#trump wants to increase tariffs on all goods.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig

[yet-another-clown]

[sanguinifex]

Something else that stands out: Trump was repeatedly asked questions about what he would do to improve various issues: healthcare, the environment, the war in Gaza. And all he does is say “well this problem never would have happened if I had been the president.” And that’s not the question asked! Like, tough luck, but you weren’t president. Here is what the situation is now. What are you going to do about it? And he doesn’t have an answer. Not on healthcare, not on environment, not on Gaza. He appears to think that all these problems will magically disappear if he becomes president. Well, they won’t. The problems will still exist, and he has no plan to deal with any of it; if he had a plan, he would have told us. (He’s so good at telling us his plans for illegal immigrants, after all.) He does have a plan for the economy, but it’s a complete disaster that would raise the cost of living and increase the deficit—tax breaks always increase the deficit unless you offset them with a tax hike somewhere else, and the cost of tariffs is always passed on to consumers (which is why Harris was calling it a sales tax, because more people would understand how that affects cost of living). Oh, and he also accused immigrants of eating cats, accused the FBI of fraud, repeatedly trashed our country, and generally sounded like a listing for an alphabet-soup brand’s product on Amazon, only instead of “chair seat papasan loveseat perfect for living room bedroom parlor,” it’s “immigrants crime China Mexico Venezuela fracking guns executing babies.”

Harris, by contrast, has plans. I personally think they are pretty good plans. There are some minor details I would change, but it’s a hell of a lot better than “no plans, I’m too awesome for plans” and/or a reskinned Project 2025. She also hasn’t accused immigrants of eating cats or accused anyone of “wanting abortions in the ninth month” (an utterly ridiculous claim; if someone doesn’t want a baby at that point, you induce labor and the newborn becomes a ward of the state).

It’s a race between utterly incompetent dictatorial insanity and a competent woman whose policy positions may be somewhat off from your preference (or not).

Please don’t vote for the guy who thinks immigrants eat cats and dogs.

[batboyblog]

In speeches, interviews and campaign videos, Trump has promised to:

Use the military to participate in the largest deportation of undocumented immigrants in American history;

Order the National Guard into cities with high crime rates, whether local officials want it or not;

Prosecute Californians who protect minors coming to the state for gender-affirming care;

Impose a 10% tariff on almost all foreign goods, increasing prices for consumers;

Appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” his political opponents, beginning with Biden;

Purge the federal civil service of anyone who questions his views.

lets be clear here, Donald Trump wants to use the military to hunt immigrants and if you think it'll stop at "illegal" immigrants I have a bridge to sell you. He wants to place major American cities, Democratic cities under military occupation, oh also while he fires any Democrats from the civil service and "goes after" his political enemies. And as a cherry on top he'll make being trans illegal.

right now the world is trying to distract you from this, trying to act like this is a normal election with two more or less equal choices that both have problems and draw backs, thats not true. One side is selling an authoritarian dictatorship that wants to carry out a genocide of trans people, the other side is not.

[coulsonlives]

"Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld."

— David Honig

[mariacallous]

President-elect Trump has suggested that he will impose a wide-range of tariffs when he takes office, including a blanket tariff of 10–20% on all imported goods, an additional tariff between 60 and 100% on Chinese goods, a 100% tariff on countries within the BRICS alliance if they attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar’s status as a global reserve currency, and a 25% tariff on all products imported from Mexico and Canada. Notably, he wants to impose at least some of these tariffs on day one. Can he impose tariffs that quickly? Potentially, yes.

The executive branch has an unusually broad menu of options when it comes to tariffs—the president is able to dictate tariff rates, which countries and goods they apply to, and when and how to impose them without Congressional approval and sometimes without public input or judicial review. We can’t think of another economic policy issue where the executive has so much power and escapes the checks and balances that apply elsewhere to executive branch actions. This is a choice made by the U.S. Congress. 

To be clear, we—like most economists—have a dim view of unilateral tariffs. Tariffs increase the cost of consumption for domestic consumers, and they inefficiently shift economic activity towards sectors where production is more expensive. Moreover, tariffs often provoke retaliation from our trading partners and escalate into trade wars. Putting the economic issues aside, the proposed tariffs by the president-elect raise procedural and institutional questions about whether and how the executive branch should have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, and how quickly it can act. 

The power to impose taxes, including tariffs, unequivocally resides with Congress according to the U.S. Constitution. This authority is essential for funding government operations, such as national defense, public services, and infrastructure. The development of tax legislation—jointly managed by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees—is a process that ideally includes careful study and public debate and can take months or even years. This means that the legislative process cannot realistically impose new taxes on day one of a new administration.

Tariffs are unusual in that they are a tax that is not implemented by congressional legislation, and thus circumvent a potentially lengthy and deliberative journey through the House and Senate. Instead, tariffs are imposed by executive branch regulation—but unlike most federal regulations, tariffs avoid almost all the legislated guardrails, administrative procedures, and judicial reviews that apply to other executive regulations. This means implementing new tariffs can proceed much more quickly than other significant regulatory actions implemented by the executive branch. How fast depends on which authority Trump chooses to invoke. 

The executive branch has the authority to impose tariffs through two different processes. First, a series of Trade Acts—enacted between the 1930s and 1970s—empower the executive branch to proclaim tariff rates to protect American workers and consumers from unfair trade practices. This is the authority that empowered President Trump to impose limited tariffs on products like solar panels and washing machines during his first administration. To invoke this authority, an investigation is initiated by either the Department of Commerce or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to determine whether tariffs are necessary to remedy unfair trade practices. These investigations take some minimal time—including a 30-60 day notice-and-comment period that allows the public an opportunity to raise concerns—meaning that these authorities cannot realistically be used to impose new tariffs on trading partners on day one.

Instead, if President Trump wishes to impose tariffs more quickly, he will likely need to invoke the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Under the IEEA, Congress grants authority to the executive branch to address “unusual and extraordinary” peacetime threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. In May, 2019, President Trump threatened to use the IEEPA to implement  escalating tariffs on Mexican imports in May 2019. He withdrew this threat after Mexico committed to specific measures aimed at curbing immigration. 

Unlike tariffs enacted under the various trade acts, those imposed under the IEEPA bypass departmental reports, reviews, and public notice-and-comment periods. This streamlines implementation but bypasses essentially all regulatory checks and balances. The IEEPA’s speed makes it a likely tool for imposing new tariffs on day one. However, this path also raises legal questions, as seen in 2019, when skepticism emerged over its appropriateness for tariffs on Mexican imports. These criticisms are likely to resurface if the IEEPA is again invoked to justify now-broader tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports. 

To restore the balance of power, Congress could consider reforms to restore oversight and accountability in trade policy. In a new research brief, we trace the evolution of executive authority in determining tariff rates, highlighting how this authority bypasses the rigorous process that is already in place to provide a check on executive authority to impose other regulations, and we outline what options are on the table to restore oversight. While several bipartisan legislative efforts to address this imbalance have surfaced, they have gained little traction. Without meaningful reform, unchecked tariff authority has the potential to destabilize economic and diplomatic relationships. As the threat of sweeping, unilateral tariffs looms, the need for a more balanced and accountable system has never been more urgent.

[woobie-wan]

“The UN Charter was drafted in 1945 by people who had learned the lessons that the aggression, isolationism and tariff barriers of the 20’s and 30’s had led the world into a conflagration. Article One makes it clear: threats of annexation are illegal. So are unilateral tariffs in breach of a trade agreement.” - Canadian Ambassador to the UN Bob Rae

Here is some good analysis of why Trump is like this:

"I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether it's better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”. — David Honig

[darkmaga-returns]

He will get rid of 10 regulations for each new regulation

Tariffs, whose amounts are not yet established, will be imposed on foreign goods

Federal tax breaks will be given for companies that make products within the US: he will lower it from 21% to 15% if products are produced in the USA.

He will reduce interest rates and inflation

The US is becoming a merit-based country

He (of course) talked about the border

There are only 2 genders. Transgender surgeries will be rare. Transgender athletes will not compete with women.

The United States is a sovereign country

We are returning to freedom of speech, no misinformation/disinformation labels to suffocate Americans’ free speech

Asks nations to increase their defense spending to 5% from 2% (this was a US request to NATO nations under Biden last fall)

It is time to end the Ukraine war, it is a carnage. He said millions are dying. He wants to talk to Putin soon about this. Hopefully this is an exaggeration.

There will be no support for electric cars. People can buy whatever car they want.

Prolonged delays for project approvals will end

With AI, we will need twice the energy in the US as we use now. (!). He suggests electricity generating plants be built next to AI plants, avoiding need to use the grid.

President Trump spoke about the use of “clean coal.” Does this mean we will use better scrubbers? RF Kennedy sued coal-burning plants for releasing large amounts of mercury into the air, generally harming low income communities where they were located.

President Trump said “debanking” is wrong and told the big banks to stop doing it.

President Trump said we don’t need Canada for wood, for making our cars, etc. He pointed out that essentially everything Canada has, the US has. This presages some tough negotiations on tariffs.

The President said President Xi called him. We have a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with China that needs to be corrected. Hopefully China can help stop the Ukraine war. We’d like to see denuclearization of our two countries (Russia and the US) and China could come along. President Putin really liked the idea of reducing our nuclear capability. Xi did too.

The Ukraine war should never ever have been started. A lot of stupidity all around. “Far more people have died than is being reported.”

[misfitwashere]

The one big constraint on Trump

ROBERT REICH

NOV 25

Friends,

Will anything stop Trump? 

He will have control over both chambers of Congress, a tractable Supreme Court, a political base of fiercely loyal MAGAs, a media ecosystem that amplifies his lies (now including Musk’s horrific X as well as Rupert Murdoch’s reliably mendacious Fox News), and a thin majority of voters in the 2024 election. 

He doesn’t worry about another election because he won’t be eligible to run again (or he’ll ignore the Constitution and stay on). 

Of course, there are the midterm elections of 2026. But even if Democrats take back both chambers, Trump and his incipient administration are aiming to wreak so much havoc on America in the meantime that Democrats can’t remedy it. 

The Republican-controlled Senate starting January 3 won’t restrain Trump. Yes, Trump overreached with his pick of Matt Gaetz for attorney general. Apparently even Senate Republicans can’t abide sex trafficking girls for drug-infested orgies, but this is a very low bar. 

So, as a practical matter, is anything stopping Trump? 

Yes, and here’s a hint of what it is: On Friday, Trump picked Scott Bessent to serve as treasury secretary. 

Bessent is the man Elon Musk derided only a week ago as the “business-as-usual choice” for treasury secretary, in contrast to Howard Lutnick, who Musk said would “actually enact change.” 

Musk’s view of “change” is to blow a place up, which was what Musk did when he bought Twitter. 

Over the last two weeks, Musk has convinced Trump to appoint bomb-throwers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Health and Human Services and Pete Hegseth to Defense, and to put Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. 

But Bessent is the opposite of a bomb-thrower. He’s a billionaire hedge fund manager, founder of the investment firm Key Square Capital Management, and a protege of the MAGA arch-villain George Soros (he’s also gay, which the MAGA base may not like, either). 

Why did Trump appoint the “business as usual” Bessent to be treasury secretary? Because the treasury secretary is the most important economic job in the U.S. government. 

Trump has never understood much about economics, but he knows two things: High interest rates can throttle an economy (and bring down a president’s party), and high stock prices are good (at least for Trump and his investor class). 

Trump doesn’t want to do anything that will cause bond traders to raise long-term interest rates out of fear of future inflation, and he wants stock traders to be so optimistic about corporate profits they raise share prices. 

So he has appointed a treasury secretary who will reassure the bond and stock markets. 

Stock and bond markets constitute the only real constraint on Trump — the only things whose power he’s afraid of. 

But wait. What about Trump’s plan to raise tariffs? He’s floated a blanket tariff of 10 to 20 percent on nearly all imports, 25 percent on imports from Mexico, and 60 percent or more on Chinese goods.

Tariffs of this size would increase consumer prices and fuel inflation — driving interest rates upward. (The cost of tariffs are borne by American businesses and households, rather than foreign companies.)

Tariffs could also invite retaliation from foreign governments and thereby dry up export markets for American-based corporations — in which case the stock market would tank. (The last time America raised tariffs on all imports — Herbert Hoover’s and Congressmen Smoot and Hawley’s Tariff Act of 1930 — the Great Depression worsened.) 

In short, tariffs will rattle stock and bond markets, doing the exact opposite of what Trump wants. 

So Trump has appointed a treasury secretary who will soothe Wall Street’s nerves — not just because Bessent is a Wall Street billionaire who speaks the Street’s language but also because the Street doesn’t really believeBessent wants higher tariffs. 

Bessent has described Trump’s plan for blanket tariffs as a “maximalist” negotiating strategy — suggesting Trump’s whole tariff proposal is a strategic bluff. The Street apparently thinks tariffs won’t rise much when other countries respond to the bluff with what Trump sees as concessions. 

Instead, the Street expects Bessent to be spending his energies seeking lower taxes, especially for big corporations and wealthy Americans, and helping Musk and Ramaswamy cut spending and roll back regulations.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of American democracy when the main constraint on the madman soon to occupy the Oval Office is Wall Street. 

I suppose we should be grateful there’s any constraint at all. 

[yourreddancer]

“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations.

“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig

[beardedmrbean]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., weighed in on President Donald Trump's ongoing tariff feud with Colombian President Gustavo Petro – but not every social media user bought her comments.

The spat between Trump and Petro began when the Colombian leader refused to accept two deportation flights over the weekend, prompting Trump to unleash retaliatory measures. Both world leaders threatening to raise tariffs on imported products by 25% to 50%, and Trump ordered a travel ban and visa revocations for all Colombian government officials.

"I was just informed that two repatriation flights from the United States, with a large number of Illegal Criminals, were not allowed to land in Colombia," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "This order was given by Colombia’s Socialist President Gustavo Petro, who is already very unpopular amongst his people."

"Petro’s denial of these flights has jeopardized the National Security and Public Safety of the United States, so I have directed my Administration to immediately take the following urgent and decisive retaliatory measures."

In an X post on Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez insisted that American consumers are the only party that pay tariffs.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

"To ‘punish’ Colombia, Trump is about to make every American pay even more for coffee," the New York congresswoman said in a post. "Remember: WE pay the tariffs, not Colombia."

"Trump is all about making inflation WORSE for working class Americans, not better," she added. "He’s lining the pockets of himself and the billionaire class."

Petro appeared to be a fan of AOC's post, reposting it on his own X account.

While tariffs do have the potential to inflate prices, the importer, which is the company or entity bringing the goods into the U.S., will pay the actual tariff to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

But inflated prices are not guaranteed – sometimes, tariffs can reduce the world price of an object as suppliers rush to retain access to the large U.S. market. It is possible that coffee suppliers in different countries, such as Vietnam and Brazil – which produce more coffee than Colombia – would lower or maintain their prices.

Ocasio-Cortez's tweet racked up over 47,000 likes from supporters as of 8 p.m., but received scorn from Trump supporters and tariff advocates.

"World record. 35 minutes and the tweet already aged like hot milk," the social media account Catturd wrote, referencing Petro's immediate offer to transport Colombian migrants on his presidential plane.

"Who wants to tell her that there are other countries that export coffee, not just Columbia," California State Assembly Bill Essayli wrote. 

Conservative commentator John Cardillo echoed Essayli's sentiment, suggesting that the South American country "should take their illegal aliens back."

"Plenty of other nations grow coffee beans," Cardillo wrote on X. "We can buy the coffee from them."

Activist Adam Lowisz responded to Ocasio-Cortez by insisting that the Democratic politician "doesn't understand how tariffs work."

"Coffee from Colombia will increase in price, so we will purchase coffee from suppliers in other countries who do take back their illegals," the conservative X user wrote. "Businesses will hesitate to invest in Colombia any further if they continue to be bad actors."

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's office for additional comment.

[phantalgia]

The Coming Storm

We're days away from the face of the entire world changing, besides what happened in Syria. The symbol of the new world order reigning supreme. I say this not in hyperbole. Right now, we're witnessing a phony ceasefire in Gaza meant to give Trump points, and Israel a bag of goodies for when the first phase runs dry. That is if the deal is even upheld to begin with. There is no stopping the genocide.

People tend to underestimate the impact of the first Trump presidency. Trump had changed the face of US and world politics then, and he most certainly will now. His first presidency was marked by a shift towards nationalism, polarization, militarization. Joe Biden simply continued this legacy through his own interpretation of it, the Blue MAGA version. Instead of direct drone strikes, it was support for armed groups or gestured support. Instead of tariffs and trade war with China it was mass subsidies domestically. Trump immigration policy had also pretty much continued under Biden (Biden deported more people than Trump did in 4 years).

So I don't say it to be hyperbole. We can expect to see Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk at the inauguration. An inauguration, ironically, being met with an extreme polar vortex. Scientists hypothesize that climate change can cause a weakening polar vortex leading to more sporadic behavior, but this is only theorized, not enough data supports it. Nonetheless, this is just the reality we face. Even when faced with reality, we're drowned out by the symbolic order and its hypernormalization.

Joe Biden in his final farewell address channeled Eisenhower with his "tech industrial complex" warning. Which considering both presidents have spoken at both ends, it's not shocking. What are we really in for? Unfortunately, I'm not an analyst so I couldn't tell you, except maybe guess.

I do believe we're in for a troubling reactionary movement. Trump was a rallying cry for the right, he will continue to be so. We have a movement of fearmongering over Iran and China. It also seems that any peace promise Trump had "day one" between Russia and Ukraine was completely nullified by Putin. Any possibility of it moving could be months away if at all.

It's all falling apart in real time for Trump voters, but how could you be so blind? We already had 4 years before to tell us everything. According to polls, most people voted for Trump because of economy. As if he was any good on economy. Blowing up deficit spending on military, dregulations, tax cuts that increased income inequality, spending on the rich during COVID. Lets suppose he was, what's the basis for capitalist economies? Booms and busts. Busts just mean an opportunity to redistribute wealth to the top, booms are just a scam until bust. Of course, we have a populace that doesn't understand the basis of their beliefs. They don't understand the radical conclusions to a capitalist economy. But the tech oligarchs do. Crypto was the second highest source of donations for the 2024 election.

They got it all laid out for us. Capitalism won't end with the means of production in the hands of the workers. It'll turn into a neo-feudalist haven. A cyberpunk dystopia. Post-capitalism in this case just means a consolidated oligarchy, corporatocracy, whatever word you like best. Trump is a final tantrum for the US empire to attempt to extend its reach across Canada, Greenland, Panama. And then when it settles? What will be left? Would national empires still exist?

I suspect that the genocide to follow will be to cull the herd. But the genocide didn't need Trump to begin with, it's just how capitalism works. The states are ahead of Trump. From California to Tennessee. I'm not saying a specific genocide. A universal genocide. I don't believe that Elon Musk truly worries about a depopulation. What he worries about is a population of the "weakest genes". He wants a specific type of repopulation to exist. Something that weeds out the weak. We can extend this thinking to Mark Zuckerberg's words saying how companies need more "masculine energy". Reinforcing the social Darwinism of social media. Where is this going? What's this for?

The genocide won't be upfront as idealized by centrists. It's already happening through murders, suicides, dehumanization of queer individuals. Little laws here and there will be placed. "Should have obeyed the law" they would say, as a new surplus labor is established in prison cells. These little laws, head turning, dog whistling, vigilantism will be how it plays out. That's more realistically how it would play out. The Democrats won't save us. Kamala Harris has already stated that trans healthcare should be left up to the states. These little methods will be how the genocide plays out. Could it get worse? 100%. But people think black and white with the word "genocide". We haven't communicated what we mean. What we mean is indirect, and even cultural genocide too. It can turn direct. What's this all for? Besides pleasing a bunch of parents and Christians?

Money is debt, this isn't anything new. But if Trump really wants to unleash credit onto the country, what he's asking for is inflated asset prices and further consolidation of wealth, therefore, power. Not everything can be paid back, this is just an inflationary practice. There's already a high abundance of mortgages (higher than what preceded in 2007-08) hiding behind these inflationary moves. I think what we're in for is further cementing this debt slavery. Masked behind "masculine" work ethic. But what's it for? To fight China, Iran? If not war, what else?

It could be just fundamental social control. They have to ingrain a culture that subdues any workers/peoples movement. What do they have to lose from that? A lot. They lose their legitimacy, artificial wealth, and power. This has been the biggest fear since the Red Scare. Generally speaking, they probably don't have to worry too much about a communist revolution, unless Rednote has any influence. Left to far leftists take up a small minority in America, but it's probably a bigger minority than say 30 years ago. It could be why the US is sending anti-communist propaganda into the education system, but I still don't think they'd have to worry about a communist revolution. Why do I say that even with Luigi Mangione's attack?

Because Mangione's attack was centrist. It wasn't ideologically bound to leftist beliefs. Healthcare issues are usually bipartisan in the US, the solutions are a matter of culture war debates however. Plus, the momentum that Mangione instilled seems to have dwindled as the next news cycle takes over. Perhaps I'm being too cynical. Maybe there is a spirit of revolution hidden within the CEO assassination waiting to be harnessed. Perhaps it's just a series of events that need to take place. But I don't expect anything substantial.

I feel myself losing patience. I find it quite shocking that many justifications MAGA voting centrists and conservatives still use. The other day, I ran into an individual online saying "I don't hate gays and lesbians, I hate the LGBTQ+ community". Sure pal, and I'm sure the "good German" didn't hate the Jews, they just hated the Jewish community. I was in another argument with someone over this. "Maybe the LGBTQ+ community needs to stop allowing these bad apples". Something something, loud minority.

I argued that the only people making them into a loud minority are the far-right, if you don't like them, ignore them as does everyone else. Yet they insist. Meanwhile, bad apples exist amongst the cis male populace. WE don't blame men, WE blame the systems men perpetuate, yes they have responsibility but they can at any time choose to not perpetuate them. These "centrists" are choosey. They're a danger to my existence. They're the ones who would choose I don't get adequate mental healthcare (a non-capitalist and liberatory one at that) because of some copy and paste philosophical argument here, and economic excuse there. They're the ones who will say COVID is just the flu and nothing to worry about. They're the ones to say there is no genocide against the queer community. Just as they deny a genocide against Palestinians or Africans.

So these centrists can be lumped in as my enemy too. Liberals and SocDems only test my patience. They at least tend to be curious and not outright genocidal, but given the right conditions they'll justify it. The work it takes to undo the many social conditioning under capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, cisheteronormitivity is a lot of fucking work. It still takes work, a life time of work. It's no wonder they don't engage with it. It kills their identity, and takes work they don't have time for. Of course, they don't have to see it that way, they could see it as an expansion of identity.

I really find it bizarre that we can just keep living right now. Go to work, go to school, and the beat goes on. Hypernormalization hits fucking hard. How come nobody is withdrawing their engagement or engaging in new ways? Where is it? What is stopping anyone? It's just absurd. When I talk to people about alternatives and dual power, it's just a nod and moving on. What is stopping you? Imagine how much would be lifted from your shoulders if you and your friend(s) started income sharing? Or tended to a community garden? Held skill sharing workshops? Paid each other's debts? Contributed to a mutual aid project? It just takes the mindset of "I want to see what is possible".

Of course, where am I with all of this? Nowhere yet. I had a plan setup with my doctor that we were going to engage with. He was gonna help me get into contact with that local community I was talking about in other posts (or I didn't talk about, I can't remember :p). It seemed like that was going to go somewhere, but it has completely stalled. My doctor cancelled my appointment this week, unsure why, I'm assuming it has to do with his long COVID issues. But I can't be certain. This does have me worried. He spoke of "reaching out to the right person" which is what is making me hesitant at actually emailing this community myself. On top of just my own issues with engaging in physical contact (because of the "modes" I get in due to neurodivergency). There's a lot I'd have to communicate to them, not impossible. But hard for them to understand. They don't know the world of someone who only knows isolation.

I've made big strides as is, but I was hoping this was going to be well under way in January. We're halfway through January now, and the plan has hit an obstacle. Speaking of COVID, I probably did have COVID again. Had this sore throat coming in going, I kept losing my voice, felt body soreness. I don't know, it was weird. Definitely not a cold or flu. Knowing COVID, it's what comes after I'm "excited" for, which is months down the line.

Anyway, this is just more reason why I'm losing patience. I got a damn life to live. I know there is no hope for me or anyone under capitalism. I don't want to live a life being exploited or exploiting. I want to live with intent. By the principles I talk about. Putting in those little baby steps that are so necessary. Queerness is my weapon of choice for this one. But it's painful at how slow this is. It already feels like 2025 is over.

I just can't imagine doing much of anything else. I've been practicing drawing. That's all I've been doing. Sometimes reading. Drawing has taken up my time. At least with drawing I can imagine my ideal self and world. Or use it to make sense of the dystopia we live in now. My brother is so focused on work, as we all are and it just feels weird. We're being manipulated and pulled along and all you care about is work? This absurdity is painful. I need to get the fuck out of the house. Do I give it another month? Do I give it till February? Then I send the message? Maybe that's what I'll do.

I know I'm afraid of what my family will think of me being more openly queer. But, I've done plenty of priming, which now that I think of it has been a pretty good strategy I haven't really realized has been helpful. I'll just say little things or make references to queerness, kind of nudging at it. Makes me more comfortable and I get to test their reaction.

I feel like queerness is just a place to let my wings spread. That and drawing, guitar when I get to it. Simply learning about how shitty the world is not enough to feel the world. I need to find comfort with myself, a group of people I can say are family. Support, love. Perhaps its romanticization. But I can't help it. I see myself expressing a deeper part of myself with a person or group of people who support me. Cheering me on as I give it back mutually.

I find that many people take their capacity to be themselves for granted. They don't see the power in it. The ability to see new worlds never thought possible. I always think of that Aldous Huxley quote about the in between. Weaponize it to do good in the world. I hope I can actually do all these things this year. I don't want to wait anymore.

[spotlightstory]

Question: If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care more affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?

Trump: "Well I would do that and we are sitting down. You know, I was somebody - we had Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about - that, because look, child care is child care, couldn't - you know, there's something - you have to have it in this country. You have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels they are not used to. But they'll get used to it very quickly. And it's not going to stop them from doing business with us. But they will have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers we are talking about, including child care, that it's going to take to care. We are going to have, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. (What's that crazy self talk???) But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I am talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just - that I just told you about. We're going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we will be taking in. We are going to make this into a incredible country that can afford to take care of its people. And then we will worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people. But we are going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about make America great again. We have to do it because right now, we are a failing nation. So, we'll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you." Link to video

uh huh, m'hmm... WTF??? Trump knows nothing about American families or child care. He's so disconnected and demented. Trump is not fit for office.

JD's answer on child care wasn't much better. It was basically "Get Grandma to do it" and "Deregulate it".

Fun Fact - US Deficit: the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2024 is $1.9 Trillion. Adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments, the deficit amounts to $2.0 trillion in 2024 - Congressional Budget Office dot gov

Import Tariffs: increase the price of goods and services in domestic markets by applying a tax on imported goods that is paid by the domestic importer. To cover the increased costs, the domestic importer then charges higher prices for the goods and services. Are Americans ready for Trump's $10 banana? Those 'trillions' he's talking about from "countries sending product into our country" will increase the price of those products !!!

We are already struggling with Shrinkflation, Greedflation and the cost of living. This con man is not fit for office. Vote Blue

[mariacallous]

When Donald Trump first ran for the U.S. presidency in 2016, a wave of writing suggested that he was a realist. In this framing, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton was presented as a neoconservative hawk who would start wars. Trump, by contrast, would balance U.S. commitments with its resources. He would avoid foreign conflicts and quagmires. He would be less ideological in his approach to nondemocratic states.

In 2024, this thinking has returned. Some realist voices are again suggesting that Trump is one of them. Trump’s desire to end the war in Ukraine—even though he simply intends to let Russia win—is taken as evidence of this. So is the selection of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his vice presidential candidate. Vance has famously said that he does not care what happens to Ukraine. Conversely, he is a China hawk who seems to believe the United States cannot support both Taiwan and Ukraine simultaneously.

The notion that U.S. support for Taiwan and Ukraine is a trade-off is the most controversial component of the Trump realist position. Former Defense Department official Elbridge Colby, for example, has argued prominently that U.S. support for Ukraine undercuts its ability to help Taiwan, and that Europe should be almost exclusively responsible for helping Ukraine (or not).

But these hopes are badly misplaced. A second Trump term may well take an entirely different tack on China from the hawks—and even if he wants to move against Beijing, he lacks the discipline and ability to do so.

There is far more in Trump’s first term to suggest indiscipline, showboating, and influence-peddling than the clear-eyed, bloodless calculation of national interest that realists aspire to.

On China, Trump was undisciplined and sloppy. Yes, he turned against China in 2020, during the final year of his term, but that was more to deflect blame for COVID-19 than out of any realist or strategic reappraisal of U.S.-China relations. COVID-19 suddenly became the “kung flu” in Trump’s vernacular in an openly racist bid to change the subject.

Trump also undercut any ostensible focus on China by picking unnecessary fights with the United States’ regional partners. U.S.-South Korea and U.S.-Australia relations, for example, sank to their lowest point in years as Trump picked fights with their leaders because he wanted a payoff for the U.S. alliance guarantees.

Realism values allies for their ability to share burdens, project power, and generate global coalitions. Trump does not seem to grasp that at all. When Trump backed off his criticism of Japan, the turning point was apparently then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s relentless flattery, including giving Trump a gold-plated golf club, rather than any strategic reevaluation by Trump or his team. Such frippery is exactly the opposite of the cold calculation that we associate with realism.

Trump also sank the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and all but dropped earlier U.S. rhetoric about a pivot or rebalance to Asia. Were China a threat that Trump took seriously, then building a tighter trade area among the United States’ Asian partners would be a smart move to pool local allied economic power and build patterns of administrative coordination among those partners. Indeed, that was the rationale behind TPP and the “pivot” to increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific when it was proposed by the Barack Obama administration. Trump did not see that, either; he is obsessed with imposing tariffs, even against allies, which violates the realist tenets that concern allied power accumulation and coordination against shared threats.

Finally, Trump’s admiration for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s autocracy was blatant, and Trump has once again recently praised Xi as his “good friend.” The former U.S. president has spoken approvingly of China’s crackdowns in Tiananmen Square, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. He solicited Chinese help in the 2020 election, and China happily channeled money to Trump’s family and his properties during his presidency.

Trump clearly craves authoritarian powers at home and is happy to take China’s money. He was happy to pardon Republican lobbyist Elliott Broidy, who was convicted for illicitly acting on Beijing’s behalf. It stretches credulity to suggest that Trump will lead the United States, much less an Indo-Pacific coalition, in a major shift against a power that he admires. China will probably just throw money at him if he is reelected—especially after seeing his U-turn on a TikTok ban, a policy that he backed in his first term but failed to deliver on, after facing pressure from billionaire TikTok investor Jeff Yass.

Little else in Trump’s first term suggests s a thoughtful, realist weighing of priorities: Trump’s most important first-term foreign-policy venture was the attempted denuclearization of North Korea. Unsurprisingly, that effort was amateurish, sloppy, and unplanned—and it failed.

There is a realist argument for reaching out to Pyongyang. The United States’ long-standing policy of containment and deterrence has not changed North Korea, nor did it prevent its nuclearization. North Korea is now a direct nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland. A realistic foreign policy would accept that as an unchangeable fact and react to it. Perhaps a bold move by a risk-taking statesman could break the logjam.

Trump might have had the chance to pull this off, but he failed due to his own lack of discipline. Trump did not prepare for his meetings with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un; instead, he simply walked off the plane and thought his New York tough guy shtick would somehow bowl over a man raised in the crucible of North Korea’s lethal family politics. There was no interagency process to build proposals ahead of time, nor any kind of realistic, measured deal that could have won over Pyongyang.

According to John Bolton, then Trump’s national security advisor, the president did not even read in preparation for the summits. Instead, Trump demanded the complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmament of North Korea in exchange for sanctions removal, then walked out of the Hanoi summit when Pyongyang predictably rejected this wildly unbalanced so-called deal. Talks collapsed because Trump had not prepared and had no idea how to bargain on the issues when his first offer was rejected.

But Trump did get what he really wanted—lots and lots of publicity. His hugely hyped—and criminally underprepared—first summit with Kim in Singapore brought a week of nonstop news coverage. His later trip to the Demilitarized Zone, which included briefly walking inside North Korea, brought another wave of coverage. Trump even demanded that he receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This is showboating, not strategy.

The big issue in the realist case for Trump and Vance is that they will put Taiwan explicitly ahead of Ukraine in a ruthless prioritization of U.S. interests. As Andrew Byers and Randall Schweller write, Trump “understands the limits of American power.” From this perspective, the United States cannot reasonably hope to fight Russia and China simultaneously, much less a coordinated “axis” of those countries working with rogues such as Iran and North Korea. This notion is particularly connected with Vance, who has explicitly advocated abandoning Ukraine.

Yet Trump himself does not think this way. Trump’s supposed policy positions emerge on the fly as he speaks. He is lazy. He is not capable of the strategic thinking that realists want to attribute to him; one must only listen to his campaign speeches this year to see this. He routinely lies, makes up stories, and speaks in indecipherable word-salads. When Trump has spoken on Taiwan, he makes it clear that he sees it as just another free-riding ally that owes the U.S. protection money. In an interview with Bloomberg, Trump said the United States was “no different than an insurance company” and that Taiwan “doesn’t give us anything.”

It stretches psychological credulity to suggest that the United States under Trump will ruthlessly abandon a struggling, nascent democracy under threat by a fascist imperialist, but then abruptly fight for another new democracy under threat by an ever more powerful fascist imperialist. The prioritization of Taiwan over Ukraine misses the obvious precursor that the Middle East, in turn, is less valuable than Ukraine. But instead of reevaluating the United States’ position in the Middle East, Trump will almost certainly deepen U.S. involvement in the region because of the ideological fixations of his Christianist base.

The strategic case for elevating Taiwan over Ukraine is also far more mixed than Vance and Trumpian realists suggest.

First, China is much more powerful than Russia. So, a conflict with it would be far more destructive. The Russia-Ukraine war has been locally contained and, despite Russian bluster, not escalated to nuclear confrontation. That seems less likely in an open, U.S.-China war. It is an odd “realist” recommendation to suggest that the United States should take a provocative line against a stronger power, which increases the risk of great-power war, but not push its preferences on a weaker opponent where U.S. involvement is limited to a lower-risk proxy war.

Second, the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is much less costly than a parallel commitment to Taiwan. The United States is not fighting directly to defend Ukraine. It would have to do so to defend Taiwan. Taiwan defense would require the United States to project enormous force over a huge distance of open water at great expense—plus, there would be combat losses of major U.S. platforms, such as ships and aircraft.

By contrast, U.S. aid to Ukraine has mostly come in the form of money and midsized, ground-based platforms, totaling around $175 billion over two-and-a-half years. This is small and easily manageable because of NATO’s propinquity. U.S. national security spending is approximately $1 trillion annually; the country’s annual economic production is approximately $25 trillion. Notions that U.S. aid to Ukraine is an unsustainable overstretch, or that it is bolstering another “forever war,” are simply not correct.

In Ukraine, the United States is also using intelligence assets and coordination relationships with NATO allies that have long been in place—and resources that have little relevance to a Taiwan conflict. Washington is not going to engage the Chinese army in ground conflict, just as it does not need U.S. aircraft carriers to help Ukraine. As a specific example of a possible trade-off, Vance has suggested the United States lacks the artillery shell production capacity to meet both national defense needs and those of Ukraine. But that argument implies abandoning Ukraine today for an unidentifiable but apparently imminent U.S. ground war tomorrow.

Realist hopes for Trump and Vance assume an intellectual discipline that both men lack and elevate geopolitical trade-offs that are less acute than realists admit., Trump is lazy, unread, venal, easily bought, susceptible to autocrats’ flattery, captive to the ideological fixations of his domestic coalition, ignorant of U.S. strategic interests, and dismissive of alliances that amplify U.S. power. Vance is ostensibly more clear-eyed, but he is a foreign-policy neophyte in the pocket of Silicon Valley donors, including his mentor Peter Thiel. He has been a senator for less than two years, before which he was a financier and author whose interests were local.

The fiscal space to reorient U.S. defense spending is there. If Vance and Trump were truly serious about confronting China, they would not be proposing yet another massive Republican tax cut, for example. The traditional liberal internationalism Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden represent is far more likely to build a durable global coalition against Chinese and Russian revisionism than the venal caprice masquerading as strategy that Trump would bring back to the White House.

[iamchangingwind]

TRUMP'S 2017 TAX SCAM to be EXTENDED and EXPANDED THIS YEAR!!!

PLEASE DON'T BLOW THIS OFF: THIS IS REALLY HAPPING. I AM NOT BEING A CONSPIRACY THERORIST, DRAMATIC, OR NUTS:

A LEAKED MEMO reveals how Republicans are working to slash trillions from healthcare, nutrition, climate change prevention, and more while EXTENDING AND EXPANDING the 2017 TRUMP TAX SCAM [-$1.2 trillion (FY2018- FY2027)] and [-$2.2 trillion (FY2025- FY2034)] in new tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations. And they want to make these PERMANENT!!!

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2018 that the 2017 law would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years,[3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60114#data and recent estimates show that making the law’s temporary individual income and estate tax cuts permanent would cost another roughly $400 billion a year beginning in 2027.

That's money that would be going into the budget to help pay for Infrastructure, PFAS monitoring, essential safety net programs like the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, TSNF, housing funds, Social Security, and EVERY OTHER PROGRAM THE CAN. Including,` to ELIMINATE a credit that helps parents pay for child care, raises taxes on students, and makes homeownership more expensive—ALL TO HELP PAY for tax cuts for the wealthy.

AND THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Here’s our brand new infographic that we need to bring to every voter and every household across the country. SEE BELOW:

The numbers are staggering, but Republicans are hoping no one will notice before they push these cuts through.

We are running a nationwide campaign to make sure every American sees the truth, and we need your help. IF you can afford to please donate.

This isn’t about balancing the budget. It’s about making ALL families pay more so the ultra-rich can pay less. Their plan even includes a $1.9 trillion tariff hike, a HIDDEN TAX INCREASE that can raise the cost of groceries, gas, and everyday goods.

And by GUTTING the IRS enforcement, they’re giving billionaires a FREE PASS to evade taxes while the rest of us cover the difference.

Time is running out. The GOP is moving fast, and they have billionaire donors including Charles Koch bankrolling their efforts.[2] But we have you. IF you can afford to please donate. With your support, we can expose their plan, fight back, and demand a tax system that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

If we don’t stop them, these cuts will devastate Middle-Class, Working-Class, poor families, disabled, and seniors. This is our moment to STAND UP AND FIGHT before it’s too late.

Call your Congress Person NOW to stop the GOP’s TAX SCAM and make sure Congress rejects these DEVASTATING CUTS!!!

Thank you for your support. The GOP has billionaire backers, but we have you.

John Foti

Legislative Director

Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund

[1] GOP budget menu outlines sweeping spending cuts

[2] Charles Koch’s network launches $20m campaign backing Trump tax breaks

[3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60114#data

Link (You may have to copy and paste link into your browser) to donate: https://click.actionnetwork.org/.../h001...

INFOGRAPHIC:

[edaworks]

lololol y'all hey guess what!

Voters are being set up as economic cannon-fodder for a second red sweep in the US midterms!

"Hot take," you say? "It's only a few countries," you say? "What do you mean $5/gal. gas," you say? "Wasn't Trump going to fix the economy," you say?

Well - read on. It's not quite that simple.

This is a long one so bear with me. I promise I'll get to the Congress stuff. (Click links under images/in unbolded underlines for sources.)

The Oil Trade and The Tariffs:

We've all heard about the Trump Tariffs. So far he's imposed:

25% tariff on Mexican imports, full stop (Mexico is also imposing retaliatory tariffs)

10% tariff on Chinese imports (China, by the way, will be suing us over this)

25% percent tariff on Canadian imports, with a carveout that energy imports will be subject to a 10% tariff

Trump is already under fire for these, and already trying to pass off the consequences as a necessary evil on social media, in...in capslock:

"Worth the price?" Okay. Then let's unpack that price.

I'm going to primarily take Canada as an example here, and I am not at all intending to discount the tariffs levied on goods from China and Mexico by doing so. Rather - I'll primarily talk about about Canada because I want to talk about oil.

The US does almost $3B USD in business with Canada PER DAY. CA exported $550B USD in goods to the US last year. Roughly 3/4 of ALL Canadian exports come to the US.

Trudeau has just announced the following tariffs on exports to the US (which most of us anticipated):

CA will impose 25% tariffs on C$155 billion of US goods

Trudeau says C$30 billion will take effect on Tuesday

Duties on the remaining C$125 billion will be due in 21 days

These have been imposed in (wholly justified) response to the tariffs imposed to-date by the US's illustrious new administration.

The interesting part for purposes of this post is the hilarious caveat that there will "only" be a 10% tariff on CA energy imports. That 10% adds up REAL quick, because "energy imports" includes imported crude oil/refined petroleum products -

And 60% of crude oil/52% of ALL petroleum products imported by the US come from Canada.

(We absolutely import petroleum products from/export to Mexico, too; US crude oil imports from Mexico were already slumping in 2022 and sure as hell will keep slumping now.)

Let's hear from an Actual Canadian who grew up smack in the middle of this industry! Hey @twosides--samecoin, d'you think the Irvings will pause for one second before bumping costs to pass that 10% tariff along to both Canadian and U.S. consumers (and while they're at it, bumping costs to well above "breakeven" to rake in profits, given the tariffs as a convenient excuse)? Because I don't.

"What happened to OPEC? Doesn't the US get most of their oil from them?" The US definitely still imports from OPEC+ countries, but Canada has provided the US with most of its imported petroleum products, both refined and unrefined, for over two decades:

Here's what that looks like by the numbers -

AND CONSIDER: the US imports this massive amount of crude oil even after hitting an all-time high for for its domestic oil production! In fact, in 2023, we were the world's largest producer:

"High domestic energy demand." That demand, by the way, is increasing alarmingly fast with AI development (and will continue to do so given the new administration's AI-friendly policies), the infrastructure for which currently consumes an obscene amount of energy. AI proponents have promised that it will eventually help reduce global emissions, but cannot yet deliver on those promises. (An aside, this is an increase in domestic energy usage that the US grid system ABSOLUTELY cannot support.)

The "double whammy" increase in petroleum costs this will cause cannot be understated.

The US is historically dependent upon foreign oil and to date this has significantly factored into the direction of US foreign policy. It's not just with respect to Canada where that policy has just been tossed out the window. The new administration has systematically escalated or started pissing contests with a majority of the foreign powers upon whom the US depends upon for imported petroleum products.

For instance - even with the ceasefire in Gaza we are seeing absolutely wild policy takes that continue alienating the pro-Palestinian members of OPEC+ (and discounting the personhood of Palestinians - a separate issue which is way too big to get into in this post):

"But fucking why," you ask?

Interestingly, pissing off foreign exporters and making foreign petroleum imports prohibitively expensive can serve as VERY GOOD leverage to remove protections, regulatory controls for, and environmental protections surrounding domestic petroleum production. To a degree, upping domestic production will have to grind through bureaucratic processes that Trump vehemently despises -

- however, as the above-linked article acknowledges:

It will be "time-consuming" because the new administration cannot simply sign executive orders to get rid of every safeguard imposed. These safeguards are not even primarily Biden-created - in fact, Biden got rid of many - and were imposed for various reasons: to prevent fast depletion of US oil deposits (a huge asset to keep in our back pocket in the event of, say, foreign wars that interrupt imports; global energy shortages; etc.), to control supply/keep export prices from tanking, to prevent the unmitigated destruction of protected lands which offer the easiest access to those deposits, et cetera.

So the one nearly insurmountable barrier Trump faces to what he views as "fixing the economy," in part by ending foreign oil dependence, is time. And time is not just a barrier because of legal "red tape." Time is a barrier because - and I cannot stress this enough - infrastructure to support increased domestic petroleum production will take time to build.

It will be years before domestic petroleum demand could conceivably be met by domestic petroleum production - nevermind by domestic refined petroleum production - even if all barriers to production vanished tomorrow.

Now I can talk about the larger picture, including the midterms. In the words of Bill Nye, it's time to Consider the Following.

The Midterms and The Setup:

TL;DR:

The new administration has put the cart before the horse with these tariffs, and knows it.

"But why not deal with removing barriers first, and boost domestic oil production before imposing tariffs? This approach means he's going to also screw over his supporters and create an economic crisis and-"

Because the goal is an economic crisis. This is not lack of forethought. This is 100% intentional.

Indulge me. Here's a possible playbook.

The current administration continues to alienate foreign petroleum producers by implementing tariffs and through political instigation. The cost of crude and refined petroleum products - and by extension gas and goods transported over land (including and especially food) - will go sky high in the US and stay that way. Remember how COVID "supply chain issues" were used as an excuse to drive rampant price increases, and how costs mysteriously stayed high after lockdown? Remember how we learned that a huge amount of this cost increase was artificial? Now add something like the 1973 oil embargo to that problem. I don't like that math.

As imported petroleum products remain prohibitively expensive, the new administration will find traction for its domestic crude production push among prior opponents. It will quickly become "un-American" to oppose, regulate, or cause anything to slow or curtail expansion of domestic crude production, including on protected lands. This will work. Centrists and many liberals will absolutely be convinced that drilling in protected lands looks very, very reasonable as gas and food prices go insanely high. They will feel the strain of the current party line vs. the pocketbook.

The GOP's constituents (and everyone else) will suffer from these actions. GOP leaders will scapegoat Dems/independents/other opposition to redirect blame for the sustained high cost of gas, food and other necessities. The GOP could then easily claim that all GOP opposition has created an economic crisis by trying to regulate/slow/limit domestic petroleum production.

The economic crisis blame game is a huge "vote grabber" during midterm elections in the US. GOP leaders will already be set up to blame opposition for economic strain, and will be well-positioned to use this as leverage to pick up new seats in the House and Senate, and keep their existing ones. (It will almost certainly have been primarily caused by the new hyper-nationalist and isolationist trade policies.)

The desirable outcome for the GOP: Keep both the House and Senate from flipping away from GOP control in 2026. Meanwhile, unfortunately, voters will be forced to line the pockets of US oil magnates and other conglomerates to a crippling degree.

It's a very simple setup - and it is a setup, because as I said earlier: energy and petroleum production infrastructure takes time to build. The new administration knows that it does not have that time before USAmericans feel the pinch: they also do not care. Absent a gratuitous federal subsidy to reduce gas prices, and no matter what the Dems/GOP opposition do or do not do between now and the midterms, the tariffs will - until removed - cause petroleum prices (and by extension everything else) to skyrocket and remain high.

And this is just one way in which we could see the GOP try to spin what's happening with the US economy - but no matter which way you slice this, any new economic crisis we're about to face can only be laid at the feet of the GOP's new trade policies.

The ultimate answer is, of course, to rescind the tariffs. But the new administration will need to break a major campaign promise to do that. However, they’re setting up to break a bigger campaign promise when the economy goes into a tailspin because they choose not to do it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. BONUS:

"Hurrhurr I drive a Tesla-"

Nope. In this model scenario, you're screwed like the rest of us.

Why? Because our power bills are about to go sky high(er) too.

Guess what? We also IMPORT AND EXPORT energy from our closest neighbors - billions USD worth of trade, and that trade helps balance the power grid when our energy demands peak. Don't take my word for it - take the US Energy Information Administration's word for it.

That trade will be subject to the 10% Trump tariff for energy we import, and possibly to Trudeau's tariffs for energy we export! In addition, Trump is also hampering development of wind and other renewably-sourced power while this is all going on! Guess what that does? Drive up consumer electricity costs - or serve as an excuse for power companies to do so.

(And frankly even if this weren't the case, electric vehicles aren't a sustainable solution here. If everyone started using them we'd be screwed because our power grid isn't up to it. Take it from someone who spent a summer doing EXTREMELY detailed policy research on energy regulations and power transmission: Our grid is already way over capacity and held together by duct tape and chewing gum, and that is before we factor in rising AI energy consumption.) The Trump administration knows that energy costs will be a problem - it's why the Canadian energy import tariff will be "only" 10%. He wants a crisis - but not one that will impact his buddies in AI, you see. He also wants things to be bad - but not bad enough that he's unable to redirect blame.

And we're all going to suffer for it.