Joncash2

joined 2 years ago
[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Obviously. The right answer is to submit completely. You can't have a war if you convince them you need to be alive if they want to keep raping you and your children in the ass. /s

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 months ago

Oh I know, I'm just pointing out that China has no reason to make the first call, which some how, and this blows my mind, Bessent seems to believe that somehow it's going to be so bad for China that China will call first. Why would the winner call first? What strange world would this happen?

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 47 points 3 months ago (4 children)

It might not be sustainable for USA, but China is doing just fine. Their stock market is flatlining and they expect growth to drop 2.2% to 3% growth. Not great, but definitely sustainable. That seems to be a big problem for US negotiations.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

This is what people are missing. China already built up their logistics in Vietnam and Mexico most famously. This is transhipment. Every since Trump term one, they have been planning this day.

So while your right, in normal conditions it should be impossible. In our reality it's what's already happening. Just wait till we get "Spanish" cars. This was always the plan.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Oh yeah, completely agree. Misunderstood that my bad.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think differently actually. And unfortunately, I'm not sure it's going to work out for Zelensky, but I don't blame him for trying.

So China is not directly supplying weapons. Zelensky implied as much so far. What he's saying is China is supplying gun powder and artillery shells. With the obvious implication that Russia is filling the shells with the gun powder and making them live. This had probably been happening the whole time. This is the complaints about dual use.

So why now? Well, it's a good time to get China riled up so they'll comment. Zelensky needs weapons, even if China doesn't stop selling to Russia, selling to Ukraine as well would be good. In which case Zelensky can turn around and say then come talk to us, if your neutral you'll let us buy too. Which might have been a good plan if USA wasn't completely fucking insane and keeping China from even talking because they got other shit to deal with.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 months ago (5 children)

And USA is tariffing everyone. But China the hardest. Forcing all nations to have to trade heavily with China just to survive now. This trade war is USA's greatest gift to Xi ever.

I don't have proof, but I'm pretty sure China and Russia bought the current US government. It's the only thing that makes sense. And the heavy China tariffs are here just to put the nail in the US coffin while convincing idiots to cheer China bad.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 51 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And thus the cycle starts to repeat. It seems an eternal problem that people can't separate individuals and their leaders, which always ends up one side violently killing the other for the actions of the few.

Zionists do not represent all Jews, this needs repeating.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your right. It could be both. I mean, my wife said to me the other day that she heard Trump was doing the tariffs to lower the bond interest rates. I said while in some types of recessions that's true, that wouldn't work in this case and you'd have to be an idiot to think it would. Sure enough the next day Trump puts a stay on tariffs to most of the world because the bond market got rocked. All I could think of is omg, are they really that fucking stupid?

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I wish it was that. No, this is actual evil, not incompetence. Trump has turned the US economy into the largest pump and dump scheme ever. Worse, he's bragging about how his friends made billions. I can't even believe this is happening. I'm in utter shock. I knew Trump would be bad, but straight up flaunting corruption like it's a joke and even bringing the SCOTUS on board with this. I'm just gob smacked.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

That's not a bad way to put it. Yes, and bonds will sink slower. It just still will sink. I mean, if I were investing at all, it'd be in bonds. However, I'm not going to pretend it's safe either.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sort of? Bonds will be safer, however it also is incredibly dependent on the forward inflation. The flation part of stagflation. If inflation outstrips your bond's interest, you're still losing money. So bonds are way safer than other assets, but sadly in this kind of a situation not really safe either.

view more: ‹ prev next ›