Paul takes the bait. Paul always takes the bait.

All I said was that the US's inflation rate is what the Australian government is aiming for and therefore they'd envy it. I didn't credit Trump. I didn't blame the ALP. I just observed a trend that I found interesting especially when so many were confidently predicting worsening US inflation.

But Paul, dowsed in his TDS leapt into the fray to defend his ALP and attack Trump.

The inflation rate in the US isn't due to Trump. His policies won't have any real effect, good or bad, for at least a year although his energy policies might be move quicker than that. Equally, even if Paul's fictitious claim that 7 million people have been made unemployed under Trump was real (did I mention its fictitious) there is no way Trump's policies caused that level of unemployment.

Way back before the last election in Australia, I pointed out that the next government (whoever it was) faced the worst economic outlook seen for some time, that it shouldn't be blamed for the consequences of that, and that nonetheless it would eventually be so blamed. Paul was good with the idea of not blaming the ALP for things beyond its control but now wants to blame Trump for things beyond his control. When ideology colours your understanding of the truth, you have no credibility.

Just on the ALP, as I've said since 2022, they weren't to blame for the economic problems the nation faces - or at lest they are no more to blame than the opposition. But that was three years ago and our problems can now be laid at their doorstep given that they've done so little to alleviate the problems they inherited.

Try looking at it like this JD. One's opinion about any particular situation or about assessing the near-term future, ought to be based on past experience and knowledge built up over decades of observation and assessment.

When I predicted in December 2023 that Biden wouldn't run for president in November 2024, it wasn't based on the sort of hard facts that you seem to think are needed to form any opinion. It was based on assessment of the situation run through decades old experience filters.

Equally, when I say that the Australian government is almost certainly investigating its quarantine practices to see if they remain valid and/or offer any wiggle room in negotiations with the US, its not based on hard facts but on experience of the past as to how government works.

Frankly I find it incredible that you think the Australian government would be so negligent as to not re-examine its anti-US beef procedures. That you think the government would sit back slack-jawed and not even consider whether to reassess its position shows, in my view, a significant misunderstanding of how these things work as well as a significant contempt for the abilities of the government.

I'm no fan of the current leadership, but even I credit them enough to think that they would at least examine all possible options. Thinking they wouldn't seems to me to be profoundly naive about the world.

That's not to say that they will cave to the US on these quarantine issues, just they they'd want to know all their options. Common-sense 101.

As I said earlier..."Its my opinion that a prudent Australian government would be doing this. Some have a lesser opinion of our government."

Hi Trumpster "Lets twist again, like we did last summer..."

"The inflation rate in the US isn't due to Trump." Well, not yet, with his almighty tariffs it certainly will be.

"I didn't blame the ALP. I just observed a trend" is that so. The trend on inflation in Australia is down, when the Noaltion got booted it was at 6.1%, today its at 2.4%, a remarkable recovery. The Noalition also ran up a debt of almost a trillion dollars. Unemployment is satisfactory and interest rates are coming down. I don't see any reason to sack Labor after one term. YOU never want a Labor government, being a rusted on Tory as you are.

BTW I'm not giving my first preference to the ALP, that's true, that's reserved for your folk hero the Un-Australian Fat Clive, that's not true!

That’s quite a shift in tone, mhaze.

When you were confidently describing countries as “begging,” corporations as “repatriating,” and governments as “racing” to adjust their policies, it didn’t sound like the musings of a cautious observer drawing on decades of subtle inference. It sounded like declarations of fact - bold ones, framed to impress.

Now that those claims have been questioned, suddenly we’re back in the safe waters of “opinion,” “experience,” and “common sense.” Convenient.

I don’t think it’s naive to ask for evidence when someone presents sweeping claims as outcomes. I think it’s responsible. And I also don’t think it’s “contempt” for government to point out that no such reassessment has been announced, discussed, or hinted at by officials - especially when the original claim wasn’t phrased as a hypothetical, but listed alongside other supposed wins in a triumphant parade of Trumpian success.

This isn’t about whether reassessment might be happening - it’s about the way you frame speculation as evidence until someone asks for receipts. That pattern’s clear.

You’re welcome to hold and share your views, of course. But don’t present pageantry as policy, or opinion as outcome, and then act indignant when someone notices the difference.

Again JD you misconstrue and then demand I answer for your misunderstandings.

Prudence and common-sense suggests that Australia will be re-examining its beef quarantine policies. Its naivety in the extreme to think otherwise. Yet there you are.

As to the rest, I've not retreated from the view that governments around the world are racing to readjust their trade policies to suit the new reality. You might not like the characterisation of that as "begging" for meetings, but that's another issue. And you might not think that US companies are talking about relocation back to the continental US, but they are. Given your lack of knowledge on this I'll relax my rules about spoon feeding....

* "Apple has been exploring ways to reduce reliance on overseas manufacturing, particularly in China, by investing in U.S.-based production. The company announced a $500 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure, which includes expanding domestic production capabilities."

* General Motors has announced plans to increase hiring and production in Fort Wayne, Indiana, signalling a move to bring thousands of jobs back to the U.S.

* Lear Corporation: Lear’s CEO, Ray Scott, has indicated the company is considering shifting some production back to the U.S. to mitigate tariff-related pressures.

And many many more.

And following up on the misunderstanding here, its the height of naivety to think that the US administration hasn't thought this through. They didn't just wake up last week and think.. oh let's up-end the world trade system. Trump's been talking about tariffs since the 1990s. Many of his advises likewise. Its been a hard policy since Trump descended the golden escalators. Places like the Heritage Foundation have been working on it for years.

Perhaps they were more than a little surprised at the rapidity of governments around the world caving to the new regime, but not at the outcome.

I get that you'll never buy that and won't understand the ramifications of America First. But Trump is fighting for his people and his people alone.

mhaze,

This is what you do every time I challenge your narrative: fall back on a handful of selective examples, strip away the context, and present speculation, planning, or diplomatic engagement as if it’s confirmation of some masterstroke.

And let's not forget: pretending that I've misconstrued something you've said.

Let's recap:

You listed Australian beef alongside Apple repatriating jobs, Canada and Mexico relocating companies, and Europe buying US fossil fuels as part of a chain of real-world consequences of Trump’s tariff policies. There was no framing, no “in my opinion,” no hedging. It was part of your overarching claim that the world is scrambling to accommodate Trump.

Only after being asked for evidence did it shift into a hypothetical based on what you think a “prudent government” would be doing. That’s not a misunderstanding on my part - that’s you retreating from your bold framing after it was scrutinised.

I never claimed that countries don’t talk or assess options, or that governments don’t run internal reviews. What I challenged was your framing - presenting all these things as proof that Trump’s chaotic, reactive tariff policy is not just working, but inspiring a global stampede of admiration and “begging.” And when asked for evidence, the certainty suddenly became “just my opinion.”

Now you’re back with a new round of talking points. But where’s the data showing or predicting actual job movement? How much is happening, where, and when? What part of it is tied directly to tariffs, and how much of it predates them? You’re presenting the headlines as the outcomes.

Take Apple, for example:

This isn’t the 1950s - “opening a factory” in tech often means automation, not mass employment. That single facility you mentioned will reportedly employ less than 1000 workers. For perspective, Apple has over 160,000 employees worldwide - the vast majority of which are not in US manufacturing.

And claiming that “Trump is fighting for his people and his people alone” is mere branding, not analysis.

You’re free to admire the story. Just don’t confuse it with the reality it’s trying to overwrite.