America - The Official Thread

[fatkrakr]

Cool. In which case you'd pay for the wall entirely on your own.

That's ok because if that's how it goes down than we can just stop sending the 320 million a year in aid and use it for the wall.

 

[Dotini]

If the wall is a good basic idea, then it would be worth paying for it ourselves. The Don, a businessman with liberal/authoritarian leanings at heart, is playing the negotiator 80% of the time when he brings up the idea for a new project.

 

[eran0004]

That's ok because if that's how it goes down than we can just stop sending the 320 million a year in aid and use it for the wall.

It would take 50 to 100 years to pay for the wall that way.

 

[Legro]

We left behind the corruption of Europe

Let's just take this literally for a second.

http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

There are quite a few European countries that are doing better than the US in terms of lack of corruption.

It quite simply isn't 18th century anymore, it's ridiculous to say that taking some influence from the current Europe would be even remotely similar as going back to being a pre-industrial revolution British colony.

 

[Dotini]

It would take 50 to 100 years to pay for the wall that way.

It took a long time to pay for Hoover Dam.

 

[eran0004]

It took a long time to pay for Hoover Dam.

The Hoover Dam was a lot cheaper (0.7 billions adjusted for inflation) and it was an investment that returned value in form of energy.

The wall is estimated at 15-25 billions and returns no value.

 

[fatkrakr]

It would take 50 to 100 years to pay for the wall that way.

Maybe we can do it the way they did?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

In all seriousness, have you heard what Trump said all the way through? People are over reacting on the line "grab em by the 🤬" and assume instant sexual assault, but if you listen to it all the way through, while it isn't exactly pleasant to hear, it is not sexual assault, it was consensual.

"And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy." ~ Donald J. Trump

It's one thing to argue there's no definitive proof of sexual assault, it's quite another to say 'Donald said it was consensual, so it must be true!'. Well, I guess that settles that then.

I used to think Hillary was probably corrupt, but then she said "I'm not corrupt", so I changed my mind on that too..............

That was the point, the tag means little and I did not mean to offend.

I don't think offensiveness was the reason why @prisonermonkeys pointed out you knew him by a name far older than your own membership...........but I imagine the explanation for it is actually quite simple.

 

[Scaff]

We can live without any products from Mexico.

In the long term yes, in the short term, no.

It would for a start kill the US motor industry, as between 10 to 50% of the components used to manufacture cars in the US are made in Mexico.

Without them you can't make cars until you move the tooling to the US, which would not be a quick move at all.

You also now would quickly run out of parts for service and repair work (as most stock for this is held on a 'just in time's basis) resulting in people unable to travel as easily.

That's just one example, and while a short to medium term isdue, others like it certainly do exist.

Imports from Mexico are not just finished products or ones that can easily be sourced from alternative locations quickly.

It would start a great black market however, do the criminal gangs would love it.

On an unrelated note, the Muslim ban is going well.

 

[ryzno]

No. Because I've never met a self-respecting woman who let a man grope her. And when he says "they let you do it", it's not hard to imagine that he does as he pleases, banking on his celebrity to keep him out of trouble.

So strippers have no self-respect?

 

[Johnnypenso]

An import tax would raise the price of the products, so even if Mexican companies pay the US, the US consumers would in turn pay the Mexican companies.

So it would be: "We're going to build a wall to Mexico, and we will pay them for paying for it."

Because we're part of the same world and the US is a major player on the global scene. Even if Trump would like to isolate America his actions would still have effects around the world.

It's also interesting from a political standpoint because Trump is a controversial figure and arguably the first president of his kind in America.

And in the long term, some or probably most of the manufacturing capacity will move back to the U.S., creating jobs at home instead of in Mexico. You can make cars and trucks in the U.S., and Canada for that matter, that are competitively priced. It happens millions of times a year in fact. Who would buy a Mexican Dodge ram that costs 20% more overnight? No one that's who. The manufacturing capacity would return home so fast it'll make your head spin. Do you think Mexico wants that? How horrified do you think the Mexicans are at that notion?

No. Because I've never met a self-respecting woman who let a man grope her. And when he says "they let you do it", it's not hard to imagine that he does as he pleases, banking on his celebrity to keep him out of trouble.

You don't know women very well and you certainly don't know all of them.

 

[Scaff]

And in the long term, some or probably most of the manufacturing capacity will move back to the U.S., creating jobs at home instead of in Mexico. You can make cars and trucks in the U.S., and Canada for that matter, that are competitively priced. It happens millions of times a year in fact. Who would buy a Mexican Dodge ram that costs 20% more overnight? No one that's who. The manufacturing capacity would return home so fast it'll make your head spin. Do you think Mexico wants that? How horrified do you think the Mexicans are at that notion?

You don't know women very well and you certainly don't know all of them.

You can make some cars and trucks in the US and keep them competitive in price, but not all of them. It also assumes that the US is the only market for these products. It's not.

Take the Chevy Cruze that Trump tried to use as an example. The saloon is manufactured in the US, because it accounts for over 90% of the Cruze sales in the US and as such is economical to produce in the US (at present). The hatchback however is manufactured in Mexico, as it's market is global with less than 10% of production going to the US.

Economically making the hatchback in the US would never be viable (it requires a different production line) and as such the most logical production location in Mexico. Slap 20% on it and I suspect GM will simply stop selling it in the US rather than take a hit on the bottom line of a very niche model.

Less choice for consumers is the end result.

You are also forgetting that one of the reasons why it's currently economical to manufacture larger cars and trucks in the US is because many of the components are made in Mexico (around 8% of the motor industry workforce in Mexico make finished vehicle, the rest are in components manufacture). Now as I said in a previous post, this could be moved back to the US, but again the market for these components is global, so the economies of scale and higher cost of US labour would result in them costing more.

Once again resulting in an increase in the cost of US production, which means either lower revenue or higher consumer prices.

 

[xyloscissor]

In the long term yes, in the short term, no.

Prolly true, but we can take that speed bump can't we?

It would for a start kill the US motor industry, as between 10 to 50% of the components used to manufacture cars in the US are made in Mexico.

Kill? I don't think so, Mexico is not the only country we do business with and I'm sure many other countries are chomping at the bit.

You also now would quickly run out of parts for service and repair work (as most stock for this is held on a 'just in time's basis) resulting in people unable to travel as easily.

I disagree with that, we have junkyards everywhere, so many in fact parts are seriously everywhere.

It would start a great black market however, do the criminal gangs would love it.

Not a chance, we also have aftermarket parts as well as reconditioned parts, parts parts everywhere there are parts.

 

[Northstar]

I disagree with that, we have junkyards everywhere, so many in fact parts are seriously everywhere.

Granted I do think we should look towards junk yards a little more as it is ridiculous how wasteful we are with old cars, I don't think it's really feasible to only rely on junkyards for parts.

Not a chance, we also have aftermarket parts as well as reconditioned parts, parts parts everywhere there are parts.

And where do you suppose those parts are made?

I guess your proposal would work if you want to end up like Cuba where cars are literally held together with duct tape.

 

[xyloscissor]

My point being it is not all that drastic, I'm not trying to say shutting Mexico out is a good idea. We are not going to do that anyway but just for argument sake...

 

[CodeRedR51]

I disagree with that, we have junkyards everywhere, so many in fact parts are seriously everywhere.

For new cars? Good luck with that.

 

[xyloscissor]

For new cars? Good luck with that.

No not for new cars LOL

All this panic is silly, it's a concern of course but it is not a panic.......... yet.

 

[Blitz24]

For new cars? Good luck with that.

For Lemons racing!

 

[Scaff]

Prolly true, but we can take that speed bump can't we?

Maybe. However the key point is that its not needed, the current relationship between the US and Mexico in terms of automotive has been massively beneficial to both sides.

Kill? I don't think so, Mexico is not the only country we do business with and I'm sure many other countries are chomping at the bit.

The US motor industry (GM in particular) has been close to it before, why risk it again when its not needed. No as far as another partner to make components, one that would be as cost effective as Mexico? The only one I can think of would be China, but that might now work out to well.

I disagree with that, we have junkyards everywhere, so many in fact parts are seriously everywhere.

That worked out well for Cuba, but I don't think many manufacturers are going to honour your warranty of you go down that route.

Not a chance, we also have aftermarket parts as well as reconditioned parts, parts parts everywhere there are parts.

Di you have any comprehension of the number of parts required on a daily basis to supply dealerships for routine work, let alone manufacture? Cut off outside supply and a country would last a few days at most before shortages hit.

My point being it is not all that drastic, I'm not trying to say shutting Mexico out is a good idea. We are not going to do that anyway but just for argument sake...

Yet that's exactly the direction its currently headed.

What is likely to be the end result, at best less consumer choice and higher costs (either for the end consumer or lower margins for manufacturers), at worst production quality will drop (look at any market in which car manufacture became insular and you will see the same repeated pattern) and the risk of at least one of the US's two manufacturers going under (and before you say that would not be allowed to happen take a look at the story of Rover and the UK automotive industry - a brand stagnanted by years of government isolation in terms of import tariffs, sold off repeatedly and run into the ground when it was simply unable to compete).

 

[Blitz24]

I am genuinely waiting for someone with more knowledge to gently explain to Trump the ramifications of this policy. It has been seen that he will back off given the right explanation (see torture and Mattis shooting down his opinion). Unfortunately, I don't see a shrewd economist that he picked with enough chutzpah to tell him that.

 

[xyloscissor]

It is very important to americans obviously that there is a serious problem with the border. It is undeniable and perhaps if you do not live here you cannot understand. Something needs to change drastically and to ignore that in the name of trade is a huge mistake.

We won't even be thinking of cars when our country is overrun with drug addictions and murder and such. Of course that is an over simplified exaggeration but the threat is very real and needs to be addressed. That is all Trump is doing imo.

 

[Northstar]

It is very important to americans obviously that there is a serious problem with the border. It is undeniable and perhaps if you do not live here you cannot understand. Something needs to change drastically and to ignore that in the name of trade is a huge mistake.

I agree something needs to get done, but a ridiculous wall (and the proposed tax) won't solve anything. All it will accomplish is an increase in the amount of tunnels already running below the border and a decayed relationship with one of our neighbors.

I would much rather see a beefed up border guard and a high tech surveillance system, both of which would probably be cheaper than a wall and provide more permanent jobs.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Maybe. However the key point is that its not needed, the current relationship between the US and Mexico in terms of automotive has been massively beneficial to both sides.

Not just the US manufactures, but European and Japanese manufactures as well. Nissan builds a few cars down there and will be adding another shortly.

 

[xyloscissor]

I agree something needs to get done, but a ridiculous wall (and the proposed tax) won't solve anything. All it will accomplish is an increase in the amount of tunnels already running below the border and a decayed relationship with one of our neighbors.

I would much rather see a beefed up border guard and a high tech surveillance system, both of which would probably be cheaper than a wall and provide more permanent jobs.

Has he not already addressed that with a total of 15,000 new employees and a new man in charge?

 

[samurai8juice]

America could just cut military spending and allocate those funds to improved Border Patrol.

Congress could also take some of the 66 billion dollars spent on Medicare and Health, and some of the 30 billion spent on Social Security and Unemployment (in Discretionary Spending) and put some of it towards improved Border Patrol.

I'm sure even several billion dollars could buy pretty good patrol vehicles, provide proper training, and pay all agents decent salaries.

 

[Northstar]

Has he not already addressed that with a total of 15,000 new employees and a new man in charge?

I meant instead of the wall, not in addition to.

We have a ridiculous amount of technology, it seems like we could make a far more effective and cheaper "electric" fence than an actual physical one.

 

[xyloscissor]

America could just cut military spending and allocate those funds to improved Border Patrol.

Congress could also take some of the 66 billion dollars spent on Medicare and Health, and some of the 30 billion spent on Social Security and Unemployment (in Discretionary Spending) and put some of it towards improved Border Patrol.

The U.S. cannot afford to cut military in any way, that is preposterous. As for social programs indeed we could cut some of that as you said. Ideally we would not need to spend anything on it but in reality we will always have that obligation for a few reasons. We are not jackasses for one thing and for the other, it's in our best interest as a whole.

Make no mistake how serious Trump is about the border, the resources are already there. He is not joking.

I meant instead of the wall, not in addition to.

We have a ridiculous amount of technology, it seems like we could make a far more effective and cheaper "electric" fence than an actual physical one.

Have you seen the border first hand? I live here and know what it looks like. Is it somewhat a symbolic deal? Most likely but any form of defense means something. Let me make this perfectly clear to anyone wishing to hear me or not understanding what I am about.

I hate the idea of a wall! I would much rather see some cooperation between bordering countries and to be perfectly frank, why is it that all the criminal and noncriminal elements of Mexico feel such a need to exploit us? It's nasty and I hate it, but we do need to address it. Hopefully it will be short term and things can improve but right now unfortunately we need to keep them out.

It is truth like it or not, I don't like it but I understand it.

 

[DK]

What's up next for Bannon? Already got muslim hate on 1 milli in the ]states. He's gotten the silly ass anti-immigration EO in effect. He just hit Jewish people with "All Lives Matter" on Holocaust remembrance day. Black History month starts next week. All Lives Matter month?

Next up is the National Security Council. Oh boy.

 

[mustafur]

The U.S. cannot afford to cut military in any way, that is preposterous.

Yeah ok.....

 

[xyloscissor]

Next up is the National Security Council. Oh boy.

The President can take counsel with whomever he chooses, I've been informed by a friend just how much Bannon is disliked and feared just recently and tbh I don't know much about the man. It is counsel, I take counsel but I choose a few wisely. Maybe don't get on Bannon but Trump? Anyway here is something to think of.

There is, finally, a fundamental constitutional point. Since the president is the only person who actually got elected, the idea that rigorous White House oversight is “meddling” or a “process foul” is odd. In many ways, a president can’t win: act decisively, and you are criticized for going it alone and not including your advisers; consult widely and exhaustively, and you are criticized as indecisive and dithering; engage deeply on issues and refine options, and you are accused of interfering.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/04/whats-wrong-obamas-national-security-council/127802/

I know the title of the article seems anti Obama but that is in no way why I post this little bit of it.

Yeah ok.....

Wait until you need us in that China sea dealio, then we can talk.