Politics

[DColeKC]

Our attractiveness as a market decreases if people can't afford anything to buy.

Small businesses are going to tank quickly because they have already made orders they now can't afford to unload off the docks due to the tariffs.

Our attractiveness as a place to invest money decreases as our government is unpredictable and destabilizing, and even our bonds are no longer appealing.

Our allies are pissed off because we've betrayed them and kicked them in the face for no reason. They will form new coalitions.

At this point, why wouldn't China invade Taiwan?

That's on top of letting people die in underdeveloped countries because we have cut off aid, medicine, and food. China will come in and recoup the goodwill we squandered.

Trump is acting like a mafia boss because he's shaking everyone down. People will come and beg for exceptions to the tariffs. If they give him enough money, and if they do it in crypto, we will probably never know. Or future real estate deals. Etc. Big law firms have already capitulated to his demands.

If they are manipulating the market, which one of them is profiting?

This is while they are kidnapping people and sending them to an overseas prison without due process. They stopped a lawyer, a citizen, and demanded access to his phone because they wanted his contacts. I believe he's an immigration attorney.

They are stealing data, for reasons we don't know, as well as hiding data, even if they are supposed to display it by a law. Databases are disappearing and possibly being altered. God help us if they are using AI to rewrite code.

We're probably not going to be able to retire now, and that's if we're lucky and still have work. I don't know if Medicare and Social Security are going to survive and without that, we're looking at a very bleak future on a personal level. And I can't really complain because we're not dependent on something like Medicaid or a clinical trial that's been canceled.

This looks a lot like what happened in Russia after the Soviet Union was dissolved.

I’m not dismissing your concerns because some of what you’re saying touches on real anxieties people have. But when we start stacking worst-case scenarios, mixing in conspiracy theories, and assuming corruption as fact, it becomes nearly impossible to have a real conversation about what’s actually happening.

Yes, tariffs will increase costs for some importers, and small businesses caught in the transition may struggle. That’s not new, we’ve seen similar disruptions during COVID, the 2008 crash, and global trade shifts for decades. But let’s not forget that the U.S. economy is still the most resilient, diverse, and innovative in the world. Investors may react short-term, but they’re not fleeing en masse. Our bonds are still among the most stable in the world, and the dollar remains the global reserve currency for a reason.

Our “attractiveness as a market” isn’t solely about whether prices go up for a few months. It’s about long-term opportunity, infrastructure, intellectual property, innovation, and consumer demand. Those don’t vanish overnight because of tariffs, they shift, adapt, and often come back stronger.

The idea that countries will suddenly abandon us and form lasting anti-American coalitions is overblown. Allies are frustrated? Sure. They often are, depending on who’s in office. But alliances don’t vanish because of tension, they evolve, especially when economic and defense interests are still deeply aligned. And the idea that China would invade Taiwan because of our tariff policy is a leap too far. That’s a complex geopolitical issue that goes far beyond our domestic trade strategy.

The claims about kidnappings, overseas prisons, crypto bribes, big law firms “capitulating,” and secret data deletions respectfully, those are extremely serious accusations without any credible evidence. If true, they would be national scandals, yet they aren’t reported or confirmed anywhere reputable that I can find.

I don’t think any of us are thrilled about uncertainty. I understand the fear. But I don’t believe we’re watching the collapse of democracy or some secret dystopian plan unfold. I think we’re watching a contentious, deeply polarized country attempt a hard economic reset and it’s messy, as expected. But it’s not hopeless.

I don't really get it. You seem like an intelligent enough guy and widely read. But you also seem determined to believe certain things without evidence and to not believe other things that are happening right in front of your face. "Hunter Biden laptop" = completely credible story showing deep corruption all the way up to President Biden. "Kidnappings, overseas prisons..." = not happening, not reputable. When clearly it is the exact opposite. Do you really believe that all these judges ruling against Trump (many appointed by Republicans) are secret members of some liberal/progressive conspiracy?

Do you really not think these reports are credible: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/07/report ... -no-record?

Doesn't Occam's razor tell you the simpler explanation is that Trump has no idea what he is doing?

My issue is with the use of the word “kidnapping,” which simply isn’t accurate. Aside from one individual who was reportedly taken by mistake, the people who have been arrested and deported to overseas facilities were in the country illegally and in many cases, confirmed to be members of violent criminal gangs.

I don’t have a problem with that. Could the process be cleaner? Definitely. I think the administration got its hand slapped, and they’ll now be forced to offer a basic hearing to anyone in similar circumstances before deportation. That’s fair. But deporting illegal immigrants with a proven record of gang activity even if the execution is messy, is to me a win for public safety.

As for the judicial side of this, many of the judges ruling against Trump are appointed by Democratic administrations, particularly in the D.C. circuit, which has a long-standing reputation for leaning left. That’s why so many anti-Trump cases are filed there, regardless of whether they have anything to do with D.C. itself. The Supreme Court’s recent move to rein that in didn’t surprise me.

Are all judges who rule against Trump Democratic appointees? Of course not. And if all judges were strictly following the law with no political influence, none of this would be an issue. But I think it’s hard to deny the rise in judicial activism, and that’s damaged public confidence in the system.....on both sides.

Now, does Trump’s approach sometimes feel chaotic? Yes. At times, it absolutely is. But I also think he knows what he’s doing. That doesn’t mean I agree with every move, but I do believe there’s a broader strategy at work. And honestly, I recognize there’s a legitimate risk this backfires and sets the Republican party back years. I don’t want that. I feel a certain way based off a few very trustworthy and close friends who have had a lot of personal interaction with him over the years. Enemies that because friends. Lawsuits that turned into business relationships etc.

But I’ve never been someone who roots against America. So while this is messy, I’m still optimistic that the long-term outcome could be a better, stronger country for my kids, even if that means I’ve got to take some hits in the short term.

[Belvidere]

The evidence for what I'm talking about is in the news by reputable sources.

There are websites and databases we used to have access to that we no longer have access to. That's pretty simple.

The condescending tone is noted, but I'm not actually frightened, I'm trying to be realistic about what's happening from a practical standpoint and not turn away or rationalize it. The whole point of democracy is that we can hold our leaders accountable, which means when they are trying to hurt us, we have to fight and pay attention.

Removing people from the country without due process, to imprison them, and without proof of their criminality, is literally kidnapping. If you or I did it, we would be arrested. It doesn't matter if the government does it.

[beautyfromashes]

The main point of the tariffs isn’t about the tariffs, Ray Dalio says
https://dnyuz.com/2025/04/09/the-main-p ... alio-says/

I think this article explains why we need a global financial reorganization and why we can't just keep gobbling up cheap foreign goods and why consistent trade balance deficits and huge government debt are unsustainable, and the cracks are starting to show.

Very interesting piece! But don't you realize that Dalio is not celebrating Trump's actions but warning us about them? This is like saying "Unsustainable but longstanding issues will lead to an authoritarian reaction that will upend the liberal order that has existed for the last 75 years." Dalio is not saying that the authoritarian reaction is a good thing or that it has to happen! He is warning against it!

Here is an interview with Ray that gives more of his views"
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/04/07/b ... etime.html
And, yes he voices concern about the tariffs, concerns that I've voiced as well. These are obviously not sustainable and only good if they force a reorder of the financial situation, reduce deficits and bring down our national debt. But here is my final thoughts on all of this: My biggest worry is the political turmoil that he talks about. We are so divisive on both sides that if we want to change the pieces on the board, it's near impossible. One side is adamantly opposed to the other so that we get gridlock. We have people, even on here, who are saying that trade deficits are good and that government exploding debt is fine because we can just print money. Inflation be damned. So many are just covering their eyes and pretending that everything will continue the way it has for the last 75 years in America. If we don't start using innovation and efficiency to manufacture products again, if we don't cut our size of government and debt to GDP ratio, if we don't fix trade imbalances we are in for a very difficult time in this country. I don't agree with half of what Trump has done to try and fix it, but at least he's trying to fix it instead of just paying of school debt and throwing money around. And when the wave crashes, it won't hurt the wealthy the most. It will crush the poor and middle class.

[phuqueue]

A trade deficit is matched by an approximately equal amount of foreign investment. It is basically analogous to a balance sheet of assets and liabilities, it nets out to essentially zero. This foreign investment is what finances the trade deficit. Some of this comes directly in the form of debt -- government debt, corporate debt, etc. I realize that, to you, "debt" in general seems to be anathema, and that's fine, but let's not confuse what bfa thinks with what a "good economist" thinks. Many economists would argue that ease of borrowing is a positive thing (even though they would also argue that borrowing too much is bad). But not all that foreign investment is even in the form of debt anyway. It is also stock purchases, direct investment, real estate purchases, etc. The ultimate point is that foreign money is pouring into the US. And yes, a lot of economists would tell you that is a good thing. Or, to put it even more simply, we get to consume more than we have to produce, which sounds like a pretty good deal. And we might expect that deal to come with strings attached, like lower economic growth, reduced wealth, job losses, or whatever else, but, well, quite simply, it doesn't (and yes, I am citing Cato here, these are weird times).

Yes, this is all pretty much wrong because you are only looking at the positive aspects of trade inflows without looking at any of the bad. You're saying, "Look at all this money and goods that are flowing in!" without looking at any of the money flowing out or loss of control over our own economy. If someone put a dollar in your left hand and then took two dollars from your right hand you wouldn't be shouting, "I just made a dollar!". I appreciate the conversation. Thanks.

I'm responding to your assertion that "no good economist will say that trade deficits have their advantages." Foreign investment is an upside of trade deficit that is frequently cited by economists from across the political spectrum. Whether you believe they are "good" economists is, I guess, a matter of your own opinion and one that I don't see much value in arguing about, but they are at least an ideologically diverse group.

Your analogy of one dollar in the left hand and two taken from the right is not appropriate, because foreign investment doesn't equal half of the trade deficit, it equals the trade deficit. You admonish me for saying "look at all this money and goods that are flowing in," but why shouldn't we look at those? The money that flows out doesn't disappear into a void. We do receive goods and services for it -- goods and services that, evidently, we felt were worth the price that we paid for them. That's just how economic exchanges happen. When you go to the store, do you expect to walk out with the stuff you wanted and all the money you carried in with you? And to the extent that we're buying more than we're selling, the rest of it returns to us in the form of this foreign investment. There is not a net loss here.

As for the judicial side of this, many of the judges ruling against Trump are appointed by Democratic administrations, particularly in the D.C. circuit, which has a long-standing reputation for leaning left. That’s why so many anti-Trump cases are filed there, regardless of whether they have anything to do with D.C. itself.

"Anti-Trump" cases get filed in DC because the seat of the federal government lies within its jurisdiction. Obviously, forum shopping is a real thing (also why so many right wing cases originate in front of one specific psycho in Texas), but there is nothing particularly nefarious about cases challenging federal actions originating where the federal government sits.

[DColeKC]

The evidence for what I'm talking about is in the news by reputable sources.

There are websites and databases we used to have access to that we no longer have access to. That's pretty simple.

The condescending tone is noted, but I'm not actually frightened, I'm trying to be realistic about what's happening from a practical standpoint and not turn away or rationalize it. The whole point of democracy is that we can hold our leaders accountable, which means when they are trying to hurt us, we have to fight and pay attention.

Removing people from the country without due process, to imprison them, and without proof of their criminality, is literally kidnapping. If you or I did it, we would be arrested. It doesn't matter if the government does it.

I agree with you on one key point: in a democracy, it’s essential that we hold our leaders accountable. We should question, challenge, and scrutinize power, no matter who holds it. That’s healthy. But we also have to separate allegations from facts, and fear from law.

Quick note on tone, if I came across as condescending, that truly wasn’t my intent. I’ve done my best to stay respectful in this exchange, even when we clearly don’t see eye to eye. I’m not here to talk down to anyone. I’m here because I believe in having difficult conversations, especially with people who take the time to articulate their views. Don't get me wrong, if someone gets into personal attacks, I'm not above firing back but that's not the case here.

If you’re saying there are websites or databases that are no longer public, that happens under every administration. It’s not new, and it’s not proof of some vast cover-up unless there’s direct evidence of illegal manipulation. Simply saying “we used to have access” doesn’t automatically mean there’s wrongdoing.

Deporting someone who is in the country illegally, even if it’s done aggressively or without a court hearing, doesn’t legally qualify as kidnapping. I understand the ethical concern if there’s no due process, and I agree that the government has a duty to ensure every deportation follows the law. But legally, when a government removes someone who lacks legal status, even forcibly, it’s called enforcement, not kidnapping. If laws are being broken in the process, then yes, challenge it in court. But calling it “kidnapping” is just factually inaccurate and meant to be dramatic.

You also mentioned the idea that leaders are “trying to hurt us.” That’s where we diverge again. I don’t believe that’s the intent behind these policies. I see them as an attempt, chaotic as it may be, to restore some level of control over borders, trade, and national sovereignty. You may not agree with the methods, and that’s totally fair.

[Highlander]

The main point of the tariffs isn’t about the tariffs, Ray Dalio says
https://dnyuz.com/2025/04/09/the-main-p ... alio-says/

I think this article explains why we need a global financial reorganization and why we can't just keep gobbling up cheap foreign goods and why consistent trade balance deficits and huge government debt are unsustainable, and the cracks are starting to show.

Very interesting piece! But don't you realize that Dalio is not celebrating Trump's actions but warning us about them? This is like saying "Unsustainable but longstanding issues will lead to an authoritarian reaction that will upend the liberal order that has existed for the last 75 years." Dalio is not saying that the authoritarian reaction is a good thing or that it has to happen! He is warning against it!

Here is an interview with Ray that gives more of his views"
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/04/07/b ... etime.html
If we don't start using innovation and efficiency to manufacture products again, if we don't cut our size of government and debt to GDP ratio, if we don't fix trade imbalances we are in for a very difficult time in this country. I don't agree with half of what Trump has done to try and fix it, but at least he's trying to fix it instead of just paying of school debt and throwing money around. And when the wave crashes, it won't hurt the wealthy the most. It will crush the poor and middle class.

As of 2023, US manufacturing output was at an all time high. We make more than we ever did. What has changed is the lower percentage of Americans employed in manufacturing. That drop is largely due to an increase in productivity and robotics. Again, try as he might, Trump will never bring unskilled, labor intensive manufacturing back to the US. That industry has left the developed world forever. You'll find it doesn't exist in Japan, Britain or Germany either.

I agree that we need to focus on innovation. Something Trump has also thrown a monkey wrench into. Here's where I really differ with you based on what you said a few weeks ago. Trump is hurting the advanced educational system in the US. While Germany, the UK and even China are pouring money into STEM science and research, we are withdrawing money from the universities for research. We need to be doubling what we spend, not cutting the investment and we certainly do not need to be using grant money as a tool to facilitate a desired political concessions from universities.

[beautyfromashes]

As of 2023, US manufacturing output was at an all time high. We make more than we ever did. What has changed is the lower percentage of Americans employed in manufacturing. That drop is largely due to an increase in productivity and robotics. Again, try as he might, Trump will never bring unskilled, labor intensive manufacturing back to the US. That industry has left the developed world forever. You'll find it doesn't exist in Japan, Britain or Germany either.

Yes, but the office jobs that everyone moved to are going to take a hit by technology just the same as what has happened to manufacturing jobs. AI will eliminate so many of the good paying service sector jobs that fund the middle class. Work in the now highly industrialized manufacturing sector needs to grow in the United States.

I agree that we need to focus on innovation. Something Trump has also thrown a monkey wrench into. Here's where I really differ with you based on what you said a few weeks ago. Trump is hurting the advanced educational system in the US. While Germany, the UK and even China are pouring money into STEM science and research, we are withdrawing money from the universities for research. We need to be doubling what we spend, not cutting the investment and we certainly do not need to be using grant money as a tool to facilitate a desired political concessions from universities.

I have a real problem with our university sector right now but I'm not sure I disagree with you. The technology universities that you talk about don't really need the funding. They have huge endowments ($B+) but still charge ungodly tuition and take foreign students in increasingly large numbers because they pay full tuition instead of needing financial assistance and "draining" said precious endowment. They do the research and sometimes make great breakthroughs but are so focused on academia that they don't know how to push actual products and lots of the breakthrough is lost overseas due to foreign coercion. This isn't to mention pre-university schooling which is abysmal. It should be mandatory that every single elementary, middle and high school student gets the exact same funding and similar facilities and teacher quality. That rich districts can vote themselves more money giving their kids a head start is criminal. Every child should have the same opportunity regardless of their birth. I also hate the sports culture of universities that pull funding away from education. No football coach should be getting millions of dollars of public pay. I'm sure I have some out-of-the-box ideas on how to fix education, but I'll spare you. Just about anything would be better than how we do things now.

[Highlander]

I have a real problem with our university sector right now but I'm not sure I disagree with you. The technology universities that you talk about don't really need the funding. They have huge endowments ($B+) but still charge ungodly tuition and take foreign students in increasingly large numbers because they pay full tuition instead of needing financial assistance and "draining" said precious endowment. They do the research and sometimes make great breakthroughs but are so focused on academia that they don't know how to push actual products and lots of the breakthrough is lost overseas due to foreign coercion. This isn't to mention pre-university schooling which is abysmal. It should be mandatory that every single elementary, middle and high school student gets the exact same funding and similar facilities and teacher quality. That rich districts can vote themselves more money giving their kids a head start is criminal. Every child should have the same opportunity regardless of their birth. I also hate the sports culture of universities that pull funding away from education. No football coach should be getting millions of dollars of public pay. I'm sure I have some out-of-the-box ideas on how to fix education, but I'll spare you. Just about anything would be better than how we do things now.

I am absolutely no defender of what universities spend on athletics. Ideally these should be self sustaining (e.g., revenue sports pay for everything else) but only a minority of programs are. Schools justify it by insisting it's their primary marketing tool but I'm extremely skeptical.

Endowments need to be large because they have to be to generate the income that the university needs to survive in perpetuity. The cost of college increased dramatically with a combination of the decline in state funding and increased demand. If they accelerated the spend, they'd not be able to fund their future needs. And it's not like they do not fund research through their endowments, they do.

Much of the research that is done at universities are done through joint projects with industry and the products do find their way into private industry. Contrary to popular belief, there's no way many companies could pay for upfront research in their fields, capital for startups is hard to come by so they rely heavily on their relationships with universities. There's a reason start-up companies blossom in places like Cambridge MA, Palo Alto CA and Austin TX; they are deeply tied to the university systems. I have also worked with universities and government research entities throughout my career in the oil industry. Along those lines, my daughter (who has a Phd) recently took a position in Europe where more money was available for scientific research in her field (while it's drying up in the US) - her field being mineral exploration for a host of industrial metals and rare earths.

I have no problems with rich suburbs sharing their public school wealth. We have kind of a strange version of "apartheid" in this country where you can simply move to a different municipality and completely separate yourself from the greater community. I lived in the UK for several years - they have a system where richer school districts subsidize poorer ones. It worked and there education system, IMO at least, was somewhat better than ours (and worse in some ways too - but that's a different subject)

[beautyfromashes]

I am absolutely no defender of what universities spend on athletics. Ideally these should be self sustaining (e.g., revenue sports pay for everything else) but only a minority of programs are. Schools justify it by insisting it's their primary marketing tool but I'm extremely skeptical.

Endowments need to be large because they have to be to generate the income that the university needs to survive in perpetuity. The cost of college increased dramatically with a combination of the decline in state funding and increased demand. If they accelerated the spend, they'd not be able to fund their future needs. And it's not like they do not fund research through their endowments, they do.

Much of the research that is done at universities are done through joint projects with industry and the products do find their way into private industry. Contrary to popular belief, there's no way many companies could pay for upfront research in their fields, capital for startups is hard to come by so they rely heavily on their relationships with universities. There's a reason start-up companies blossom in places like Cambridge MA, Palo Alto CA and Austin TX; they are deeply tied to the university systems. I have also worked with universities and government research entities throughout my career in the oil industry. Along those lines, my daughter (who has a Phd) recently took a position in Europe where more money was available for scientific research in her field (while it's drying up in the US) - her field being mineral exploration for a host of industrial metals and rare earths.

I have no problems with rich suburbs sharing their public school wealth. We have kind of a strange version of "apartheid" in this country where you can simply move to a different municipality and completely separate yourself from the greater community. I lived in the UK for several years - they have a system where richer school districts subsidize poorer ones. It worked and there education system, IMO at least, was somewhat better than ours (and worse in some ways too - but that's a different subject)

Interesting that, on this topic, I'm probably more in the progressive/populist crowd and you seem more capitalist/free market. That's a change from our other conversations. We do agree on the sharing of wealth for education. Of course, our schools are more concerned about school shootings that other parts of the world don't have to deal with and, for some reason, trying to get phones out of the classroom. I don't really understand that one. We're trying to expand technology innovation in the next generation so let's take one of the primary tools that the public use for information out of their hands instead of learning to teach with current market conditions. In my history with university systems, most of them would take a piece of all business generated by student started companies and do very little with it. They'd build a lab, hire students for the cost of tuition and room/board and then use the research as a funding mechanism. They weren't active in any real way in development, just taking advantage of a strong student workforce. With an endowment over $B, there is more than enough to fund free tuition. And why are we allowing students to come learn in our best education places and then take that knowledge back home to use against us? Universities need to be for our citizens and for our countries benefit.

[Belvidere]

They want phones out of the classroom because of distraction, especially for younger children. Reading scores and comprehension are down across the board in part due to technology and the emphasis on testing, as well as lack of investment in teacher continuing education and pedagogy. They also got rid of phonics at one point which was unwise, as well as not teaching cursive. We also tend to keep kids busy and distracted these days, which is terrible for reading.

You also have to remove phones at times now because of AI.

We can't hoard knowledge or expertise at the college level. Scholars tend to have a network over their lifetimes and share research as well as relationships. If we don't use student discoveries, then they're free to go elsewhere to develop their ideas. Academics are not entrepreneurs. If that pipeline needs to be developed, that would be a separate process. An interesting idea to explore. The professors I know personally would be terrible at doing that, and there's something to be said for a time in your life when you're doing research for the sake of research.

My bigger beef is with companies that discover cures and don't implement them due to profit motive. The one I remember had to do with childhood cancer. The scientist who found the cure was prohibited from developing and advancing it. It was her second discovery she was not allowed to offer. The only reason I know is because she's a friend of a friend.

[Metro]

My bigger beef is with companies that discover cures and don't implement them due to profit motive. The one I remember had to do with childhood cancer. The scientist who found the cure was prohibited from developing and advancing it. It was her second discovery she was not allowed to offer. The only reason I know is because she's a friend of a friend.

Wow reading this upset me.

[Belvidere]

My bigger beef is with companies that discover cures and don't implement them due to profit motive. The one I remember had to do with childhood cancer. The scientist who found the cure was prohibited from developing and advancing it. It was her second discovery she was not allowed to offer. The only reason I know is because she's a friend of a friend.

Wow reading this upset me.

Sorry. I know. She can't blow the whistle without destroying her career. She ended up having serious health issues herself from stress. Brilliant woman, not able to contribute to society because of the system we have.

It's a rare cancer she tackled and solved, so I don't understand why they wouldn't give the research away because it can't be that much money to a large pharmacy firm. I don't know how these decisions are made or how much they would have given up in revenue with treatments that don't cure the cancers.

That's one of those conspiracy theories you don't believe until you find someone who actually went through it.

[brewcrew1000]

My bigger beef is with companies that discover cures and don't implement them due to profit motive. The one I remember had to do with childhood cancer. The scientist who found the cure was prohibited from developing and advancing it. It was her second discovery she was not allowed to offer. The only reason I know is because she's a friend of a friend.

Wow reading this upset me.

There is this new show on HBO that kind of goes into this. It's called Common Side Effects. It's about this Blue Mushroom that cures everything but big pharma, government and others are trying to stop it from becoming widespread. It's a great show. It's animated just fyi but well done

[im2kull]

My bigger beef is with companies that discover cures and don't implement them due to profit motive. The one I remember had to do with childhood cancer. The scientist who found the cure was prohibited from developing and advancing it. It was her second discovery she was not allowed to offer. The only reason I know is because she's a friend of a friend.

Wow reading this upset me.

There is this new show on HBO that kind of goes into this. It's called Common Side Effects. It's about this Blue Mushroom that cures everything but big pharma, government and others are trying to stop it from becoming widespread. It's a great show. It's animated just fyi but well done

You guys would probably like the movie "Crisis" as well. Check it out. 2021.