Facts plus a little opinion

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RKaushal66156 @SergioSergioPer @ZelenskyyUa @JDVance "All nations keep cordial ties with Russia and face no issues except one nation" - Georgia and Ukraine have both been invaded by peace loving Russia post USSR

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list.

Why? Does Lesotho apply extortionate tariffs on U.S. products and the U.S. is merely being "reciprocal" here? Not at all, despite what Trump is saying, it's NOT the way these tariffs are defined.

As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc.

Which means it applies the same tariffs on U.S. products as South Africa does, as well as the 3 other members of the bloc: Namibia, Eswatini and Botswana.

So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.

So what gives? Again, the way these tariffs are calculated has absolutely zero relationship with actual tariffs imposed by these countries on U.S. products. Instead, they appear to be simply derived from trade deficit calculations.

Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (https://t.co/uHvem6nH2o).

Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (https://t.co/GEho8xFjAp), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can't afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income...

The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country's exports to the U.S and declare this - falsely - "the tariff they charge on the U.S."

And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you'll only "reciprocate" by charging half that "tariff" on them.

As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M - $7M)/$235M = 97%. That's the "tariff" Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. "reciprocates" with.

It's extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all.

First of all, there's nothing Lesotho can do about it: they can't change tariffs they allegedly charge the U.S. to reduce the tariff rate the U.S. "reciprocates" with because, again, it's NOT based on any tariff that they charge.

Similarly they can't do much about reducing the trade deficit they have with the U.S. because, again, they simply don't have enough money to buy U.S. products.

Also the main rational Trump gave for the tariffs is to get production back to the U.S., to "bring manufacturing back". 47.3% of Lesotho's exports are diamonds: how do you bring the "manufacturing" of that "back to the U.S."? Anyone can see it makes just about zero sense.

The Lesotho example exposes the fundamental economic incoherence of these tariffs. Rather than addressing actual trade barriers, they punish countries based on trade deficits that arise from structural economic realities. All the more countries like Lesotho which pose zero competitive threat to American industry.

Worse yet, these tariffs will likely make these structural realities even worse: the U.S. is Lesotho's second most important export destination so it's a fair bet that applying 50% tariffs on their products will make people in Lesotho even poorer, and therefore even LESS able to afford U.S. products.

But perhaps the most unfair and detrimental aspect of all this is that these tariffs represent a complete reversal of longstanding U.S. development policy, and therefore a betrayal of countries - like Lesotho - who chose to follow U.S. advice in the past.

For decades the U.S. has used preferential trade access to encourage economic development in the world's poorest nations, recognizing that trade, not just aid, could get them out of poverty and ultimately put them in a position where they too could afford iPhones or Tesla.

They're now effectively penalizing countries for following previous U.S. policy, a lesson which I bet they won't forget anytime soon.

So all in all the irony is painful: in the name of fighting unfair trade, America has just demonstrated what truly unfair trade looks like.

This isn't something designed to address genuine trade issues, but simply a mechanism based on arbitrary math to punish countries for the affront of selling more to the United States than they buy.

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@EnzymeX @dgptraynor @YourAnonCentral https://t.co/yd9FZnijng

It is a fact that compared to other wealthy nations, the US spends the most on health and gets the worst outcomes.

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@EuromaidanPR He must be on Iran's non-classified Live Shahed Deployment group

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo If you think European soldiers are so cowardly, then why is Russia so concerned about their presence? Unless Russian soldiers are even more cowardly?

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo He did not suggest formal front line foreigners during the *hot phase* of the war. Please show link if you disagree.

As peacekeepers in cold phase, who are prepared to fight if Russia resumes, yes.

That is not the same as hot phase.

You are avoiding the point re hypocrisy

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo It's not about "balls" - Ukraine is not seeking for NATO troops to actively fight on the current frontline

The point was that Russia complains about foreign troops formally peacekeeping, yet has formally involved foreign troops on its side. Is that not hypocrisy?

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@Gerashchenko_en Are you sure? I support Ukraine, but I don't see this in the mainstream news channels
https://t.co/Je23yeRG3X

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo Foreign mercenaries have been on both sides throughout, yes.

But only Russia has made a formal, state level agreement with a foreign country for their front line troops.

Therefore it would be hypocritical if Russia now complains about formal UK/French/NATO troops in Ukraine.

[Barack Obama @BarackObama]

If you live in Wisconsin – or have friends or family who do – there’s an important Supreme Court race happening right now. And there’s only one candidate ready to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites: Judge Susan Crawford.

We’ve all seen how important judges are in protecting our rights, so vote early — don’t wait until April 1st. Find your early vote location: https://t.co/oDaQcyU3QJ

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo Why ask a country that before the war you felt needed military sanctions to now fight for you to strengthen their military?

I also assume you agree Russia cannot object to wherever troops fighting for Ukraine are from eg NATO/UK/France if Ukraine feels it boosts their XP points

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo If you find the challenge of recruiting for self defence so terrible, I take it you want a rapid withdrawal by Russia from Ukraine so this need doesn't arise.

Btw Russia has its own manpower issues - why use NK soliders if it has so many volunteers who want to bleed for Russia

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo The topic was about coexistence with Muslims. This is whataboutism.
We rarely know the context of such videos, whether claiming to be about Ukraine or Russia.

We do know there is a moral difference between mobilisation for a war of choice (Russia) and for self-defence (Ukraine)

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo Agree - it's impressive that Ukraine has a Jewish president with a Muslim defence minister

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@RUTrollFarm @IAPonomarenko @JesvinGeo Back in reality, Ukraine has a Jewish president with a Muslim defence minister

[Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton]

👀 You have got to be kidding me.

https://t.co/IhhvFvw6DG

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@MarkMazurik @DeItaone Then it's also a bad idea to call Zelensky a dictator when trying to negotiate with him

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@AgyaatShiv @RusEmbIndia @IndEmbMoscow If Britain invaded India to recreate their empire, and took over say 20% including hyderabad, and a Brit said "Hyderabad, the city I love playing cricket and sipping chai in", would that be cool with you?

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@2terrific4you @101010_jv @East_Calling If Russia's real goal is "no" and it says "yes, but...", then the only logic for the "but..." is diplomatic cover for saying no.

And for the "but..." to be effective cover for "no", Russia must *intend* the "but..." to be unworkable. Otherwise Russia is effectively saying "yes"

[Facts plus a little opinion @DrOfCritThink]

@2terrific4you @101010_jv @East_Calling Original thread was replying to: "Agree 100% in principle but with reasonable conditions"

We actually *agree* that Russia’s real goal seems to be no ceasefire

So if Russia says “yes, but lots of conditions”, I think we agree it must be using unreasonable conditions to say “no”?