Traveling somewhat frequently to Europe and talking about these things with Europeans… and having European relatives…
…it isn’t my impression that Europeans in general take the US for granted or don’t recognize the important role that my country played in rebuilding Europe after two world wars. By and large, most Europeans, collectively and individually, have had deep respect for the US and regard us as their most important allies.
They are mystified at how this respected friend and ally could be doing such inexplicable and unnecessary damage to itself and to its place in the world.
- - -
cbass wrote:
[… goods that often are not necessary for daily life.
So, I take it that you don’t drive a car?
Use power tools?
Have a a computer?
Cell phone?
Printer?
Use lightbulbs?
Wear clothes? Shoes? Underwear? Socks?
Use towels?
Have a refrigerator, dishwasher, stove, or oven?
Own furniture?
Have a washer/dryer?
Put sheets and blankets on your bed?
…
On all of these and more, you are now paying a new import tax to your federal government.
You don’t SOUND like you’d be a fan of increasing federal taxes, but apparently you are?
gdanmitchell wrote:
…it isn’t my impression that Europeans in general take the US for granted or don’t recognize the important role that my country played in rebuilding Europe after two world wars. By and large, most Europeans, collectively and individually, have had deep respect for the US and regard us as their most important allies...
It's "taking for granted" by policy. Whether it's appreciated or not is largely irrelevant – spending tax revenue on social programs that would otherwise be spent on a military.
So, to re-cap, it is the Europeans' fault the the Trump is president. And because of this we now have tariffs that a) move manufacturing back to the US, b) are entirely paid for by foreign companies, and c) create an enormous amount of income so that we can reduce taxes. All at the same time. But they also do not cause inflation, especially if we reduce interest rates. And if anything bad should happen to, say, employment, it is still Biden's fault. Also, egg prices!
With this clarified, can we now go back to a more photo-centric approach? Please. I prefer fighting about whether a lens can have 3D pop or not
mranger211 wrote:
So, to re-cap, it is the European's fault the the Trump is president. And because of this we now have tariffs that a) move manufacturing back to the US, b) are entirely paid for by foreign companies, and c) create an enormous amount of income so that we can reduce taxes. All at the same time. But they also do not cause inflation, especially if we reduce interest rates. And if anything bad should happen to, say, employment, it is still Biden's fault. Also, egg prices!
Since some may not understand sarcasm... ;-)
a. Moving manufacturing back to the US is a fine concept, but the costs of manufacturing here are why companies moved to an import model — for example, it has been estimated that the cost of an theoretical iPhone manufactured by Apple in the US (even if they could eventually build the necessary manufacturing capacity here) would be about three times what it is now. (One way to increase American manufacturing is to offer companies incentives — rather than punishment — to manufacture here. That's what China does...)
b. Tariffs are not paid by foreign countries. The party that writes the tariff check (a.k.a. "import tax") is the AMERICAN IMPORTER who receives the imported goods. if the foreign manufacturer sold the product to the importer for $100 before, they still sell it to the importer for $100. But now the AMERICAN IMPORTER company must pay an import tax to the federal government that could range from 10% (adding $10 to the wholesale cost, multiplied by retail markup) to more than 40% ($40+ dollars). Obviously, that cost is passed on from the American importer to the American consumer.
Let's be clear. This is a new tax paid by Americans to the federal government, and created with no legislative input. Imagine for a moment if a previous president had announced a 10% to 40% or more federal tax on everyday products you buy...
c. They don't "reduce taxes." The tariffs ARE taxes. Federal taxes. If you think that China or India or the EU or some other foreign country is paying this money to the federal government, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. AMERICANS pay the tariffs.
I would love it if this thread dies and we go back to arguing about photography. I'm having a tough time keeping my mouth shut but don't want or need another place to argue about politics. I would be nice if this could be a politics free site. I know its tough in the face of the tariffs but we aren't going to solve that here.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I would love it if this thread dies and we go back to arguing about photography. I'm having a tough time keeping my mouth shut but don't want or need another place to argue about politics. I would be nice if this could be a politics free site. I know its tough in the face of the tariffs but we aren't going to solve that here.
...or move it to the more appropriate "Forum and Miscellaneous" forum.
RoamingScott wrote:
Unfortunately, Europe at large proved twice in 30 years that they cannot be trusted to not be nannied and had to be saved by outside forces. The only reason Europe still exists as it does is because a tremendous sacrifice was made by the rest of the world.
The unprecedented (by modern standards) peace Europe has enjoyed for the last 80 years is a direct result of the USA flexing its might via a global presence. Why Europeans continue to take this for granted is beyond me, but is likely because most living Euros have never experienced a world without the US military in their backyard....Show more →
So, why did and does the US excactly do all this? Charity? “Flexing might via global presence” takes effort and a lot of money! Maybe the USA gets something out of all this as well, don’t you think?
If a country wants to be a superpower, then it comes at a cost. China also realizes this and will happily step in. Empires come and empires go. It seems the US wants to go. China rises and will probably become the mightiest country in the world. I’m not sure the US (and Europe) should be happy with that.
Since the tariff issues directly affect the cost of photographic equipment, it is as relevant as discussing any other cause of price increases for Fujifilm gear. I haven’t t heard any protests about discussions of why Fujifilm has changed prices in the past. This is as relevant as, say, inflation, moving production from Japan to China, adding features to cameras, and so forth.
So, I take it that you don’t drive a car?
Use power tools?
Have a a computer?
Cell phone?
Printer?
Use lightbulbs?
Wear clothes? Shoes? Underwear? Socks?
Use towels?
Have a refrigerator, dishwasher, stove, or oven?
Own furniture?
Have a washer/dryer?
Put sheets and blankets on your bed?
…
On all of these and more, you are now paying a new import tax to your federal government.
You don’t SOUND like you’d be a fan of increasing federal taxes, but apparently you are?
Those have all already increased significantly under the last administration. At this point the analogy I would use is the last administration caused the cancer that already did massive damage to the body. This administration is coming in with chemo that is going to increase the damage temporarily with the hope that it eventually kills the cancer.
They raised interest rates which increases the cost of buying a home and car and anything that needs a loan to try to slow down inflation. That is also a tax that goes directly into someone else's pocket.
The American people voted. The entire country including blue states shifted red. Wasn't it almost every county that shifted right even in places like California? What is the reason you don't want to try to bring other countries to the table to negotiate better trade agreements for the US? The people will be able to vote again if they think it was the wrong move.
The previous administration actually did increase federal taxes Sounds like you were for those increases.
cbass wrote:
Those have all already increased significantly under the last administration. At this point the analogy I would use is the last administration caused the cancer that already did massive damage to the body. This administration is coming in with chemo that is going to increase the damage temporarily with the hope that it eventually kills the cancer.
They raised interest rates which increases the cost of buying a home and car and anything that needs a loan to try to slow down inflation. That is also a tax that goes directly into someone else's pocket.
The American people voted. The entire country including blue states shifted red. Wasn't it almost every county that shifted right even in places like California? What is the reason you don't want to try to bring other countries to the table to negotiate better trade agreements for the US? The people will be able to vote again if they think it was the wrong move.
The previous administration actually did increase federal taxes Sounds like you were for those increases.
seems like another increase is coming but not sure on details from what I can find. I was considering selling my x100vi but at this point might as well keep it as I probably won't ever be able to get another one for a reasonable cost. I am clutching onto my zf and x100vi now I suppose.
quasitime wrote:
Unfortunately, he's not. When you're part of a cult, you can rationalize almost anything, and your cult leader can do no wrong.
There you go making generalizations and putting someone in a category because of their opinion on a single issue. I don't rationalize almost anything. I am independent and have my own opinions on certain issues. I will say, however, that I don't consider myself right but it's becoming impossible to be left. If you don't fall in line and submit to the new thing the left is trying to push as good or bad, then all of a sudden you are some far right lunatic. No thanks to that. I like my independent thought. I will stay true to myself and you put me in whatever category you need to make yourself feel better.
Aug 18, 2025 at 04:14 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
cbass wrote:
Those have all already increased significantly under the last administration. At this point the analogy I would use is the last administration caused the cancer that already did massive damage to the body. This administration is coming in with chemo that is going to increase the damage temporarily with the hope that it eventually kills the cancer.
They raised interest rates which increases the cost of buying a home and car and anything that needs a loan to try to slow down inflation. That is also a tax that goes directly into someone else's pocket.
The American people voted. The entire country including blue states shifted red. Wasn't it almost every county that shifted right even in places like California? What is the reason you don't want to try to bring other countries to the table to negotiate better trade agreements for the US? The people will be able to vote again if they think it was the wrong move.
The previous administration actually did increase federal taxes Sounds like you were for those increases.
Please understand that it was the Federal Reserve Board that raised interest rates, not that previous administration and the Federal Reserve Board is supposed to be independent of the President and the executive branch. The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed for 10 year terms for that reason. The current chair of the Federal Reserve Board was appointed by President Trump when he was president the first time even though Trump has quite publicly criticized him.
Also keep in mind that the last three elections have been very close. President Trump won in 2016 despite not getting more votes than Hilary Clinton. President Biden won in 2000 with a very slim majority, and President Trump won again in 2024 with another very slim majority. The country is obviously almost evenly divided.
Of course the country as a whole shifted toward President Trump in 2024, that is why he lost in 2020 and won in 2024. The shift was not massive, however. Not even 5%. Trump got 46.9% of the votes in 2020 and 49.8% of the votes in 2024. Biden got 51.3% of the votes in 2020 and Kamala Harris got 48.3% of the votes in 2024. In terms of actual votes Trump got only 3,059,799 more votes in 2024 than in 2020. That is hardly a big overall shift when there were just over 154,000,000 people who voted. Historically the shift was very small, but it had a big impact because the election was so close. And while there were more counties and states in which the shift was toward President Trump, there were lots of counties and some states where President Trump got less votes. Only 6 of the 50 states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona) went from a Biden majority in 2020 to a Trump majority in 2024, but that makes a big difference in the electoral college.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Please understand that it was the Federal Reserve Board that raised interest rates, not that previous administration and the Federal Reserve Board is supposed to be independent of the President and the executive branch. The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed for 10 year terms for that reason. The current chair of the Federal Reserve Board was appointed by President Trump when he was president the first time even though Trump has quite publicly criticized him.
Also keep in mind that the last three elections have been very close. President Trump won in 2016 despite not getting more votes than Hilary Clinton. President Biden won in 2000 with a very slim majority, and President Trump won again in 2024 with another very slim majority. The country is obviously almost evenly divided.
Of course the country as a whole shifted toward President Trump in 2024, that is why he lost in 2020 and won in 2024. The shift was not massive, however. Not even 5%. Trump got 46.9% of the votes in 2020 and 49.8% of the votes in 2024. Biden got 51.3% of the votes in 2020 and Kamala Harris got 48.3% of the votes in 2024. In terms of actual votes Trump got only 3,059,799 more votes in 2024 than in 2020. That is hardly a big overall shift when there were just over 154,000,000 people who voted. Historically the shift was very small, but it had a big impact because the election was so close. And while there were more counties and states in which the shift was toward President Trump, there were lots of counties and some states where President Trump got less votes. Only 6 of the 50 states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona) went from a Biden majority in 2020 to a Trump majority in 2024, but that makes a big difference in the electoral college....Show more →
I said "they" without specifying the previous administration. The point was that it is also a strategy that hurts main street short term by increasing loan costs for housing and automobiles to try to address a bigger problem: high inflation.
You can argue numbers if you like, but overall there was a massive shift right toward Trump.
You can usually see the number hover around 90% or more depending on the source. We can argue numbers, but he won the electoral college and popular vote and there was a shift in around 90% or more counties in his favor. He increased his share in 45 out of 58 counties even in California. He was given the mandate to rule and I am going to give him a chance and see how it plays out. Things were not exactly fantastic under the last guy.
cbass wrote:
I said "they" without specifying the previous administration. The point was that it is also a strategy that hurts main street short term by increasing loan costs for housing and automobiles to try to address a bigger problem: high inflation.
You can argue numbers if you like, but overall there was a massive shift right toward Trump.
You can usually see the number hover around 90% or more depending on the source. We can argue numbers, but he won the electoral college and popular vote and there was a shift in around 90% or more counties in his favor. He increased his share in 45 out of 58 counties even in California. He was given the mandate to rule and I am going to give him a chance and see how it plays out. Things were not exactly fantastic under the last guy.
The point of my post was two fold. One to point out that interest rate increase are not a matter of any administration. The are set by the Federal Reserve Board which designed to be arms length from the administration. Neither the previous Trump administration, nor the current Trump administration, nor the Biden administration sets interest rates. That is a fact not a matter of interpretation. Now whether those interest rates help or hurt Main Street is a political question we should not debate here, but let me just say the Federal Reserve Board sets those interest rates to balance inflation and unemployment. Higher rates ward off inflation. Lower rates ward off unemployment. The primary thing the Federal Reserve board does is try to balance those two bad outcomes by setting the interest rate. Whether they have done a good job of that we should not debate here, but what they are trying to do we should be able to agree upon.
I presented the number and the numbers of course are not a matter of debate. Numbers are numbers and as such are facts. We can't argue numbers. That is the point an increase in 3,059,799 votes is not something we can argue about. It is a fact. You are misreporting the facts when you say 90% or more of the counties shifted in President Trump's favor. That is factually wrong. Yes, he did increase his number of votes in many counties in California and the number is 45 out of 58 counties, but that was offset by decreases in many other counties. Biden won California with 61.5% of the vote with Trump receiving 34.3% of the vote. Harris won California with 58.5% of the vote with Trump receiving 38.3% of the vote. That shift was a lot bigger in California than in the country as a whole. In fact, the shift in California was roughly 2 and half times as big as the shift in the country as a whole. Despite that bigger shift, however, Trump did not increase his share of the votes in 90% of the counties in California. As you reported he increased his share in 77% of the counties (45 out of 58).
We can debate what the numbers mean, but we shouldn't. It is a political statement to say it was a massive shift. I don't think such a political statement should be made here. I could evaluate it but I won't. For those who want to evaluate it the size of the shift which is a fact can be compared to the size of the shift in previous elections as one point of reference for whether the shift is big or small. That comparison is also a fact and of course there are shifts in every election, so where does this one rank compared to previous elections? You can answer that question yourself and decide if saying the shift was massive stacks up in that comparison or not. I would reserve the term massive shift for the one we saw between 1960 and 1964 (a shift of 22% compared to a shift of 5% in the 2024 election) which was a shift to the left. Or the one we saw from 1976 to 1980 (a shift of 13% compared to 5% in 2024) which was a shift to the right or even Reagan's second victory in 1984 (which was a further shift of 12% compared to 5% in 2024) and another shift to the right. Note here that across his two terms there was a shift of 25% to the right. Across Trump's two terms there has been a shift of about 6%. You can call that massive, but numbers are numbers.
