US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[rikster]

My two cents…

When you look at a comparison of GDP between countries, I think that you also have to look at each countries spending…

For example, Sweden in their 2025 budget is forecasting a deficit of less than 1% of its GDP after increasing its military spending…

The US on the other hand is forecasting a deficit of over 6% of its GDP before the impact of the Trump tariffs…

On the auto tariffs, you have to wonder how many high paying jobs will be created if Trump reaches his goal of having all manufacturing done in the US with 100% US content?

Less than 100 jobs per plant?

And then you ask how will the OEMs reduce the cost of a vehicle so that Americans can afford them?

More robotics? Less safety content? Run existing technology longer and spend less on R&D?

Or just move plants out of the US altogether to lower cost countries and deal with the cost of the tariffs when bringing them into the US for sale?

Toyota has been adjusting their manufacturing process so that it can quickly convert a plant anywhere in the world to build a vehicle sold anywhere in the world so for example modifying its plant in Vietnam to build any model in its lineup can be done...

For the American car companies, they are struggling with margins and profits already.

And they haven’t learned their lessons from the last financial crisis and have continued their business model which has been to offer consumers large discounts and rebates which makes you wonder how long can they survive before they ask for another bailout?

https://companiesmarketcap.com/automake ... e_vignette

On DOGE, Musk promised to give Trump $2 Trillion in savings on the campaign trail, he lowered that expectation to $1 Trillion after the elections and so far hasn't come close to achieving that target and may end up spending more than they are saving when you factor in the cost of the layoffs and firings which makes you ask if they would have been better off to just leave the Government alone and let the tax cuts expire?

All of this chaos because the administration is desperate to find revenues to fund its aggresive spending goals...

[BCExpat]

Since Trump's goal is to move industries, etc., to the USA, we should raise the prices on our exports such as lumber, oil, minerals, electricity, pot ash, aluminum and steel for example, and extract as much out of the USA as we can, before these exports are replaced by home grown USA resources. It's going to take years for the USA to replace items such as Canadian lumber and electricity, so we may as well get as much out of them as we can. Meanwhile, it gives Canada time to develop new markets and the infrastructure required to get these products to new markets. I understand that in some sectors it's not quite as easy as that. For example, with oil and gas, it's going to take a very long time to get the pipelines and terminals in place to be able to ship oil and gas to overseas markets. But, if we are going to lose the USA as a customer for our resources anyway, why not make it profitable for Canada. All that extra money could be used to build the infrastructure required to ship to new markets.

[5thhorseman]

I like your thinking, BCExpat, though I think some of these industries will never become fully US home-grown. For instance, I don't think they'll ever smelt all their own aluminium. They just don't have the hydroelectric to do this on a cost-effective basis.

[BCExpat]

I like your thinking, BCExpat, though I think some of these industries will never become fully US home-grown. For instance, I don't think they'll ever smelt all their own aluminium. They just don't have the hydroelectric to do this on a cost-effective basis.

Unless they use nuclear reactors to generate power, but even then, it would take years for them to get on stream. I agree with you that some things will never be US home grown - ie - pot ash.

[Topper]

Where's Tesla?

While I am generally suspicious of tariffs, the primary reason so many Japanese company cars are manufactured in the US is because the need to end run 1980s import quotas.....

Tesla is apparently up in the Ford range of 80%.

Further dynamic to this is the traditional Detroit big 3 have been integrated with Canadian plants since the 1950's (Ford's Windsor heads on their 350ci V8). That Aotopact disappeared with the first NAFTA.

I remember the 80's tariffs. There was also one on motorcycles 750cc and over to help resuscitate Harley Davidson from the AMF disaster years. Honda famously detuned their standard 750cc and offered it as a short lived 700cc.

Note those that moved manufacturing to the US, (I believe the tariff affected final assembly, not input parts) established in the poor south with great tax concessions and cheap labour. Many of those plants still aren't unionized.

Toyota went the route of the Big 3 except they established closer to the southern border in California and Texas to connect with their Mexican plants.

A reference to GM truck motors, pistons are made in Canada, connecting rods in Mexico, blocks in the US.

We know from the across brand recalls, seat belts and airbags come from an Asian supplier.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Hurt my head just looking at it….

That's like the fucking Gettysburg Address

Trump is a kunt and I love seeing Leon's dealerships getting torched but that post is too long for Hargraves.

[Topper]

Since Trump's goal is to move industries, etc., to the USA, we should raise the prices on our exports such as lumber, oil, minerals, electricity, pot ash, aluminum and steel for example, and extract as much out of the USA as we can, before these exports are replaced by home grown USA resources. It's going to take years for the USA to replace items such as Canadian lumber and electricity, so we may as well get as much out of them as we can. Meanwhile, it gives Canada time to develop new markets and the infrastructure required to get these products to new markets. I understand that in some sectors it's not quite as easy as that. For example, with oil and gas, it's going to take a very long time to get the pipelines and terminals in place to be able to ship oil and gas to overseas markets. But, if we are going to lose the USA as a customer for our resources anyway, why not make it profitable for Canada. All that extra money could be used to build the infrastructure required to ship to new markets.

There are always other sources in the world for the raw materials we trade with the US.

Petroleum is a non-starter. Ontario and Quebec get their Alberta oil via the US. The Maritimes by ship from the Mid East, Texas possibly Venezuela.

Electricity is a possibility, but where else do we sell it. Do we just disconnect the turbines? How much Canadian employment is there in generation and transmission? The Columbia Basin Agreement for the Kootenays was up for renegotiation last year. A framework for the new deal was in place and finalizing it was in progress last Fall. That has been put on hold by Trump. It is an arrangement where it is our water, dams and reseviors for their electricity. A lot of cash flows back into Canada from the agreement.

Does BC, Ontario and Quebec start scaling back the flow? What are the counter measures? We already saw Ford try a 10% export fee on electricity to be countered with a 50% tariff on steal and aluminum.

Does Ontario limit the supply of nickel for US steel making? Open up Brazil and Australian supplies. Again, how does Trump counter?

The auto tariffs are still a vague mess as no one knows how the various parts inputs will be catalogued.

Of all the Trump tariffs, aluminum is the one that makes absolutely no sense. The US domestic production supplies 40% of their market. Canada supplies the other 60%. They have limited other options for quality aluminum.

I know a small engineering/manufacturing business in the US that designs and makes high end control valves from aluminum. They started looking at moving the business to Turkey as soon as Trump won the election.

National Post story today says a real danger to US softwood tariff increases is that Canada produces most of the kraft pulp for toilet paper and paper towel made in the US.

[Per]

Wow Per, how do you have time to write essays in this thread?

I really don't, which is why I limited myself to just answering the first out of four questions UW posted, and will try to get back to the others in due time.

But to the extent that I do - since my wife died and my daughters have moved out and I now live in a condo instead of a house I do have more time on my hands. Also, January and February were really hectic at work (as always) and so I worked longer hours, and thus as March is a slower month, I have been working slightly shorter days to compensate. That will soon change though as April is another hectic month with Q1 reports, forecasts and whatnot. So I'll try to get through UW's questions this weekend, because after that I will have less time on my hands again.

[Per]

I like your thinking, BCExpat, though I think some of these industries will never become fully US home-grown. For instance, I don't think they'll ever smelt all their own aluminium. They just don't have the hydroelectric to do this on a cost-effective basis.

Unless they use nuclear reactors to generate power, but even then, it would take years for them to get on stream. I agree with you that some things will never be US home grown - ie - pot ash.

Well, also, nuclear energy is among the most expensive there is, whereas hydroelectric is dirt cheap.
They can never be competitive if they go the nuclear route, as aluminium production is extremely energy consuming.

[BCExpat]

Since Trump's goal is to move industries, etc., to the USA, we should raise the prices on our exports such as lumber, oil, minerals, electricity, pot ash, aluminum and steel for example, and extract as much out of the USA as we can, before these exports are replaced by home grown USA resources. It's going to take years for the USA to replace items such as Canadian lumber and electricity, so we may as well get as much out of them as we can. Meanwhile, it gives Canada time to develop new markets and the infrastructure required to get these products to new markets. I understand that in some sectors it's not quite as easy as that. For example, with oil and gas, it's going to take a very long time to get the pipelines and terminals in place to be able to ship oil and gas to overseas markets. But, if we are going to lose the USA as a customer for our resources anyway, why not make it profitable for Canada. All that extra money could be used to build the infrastructure required to ship to new markets.

There are always other sources in the world for the raw materials we trade with the US.

Petroleum is a non-starter. Ontario and Quebec get their Alberta oil via the US. The Maritimes by ship from the Mid East, Texas possibly Venezuela.

Electricity is a possibility, but where else do we sell it. Do we just disconnect the turbines? How much Canadian employment is there in generation and transmission? The Columbia Basin Agreement for the Kootenays was up for renegotiation last year. A framework for the new deal was in place and finalizing it was in progress last Fall. That has been put on hold by Trump. It is an arrangement where it is our water, dams and reseviors for their electricity. A lot of cash flows back into Canada from the agreement.

Does BC, Ontario and Quebec start scaling back the flow? What are the counter measures? We already saw Ford try a 10% export fee on electricity to be countered with a 50% tariff on steal and aluminum.

Does Ontario limit the supply of nickel for US steel making? Open up Brazil and Australian supplies. Again, how does Trump counter?

The auto tariffs are still a vague mess as no one knows how the various parts inputs will be catalogued.

Of all the Trump tariffs, aluminum is the one that makes absolutely no sense. The US domestic production supplies 40% of their market. Canada supplies the other 60%. They have limited other options for quality aluminum.

I know a small engineering/manufacturing business in the US that designs and makes high end control valves from aluminum. They started looking at moving the business to Turkey as soon as Trump won the election.

National Post story today says a real danger to US softwood tariff increases is that Canada produces most of the kraft pulp for toilet paper and paper towel made in the US.

The thing about the heavy crude from the Oil Sands, is that many of the midwest US refineries are geared up for this type of oil as opposed to the lighter crude oil from places like Texas. To change these refineries over to light crude, would be a long and expensive undertaking. Venezuela produces heavy crude, but, they are on Trump's shit list and their oil is not as easy to get to those midwest refineries as Canadian heavy crude. So, if the prices of our heavy crude were to be increased, I don't think that the USA would have any choice but to pay the increased price. Trump wants wean the USA off Canadian oil anyway, so it's a market that we will eventually lose.

As for electricity, we don't need to sell it anywhere else and the USA doesn't really have any other options at this point.

Canadian soft wood lumber is another commodity that is not easily replaced in the near future, at least not economically. Same goes for pot ash, although Trump may get a deal with Russia.

On steel, aluminum and other minerals, I agree that these can be replaced from other sources, so price increases for these exports wouldn't be feasible.

[Cousin Strawberry]

Hey maybe during this trade war they could give Canadian consumers a break on petrol and building supplies.

The cost for basics like ply and builder grade sticks is ridonkulous considering we make that shit here

[Per]

Our governments tend to do OK. I mean, I may have political disagreements with them, but they tend to be rather competent imho.
But then, almost any metrics you use, the Nordic countries tend to do surprisingly well, so maybe we’re not the norm.

(1) Why do you think that is?

(2) Do you think that will be the case in the future?

(3) Are you concerned about the decade+ lack of growth in GDP & per capita income in the Scandanavian countries and Europe more broadly, especially as compared to the United States?

(4) What do you think the United States did so well in the second Obama term, the first Trump term, and the Biden administration to outpace Europe (and Canada) in per capita income and GDP growth?

Do I think the Nordic countries will continue to do well? Yes. Yes, I do.

Now, I guess that might suffice as an answer. but I detect an implied questioning of this in your question, so I'll try to explain why I think so.

First of all, I think our systems are fairly robust. If you look at trust in government, as in almost any other metric, you find the Nordics way up the list, even though in this particular metric both Switzerland and Luxembourg (extremly stable countries) have us beat among the OECD countries:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

The only exception here is Iceland, with just over 51%, roughly on par with Canada, but even they are way above the 31% of Americans who have trust in their government.

You also see it in the misnamed Happiness Index, which really more is about being content than happy, but still. The Nordic countries hold places 1,2,3,4 and 7. I have no idea what the Norwegians are so grumpy about, but this year they got passed by both Israel (sic!) and the Netherlands.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world

There is also the Gini coefficient, measuring income inequality. As you can see in the map income inequality is quite low in the Nordic countries.


Now, is that good or bad? People may have differing views on that, and I think we can all agree that it should pay off to work harder, but to which extent? And is Elon Musk really working hundreds of millions times harder than his employees? In general it can be observed that higher income inequality tends to lead to more crime. As long as people consider different outcomes fair, they are OK with it, but when they consider income distribution unfair, some people decide that they will not play by the rules.

But at the same time, the opportunity to get filthy rich is actually greater in the Nordic countries than in a libertarian haven as the USA. If you look at the percentage of children to the 20% with lowest income in a country that end up in the 20% with the highest income, you find that social mobility in the Nordic countries is very high. But of course, I find that quite logical considering that our universities do not charge tuition and that enrolling is strictly merit based. Your family name and fortune won't help you get a short cut.


And if you look at the number of USD billionaires per million inhabitants, Sweden has twice as many as the USA.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68927238

I truly recommend this article on the topic: https://evonomics.com/where-in-the-worl ... -get-rich/

Some see it as odd that a country with a cradle to grave social safety net and 50% marginal tax rate would have as many start-ups as we do, but it actually makes sense. If you have an idea for a company or an app or whatever, you can usually take a leave of absence for 6 months or a year. Sure, your employer must approve it, but they usually do. So you can try out your ideas, and if you realize it doesn't work out, you just go back to your old job. What is the worst thing that can happen? Not much. So instead of the social welfare state encouraging laziness, it actually encourages people to go chase that dream, and if it doesn't pan out, just go back to work like it never happened. And with even poor people having access to university level education, we make better use of the potential in people. Also, in the 1990's employers were encouraged to offer subsidized home computers to their employees, and we early on decided that broadband was an essential service, like water, sewage and electricity, that all households should have access to. Thus computer literacy throughout Scandinavia is sky high. When the Finnish IT-developer Linus Thorvalds (Linux) moved from Helsinki to Silicon Valley, he complained about how crappy his internet connection was there...

Sweden is the birthplace of IKEA, H&M, Spotify, Klarna, Skype, Minecraft, Candy Crush. And we're the second largest exporter of Music, behind the USA. Of course we also have more traditional companies like Volvo, Scania, Sandvik, AtlasCopco, TetraPak, etc, but computer games actually account for more export revenue than cars these days. And Microsoft paid about ten times more for Minecraft than Geely did for Volvo.

A system that ensures education, free meals at school, subsidized daycare, healthcare and a social safety nets are available to everyone creates people who are generally content with life and feel that they have a fair opportunity to pursue happiness without ever having to risk everything you have. Thus generating stability in the system.

Anyway. I understood that you earlier pondered about the effects of immigration? I would say that they are mainly positive. Roughly 20 percent of Swedes (2.2 million) were born abroad, but 0.6 million of those were from other Nordic countries and another 0.5 million from other European countries, the Americas and Oceania. Then there's 0.85 million from Asia and 0.25 million from Africa. These 10% contain people with different cultural backgrounds, and sometimes you see claims that Sweden has 500 million or even 1 million Muslims now, which is bullshit. Those figures are based on country of origin, but many of those that have come from the Middle East to Sweden were fleeing persecution from Islamist governments and organisations. Thus a large part of the immigrants from Muslim countries are atheist, Christian, Bahaï, Mandaen, etc. We actually have the largest Mandaen population in the world, some 20,000 people. They are followers of John the Baptist, just like Jesus was before he started his own breakaway cult. And we have a large and thriving group of Christian Arabs in Södertälje, a city that took in more Syrian refugees than all of the USA did. The two guys we talkked about before, who had a penchant for burning qurans, belonged to that group. Our laws ban the keeping of registers of ethnicity or religion, in part based on nazi groups making lists of Jews that they planned to hand over to the Germans in case they invaded. Thus we do not have truly reliable statistics, but in polls the response given gives at hand that roughly 32% of adult Swedes have no religion, 65% consider themselves Christian, 1% are Muslims and 0.3% are Jews and 1.7% belong to other religions. This would give a rough figure of some 80,000 adult Muslims. Now, Muslim congregations in Sweden report a total membership of 270,000 members. The difference can be explained by a number of factors. The congregations probably include children, and there are some 830,000 residents in Sweden that do not have citizenship. Now, the majority of these, close to 60%, are other Europeans (remember that we have free mobility within the EU). But there are some 300,000 from Asia or Africa, and some of these may be members of congregations as well. So the true amount of Muslims in Sweden would probably be somewhere around 300,000 or less than 3% of the population. Also, of those who claimed to be Muslim in the poll, only 13% considered themselves devout. Many of the Bosnians that came here during the war in Yugoslavia will attend weddings and funerals in the mosque but drink alcohol and do not worry to much about other religious restrictions either. I have two Muslim collegues, and they do avoid pork though. As does the Jewish girl who also works in the office.

Sure, a mass event like the Syrian refugee crisis in 2014 does cause some strain, it's hard to find housing, employment, etc, for everyone when so many arrive at once. There is also a problem that in areas with poor integration, immigrant youth can easily be recruited by gangs. There has been an increase in gang related violence in recent years, and most gang members have immigrant background, but even though gun violence has risen, so that Sweden has the most shootings per capita in Western Europe, you have to realize that shootings are exceptionally rare in Western Europe, so it doesn't take much to earn that honour. We have roughly 60 gun homicides per year (what's that, a regular Tuesday in Detroit?), a total of roughly 120 homicides per year. 121 in 2023, which gives us a 1.147 homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants, which is on par with the UK, lower than France, half of what Canada has (2.273) and less than a fifth of the US murder rate (5.763). So it is all blown out of proportion. This has two major causes; the right wing Sweden Democrats' fear peddling to attract voters on anti-immigrant sentiments and Russian desinformation trying to depict Sweden as a failed and decadent society. They partly go hand in hand, with Sweden Democrats often repeating Russian desinformation and Russian government controlled media often interviewing Sweden Democrats, and (at least earlier) helping finance their organisation, as they do with extreme right wing parties throughout the European Union. In reality there are at least 20 immigrants working in healthcare alone for every immigrant gang member. I've seen some figure before that some 99% of native Swedes will never be arrested for a violent crime, and the same holds true for 98% of immigrants. So if you want to spin it, you could say that immigrants are twice as likely to commit violent crime, but I think that is a very dishonest presentation of the statistics. The truth is that most people, regardless of background, are pretty decent. And if you treat someone with respect they will usually respond in kind.

Anyway, the vast majority of second generation immigrants are fully integrated. A study on social norms and attitudes showed that when polled on gender equality, second generation Muslims in Sweden had attitudes that were closer to their Swedish class mates than to those of their parents. And albeit there was a slight difference between native Swedes and second generation immigrants, that difference was less pronounced than the difference between Swedes and Brits.

Thus I feel safe in my conviction that the stability and relative success of Nordic countries will continue.

See if I can get around to answer the other two questions this weekend, and perhaps comment on your answer to my first post as well.

[Topper]

The thing about the heavy crude from the Oil Sands, is that many of the midwest US refineries are geared up for this type of oil as opposed to the lighter crude oil from places like Texas. To change these refineries over to light crude, would be a long and expensive undertaking. Venezuela produces heavy crude, but, they are on Trump's shit list and their oil is not as easy to get to those midwest refineries as Canadian heavy crude. So, if the prices of our heavy crude were to be increased, I don't think that the USA would have any choice but to pay the increased price. Trump wants wean the USA off Canadian oil anyway, so it's a market that we will eventually lose.

As for electricity, we don't need to sell it anywhere else and the USA doesn't really have any other options at this point.

Canadian soft wood lumber is another commodity that is not easily replaced in the near future, at least not economically. Same goes for pot ash, although Trump may get a deal with Russia.

On steel, aluminum and other minerals, I agree that these can be replaced from other sources, so price increases for these exports wouldn't be feasible.

Did you understand what I wrote?

Increase petro prices, US counters on the pipeline heading back into Canada.

How do you plan on storing hydroelectricity? There is only so much water that can be stored and manage flooding. This time of years, reservoirs are are dropped to allow for freshet.

Seems Carney kissed the ring this morning. Likely with the same message Smith has been sending, once we get a real government in place, Canada and the US will talk.

[Per]

My two cents…

When you look at a comparison of GDP between countries, I think that you also have to look at each countries spending…

For example, Sweden in their 2025 budget is forecasting a deficit of less than 1% of its GDP after increasing its military spending…

Right. And as I've stated before, we're not supposed to have any budgeted deficits, but because of the looming Russian threat and the signs of the US possibly opting out of the transatlantic alliance, even threatening to invade other Nato members, the EU is now encouraging all member states to increase defence spending even if we have to take on debt to do it. The idea is to spend some EUR 900 billion on strengthening the defence of EU members, while simultanously rampoing up support for Ukraine.

Thus all Swedish parties have agreed that for the time being, the defence budget is no longer restricted by our budgetary rules.
And our government debt is just 36% of GDP. Far below the 104.7% of Canada or 121% of the USA.
So we can probably take on some more debt in order to avert this crisis.

[Megaterio Llamas]

The consigliere has a message from the Don to the Danes:


https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1905693786124230900