Crowflies
2d ago
VAT applies equally to imports and domestic goods. It is a consumption tax which of course affects the consumer but any tax (maybe apart from property taxes) affects the consumer. My argument is not that VAT is some kind of magical tax that is free of consequences but that it is significantly different from tariffs.
Crowflies
2d ago
This might seem bad, but to put it in perspective, countries in Europe have a VAT tax (similar to sales tax) of 20-30% on the retail price, and that's on top of any customs import duties/tariffs.
Tariffs work completely differently. VAT does not affect trade and VAT affect only the end consumer, tariffs affect everybody. You have a business that imports aluminum and makes cans and exports them abroad. With VAT you pay zero. With tariffs, you are hit with tariffs. Now your competitor abroad imports aluminum tariff-free and has 20% cheaper cans and squeezes you from your export market share.
Even for end customer, it works differently because VAT is applied effectively only once. Tariffs will hit you each time the product crosses border. You set up the supply chain that you import aluminum, make cans, ship them to Canada, and fill them with soda. Congratulations, you pay tariffs twice, first on aluminum, then on the soda can. If Canada retaliated, you pay them three times and basically your product is gone from the market while you scramble to reorganize the supply chain. If there is nobody who can fill your soda domestically (or there is shortage and will charge you exorbitant prices), you are even out competed with Canadian sodas that pay the tariffs only once.
Crowflies
6d ago
I have recently came across this YouTube video that was the first one I found that provide a plausible explanation for this whole tariffs mess. The gist is that the Trump administration tries to strong arm trading partners into allowing them to trade with US tariffs-free provided that they introduce reciprocal tariffs on US's rivals and sign "Mar-o-Lago Accords" that would 1. weaken dollar that would allow for the manufacturing to return to US but 2. keep the dollar as reserve currency. That's why this is so messy and trade-deficit oriented. The chaos is intentional but temporary.
Needless to say, 1 and 2 are simultaneously impossible. It is the reserve currency status that creates non-trade related demand for dollar and makes it stronger and allows the trade deficits proceeds to be "sterilized". I find it baffling that Scott Bessent cannot see that this plan cannot mathematically work.
The video also present an argument that for the plan to work the partners must agree to this strong-arming tactic and this is another potential point of failure,
Crowflies
10d ago
I find it interesting that it took more than 24 hours for @HereAndGone to point out that 1937 movie is in not original but is based on Grimme brothers tale. The Grimme version is, in turn, not original, it is based on German folk tales and similar tales have been circulating in many European nations. It is an example of disneyification of culture, let's borrow something from public domain and make it copyrighted and lobby to make the copyright as restrictive as possible.
Anyway, since it is a folk tale, it is interesting to point out that in this supposedly "patriarchy", the folk recognized the power and agency of women with men having distinctly secondary roles in the story. And also that the folk recognized the bad effect of UV light exposure on skin beauty (let's hope that Snow White ate a lot of fish not to have vitamin D deficiency) with paleness of the skin of Snow White the crucial component of the plot.
Crowflies
15d ago
Indeed. The list looks like the distribution of features in Hollywood movies and Netflix shows. NYC and California over represented. Rich people over represented. Similarly for veterans. And then car owners underrepresented. All are typical show tropes.
Crowflies
24d ago
Like the exact energy spectrum of any medium sized atom in a reasonable basis set
This problem is actually definitely computable. Any medium-sized atom does this "calculation" all the time just fine. We may need to employ quantum computers, but problems that the nature solves are not difficult.
There are a lot of problems that are not solvable, though, but this is not a good example.
Crowflies
25d ago
Does your distaste to modern style extend to other aspects of modern design? Modernist architecture was just one pillar of the modernist movement. Modernist ideas for exteriors also allowed for completely new interior designs. The interiors with large windows and open spaces are impossible in traditional architecture. The modernist style of furniture or just simply design of tools is also different.
Looking around me in my European landscape, I can definitely say that modern interior design is pretty widely accepted, way more than the exteriors that are indeed not fully accepted. There are very few people that design their bedrooms in old style, similarly for bathrooms or living rooms.
Crowflies
26d ago
I generally disagree with the notion that modern architecture is bad but there is definitely quite a lot of bad architecture made. But good modern buildings can be visually very pleasing. For example, I find the Rietveld Schröder House extremely captivating. Even more impressive is that it was built in 1924.
If you don't find it better than an ordinary brick house from that time, the next explanation is
6: If you are longer exposed to something (including an architectural style), it makes you feel better about it
This is a well-know phenomenon in music. A song feels better the more you listen to it. An architectural example is the Eiffel Tower that was extremely controversial and hated by many when it was built. Now, it is perceived as an iconic and inseparable part of Paris. It will also explain why architects are more fond of modern architecture: they are much more exposed to it.
Crowflies
29d ago
On the basic level, they applied, presented a path to have NATO-quality military, and after getting ready, whey were accepted unanimously by all other NATO members. On the more abstract level, peace in Europe leads to prosperity. On a deeper level, the only path for small countries to be protected from aggressive neighbors is to join an alliance or develop nuclear weapons. We are all better when they choose the former than the latter.
Crowflies
29d ago
What are the gains from invading the Baltics relative to the risks?
There are two obvious benefits: Russian minorities (1/4 of Estonia and Latvia) and land bridge to Kaliningrad via Lithuania (Suwalki Gap) that can be also carved through Poland. Both would be cheered by Russian population. Now about the risks: if NATO replies in full force, Russia is screwed. If NATO is fractured (isolationist USA, indecisive Germany and France, token help from other countries), then invasion of the Baltics will be a piece of cake. The latter situation would permanently shatter NATO credibility which would be a huge Russia gain. Therefore, the likelihood of Russia invasion of the Baltics is inversely proportional to NATO cohesion.
Fears about the Baltics from Ukraine are rehashed domino syndrome that makes even less sense.
There is one aspect that is rarely discussed in this context that is extremely important. Currently, these countries face Russia alone (+ Belarus). If Russia conquers Ukraine, they will face Russia+Belarus+Ukraine. Russia will utilize strategic location, resources, industry, and population of Ukraine for further expansion.
Crowflies
1mo ago
Ukraine was the softest target in Europe
Ukraine had the largest army in Europe outside of Russia. It had conscription and a pretty large pool of veterans of the conflict with Russia that started in 2014. It had a decent amount of Soviet weaponry, including SAM systems (largest in Europe) that prevented Russia from gaining air superiority. Last but not least, Ukraine is large that allowed them to consolidate defense. A small country would be wiped out if Russians advanced 150 km.
Of all the countries neighboring Russia in Europe (China would definitely be a different matter), Ukraine was the hardest target. Putin invaded for two reasons: he expected Ukraine to fold and not defend (essentially a repeat of Crimea capture but with some token fighting) and secondly, of all targets, Ukraine is the most precious. Subjugating Ukraine would make all the other countries that are not NATO protected to become subjugated, too.
Crowflies
1mo ago
I'm not claiming the current situation is a 1:1 copy of the interwar period, just that the Czechoslovakian potential helped in later Hitler's military conquest (including several Slovakian divisions being used in 1939 invasion of Poland). I'm not going to defend the Poland's dick (and short-sighted) move of grabbing Trans-Olza from Czechoslovakia, either. It is worth pointing out, though, that Poland's help to Czechoslovakia was a complete fiction back then because Poland and Czechoslovakia were not too friendly, mainly due to a similarly dick Czechoslovakian move of invading Trans-Olza in 1919 while Poland was preoccupied in defending their eastern borders.
Crowflies
1mo ago
I will start that I'm from Poland which may create a completely different vision to someone more distant from Russia. I'm also no military expert and I have no idea what the best course of action is.
Having said that, I think that the collective west should do everything in their power to stop Russia from subjugating Ukraine because after this, we will face not just Russia but Russia+Ukraine and Russia will not stop. This is a repeat from 1938, where the Czechoslovakian military potential that could have subtracted the Germany potential, got added to them. Russia has a long history and experience in breaking Ukrainian spirit and after pacifying, they will conscript them and send them to die in another Russian war. Russia's win will also start a new era of nuclear proliferation (if this ship has not sailed already) and the world with nuclear arsenal distributed among many more players will become much less stable.
I am personally willing to endure a substantial hit of my standard of living now to contain Russia. I donated money to Ukrainian cause but obviously my whole wealth would hardly make a noticeable dent if not followed by a collective action. I believe that any spending now is a bargain compared to the spending in resources and lives in the future facing victorious Russia. It is clear in hindsight that a much stronger response in 2014 would have been much better that having to deal with the current situation.
Crowflies
1mo ago
I don't believe that Trump is a Russian agent (someone might be compromized in his staff that steers him in the right direction, though) but KGB had an enormous network of human assets. They tried to recruit anybody that was even remotely useful.
Crowflies
1mo ago
both the reduction in US aid and the increase in European defense spending -- is part of an elaborate pre-constructed kayfabe to facilitate the transfer of US military resources from Europe to the Pacific.
If this is the goal, then it's the worst way of achieving the goal. If there is a US-China confrontation in the future, it's getting more and more likely than EU will stay neutral because staying allied with US does not achieve anything. There is no military gain, no economic gain (you get slapped with tariffs at random) , there is no even moral gain (like the usual selling point of US being the leader of the free world).
Crowflies
1mo ago
In America we had an election in the middle of our civil war
This is an irrelevant argument. It is as relevant to the current situation as a point than ancient Athenians had elections during Peloponnesian War. A better (since more recent) parallel is the suspension of elections by UK during WWII. It is definitely easier to conduct elections before the age of bombers and missiles hitting your polling stations.
However, what matters is that elections are suspended during the state of war according to the Ukrainian Constitution. Lifting the state of war would be criminally stupid when there is an ongoing war (the state of war allows some actions that are illegal during peace, like having a firing positions in private property by the military). Surely, there can be some legal trickery, like rolling suspension of state of war or some other legal tricks but this will not make it any more democratic that what it is now and there is still a matter of missiles raining from the sky. I would not like to see a headline "Presidential elections conducted in Ukraine. 25 dead, 150 injured, and 25,000 ballots destroyed in fires".
Crowflies
1mo ago
When discussing Budapest Memorandum it is worth noting that it was signed in 1994 by Leonid Kravchuk who was a Soviet-Ukrainian leader. Ukraine at that time, while having some historical reasons to distrust Russia, was in perfectly good terms with them and in the heads of the ex-Soviet leaders an invasion by USA or UK, while also remote, may have seemed more likely than by Russia. Like all ex-Soviet countries, Ukraine was also completely bankrupt and money to maintain the nuclear weapons was going to be a significant drain to the newly created country. It is also worth noting that it was the country of freshly experienced Chernobyl-disaster and anything nuclear did not ring positively with the population.
While Ukraine had no ambitions at the time to become "western", by signing the agreement they definitely planed to enter the world stage as a partner of both the west and Russia and not as adversary.
With hindsight this agreement seems very naive and bad for Ukraine but the alternative of maintaining the nuclear status had many drawbacks, including international isolation with significant economic costs.
Crowflies
1mo ago
Russia couldn't capture Ukraine (so far because the war is still ongoing) because Ukraine had the largest land military in Europe apart from Russia, had a vast air defense stockpile inherited from Soviet Union, and had a military that fought with some various intensity with Russia since 2014 and had experience. On top of that, Ukraine is large and has a large defense depth. Putin thought Ukraine will just not fight.
Nobody knows what Putin thinks but if he succeeds in Ukraine, he has a war machine, veterans (including criminals that would be better kept in the army), war economy that would crumble if demobilized. At this point, the risk of continuing the conquest may not be larger than the risk of demobilizing. Russia is no match to a unified NATO (even ex-US) but fractured and indecisive NATO is vulnerable.
Crowflies
1mo ago
(Nature endorsing Biden).
Nature is owned by Springer Nature, a private for-profit publisher. Nature having a political stance does not differ from, say, The Economist.
Crowflies
1mo ago
If it's so real, why can virtually no countries in Europe maintain their commitments to NATO spending?
The "virtually no countries" is completely not true. The European defense spending have been rising rapidly even before Trump came to office. Only a handful of NATO members do not spend 2% GDP and the number of allies exceeding the limit crossed 23 in 2004. There are now a few countries that spend more than US without having global ambitions and open ocean navies.
It is counted in service exports but services were not included in Trump's formula, only goods trade.
More options
Context Copy link