Pete Hegseth Secretary of Defense

[hookyIU1990]

@larsIU and I would like to extend you an invitation to the Ernest Everhard Association (not to be confused with the Erik Everhard fan group that @hookyIU1990 runs). Do not respond here. Oligarchs or their minions may be monitoring this.

An operative will be in touch shortly.

You misspelled Everhart. Her first name is Angie.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

@larsIU and I would like to extend you an invitation to the Ernest Everhard Association (not to be confused with the Erik Everhard fan group that @hookyIU1990 runs). Do not respond here. Oligarchs or their minions may be monitoring this.

An operative will be in touch shortly.

I escaped, er, dropped out, before that book. Thank goodness as it seems most of you weren't happy with it.

I started taking classes again, maybe, with luck, I can graduate before dying. It should be a good race. My first class is on labor. Much of it FAR left. Someone far more middle of the road that I have a soft spot for is John R Commons. He and the Wisconsin School worked through a lot of theories. But the one thing they sort of kept all along was that labor should be roughly as strong as management. If there was balance both sides could profit. For a while, he believed that corporate goodwill alone would work, Ford's $5/day initiative really resonated with him on how responsible corporations could solve the problem. And for about two years into the Great Depression, it worked. But then corporations started jettisoning employees and slashing wages. So he started other ideas which, not by coincidence, we basically call the New Deal. The right to unionize, the right to strike, unemployment insurance, etc.

I don't want the state nationalizing business, I don't want their hands on the scales tilting it decidedly pro-labor. But in the wild, ownership holds all the cards. I'd like the scales to be more even so everyone can lead a good life. I want the classic class bell curve, not the pyramid.

 

[BradStevens]

I escaped, er, dropped out, before that book. Thank goodness as it seems most of you weren't happy with it.

I started taking classes again, maybe, with luck, I can graduate before dying. It should be a good race. My first class is on labor. Much of it FAR left. Someone far more middle of the road that I have a soft spot for is John R Commons. He and the Wisconsin School worked through a lot of theories. But the one thing they sort of kept all along was that labor should be roughly as strong as management. If there was balance both sides could profit. For a while, he believed that corporate goodwill alone would work, Ford's $5/day initiative really resonated with him on how responsible corporations could solve the problem. And for about two years into the Great Depression, it worked. But then corporations started jettisoning employees and slashing wages. So he started other ideas which, not by coincidence, we basically call the New Deal. The right to unionize, the right to strike, unemployment insurance, etc.

I don't want the state nationalizing business, I don't want their hands on the scales tilting it decidedly pro-labor. But in the wild, ownership holds all the cards. I'd like the scales to be more even so everyone can lead a good life. I want the classic class bell curve, not the pyramid.

That's awesome! How many do you need to take?

The book was interesting. Parts of it were well worth talking about. I think you'd have liked it.

 

[Spartans9312]

When American corps made the decision to offshore production, was that a "clash of classes"? I don't know how else you could label it but I'm sure you will find a way. Which is the point. When money pools, when our system goes from a large middle class and smaller at the poles to a pyramid common in the banana republics and the like, we have to wonder if that is actually good for society and what causes it. You have long railed on lobbyists. We have people able to lobby our governments, other governments, other corporations, exceedingly effectively.

I have mentioned Welsh because he began the CEO exuberance, as I noted his predecessor made $1 million his final year. We were not doing wrong in America that needed Welsh to come along and entirely rewrite the playbook. I believe you mentioned Ford earlier, you know the story, Ford's competitors were angry that he was "overpaying" workers. He cut the work day from 9 to 8 hours and paid $5/day instead of $2.5.

I'd rather have a Henry Ford than a Welsh (pro-nazi leanings aside for Ford). We went through a long phase in America that a corporation could make everyone good money, it was replaced by it should only make good money for the CEO and investors.

I am just arguing for a return to an America that invites everyone to share in the nation's wealth, not just a Musk or Bezos. The great socialist Abraham Lincoln once said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." For reasons unknown, we have moved that sort of thinking to "socialist" and decided only capital and management matter. That's what needs to be smoothed out. On its own, labor has far less power, and in the last 50 years, there have been substantial efforts by one party to ensure it stays that way. Jobs were moved overseas to make people like Welch rich. But for some reason, he and his brethren, aren't considered the evil elite.

Was moving all our jobs overseas good for America? If it was, why do you support tariffs? If it wasn't, what caused it to happen? The simple answer, the one you will try very hard not to give, is people in one class could make a whole lot more by doing it. Welsh sure did, I am sure even you won't try to argue otherwise. We rewarded people who moved American jobs with enormous bonuses and lower taxes. That'll teach them a lesson.

Isn’t all this stuff you listed the reason Trump won handily?

The Democrats left the building and he filled the void. Now you have Vance, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton writing policy proposals you should support

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Isn’t all this stuff you listed the reason Trump won handily?

The Democrats left the building and he filled the void. Now you have Vance, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton writing policy proposals you should support

I don't support tariffs, I would attack it from the other end. Corporations that build in America get tax breaks, and corporations that offshore pay tax penalties. Heck, I think there should be tax penalties for paying more than some salary, say $20 million, to CEOs. That penalty would move to "ungodly high" if said CEO offshores.

My biggest issue with Trump's tariffs is the "across the board." I happen to know many people in the gaming industry, and I know two people who ran print shops (both print shops have long gone under). From that combination, I know there is no chance we can make games in this country for an amount that people would be willing to pay for them. That is pretty much going to be the result from a 60% tariff. That isn't enough to get games back to the US, but it is enough that many will quit buying them. This has become a large industry growing rapidly (10%/year roughly). Killing it makes no sense. But taking a $100 game to $160 will do that. Taking it to $200, roughly the amount I have been told would happen if returned onshore will also kill the industry.

My other complaint about the Republicans, they are the ones who killed unions. I want parity between workers and management and unions play a big role in that. One person, by themselves, withholding their labor from businesses over unfair pay has a name, usually "unemployed bum". It has no impact on the market whatsoever.

I wish Trump success, I cannot discount that I might be wrong that returning to Smoot-Hawley is a terrible idea. But I know that in the first term China retaliated against soy, so we spent $38 billion to bail out farmers in 2020. There is going to be a lot of that as we declare trade wars on every country on earth at the same moment. I can't see how it happens without a lot of disruption to supply chains and to costs.

 

[Spartans9312]

I don't support tariffs, I would attack it from the other end. Corporations that build in America get tax breaks, and corporations that offshore pay tax penalties. Heck, I think there should be tax penalties for paying more than some salary, say $20 million, to CEOs. That penalty would move to "ungodly high" if said CEO offshores.

My biggest issue with Trump's tariffs is the "across the board." I happen to know many people in the gaming industry, and I know two people who ran print shops (both print shops have long gone under). From that combination, I know there is no chance we can make games in this country for an amount that people would be willing to pay for them. That is pretty much going to be the result from a 60% tariff. That isn't enough to get games back to the US, but it is enough that many will quit buying them. This has become a large industry growing rapidly (10%/year roughly). Killing it makes no sense. But taking a $100 game to $160 will do that. Taking it to $200, roughly the amount I have been told would happen if returned onshore will also kill the industry.

My other complaint about the Republicans, they are the ones who killed unions. I want parity between workers and management and unions play a big role in that. One person, by themselves, withholding their labor from businesses over unfair pay has a name, usually "unemployed bum". It has no impact on the market whatsoever.

I wish Trump success, I cannot discount that I might be wrong that returning to Smoot-Hawley is a terrible idea. But I know that in the first term China retaliated against soy, so we spent $38 billion to bail out farmers in 2020. There is going to be a lot of that as we declare trade wars on every country on earth at the same moment. I can't see how it happens without a lot of disruption to supply chains and to costs.

We rely on our main adversary for our medicine…who the hell does that? You can extrapolate that to any good that is essential to our (Americans) well being.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't support tariffs, I would attack it from the other end. Corporations that build in America get tax breaks, and corporations that offshore pay tax penalties. Heck, I think there should be tax penalties for paying more than some salary, say $20 million, to CEOs. That penalty would move to "ungodly high" if said CEO offshores.

My biggest issue with Trump's tariffs is the "across the board." I happen to know many people in the gaming industry, and I know two people who ran print shops (both print shops have long gone under). From that combination, I know there is no chance we can make games in this country for an amount that people would be willing to pay for them. That is pretty much going to be the result from a 60% tariff. That isn't enough to get games back to the US, but it is enough that many will quit buying them. This has become a large industry growing rapidly (10%/year roughly). Killing it makes no sense. But taking a $100 game to $160 will do that. Taking it to $200, roughly the amount I have been told would happen if returned onshore will also kill the industry.

My other complaint about the Republicans, they are the ones who killed unions. I want parity between workers and management and unions play a big role in that. One person, by themselves, withholding their labor from businesses over unfair pay has a name, usually "unemployed bum". It has no impact on the market whatsoever.

I wish Trump success, I cannot discount that I might be wrong that returning to Smoot-Hawley is a terrible idea. But I know that in the first term China retaliated against soy, so we spent $38 billion to bail out farmers in 2020. There is going to be a lot of that as we declare trade wars on every country on earth at the same moment. I can't see how it happens without a lot of disruption to supply chains and to costs.

Agree in part disagree in part. Unions got fat and are partially why companies went abroad. We’re all familiar with auto workers etc and the impact on price. I sympathize with the gaming. That light manufacturing is my world. If trump targets china companies will just go to Vietnam, Pakistan, etc. that tariff will still be cheaper than here by a considerable margin.

I agree with the bell curve as well. The problem is that wages aren’t necessarily the issue. Healthcare reform. Daycare. So many reforms outside of wages that could bolster the middle class. Hell give me more tax breaks. Most business is small business. Had Biden lifted the tax breaks about to expire I’d have gotten with that 20 percent pass through. LLCs are most of America’s businesses

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We rely on our main adversary for our medicine…who the hell does that? You can extrapolate that to any good that is essential to our (Americans) well being.

I agree, we need them back. Target the tariffs. medicine and DIB need to be in the US. My games, it would be nice but isn't doable. What I like to use as an example, is those little green army men. Any scenario any of us can imagine where it is profitable to make them in the US? T-shirts?

Who knows, we bring back medicine and DIB, then maybe we move to more cars or more of something else and eventually we get to green army men. I doubt it, but maybe.

But this targeting everything? Reminds me of the old adage about defending in war, he who defends everywhere defends nowhere. You know that quote is important as Frederick the Great said it and they don't just append "the great" on just anyone's name .

I wouldn't see an advantage to declaring a military war on every other nation at the same moment. Why is it advantageous to declare economic war on the entire world at the same time?

But by all means, bring medicine and any DIB back.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I agree, we need them back. Target the tariffs. medicine and DIB need to be in the US. My games, it would be nice but isn't doable. What I like to use as an example, is those little green army men. Any scenario any of us can imagine where it is profitable to make them in the US? T-shirts?

Who knows, we bring back medicine and DIB, then maybe we move to more cars or more of something else and eventually we get to green army men. I doubt it, but maybe.

But this targeting everything? Reminds me of the old adage about defending in war, he who defends everywhere defends nowhere. You know that quote is important as Frederick the Great said it and they don't just append "the great" on just anyone's name .

I wouldn't see an advantage to declaring a military war on every other nation at the same moment. Why is it advantageous to declare economic war on the entire world at the same time?

But by all means, bring medicine and any DIB back.

Little green army men are made in Scranton Pa 🤣. No bs Marv.

Apparel is massive overseas. Fast fashion. Disaster. And it just gets dumped.

 

[Spartans9312]

I agree, we need them back. Target the tariffs. medicine and DIB need to be in the US. My games, it would be nice but isn't doable. What I like to use as an example, is those little green army men. Any scenario any of us can imagine where it is profitable to make them in the US? T-shirts?

Who knows, we bring back medicine and DIB, then maybe we move to more cars or more of something else and eventually we get to green army men. I doubt it, but maybe.

But this targeting everything? Reminds me of the old adage about defending in war, he who defends everywhere defends nowhere. You know that quote is important as Frederick the Great said it and they don't just append "the great" on just anyone's name .

I wouldn't see an advantage to declaring a military war on every other nation at the same moment. Why is it advantageous to declare economic war on the entire world at the same time?

But by all means, bring medicine and any DIB back.

https://www.cato.org/video-series/faces-globalization/textile-town-ghost-town-car-town-west-point-georgia

This makes me laugh.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That light manufacturing is my world. If trump targets china companies will just go to Vietnam, Pakistan, etc. that tariff will still be cheaper than here by a considerable margin.

That's the problem, we will pay more for jobs not coming back. I don't like China, but I don't think Pakistan or Vietnam are anything I want to give money to either. A $100 product from China now costs $110 from Vietnam but then the tariff raises it to $143. Is that really doing consumers well?

 

[mcmurtry66]

That's the problem, we will pay more for jobs not coming back. I don't like China, but I don't think Pakistan or Vietnam are anything I want to give money to either. A $100 product from China now costs $110 from Vietnam but then the tariff raises it to $143. Is that really doing consumers well?

No I agree with you. So my main product is about $12 in Pakistan. All in. Shipping included. To do it in kc varies but about $85 to $100 depending on order size.

It will still be way cheaper to stay in Pakistan. So we will offset by raising prices. So now 1) the customer pays more and 2) the job doesn’t come back. It’s still in Pakistan.

One caveat is that my experience is limited to light manufacturing. I don’t know anything about heavy manufacturing. Big steel parts and all of that expensive stuff. Maybe it’s different?

To pick on Biden. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that the woke menu was insanity. That a guy like Biden with 50 years in gov got co-opted so easily by the squad was shocking to me. Is it possible a guy like trump with 60 years in business, who manufactures in China, has no idea what consequences tariffs will bring and the the true lay of the land on manufacturing?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No I agree with you. So my main product is about $12 in Pakistan. All in. Shipping included. To do it in kc varies but about $85 to $100 depending on order size.

It will still be way cheaper to stay in Pakistan. So we will offset by raising prices. So now 1) the customer pays more and 2) the job doesn’t come back. It’s still in Pakistan.

One caveat is that my experience is limited to light manufacturing. I don’t know anything about heavy manufacturing. Big steel parts and all of that expensive stuff. Maybe it’s different?

To pick on Biden. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that the woke menu was insanity. That a guy like Biden with 50 years in gov got co-opted so easily by the squad was shocking to me. Is it possible a guy like trump with 60 years in business, who manufactures in China, has no idea what consequences tariffs will bring and the the true pay of the land on manufacturing?

Some heavy I suspect can come back. That's why I find across the board crazy. Pick and choose your battles. Oh well, we agree so I'll shut up before that changes.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Some heavy I suspect can come back. That's why I find across the board crazy. Pick and choose your battles. Oh well, we agree so I'll shut up before that changes.

Yes targeted seems much more sensible

 

[hookyIU1990]

I'm just super excited that people from both sides of the aisle are now loudly crowing about the idea that when the government adds costs to products, it gets passed on to the consumer.

Now let's talk about taxes and superfluous regulations while not losing site of that argument.

 

[twenty02]

Sounds like Pete is a drunk and his nomination is fkd

 

[BCCHoosier]

Sounds like Pete is a drunk and his nomination is fkd

Agree. Even various Fox News employees are speaking out.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Very interesting indeed. Any executive position you can get Ron in is a win.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Very interesting indeed. Any executive position you can get Ron in is a win.

View embedded media

He’s a far better nominee. I wouldn’t oppose him.

 

[BradStevens]

Very interesting indeed. Any executive position you can get Ron in is a win.

View embedded media

That's a much more serious choice.

 

[UncleMark]

That's a much more serious choice.

If you are DeSantis, how do you feel about being the fallback after Pete Fvcking Hegseth?

 

[BradStevens]

If you are DeSantis, how do you feel about being the fallback after Pete Fvcking Hegseth?

I think the better question is: would that set you up to run in 2028 or '32? I think he'd be better off staying put as a governor. You take that job, and there are decent odds Trump fires you at some point. That would kill your chances in the Republican Party.

 

[snarlcakes]

I think the better question is: would that set you up to run in 2028 or '32? I think he'd be better off staying put as a governor. You take that job, and there are decent odds Trump fires you at some point. That would kill your chances in the Republican Party.

The bigger issue is DeSantis has to separate himself from Vance. If Trump has a good Presidency, Vance is a shoe in for the nominee. It wouldn’t matter if DeSantis was a part of it or not. However, if Trump has a bad term, DeSantis has a good chance of being the nominee if he’s not attached to Trump.

 

[DANC]

Sounds like Pete is a drunk and his nomination is fkd

If you believe 'anonymous sources'. I prefer to believe named sources who claim he isn't anything like that.

 

[DANC]

Agree. Even various Fox News employees are speaking out.

No they're not

 

[DANC]

Agree. Even various Fox News employees are speaking out.

Sounds like Pete is a drunk and his nomination is fkd

 

[CO. Hoosier]

When American corps made the decision to offshore production, was that a "clash of classes"? I don't know how else you could label it but I'm sure you will find a way. Which is the point. When money pools, when our system goes from a large middle class and smaller at the poles to a pyramid common in the banana republics and the like, we have to wonder if that is actually good for society and what causes it. You have long railed on lobbyists. We have people able to lobby our governments, other governments, other corporations, exceedingly effectively.

I have mentioned Welsh because he began the CEO exuberance, as I noted his predecessor made $1 million his final year. We were not doing wrong in America that needed Welsh to come along and entirely rewrite the playbook. I believe you mentioned Ford earlier, you know the story, Ford's competitors were angry that he was "overpaying" workers. He cut the work day from 9 to 8 hours and paid $5/day instead of $2.5.

I'd rather have a Henry Ford than a Welsh (pro-nazi leanings aside for Ford). We went through a long phase in America that a corporation could make everyone good money, it was replaced by it should only make good money for the CEO and investors.

I am just arguing for a return to an America that invites everyone to share in the nation's wealth, not just a Musk or Bezos. The great socialist Abraham Lincoln once said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." For reasons unknown, we have moved that sort of thinking to "socialist" and decided only capital and management matter. That's what needs to be smoothed out. On its own, labor has far less power, and in the last 50 years, there have been substantial efforts by one party to ensure it stays that way. Jobs were moved overseas to make people like Welch rich. But for some reason, he and his brethren, aren't considered the evil elite.

Was moving all our jobs overseas good for America? If it was, why do you support tariffs? If it wasn't, what caused it to happen? The simple answer, the one you will try very hard not to give, is people in one class could make a whole lot more by doing it. Welsh sure did, I am sure even you won't try to argue otherwise. We rewarded people who moved American jobs with enormous bonuses and lower taxes. That'll teach them a lesson.

Well, you certainly unloaded a lot of grievances with this post. Having read it a few times I’m not sure where you are directing your complaints.

I think it’s noteworthy that even the Chicoms recognize and support free market capitalism as they employed that to attract foreign investment and produce jobs.

Special economic zones of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don’t know what to make of your Lincoln reference. He was a strong advocate of what I call the #1 basic rule that should be the starting point for economics: all of us are entitled to keep and enjoy the fruits of our labor, talents and ambitions. I sense you would suggest that the public has some inchoate interest in our own labor, talents and ambition.

I agree that the growing inequality is a problem. You seem to blame that on an inherent problevwith free markets and capitalism. I don’t think that is a problem with the economic system, instead, it’s a social issue. I think it’s a result of cultural changes and an educational system that produces people who are out of touch with the reality of making a living in the world. Drugs also play a role. So does the seeming derision of dirty blue collar jobs. The most recent example is an administration forgiving loans for a college education of questionable value while a tradesman must foot the bill for education and the tools of the trade.