Transición Estructural .NET

Cita de: muyuu en Junio 06, 2025, 18:48:31 pm

El circo de Trump y Musk huele a teatro, pero quién sabe.

Creo que estamos sufriendo disonancia cognitiva.

La realidad está contradiciendo creencias que tenemos profundamente arraigadas, por lo que buscamos una explicación retorcida.

-¡No puede ser que sean tan idiotas, tan infantiles, tan ridículos. No pueden tener rabietas de niños de dos años delante de todo el puto mundo!
¡No pueden estar diciendo sandeces como camiones a diario! y acabar en este espectáculo más allá de la verguenza. ¡Es imposible!
Dos taraos semejantes no pueden haber llegado a presidente del gobierno de Estados Unidos ni a ser el tío más rico del mundo. Es imposible. Algo tienen que tener, algo tiene que haber en su cerebro para haber llegado ahí.
¡El mundo no puede ser un agujero tan ponzoñoso como para que semejante gente haya sido coronada y subida a los pedestales más altos!

Realmente no contradice mis creencias, este tipo de circos es lo esperable con esos dos. Precisamente por eso soy escéptico de que haya un conflicto real entre ellos, pero tampoco me parece muy descartable. Estamos frente a dos actores, más o menos.

Son más o menos consistentes con sus comportamientos erráticos, aunque parezca contradictorio ser consistente en ser errático.

A Trump no le dura nadie mucho en una posición importante, esto es lo único que me hace pensar que pueda haber una "pelea" real ahí, pero realmente no pierdo mucho tiempo ni energías intentando predecir cuál va a ser su siguiente movimiento.

En lo que no estoy de acuerdo es en que sean tarados. Payasos sí, pero tarados no están, tienen su forma de operar que les "funciona".

En octubre pasado regresé a España para quedarme. Mi señora no aguantaba más en UK.

Allí se quedó el amigo de BCN que me arrastró con él, y confieso: maldito el momento en que tomé la decisión. No se lo digan a mi mujer, ya me lo reprocha varias veces al día y bastante infierno es. Como a él también se le pasaba el arroz, el año pasado se metió a comprar un piso en planta baja al este del Támesis (Twickenham), 60 m² por £450k. Su hermano, igual. Cincuentones pelados todos, yo incluido.

Los precios por allí realmente no han bajado. El año pasado compartí unas previsiones tras una charla entre un burbujarra y el jefe de datos de Zoopla. El de Zoopla la clavó, y parece que la seguirá clavando: “bajarán” lo que suba la inflación.

Como en UK se conocen los precios de intercambio, acabé sabiendo en cuánto se vendió la penúltima propiedad que estuve alquilando. Según la dueña, que me la ofreció, estaba ente £900k y £1M: se vendió en £825k. Schadenfreude. Aun así, comprada por £570k en 2017, vendida en 2023.

Mi señora tampoco aguanta más viviendo de alquiler. Aquí nos hemos tenido que meter en un bajo de <60m2 de la anterior burbuja en mi pueblo y eso porque mi madre conoce a los de la agencia, sino habría sido imposible... "apúntate a la lista y te avisaremos cuando se abran visitas". Pagamos €750 al mes. Propiedad de un himbersor con una S.L. Ya planeábamos comprar en UK, pero ahora toca inmolarse aquí, este año o como mucho el próximo, “peti qui peti”. Ahora que estoy mirando el mercado de cerca, da miedo. La primera mitad del año pasado en mi pueblo había unas 100 propiedades en venta. Ahora quedan 60. Gente intentando vender pisos de 60 m² de la burbuja por €200k. Alguien se ha dedicado a pintar por las calles que “en [la población] hay 595 viviendas vacías”. Mínimo hay un par de docenas ocupadas, y varias con “gente interesante” que hacen que mi madre ya no se atreva a salir a la calle a partir de cierta hora. Hasta hemos salido recientemente por la tele por alojar a un jihadista.

Mi primer jefe, de una profesión que prefiero olvidar —un gañán— tenía un taller en el pueblo. Parece que intentó dar un mini pelotacillo: donde tenía el taller se construyó una casa bien paleta y al lado empezó cuatro pisos, que debieron explotarle. Llevaban al menos 15 años a medias, tal vez 60%-70%. El año pasado aparecieron en Idealista en manos de Solvia por €500k. Pasé por delante el otro día y alguien los ha comprado porque están en obras, y ya no aparecen en Idealista. En algún momento se intentará dar el pase. Si tuviera que poner un número apostaría por €300k la unidad.

La penúltima vivienda que alquilé en España antes de irme (2013) se la había hecho un arquitecto durante la burbuja. Pagaba €1000 de alquiler y me la ofreció por €300k "un chollo" según él. Sin calefacción ("pellets", ni se les ocurra, uno de los peores inviernos que he pasado) e internet por los pelos con antena rural. Muy de "arquitecto" eso sí. Hace un par de meses la puso a la venta por casi €600k. Lo mejor de todo es que es el pueblo que le daba nombre a la columna de Leopoldo Abadía.

Las promociones de pisos nuevos en la comarca están a €3k el m², lo que vienen a ser €4k el útil. Aparte de que no hay prácticamente nada. Echen un vistazo:
https://www.idealista.com/venta-obranueva/barcelona/alt-penedes/

He estado mirando el tema de la autopromoción para una unifamiliar: 150 m² salen entre €500k–600k. Da igual la zona de la comarca. Precio construcción: €2.000–2.300 + terreno + gastos e impuestos.

Lo único con precios medio normales es vivienda ocupada o a reformar. Los ayuntamientos por supuesto ayudando. Mi abuela tiene un piso en El Prat de Llobregat que no ha arreglado más allá de lo mínimo desde que lo compró en 1973. 73 m² construidos. El precio de referencia catastral: €200k.

Francamente, esto ya me lo conozco. Miren Canadá, Australia o UK. Llevan más de una década con la queja de que los precios son insostenibles, y ahí siguen. Yo solo veo esto yendo a peor. No voy a entrar en bicurvismo, pero cuando circulo por Barcelona el ratio de extranjeros es alucinante. Lo mismo en Rodalíes. Me encuentro con un 10–20 % de nacionales, como mucho. Y cuando me bajo en la estación de mi pueblo, igual.

La pinza viene por arriba y por abajo. Estoy trabajando para una startup letona con sede en EE. UU. y empleados remotos por Europa. Un 25 % está en España, pero la mayoría son extranjeros y concentrados en la zona de Barcelona. Como esta, hay un montón. Dense una vuelta por LinkedIn. Hablamos de sueldos de €75k para arriba. El teletrabajo solo ha servido para meter más presión en las zonas interesantes, o que solían serlo.

Un manager de la empresa es Italiano, vive en BCN ciudad. Sus suegros, jubilados, son Polacos, se han marchado a vivir a la zona de Alicante porque Polonia se ha vuelto demasiado cara para ellos. No son los únicos, me cuenta que hay varias zonas con concentración de este tipo.

La comida está básicamente al mismo precio que en UK, o peor en según qué cosas. Nísperos a €8/kg, manzanas vendidas por unidades.

Renfe nunca va a la hora. Mi señora coge el tren una o dos veces por semana y SIEMPRE falla. Es delirante. Trenes que anuncian un destino y se quedan a mitad de camino sin avisar. O te bajan a medio trayecto para hacer transbordo. Los horarios no se cumplen. Por no hablar del asco que da en general. Por lo menos es quasi gratis hasta final de mes.

La sanidad es un despojo. A mi madre le dan cita con el especialista para dentro de seis meses. Pero, por una módica cantidad, se lo puede hacer la semana que viene en despacho privado el mismo médico. Los médicos que van circulando por el CAP le sueltan que “en su país, a esto lo llaman otra cosa”. Eso sí, "la pensión que no me la toquen" a pesar de haber dado ya el pase a una vivienda justo antes del estallido de la burbuja y dispuesta a dar otro cuando herede de mi abuela, ya centenaria.

En fin, old man yells at cloud.

Buena suerte en Spain. En mi situación personal, no me planteo mudarme a España definitivamente, antes tendría otros destinos.

Parte del canto de sirena de UK es que la gente compara ingresos un poco inocentemente. En UK eres igual de pobre con 2x o 3x el salario de España, fácilmente. 3x si es Londres. Esa es más o menos la comparativa que hay que hacer, por debajo de 300k GBP año más o menos. A muy poca gente le sale rentable irse a vivir a UK estos días salvo tal vez a ciudad mediana, o a ciudad grande si es un sector con muchísimo diferencial de salario.

Una cosa tienen en común cada vez más UK y Spain: la sanidad cada vez peor y hay una extraña idolatría del sistema que llega incluso a prevenir la crítica necesaria para mejorarlo.

Cita de: muyuu en Abril 29, 2025, 14:45:43 pm

Me imagino una Españazuela con una penetración del 90%+ de coches eléctricos, hubiera sido muchísimo más grave porque la cantidad de gente capaz de asistir a otros que se hubieran quedado tirados por ahí hubiera sido mínima y estarían desbordados.

No estoy de acuerdo. Ayer tampoco podías poner gasolina. hasta donde yo se (corregidme si me equivoco) para poner gasolina hace falta electricidad, porque el surtidor va con electricidad. Y el TPV para pagar también... y el TPV necesita también internet para hacer la transacción con el banco...

Coches eléctricos con 400Km de autonomía sería el mismo escenario que ayer. Quien tuviera el depósito lleno (batería llena) se movería, el que no, no. Quizá hasta sería más fácil con coches eléctricos, ya que muchos permiten Vehicle-to-Load (V2L), que usar la batería del coche para alimentar la casa 

Los coches eléctricos no tienen la autonomía de los de combustión ahora mismo por muy temprano que te levantes. Por cierto mi hermano echó diésel ayer durante el apagón, aunque seguramente casi todos los surtidores dejaron de funcionar ya que es raro que tengan generadores.

A día de hoy el coche eléctrico tiene mucha menor autonomía. Si tienes tus placas solares y tus baterías en casa eres Gardel pero no es lo más habitual. Si esto ayer hubiera pasado con muchos más coches eléctricos de los de ahora mismo, hubiera sido bastante más grave.

[...]
La fabricación industrial es una fase histórica superada.
Enésimo ejemplo: China no necesitó fabricar los mejores coches hasta que quiso exportarlos. Estamos en ese punto. Esta es la mano que hemos empezado a jugar (y la respuesta europea fueron aranceles).
[..]

China fracasó estrepitosamente en la fabricación de coches cuando los coches eran de combustión y muchísimo más complejos, y gracias al "technology sharing" (jeje) ahora hacen el resto del coche aceptablemente bien - sin ser ni japoneses ni alemanes, quien diga lo contrario no entiende de coches, pero sí tan bien o mejor que un Tesla que en carrocería, chasis y dirección es un coche normalito. Respecto al software y a las baterías son punteros, porque básicamente son teléfonos móviles con un motor eléctrico que es básicamente como los de hace más de un siglo con mejores materiales.

Es una combinación de "leap-frogging" con una ventaja estratégica en materiales y con tecnología puntera en áreas muy localizadas.

Lo del leap-frogging es interesante. En Kenia usa M-Pesa todo cristo en parte porque la banca es un desastre total, de modo que la fricción es negativa para pasarse a usar carteras digitales. Lo contrario es lo de Japón, donde el retail y la banca funcionan como un reloj y la gente todavía quiere su cash y se resiste fuertemente a que les eliminen esa opción. Que además no sale gratis y eso de que sea "progreso" depende del punto de vista desde el que se vea.

En España habrá quien diga que hacer cosas es una cosa del pasado, como quien te dirá en Kenia que tener una infrastructura fija de electricidad, telefonía fija, etc es cosa del pasado y que el futuro son placas solares y teléfonos móviles. El cuento de la zorra y las uvas versión siglo 21, como hemos fracasado en el sector no nos queda otra que abrazar lo que no requiera infrastructura, inversión, seguridad jurídica, estabilidad, capacidad de realizar planes a largo plazo, etc... es decir, competir con los demás Estados fallidos.

En China hay un fuerte efecto leap-frogging en la adopción del coche eléctrico, en buena medida porque sus coches antes eran una basura, de modo que introducir el eléctrico es mucho más fácil. Pero los chinos se están poniendo las pilas en todos los frentes de producción y a lo mejor en Europa nos pensamos que es factible mantenerso no competitivo y solvente a largo plazo. Vamos camino de que Europa acabe siendo para los chinos (y los indios vienen después) lo que Mallorca es para los alemanes, un parque temático turístico hostelero, si no directamente un puticlub.

China hubiera exportado coches mucho antes, si no hubieran sido carracas que solamente se vendían en China por las fuertes trabas y restricciones a comprar coches de importación. En cierta medida, el proteccionismo les ha funcionado muy bien con los coches, con su industria interna de "internet" (con minúsculas) y con el software. Es innegable que sin cerrar esos mercados ahora no tendrían esas industrias no ya con un alto grado de autonomía técnica, sino probablemente con mayor autonomía que nadie y solamente con Japón cerca.

Cita de: Benzino Napaloni en Abril 17, 2025, 11:24:44 am

Cita de: Currobena en Abril 17, 2025, 10:21:05 am

A nivel local español, eso exige necesariamente la destrucción del pisito como activo de inversión y su vuelta a lo que es, un bien de consumo básico. No se pueden montar fábricas que sean rentables si el salario de los obreros va en su mayoría a los caseros zampalangostinos. Por mucho que voten a los partidos actuales estos son elegidos desde la sede imperial y tienen que obedecer sus órdenes en todos los asuntos importantes.

Que es a lo que Sánchez se dedica. Mejor o peor, cabrón o no, Sánchez sí ha entendido esto. Lo traía aprendido de casa antes de llegar a Moncloa.

Si Feijóo gana las próximas elecciones -ganando en el sentido de poder formar gobierno, no el cuento que lleva soltando desde las últimas-, no me cabe duda de que Von der Leyen, Lagarde, o quien sea, le llamarán al despacho dejando claro lo que hay.

Benzino, yo creo que la llamada ya la recibió hace mucho. Por eso está ahí el y no Ayuso.

A mí lo que me extraña es que esta financiarización extrema de la vivienda pasa en el Benelux de donde Von der Leyen es con incluso mayor intensidad que en Esoaña. De hecho en Alemania que era un remanso de paz en este sentido la cosa ha empeorado bastante durante la última década.

Si hay un plan UE para que la vivienda deje de ser un hactibo no parece que esté funcionando.

Trump: "si los países no vuelven con mejores ofertas, volveremos con aranceles todavía más altos"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjD4HqMIWAM

Voy a poner los primeros mitutos de la entrevista de Bannon, ideólogo de Trump, que se ve claro que piensa como él.

En realidad merece la pena escucharla toda pero el principio trata más la perspectiva de los aranceles y lo que pretenden. Y como el tío se trastabilla bastante me da bastante curro adecentar un poco la gramática para que se entienda bien.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEBtXFhpwO4

Steve Bannon: And if they steal 2028 or for some reason we don't prevail — which will be them stealing it — they're going to put Trump back on trial for prison. They're going to put me back in prison. Every day I said, "Hey, this thing's all or nothing." Just because we had this tremendous victory in November — I told everyone, they were all partying, "Oh this is great," and everybody's running around with a MAGA hat now — I said, "Hey, that's fine, but understand: we're at war."

Steven Edgington: Will Trump’s tariff Liberation Day harm the US economy? Is Elon Musk leaving the administration? And is the President deporting enough illegal immigrants? My name is Steven Edgington and I'm GBN News’s US correspondent. Joining me to answer those questions and many more is the former White House Chief Strategist, Steven K. Bannon. Thank you so much, Steve, for joining us.

Steve Bannon: Thank you for having me.


Steven Edgington: We just had Liberation Day, but many Americans are concerned that prices are going to go up.
 Americans are worried...

Steve Bannon: Okay, stop. This is just — the only reason people have any concern at all is because the running dog for the capitalists on Wall Street and the lords of easy money media continues to go on with this false narrative: that prices are going to go up, the stock market's going to crash, everything’s going to happen — over and over and over again — without looking at any evidence.

We put some of the strictest tariffs ever on China in ’17 and ’18, and prices didn’t go up at all on Chinese product. This is just another false narrative put out by the media. It's the same as all the lies they told about the pandemic, all the lies they told about Ukraine, all the lies they told about the 2020 election. I could go on and on.

Did the market crash today? No, it did not. We had a sorting out of things. I didn’t say there was not going to be any turbulence — there’s always going to be turbulence. But there was no crash, gold didn’t blow through the roof — nothing that was prophesied yesterday happened.

Trump went hard. And it shows you — I think to the world — he’s not a maximalist. I was always for the reciprocity, but reciprocity has a maximalist side where you just go and match whatever your analysis shows.

There was tension around President Trump to just do tiered 20%. But he did do reciprocity, which I thought was very important — to show the American people how people have abused the United States of America and American companies.

This narrative that’s out there — by the vested interests in this country who don’t want to see the end of the globalist system — the globalists are sitting here in panic mode. Because now Trump has gone large. And he’s not going to back off.


If you noticed today — I thought this was very important — there was a lot of commentary out there, including from his Secretary of Commerce, and even me, saying, “Hey, Trump will be negotiating between now and the end of his current term — before his third term.”

But he put out the word: no negotiations. They are what they are.

So I think you can see how he’s stepped into this decision. This is core Trump. This is something he’s been thinking about for 40 years — but especially deeply since the election was stolen, down at Mar-a-Lago, with his advisers.

So this narrative — and it goes on and on — particularly from people on the Left who want to be populists, or who are trying to understand why they lost... They’ve abandoned the working class in this country. That’s why they lost. And that working class won't support them or vote for them anymore.

You’d think they would at least try to understand populist, economic nationalist policy — bringing a massive amount of capital investment in plant and equipment back to the US, bringing high value-added jobs home.

Steven Edgington: But that’s the key point, isn’t it? And isn’t it more honest to say: “Look, we know this is going to have an impact on prices”? If you impose even a 10% tariff — in some cases more — surely that has consequences?

Steve Bannon: It doesn't mean there’s going to be an impact on prices. It doesn't mean that increased costs flow through to the consumer. Let me repeat that.

We put — you can add up everybody combined, and we still don’t buy from them what we buy from China. I think the net trade deficit with China is five or six hundred billion dollars.

We are, essentially, to the Chinese what the American colonies used to be to Great Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We’re just shipping raw materials. We send very little finished product, because they’ve gutted all our factories and sent them to China.

So in buying that $500–600 billion worth of finished goods from China — and it's actually more, because that’s the net deficit — prices did not go up in 2018 and 2019. They just didn’t.

At Christmas in 2019, we had virtually no inflation. We had the lowest interest rates we’ve ever had. Exploding growth. Three-and-a-half percent GDP growth. Blue-collar wages were rising faster than white-collar. Non–college graduates’ wages were rising faster than those of college graduates.

That’s the economic nationalist model of Trump.

And we were restricting immigration at the time. Since then, Biden has exploded the borders — inviting in 10 million illegal alien invaders — to drive down wage costs among unskilled workers.

But there’s no evidence that when Trump did this the first time, there was even a scintilla of evidence of price increase from the largest partner we buy from, uh... on finished goods that there was any price increase.



There was no price increase we could see when we put the steel tariffs in — so they tried to use this to scare people.

The two reasons for tariffs: Number one — and this is something people in Great Britain need to understand — is that the United States is a premium market. So what President Trump says is, “Hey, it’s like buying a skybox at a sporting event, or front-row seats at a concert. To get into this market, you’re going to have to pay a premium. To get access to the biggest, deepest consumer market in the world.”

There are two ways to do that. You can stay outside and manufacture your finished products — and you’re going to pay a tolling fee to get in here. I think the reciprocal tariff on Great Britain is 10%, if memory serves me correctly.

Or — you have an option. You can move your manufacturing to the United States. I think Trump would prefer that.

But if not, we now have an External Revenue Service. Peter Navarro says that the auto tariffs alone will bring in $100 billion.

Just think about this for a second. We sell essentially $800 billion worth of cars in the United States a year. Of that, only about $500 billion are made overseas — Germany, Japan, etc.

Even of the remaining $300 billion manufactured here, they’re not really manufactured — they’re assembled. The high-value-added finishes — the drivetrain, the engine — come from Mexico or Germany. In Mexico, we’re making it for the Germans or the Japanese. That all has to stop.

This is about bringing high-value-added manufacturing jobs to the United States. And sure, it's going to cause a little turbulence.

I mean, I think we essentially went to economic war with the Chinese Communist Party yesterday. Xi’s entire economic revival project is in bad straits, and these tariffs could put him out of business.

So this is both geoeconomic — a resetting of the postwar international rules-based order — and geostrategic.

Steven Edgington: A lot of companies tried to outsource their manufacturing away from China and into other Southeast Asian countries — ...

Steve Bannon: Vietnam, ... Cambodia. Cambodia had a bad day yesterday.

Steven Edgington: Exactly. So is putting 50% tariffs on countries like Vietnam strategically a smart thing to do, when you’re trying to decouple from China — trying to encourage people to stop building in China?

Steve Bannon: Well, decoupling from China means bringing those jobs back to the United States. Yes, there will still be some product made in Cambodia and other places — but why?...

It’s just reciprocity. Remember, President Trump is adamant: If you bring the tariffs down — and especially the non-tariff barriers, which is really where the juice is — then we’ll let bygones be bygones.

Steven Edgington: But it’s not reciprocal, though. The data they’re relying on is the trade deficit — not specific tariffs or non-tariff barriers. The White House admitted that: the policy is based on the trade deficit in goods with the US.

So how is that reciprocal?

Steve Bannon: What's reciprocal is: that country has to work with us to decrease the deficit. That’s what reciprocity means here.

You have to do whatever it takes to make sure we address that deficit.

Everyone talks about our debt — $37 trillion. But we’re also going to have a near–trillion-dollar trade deficit, just under Biden.

And we have a cumulative trade deficit, I believe, of $25 trillion. That’s also debt — but no one talks about it. The globalists never want to talk about trade deficits. They say, “Oh, it doesn’t matter.”

It matters tremendously. That’s American wages going overseas. It’s the monetization of our assets to pay for imports.

So no — each country will, in its own way, work out an individual deal.

President Trump says there are no negotiations right now — and I think that’s because he wants them to realise he’s serious.

And he is serious. His primary focus is the economic rejuvenation of the United States.

That’s a powerful message. And it’s been eye-opening for the American people.

Remember: one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt is that we have a $1 trillion defence budget. Why?

Because we’re underwriting the security of Western Europe, the Persian Gulf and Emirates, the South China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, and northeast Asia — Japan, Korea.

That has to stop.

We’re upside down. We have trade deficits with every region along the Eurasian landmass.

We have trade deficits anywhere, we can't continue.

Trump is trying to reduce the financial deficit and the trade deficit. This is the first time in American history — even with Reagan — that a president has said:

“My first priority is the American worker. And I’m going to show you how. I’m going to lay out a new economic model for the world.”

And the world can think about it, react, adjust, and come talk to us.

Steven Edgington: You mentioned Ronald Reagan. Let me quote him — back when he was president, and opposing the tariffs of the 1930s.

He said: “You see, at first, when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they are doing the  patriotic thing — by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes that works for a short while. But what eventually occurs, is that homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and making innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. [...] Then comes retaliation from abroad. More tariffs. Higher trade barriers. Less competition.”

Steve Bannon: Okay, Thatcher — I don’t need the lecture. I get it.

Reagan and Thatcher were neoliberal neocons. At that time, they were trying to take on the Soviet Union — I appreciate that.

But also remember: Ronald Reagan came in at the beginning of our decline. We had been a manufacturing superpower. Carter started to chip away at that.

As soon as we started running trade deficits, and stopped protecting American industries from mercantilist systems, things went downhill.

This isn’t that. That’s a fantasy. It comes out of National Review–style conservatism — and Tory intellectuals — who helped create this mess. They gutted England. They gutted the United States.

They believed in this fantasy of “fair trade.” But fair trade doesn’t exist. This is a mercantilist system.

Reciprocity just showed the American people that all these tariffs and trade barriers were already up — even from our so-called allies.

Europe, for example — we’ve been underwriting your defence since World War II. And we're kind of underwriting your prosperity.

That’s going to end.

We’re going to get prosperous here.


Present trade is just wrong. The system that worked — when we broke off from the monopolistic power of the British Crown — was not just about political freedom. It was about economic freedom.

What drove the revolutionary generation, as much as the suppression of free speech — where we couldn’t even do cartoons of the king in pamphlets without being shut down — was what the Crown and the aristocracy were doing: corrupting the Commons, giving monopolistic power to entities like the British East India Company and other industrial combines.

What England had become back then is kind of what the United States is now — oligarchic power merged with state power. That’s the system our revolution broke away from.

And what followed is a document just as dear to economic populists and nationalists as the Declaration of Independence — which, let’s be clear, was a declaration of war against an empire. Alongside the Constitution, which came later to organise things, there’s also The Report on Manufactures by Alexander Hamilton. That’s the third founding document of the United States. Hamilton was a true economic nationalist.

From the American Plan after the Revolution, all the way to the early 20th century — especially under McKinley — we protected our industries. Some of the greatest protectionists in American history were Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and McKinley. They understood that while the Industrial Revolution may have started in England, we became an industrial superpower. Why? because of a smart system of tariffs.

Free trade is a masturbatory fantasy. It doesn’t exist in the real world. Everyone, always, they're gaming the system. The Chinese Communist Party, quite frankly — and this began under Thatcher and Reagan, who laid the groundwork — benefitted. The globalists who followed — like Bush — shipped high-value-added jobs from the US and the UK to China so they could exploit slave labour of Laos-Beijing.

These people have been called out now.

What I love so much about Reciprocity — of all President Trump’s original ideas: build the wall, deportations, all of it — is that everything he promised, he's done. The southern border is now totally secure, just 65 days into his presidency. That shows how corrupt the imperial capital — Washington, D.C. — really is.

But the trade deficit has been his obsession since the 1980s. Go back and watch the interviews — Lou Dobbs on CNN, talking about trade with Japan, but ultimately China. They’ve been ripping off the U.S. and taking our jobs. This has driven him for decades.

Yesterday, I couldn't have been prouder. For those of you who haven’t seen the speech, take time and watch it. It’s one of the two or three most powerful speeches Trump has ever given. Totally on point. The stagecraft — perfect. They transformed the Rose Garden with flags between each column. It was powerful. The message was on point — delivered with authority, and it inspired.

He brought up union workers to speak about how much they loved it, and how much this is going to rejuvenate the automotive industry.



Steven Edgington: You talk about declaring economic war on the Chinese Communist Party — but these tariffs may have also declared economic war on our own allies: the European Union, Britain…


Steve Bannon: Give me the allies again — who are the allies?

I’m insulted by your use of the term “allies.” An ally is supposed to be someone you’re in it with — together. The European elites are total and complete deadbeats.

I was the guy on point in the first administration, and I had to go, like a supplicant, to ask: “Would you please consider getting up to the 2–2.5% of GDP for defence?” That’s what you committed to — after you forced your way into Ukraine in 2014, realising you were going to have a fight on your hands.

But you didn’t do it. Only the Brits came close. Later, the Poles.

If you look at the Germans, the Italians — some of these people are horrible. The French? If you look at their defence budgets, they’re not going to combined-arms operations, or manoeuvres. They’re going to pensions, women’s healthcare, climate change — that’s the big one. It’s all phony. It’s all fake.

You haven’t been allies for years. If you removed the U.S. from Western Europe today militarily, the whole thing would collapse. We are the infrastructure and the backbone of everything. It’s completely unacceptable.

This is why they praise Joe Biden. Read the new books coming out about his chief of staff — they had to tell him, “You’re not the president of NATO.” Because he kept saying, “The NATO guys love me.” Of course they do! You’re giving them everything.

The Western European people must understand that their elites have not been allies to the United States.

You look at the burden of everything — of manpower, right? of Defence. In the Red Sea right now, we’ve got two carrier battle groups — that's about 24,000 sailors — conducting air strikes on the Houthis to keep the Red Sea and Suez Canal open. To keep trade flowing to Europe, so your prices don’t explode.

And what do you have down there? Last I saw: one British destroyer, one French frigate, one Italian corvette.

You don’t even take your own security seriously. So how can we take you seriously?

You’re not allies. You don’t act like allies. What you do is you bitch and you moan when the United States says, “look, we just can’t do this forever.” We have a $1 trillion defence budget. We’ve got to cut spending. We have a $2 trillion deficit every year.

People should understand, the signal that President Trump is sending every day about Greenland, is about the defence of Europe.

To wit: the Russian army is your problem. The Russian navy is our problem.

We get some sort of partnership or alliance or something with Greenland — maybe even they become a territory? Whatever that form is. We get those naval bases — that I believe Trump wants to set them up — and we block the Greenland–Iceland–UK gap. That way, no Russian submarine gets through without being tracked one on one.

It would also take pressure off the nuclear base at Clyde (Faslane) in Scotland — which has always been controversial with Scottish nationalism.

That’s the necessity. It’s not about rare earths or minerals in Greenland — it’s strategic. It sends a strong message: that 80 years after WWII, we’re now going to think about hemispheric defence of the United States.

This has massive implications for Europe. But what did the EU do? They were the first to start bitching and moaning about the tariffs. Look at how these countries treat us. They don’t treat us as allies — not even as partners who’ve underwritten their defence for 80 years. Number one: we delivered freedom — twice. World War I and World War II. Number two: we’ve basically paid 80% of it [their defence?] ongoing.

Let me give you a story.

When the Germans came in 2017, I was assigned to sit down with their national security adviser. I said, “By the way, you’re not meeting your 2% target. Here’s how far you’re missing it.”

And we'd done numbers — because President Trump’s a real estate guy. Think “back rent.” I said, “You're four years in arrears. The number you owe us $50 billion.”

He almost had a heart attack in the room. He started spouting, speaking German again. "Why can you do this? I can't believe what you say" and I said, “Hey, you want to be an ally?”

Then he throws up to mee, “Oh, you don’t understand. We can’t do that — our constitution requires a balanced budget.”

I go, “Dude. I know you wrote that part of your constitution later but let's be blunt, until we bombed you into, you know, the Stone Age there wouldn't have been any constitution. You can’t pitch to me that, a country that has $2 trillion deficit and at that time $32T or $33T in face-amount of debt that we can't afford to pay, please don't come and make the argument that your constitution is so pristine that you can’t have budget deficits.”

And, duly noted — just a week ago, they changed it. Now they can run deficits. These deadbeats haven’t paid for their defence in 80 years.

So... don’t throw “ally” at me. They’re not allies. They’re coalition partners — and NATO will only continue if the European elites step up.

They need to say: “We’re going to put real money into this. We’re going to field more than two combat divisions.”

The British have been extraordinary — although your military is small now, the quality is unmatched. But it’s small because you haven’t invested in defence.

But the rest of the people? They’ve just let the thing go.

Cita de: asustadísimos en Abril 09, 2025, 15:54:26 pm

[Esto de ahora no tiene nada que ver con principios de los 1970. Ahora bien, qué petardo queda decir que «Trump es como Nixon».]

¿Por qué?
La argumentación de Varoufakis parece plausible.
Ver Muyuu
v/EN https://www.transicionestructural.net/index.php?topic=2625.msg241169#msg241169
v/ES https://www.transicionestructural.net/index.php?topic=2625.msg241170#msg241170

[Muyuu, puedes indicar con qué "traductor", google, IA, etc. gracias]

He usado chatGPT para el primero pero me estaba dando problemas y tuve que arreglar cosas a mano, así que usé deepSeek que lo tengo en local en el segundo. A lo tonto entre un post y otro he echado casi 40 minutos.