tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post2593046396757792316..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Jack Ryan and Tom Clancy - interpreting Donald TrumpJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-58449355528039363252017-07-10T15:53:35.787+10:002017-07-10T15:53:35.787+10:00I laughed, Tikno, although I wasn't absolutely...I laughed, Tikno, although I wasn't absolutely sure of the cop part!Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-11265066045386677402017-07-06T03:40:56.530+10:002017-07-06T03:40:56.530+10:00Trump succeeded in burning the spirits of American...Trump succeeded in burning the spirits of American cowboys but in front of them was a cop :)Tiknohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05733973438543735098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-38519668975136506922017-01-28T17:57:10.318+11:002017-01-28T17:57:10.318+11:00Thanks for this, 2t. Roughly what I thought with W...Thanks for this, 2t. Roughly what I thought with WTO. The lack of transition continuity is a weakness. You don't have to agree with advice, but it is helpful to have it. There is some vetting going on. The leaks of some earlier versions of orders would appear to confirm this. But its all a dreadful rush. So far the pattern is consistent with earlier statements. The scope for mess of one type or another is substantial. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-10310029634145870032017-01-28T12:20:28.500+11:002017-01-28T12:20:28.500+11:00The WTO agreements let countries fix tariffs at a ...The WTO agreements let countries fix tariffs at a given level and then allows measures of a substantially equivalent economic impact in retaliation for violation of agreements or other breaches (eg dumping, misuse of quarantine rules etc.). There is no provision for a 'stay' in retaliation while proceedings progress. A (allegedly) hurts B, B applies countermeasures, one party complains and the WTO moves its investigatory and legal processes into action. It can take years, even if someone complains. Trump may not realise that the instigator (first mover) in any action carries the presumption of guilt which puts them on a playing field tilted in favour of the other party.<br /><br />In other news, he seems to have accepted the resignations of the top four foreign affairs officials. These are standardly offered pro forma, and some are of retirement age, so I'm not reading anti-Trump sentiment into this, but it's going to be a hit.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-81828469043902521352017-01-27T20:06:00.680+11:002017-01-27T20:06:00.680+11:00I do not think that Mr Trump knows much about econ...I do not think that Mr Trump knows much about economics, 2 tanners. If they slap a 20% tariff on, it is the US consumers who pay the higher price, so they pay for the wall. To the degree that demand is reduced (this will lower the US take) or the price increase is compensated by Mexican producers, then there is a cost to Mexico in reduced production or reduced profit margins or some combination.<br /><br />You note the possibility of retaliation by Mexico. That's possible, although I don't think that countries (Mr Trump has threatened China as well, for example)will retaliate in ways that impose hurt on them. However, they will look for alternatives. <br /><br />The legal position in all this is not clear to me either in the US or in agreements such as the WTO of which the US is presently part.<br /><br />If you apply the deal making model, Mr Trump may be attempting to establish a base from which he can negotiate down. Negotiating dynamics in the national/international create difficulties here. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-68508577813469536312017-01-27T15:25:43.817+11:002017-01-27T15:25:43.817+11:00Watching in disbelief as Trump puts a proposal to ...Watching in disbelief as Trump puts a proposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall by imposing a 20% tariff on Mexican (and others') goods. Certainly a country can breach its trade agreements but it's often not tit-for-tat: e.g. you slap a 20% tariff on us, we decide to exclude all American products from IP protection. If done officially, it's not even piracy, it's legally copied content. It would make for interesting legal arguments in 3rd country markets. <br /><br />More importantly, it's the American public who end up paying the 20% price increase, so they'll end up paying twice. 2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-51341306121519020712017-01-23T10:37:26.850+11:002017-01-23T10:37:26.850+11:00Second attempt to publish this?
Perhaps Cornell U...Second attempt to publish this?<br /><br />Perhaps Cornell University might assist: "Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. <b>It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.</b>"<br /><br />- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment<br /><br />kvd<br /><br />(my <b>emphasis</b>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-1731031044038476702017-01-23T08:02:49.654+11:002017-01-23T08:02:49.654+11:00Hey Jim, you mean like this?
"Despite popula...Hey Jim, you mean like this?<br /><br />"Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. <b>It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.</b>"<br /><br />- from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-37125804461990655232017-01-22T14:07:13.966+11:002017-01-22T14:07:13.966+11:00Expressing a degree of frustration, kvd. Not at yo...Expressing a degree of frustration, kvd. Not at you, but the paucity of on-line sources that I need.As best i can understand it, freedom of the press was included as a specific item not as a place holder but because of British restrictions on the American colonial press in the immediate period. Freedom of the press was a specific variant associated with the emergence of newspapers. I stand to be corrected. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-43651761195663676812017-01-22T06:58:34.078+11:002017-01-22T06:58:34.078+11:00Another example:
"Today we celebrate one of ...Another example:<br /><br />"Today we celebrate one of democracy's core attributes: the peaceful transfer of power. And every day we stand up for core democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution: the rule of law; equal protection for all under law; the freedom of speech, press, religion -- the things that make America America."<br /><br />- from Schumer's address at the inauguration.<br /><br />Notice how the word 'press' has been removed from its original, intended, position as a placeholder for "written/printed word" and elevated to stand distinct beside 'speech' and 'religion'. <br /><br />If you are going to talk about core democratic principles, you'd think a proper understanding of such was fairly important.<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-84704170508230264892017-01-21T18:36:00.252+11:002017-01-21T18:36:00.252+11:00Yes - of course. Except I would put it that 't...Yes - of course. Except I would put it that 'the press' has assumed such a stance. kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-40930146129485975422017-01-21T17:05:20.644+11:002017-01-21T17:05:20.644+11:00Ended too early. Are you saying that the press has...Ended too early. Are you saying that the press has used this to create a shield limited to itself?Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-63022737638908806712017-01-21T16:59:37.324+11:002017-01-21T16:59:37.324+11:00Afternoon, kvd. Freedom of the press has a more sp...Afternoon, kvd. Freedom of the press has a more specific historical meaning in an English or Australian context. I'm not quite sure, however, of the point you are trying to make.<br />Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-77213543330547582252017-01-21T12:24:47.914+11:002017-01-21T12:24:47.914+11:00McGeogh is a bed-wetting partisan hack, and I don&...McGeogh is a bed-wetting partisan hack, and I don't like him. <br /><br />I particularly don't like the fact that his articles never allow for comment - but I understand the editorial decision on same, because his partisan hackery would probably require any resulting comment stream to be constantly monitored by a crew of a dozen or more.<br /><br />Speaking of partisans, maybe have a quick scan of this WaPo article on the "freedom of the press":<br /><br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/on-freedom-of-the-press-donald-trump-wants-to-make-america-like-england-again/?utm_term=.0f43b03b94f1<br /><br />Now it will never be pointed out by the likes of PM or his mates, but the "freedom of the press" referred to in the First Amendment in the words "Congress shall make no law [....] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" refers NOT to our media sources - be they newspapers, television or internet, but ACTUALLY TO a more broader useage, common in the days of pamphleteering: the written (usually printed) word.<br /><br />The FA is simply stating that you may speak or write whatever you wish without government hindrence. But somehow over the aeons, this has been corralled, and turned into a shield by that specific class of vermin we refer to as "the press".<br /><br />But you won't find that in the WaPo article, nor even remotely acknowledged by PM, except with a sneer.<br /><br />kvd<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-76808624601424798592017-01-21T07:50:11.920+11:002017-01-21T07:50:11.920+11:00Happy new year, 2 tanners. You may well be right. ...Happy new year, 2 tanners. You may well be right. It takes time (and people) to learn how to manage a system <br /><br />We now have President Trump's inauguration speech. A lot of the coverage has been concerned with rights and wrongs, good and bad. I think that we can take the speech as a base for objective analysis. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-37879206639367141572017-01-20T10:51:58.709+11:002017-01-20T10:51:58.709+11:00One of the main things I am waiting to see is how ...One of the main things I am waiting to see is how far Trump can move against the inertia of the bureaucracy and the existing laws of the US which are rambling, contradictory and split between Federal and State (not implying that Trump is out to break laws, but existing laws will almost certainly impede some of his policy aims). I think he has made a huge mistake in his widespread purge in that many of his appointees also only know the bureaucracy from the outside and by sacking appointees before they can deliver (in fact before he is President), he has no real power left to threaten those at the coalface. He may succeed, but it's hard to drain the swamp when your order for pipes hasn't been filled or paid for because you don't know how to do that.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.com