This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Trump 2.0

Jump to new
I find all the TDS from all the ersatz tariff and international relations experts quite astonishing.

Weather you love him or hate him, there is no doubt that Trump is trying to act in the best interests of his own country.

I would point out that:

1/ Trump is only acting on what he said he was going to do and received a mandate for from his own electorate, ie American voters.

2/ in any diplomatic and/or negotiations, they will always be pushed backs, counter moves etc. if I can use the analogy of a boxing match, you go in with your game plan and how you might win against your opponent, but he has his own game plan as well and certainly intends to parry and counter punch. There are several rounds to any fight and each round may go one way or the other until a final result is achieved. Very rarely is there a first round knockout punch.

Dammit has anyone here even then in a negotiation for something as simple as a real estate transaction?

There's the asking price, there is first offer, then possibly several counteroffer until a final price is settled on, and of course there may be some quibbling over the "subject to" clauses; settlement date, finance, or any other special conditions where both sides may have to come to some sort of a compromise.

It's all good theatre of course and we plebeians always think that we know better. :clown:
 

We can pay for it all.....but everyone has to pay tax and give up rich peoples welfare you know... like franking credits.

Trump keeps on about how the US is getting ripped off, this is the richest country in the world by a long way, Trumps answer is to tax the lower and middle class with tariffs cheered on by the Cult who amazingly are still making excuses about his wreaking ball stupidity.

There has never been a wealthier country ever.
 
As long as it is non discriminatory, there wouldn't be a problem, I see today that Dutton is suggesting first home buyers will be able to offset their home interest against their income tax that is discriminatory IMO.
Trump, Dutton, Albo, all of them give breaks to the rich and the cult cheer it on, tribal politics is what got us to this. Both sides bribing their cult. You talk about the right wing religious cult, others talk about the left wing loony cult, they come from fringe dwellers on both sides.
The middle and high income earners are the only ones in Australia are the only ones who pay effective tax, low income earners pay very little tax when offsets are included.
Well that would be unless you took the franking credits off them, then they would be paying 30% on all their shares income, with no tax free threshold. Meanwhile the rich would get a tax offset on their income, that's cult mentality, take from the poor and give to the rich.

Back to Trump?
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
Back to Trump?
Click to expand...

Reading Republican insider Trump supporters they think he is a total fool (this is the same mob who backed him in) Trump has single handedly destroyed confidence in the business world so much so a real chance of recession now as major capital investments / spending is being put on hold due the uncertainty Trump has caused I think the damage will be longer term.

It will be interesting to see if the AUD rises on the back that Australia may come out of this ahead, long way to go still.
 
There are so many sectors such as alcohol, travel, foreign students, soft power such as movies, automobiles, tractors, generators, luminaires etc. where all around the world people will deliberately choose the alternative to USA.

It has to hurt them. They will suffer. It didn't need to be done this way. Poor negotiating skills.
I have been told by someone who negotiates for a living that the Art Of the Deal is seen as the way not to do it. It's one off way as in real estate but most negotiations are with long term customers so you have to go for a win win, not a win lose.
 

If China and SE Asia ended up being the only manufacturing countries in the world, do you think the living standards and welfare conditions in Western countries like Australia would remain the same?
China showed how much compassion it had when it threw 200% tariffs on us, so if we can only source our equipment from China, you two somehow think that would be good for us? Interesting.

As I posted earlier China exports 30% of the worlds goods, the U.S has fallen from 19% to 15% in the last 6 years, the rest of the world export very little of large scale.
So extrapolating that out, China will end up with enough market share to screw every other countries manufacturing, just on pure size and volume, plus State sponsorship.
You worry about Woolies and Coles having a duopoly, but you don't get fazed by China having a monopoly, interesting.



 
Last edited:
100%. We have to fight.

But fight and win.
And that means working together.

Trump is helping China at present...and just gave them a big victory. Unilaterally taking away the tariffs for tech products, phones solar etc. while China are keeping theirs.
Unbelievable incompetence.

+ making sure Canada Europe etc. look to alternatives to US products in reaction to the tariffs. Whose the enemy here? Canada? Australia?

So far China is winning.
 
China has been winning for years, the fact they actually don't play by the rules that the west does, makes it impossible to beat them without tariffs.
My guess is Trump has gone in fast and hard to get everyone's attention and get the ball rolling quickly, getting bogged down in diplomatic double talk removes the urgency and allows the waffle and media to miss represent the intent.

I think he has made it clear that this is happening and China is the main focus, warning China's close allies that if they want to be a conduit for China, they will cop the same.

The horse is so far down the paddock with regard trade imbalance, that nothing short of a radical approach will not pull up the trend, so really i don't think Trump would have made any headway with a softly, softly approach, as Australia found out when they asked for an investigation into covid.

It all sounds nice to tread carefully with China, but they just smile nicely as they carry on their merry way, as has been shown before.

Working with China,when they have a massive upper hand, wouldn't be easy.
China just has to keep going along as it is, there is no reason for them to change, why would they? it wouldn't make sense.

The West is borrowing money, to support its welfare systems, China's manufacturing is increasing exponentially as shown on the chart,withing 20 years the West will be bankrupt.
Why would China negotiate? Would you, if you were in their position.
 
Last edited:
Further to the above post, a more recent chart 2022

Infographic: China Is the World's Manufacturing Superpower

This chart shows the top 10 countries by share of global manufacturing output in 2023.
www.statista.com



I went to look at vehicles with my daughter yesterday, she is looking for a new one, the Chinese product is better equiped, as well finished and 30% cheaper than the opposition.
Unless someone reigns in China it will be curtains for most Auto manufacturers IMO.
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
There has never been a wealthier country ever.
Click to expand...
From what Google brings up:

US foreign debt as of 2024 was $25,800,000,000,000

That's $75,852 per capita or $157,788 per worker based on the population and workforce figures Google brings up.

US federal government debt is $36,210,000,000,000 or $235,742 per taxpayer (based on the 153.6 million tax returns as per most recent data).

Suffice to say that doesn't look like a great position to me. It's wealth of the same sort that someone who borrows as much as the bank will lend for a mortgage, then after that gets a car loan, has "wealth". They look wealthy from the outside with the nice house and car but in truth they're close to broke.

The real risk with debt is the power it gives others. I've seen that one play out among my own circle over the years - those in huge debt are going just fine until some hiccup occurs and the house of cards collapses. Just needs a job loss, surprise major expense, hike in interest rates, whatever and it all comes crashing down.

That's not to say all debt is bad. But if you can't show the physical assets bought with it, and explain how they're producing income or otherwise creating wealth with which to repay the debt, then that's a huge red flag.

It's one thing for government to borrow big in order to fund infrastructure that will serve the public and businesses, ultimately recovering the cost either directly (user pays) or indirectly via the economic activity it enables and taxes collected on that. I'm not in any way against the idea that government borrows money to, for example, build a railway that recovers part of the cost via user charges, and the rest indirectly via the agriculture, mining and manufacturing it facilitates.

It's very different though if government is borrowing more and more on a constant basis and nobody can point to what it's being invested in. Borrowing to fund ongoing consumption is a path to ruin.
 
Borrowing to fund tax cuts even more.
 
Knobby22 said:
It didn't need to be done this way. Poor negotiating skills.
Click to expand...
In principle I agree but the problem is this has been left so long it's pretty much an emergency at this point.

If you see the fire start well you can ask everyone to leave the building in an orderly manner. But if it's ignored to the point it's already an inferno, firefighters aren't going to spend time being polite.

Personally I realised all this was coming a long time ago. Australia circa 1993-94, then read a lot of articles about the US situation in 2002. That doesn't mean it started then, that's just when I personally became aware and suffice to say I wasn't the first to work it out.

Plenty of governments have had the chance to fix it but failed to do so. That's where much of the objection to the focus on social causes and so on originates from - governments spending all their time on "nice to haves" in a manner akin to worrying about arranging the curtains meanwhile the place is actually on fire.

Australia's ultimately in the same situation. A huge reliance on selling fossil fuels and ore plus borrowing money underpinned by real estate. It's ultimately unsustainable and that being so it's a given it ends at some point - only real question is about the detail.
 
Yes, and the detail is highly important.

You negotiate from a position of strength not weakness.
 
Knobby22 said:
Yes, and the detail is highly important.

You negotiate from a position of strength not weakness.
Click to expand...
Absolutely and the U.S is fast losing any market strength it has, as china diversifies its markets, at the moment the U.S is by far the biggest single market place China has.
But as emerging markets grow in SE Asia and their economies strengthen, the West becomes less and less relevant and has less and less leverage to use to curb China.
Then the West especially Australia, isn't any different to any other commodity based South American economy, then the smugness will disappear IMO.
 
Dona Ferentes said:
bananas or cocaine?
Click to expand...
Whichever is selling well at the time, the coal and the LNG should be done by then.

Bananas are more seasonal, but cocaine is probably a better return on investment, you've been to South America and would probably have a better insight into which is the best choice.

But we will have to start and sell something to pay the debt down eventually, it is definitely an interesting time.

Debt in Billions: Pre Covid




Infographic: Australia’s Growing Government Debt

This chart shows Australian gross national debt from 2003 until 2020.
www.statista.com

Debt in trillions: Now



Total Australian State And Federal Government Debt To Double To $2trn

Analysis by the Institute of Public Affairs covered in today's Australian Financial Review showed state net debt would triple by 2023-24 to fund infrastructure projects and higher public sector wages, which the free market think tank labelled “unnecessarily large”.
ipa.org.au
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-04-13 172010.jpg
    111.1 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
This video gets close to the problem.

We've rather a lot of people in comfortable, safe, low stress and ostensibly respectable employment that in truth are contributing little value to society.

Where all this started to go wrong both for the West and for politics is when the purpose of taking kids to visit factories stopped being about science education and instead became a warning that this is where you'll end up if you don't pay attention at school.

So what I'm getting at is there's a social class problem with all this. We've got quite a few who oppose all this not for any rational reason but simply because they actively despise the thought of working in a factory. They'd much rather stick to their safe, easy and comfortable service job of the sort referred to.

To be clear I don't blame anyone personally for taking the work that's available to them and there are of course many white collar jobs that do indeed serve a purpose in society. My point here is about politics, society and the economy and that overall we're wasting a massive portion of the workforce's collective output on, well, BS jobs:

 

Totally agree. The destruction of US soft power and influence around the world is appalling. It makes China look balanced and reasonable. It could make the EU a formidable political/economic alternative. Maybe..

I suggest one other overwhelming issue has been lost in this Tariff War nonsense. In the last 2 months the Trump administration has been relentlessly and most effectively destroying the bones of effective Government and Governance in the US.

The Dogey boys have been gutting everything from the EPA, to the Tax office, the Scientific community, Social Security.,, Health, US Aid, Air Traffic Control etc, etc.

They have sacked the Inspector Generals and destroyed the system of independent oversight across Government Departments. There is every likelihood these actions will make governing the US very difficult without capable administration.

The reasoning behind this destruction of institutional capacity to govern ? I can't fathom it. It has nothing to do with improving the countries industrial capacity. An outsider could see this as a very clever way to hamstring effective administration of the US. Set the country up for a complete change of direction when (not if ) the consequences of destroyed departments becomes apparent.

Project 2025 lays it all out.

What is Project 2025? Wish list for Trump second term, explained

A conservative think tank set out a sweeping vision for governing that could influence Trump's next term. What influence has it had so far?
www.bbc.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Trump Rumoured to Establish U.S. Bitcoin Strategic Reserve
Replies
2
Views
2K
moXJO
M
March 2025 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
8K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
8K
ducati916
Why Donald Trump's Companies Went Bankrupt
Replies
3
Views
2K
noirua
Dump Trump
9 10 11
Replies
214
Views
22K
wayneL