Miscellaneous News

Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
ansy1968 said:
@BlackWindMnt and you know what bro? this economic adviser say it's good for us, what the FXXK did this guy eat for breakfast. :mad:

Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs Secretary Frederick Go on Thursday brushed off the impact of US President Donald Trump's imposition of 17% tariff on Philippine goods entering America, seeing it as a boon rather than a bane for the country's economic future.

Read more:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
More stories:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Follow us:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





1 hour ago — Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs Secretary Frederick Go on Thursday brushed off the impact of US ...
Click to expand...
The rationale the economic advisor gave is based on the fact that the PH maybe able to offset the 17% tariff since it's one of the smallest rate imposed (Singapore 10%) compared to the rest of its ASEAN neighbors. The relative small tariff may entice FDI looking to move away productions from countries that are hit with massive tariff hikes.

Having said that, the advisor is certainly being disengenious or just obscuring the one simple fact that even if that optimistic scenario happens what made him think that the U.S. will simply levy the same tariff rate against the PH once the disparity occurs? And wouldn't businesses factoring that possibility into their thinking and planning? Plus, how is the PHILIPPINES going to handle the increase in energy demand and use when the country is laggard in this area, not to mention it has one of the highest electricity costs in Asia making the potential FDI less than likely
 
A

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
The rationale the economic advisor gave is based on the fact that the PH maybe able to offset the 17% tariff since it's one of the smallest rate imposed (Singapore 10%) compared to the rest of its ASEAN neighbors. The relative small tariff may entice FDI looking to move away productions from countries that are hit with massive tariff hikes.

Having said that, the advisor is certainly being disengenious or just obscuring the one simple fact that even if that optimistic scenario happens what made him think that the U.S. will simply levy the same tariff rate against the PH once the disparity occurs? And wouldn't businesses factoring that possibility into their thinking and planning? Plus, how is the PHILIPPINES going to handle the increase in energy demand and use when the country is laggard in this area, not to mention it has one of the highest electricity costs in Asia making the potential FDI less than likely
Click to expand...
Bro the solution is simple, open up the economy for foreign competition that will unleashed the economic potential of the Filipinos instead of going abroad being exploited.
 
E

Eventine

Senior Member
Registered Member
This is more of the usual "shoot first, negotiate after" tactic that Trump became famous for during his first term.

Trump creates leverage by delivering pain, in the same way an interrogator in Guantanamo or a terrorist organization might. Pain, and the threat of more of it, is meant to induce panic and terror from his targets; which in turn, causes them to make mistakes - confessions, concessions, etc. - in an effort to stop the pain.

Remember that big, nasty kid in school that bullied other kids by punching them in the face and taking their lunch money? That's Trump. His goal is to create an environment in which countries are afraid of him and what he might do, so that he can then go to them and demand better trade deals. The tariffs are not meant to be the final policy; they're meant to be negotiated down through coercing countries to balance their trade with the US.

It's Trump telling the world, particularly those countries operating export based economies like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. - we've got electric shock devices attached to your balls and we're going to keep pressing the button until you come to the negotiating table and make a better deal. If you don't, then we're going to increase the intensity.

He's relying on the fact that the vast majority of countries are cowards and will beg for relief, and then he can isolate and make examples of the few that dare to fight back. "Don't retaliate, take it, or it'll get even worse" - that's Trump's tactic, that's how he generates leverage. This is why, during his first term, most of his tariffs ended up being eliminated after negotiations; but the ones on China stayed, because China fought back.
 
I

iewgnem

Captain
Registered Member
Neurosmith said:
Best not to make any assumptions about that. They have developed weapons specifically for that purpose.


Nobody is denying that a disparity exists between China and Taiwan. However the disparity between China and Taiwan is smaller than that between the US and Iran (at least in military terms). The former was never my argument.


Logistically-speaking, the US is much more advantageously positioned not only because of their sealift capability but also due to their stand-off weapons capability. They wouldn't need to worry about Iran targeting Diego Garcia because the latter is simply out of range. This of course wouldn't even apply in real life because the US isn't planning to launch a land invasion of Iran. My point is that a potential Iran operation would be much simpler and less risky (for the attacker) vis-a-vis a Taiwan operation.


I think you just answered your own question.


Of course a Taiwan operation would need boots on the ground. This is a discussion for another thread, but a regime-change operation like a Taiwan scenario has a different endgame than "hit-the-reactor" situations like Iran (and historically Syria).


Again, the premise isn't that China doesn't have a military advantage over Taiwan. Iran's collection of ballistic missiles (many of which are older liquid-fueled variants), when pitted against standoff US airpower, presents much less of a threat compared to hundreds or thousands of Taiwanese supersonic or high-subsonic cruise missiles heading for targets only 100 km away.

This will be my last thoughts on the matter, at the risk of going OT.
Click to expand...
Sigh, yes I am fully aware of American tropes and their delusions.

- US and Iran are infact much closer to each other than mainland China and Taiwan, do you comprehend what it means for China to control half of plantary industrial output?

- Chinese shipbuilding outmatch the US 300x and has the largest tonnage of cargo fleet under wartime command in human history, do you remotely comprehend the amount of sea lift capability China poses compared to the US? China has enough ships and shipbuilding to literally supply a land operation on US soil, nevermind Taiwan.

- Iran can, will and probably already have been resupplied and rearmed by China and Russia, including missiles that can hit Diago Garcia buddy. How do you plan on resupplying Taiwan?

- China does not need boot on ground to deplete Taiwan of fuel or ammo, infact China dont even need to fire a single shot, redirecting all Taiwan air and sea traffic through mainland filtration is enough. How do you do that to Iran without boots on ground, lol.

- What makes you think China is looking to regime change? Taiwan has no regime, they're a Chinese province. How about a new status quo of 10 years of total trade and travel filtration to start.

- You look too much at how many missiles Taiwan have, which is still less than Iran btw, and thats not counting resupply. What you should do is try to wrap your mind around the number of missile a country that control half of plantaty industry can put on Taiwan to destroy Taiwan's weapons, which is also just 100s of km away.

Lastly I will repeat what I already said: American understanding of war as killing, and they can for sure bomb aparment buildings and kill children in Iran here and there, but civilized nations go to war to win, and civilized nations consider ultimate victory to be those achieved without killing. America can kill in Iran but cant win, China can win in Taiwan without killing. This is the most fundemental gap between America and China, China is the oldest civilization on earth, while America hasnt yet crossed the threshold of becoming civilized.
 
A

Africablack

Junior Member
Registered Member
Eventine said:
This is more of the usual "shoot first, negotiate after" tactic that Trump became famous for during his first term.

Trump creates leverage by delivering pain, in the same way an interrogator in Guantanamo or a terrorist organization might. Pain, and the threat of more of it, is meant to induce panic and terror from his targets; which in turn, causes them to make mistakes - confessions, concessions, etc. - in an effort to stop the pain.

Remember that big, nasty kid in school that bullied other kids by punching them in the face and taking their lunch money? That's Trump. His goal is to create an environment in which countries are afraid of him and what he might do, so that he can then go to them and demand better trade deals. The tariffs are not meant to be the final policy; they're meant to be negotiated down through coercing countries to balance their trade with the US.

It's Trump telling the world, particularly those countries operating export based economies like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. - we've got electric shock devices attached to your balls and we're going to keep pressing the button until you come to the negotiating table and make a better deal. If you don't, then we're going to increase the intensity.

He's relying on the fact that the vast majority of countries are cowards and will beg for relief, and then he can isolate and make examples of the few that dare to fight back. "Don't retaliate, take it, or it'll get even worse" - that's Trump's tactic, that's how he generates leverage. This is why, during his first term, most of his tariffs ended up being eliminated after negotiations; but the ones on China stayed, because China fought back.
Click to expand...
There's more to it than that. The entire west are for Team White Supremacy so it doesn't matter what China attempts to negotiate, anything short of China completely subordinating themselves to white masters will not work. Look at the EU, even with Trump and co publicly bitch slapping and insulting them they can't bring themselves to do the obvious thing and say "Hey China, let's talk", instead they're still talking about our "transatlantic allies", "shared values", and "free world". I'm embarrassed for them. Marco Rubio is in Europe to convince NATO "allies" to increase defense spending, essentially what that means is that he has been dispatched by Trump to force them to buy American weapons or else...

Make no mistake, the only reason the US is taking this drastic action is because of China, I can almost guarantee that if China isn't as powerful as it currently is and hasn't advanced as much as it has the US would meander on but China's rise has forced its hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top