Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 16:05
VIEWED: 185382
PAGE 88 of 479
The president’s reasons for imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico keep changing (and none make sense).
By Eric Levitz | Mar 4, 2025, 3:30 PM CST
https://www.vox.com/politics/402530/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-explan
ation
Why has the US president chosen to upend trade relations on the North American continent? The stakes of this question are high, since it could determine how long Trump’s massive tariffs remain in effect. Unfortunately, the president himself does not seem to know the answer.
In recent weeks, Trump has provided five different — and contradictory — justifications for his tariffs on Mexico and Canada, none of which make much sense:
1) Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico are meant to secure America’s borders
Officially, the North American tariffs are intended to fight “a drug war,” not a trade war. Trump claims that our neighbors to the north and south have been abetting the transfer of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into the United States — and that this constitutes a “national emergency.” By imposing steep tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump ostensibly aims to coerce the two nations into cutting off the flow of drugs and migrants.
But this policy is irrational. Canada plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl. And the Mexican government has already ramped up enforcement against drug cartels while deterring migrants from entering the US (often through brutal means). These efforts appear to have slowed fentanyl imports significantly. They have not succeeded in shutting down the fentanyl trade entirely. But that is not a reasonable demand: If the U.S. cannot stop drugs from infiltrating its own prisons, how could the Mexican government monitor its entire nation so meticulously as to prevent an extremely lightweight narcotic from ever crossing its northern border?
Nevertheless, if Trump’s tariffs were intended solely as a diplomatic tool for influencing Mexican and Canadian border policy, then they might be lifted in short order. Canada and Mexico could present plans for cracking down on drugs and migrants, and Trump could declare victory, as he seemed to do last month when he initially delayed these tariffs in response to Mexican and Canadian concessions.
But these tariffs are not solely about winning the drug war — at least, according to the president.
2) Unless, the tariffs are actually meant to force companies to relocate production to the United States, thereby closing the trade deficit
On Tuesday morning, the president posed on Truth Social, “IF COMPANIES MOVE TO THE UNITED STATES, THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!!!”
Here, Trump suggests that his tariffs are not meant to be a temporary device for combatting fentanyl imports, so much as a durable means of coercing companies into moving factories into the US. After all, if the tariffs are only temporary, companies would have little reason to change their investment decisions in light of them.
And Trump’s remarks Tuesday were consistent with his previous commentary on this issue. Last month, Trump told his social media followers, “We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use.”
He further lamented that “The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and we’re not going to be the ‘Stupid Country’ any longer. MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!”
These remarks imply that America should maintain steep tariffs on Canada and Mexico in perpetuity, since it has little need for their products, and is currently “subsidizing” those countries by running a trade deficit with them.
But this is a terrible justification for Trump’s policy on several levels. For one thing, the president’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico apply to all goods — including agricultural products that the United States cannot possibly produce at scale, such as papayas and other tropica
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The fact that humans can only survive on Earth doesn’t bother Trump – and I know why
He is surrounded by people who have grandiose plans and dreams beyond our planet. Vengeful nihilism is a big part of the Maga project
By George Monbiot | Wed 5 Mar 2025 07.04 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/05/humans-earth-don
ald-trump-nihilism-maga
In thinking about the war being waged against life on Earth by Donald Trump, Elon Musk and their minions, I keep bumping into a horrible suspicion. Could it be that this is not just about delivering the world to oligarchs and corporations – not just about wringing as much profit from living systems as they can? Could it be that they want to see the destruction of the habitable planet?
We know that Trump’s overriding purpose is power. We have seen that no amount of power appears to satisfy his craving. So let’s consider power’s ultimate destination. It is to become not only an emperor, but the last of the emperors: to close the chapter on civilisation. It is to scratch your name indelibly upon a geological epoch. Look on my works, ye vermin, and despair.
It’s true, of course, that many of his actions amount to standard capitalist looting, released from the feeble regulatory restraints of previous administrations. This week Trump ordered the mass destruction of national forests and other protected lands by the timber industry, to be overseen by the US Forest Service, whose new boss was previously vice-president of a timber company. The results will include heartbreaking losses of wildlife and rare ecosystems, and a heightened risk of wildfires. Trump justified his order with that classic dictator’s gambit: a purported “emergency”.
He has used the same excuse to trigger a new wave of fossil-fuel projects, granting them “emergency” permits to override environmental protections. This is likely to cause the poisoning of wetlands and water supplies. Overseeing the assault is the new energy secretary, Chris Wright, previously CEO of a fracking company.
If the US were really suffering an “energy emergency”, you would expect the government also to accelerate the deployment of renewable power. Instead, Trump has frozen it. You might also expect it to insist that energy is used more sparingly; instead, his team is deleting fuel economy standards. This looks like payback to the fossil-fuel industry that helped elect him.
But other policies look more like gleeful vandalism. The devastating staffing cuts at national parks and forests won’t help any of his corporate backers. But they will degrade the experience of visitors, while jeopardising wildlife and habitats.
The same goes for the mass destruction of jobs at the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the freezing of all the international conservation grants it offered, many of which are crucial to the protection of wildlife overseas. There’s not much to be gained here by any corporate lobby, and a great deal to be lost by the rest of us. Trump’s stated aim of “getting rid” of the Federal Emergency Management Agency would put corporate profits at severe risk, especially among insurers and investment funds, while intensifying the suffering of people hit by environmental crisis. He has also eliminated the help offered to communities suffering from heavy pollution. Again, there’s no obvious gain for capital, just plenty more human misery.
Vengeful nihilism, the destruction of what they do not love, know or understand, is a major theme in Maga politics. It is applied as viciously to culture and science as it is to the natural world. It is hard to avoid the thought that environmental destruction is not just a means by which Trump serves his corporate backers, but an end in itself.
At the same time, Trump enthusiastically (albeit vaguely) boosts Musk’s plans to send people to Mars, a planet incapable of supporting human life. These men, who claim without evidence that unless they cut $1tn from the federal budget, causing innumerable harms, “America will go bankrupt”, are pressing for a programme likely to c
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Musk-Trump War on Federal Employees Doesn’t Add Up
DOGE operatives claim that mass layoffs are necessary to prevent the U.S. government from going bankrupt. Let’s do the math.
By John Cassidy | March 3, 2025
Yeah. Let's do the math, John.
We're $37 Trillion in debt.
End of Math.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'd call it global monopolism, or global financialism. Hard to believe, but Karl Marx actually predicted this.
*****
Getting back to your previous post ..Quote:It's not money, it's power over anyone who needs the money.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
... and I always think about that...
What do they need more money for?
At the end of the day it IS all fiat currency.Quote:No. All you'd do is double prices. Any time you dump money into a system without increasing production you create the recipe for inflation: Too much money chasing too few goods. What you'd have to do is funnel that money either thru productive activity ... raising more beef cattle or egg-laying hens or anythung else people are short of .... needs more ranchers etc ... or thru services like medical care ... more doctors and nurses etc ... to make a real difference in people's lives.
If you took just 10% of the wealth out of the hands of the truly wealthy and dispersed it equally, you'd likely double the living standards of half the people overnight.Quote:I don't think you can ever PERMANENTLY change a system. It seems no matter what system you start with - tribalism, feudalism/monarchism, capitalism, socialism, financialism - it eventually winds up being corrupted. Power and money behave like gravity: the more you have, the more you get. Even Russia, which is doing amazing things with its current crop of leadership and the next generation afterwards, will eventually grow its own set of parasites.
mI'm talking about how do you permanently change the system ...
One problem is that the powerful warp societal norms so that people wind up believing the situation is NORMAL.
People believed, really believed, the shaman could cure or curse them.
They believed that kings and queens received their authority from God, thru the Pope.
They believed that socialism will lead to a "new man".
That Israel has a god-given right to all of the Levant.
They believed that GREED IS GOOD, that the "free market" will lead to a glorious society. A lot of people still feel that way, and that any restraint on "free markets" and "free trade" is inherently bad, and that governments are inherently evil.
Anyway, I don't think we can get back to the way things were 60 years ago. The USA was in a unique situation back then as the last industrial power left standing. We have to deal with the world of today.
Somehow, we have to deal with our own oligarchy, at least get them to stay out of politics. Possibly not globally, but chip away at their influence issue by issue. The border and DEI fell pretty quickly. (Just goes to show how committed they were to "the causes". /snicker) Seeing more of a fight on Ukraine/Russia and DoD spending overall, and tariffs.
If DOGE wants to tackle something big, they should put the DoD under a microscope.
And I know Trump is doing his best to extricate us from the money pit they call Ukraine, but he should take that lesson and apply it globally. Reset our military's mission to DEFENDING THE USA, not having active duty troops in every nation of the world except N Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Western Sahara, Iran, Iraq, Eritriea, and Venezuela (and I'm not sure about some of them) Troops in the Congo? Troops in Brazil? Troops in Madagascar?
https://brilliantmaps.com/us-troops-overseas/
Also, personally, I feel it would be better rebuilding the USA sector by sector, maybe starting with steel, aluminum, and specialty chemicals/ pharmaceuticals. That way you wouldn't have tariffs from high impact nations hitting the whole economy all at once.
Eventually tho we have to tackle how people AND corporations manage to accumulate so much wealth.
Breaking up monopolies. Outlawing certain forms of speculation (like high frequency trading) that are totally non productive.
Rewriting tax law and corporate law.
Lots of ideaNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It is as easy as 1-2-3:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm talking about how do you permanently change the system so that 10% of that uber-wealthy money rotting in savings and investments is freed up and ends up in places that would make lives better.
I don't want to hear any arguments from anyone about this can't be done. I know full well that my parents Boomer generation had it a hell of a lot better than anyone who came after them.
How do we get back to that?
1) What percent of the workforce was unionized in 1965 vs today?
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percent+of+the+workforce+was+unio
nized+in+1965+vs+today
As union membership has fallen over the last few decades, the share of income going to the top 10 percent has steadily increased.
2) What was the highest income tax rate in 1965 vs today?
https://www.google.com/search?q=What+was+the+highest+income+tax+rate+i
n+1965+vs+today
In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the top federal income tax rate never dipped below 70 percent.
3) How much tax does Trump pay?
https://www.google.com/search?cq=How+much+tax+does+Trump+pay
$750 per year
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
I've been in the "Union" twice. Both times the pay was shit and the little "extra" money I made was put int Union Dues.
I guess it all depends on who is running the unions, because Grocery Store unions and Security unions are pure bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'd call it global monopolism, or global financialism. Hard to believe, but Karl Marx actually predicted this.
*****
Getting back to your previous post ..Quote:It's not money, it's power over anyone who needs the money.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
... and I always think about that...
What do they need more money for?
At the end of the day it IS all fiat currency.Quote:No. All you'd do is double prices. Any time you dump money into a system without increasing production you create the recipe for inflation: Too much money chasing too few goods. What you'd have to do is funnel that money either thru productive activity ... raising more beef cattle or egg-laying hens or anythung else people are short of .... needs more ranchers etc ... or thru services like medical care ... more doctors and nurses etc ... to make a real difference in people's lives.
If you took just 10% of the wealth out of the hands of the truly wealthy and dispersed it equally, you'd likely double the living standards of half the people overnight.Quote:I don't think you can ever PERMANENTLY change a system. It seems no matter what system you start with - tribalism, feudalism/monarchism, capitalism, socialism, financialism - it eventually winds up being corrupted. Power and money behave like gravity: the more you have, the more you get. Even Russia, which is doing amazing things with its current crop of leadership and the next generation afterwards, will eventually grow its own set of parasites.
mI'm talking about how do you permanently change the system ...
One problem is that the powerful warp societal norms so that people wind up believing the situation is NORMAL.
I need to strengthen that statement: People believe the situation is INEVITABLE.
I just now noticed that in all of those examples, the power structures were underpinned by BELIEF SYSTEMS, founded on NON-HUMAN forces:
Spirits, who could bring you good luck and fortune, or ruin your health and family.
An all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful god who could send you to eternal torture.
The inevitability of communism thru dialectical political economic progression.
God (again).
"The invisible hand" of "the free market", underpinned by a view of "human nature" as greedy, and the purifying forces of social Darwinism (This is SECOND'S emotional home, with The Hand Of God thrown in.)
In many ways, our view of the power structure is a religion, which makes the resulting power structure seem inevitable, and not what it really is:
Sociopaths in charge of a society's belief system.
Quote:
Eventually tho we have to tackle how people AND corporations manage to accumulate so much wealth:
Breaking up monopolies. Outlawing certain forms of speculation (like high frequency trading) that are totally non productive.
Rewriting tax law and corporate law.
Lots of ideas.
Not enuf time.
SIX: A lot of good ideas in there. I'm glad I even saw it. Second had a bad TDS flare up this morning.
Indeed.
Point being, the wealthy accumulate wealth thru specific procedures that are often based in our laws. If they examine those procedures Congress could, in theory anyway, rewrite those laws.
For example: corporate personhood. REALLY?
Corporate responsibility: Publicly- traded companies SOLE RESPONSIBILITY mandated by law is to protect the wealth of shareholders, as a fiduciary. No responsibility towards public health or welfare (except as limited by regulation).
To give you and idea how far we drifted, in early USA, corporations had a time limit (typically 20 years), and were restricted to one commodity or one activity. They were often set up for a single project eg. building a road, raising a public building.
What would happen if corporations were simply made illegal, and all corporations had to become privately held companies? No more stock options!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'd call it global monopolism, or global financialism. Hard to believe, but Karl Marx actually predicted this.
*****
Getting back to your previous post ..Quote:It's not money, it's power over anyone who needs the money.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
... and I always think about that...
What do they need more money for?
At the end of the day it IS all fiat currency.Quote:No. All you'd do is double prices. Any time you dump money into a system without increasing production you create the recipe for inflation: Too much money chasing too few goods. What you'd have to do is funnel that money either thru productive activity ... raising more beef cattle or egg-laying hens or anythung else people are short of .... needs more ranchers etc ... or thru services like medical care ... more doctors and nurses etc ... to make a real difference in people's lives.
If you took just 10% of the wealth out of the hands of the truly wealthy and dispersed it equally, you'd likely double the living standards of half the people overnight.Quote:I don't think you can ever PERMANENTLY change a system. It seems no matter what system you start with - tribalism, feudalism/monarchism, capitalism, socialism, financialism - it eventually winds up being corrupted. Power and money behave like gravity: the more you have, the more you get. Even Russia, which is doing amazing things with its current crop of leadership and the next generation afterwards, will eventually grow its own set of parasites.
mI'm talking about how do you permanently change the system ...
One problem is that the powerful warp societal norms so that people wind up believing the situation is NORMAL.
I need to strengthen that statement: People believe the situation is INEVITABLE.
I just now noticed that in all of those examples, the power structures were underpinned by BELIEF SYSTEMS, founded on NON-HUMAN forces:
Spirits, who could bring you good luck and fortune, or ruin your health and family.
An all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful god who could send you to eternal torture.
The inevitability of communism thru dialectical political economic progression.
God (again).
"The invisible hand" of "the free market", underpinned by a view of "human nature" as greedy, and the purifying forces of social Darwinism (This is SECOND'S emotional home, with The Hand Of God thrown in.)
In many ways, our view of the power structure is a religion, which makes the resulting power structure seem inevitable, and not what it really is:
Sociopaths in charge of a society's belief system.Quote:
Eventually tho we have to tackle how people AND corporations manage to accumulate so much wealth:
Breaking up monopolies. Outlawing certain forms of speculation (like high frequency trading) that are totally non productive.
Rewriting tax law and corporate law.
Lots of ideas.
Not enuf time.
SIX: A lot of good ideas in there. I'm glad I even saw it. Second had a bad TDS flare up this morning.
Indeed.
Point being, the wealthy accumulate wealth thru specific procedures that are often based in our laws. If they examine those procedures Congress could, in theory anyway, rewrite those laws.
For example: corporate personhood. REALLY?
Corporate responsibility: Publicly- traded companies SOLE RESPONSIBILITY mandated by law is to protect the wealth of shareholders, as a fiduciary. No responsibility towards public health or welfare (except as limited by regulation).
To give you and idea how far we drifted, in early USA, corporations had a time limit (typically 20 years), and were restricted to one commodity or one activity. They were often set up for a single project eg. building a road, raising a public building.
What would happen if corporations were simply made illegal, and all corporations had to become privatelNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What do you think of this, Sigs?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/03/06/treasury_secretary_
bessent_were_going_to_transition_from_a_public-sector_to_private-sector_economy.html
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What's the largest privately owned company in the world? SpaceX. Where have I heard that name in connection to Trump?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What would happen if corporations were simply made illegal, and all corporations had to become privately held companies? No more stock options! No more corporate personhood! No more speculating on the stock market!
"SpaceX is the world's most valuable private company, with an estimated valuation of $350 billion in 2024"
https://www.google.com/search?q=what%27s+the+largest+privately+owned+c
ompany+in+the+world
How SpaceX Became the World's Most Valuable Private Company
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Prices are 'going to rise' and 'robots' will be doing factory jobs: Trump Cabinet official
Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?
By Carl Gibson | March 06, 2025
https://www.alternet.org/trump-official-prices-rise/
One of the chief economic officials in President Donald Trump's administration recently admitted that prices for imported goods subjected to Trump's tariffs will indeed go up, and that the administration is in support of automating more factory jobs.
During a Thursday interview with CNBC host David Faber, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was noticeably up-front when asked whether consumers would see higher sticker prices on store shelves. Faber asked Lutnick if prices will have to "eventually rise" if corporations move production back to the United States so companies can remain "competitive globally." Walmart, for example, imports roughly 70% of its non-food inventory from China.
"I think if you want to buy things from other countries, and you want to bring it into America, then the price is going to rise," Lutnick said. "But if you make it here, then of course the price won't rise! So make it here! Make. It. Here. How hard is that to say? You know, just keep repeating it to yourself: There's no tariff if you make it here."
"You're going to watch everyone come to that realization," he continued. "Apple builds it all in China. Why are they building it all in China and giving us our iPhone? Why don't they make it here?"
At that point, multiple voices cut in to remind Lutnick that it was "cheaper" for Apple to manufacture its products in China.
"Mr. Secretary, wages are lower over there!" CNBC correspondent Carl Quintanilla said.
"And now, there are robots who can do it!" Lutnick said after a brief pause. "You are going to see robotic production of iPhones, and the jobs that are going to be created. People who build those factories, the mechanics who work on those robots ... This is the re-creation of tradecraft in the United States of America."
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME