While I’m not competent to evaluate the financial ins and outs in current geopolitics in any sort of detail, it appears to be beyond doubt that the Trump 2.0 strategy—building on Project 2025’s call to weaponize US economic leverage to maintain its global military hegemony—is to use various financial and trade related measures to force the world to pay down America’s unsustainable debt so that the US can maintain military hegemony.
This is all rather depressing, isn't it? You can't imagine Team Trump saying with a sigh, "Okay, we tried to hang on to our nice little hegemony, but it isn't working out. Let's give the Chinese a turn!" Unfortunately, late-stage Empires usually take it to the battlefield. Hesgeth's crazy attack on China yesterday suggest that this on the cards.
Hegseth trash-talking against China this way is foolish. Bombast makes enemies, not friends.
The US does not have the military might, or good-standing in the world, to back up threats like he spewed while in Singapore. And threats make things worse. What an embarrassment this guy is--and a detriment, too.
But he is probably following directions about how and what to speak.
The Golden Dome is a joke - its an impossibility to even protect 1/4 of the eastern seaboard - EG: anyone could send a submarine off Florida - what would the US do - impossible
but so is going to Mars - and Musk has US sold on that
Who wants to live on mars, what kind of life is that ?
Remember the 1970's when everyone was going to build underwater homes and housing and living underwater was going to be great ! No one wants to live like that. it was another prior great fantasy - no one wants to live where you cannot breathe where you cannot just walk outside
No one wants to live underground either -- and you can breath oxygen underground, at least easier than on mars
When will anyone call Musk out on this living on mars grift.
Agree - Mars is real pie in the sky then you die. We have to understand life first - little things like our microbiome, autoimmunity, neoplasms, things we know we don’t, as well as things we don’t we don’t. It’s getting too far over your skis and burning your wings in the sun while losing sight of land.
The 1960's and 1970's saw a similar level of enthusiasm for underwater living as is currently seen for Mars colonization, with extensive proposals, experiments, and public interest. Publications and media coverage played a crucial role in disseminating these ideas, much like today's discussions about Mars.
But then No One Cared because they realized it was silly.
eg:
Sealab Program (1964-1969): Initiated by the U.S. Navy, the Sealab program was one of the most prominent efforts to develop underwater habitats. It aimed to test the feasibility of humans living and working underwater for extended periods. Sealab I, II, and III were deployed off the coast of California, with aquanauts staying underwater for days to weeks. This program was part of a broader interest in saturation diving and deep-sea exploration.
Conshelf Experiments (1962-1965): Led by Jacques Cousteau, the Conshelf (Continental Shelf Station) experiments were another significant initiative. Conshelf I, II, and III involved underwater habitats where teams lived for varying durations, with Conshelf III seeing six aquanauts stay at a depth of 100 meters for several weeks. These experiments were widely publicized and helped fuel interest in underwater living.
Tektite Program (1969-1970): A joint project between the U.S. Navy, NASA, and the Department of the Interior, Tektite involved scientists living in an underwater habitat off the Virgin Islands. It was designed to study human performance in isolated, confined environments, with applications for both underwater and space missions.
EG: "Saudi Arabia is leveraging its position to extract as much as it can from Washington, asking for security guarantees, nuclear cooperation, and advanced weapons in exchange for tentative diplomatic gestures and vague alignment against China."
As I have opined previously once the Ukraine SMO is over - Russia will have weapons galore as well as manufacturing of weapons at least equal to US in quality at 1/6 the price at able to be created and delivered at 1/10th the timeline - it appears rediculous that Saudi Arabia is buying US weapons.
EG: "The West is getting LOOTED by America. " The examples given the LNG instead of cheap Russia gas - but what is the result - a weakend and worthless ally in the EU - the US is looting what may be their last standing ally - it makes no sense
Unions
US cannot compete China Russia India etc.. and one of the main reasons why is the magic word Union, but no one is able to say that word Union Trump cannot even whisper it - and no one is able to tackle that issue so we have tariffs instead which will still mean US cannot compete and the Unions will probably as a net result benefit greatly from the tariffs - probably one of the greatest beneficiaries --- EG: Tesla does well no Unions if Trump wants automakers in US he will have to have Union Free Zones or otherwise curtail EG: US cannot build a ship and worse even if they did build one - US cannot CREW a ship - Unions - All shipping goes to foreign companies
I understand and agree with the general intent - US must produce/manufacture necessities like weapons, tanks, to pharmaceuticals or forever be reliant on the whims of others but tariffs alone will not create this magical manufacturing. And no one appears willing to admit that.
What Tariff is going to Help Here - EG: Cargo Transportation
Comparing the cost of manufacturing a cargo ship in the United States versus China for a vessel capable of transatlantic voyages between the US and the UK/EU involves multiple factors, including labor costs, material costs, shipyard capabilities, regulatory requirements, and economies of scale.
The US v China and Others SHIP Building and Crew
Manufacturing a SHIP to transport goods for example to and from US and UK EU
COST: US has 3 - 5 times greater cost than China or India for example [ I am being conservative probably 5 - 10 times greater ]
CREW: 5 - 10 times greater cost to the US Per Year than China or India for example
Manufacturing a cargo ship capable of transatlantic voyages in the US costs approximately $120–$180 million for a 6,000 TEU container ship, compared to $30–$50 million in China, making US costs 3–5 times higher.
Crew Size: A container ship (4,000–10,000 TEU) typically requires 20–25 crew members, including 8–10 officers and 12–15 ratings, per USCG manning requirements.
For a US-flagged container ship on transatlantic routes:
US Total Crew Cost: $3.84–$4.2 million/year ($320,000–$350,000/month) for 20–25 crew, reflecting higher officer pay and transatlantic demands Union benefits and demands
China/India/Philippines: $420,000–$720,000/year ($35,000–$60,000/month), 5–10 times lower than US costs due to lower wages and longer contracts.
=======================================
No matter what the tariffs are - the US simply cannot compete.
"The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury".
George Washington
Thanks - great post.
The Don’s call is due and he’s sending the goons to collect tribute and protection payments.
The problem is he’s putting the squeeze for an increase of the cut on members of the outfit and they’re not happy about it.
Unbeknownst to unwitting shop owners the pizzo (protection payments) went up and they’re going through the shakedown process.
From what I read, on April 2 when Trump announced his Tariff plans, the seats in front of the podium were filled with mostly UAW members.
I'm sorry, just to add my comment was in reply to Joe below concerning unions.
This is all rather depressing, isn't it? You can't imagine Team Trump saying with a sigh, "Okay, we tried to hang on to our nice little hegemony, but it isn't working out. Let's give the Chinese a turn!" Unfortunately, late-stage Empires usually take it to the battlefield. Hesgeth's crazy attack on China yesterday suggest that this on the cards.
5/30/2025, "Senators Graham and Blumenthal in Kyiv: the U.S. is preparing a massive new sanctions package--and Putin will feel it. Plan includes seizing $300B in frozen Russian assets, using Ukraine’s minerals for arms, and 500% tariffs on China if it backs Putin. 82 senators back it. 0/"....https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1928563311550820553...5/30/25, "The U.S. Senate is expected to "start moving" next week on a bill introducing sweeping new sanctions against Russia, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said at a press briefing in Kyiv on May 30 attended by The Kyiv Independent."...https://kyivindependent.com/82-us-senators-back-bone-crushing-russia-sanctions-expected-to-advance-next-week-graham-says/
Hegseth trash-talking against China this way is foolish. Bombast makes enemies, not friends.
The US does not have the military might, or good-standing in the world, to back up threats like he spewed while in Singapore. And threats make things worse. What an embarrassment this guy is--and a detriment, too.
But he is probably following directions about how and what to speak.
The Golden Dome grift
The Golden Dome is a joke - its an impossibility to even protect 1/4 of the eastern seaboard - EG: anyone could send a submarine off Florida - what would the US do - impossible
but so is going to Mars - and Musk has US sold on that
Who wants to live on mars, what kind of life is that ?
Remember the 1970's when everyone was going to build underwater homes and housing and living underwater was going to be great ! No one wants to live like that. it was another prior great fantasy - no one wants to live where you cannot breathe where you cannot just walk outside
No one wants to live underground either -- and you can breath oxygen underground, at least easier than on mars
When will anyone call Musk out on this living on mars grift.
.
Agree - Mars is real pie in the sky then you die. We have to understand life first - little things like our microbiome, autoimmunity, neoplasms, things we know we don’t, as well as things we don’t we don’t. It’s getting too far over your skis and burning your wings in the sun while losing sight of land.
The 1960's and 1970's saw a similar level of enthusiasm for underwater living as is currently seen for Mars colonization, with extensive proposals, experiments, and public interest. Publications and media coverage played a crucial role in disseminating these ideas, much like today's discussions about Mars.
But then No One Cared because they realized it was silly.
eg:
Sealab Program (1964-1969): Initiated by the U.S. Navy, the Sealab program was one of the most prominent efforts to develop underwater habitats. It aimed to test the feasibility of humans living and working underwater for extended periods. Sealab I, II, and III were deployed off the coast of California, with aquanauts staying underwater for days to weeks. This program was part of a broader interest in saturation diving and deep-sea exploration.
Conshelf Experiments (1962-1965): Led by Jacques Cousteau, the Conshelf (Continental Shelf Station) experiments were another significant initiative. Conshelf I, II, and III involved underwater habitats where teams lived for varying durations, with Conshelf III seeing six aquanauts stay at a depth of 100 meters for several weeks. These experiments were widely publicized and helped fuel interest in underwater living.
Tektite Program (1969-1970): A joint project between the U.S. Navy, NASA, and the Department of the Interior, Tektite involved scientists living in an underwater habitat off the Virgin Islands. It was designed to study human performance in isolated, confined environments, with applications for both underwater and space missions.
Nothing Makes Sense
EG: "Saudi Arabia is leveraging its position to extract as much as it can from Washington, asking for security guarantees, nuclear cooperation, and advanced weapons in exchange for tentative diplomatic gestures and vague alignment against China."
As I have opined previously once the Ukraine SMO is over - Russia will have weapons galore as well as manufacturing of weapons at least equal to US in quality at 1/6 the price at able to be created and delivered at 1/10th the timeline - it appears rediculous that Saudi Arabia is buying US weapons.
EG: "The West is getting LOOTED by America. " The examples given the LNG instead of cheap Russia gas - but what is the result - a weakend and worthless ally in the EU - the US is looting what may be their last standing ally - it makes no sense
Unions
US cannot compete China Russia India etc.. and one of the main reasons why is the magic word Union, but no one is able to say that word Union Trump cannot even whisper it - and no one is able to tackle that issue so we have tariffs instead which will still mean US cannot compete and the Unions will probably as a net result benefit greatly from the tariffs - probably one of the greatest beneficiaries --- EG: Tesla does well no Unions if Trump wants automakers in US he will have to have Union Free Zones or otherwise curtail EG: US cannot build a ship and worse even if they did build one - US cannot CREW a ship - Unions - All shipping goes to foreign companies
I understand and agree with the general intent - US must produce/manufacture necessities like weapons, tanks, to pharmaceuticals or forever be reliant on the whims of others but tariffs alone will not create this magical manufacturing. And no one appears willing to admit that.
.
What Tariff is going to Help Here - EG: Cargo Transportation
Comparing the cost of manufacturing a cargo ship in the United States versus China for a vessel capable of transatlantic voyages between the US and the UK/EU involves multiple factors, including labor costs, material costs, shipyard capabilities, regulatory requirements, and economies of scale.
The US v China and Others SHIP Building and Crew
Manufacturing a SHIP to transport goods for example to and from US and UK EU
COST: US has 3 - 5 times greater cost than China or India for example [ I am being conservative probably 5 - 10 times greater ]
CREW: 5 - 10 times greater cost to the US Per Year than China or India for example
Manufacturing a cargo ship capable of transatlantic voyages in the US costs approximately $120–$180 million for a 6,000 TEU container ship, compared to $30–$50 million in China, making US costs 3–5 times higher.
Crew Size: A container ship (4,000–10,000 TEU) typically requires 20–25 crew members, including 8–10 officers and 12–15 ratings, per USCG manning requirements.
For a US-flagged container ship on transatlantic routes:
US Total Crew Cost: $3.84–$4.2 million/year ($320,000–$350,000/month) for 20–25 crew, reflecting higher officer pay and transatlantic demands Union benefits and demands
China/India/Philippines: $420,000–$720,000/year ($35,000–$60,000/month), 5–10 times lower than US costs due to lower wages and longer contracts.
=======================================
No matter what the tariffs are - the US simply cannot compete.
.
Right. There were few laws in America when it first became an empire--at the end of WW2 and the New Deal.
Stupid free zone.