Spain's Opening Salvo in the Tariff Wars
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Me too... well, that accomplishment will go right up there with building a wall and having Mexico pay for it. Winning ain't lying if you're winning!!
The answer is Canada. And you know it. No sense picking fights with our neighbors to the north. Also look up what some of the factors were causing most of the major wars in history.....tariffs. The cost of war is much more than anything you think you can get from tariffs.
Just poor financial policy. Nothing personal against you. But pick up some history and macroeconomics books and start reading. A good sleep aid.
tarrifs are not the cause of most wars. Good lord what the hell are you talking about.
China's tarrif rate on average is 15 percent. One average ours is 2 percent. China also requires foreign investment in infrastructure and factories. As in you want to do business here you must build this factory to these specifications. How many shooting wars have there been with China the last 30 years?
Canada's tarrif rates on foreign goods is close to the US rates of 2 percent on average annually.
There have always been tarrifs and there always will be tarrifs on goods for every country. If you think picking up a history book changes that you aren't reading any history books. Tarrifs don't cause shooting wars. You truly are out of your depth on this one.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 increased tariffs on imported goods and worsened the Great Depression. The act was intended to help American farmers, but it led to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which hurt global trade.
Tariffs, particularly the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act enacted by the United States in 1930, played a significant role in contributing to the outbreak of World War II by severely restricting international trade, leading to economic instability, resentment between nations, and ultimately fueling the rise of extremist ideologies that sought territorial expansion to solve economic problems.
Tariffs, particularly the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act enacted by the United States in 1930, played a significant role in contributing to the outbreak of World War II by severely restricting international trade, leading to economic instability, resentment between nations, and ultimately fueling the rise of extremist ideologies that sought territorial expansion to solve economic problems.
Spaniards? And maybe American retirees looking for someplace affordable.
Ha. Split between brief boom (when I'll be kicking myself for being on the sidelines) and a slow, sad decline of a once great empire.
Nuclear war is another possibility, of course, but then it won't matter where I've put my money.
You think the smooth Hawley act in the 1930s played a significant role om starting ww2? Not sure where you stole this from but that is a ridiculous thing to put forward. Truly ridiculous
The final countdown has already begun.
The only question is whether Trump ends the war in the afternoon or evening.
It will be like the US hostage release the same day Reagan was inaugurated.
Here's my question: If Russia gets to keep the parts of Ukraine it occupies, does Ukraine get to keep the parts of Russia it has taken?
No doubt some secondary/tertiary causation, but on the plus side, Smoot-Hawley did give us the great Ben Stein scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
The Smoot-Hawley act had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the nazi party or the economic conditions that made that possible. Nothing. The arrogance of thinking the US was a driver of anything over there at that time is ridiculous. Look to Europe for those answers. We were isolationists and the economic conditions in Europe and especially Germany had zero to do with us
When the Finnish delegation met with Molotov about a peace to end the Winter War they objected to the Soviet demarcation that put the line beyond where the Red Army had advanced. Molotov asked them if they preferred to settle then, or reconvene after the Red Army had taken it. They settled then.
Real question will be how the final peace agreement compares to the offer on the table in April '22.
Love your optimism. Ukraine is not giving up the territory. Russia/Putin are assholes.
You doubt him?
Here's the deal:
1. Trump says that the war must end as of midnight 1/20/25.
2. He decrees that Russia gets to keep all the territory they hold at that time.
3. He says all aid to Ukraine - every dime, for any purpose - will end if Ukraine doesn't agree. Sanctions may follow.
4. Whereas, once Ukraine agrees and complies, Trump will authorize aid to help what's left of Ukraine rebuild.
5. Once Russia agrees and complies, Trump will remove all sanctions.
6. Ukraine's entry into NATO is off the table for 10 years.
7. Jared gets to build a Trump hotel in Moscow.
That's a win for Putin, but we've always known that Trump leans that way.
OK, OK, that won't actually happen. But you never know....
Don't understand the point of these charts. I know the longer it goes on the less people care. I can also tell you I have patients missing limbs want to go back and fight. On the flip side state media in Russia says support remains at an all time high inspit of over a million dead or injured.
In the ostensible U.S. and Ukrainian democracies there simply isn't the public support for the ends you suggest.
Of course they do! They want their sacrifice to not have been in vain.
I can only imagine how upsetting it would be to lose a limb because Boris Johnson said to 'fight on', only to get a worse deal in the end.
I think Obama understood this situation better than the neocons, who forgot their policy has to in the end appeal to the American people, or it's doomed.
Speaking with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, Obama emphasized the limits of his commitment to Ukraine. As Goldberg wrote: “Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.” Goldberg then cited Obama as saying, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” In other words, a U.S. president all but acknowledged Ukraine as a Russian client state, telegraphing to the leader of an aggressive, revisionist power that the United States would stand down if Russia were to widen its war. Moreover, the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance—that the Kremlin would always be willing to exercise superior power to get its way in Ukraine, whereas the United States would not—became the governing principle of U.S. policy. This principle echoes to this day, holding back U.S. support for Ukraine.
Seems like Biden wanted increase the trade war
If you want to have this discussion let's do that by DM or another thread. This is not the one for this.
