Subject: Re: More EU views on the trade deal
..all of which is a mere restatement of my point. They haven't got anyone to send.

Which is exactly the same situation we're in. Our mechanics and logistical train and crews are generally right-sized to our existing tank fleet. So if we wanted to add 100 new tanks from scratch - as Germany is doing - we also wouldn't have anyone to send today. Because we don't have entire divisions of tank crews and logistical support waiting around doing nothing on the off chance that we might increase our tank levels by a division or two down the road.

I'm not sure what you're criticizing Germany for. They're taking pretty much the exact same amount of time we would take to create and man a delta of about 100 tanks.

Okay. So you think that Macron or Starmer or Kolz is really Napoleon Bonaparte IV (the 3rd was actually Emperor of France) ready to march to Moscow like his great-great-great-great-great grandad?

No - I think that Europe is still very much structurally susceptible to letting a minor conflict (say, some inciting incident in the Balkans) spread. WWI didn't happen because of some wannbe Alexander the Great seeking to bestride Europe. It happened because when you have a lot of countries with varying military strengths all jostled together, they end up forming alliances and entanglements in order to advance their security and other interests. So if two countries that are in competing camps end up getting into some scrap or minor regional conflict, it can get everyone involved.

I covered this in my other thread. The tariffs are a stealth form of taxation, a back door way to implement a consumption VAT if certain industries don't onshore back to the United States.

But as we've talked about, they don't really do that much on either front. The level of taxation isn't high enough to dent the deficit, much less the debt, even if there's no on-shoring, because only about 10% of U.S. goods consumption is imported. So the delta in taxation is a few hundred billion dollars per year (again, before consumer shifts). Even less when consumption shifts - an estimated $200 billion per year. But all of that (and more) was "given back" by just three new provisions of the OBBBA (not just the tax cut extenders). The expanded Social Security tax exemption, new auto loan interest deduction and "no tax on tips" will reduce government revenues by more than the tariffs raise them.

And because the tariffs apply to all consumer goods, very little of their impact is directed to "certain industries." The tariffs have to be far too low to materially induce those "certain industries" to relocate to the U.S., because otherwise consumers would revolt because they apply to everything - so instead of having, say, high punitive tariffs on the importation of strategically important resources to serve a national security interest, we have a more general tariff on everything.