me an unfair ask of anyone, in any position.

No they have not...and rarely even in the 4-8 years allotted.
In fact Trump said before the inaugeration, I believe, that once prices are up it'a hard to bring them down.

My point is really that, for all of the steps being taken in this flurry of activity, nothing looks to me like an effort to lower cost of living for lower and middle class folks.  Have I missed something? Do you have confidence it will ever happen?

Judith Browning wrote:Do you have confidence it will ever happen?

Let's say I'm cautiously optimistic .  I even have reasons I believe that  Truthfully though, those kinds of discussions are exhausting.  I'll give the reasons I think that, people will give reasons they disagree and that those things won't work, I'll give the reasons I think they will work and on and on.  Entire books, hundreds, if not thousands of them, have been written about the nuances of country and world economics, and no one seems to be able to predict these things any more often than people can predict the weather accurately.  A far simpler, and I think more constructive way, to handle it is just to wait and find out.  6 months or a year from now, we'll have a good indication is Trump's policies help or hurt the country.  Meantime, I'll just keep working toward being as self sufficient as I can, so politics don't affect me any more than absolutely necessary.  

Meantime, I'll just keep working toward being as self sufficient as I can, so politics don't affect me any more than absolutely necessary.    

We moved to the woods in '73 after events during the previous decade culminated in Nixon sending National Guardsmen to shoot and kill unarmed protesters in '70.
We had no news no screens at all, off grid with our sons and a lot of animals.  It was mostly wonderful for 13 years.
When we moved up the mountain we were given a 12 volt radio (because we were still off grid) and the first news story I heard was that the MOVE houses in Philadelphia had been bombed by the city police!!!  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
I thought it was the end of civilization...it took awhile to get desensitized to the news cycle.

This is all to say I understand stepping back out of the system and that  I'm fortunate to be able to do so.

Not everyone has that option.  

OK Judith I can remain silent no longer.  Enuff is enuff, from this day forward you need to know that you have a long white/grey haired, gun toting conservative constitutionalist with some Libertarian leanings as your ----- friend---- so there !

Please know that I'm laughing as I type this.  As I enjoy living under my rock I seldom catch any news and these days I care little about the lies coming out of DC.

Also you need to know that once you become my friend, you will always be my friend and you can count on me!!!

Peace

PS there's no take backs on the friend thingy !!!

Trace Oswald wrote:

Judith Browning wrote:

...and what about all those folks who were promised lower grocery prices?  What about the cost of eggs?

Has any president ever taken office and fulfilled their campaign promises in the first 2 weeks?  Did anyone think Trump would take office and prices on everything would immediately drop?  That seems to me an unfair ask of anyone, in any position.

I am in the Elevator/Accessibility industry both residentially and commercially. I cover NC, VA, TX, OK, AR and we just had our best sales month in 13 years. I would say consumer confidence is at an all time high, in my industry at least.

Christopher Weeks wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:I don't think that is any indication of which party is better, or worse, for the country.

In general terms, I agree with your stance, Trace. I do think billionaires drive both major parties. And medium-term historically I think the parties are nearly indistinguishable (Over my lifetime the Democrats have been a center-right party and the Republicans a solid- but not extreme- right party). But I also think what the greater Trump coalition are doing right now is of an entirely different order than what we're used to. And I think they're making a push to upset the global status quo in a big way, and if they succeed it's not going to be pretty and the people who currently support and enabled the upset are going to have a rude awakening. I think Trump being part of the GOP is more or less an accident. He's on record being aligned with the Democrats as recently as 25 years ago and he was really just looking for any easy way to take something big over without having to do all the work of building the infrastructure from the ground up (like Perot failed to do). So, I think the GOP is worse than the Democrats but it's sort of a trivial distinction and if we're not really witnessing the end times, it's probably temporary.

(As an aside, I've spent most of my life saying the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are stupid. Which of those I prefer changes back and forth over time and I've voted for several of each.)

Have you tried being a Libertarian? It's a good place to be and you can dislike both mainstream parties. ;-)

Judith Browning wrote:

Meantime, I'll just keep working toward being as self sufficient as I can, so politics don't affect me any more than absolutely necessary.    

We moved to the woods in '73 after events during the previous decade culminated in Nixon sending National Guardsmen to shoot and kill unarmed protesters in '72.
We had no news no screens at all, off grid with our sons and a lot of animals.  It was mostly wonderful for 13 years.
When we moved up the mountain we were given a 12 volt radio (because we were still off grid) and the first news story I heard was that the MOVE houses in Philadelphia had been bombed by our government!!!  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
I thought it was the end of civilization...it took awhile to get desensitized to the news cycle.

This is all to say I understand stepping back out of the system and that  I'm fortunate to be able to do so.

Not everyone has that option.  

Judith, have you posted or written anywhere about this decision or the time following? If you care to expand on how you guys came to make that decision and what pros and cons you experienced, especially with kids, I would be a captive audience to hear about it.

It sounds like a very unique experience and wow that is really putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Josh, I've written bits and pieces all over permies I think.
There was no plan it was more of a movement... a get out of town moment for many.  there was a network of others buying and moving to what was then cheap land.  rocky hillsides, no road access, etc....what we later heard the realtors called 'hippie land' 🙄
I hitchhiked here first with a backpack and a couple tools before the kids were born.  totally naive but game.


We ended up with a bit of land and a truck, a herd of goats, rabbits and chickens and two wonderful sons....we gradually moved to a more normal situation as caregivers for my mom for the 90's....adapted as circumstances changed.  So now we've moved to a tiny town closer to civilization and our sons.

This is why I love this site so much though...younger folks starting out and at different stages of trying for self sufficiency is very uplifting for me.  It's good to try even in small steps.

We have always lived with less and kept that attitude throughout.

Politics is not really my interest.
Treating others fairly and kindly is important to me.

Deane Adams wrote:OK Judith I can remain silent no longer.  Enuff is enuff, from this day forward you need to know that you have a long white/grey haired, gun toting conservative constitutionalist with some Libertarian leanings as your ----- friend---- so there !

Please know that I'm laughing as I type this.  As I enjoy living under my rock I seldom catch any news and these days I care little about the lies coming out of DC.

Also you need to know that once you become my friend, you will always be my friend and you can count on me!!!

Peace

PS there's no take backs on the friend thingy !!!

that works for me Deane!

Josh Hoffman wrote:Have you tried being a Libertarian? It's a good place to be and you can dislike both mainstream parties. ;-)

Indeed! I was born into an Objectivist/Libertarian household. I outgrew it upon realizing the economic philosophy only works when participants have equal resources (material and information). But a fat slice of it informs my own anarcho-syndicalism.

I vote LP about 1/4 of the time.

adding a link here...
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-3-2025

Heather Cox Richardson is an historian and, for me and many others, helps put things in perspective...she is not without bias so beware.

Her posts are generally long, in depth and she lists sources!
Here's a short excerpt.....

  I’m going to start tonight by stating the obvious: the Republicans control both chambers of Congress: the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also control the White House and the Supreme Court. If they wanted to get rid of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), for example, they could introduce a bill, debate it, pass it, and send it on to President Trump for his signature. And there would be very little the Democrats could do to stop that change.

But they are not doing that.  

Judith Browning wrote:
My point is really that, for all of the steps being taken in this flurry of activity, nothing looks to me like an effort to lower the cost of living for lower and middle-class folks.  Have I missed something? Do you have confidence it will ever happen?

As an outsider looking in, nothing I see being done looks intended to lower the cost of living. In fact, if you were to make a playbook for policies to drive up the cost of living you would probably hit many of the keynotes from the past week or so.

Tariffs - these are, at their core, a tax on consumers. They are being spun as being aimed at "Johnny Foreigner", but the reason America is buying those products right now is because consumers want them. Consumers want them because of a combination of factors which include price. Whacking on a tariff means people will pay more to get the same product.

Attacks on migrant labour - agriculture in the US is subsidised by the widespread use of a cheap (sometimes illegal) migrant workforce. Driving them out of the country will lead to a crisis of labour shortages. To get their crops picked farmers will need to drastically raise wages to compete for a depleted pool of workers. They will need to pass those increased costs on to consumers. But in all likelihood, many farmers will go out of business through a labour crisis.  (Who might benefit from a firesale of agricultural land as once profitable farms fold? Certainly not consumers!)

Undermining trade in general - my thoughts on Trump are that he views all transactions as a zero-sum game. "If I'm going to win in this transaction the other party must lose". This is a false premise - typically in trade both parties benefit and wealth is generated in the transaction. And when both parties are enthusiastic participants in building mutual wealth through trade prosperity flourishes. But Trump himself appears to place no value on that perspective and seems willing to trash the mutually beneficial systems to exert political power for economic purposes. This is likely to - at best - reduce opportunities for mutual wealth creation. At worst, if trade shrinks considerably it can lead to companies facing financial crises back home.

The bottom line is that I don't think the actions we are seeing have any plausible path to a general lowering of costs for consumers, or an increase in standards of living. I can see that there might be some special cases where there are "wins" (eg fruit pickers with legal right to work might see their wages increase), and you can bet those wins will be paraded around in the media while these costs appear in spread out through the whole economy as everything gets more expensive.

Michael Cox wrote:

Judith Browning wrote:
My point is really that, for all of the steps being taken in this flurry of activity, nothing looks to me like an effort to lower the cost of living for lower and middle-class folks.  Have I missed something? Do you have confidence it will ever happen?

As an outsider looking in, nothing I see being done looks intended to lower the cost of living. In fact, if you were to make a playbook for policies to drive up the cost of living you would probably hit many of the keynotes from the past week or so.

Tariffs - these are, at their core, a tax on consumers. They are being spun as being aimed at "Johnny Foreigner", but the reason America is buying those products right now is because consumers want them. Consumers want them because of a combination of factors which include price. Whacking on a tariff means people will pay more to get the same product.

Attacks on migrant labour - agriculture in the US is subsidised by the widespread use of a cheap (sometimes illegal) migrant workforce. Driving them out of the country will lead to a crisis of labour shortages. To get their crops picked farmers will need to drastically raise wages to compete for a depleted pool of workers. They will need to pass those increased costs on to consumers. But in all likelihood, many farmers will go out of business through a labour crisis.  (Who might benefit from a firesale of agricultural land as once profitable farms fold? Certainly not consumers!)

Undermining trade in general - my thoughts on Trump are that he views all transactions as a zero-sum game. "If I'm going to win in this transaction the other party must lose". This is a false premise - typically in trade both parties benefit and wealth is generated in the transaction. And when both parties are enthusiastic participants in building mutual wealth through trade prosperity flourishes. But Trump himself appears to place no value on that perspective and seems willing to trash the mutually beneficial systems to exert political power for economic purposes. This is likely to - at best - reduce opportunities for mutual wealth creation. At worst, if trade shrinks considerably it can lead to companies facing financial crises back home.

The bottom line is that I don't think the actions we are seeing have any plausible path to a general lowering of costs for consumers, or an increase in standards of living. I can see that there might be some special cases where there are "wins" (eg fruit pickers with legal right to work might see their wages increase), and you can bet those wins will be paraded around in the media while these costs appear in spread out through the whole economy as everything gets more expensive.

Just to touch on your first point, tariffs are not intended to be implemented.  They are a bargaining tool, in this case to cause Mexico and Canada to strengthen the border to help curb the flow of fentanyl into the country.  It already worked, and the tariffs have been paused.  It took less than a day.  Mexico and Canada have both taken strong steps to increase border security which was always, and openly, the goal.

It already worked, and the tariffs have been paused.  It took less than a day.  Mexico and Canada have both taken strong steps to increase border security which was always, and openly, the goal.  

Yes, 'it' did...but three years ago during the Biden administration.  There was already an agreement for 10,000 border troops from Mexico
Mexico might have only agreed to something they were already doing? or did he get and additional number?
https://apnews.com/article/guatemala-honduras-mexico-immigration-border-patrols-917c0fea87c0a807b371da207d34c8cc

Similar to Canada 'giving in' ....but I can't find the article...he might be only threatening to do what's already been done and agreed on by previous admins.

I'm not sure whose winning?

I think it all depends on whose news we read and watch.

Since it seems like a lot of people here are following these developments, I want to ask something. I'm seeing (on Facebook) a lot of "meme" posts like the one I've attached below. Most of them are less complimentary and I had to pick through them to find one I thought was neutral/nice enough to post here. But the crux of this is that a lot of people are pointing out that Trump got essentially nothing and that a whole lot of people have been fooled by his bravado, attached to a pretty substantial price tag due to associated chaos.

It used to be easier to just look things up like this to verify or refute the claims. And I guess I'm running out of energy for it before feeling really sure I have a grasp on the reality.

It seems like the concessions on the part of Canada consist of assigning a bunch of agents to the border (who were already being assigned to the border) and appointing a fentanyl czar which is genuinely new.

With Mexico, Sheinbaum really has agreed to deploy 10K guardsmen to the border, but Mexico made that same agreement with Biden in '21 (without the economic threats) and the troops are still there. I'm seeing mixed reports on whether Sheinbaum is sending 10K more, or just agreeing to have troops there as if it were concession but in actuality, counting the ones already deployed.

So when trying to figure out whether Trump really did accomplish something or is all bluster, I'm not sure where to land.

Have any of you seen unbiased, factual, probably foreign reporting that breaks this down with an analysis.

ETA: Ha...crossposted with Judith about the same thing.

Judith Browning wrote:Yes, 'it' did...but three years ago during the Biden administration.  There was already an agreement for 10,000 border troops from Mexico
Mexico might have only agreed to something they were already doing? or did he get and additional number?
https://apnews.com/article/guatemala-honduras-mexico-immigration-border-patrols-917c0fea87c0a807b371da207d34c8cc

Similar to Canada 'giving in' ....but I can't find the article...he might be only threatening to do what's already been done and agreed on by previous admins.

I'm not sure whose winning?

I think it all depends on whose news we read and watch.

In this case, you just have to dig a bit deeper. The agreement with Biden was to send troops to Mexico's southern border to stop the train of immigrants coming from countries south of Mexico. The agreement with Trump is to send troops to Mexico's northern border with the US, to help stop illegal immigrants and drugs and whatnot.

Judith Browning wrote:

It already worked, and the tariffs have been paused.  It took less than a day.  Mexico and Canada have both taken strong steps to increase border security which was always, and openly, the goal.  

Yes, 'it' did...but three years ago during the Biden administration.  There was already an agreement for 10,000 border troops from Mexico
Mexico might have only agreed to something they were already doing? or did he get and additional number?
https://apnews.com/article/guatemala-honduras-mexico-immigration-border-patrols-917c0fea87c0a807b371da207d34c8cc

Similar to Canada 'giving in' ....but I can't find the article...he might be only threatening to do what's already been done and agreed on by previous admins.

I'm not sure whose winning?

I think it all depends on whose news we read and watch.

I guess I don't understand what you mean. This information comes from Reuters and any number of other sources, including all of mainstream media.

Trump put tariffs on Mexico and the same day Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum agreed to immediately send 10,000 soldiers to her country’s border to prevent the trafficking of fentanyl and other drugs.  She clearly states that this was due to, and after, talks with Trump.  

Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau posted Monday afternoon on X that the pause would occur “while we work together,” saying that his government would name a fentanyl czar, list Mexican cartels as terrorist groups and launch a “Canada-U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering.”  

These are direct answers to the tariffs Trump put on them, and they complied the same day.  I don't understand how this can be tied in any way to the Biden admin.

 
Today, the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, announced that she and Trump had “reached a series of agreements” that would pause the threatened tariffs for a month. Mexico agreed to “reinforce the northern border with 10,000 elements of the National Guard immediately, to prevent drug trafficking from Mexico to the United States,” while the U.S. “commits to work to prevent the trafficking of high-powered weapons to Mexico.”

When Trump announced their conversation shortly afterward, he omitted the part of the agreement that committed the U.S. to try to stop the flow of guns to Mexico. He also did not mention that, in fact, Mexico committed to putting 10,000 troops at the border in 2021. As Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post commented above a record of Mexican troop deployments: “Any news outlet reporting Mexico conceded anything to Trump to get him to delay tariffs has not done its homework. Trump boasts he got Mexico to commit to stationing 10K troops at our border. Apparently he didn’t realize Mexico already has 15K troops deployed there[.]”

The crisis at the northern border worked out in a similar fashion. After conferring, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trump announced a 30-day pause in the implementation of tariffs. Trudeau agreed to appoint a border czar and to implement a $1.3 billion border plan that Canada had announced in December.

In other words, while Musk was causing a constitutional crisis, Trump created an economic crisis that threatened both domestic and global chaos, then claimed Biden administration achievements as his own and declared victory.

The tariffs on Chinese goods went into effect as planned. China has promised to levy tariffs of up to 15% on certain U.S. products beginning a week from today. It also said it will investigate Google to see if it has violated antitrust laws.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-3-2025

I know we don't read the same news sources...none of them are always correct and most of us choose the ones that most closely fit our established way of thinking.
I cringe at sources such as Fox News as others most likely cringe at my news sources.

sigh...I miss Walter Cronkite 💜

Me too. Back when everyone believed the news was neutral.

Part of his farewell newscast, from here.

… This is but a transition, a passing of the baton. A great broadcaster and gentleman, Doug Edwards, preceded me in this job and another, Dan Rather, will follow. … Furthermore, I am not even going away. I’ll be back from time to time with special news reports and documentaries. … Old anchormen, you see, don’t fade away, they just keep coming back for more. And that’s the way it is, Friday, March 6, 1981. I’ll be away on assignment and Dan Rather will be sitting in here for the next few years. Good night.

Who on earth is this Rather guy? The trust just didn't transfer.

Regarding the pause on tariffs, and concessions...

It's a classic negotiation tactic on the part of Canada/Mexico...

Trump was unable to backdown without showing some kind of "win", despite the obviously self-destructive consequences of pushing ahead with his plans. Canada and Mexico had made it quite clear that they would be happy to apply their own tariffs to the USA and that they would target them to impact Trump's key supporter base. But neither Canada nor Mexico wants trade war because they are quite aware that it would be bad economically for their people. So they give Trump just enough of a "win" that he can spin it as such back home and withdraw with his tail between his legs.

From their point of view the problem has gone away and the cost has been negligible - both financially and in terms of political capital.

But the cost to America has been steep. Bully tactics have undermined trust and respect, and in the hearts of consumers outside of the USA the impact will be seen in the purchasing decisions of individuals. It's already being seen in the various "don't buy American" campaigns in Canada. Those US businesses that depend on overseas sales will see their market shrink. Businesses overseas will view the US as an unstable and potentially risky location to trade with and will diversify supply chains to mitigate risks.

We saw this classically with the Russia/Ukraine war when Russia reduced the exports of oil products to Europe. Within 12 months the supply chains had diversified and removed dependence on Russian sources. Russia won't be getting that business back again, because the new arrangements are working and the political risks are not worth it.

Michael,
Thank you for your clear perspective.
It is always appreciated.

Michael Cox wrote:Regarding the pause on tariffs, and concessions...

It's a classic negotiation tactic on the part of Canada/Mexico...

Trump was unable to backdown without showing some kind of "win", despite the obviously self-destructive consequences of pushing ahead with his plans. Canada and Mexico had made it quite clear that they would be happy to apply their own tariffs to the USA and that they would target them to impact Trump's key supporter base. But neither Canada nor Mexico wants trade war because they are quite aware that it would be bad economically for their people. So they give Trump just enough of a "win" that he can spin it as such back home and withdraw with his tail between his legs.

From their point of view the problem has gone away and the cost has been negligible - both financially and in terms of political capital.

But the cost to America has been steep. Bully tactics have undermined trust and respect, and in the hearts of consumers outside of the USA the impact will be seen in the purchasing decisions of individuals. It's already being seen in the various "don't buy American" campaigns in Canada. Those US businesses that depend on overseas sales will see their market shrink. Businesses overseas will view the US as an unstable and potentially risky location to trade with and will diversify supply chains to mitigate risks.

We saw this classically with the Russia/Ukraine war when Russia reduced the exports of oil products to Europe. Within 12 months the supply chains had diversified and removed dependence on Russian sources. Russia won't be getting that business back again, because the new arrangements are working and the political risks are not worth it.

The way I see it, Trump said he was going to apply tariffs to Mexico and Canada if they didn't help us secure the border against fentanyl coming into our country.  Mexico and Canada agreed to do that, and did indeed do it.  What would have had to happen differently for it to be considered a "win", rather than a Trump "withdraw with his tail between his legs"?  

The way the US media and the people that hate Trump seem to present things, anything that happens that is good under Trump's presidency was something that was already put in place by the previous administration, or that they laid the groundwork for, and anything that happens that is bad under his term is 100% Trump's fault.  I have said before that as a person, I dislike Trump pretty greatly, but some of his policies work, and I didn't see any of the doom and gloom, "the whole world economy will be destroyed by him" rhetoric come true his first term, and I don't believe it will happen this one.  I will make a prediction right now that if the economy is in better shape at the end of his term than it is right now, that the border is more secure, that if government waste is way down, that the world is a safer place than when he took office, no one on the left side of the equation will give him credit for any of it, and everyone on the right will be proclaiming him the greatest president in the history of our nation, and neither side will be willing to bend to the other direction 1 degree.  Political disagreements like this one are much like a Christian and an atheist arguing.  I don't know that anyone has ever decided the other person was right and then changed their mind to agree.

I've changed my mind on big issues due to online conversations. More frequently, I've gained a lot of nuance by understanding what people in other situations are worried about. I think of myself as a pro-gun, small-government socialist. Which means that crazy liberals reject me as a conservative and crazy conservatives call me a libtard. I know for sure that you're wrong that no one changes their mind.

Trace Oswald wrote:What would have had to happen differently for it to be considered a "win"

This is an entirely valid question and a good way to frame it. For me, I'd have to be sure that Canada and Mexico weren't already doing the things that you and Trump claim they are now doing because of the tariff threat. That's what I was asking for above. It seems like it ought to be easy to look up but I don't know how in the modern media environment. And in addition, I'd want to believe that the cost to America (and the world) was low enough to justify the benefits. So I'm unsure on the first criterion and astoundingly dubious, but willing to see how things go, on the second.

Christopher Weeks wrote: For me, I'd have to be sure that Canada and Mexico weren't already doing the things that you and Trump claim they are now doing because of the tariff threat. That's what I was asking for above. It seems like it ought to be easy to look up but I don't know how in the modern media environment. And in addition, I'd want to believe that the cost to America (and the world) was low enough to justify the benefits. So I'm unsure on the first criterion and astoundingly dubious, but willing to see how things go, on the second.

Fair enough.  Personally, I'm convinced that they did it in response to Trump's tariffs when publications like Reuters say that is the case, as evidenced by this quote "Both Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said they had agreed to bolster border enforcement efforts in response to Trump's demand to crack down on immigration and drug smuggling."  Reuters is known to be fairly central, and only slightly left-leaning in their reporting.  The three people that wrote that piece are David Alire Garcia, Trevor Hunnicutt and David Ljunggren.  They only list the bios of two of the authors for whatever reason, and they are as follows:

David Alire Garcia
Thomson Reuters

Lead writer for breaking news in Latin America based in Mexico City, covering a wide range of business and general news from across South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. Previously worked as a correspondent in Reuters Mexico bureau focused on energy, other commodity markets as well as politics and elections, with occasional detours into art, science and cultural stories.


David Ljunggren
Thomson Reuters

Covers Canadian political, economic and general news as well as breaking news across North America, previously based in London and Moscow and a winner of Reuters’ Treasury scoop of the year.

Does that mean they don't have a pro-Trump slant?  Of course not, but it seems unlikely.

As far as the cost to America, or the world, and this is opinion only, from the threat of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, I'm leaning heavily towards "zip".

Michael Cox wrote:
But the cost to America has been steep. Bully tactics have undermined trust and respect, and in the hearts of consumers outside of the USA the impact will be seen in the purchasing decisions of individuals. It's already being seen in the various "don't buy American" campaigns in Canada. Those US businesses that depend on overseas sales will see their market shrink. Businesses overseas will view the US as an unstable and potentially risky location to trade with and will diversify supply chains to mitigate risks

I simply disagree with this, and I don't think it will materialize, but only time will tell.  Michael being from another country certainly gives a different perspective, and what he says may indeed happen, but I think it's more likely those people saying "don't buy American" will have a place in the sun for about 5 minutes and then everything will go right back to the status quo.  

It's interesting how less than 50 lbs of fentinal is enough to declare an emergency and bypass the regular US government process, putting the power in the hands of one person.

Compare that to tens of thousands of pounds coming in from other sources.  Maybe I just live somewhere that puts too high a value on government cheks and balances.

From this angle, the drugs look like an excuse to follow a different agenda.

r ranson wrote:It's interesting how less than 50 lbs of fentinal is enough to declare an emergency and bypass the regular US government process, putting the power in the hands of one person.

From this angle, the drugs look like an excuse to follow a different agenda.

50 lbs of fentanyl is enough to kill approx 12 million people.  I would consider that an emergency, other people may not.  I may have a different perspective than some, because an immediate family member of mine was killed by that poison.  

Any executive order is, in essence, "putting the power in the hands of one person".  All Presidents of the US in recent history have passed hundreds of them each.

What do you think the other agenda is?

Trace Oswald wrote:What do you think the other agenda is?

The other agenda is explicitly clear. Trump has stated unambiguously that he is targeting countries with a trade deficit because he anticipates it boosting the domestic economy. There is no conceivable impact on eg fentanyl smuggling from imposing tariffs on the UK and the EU and yet he has made it clear repeatedly that the UK and the EU are on his agenda.

So, he has had two stated goal:

1)  Action against fentanyl smuggling
2) Tariffs to boost the domestic economy by reducing the trade deficit

In the case of Canada and Mexico he has got some traction on the first, but not got the second. He doesn't get the hoped for benefits to the domestic economy if the tariffs are not in place. If anything his actions are likely to make the trade deficit worse as consumers are less likely to buy American products now than they were previously.

I would also argue that it is not even clear that the proposed measures will have a meaningful impact on the smuggling of fentanyl. I would want to wait and see if there is a statistically significant reduction in fentanyl deaths over the next 12 months.

BBC - Trump proposes tariffs on EU and UK

US President Donald Trump has hinted the European Union (EU) could be next to face tariffs, after he slapped 25% levies on goods from Mexico and Canada along with an additional 10% tax on imports from China.

While arriving in Maryland from Florida, Trump told the BBC that tariffs on EU goods imported into the US could happen "pretty soon". "They don't take our cars, they don't take our farm products, they take almost nothing and we take everything from them. Millions of cars, tremendous amounts of food and farm products," he told journalists.

The US President added he enjoyed good relations with British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and that trade issues with the UK could be worked out. When asked by the BBC if there was a timeline for announcing tariffs on the EU, Trump said: "I wouldn't say there's a timeline, but it's going to be pretty soon." For its part, the 27-member bloc has condemned Trump's decision to move ahead with tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China, and warned that it will "respond firmly" if it also becomes a target. China said it could take "corresponding counter measures". Mexico and Canada have also vowed to take retaliatory measures, although Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said after meeting Trump on Monday that he had agreed to delay tariffs against her country for a month.

On trade with Britain, Trump said: "The UK is out of line. But I'm sure that one, I think that one, can be worked out." He also discussed his relationship with the British Prime Minister who he said has been "very nice". "We've had a couple of meetings. We've had numerous phone calls. We're getting along very well," he added. Tariffs are taxes charged on goods imported from other countries. The charges are seen as a tool to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Increasing the price of imported goods is aimed at encouraging consumers to buy cheaper domestic products instead to help boost their own economy's growth.

Most tariffs are set as a percentage of the value of the goods and in general the importer pays it. But given countries often respond to tariffs by matching measures of their own, businesses and consumers in both countries can be impacted. Trump is threatening to impose tariffs on goods imported from the EU to the US to address his country's long-standing trade deficit with the bloc, which occurs when a country imports more than it exports.

Some 20 EU member states exported more to the US than they imported in 2023, according to Eurostat. The country with the largest surplus was Germany, driven by car and machinery exports, followed by Italy and Ireland. Trump has repeatedly complained about the EU's car exports to the US, with fewer vehicles being shipped the other way. Last week, British business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, told the BBC that the UK should be exempt from any tariffs, noting that the US does not have a goods trade deficit with the UK.

Following Trump's comments, the main European stock markets all fell back. Shares in some of the biggest European carmakers also slumped following concerns over potential import duties to the US. Volkswagen, BMW, Porsche, Volvo Cars, Stellantis, and truckmaker Daimler Truck all fell between around 5% and 6%. French car parts supplier Valeo slumped 8%. "We believe around 8 billion euros ($8.18 billion) of VW's revenues are impacted by tariffs and around 16 billion euros of Stellantis revenues," analysts at investment bank Stifel wrote in a note. US shares also fell when trading started, although the main indexes pulled back some of the losses following the news that tariffs on Mexico were being delayed. The prospect of higher taxes being introduced on imports to the US is concerning many world leaders, because it will make it more difficult for companies to sell goods in the world's largest economy.

But tariffs are a central part of Trump's economic policy. He sees them as a way of growing the US economy, protecting jobs and raising tax revenue.

Potential vs reality are interesting

in the last fiscal year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized more than 21,000 pounds of fentanyl at the United States' borders

Source usa border via https://www.timescolonist.com/national-business/fact-checking-trumps-executive-order-threatening-tariffs-on-canada-10181426

Over 74,000 Americans died in 2023 after taking drug mixtures containing fentanyl, according to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg93nn1e6go

I want to stop and acknowledge that is too many people, each one a family and community devastated.

Canada lost nearly 50,000 lives to this, that same year.  With a population of only about 40 million (the usa has about 300 million) , there isn't a person I know who hasn't been deeply touched by the loss of a friend or family member from this.  

I'm glad that increased border security will reduce the flow of drugs across the border.  

I'm also surprised there isn't a method already in place that allows this to be done via regular government ways.  And when trump talks to canada, he seldom seems interested in drugs.  It's about finance or trade or something new... it's hard to tell what he wants when the rhetoric changes daily.  Time will tell.  If all he was worried about is drugs and migrants, he will stop the threat of tariffs before the 30 days are up.  The border already has significant security upgrades these last few months in addition to the new promises. More than he has requested of us.  

We'll see in 30 days

BBC - How the world reponds to Trump's tariffs is what matters next

Again - I have added my emphasis here.

The discussion of Trump's true motives is a common theme of mainstream news over here, as are discussions of how to give him easy "wins" to make troubles go away. I would say that the general view here is that few people believe he actually cares about fentanyl. He is believed to be pushing policies that make him personally look "strong", that play well with his base, and have the support of his corporate sponsors.

How world responds to Trump's tariffs is what matters next

It was not a bluff, the tariffs are here - and this is just the opening salvo from the Oval Office.

The world trading system has not been here before. A slide towards a wider trade conflict is very much on the cards, as President Trump prepares similar tariffs firstly against Europe, and then at a lower level universally. But what matters as much as the actions the US takes, is how the rest of the world responds. That, in turn, requires a judgement about what the president is actually trying to achieve.

Trump regularly changes his rationale for tariffs - either to coerce diplomatic change, to deal with trade imbalances or to raise significant revenues. These policy objectives cannot all be achieved simultaneously.

For example, learning from the experience of Trump's first term "China deal", Western diplomats have been scrambling to find lists of US goods they might buy more of, in order to give the White House some wins. Europe could say it is increasing its purchases of US shipments of liquefied natural gas, or arms, or specialised magnets for wind farms. It doesn't really matter if these trends were already in train, as long as the US president can be allowed to chalk up a "win".

But is changing trade deficit numbers really the aim here?

Officially, the rationale for Trump's move is punishment for the trade in the synthetic opioid fentanyl, but that is widely seen as a legal pretext for "emergency" action that would normally require a congressional decision. Canada has signalled it will take a robust approach to Trump, best articulated by the contender to be the country's next prime minister, Mark Carney. "We will retaliate … dollar for dollar" he told the BBC, ridiculing the fentanyl rationale and saying Canada would "stand up to a bully". This is significant whether or not Carney succeeds Justin Trudeau and ends up chairing the G7, which is the group of the world's seven largest so-called "advanced" economies.

As a former governor of the Bank of England, Carney witnessed Trump on the world stage at G20 and G7 meetings first hand and has clearly concluded that the US leader only respects strength. He had a coded warning for any nation seeking to stay quiet and not catch the eye of the president: "Good luck." In recent conversations I have had with European trade negotiators, they have stressed cooperation and partnership, as well as deals with the US. When asked, they avoided directly criticising even the extraordinary suggestion of using tariffs against Nato ally Denmark over the fate of Greenland.

The real question here is whether the rest of the world, even tacitly, coordinates retaliatory tariffs on, for example, high profile political supporters of President Trump, such as Elon Musk, which is a typical feature of previous smaller disputes. Tesla, the electric vehicle maker led by Musk, last week warned on the impact of tit-for-tat tariffs. All of this would be aimed at making the rival courts around the Oval Office, and interests in Congress, assert their concerns about the impact on US factories' global exports.

This is all before the impact on US domestic prices. This could also come, more circuitously, through the application of a planned carbon trade tax in various jurisdictions. Exactly how this plays out depends on perceptions of just how powerful the US remains. Some nations may conclude that these days, there are other options in the world. With tariffs threats being sprayed in multiple directions every day, the world is in uncharted territory.

Trace, I'm very sorry for your loss of a family member to this drug... loss of a life is always a tragedy.

I don't think anyone is questioning the tragic results of fentanyl.

This article explains a bit more why many of us are questioning Trumps threats and wondering what he really has in mind.


https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5283957/fentanyl-trump-tariffs-china-canada-mexico

Trump used fentanyl to justify tariffs, but the crisis was already easing  

 In 2024, only about 43 pounds of fentanyl was seized at America's northern border. That compares with roughly 21,100 pounds seized at the southern border.

 

What role does Canada play in the U.S. fentanyl supply?
Almost none. In its fact sheet, the Trump administration says Canada has a "growing footprint" in narcotics distribution with Mexican cartels active in the country. But law enforcement and drug policy experts agree that Canada plays a minimal role in fentanyl smuggling into the U.S.  

Positive outcome in canada.

In the past, canada has had some significant trade barriers within the country.  For the last 100 years, it's been easier to sell and buy from the usa, or other countries, than across canada. Sometimes the same goods get sold to an american middleman on one cost only to be sold back to Canadian companies on the other.

The provinces didn't talk to eachother as each has different needs, culture, history, needs, and values.

Now they talk at least once a week and are dismantling the trade barriers. They feel this will bolster the economy tremendously.  I think there is a lot of potential here.  Especially with the first step of making canadian population aware of what goods are already made in canada already gaining momentum.

I'm curious where this will go.

... but I think it's more likely those people saying "don't buy American" will have a place in the sun for about 5 minutes and then everything will go right back to the status quo.  

In the past (because the history of the usa is interesting and we have been here several times before), the Boycott USA movement lasts as long as the Americans First movement does.

They are two sides of the same blade.  

Yep. And I would suggest that this holds true up to the point where markets change structurally in response. Should the Ukraine war end tomorrow Europe won't revert back to depending on Russian oil. The alternative supply chains are working.

This is a little more nuts'n'bolts than most of the conversation, but does anyone know how a tariff affects someone who drives across the border to make purchases?

Judith Browning wrote:
We moved to the woods in '73 after events during the previous decade culminated in Nixon sending National Guardsmen to shoot and kill unarmed protesters in '72.
We had no news no screens at all, off grid with our sons and a lot of animals.  It was mostly wonderful for 13 years.
When we moved up the mountain we were given a 12 volt radio (because we were still off grid) and the first news story I heard was that the MOVE houses in Philadelphia had been bombed by the city police!!!  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
I thought it was the end of civilization...it took awhile to get desensitized to the news cycle.

This is all to say I understand stepping back out of the system and that  I'm fortunate to be able to do so.

Not everyone has that option.  

Have you seen the documentary Let the Fire Burn? This was one of the most shocking things I'd learned in my life. Schools and the media go to such great lengths to make it seem like our race problems in a visceral sense were cleared up with civil rights legislation in the 60s, that all our problems now are due to racist Republicans trying to cut government programs or (less so ten years ago) police harassing black individuals. To find out that something at this scale happened in '85 and I didn't learn about it until ten years ago blew me away. I think about in '85 or right after I had had a history teacher working with the class on what we could do to end apartheid in South Africa, seems he might have mentioned we were bombing black people here in the US just a few hundred miles away.

Having lived as a child in a poor, urban, mostly black neighborhood growing up, this story really hits home. I identified so directly with the desires of the MOVE members to live in a community based on simple cultural practices, yet couldn't ignore how absurd it is to see this happening in the middle of a modern 'concrete jungle'.

The culmination with the bombing and the fire are so horrible to be numbing. What hit me the hardest was how the two police officers that broke rank to rescue children from the burning buildings ended up being treated by fellow officers. This has to be one of the darkest moments I've seen symbolically expressed from our culture in my lifetime.

Coydon Wallham wrote:

Judith Browning wrote:
We moved to the woods in '73 after events during the previous decade culminated in Nixon sending National Guardsmen to shoot and kill unarmed protesters in '72.
We had no news no screens at all, off grid with our sons and a lot of animals.  It was mostly wonderful for 13 years.
When we moved up the mountain we were given a 12 volt radio (because we were still off grid) and the first news story I heard was that the MOVE houses in Philadelphia had been bombed by the city police!!!  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
I thought it was the end of civilization...it took awhile to get desensitized to the news cycle.

This is all to say I understand stepping back out of the system and that  I'm fortunate to be able to do so.

Not everyone has that option.  

Have you seen the documentary Let the Fire Burn? This was one of the most shocking things I'd learned in my life. Schools and the media go to such great lengths to make it seem like our race problems in a visceral sense were cleared up with civil rights legislation in the 60s, that all our problems now are due to racist Republicans trying to cut government programs or (less so ten years ago) police harassing black individuals. To find out that something at this scale happened in '85 and I didn't learn about it until ten years ago blew me away. I think about in '85 or right after I had had a history teacher working with the class on what we could do to end apartheid in South Africa, seems he might have mentioned we were bombing black people here in the US just a few hundred miles away.

Having lived as a child in a poor, urban, mostly black neighborhood growing up, this story really hits home. I identified so directly with the desires of the MOVE members to live in a community based on simple cultural practices, yet couldn't ignore how absurd it is to see this happening in the middle of a modern 'concrete jungle'.

The culmination with the bombing and the fire are so horrible to be numbing. What hit me the hardest was how the two police officers that broke rank to rescue children from the burning buildings ended up being treated by fellow officers. This has to be one of the darkest moments I've seen symbolically expressed from our culture in my lifetime.

thank you for the link...I have not seen the documentary but it's possible my library has it?

All of what you said is so important!
And this why doing away with discriminatory protections in government programs and now businesses following suit sets us back decades for any progress made in hiring practices alone not to mention just being kind and good neighbors to all races and ethnic groups.

Here's a link to the full movie on rumble. I'm about 1/3 through it. At about 15 minutes in, according to a black city councilman, he was asked to a meeting opposing MOVE. He expected it to be a racial thing. Most of those attending that neighbohood meeting were black. At least, in MOVE's immediate neighborhood, the opposition appears to be idealogical.

This does not excuse the actions of the police.

Judith Browning wrote:All of what you said is so important!
And this why doing away with discriminatory protections in government programs and now businesses following suit sets us back decades for any progress made in hiring practices alone not to mention just being kind and good neighbors to all races and ethnic groups.

My take is that the discriminatory protections became discriminatory, over time, in application. I am fine with protections but those protections became discriminatory through affirmative action and DEI. That is if you have to follow those policies.



dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
/dəˈskrimənəˌtôrē/
adjective
making or showing an unjust or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, sex, age, or disability.

Sure, but in a world where "unjust or prejudicial distinction" is the norm, putting one's thumb on the scale a little helps to make things more just. Obviously, the devil is in the details and if certain programs are destructive, they should be tuned to produce the outcomes that are actually desirable.