LIST: Countries Caving to Trump’s Tariffs

[CCTelander]

Yep

.

Tell it to the pro gun guys who produced a 20 year long string of unqualified victories. How? By absolutely refusing to compromise their principles in the slightest. No quarter.

For a movement that purports to be based on fundamental principles it’s rather sad to see how often its members attack and ridicule those among them who actually stand by those principles.

But whatever. It’s pretty much foreordained when they immerse themselves in politics. Politics is, after all, the art of compromising your principles in exchange for power. Or the illusion of power most often. Or just the promise of power that never actually gets delivered upon.

 

[nikcers]

.

Tell it to the pro gun guys who produced a 20 year long string of unqualified victories. How? By absolutely refusing to compromise their principles in the slightest. No quarter.

For a movement that purports to be based on fundamental principles it’s rather sad to see how often its members attack and ridicule those among them who actually stand by those principles.

But whatever. It’s pretty much foreordained when they immerse themselves in politics. Politics is, after all, the art of compromising your principles in exchange for power. Or the illusion of power most often. Or just the promise of power that never actually gets delivered upon.

The 2nd amendment people have a strong argument that just doesn't work with this.

1776 will commence again if you try to take my guns you will have to take them from my cold dead hands.

Nobody is threatening 1776 over taxes on maple coming from Canada.

The people are dumping maple syrup because Canada has been effectively taxing us and ripping us off.

 

[Voluntarist]

China Is Desperate, Halts Boeing Parts to Retaliate Against 245% U.S. Tariffs, but It Backfires

Ahhh, the Falon Gong YouTube channel.

No, China's not desperate - at least yet. As I explained in a previous post (in the “Caving to Trump’s Tariffs” thread), Aerospace was my industry - spent the better part of four decades in the upper echelons before retiring.

China is not desperate for parts. They've been stockpiling them since Trump's first term. When I first saw the figures on the stockpiles (back around 2020), the general consensus was that they were attempting to become a contender in the maintenance/service of Boeing jets. That may well have been the case - or it could be, as some now speculate, they were simply trying to build up enough parts to endure something they foresaw: that Boeing parts might one day be difficult to acquire. Beyond that, they can also scuttle existing planes for spare parts if needed. My understanding, though, is that the primary plan is to simply sell existing planes on the used plane market, undercutting the price point for new planes from Boeing. And on that pricing point - keep in mind that most of the aerospace industry utilizes global supply chains. Slightly over 25% of Boeing aircraft components and assemblies are manufactured outside the US, and those components and assemblies are going to be subject to tariffs upon entry to the US for final assembly. That's going to make Boeing Aircraft more expensive on the world market, even if other nations do not respond with retaliatory tariffs. And that's going to make used Boeing aircraft more attractive.

Swordy, in the case of Boeing, I honestly would have thought you'd be rooting for Boeing's downfall. There are few companies more dependent upon globalist supply chains than are Boeing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ahhh, the Falon Gong YouTube channel.

No, China's not desperate - at least yet. As I explained in a previous post (in the “Caving to Trump’s Tariffs” thread), Aerospace was my industry - spent the better part of four decades in the upper echelons before retiring.

China is not desperate for parts. They've been stockpiling them since Trump's first term. When I first saw the figures on the stockpiles (back around 2020), the general consensus was that they were attempting to become a contender in the maintenance/service of Boeing jets. That may well have been the case - or it could be, as some now speculate, they were simply trying to build up enough parts to endure something they foresaw: that Boeing parts might one day be difficult to acquire. Beyond that, they can also scuttle existing planes for spare parts if needed. My understanding, though, is that the primary plan is to simply sell existing planes on the used plane market, undercutting the price point for new planes from Boeing. And on that pricing point - keep in mind that most of the aerospace industry utilizes global supply chains. Slightly over 25% of Boeing aircraft components and assemblies are manufactured outside the US, and those components and assemblies are going to be subject to tariffs upon entry to the US for final assembly. That's going to make Boeing Aircraft more expensive on the world market, even if other nations do not respond with retaliatory tariffs. And that's going to make used Boeing aircraft more attractive.

Swordy, in the case of Boeing, I honestly would have thought you'd be rooting for Boeing's downfall. There are few companies more dependent upon globalist supply chains than are Boeing.

I don't give a fig for Boeing.
America will win whether Boeing survives or not.

China is only hurting itself and hastening its collapse.

 

[nikcers]

Boeing got the F-47 contract. Their x-plane beat out the others in the competition for the airforces 6th generation fighter jet that will replace the F-22

I don't think the Navy's 6th generation plane has been picked yet but it's supposed to be a different variant to replace the F-18

Ofcourse they might not pick Boeing for that one now anyways because they don't like to put all their eggs in one basket. They did that to Northrop Grunman when they gave Lockheed the F-22 contract

 

[Voluntarist]

China Is Desperate, Halts Boeing Parts to Retaliate Against 245% U.S. Tariffs, but It Backfires

The next point on this pertains to "penalties that Chinese airlines will face for canceling orders". It's a moot point. When you're cutting contracts on aircraft that cost on the order of $100 million, you ensure that said contracts include "force majeure" or "material adverse change" provisions to protect parties to the agreement from unexpected changes in circumstances. Among those circumstances are tariffs. It's not China that signed the deals, it's three distinct Chinese companies; and the changes in circumstances that they're looking at are tariffs imposed by the Chinese government which would double the cost, to those airlines, of the Boeing aircraft. So sorry, Boeing has no recourse for Chinese airlines cancelling contracts - they're back to renegotiating the contracts. Boeing, itself, has recourse to those "force majeure" or "material adverse change" provisions. Given the tariffs they face on parts and assemblies entering the US from foreign nations (up to 25% of each aircraft) they may no longer be able to deliver aircraft for the prices initially negotiated - again, back to the negotiating table.

 

[TheTexan]

.

Tell it to the pro gun guys who produced a 20 year long string of unqualified victories. How? By absolutely refusing to compromise their principles in the slightest. No quarter.

For a movement that purports to be based on fundamental principles it’s rather sad to see how often its members attack and ridicule those among them who actually stand by those principles.

But whatever. It’s pretty much foreordained when they immerse themselves in politics. Politics is, after all, the art of compromising your principles in exchange for power. Or the illusion of power most often. Or just the promise of power that never actually gets delivered upon.

They're both important, principles and compromise.

Can't get anywhere far in life without a little of both.

The problems arise when people pretend to do both at the same time.

 

[Voluntarist]

China Is Desperate, Halts Boeing Parts to Retaliate Against 245% U.S. Tariffs, but It Backfires

The next item in the list is what the YouTube says is Seth Seifman statement:

“Seth Seifman, an analyst at JP Morgan, said in a report, that he does not believe that China is critical for Boeing’s growth in the coming years”

That's not what Seifman said. Seifman didn't say anything about Boeing's growth. What he actually said is:

“"We do not see China as critical to Boeing's ramp over the next few years.”

And that's different than Boeing's growth. Boeing has been trying to "ramp up" both the clock rate and the throughput of it's assembly lines in order to work off its aircraft backlog of some 5,200 aircraft (note: the Airbus backlog is 8,600 planes). To that end, no customer is critical to that "ramp up". Cancelled orders can probably be moved to fulfull orders further downstream (though many airlines/lessors will not be able to take delivery before planned).

The critical items to increasing the clock rate and throughput of the assembly lines is quality control and the ability to increase the global supply chain. Quality control is being hampered by the fact that Boeing laid off some 20,000 workers and now has to replace them - and the new workers are not yet dialed into the existing clock rate, much less an increased clock rate. The issues with the global supply chain are being hampered by renegotiation of supplier contracts to support the increased clock rates as well as the Trump tariffs (which make the incoming supplier parts and assembles more expensive). Essentially, Boeing is trying to get assembles and components from the global supply chain faster and at a lower cost while maintaining quality control - just not going to happen.

Regardless of the challenges to near-term production increases, the long term prognosis is that Chinese demand for aircraft will comprise 20% of demand over the next 20 years, and any company that thinks that doesn't matter is in for a rude awakening.

 

[Voluntarist]

China Is Desperate, Halts Boeing Parts to Retaliate Against 245% U.S. Tariffs, but It Backfires

Another item on the list was China's home-grown aviation industry, particularly the C919 (the only jet currently in production). The video specifically mentions the CFM International LEAP-1C engines on the C919. While CFM International is a US/French consortium, the terminal end of the supply chain is in France rather than the US, so I'm imagining that for purposes of Chinese tariffs, it appears as a French product (but we'll see how China Tariffs assemblies containing US components). But the C919 also uses avionics systems from Honeywell International and Rockwell Collins in the US, so that will be a problem since fitting in Avionics from other companies will require a redesign of those systems. But I have no doubt that Thales (UK), Safran (France), Leonardo (Italy) and Elbit (Israel) will be more than happy to oblige - given that the C919 has about a 1,000 plane backlog).

The wide-body aircraft that China is developing have a less dire impact because they're not yet in production. It's safe to say that the US Aerospace companies are probably going to miss out on the long term sales to China for these wide bodies. Rolls Royce Engines will probably win out over GE engines. The previously mentioned avionics companies will probably win out over Honeywell and Rockwell.

===
BTW: The tail end of the CFM International LEAP-1C engine supply chain being in France presents a problem for Boeing. They use the same engines on the 737-Max; and those engines will be subject to whatever tariffs Trump has placed on products from France.

 

[Voluntarist]

China Is Desperate, Halts Boeing Parts to Retaliate Against 245% U.S. Tariffs, but It Backfires

Here's another thing to consider. Approximately 20-25% of the cost of the 737-MAX is in the engines. The MAX and the Airbus A320neo are comparable in capability (and prior to tariffs, in cost). However, post-tariff, the engines on the 737-MAX are going to have a 10% tariff premium on them. So on the world market, the 737-MAX is no longer price competitive with the A320neo.

 

[CCTelander]

They're both important, principles and compromise.

Can't get anywhere far in life without a little of both.

The problems arise when people pretend to do both at the same time.

.

You appear to be conflating compromise with cooperation.

They are two very different things.

It’s certainly possible to cooperate with others without compromising your principles. In fact, if you’re willing to compromise on fundamental principles you don’t really have any.

 

[Swordsmyth]

.

You appear to be conflating compromise with cooperation.

They are two very different things.

It’s certainly possible to cooperate with others without compromising your principles. In fact, if you’re willing to compromise on fundamental principles you don’t really have any.

You know what is truly compromising on principles?
Choosing no loaf because you can't get a whole loaf forever when slicing your way to a whole loaf is on the table.

 

[TheTexan]

.

You appear to be conflating compromise with cooperation.

They are two very different things.

It’s certainly possible to cooperate with others without compromising your principles. In fact, if you’re willing to compromise on fundamental principles you don’t really have any.

It's possible to compromise without compromising principles.

Unless of course your principles are that of never compromising.

The people in politics you suggest are "compromising their principles", I would rather suggest to you, that they didn't have principles to begin with.

 

[TheTexan]

I'd be the first to admit though I compromise on my principles every day.

According to my principles, I believe people should stand up to defend themselves against their slave owners.

Instead of doing that, though, I'm about to watch some Star Trek Enterprise. Great show by the way.

At least I can be honest with myself about my compromises. Few people are, here or elsewhere.

 

[acptulsa]

Don't blame us.

 

[TheTexan]

Don't blame us.

I don't blame you. I blame people like Nikcers, and that leftist troll who used to pop in here occasionally forgot his name. (not Zippy, never had any problem with him)

The rest of you are OK

 

[nikcers]

If you never do diplomacy you don't get anything. Politics is war by other means. All unwinnable wars end through diplomacy.

If a war is winnable it ends in defeat of one side. If you spend all of your resources on an unwinnable war you gain nothing.

The art of war is to win without fighting. One way to achieve that is to get your opponents to spend all of their resources on an unwinnable war.

It has been said that was an objective the people behind the 9/11 attacks had.

So you find ways to work with people who have different interests than you and you get some of what you want.

You make small victorys where you can and move the Overton window when you can and eventually those small victorys can add up together and you get more of what you want that way.

The art of diplomacy goes back thousands of years ago to the first historical record of a peace treaty with the ancient egyptian Empire and the Hitites.

They fought an unwinnable war and the way to win was through diplomacy and peace.

We ended the war in Afghanistan that way. We signed a peace agreement with them.

The original tablet from Ancient Egypt documenting the peace agreement is held at the United Nations.

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations or groups, typically aimed at maintaining peaceful relations and resolving conflicts. It involves communication, dialogue, and sometimes even compromise to achieve mutually agreeable outcomes.

 

[wizardwatson]

Because they stuck Biden in there and deliberately fucked everything up, that's why.

It's a psyop. Trump was, at best, Gerald Ford II until Warp Speed, when he went full criminal. But aside from that, he was just another president, just another unremarkable crook in a string of unremarkable crooks. Nothing special about him unless you just like his third grade playground bully persona.

So how did Jerry Ford become a cult daddy? Our very own Quadrennio Rosso starring Joe the Pedo Biden.

It's a psyop. It worked. People screech at us not because we trash Trump, but because we think Trump 45 was just another president.

They're desperate for a savior, and silly enough to believe it when we're told we can't have someone like a Dr. Paul or Massie. So they try to make Trump better than he is by sheer force of will, prayer, whatever. And they want us to wish really really hard too, because somehow they think that'll help.

Great summary.

You inspired and earned some custom wiz meme-age.

 

[PAF]

Great summary.

You inspired and earned some custom wiz meme-age.

The image doesn't display [it's blank]. What is it/what does it say?

 

[wizardwatson]

The image doesn't display [it's blank]. What is it/what does it say?

Yeah, I'm confused how to post imgur images in the new site I guess. I can see it fine.
I edited it and posted the direct link.

[EDIT: just embedded a tweet instead, fixed hopefully]