Don't quite know what this chart means but I thought it was interesting. We're not the worse but far from the best.
Printable View
Don't quite know what this chart means but I thought it was interesting. We're not the worse but far from the best.
That's an interesting way to put it. :)Quote:
Many people have lost a great deal of money shorting the Japanese Yen. It's been due to crash going on several decades at this point, but it still keeps chugging along.
Of course, when it does crash it will crash hard. Think of it like this: instead of "resting" you decide to drink coffee, then when that next wave hits and you get tired again and you decide to drink Red Bull to keep pushing, the next wave hits and now you drink a 5 hour energy ... now your body is screaming that it needs sleep but you're doing meth to stay up. At some point your body will crash.
The same is true with Japan. Just don't bet on the "when" because so many people have lost their shirt trying to.
There's usually a way to solve these problems but we're just not willing to do it. We could reduce government spending and just about everyone is all for. Just as long as it doesn't effect them in a negative way. That was made clear by Musk's effort. Not that I agree with his approach. But spending cuts are going to have a negative effect on some group no matter the approach.
I'm against our spending deficit that's become the norm. I'm for cut backs, just don't touch my Social Security. :D
Japan is a somewhat special case, as I understand it. They were intentionally doing deficit spending to try to cause inflation. After all, they'd been in a slow deflationary spiral for a couple decades. Unfortunately for them, the population liked buying up government debt rather than buying stuff, which is the opposite of what the government was trying to stimulate. Now they have a bit of inflation...but it appears to have been just a pulse that is now fading.
What's the downside of deflation??
So, we don't want deflation, we don't want inflation and we don't want stagnation. :p
The general argument against deflation is this: Why would you buy a widget today if you were reasonably certain that you could buy it for less a month from now?
Since roughly 70% of our economy consists of us buying and selling to one another, if people stop spending, we end up in a recession, which means people lose jobs as businesses are doing less business, which further shrinks the economy.
For this reason, most economists are nearly panicked by deflation. As far as I know, no country has ever been both deflationary and happy about it. That tends to freak out economists. Of course, now that China is going deflationary, we can watch them.
But people act on average. Not everybody will make every decision on the same principles. The economy is based on the average behavior. Personally, I don't tend to make any purchase decision based on the state of inflation, but if a second person does, or a business does, then the state of inflation does work on average.
However, people might not matter all that much in that equation. If a business expects to be getting less money for a widget next month than they are getting this month, they probably aren't going to be hiring a new person to make more widgets because they'll be anticipating having less money to pay their current employees with.
Frankly, I'm not all that focused on deflation. My brother-in-law's father was one of the leading people on deflation. He was downright giddy about how bad it would be (that was kind of his personality). He even distributed a variant on Monopoly based around his treatise on deflation, and was interviewed whenever deflation looked like it could possibly happen. For that reason, deflation is talked about only with a bit of derision in my extended family because nobody really wants to go there. However, deflationary periods have tended not to be great for countries by several standard metrics. What I'm not sure about is how the people living in those countries felt about it. Japan seemed to go into a general malaise once deflation set in, while China's leadership is currently kind of freaking out about it, which suggests that they expect people will be upset (and there is nothing they like less than unrest).
I don't think it would make much of a difference to me one way or another...but I do know there are books about it, which I have not read, though I did play the game.
Mmmmm....cake....
Remember, it's not a war.
I do wonder why Trump is demanding an unconditional surrender if it's not a war.
Ask just about any Rep in congress if we are at war with Iran and this is there answer.
It is weird that even when an administration has had the support of congress and public they haven't declared it a war. It's been taboo for some reason.
Sooooo.......
The US army (as well as other Nations in the area) are now asking Ukraine for support and advice on how to protect themselves from Iranian Shahed drones. I wonder if JD Vance will say thank you. I'd sure like to hear him say please.
It's amusing to hear Trump back off his previous idea to send the Kurds in. Particularly after he abandoned them in Syria.
And it's a good thing various NATO countries (including the UK, whether Trump chooses to acknowledge it or not) stepped up to provide access to their air bases.
I wonder if it's occurred to MAGA that alliances and relationships are a two way thing. Probably not.
I've been surprised that these NATO countries have so willingly provided support. I don't know if that means they are in favor of what Trump is doing or are just using this as a means to gain favor with Trump. Either way they certainly are unconcerned about what the US/Israel is doing to Iran. Of course Iran's rhetoric towards the west over the years hasn't made them any friends.Quote:
And it's a good thing various NATO countries (including the UK, whether Trump chooses to acknowledge it or not) stepped up to provide access to their air bases.
I wouldn't think Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia ... are doing it for the money. I wonder how much we pay????Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if these some of these countries do not allow the US government to rebuild their bases. After all, the agreement is that the US would help provide defense in the event of an attack and from the reports it sounds like the exact opposite happened. Then again, money talks, so that might not actually be a problem once everything said and done.
Trump has always believed that friends exist to be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
This made me laugh. I* like that Trump is wearing his FIFA Peace metal. ;)
Attachment 195793
Fake News, there's no way they know where Qatar is.
I see the marines have been dispatched to arrive in a fortnight. I think that's inevitable, I'm afraid, because the straits can be closed by a guy on the beach with an RPG. There's no way you're opening that without controlling the land. Trouble is Iran is 3 or 4 times the size of either Iraq or Afghanistan and it's all mountains. That's going to be a BIG nut to crack.
And Trump is now begging for help from his erstwhile allies. I can't see much support coming his way short of him presenting a case to the UN to try and legitimatise the invasion.
You always get at least John McCain. But you can get something worse...Quote:
I've referenced it twice before in this thread, but it cannot be overstated: It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always get John McCain
Yeah, it's been definitely worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpbro
There was talk about the Kurds but that seemed to be carry with it a lot of other problems so the idea was shelved.Quote:
Tell me if you've heard this one before: the US government would like to arm "moderate rebels" in order to fight alongside US special forces in an effort to have a reduced "boots on the ground" presence.
That's why he's looking for Cuba. :)Quote:
There's no way you're opening that without controlling the land. Trouble is Iran is 3 or 4 times the size of either Iraq or Afghanistan and it's all mountains. That's going to be a BIG nut to crack.
I know Trump doesn't think anything through but I don't think boots on the ground every crossed his mind. I'm still not convinced there will be.
I'm interested to see how all these countries he has been insulting, threating and hitting with tariffs respond. This is politics so maybe they will see it as a chance to suck up to him.Quote:
And Trump is now begging for help from his erstwhile allies. I can't see much support coming his way short of him presenting a case to the UN to try and legitimatise the invasion.
btw - This is an english speaking forum, please stop using words like "erstwhile". :bigyello:
You want McCain when the chips are down.*Quote:
you always get John McCain
The Kurds Wheyed up the offer and turned it down.Quote:
There was talk about the Kurds
So far everyone's telling go do one. What's amazing to me is that he still thinks the USA has leverage after withdrawing support from and actively threatening his allies. At this point he's reduced the USA to an irrelevance because we know we cant trust him anyway... so why would we? To quote the Tangerine Dream, "you don't have any cards".Quote:
I'm interested to see how all these countries he has been insulting, threating and hitting with tariffs respond.
*For my colonial counterparts, this is a pun and not an actual endorsement of neocon politics. It will probably only land for a British Audience though. Don't hate me.
I'd say it pretty standard behavior for Trump. He thinks his powers are limitless. If he doesn't get what he demands then he falls back with the "sour grapes" routine. Now he's saying he doesn't need any help.Quote:
What's amazing to me is that he still thinks the USA has leverage after withdrawing support from and actively threatening his allies.
I wouldn't say an "irrelevance" but "why would we" is a good question. There is that old sayying "politics makes strange bedfellows". So, we'll see.Quote:
At this point he's reduced the USA to an irrelevance because we know we cant trust him anyway... so why would we?
Feels about like this,
I thought this map was interesting. https://www.newsweek.com/map-donald-...onths-11711883
There is a 79% difference in approval between states. That surprises me. Even neighboring states can have a huge difference, like Virginia and West Virginia.
I started wondering if maybe this large divide was driven by the news they watch. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/20/w...ws-ryan-burge/
I'll add, I don't know anything about the "Daily Caller" news site. This was just a quick search because of a passing curiousity. ;)
...
and
...
TACO!
So, we decided to pay Iran to fight us. That's an interesting choice.
Interesting choice indeed.... Insult your allies, but pay the opponent :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Not sure what your referring to. Easing oil sanctions or maybe that some companies have paid Iran to let their ships through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I'm sort of glad he has this trait. When you consider the insanity of the positions he puts everyone in.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
My understanding is that sanctions were lifted on Iranian oil in tankers already at sea. At today's prices, that appears to amount to roughly 1.5 billion dollars gross. What that would end up being net, I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Lifting those sanctions does seem like a strange thing to do. The only reason I could think of was maybe Trump thought that might lead to Iran opening the Straits.
I guess it doesn't matter since Trump says we've won the war. "We've won this. This war has been won"
I don't think Iran knows. :cool:
I believe the logic was that it would bring down global oil prices. Trump is worried about them going into the mid terms and he saw this as a way of alleviating it. The enriching of your enemies ability to kill your service people is unimportant... stop talking about it.Quote:
Lifting those sanctions does seem like a strange thing to do.
So to summarise, Obama negotiated a deal that saw inspectors in Iran verifying that they were not enriching Uranium, manageable global oil prices and lifted sanctions. Trump has replaced that with no inspectors, unmanageable global oil prices and lifted sanctions. Art of the deal.
Yeah, I think some sort of land based invasion is inevitable at this point. I genuinely don't know what they're planning, though. The troops that are deploying are certainly sufficient to conduct a landing but they're not even close to being able to being able to take and occupy the whole country.
My guess is that it will be an invasion of Kharg Island and/or the shore along the strait and then they'll try to establish a semi-permanent presence there without going further inland but this would be an incredibly dangerous undertaking. It would mean holding that presence in extremely hostile and well armed territory - it would be under constant attack. If it's Kong Island then you're sitting thousands of your soldiers on top of vast oil and petroleum reserves in easy range of incendiary missile strikes - they'll make a monkey out of you - it could go baboon at any minute.
Like you, I certainly have no idea what they're planning or if they they are planning. I don't think a land based invasion was ever part of the plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
But when you consider that Trump and his administration can't even provide a consistent reason why we attacked Iran, much less a valid reason, it's doubtful there ever was much of a plan. Other than, we'll bully Iran into giving us something that makes us popular with the voters. I can't help but feel that Israel was involved in convincing Trump to attack Iran.
Now Trump is stuck in a war that nobody wants (except Israel). The last couple days it's obvious he has been trying to find a way out of the war without looking like a complete failure but Iran has been standing their ground.
So when the troops get there, then what? Maybe something, maybe nothing. I don't think anyone knows.
It could be bigger than that, though. At this point, the US house is almost certainly going Democrat in the midterms. That's a long ways off, but Trump is kind of an anti-storm trooper at this point: He can't seem to avoid hitting the target, with the target being his own foot. He hasn't had a win in a long time, but he sure has put up some epic losses. This Iran war was a rather epic own goal. Trump is currently floundering around trying to get gas prices to drop, but that won't happen anyways, because gas prices traditionally rise going into Memorial Day. They SHOULD be starting to rise, it's just starting from a much higher base.
In any case, the house is almost certain to flip, but Trump's series of blunders could cause the senate to flip as well. If that happens, things will start to get really interesting. All the naked bribes that Trump has been taking could easily result in a third impeachment, in which case, having the senate in Democratic hands would mean Trump might be required to pull a Nixon. It isn't clear whether Trump would be willing to do that, though, and if he doesn't....then what?
I'm not sure it's even that. I think it's about pleasing Trump's own childish ego. He's already completely disconnected with the voters, including his own base. If I was being generous I'd say it's because he doesn't need to win another election and he never cared about the party or what he leaves behind. If I wasn't being generous I'd say it's because he's gone completely senile and is now living in a total fantasy land. Either way, he's surrounded by people who's existence relies on doing whatever they can to make him feel cosseted rather than effective - it's the classic dictators downfall.Quote:
we'll bully Iran into giving us something that makes us popular with the voters
I believe it's an "excursion". I'm planning on an excursion to the pub this afternoon and I plan on getting bombed so that tracks.Quote:
I guess I'll playfully call it a "police action"
I couldn't believe he actually stood in front of Congress the other day and said (paraphrasing) "I'm not supposed to call it a war because then I'd need approval". He's literally announcing that he's disregarded the legal functions of the other two branches.
Personally I think you're being overly optimistic in your time line. I think you're going to see increasing shenanigans even before the mid terms. I think there will be an attempt to call them off (e.g. due to a "state of emergency") though I'm not convinced it'll work. Assuming it doesn't he will simply declare the results invalid and ignore them. If you're thinking he doesn't have the legal powers to do that then you're not paying attention because he will simply do it anyway and he now has a private army that answers only to him. What he has the legal powers to do isn't part of the equation. That's when your crisis will bite.Quote:
It isn't clear whether Trump would be willing to do that, though, and if he doesn't....then what?
Yeah, that's pretty much how I'd see it. And now he's surrounded by people who are telling him he's winning hands down and the Iranians have no cards left to play so that's what he believes, regardless of the evidence.Quote:
I think there is some good in having that sort of mindset, but there's also bad too. In this case, once Trump made the decision to attack Iran, he got rid of any opposing opinion, and after that he fell into a classic confirmation bias trap.
Weirdly (and I HATE that this is the conclusion I've reached) but I actually think that option B might be better, a forced regime change backed by military occupation to support whatever government is installed. It will cost soldiers their lives and be a multi decade project. That sounds absolutely awful but if he simply walks away the straits will not reopen and Iran will go on to develop a nuclear capability (it's has been starkly demonstrated to them that they need one). That could be much worse. Honestly, I don't like either option but I can't see a third. I don't see a diplomatic solution because the Iranians have been attacked mid-talk twice now, they're not going to entertain a third round.Quote:
Now with Trump's history of never admitting a mistake, there's really only two paths that this can take:
He claims total victory and walks away
He doubles and triples down
I will ring one positive note. In the short term time is on the Iranian's side but in the medium to long term it actually works against them. It won't take the other Gulf States long to start putting pipe lines under Saudi and either up into the Med, across into the Red Sea or out to the Arabian Sea via Oman. These are multi year (likely multi decade) projects but the Gulf States are united in wanting to remove their dependency on transport through the Persian Gulf right now so they're feasible. The Red Sea route might be problematic due to the choke point at the South End but the other two are eminently workable.
I hope your right about the House and possibly the Senate flipping. Election is still 7 months away, a lot can change. But I believe it would take 67 Senate votes to remove Trump. It's hard to image that happening. It's also hard to image Trump would step down voluntarily.Quote:
In any case, the house is almost certain to flip, but Trump's series of blunders could cause the senate to flip as well. If that happens, things will start to get really interesting. All the naked bribes that Trump has been taking could easily result in a third impeachment, in which case, having the senate in Democratic hands would mean Trump might be required to pull a Nixon. It isn't clear whether Trump would be willing to do that, though, and if he doesn't....then what?
Option B feels like one of those things people/countries would like to see happen but don't want to do it themselves. I don't want to see the US take on the responsibility by themselves. If a large enough coalition was formed, then perhaps. But who want to work with Trump??? Though I do get the sense that several of the gulf countries have reach a point that they want the US to take control over Iran. Especially if any more of their oil infrastructure is damaged.Quote:
Weirdly (and I HATE that this is the conclusion I've reached) but I actually think that option B might be better, a forced regime change backed by military occupation to support whatever government is installed. It will cost soldiers their lives and be a multi decade project. That sounds absolutely awful but if he simply walks away the straits will not reopen and Iran will go on to develop a nuclear capability (it's has been starkly demonstrated to them that they need one). That could be much worse. Honestly, I don't like either option but I can't see a third. I don't see a diplomatic solution because the Iranians have been attacked mid-talk twice now, they're not going to entertain a third round.
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely not an option I want but I feel like we're picking between two absolutely terrible possibilities and I'd view it as the marginally less terrible of the two. I'd have preferred option C which was a diplomatic outcome but Trump and Netanyahu have precluded any chance of that happening. I don't think it was ever a certainty but nothing is. We had something awfully close under Obama's deal and it sure looked like we might be working our way toward something workable under Trump's second round of negotiations but.... nah! they had to flex.Quote:
Option B feels like one of those things people/countries would like to see happen but don't want to do it themselves.
Strongly agree with both of these sentences.Quote:
If a large enough coalition was formed, then perhaps. But who want to work with Trump???
You're right. A simple majority is needed to disqualify him from holding future elected office, but that's not significant for a guy of his age. The two thirds majority would be needed to remove him from office. That is unlikely, considering how craven the Republican party has become.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Option B feels like one of those things people/countries would like to see happen but don't want to do it themselves. I don't want to see the US take on the responsibility by themselves. If a large enough coalition was formed, then perhaps. But who want to work with Trump??? Though I do get the sense that several of the gulf countries have reach a point that they want the US to take control over Iran. Especially if any more of their oil infrastructure is damaged.[/QUOTE]