Take a $100 good for example. European producers can sell it domestically at about $120 after VAT but export it free of the tax at $100. US exporters to European markets must compete against domestic companies, paying VAT locally while also bearing embedded domestic US taxes. That might be one reason there are a lot more BMWs sold in the US than Cadillacs in Europe.
Soooooo......because of US taxes it's not fair that US producers pay the same tax in Europe as european producers?
Point out in the bit which you quoted where there is any mention of "fairness". Personally I can't see it. Just an explanation of how US car manufacturers are disadvantaged with regards to US-European motor trade
For your inciteful political commentary, I recommend the Marsh Family from Faversham...
At least they know they'll be getting a prior warning via WhatsApp if Hegseth or Waltz are sending the boys around.
Knowing the US military they'd probably hit Hackney Marshes in any case.
Why the **** should American taxpayers pay for the defence of European countries and in effect subsidize the public spending of European governments?
That's a fair(ish) point. However, in the context of the Houthis and keeping the Suez canal open for business, Vance (IIRC) was complaining that Europe should be "paying" for this action. However, this conveniently overlooks the fact the the US propping up Israel is the root cause of a lot of the shit in the first place.
It also conveniently overlooks the Europe spends a LOT of money of US military matériel. And an awful lot of that money ends up in Republican states and, no doubt, Republican PACs.
Im hoping more countries pivot away from US arms - that'll learn them.
However, this conveniently overlooks the fact the the US propping up Israel is the root cause of a lot of the shit in the first place.
Maybe, but the Trump administration would argue that it isn't really their problem, ie according to them only 3% of US trade goes through Suez whilst 40% of European trade does, so Europeans can deal with the problem. Especially as France and Britain have significant military assets in the region. Plus they can argue, quite correctly, that most European countries, certainly France, Britain, and Germany, fully support the United States backing of Israel.
Btw, I am not sure if it has been mentioned on here but the targeting of the Houthis has seriously spilt Trump's Republican base. You don't get many more loyal Trump supporters than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene but this what she had say :
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1901811749482860851
So the pressure is on Trump to cease targeting the Houthis.
It also conveniently overlooks the Europe spends a LOT of money of US military matériel.
I don't know what the figures involved are but I have no doubt that European nations will still be spending a lot of money buying arms from the United States even if the US no longer subsidies European defence and pulls 80-100,000 troops out of Europe.
Almost half of the world's arms export market comes from the United States, European countries won't start buying their arms from Russia and China anytime soon.
I do agree that it is time for European nations to become more self-reliant though. Trump will be gone in less than four years time but this should be treated as a wake-up call to what can happen.
Btw, I am not sure if it has been mentioned on here but the targeting of the Houthis has seriously spilt Trump's Republican base. You don't get many more loyal Trump supporters than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene but this what she had say :
She also has this to say, along with every other lump of bile that emanates from her shite filled brain
https://youtube.com/shorts/LuLeipizBS0?si=AoMIwcpd75_9HwnF
Yes she is regarded as loyal far-right supporter of Trump. Which makes her criticism of Trump's decision to target the Houthis significant.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia congresswoman and one of MAGA’s most loyal footsoldiers, also posted an indirect message that seemed to suggest her disapproval of threatening war with Iran.
In a previous interview, Greene said Trump’s promise to end “never-ending foreign wars” was a major reason why she supported him.
Yes she is regarded as loyal far-right supporter of Trump. Which makes her criticism of Trump's decision to target the Houthis significant.
Only if anyone treats anything that MTG says with any sort of seriousness, which is about at the same level of seriousness that people treat the things that Mark François says, ie little to none.
Saw this on FB this morning from Charlie Kelly, yes THAT CK , kind of sums up the situation 🙄
Almost half of the world's arms export market comes from the United States, European countries won't start buying their arms from Russia and China anytime soon.
There is, however, South Korea/Taiwan and indeed Europe to provide those arms instead. The US doesnt "subsidise" EU spending but instead benefits heavily from it. Hence the bribes and political pressure to have EU countries buy US arms vs from local manufacturers.
EU countries might have a lower military spend per gdp but it gets rather complicated given how the US military spend includes a lot of state sponsorship/subsidy of key industries (plus states for that level just look how carefully the big firms have factories/suppliers in key states) and also a massive welfare program which in the EU doesnt get counted as military spend.
The US would find pulling those 100k troops out rather inconvenient since a fair proportion of those troops are used for US interests in the ME and Africa. The airforce bases such as Ramstein and Fairford are used for logistics,airstrikes and surveillence of ME/Africa.
The naval facilities in Greece and Italy are important for for US navy operations in ME and Africa as well. For example the US navy cant currently reload many of its missiles, both air defence and strike, at sea and so have to go to a port to reload. Not having European ports available would complicate that massively.
Maybe, but the Trump administration would argue that it isn't really their problem, ie according to them only 3% of US trade goes through Suez whilst 40% of European trade does, so Europeans can deal with the problem. Especially as France and Britain have significant military assets in the region. Plus they can argue, quite correctly, that most European countries, certainly France, Britain, and Germany, fully support the United States backing of Israel.
The last time Britain and France wanted to take back control of “our canal “ the yanks got all uppity about it.
Make your ****ing minds up.
Only if anyone treats anything that MTG says with any sort of seriousness, which is about at the same level of seriousness that people treat the things that Mark François says, ie little to none.
Well somebody elects the likes of François, Greene, Fabricant, Gullis and all the other ludicrous figures who, for whatever reason, are politically far right.
I feel you are giving the electorates concerned too much credit.
🙂
When the auto tarifs and unfairness were evoked above people forgot that the US already has a 25% pickup tax and US built vehicles tend to be pickups hence the protectionist tax.
I'm not sure how these tarifs are going to help US makers as I can't see them lasting long enough for the local factories to respond, would you invest on the basis of a whim tax ? The big US auto firm stocks are down on the news except Tesla which is flat (a pause in the recent decline perhaps). IMO it'll just shrink the US economy (and world economy a bit with it). As with any tax too much tax kills tax revenue so Trump's claim that he'll use the cash to pay down debt is unlikely to be met. There will just be fewer Mitsus and Hyundis sold.
The auto winners yesterday were the Chinese and small US companies, and the big losers Japanese and South Korean:
https://www.onvista.de/aktien/finder?idBranch=1
No idea how Tata/JLR came out of it as I can't see it on the list but other UK auto makers are down on the news except Nissan.
I sold 80% of my share portfolio last week (25/03/25), the high risk I see wasn't the only factor but the timing was entirely down to Trump. I don't need the cash today but will within the next year and it seemed a good day to jump off.
Play with fire and you risk getting burnt Mr trump.
There is, however, South Korea/Taiwan and indeed Europe to provide those arms instead. The US doesnt "subsidise" EU spending but instead benefits heavily from it. Hence the bribes and political pressure to have EU countries buy US arms vs from local manufacturers.
Sure, but have you got any figures? I have no idea how much worse off financially the United States would be if it were to disengage from its European defence commitments. The US would presumably still sell vast amounts of arms to European countries. I have no idea how much of the world's arms exports come from Taiwan but apparently 43% comes from the US, which is 7 times more than China.
Edukator makes a good point - if US businesses invest on the back of Trump’s whimsical tariffs then they could be very exposed if he changes his mind, or loses the (assumed) next election. You can't plan beyond 3-4 years.
Anyway, he's now come for the intellectuals...
BBC News - Trump targets 'anti-American ideology' at Smithsonian museums
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjy1jmvvwzo
Just had a good chuckle at the list of top 25 cars sold in the US in 2024. Blimey, there's going to be some seriously teed off motorists. It'll be interesting to see what it does to the second-hand market.
Carney: "The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over."
I can't see that it can be described as "over" whilst the United States remains a member of Five Eyes. As a minimum Canada needs to stop sharing intelligence with the US.
And not simply because Canada should now see the US as potentially a hostile power, which is presumably the sentiment behind Carney's comment, but also because only this week an unprecedented security breach proved that they can't be trusted with sensitive intelligence!
I have no idea how much worse off financially the United States would be if it were to disengage from its European defence commitments
And there is your first mistake using "financially" rather than strategically. Again the US interest in Europe is heavily based around supporting its own interests and removing those bases would create significant issues and delays. Germany was essential during the "war against terror" for providing a logistical midpoint. They could work around it but it would be extremely hard.
The US would presumably still sell vast amounts of arms to European countries
Thats a big presumption. They do currently because it was effectively part of the alliance (plus a shitton of bribes). Now the USA are deciding it doesnt apply why shouldnt other countries go elsewhere.
Aside from anything else it doesnt make sense to buy from a state which is either directly potentially hostile or increasingly supportive of hostile states. In the latter case you risk them providing technical information about the weapons which will disadvantage you. See exocets and the French provision of technical information to the UK during the Falklands.
And there is your first mistake using "financially" rather than strategically.
This is absolutely not something to be viewed in terms of finance/costs. It is about strategic security. Whether that's having actual US military support, access to supplies of kit and spares, or trusting them to keep Intelligence securely.
If Putin invaded Poland next, would Trump's America step under Article 5? I genuinely no longer think they would.
And there is your first mistake using "financially" rather than strategically.
Sorry how is it "my" mistake? The United States is currently evaluating the financial cost of its contribution to European defence, if that is a mistake it isn't my mistake it's theirs.
I have no idea if the strategic advantages make the financial costs worthwhile, that's for them to decide based on judgement. But whether they would be financially worse off is more dependent on figures, I don't know how the figures stack up.
Not that I care either......I more than happy to see the United States hegemony weakened! 🙃
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if King Charles unfortunate reaction to his chemo means the invite for Trump's state visit has to be withdrawn?
I'd much sooner we just told him we didn't want him, but there you go.
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if King Charles unfortunate reaction to his chemo means the invite for Trump's state visit has to be withdrawn?
I'd much sooner we just told him we didn't want him, but there you go.
An even better message would be to let him meet Prince Andrew instead 🤣
Although they'd actually probably have a great time reminiscing about their good pal Jeffrey and all the sex crimes they did together 😕
An even better message would be to let him meet Prince Andrew instead 🤣
you think they’re not old pals already?
I started writing a post about Vance’s trip to Greenland… and then realized just how angered by it I am… so I’m going to leave it to others and crack open a beer instead…
I started writing a post about Vance’s trip to Greenland… and then realized just how angered by it I am… so I’m going to leave it to others and crack open a beer instead…
There’s still a chance that he gets mauled by a polar bear, or perhaps his plane will fall from the sky.
I started writing a post about Vance’s trip to Greenland… and then realized just how angered by it I am… so I’m going to leave it to others and crack open a beer instead…
There’s still a chance that he gets mauled by a polar bear, or perhaps his plane will fall from the sky.
I’ve decided he has the type of face and demeanour that deserves to encounter a Ryan Reynolds “Drive” elevator scene
There’s still a chance that he gets mauled by a polar bear
What on earth have polar bears done to you which means one of them deserves such an unpleasant experience?
I can’t believe how disrespectful Vance’s dress code was for his Greenland address. Doesn’t he own a suit?!!
Send a message to trump at comments@whitehouse.gov outlining your displeasure at the orange muppet, I guess its fair to say after my message that I'll never be allowed to set foot in the U.S ever.
(not that I could in my condition anyway)
Just watched your attack dog, I believe his name is Vance give his speech in Greenland........Jesus ****ing christ.....you lot are ****ing idiots for voting and allowing this shitshow
Sociapath goth grifter. Disgusting.
Yes it's absolutely disgusting how USA are positioning to invade and take Greenland.
And I'm sure the MAGA are believing the reasons given - to protect from China and Russia.
China don't invade foreign countries - they just strategically acquire them. And USA are practically best buddies with Russia now so that's just as absurd.
Maybe Greenland/Denmark sign some mutual economic agreement with Canada instead.
Nothing to do with threats from China and Russia, trump just wants to rip the natural resources from the place... Mineral and oil removed link
Trump pardon for Nikoli
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/28/politics/trump-pardon-trevor-milton-nikola/index.html
The pardon, which will spare Milton from serving time in prison, would also allow him to avoid court-ordered payments to compensate shareholders.
In his remarks Friday, Trump suggested Milton’s case was unfairly moved to New York from Utah. And he alleged — without evidence — that he was targeted for being a Trump supporter.
“They say the thing that he did wrong was he was one of the first people that supported a gentleman named Donald Trump for president. He supported Trump. He liked Trump. I didn’t know him, but he liked him,” he said during an otherwise unrelated event.
“There are many people like that,” he added later. “They support Trump, and they went after him.”
Hmm not that he was playing a little lose with the truth
On September 10, 2020, short seller firm Hindenburg Research released a report[33] accusing Nikola of being "an intricate fraud" perpetrated largely by Milton. Further verification by Financial Times and Research Enquirer[34] confirmed the report's claim regarding a showcased Nikola One rolling down a gradual slope with no onboard propulsion and instead by using the force of gravity.[35] The stock fell by 10% that day while the stock of GM, which had made an agreement with Nikola days earlier, fell by 4%. By September 12, Nikola stock had fallen by 36%.[36][37]
(Wikipedia)
Latest Gallup polls appear quite depressing; as of 27th March Trump still had 45% approval rating in US slightly more than the 42% he had at same point first time around. However, they show some reassuring signs elsewhere with a 59% disapproval rating of how he is managing the economy and 58% disapproval of his relations with Russia. Plus 55% disapproval of his approach to foreign affairs and Ukraine situation.
Every time the Greenland issue pops up I am reminded of the technate of america movement and their map, and one of their former members who was chased out of Canada and settled in southafrica
I think about that whenever the Canada issue pops up as well. Was Trump spouting all this stuff about taking over Greenland and Canada before Musk got onboard? I don't recall that he did.
Latest Gallup polls appear quite depressing; as of 27th March Trump still had 45% approval rating in US slightly more than the 42% he had at same point first time around. However, they show some reassuring signs elsewhere with a 59% disapproval rating of how he is managing the economy and 58% disapproval of his relations with Russia. Plus 55% disapproval of his approach to foreign affairs and Ukraine situation.
The problem is that the Democrats haven't got a figurehead to unite behind to offer an alternative
Hmm not that he was playing a little lose with the truth
That article misses out one rather important detail.
He and his wife donated 1.8 million dollars to the Trump campaign in November.
Dodges prison and avoids having to pay back a far larger sum. Its amazing how cheap Trump is to buy. Perhaps Greenland should take that approach?
The problem is that the Democrats haven't got a figurehead to unite behind to offer an alternative
Look what uniting behind a figurehead gets you.
Anyway, combining this thread and a comment on the "disproportionately cross" thread about estate agents photos on sale boards, we passed this board today which appeared to feature JD Vance. If they can't get Greenland, they are coming for Sutton Bonnington!
I think about that whenever the Canada issue pops up as well. Was Trump spouting all this stuff about taking over Greenland and Canada before Musk got onboard? I don't recall that he did.
Surely Greenland, Denmark and Canada can come to some agreement.
Was Trump spouting all this stuff about taking over Greenland and Canada before Musk got onboard? I don't recall that he did.
He definitely talked about buying Greenland during his 1st term in office which was branded as 'absurd' by the Danish prime minister, leading to Trump cancelling a state visit to Denmark. This time he seems to be planning on just taking over Greenland one way or another
