FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: The U.S. says China has agreed to purchase 25 million metric tons of soybeans annually after the countries' leaders discussed trade measures. https://t.co/f0pkdOdjGJ

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 30, 2025

---

Create a market uproar on American farmers with tariff policy. Lose nearly an entire harvest season for them. Then reduce the tariffs and tariff threats on China that kicked this off in the first place, and claim victory because they commit to purchasing the exact same amounts they were before the tariff battle started.

4D Chutes and Ladders here…

---

it is all a con. and they lap it up. he created this situation.

---

No, you and ATL did. The crop was already in the ground when the trade negotiations started. It is only just now in. That is true all over the world. So the supply is the supply. If China doesn't buy from us they have to buy from Country X. If so, then we sell to the customers who got bumped by Country X. That is true now, and in the future (buying from harvest or from stock).

Never was a scenario where our soybean crop rotted in fields or silos, where farmers went under for lack of available markets for their soybeans. Soybeans are among the row crops that store well, for years. And China cannot simply do without soybeans now. They've got livestock to feed, people to feed. Now.

Sigh.......neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump........

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

CNN: If Canada moves away from the US, more towards China in terms of a trading relationship, is that good for the US?

KEVIN HASSETT: What is good for the US is getting Canada to start to adhere to their previous agreements and to follow the rule of law ... they've been rude and… pic.twitter.com/cGOGX0RrR8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 31, 2025

---

A good thread on why many countries in the world dont care for Canada. Liars and cheaters, they've got away with it for too long

---

their business model is to be a parasite on the USA....to be that place companies locate factories inside the US/Canada trade treaty barriers so as to get access to the US market without having to pay US labor rates.

Canada has done it so long they've got an entitlement mentality, even taking the extraordinary step of making political advertisements in the USA against a sitting administration.

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again "Canada is NOT our friend!"

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 CEO Jensen Huang says Nvidia $NVDA is going "all in" on bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

"It's great for our business, it's great for America. Everybody wins." pic.twitter.com/a6C0Lsbvi0

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) November 2, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 CEO Jensen Huang says Nvidia $NVDA is going "all in" on bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

"It's great for our business, it's great for America. Everybody wins." pic.twitter.com/a6C0Lsbvi0

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) November 2, 2025

---

And NVidia is the bad boy of all bad boys.

BREAKING: Trump accuses foreign-owned meat packers of inflating U.S. beef prices and directs the Justice Department to investigate. https://t.co/xY3ksz915q

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 7, 2025

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge... China stated their Board were all Engineering trained as a good thing, I viewed it as the kiss of death. They are done unless they get some liberal arts on there to balance...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge...

---

Other than the Mongol Period, China stays pretty close to home. They don't have that Russian urge to own everything that touches them. That said, their energy needs are pressing and owing Siberian oil/gas would make a lot of sense for them. They know, however, that kind of move would come at great cost. There'd be a Nato/Russia alliance to stop them, with massive global sanctions. So while the templates are in plain sight, no reason to fear that much other than Taiwan and minor border squabbling is at risk.

China has done incredibly well, historically so over the last few decades. They've come an awfully long way in an incredibly short period of time. They'll continue to be powerful, punching well above the class they were in most of the 1800s-1900s. But I don't see them as an expansionist power deploying expeditionary forces to dominate continents. They have their own internal divisions to worry about, exacerbated by demographic decline.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

Their failed One Child policy is coming back to bite them in the arse

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge...

---

Other than the Mongol Period, China stays pretty close to home. They don't have that Russian urge to own everything that touches them. That said, their energy needs are pressing and owing Siberian oil/gas would make a lot of sense for them. They know, however, that kind of move would come at great cost. There'd be a Nato/Russia alliance to stop them, with massive global sanctions. So while the templates are in plain sight, no reason to fear that much other than Taiwan and minor border squabbling is at risk.

China has done incredibly well, historically so over the last few decades. They've come an awfully long way in an incredibly short period of time. They'll continue to be powerful, punching well above the class they were in most of the 1800s-1900s. But I don't see them as an expansionist power deploying expeditionary forces to dominate continents. They have their own internal divisions to worry about, exacerbated by demographic decline.

---

Question is how do you deal with the demographic decline if you don't either bring in immigrants (new blood), expand land mass, or ???

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge...

---

Other than the Mongol Period, China stays pretty close to home. They don't have that Russian urge to own everything that touches them. That said, their energy needs are pressing and owing Siberian oil/gas would make a lot of sense for them. They know, however, that kind of move would come at great cost. There'd be a Nato/Russia alliance to stop them, with massive global sanctions. So while the templates are in plain sight, no reason to fear that much other than Taiwan and minor border squabbling is at risk.

China has done incredibly well, historically so over the last few decades. They've come an awfully long way in an incredibly short period of time. They'll continue to be powerful, punching well above the class they were in most of the 1800s-1900s. But I don't see them as an expansionist power deploying expeditionary forces to dominate continents. They have their own internal divisions to worry about, exacerbated by demographic decline.

---

However they have been buying the crap out of South and Central America along with farmland in North America and facilities close to our military bases. Scary

This was actually from August but needs to be said again, as the Supreme Court weighs the pros and cons of Tariffs

CBO said that Trump's tariffs will reduce Deficit by $4 Trillion

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge...

---

Other than the Mongol Period, China stays pretty close to home. They don't have that Russian urge to own everything that touches them. That said, their energy needs are pressing and owing Siberian oil/gas would make a lot of sense for them. They know, however, that kind of move would come at great cost. There'd be a Nato/Russia alliance to stop them, with massive global sanctions. So while the templates are in plain sight, no reason to fear that much other than Taiwan and minor border squabbling is at risk.

China has done incredibly well, historically so over the last few decades. They've come an awfully long way in an incredibly short period of time. They'll continue to be powerful, punching well above the class they were in most of the 1800s-1900s. But I don't see them as an expansionist power deploying expeditionary forces to dominate continents. They have their own internal divisions to worry about, exacerbated by demographic decline.

---

Question is how do you deal with the demographic decline if you don't either bring in immigrants (new blood), expand land mass, or ???

---

Alberta is calling...

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

Good information

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge...

---

Other than the Mongol Period, China stays pretty close to home. They don't have that Russian urge to own everything that touches them. That said, their energy needs are pressing and owing Siberian oil/gas would make a lot of sense for them. They know, however, that kind of move would come at great cost. There'd be a Nato/Russia alliance to stop them, with massive global sanctions. So while the templates are in plain sight, no reason to fear that much other than Taiwan and minor border squabbling is at risk.

China has done incredibly well, historically so over the last few decades. They've come an awfully long way in an incredibly short period of time. They'll continue to be powerful, punching well above the class they were in most of the 1800s-1900s. But I don't see them as an expansionist power deploying expeditionary forces to dominate continents. They have their own internal divisions to worry about, exacerbated by demographic decline.

---

Question is how do you deal with the demographic decline if you don't either bring in immigrants (new blood), expand land mass, or ???

---

Problem for China is, there's no practical place to expand. Prior regimes have avoided Indo-China for a reason, and to the north & west there is land but no people (people being the more important resource).

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I’m sorry but this is total nonsense. Look at global GDP, where on Earth does $20T come from? The tooth fairy? pic.twitter.com/Nea1Jks3wO

— Sheldon Miller (@SheldonMiller) November 8, 2025

---

Easy. it'll come from the trade deals.

Not likely that all will hit in 2026, though. Much of it will go to the AI race (to build data centers). Really hard to get it all deployed by next year for the DCs. So many logistical challenges. Water is an issue in Tx, but regulators are making forward leans to help. Power, on the other hand.....is just not there yet. It appears be the limiting factor at this time.

But even if it takes 3 years for all that investment to deploy, it will more than double average annual investment, which is enough by itself to add 2-4 points to GDP. Very powerful.

The longer term question is jobs. Lots will be created during the construction phase (infrastructure and facility). The data centers themselves seem to have a very low job creation rate compared to the dollars invested. The one I'm working on most closely will be, fully built out, about $2B and will create 600 permanent jobs. Of course, that does not count follow on effects (related businesses moving into service the DCs) and any positive effect on the overall business model of the data generation on the tech industry.

---

My question is that it works, now. The US represents 30T of the world economy. China the next largest is 19T. As coalitions form and trading blocks change, will the difference hold? In order for this strategy to work, the US economy HAS to be the biggest in the game by a margin. I can see it as a short-term fix, but there has to be some game after to expand the 30T or keep the others diluted.

Also, the job issue as you state is the 2nd part that has to come into focus. In order to make this strategy work, it has to be in tech and expanding the economy areas. Not Vo-Tech. Creating a generation of plumbers and electricians will only work during the capital expansion. So, that will not be the answer. It has to come in STEM and we are not doing a very good job there compared to China and India where Engineering degrees are a dime a dozen.

The Student Loan mess can be an opportunity. I like your interest idea, but also besides the Public Service Loan Forgiveness after 10 years of payments, I would like to see that expanded to include the degrees that we want to see for economic expansion - STEM, Technology, Health Care, Maritime, aero, etc... They provide value to the Nation, let's encourage it.

---

One of the overriding goals of these trade deals is to freeze out China, to force our trading partners to choose alignment with us. We've tied up, between our economy and those with whom we've signed deals, somewhere on the order of 2/3 of world GDP, creating trade partners who've made massive investments in production operations on US soil. They will not quickly or easily walk away from that. They're committed because it would be horribly painful for them to do so.

Reasonable people can quibble about levels of perfection, but the Trump trade deals are very sound economics and very sound geopolitics.

---

2/3s? A bit on the optimistic side... If our economy is 30T of the existing 115T, even if the future investment is another 50% that puts us a 45T (which I believe is too high, we will not make up half of the world economy).

On a side note, I noticed that China will begin buying soybeans and we are getting rare earth minerals again. Sure am glad that we aren't Globalist anymore...

---

roughly, conceptually speaking......

We are 25% of GDP.
China is 25% of GDP.
EU is 25% of GDP.

So add up us and EU, plus UK, Japan, SoKo, Australia, India, et al.....and yeah, 2/3rds is in the ballpark. ANd it's not just way over half. It's the best half.

China is production oriented. It has stifled its consumer demand in order to invest in strategic industries. That is a problem when you don't have anyone to sell to and your own consumer demand can't pick up the slack (lack of wealth, lack of income, plus bad demographics.).

China is facing a future of managed decline.
We are not.

---

I agree on China. The problem with the managed economy geared for manufacturing is that you have to sell to someone. My fear with China is that they will reach the point of 1930's Germany, where they HAVE to expand their borders to keep the machine going. Taiwan is the most logical, as it adds tech and production. But, into Russia in the north, Korea in the east or move west.

They are going to reach a point of either taking Taiwan or unifying. The system set up on engineering and production can only end up in one direction, expansion. Engineers are not creative enough to find other ways, they will only try to perfect the existing designs.

Managed engineers for 30 years. You want to find a new way, DON'T put an engineer in charge...

---

Other than the Mongol Period, China stays pretty close to home. They don't have that Russian urge to own everything that touches them. That said, their energy needs are pressing and owing Siberian oil/gas would make a lot of sense for them. They know, however, that kind of move would come at great cost. There'd be a Nato/Russia alliance to stop them, with massive global sanctions. So while the templates are in plain sight, no reason to fear that much other than Taiwan and minor border squabbling is at risk.

China has done incredibly well, historically so over the last few decades. They've come an awfully long way in an incredibly short period of time. They'll continue to be powerful, punching well above the class they were in most of the 1800s-1900s. But I don't see them as an expansionist power deploying expeditionary forces to dominate continents. They have their own internal divisions to worry about, exacerbated by demographic decline.

---

Question is how do you deal with the demographic decline if you don't either bring in immigrants (new blood), expand land mass, or ???

---

Problem for China is, there's no practical place to expand. Prior regimes have avoided Indo-China for a reason, and to the north & west there is land but no people (people being the more important resource).

---

thanks, i appreciate the discussion. it was informative.

https://t.co/5Xdi6JrlhL

— Matthew Zeitlin (@MattZeitlin) November 10, 2025

These are the businesses and the state that are determined to bring USA to it's knees, all extremely shortsighted:

• Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind Inc.:
  These small businesses, which specialize in educational products, have filed a lawsuit that is now before the Supreme Court.
  
• V.O.S. Selections, Inc.:
  This New York-based wine importer is one of five businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, which argue the tariffs exceed presidential authority.
  
• Detroit Axle:
  This Michigan auto parts company is challenging the legality and constitutionality of the tariffs, which they state are severely impacting their business.
  
• Genova Pipe:
  This Washington state company, which manufactures ABS pipe using imported resin, claims the tariffs increase their raw material costs and hinder their ability to compete in the export market.
  
• MicroKits LLC:
  A small business that makes STEM kits, MicroKits has faced significant challenges with tariffs, including having to slow production and raise prices.
  
• California:
  The state of California has also sued, alleging the tariffs cause significant harm to its economy, businesses, and consumers.
  
• Johanna Foods:
  An orange juice importer, Johanna Foods, filed a lawsuit arguing the Brazil tariffs will cause prohibitive price increases because domestic oranges are not suitable for the company's needs.

Assassin said:

---

These are the businesses and the state that are determined to bring USA to it's knees, all extremely shortsighted:

• Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind Inc.:
  These small businesses, which specialize in educational products, have filed a lawsuit that is now before the Supreme Court.
  
• V.O.S. Selections, Inc.:
  This New York-based wine importer is one of five businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, which argue the tariffs exceed presidential authority.
  
• Detroit Axle:
  This Michigan auto parts company is challenging the legality and constitutionality of the tariffs, which they state are severely impacting their business.
  
• Genova Pipe:
  This Washington state company, which manufactures ABS pipe using imported resin, claims the tariffs increase their raw material costs and hinder their ability to compete in the export market.
  
• MicroKits LLC:
  A small business that makes STEM kits, MicroKits has faced significant challenges with tariffs, including having to slow production and raise prices.
  
• California:
  The state of California has also sued, alleging the tariffs cause significant harm to its economy, businesses, and consumers.
  
• Johanna Foods:
  An orange juice importer, Johanna Foods, filed a lawsuit arguing the Brazil tariffs will cause prohibitive price increases because domestic oranges are not suitable for the company's needs.

---

So if the Supreme Court rules against Trump and his tariffs and "turns us into a third world country", will that mean Trump is one of the WORST Presidents in the history of our country? I don't recollect the USA ever being a third world country in our 249 year history.

This is one of the extremely rare cases where I gotta side with California.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

These are the businesses and the state that are determined to bring USA to it's knees, all extremely shortsighted:

• Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind Inc.:
  These small businesses, which specialize in educational products, have filed a lawsuit that is now before the Supreme Court.
  
• V.O.S. Selections, Inc.:
  This New York-based wine importer is one of five businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, which argue the tariffs exceed presidential authority.
  
• Detroit Axle:
  This Michigan auto parts company is challenging the legality and constitutionality of the tariffs, which they state are severely impacting their business.
  
• Genova Pipe:
  This Washington state company, which manufactures ABS pipe using imported resin, claims the tariffs increase their raw material costs and hinder their ability to compete in the export market.
  
• MicroKits LLC:
  A small business that makes STEM kits, MicroKits has faced significant challenges with tariffs, including having to slow production and raise prices.
  
• California:
  The state of California has also sued, alleging the tariffs cause significant harm to its economy, businesses, and consumers.
  
• Johanna Foods:
  An orange juice importer, Johanna Foods, filed a lawsuit arguing the Brazil tariffs will cause prohibitive price increases because domestic oranges are not suitable for the company's needs.

---

So if the Supreme Court rules against Trump and his tariffs and "turns us into a third world country", will that mean Trump is one of the WORST Presidents in the history of our country? I don't recollect the USA ever being a third world country in our 249 year history.

This is one of the extremely rare cases where I gotta side with California.

---

It's okay to stick your neck out and be wrong occasionally R2D

Epitome of irony.

California under its current "leadership" is a 3rd world country.

canoso said:

---

Epitome of irony.

California under its current "leadership" is a 3rd world country.

---

3rd highest oil refineries in America and gas is twice what it costs in Texas. 70.9 cents state tax alone. Texas is a flat 20 cents on gas or diesel

boognish_bear said:

---

https://t.co/5Xdi6JrlhL

— Matthew Zeitlin (@MattZeitlin) November 10, 2025

---

.....for "dumping" product into our market.

We are a considerably larger and more efficient producer of wheat, and production of pasta is an industrial process which both countries have. Thus there is no reason for Italy to have any kind of inherent cost advantage in production of generic pasta. Now, speciality pastas with certain varieties of wheat produced via different methods which produce a product with different qualities.....sure. Some customers may prefer Italian pasta for one reason or the other. Fine. They should pay a premium.

No responsible government should let foreign producers punish our farmers or pasta producers with unfair trade practices.

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

https://t.co/5Xdi6JrlhL

— Matthew Zeitlin (@MattZeitlin) November 10, 2025

---

.....for "dumping" product into our market.

We are a considerably larger and more efficient producer of wheat, and production of pasta is an industrial process which both countries have. Thus there is no reason for Italy to have any kind of inherent cost advantage in production of generic pasta. Now, speciality pastas with certain varieties of wheat produced via different methods which produce a product with different qualities.....sure. Some customers may prefer Italian pasta for one reason or the other. Fine. They should pay a premium.

No responsible government should let foreign producers punish our farmers or pasta producers with unfair trade practices.

---

Absolutely!

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

https://t.co/5Xdi6JrlhL

— Matthew Zeitlin (@MattZeitlin) November 10, 2025

---

.....for "dumping" product into our market.

We are a considerably larger and more efficient producer of wheat, and production of pasta is an industrial process which both countries have. Thus there is no reason for Italy to have any kind of inherent cost advantage in production of generic pasta. Now, speciality pastas with certain varieties of wheat produced via different methods which produce a product with different qualities.....sure. Some customers may prefer Italian pasta for one reason or the other. Fine. They should pay a premium.

No responsible government should let foreign producers punish our farmers or pasta producers with unfair trade practices.

---

Clearly a national security risk. You guys are such mindless Trump sycophants.

It’s so nice that Trump is giving us relief from the thing he did

— Damin Toell (@damintoell) November 12, 2025

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

https://t.co/5Xdi6JrlhL

— Matthew Zeitlin (@MattZeitlin) November 10, 2025

---

.....for "dumping" product into our market.

We are a considerably larger and more efficient producer of wheat, and production of pasta is an industrial process which both countries have. Thus there is no reason for Italy to have any kind of inherent cost advantage in production of generic pasta. Now, speciality pastas with certain varieties of wheat produced via different methods which produce a product with different qualities.....sure. Some customers may prefer Italian pasta for one reason or the other. Fine. They should pay a premium.

No responsible government should let foreign producers punish our farmers or pasta producers with unfair trade practices.

---

Clearly a national security risk. You guys are such mindless Trump sycophants.

---

ATL says unfair trade practices are good for consumers (until they cost him HIS job).

tariffs are a proper and proportional response for dumping and allowed by emergency provisions in statute. There is state interest in protecting jobs, given that jobs are tax base. (and that's before we get to the minor detail that workers vote.)

BREAKING: President Trump drops tariffs on beef, coffee and tropical fruit as pressure builds on consumer prices. https://t.co/JiFcp3ltVd

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 14, 2025

BREAKING: Switzerland has agreed to invest $200 billion in the US as a part of a new trade deal.

Switzerland will also purchase more Boeing planes and US tariffs will be reduced from 39% to 15%.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) November 14, 2025