- :up:

The elites navigated the 2008 financial crisis extraordinarily well, but the "morality card" has now been overplayed and the broader political movement has become trapped in oppressor-oppressed quicksand.

Demagogues might often use xenophobic rhetoric to take advantage of the fact that the West's migration policies are deeply unpopular, even among many minority communities at this point. However, the key reason the center and the left's efforts to push back on the ascendent far-right have failed is an absolute inability to countenance major changes or compromises on migration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Changes like sending millions of people to destitution, misery and death is a bit hard to countenance. (Especially since we know that it was the allied powers' actions since WWII, and European imperialism preceding the wars, that cause most of the current displacements).
But that wouldn't be sufficient appeasement for the extreme right: next, they'd have to give the Christian militants control of reproduction, marriage, education, assisted suicide and gender issues. They've pretty well caved on climate mitigation at every summit. Soon, they'd have to start dismantling social services.
Major changes in that directions will come, but through coercion, not compromise.

I'm worried about fascism — Vera Mont

So am I. One of Timothy Snyder's latest books is The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America 2019, with an updated preface. Snyder has studied fascism for a long time. He thinks Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have significant commonalities in their personalities and plans. One of Snyder's ideas is that fascism is perhaps more readily identified by its methods more than by its ideology. Chaos and disorder is one of its methods. Contrary to popular belief, the trains did not run on time in Mussolini's fascist Italy. Whether the disorder of Trumps last administration was a mark of fascistic tendencies or unfamiliarity with the function of government, I don't know. We'll find out.

Trump didn't say all those horrible things about immigrants just to piss off the liberals; it always got big cheers. He got elected on paranoia and misdirected anger — Vera Mont

The urge to piss off liberals is normal and healthy, if it doesn't become a compulsion.

Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric got cheers for a reason: Many in the working class audiences compete with low-wage immigrants for jobs in the former industrial heartlands (and elsewhere) which were hollowed out by Reagan's NAFTA plan, and previous/later de-industrialization programs sponsored by the financial elites. The millions of jobs lost were those held by less-skilled working class people. Who is an employer going to hire first: a less skilled immigrant (legal or not) who will work for $6 or $7 per hour, or a less skilled native worker who will work for $10 or more per hour?

Someone is paying the price for 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants in the US, and it isn't the liberal elites.

"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. Why not? Because the economic elite isn't running the country for the benefit of workers. It's run for their own benefit. So, workers get fucked over.

OK, sorry for mentioning the basket of deplorables.

A mainstay of socialist party thinking is that neither of the ruling class parties, whatever state they are in at the moment, intend to seriously upset the status quo. The voters slosh back and forth between relative liberals and relative conservatives, whoever appears to have the lesser of evils. And, honestly, sometimes it is hard to tell. Clinton seemed reliably liberal, but he's the one who ended "welfare as we know it". At the time, Nixon was the liberal nightmare, but in retrospect his administration wasn't that bad (most of the time). He started the Environment Protection Agency, for instance, and his drug policy was reasonably progressive.

The problem here is that it's unclear if immigration is appropriately thought of as a "civil right" of sorts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Tricky. How does a society extend rights to people who do not yet, and may never, live there? Do people in Austria, France, Russia, Mexico, Venezuela, or China have a "civil right" to come to the United States, Australia, UK, Spain, etc.? I'm pretty sure I don't have a civil right to take up residence in Australia or Canada, just because I might want to.

It seems like the way immigration is supposed to work is that "you can ask to come here; we might say yes, but no means no." In reality, a lot of immigrants just walk right in, sit right down, and have anchor babies.

“Why is it that the ‘winners’ in the prevailing order seem so eager to associate themselves with the marginalized and disadvantaged in society?” is its key question. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yascha Mounk in his book, "The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time" traces the elite's interest in the marginalized and disadvantaged to the history of postmodernism and identitarian politics that has developed over the last 50 years (Michel Foucault's crowd). The elites profess a preferential option for the minority / marginalized / disadvantaged in society. Elite rhetoric doesn't mean that they intend, or are even able, to do much about it.

But could Democrats even pivot on this? I sort of doubt it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree; it's doubtful. At any rate, "toxic masculinity" is a phrase I'm tired of hearing.

@Vera Mont One of the points Snyder made in a recent NPR appearance was that a number of incumbent governments have been voted out since Covid, the UK, for instance.

Someone is paying the price for 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants in the US, and it isn't the liberal elites. — BC

Nor is it the "conservative" elites. It's convenient that the famous American political amnesia has sainted Reagan and blamed everyone else for the consequences of his policies. It's convenient that nobody asks why so many Latin Americans are fleeing their homelands. Those questions would be far too complicated for the average Trump voter. They'd rather be taxed for thousands of bibles at three times the regular price than not have bibles in their schools.

"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. Why not? Because the economic elite isn't running the country for the benefit of workers. It's run for their own benefit. So, workers get fucked over — BC

Well, duh! And the coming deregulations are not going to bring any good jobs to Americans or reduce their rents, gas and food prices - but at least it will eliminate overtime and strikes. I'm sure enough scabs can be rounded up in the concentration camps.

At the time, Nixon was the liberal nightmare, — BC

He still is, to me, despite some of his good policies. His campaign advisors made the little snowball that turned into the Trump presidency and he dropped it in front of George Wallace, who kicked it down the hill.

One of the points Snyder made in a recent NPR appearance was that a number of incumbent governments have been voted out since Covid, the UK, for instance. — BC

Won't make any difference to the next catastrophe.

They should, and have already, arranged peace meetings. Say what you want about Trump, but foreign countries respect his power and fall in line.

Everybody got the right to cover they arse best they can.
But thanks for the permission.

Trump is insane, but cunning. And he will destroy America if he is allowed to, and possibly the world. How to respond, is certainly a conundrum for foreign politicians; my response to bullies, gleaned from long experience, is to attempt to bore them to death by not responding at all.

Russia was open to negotiations all the time if that meant they wouldn't have to fight to keep the land they have. The recent overtures by Zelensky and, for instance, Germany for negotiations are informed by a position of weakness because they do not expect Trump to continue to support the war effort in Ukraine. Nobody is falling in line, they're hedging against Trump's erratic behaviour.

Trump is insane, but cunning. And he will destroy America if he is allowed to, and possibly the world. — unenlightened

The US and Biden's push into Ukraine is the single greatest threat to the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis - not Trump.

Trump has been elected on a strong platform to end this war.

As Trump moves into office, we see the Biden administration deliberately taking steps to deteriorate the situation in the hopes of making peace impossible.

Is partisanship the sole reason you're avoiding this pink elephant, or do you really not see it?

The US and Biden's push into Ukraine is the single greatest threat to the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis - not Trump. — Tzeentch

Interesting relation. As I remember it was the US issuing the apocalyptic threats, and Russia backing down over Cuba. Now the boot is on the other foot. Perhaps it is the US turn to blink. Putin is insane but cunning. But I thought Trumps' platform was to make America Great again, not to make America feeble.

The US and Biden's push into Ukraine is the single greatest threat to the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis - not Trump.

Trump has been elected on a strong platform to end this war.

As Trump moves into office, we see the Biden administration deliberately taking steps to deteriorate the situation in the hopes of making peace impossible.

Is partisanship the sole reason you're avoiding this pink elephant, or do you really not see it? — Tzeentch

I do believe you should focus more on the situation at hand, not lament the mistakes of the past. The proxy-war in Ukraine has a long history with both players escalating over time. The reality is Trump is not exactly a stable factor where it concerns foreign policy. Since the EU is not sufficiently integrated militarily to deter Russian aggression, Trump is not making our world safer. Zelensky realises this and immediately signalled a willingness to negotiate.

Of course, it could lead to long term stability at least on the European continent, where it concerns Russia, if we ensure the EU has a strong role in establishing the peace deal and it becomes more a tri-partite treaty than bilateral.

I do believe you should focus more on the situation at hand, [...] — Benkei

In what way do you suppose I am not?

The reality is Trump is not exactly a stable factor where it concerns foreign policy. Since the EU is not sufficiently integrated militarily to deter Russian aggression, Trump is not making our world safer. Zelensky realises this and immediately signalled a willingness to negotiate.

Of course, it could lead to long term stability at least on the European continent, where it concerns Russia, if we ensure the EU has a strong role in establishing the peace deal and it becomes more a tri-partite treaty than bilateral. — Benkei

The problem lies in US and UK integration into the European security structure.

If the Americans want to leave voluntarily and clean up the mess they created while they're at it (ergo. peace in Ukraine) then that's manna from heaven.

A diplomatic settlement in Ukraine would lead to a period of peace during which Europe can get its act together. Given our population and GDP, there's no reason whatsoever Russia should ever be a threat to us.

Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, so what on earth are our politicians doing?

Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, — Tzeentch

Exactly.

so what on earth are our politicians doing?

Indulging in the results of many decades of Russophobia.

Pointing the finger at Russia (and China and South Korea) in order to detract attention from their own misdeeds. (Because, apparently, nothing makes one as innocent as casting the first stone.)

"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. — BC

Deporting millions of working people will simply mean an economic downturn. I mean. this is just Silly-talk from Trump. 11 million is 3,2% of the US population. Just to put into some historical perspective just how big of a population we are talking about: when one famous Austrian rose to power and didn't especially like one ethnic group of Germans, this group was less than 1% of the German population in 1933.

When Idi Amin in 1972 ordered the expulsion of the Indian Minority from Uganda, there were about 80 000 of Indian origin in the country. Of the whole population of Uganda in 1972 (ten million), the Indian minority were just 0,8% and the Ugandan economy went into tailspin (obviously Idi Amin did other insane things too). Now Trump is going to do something totally on a different level in a country were states do have power and where there are democratic institutions still.

How do people believe this kind of lunacy?

Why do people believe this kind of lunacy?

Just look at what happened to UK , and they even left the gates open for other immigrants for replacement as 460 000 or so EU migrants working in various jobs left the UK and went back to mainly Eastern Europe, which countries were actually very happy to get them back.



We have had a whole Brexit-thread and anyone that has read has to come to the conclusion that Brexit, at least economically, SUCKED BIG TIME!

So, 11 million people are from the population of the US 3,2%. Now those EU citizens going away (that were replaced by third world) created huge problems for the UK economy, like many were truckers that are quite essential. And yet 460 000 is peanuts compared even to the UK, something like 0,7% of the population.

Please just think about it: what the hell you think happens to an economy when suddenly 3,2% of people simply just move away from the economy. Even if they aren't the wealthiest people, imagine all the things they are working in now, which a median American worker surely won't take as a job. You really think the US will have a great time after that???

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Replace that gun just with a cannon. But seems that nobody has dared to even try to give Trump the series of pictures what this means (ECONOMY -> REALLY, REALLY BAD!).

And then, starting a trade war with EVERYBODY.

How's that going to improve the economy? Serious trade wars have just the same consequence as the pandemic had: trade and logistical systems competed to perfection will just collapse and then things just simply suck. Americans just find later how these brilliant trade wars damage their own economy as they find out just what stuff more has been totally dependent on international trade.

The only thing positive here is that Trump is simply so inept, that in the end he will just have tantrums in the White House on how his loyal team hasn't been able to do anything and thus has betrayed him. Because if this man couldn't build a fucking wall, how can we assume that he can simply kick out every thirty third person living in the US?

Again, this is just silly talk.

How do people believe this kind of lunacy?

Why do people believe this kind of lunacy? — ssu

It's a conundrum.

"I will protect American Jobs and American families" and similar luminous words, are positive sounding non-inferential statements which, while meaningless, sound like something good. There isn't any way the hearer can know what the statement means in real terms. People hear the words, hear the applause, and feel just a little glow of warmth. It's like a benediction. "May the Lord make His face to shine upon you." Freedom, flags, liberty, loyalty, faith, guns... a whole batch of nice words. The man speaking the words must be OK.

Deporting 10 million people is, for starters, not a simple task, and we have no recent experience in rapidly rounding up millions of people and moving them to the next street over, let alone across national borders. The logistics are unspeakable and likely far more expensive than imagined. Unless one pauses to think in detail about what deporting 10 million people would actually mean, it has little reality.

The famous Austrian who got rid of 6 million+ people he didn't want around, established annihilation as a high priority national objective. There was census data stored on punch cards (and other records) that facilitated identification and location of subjects. A large bureaucracy was created to execute the annihilation, and a lot of money was spent on it. The appalling atrocities were completed.

Is the orange-tinted Real Estate Agent prepared to engage in the intensely detailed and strenuous planning process that would bring about his goal? Does he really expect 330 million Americans to quietly ignore the military trucks loaded with Mexicans and Venezuelans and others rumbling through town stopping to drive ever more onto the transports?

But the average person isn't reflecting on the details any more than Trump is, and it doesn't have much reality for them.

Whatever he does, I call a plague down on his head, his minions, and his plans.

Well, it can't get any worse than the Biden administration, which is now playing a game of nuclear chicken with Europe as their bargaining chip.

Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives.

The only thing positive here is that Trump is simply so inept, that in the end he will just have tantrums in the White House on how his loyal team hasn't been able to do anything and thus has betrayed him. Because if this man couldn't build a fucking wall, how can we assume that he can simply kick out every thirty third person living in the US? — ssu

Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't.

Well, it can't get any worse than the Biden administration, which is now playing a game of nuclear chicken with Europe as their bargaining chip.

Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives. — Tzeentch

Even if Russia fired a ICBM into Ukraine with a conventional charge (pretty expensive going there), I think that Europe survives. Even Ukraine too.

Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't. — Mr Bee

I think it's safe to bet that we haven't seen the last of inflation in the US (and the World).

It is one thing when, like during the Cuban Missile Crisis, countries are playing nuclear chicken with their own countries at stake.

Right now, the US and the UK are playing with Ukraine and Europe.

No country in the world should accept this.

With that said, if we survive all of this, maybe several countries in Europe will reinvent this Dutch tradition:

Putin talk. Also, that Ukraine itself isn't an agent deciding it's own action is straight from the Kremlin narrative.

The manufacturer of a weapon system simply isn't the belligerent. It's the user of the weapon system who is the belligerent. Also, giving intelligence to a party isn't either an act of war. Giving arms to defend for a country to defends itself from outside aggression is quite understandable. And btw Ukraine is using many different weapon systems in Russia as it has troops inside the country.

This part of the discussion should be at the Ukraine thread, even if touches the subject. Or otherwise this presumably is moved to the lounge also.

So the EU should start its own military alliance separate from the US. — Benkei

I have a fantasy that Europe will step up to take a bigger military and political role in the world, especially in Europe. — T Clark

• EU military as the highest priority
[...] — javi2541997

Seems like a case has been made. Maybe not just the EU, but including other interested European countries?

Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, so what on earth are our politicians doing? — Tzeentch

And yet that's exactly what Russia kicked off (more than once). Plus other hostilities. :shrug: OK, one of them is a "special military operation". :D (Sep 18, Oct 6, Nov 2,16,17,20 2024)

What the EU should really do is to embrace for the tariffs that Trump will put on Europe. Assume a trade war that will hurt both sides will happen.

What the EU should really do is to embrace for the tariffs that Trump will put on Europe. Assume a trade war that will hurt both sides will happen. — ssu

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad.

It should help American businesses.

A lot of those businesses rely on imports and they're the ones who have to pay for the tariffs.

As for manufacturing, it's not clear 25% tariffs will be enough to encourage investment in US production but assuming it is, it'll take at least a decade before those supply chains are built out and some companies may very well choose to wait out the Trump administration instead or at best move production to other countries like Vietnam which have equally cheap labor compared to China.

A lot of those businesses rely on imports and they're the ones who have to pay for the tariffs. — Mr Bee

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them.

As for manufacturing, it's not clear 25% tariffs will be enough to encourage investment in US production but assuming it is, it'll take at least a decade before those supply chains are built — Mr Bee

I'd say more like two years, but I believe the tariffs will be permanent. Bringing back North American free trade wouldn't be a popular move. It was never popular to begin with.

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them. — frank

They'll still be hurt regardless. Whatever will be made in the US will be more expensive and retailers will have to bear that cost or make prices higher. So even in the case where tariffs will bring back US jobs the inflationary effects will be permanent.

Now of course it's debatable whether that is good or not, but that wasn't the concern for most voters this year. It was inflation and a belief that Trump will bring prices down which is the irony here.

I'd say more like two years, but I believe the tariffs will be permanent. — frank

The timeframe that's been thrown around is a decade. You can't just simply rebuild entire supply chains in a couple of years, one with the connections and an experienced workforce, especially if a good chunk of that workforce is gonna be deported.

But if you think Trump should impose these massive tariffs permanently and that the economy and prices would somehow work itself out before the midterms or the next presidential election, that's fine by me. I welcome it too, for different reasons.

They'll still be hurt regardless. Whatever will be made in the US will be more expensive and retailers will have to bear that cost or make prices higher. So even in the case where tariffs will bring back US jobs the inflationary effects will be permanent. — Mr Bee

North American free trade undermines the position of US labor. It gives the US a more flexible labor force by putting it in competition with Mexicans who have a lower cost of living. That issue was raised during the Clinton years when NAFTA was initiated, but the establishment promised that over all, free trade would help Americans. That hasn't turned out to be true. The only people who really don't want a return to the way things were pre-NAFTA are certain Wall St. entities. If Trump did succeed in returning the US to a pre-1990s trade position, it would be the first step in the recreation of American labor unions. It would mean demands for a better social safety net would have power behind them.

I don't like Trump, mainly because I don't want to hear his mouth, but on this issue, he's actually lining up with exactly what he said he wanted to do back in 2016: shore up the position of American labor.

The timeframe that's been thrown around is a decade. You can't just simply rebuild entire supply chains in a couple of years, one with the connections and an experienced workforce, especially if a good chunk of that workforce is gonna be deported. — Mr Bee

I guess it depends on what commodity we're talking about. I think the main thing we get from Mexico is agricultural products. What kind of supply chain were you thinking of?

But if you think Trump should impose these massive tariffs permanently and that the economy and prices would somehow work itself out before the midterms or the next presidential election, that's fine by me — Mr Bee

I mean, inflation is coming down. The Fed is set to decrease rates again next year. When I say I think the tariffs will be permanent, I mean that it won't be possible to form a coalition to get rid of them again. As for Europe, I don't think it's even on the American radar at this point. I think we'll be parting ways in terms of fundamentals.

If Trump did succeed in returning the US to a pre-1990s trade position, it would be the first step in the recreation of American labor unions. It would mean demands for a better social safety net would have power behind them. — frank

The irony is that empowering labor unions is what you wouldn't want if you want to encourage US onshoring. Businesses don't build in the US because the labor and safety standards are poor in countries like China.

That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. He hasn't been very pro-labor in his first term and as much as he may try to give some crumbs to the labor workers he's been trying to court he's certainly gonna be worse than the Democrats on the matter especially as he surrounds himself with anti-union business leaders like Elon Musk. There will probably be a port strike coming in January, so we'll see how he handles it.

I don't like Trump, mainly because I don't want to hear his mouth, but on this issue, he's actually lining up with exactly what he said he wanted to do back in 2016: shore up the position of American labor. — frank

He didn't really do that during his first term. In fact, Biden accomplished that. Also, the renegotiated NAFTA he did wasn't even that different from NAFTA.

I guess it depends on what commodity we're talking about. I think the main thing we get from Mexico is agricultural products. What kind of supply chain were you thinking of? — frank

I mean it's not just Mexico and it's not just agricultural products. The discussions I've seen haven't gone into specifics about the different industries, but they have generally given that time frame for the US to rebuild it's manufacturing infrastructure to pre-NAFTA levels. Two years is way too short a period to expect everything to be fixed especially given how offshoring happened over several decades.

I mean, inflation is coming down. The Fed is set to decrease rates again next year. When I say I think the tariffs will be permanent, I mean that it won't be possible to form a coalition to get rid of them again. As for Europe, I don't think it's even on the American radar at this point. I think we'll be parting ways in terms of fundamentals. — frank

A future president can remove tariffs if they want as much as Trump can impose them. You don't need congressional approval to get this done. You just need a president who disagrees with Trump's approach on the issue.