US economy thread (2 Viewers)

[Soulfly3]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Realistically speaking, you think Canada is going to hog the NW passage, if/when it opens? Both countries can likely come to a reasonable agreement on the passage (economically and militarily speaking),, despite the fact most of it runs through Canada's north.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I was just watching an interview with a medium size Canadian business owner who indicated the uncertainty was too much to deal with anymore. He has begun sourcing material from Europe that he typically bought in the US. The impact is it will now take 3-6 months to get the material versus the 6 weeks it took getting it from the US. He said the “business flow” will be disrupted in the short term but in the long run it will smooth out. When asked if he will revert back to US supply when the trade war is over, his response, “I highly doubt it”.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Realistically speaking, you think Canada is going to hog the NW passage, if/when it opens? Both countries can likely come to a reasonable agreement on the passage (economically and militarily speaking),, despite the fact most of it runs through Canada's north.

Under normal circumstances I would say no, because Canada has historically been one of the biggest, if not the single biggest, ally that the US has. That's why many previous administrations haven't treated Canada like an adversary, because they're not.

 

[beer 30]

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Thanks for that, hadn't thought that far down the road and would be shocked if our government is as well but somebody smarter than me obviously is. Good stuff, thanks!

 

[Max Power]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/12/cpi-inflation-report-february-2025.html

A little good news

 

[FarFromHome]

Realistically speaking, you think Canada is going to hog the NW passage, if/when it opens? Both countries can likely come to a reasonable agreement on the passage (economically and militarily speaking),, despite the fact most of it runs through Canada's north.

Under normal circumstances I would say no, because Canada has historically been one of the biggest, if not the single biggest, ally that the US has. That's why many previous administrations haven't treated Canada like an adversary, because they're not.

Not political. Not posting intending to display my hidden feelings towards Canada. I like Canada. I'm VERY aware of Canadas contributions to the history of our planet from a military perspective. Just something that I'd forgotten that popped in my head when I read this and made me chuckle.

I've eaten and spent time in countless NATO mess halls surrounded by armed fellow soldiers from numerous other countries. It was always cool to see other countries soldiers in full battle rattle eating a bowl of corn flakes with a rifle on his or her back. A silly running joke as we interacted was, "Eh, seen any Canadians?" Then most would laugh. Once again, not an attack on Canadian contributions, I'm fully aware how important that nation is. Just kinda funny that various soldiers from all over the world kinda joked that they haven't actually seen a Canadian soldier in real life. Ha ha.

***Please don't take this as bashing Canada***

 

[Soulfly3]

Realistically speaking, you think Canada is going to hog the NW passage, if/when it opens? Both countries can likely come to a reasonable agreement on the passage (economically and militarily speaking),, despite the fact most of it runs through Canada's north.

Under normal circumstances I would say no, because Canada has historically been one of the biggest, if not the single biggest, ally that the US has. That's why many previous administrations haven't treated Canada like an adversary, because they're not.

Not political. Not posting intending to display my hidden feelings towards Canada. I like Canada. I'm VERY aware of Canadas contributions to the history of our planet from a military perspective. Just something that I'd forgotten that popped in my head when I read this and made me chuckle.

I've eaten and spent time in countless NATO mess halls surrounded by armed fellow soldiers from numerous other countries. It was always cool to see other countries soldiers in full battle rattle eating a bowl of corn flakes with a rifle on his or her back. A silly running joke as we interacted was, "Eh, seen any Canadians?" Then most would laugh. Once again, not an attack on Canadian contributions, I'm fully aware how important that nation is. Just kinda funny that various soldiers from all over the world kinda joked that they haven't actually seen a Canadian soldier in real life. Ha ha.

***Please don't take this as bashing Canada***

They had to lay low after their unsavory actions in WW1 and WW2.

Ask around in Europe... They know

(There's a running joke that the Geneva Convention was based off Canada's violent behavior. Obviously not the truth, but there's always some truth in every tale)

 

[Tick]

have you guys renamed niagara falls yet?

Remember when Henderson scored to give America the victory in the America Cup?

 

[ChicoCat]

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Thanks for that, hadn't thought that far down the road and would be shocked if our government is as well but somebody smarter than me obviously is. Good stuff, thanks!

That's sort of my take as well. The U.S. hasn't been forward thinking for awhile.

 

[The Duff Man]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Agree 100%. Had a lot more typed but deleted it. Will just say I think this is bad for North America.

 

[fatness]

EU retaliates against Trump’s trade moves and hits beef, whiskey, motorcycles with targeted tariffs

"The EU measures will cover goods from the United States worth around 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will also be hit,"

 

[fatness]

Canada will announce more than $20 billion in tariffs in response to Trump’s metal tariffs

"Canada will announce Canadian $29.8 billion ($20.7 billion) in retaliatory tariffs in response to the 25% steel and aluminum tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump has leveled, a senior Canadian government official said Wednesday."

 

[matttyl]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Interesting. Maybe a dumb question - but it’s not like these shipping channels are new - they’ve always been there. Why aren’t the open now, and why aren’t they projected to be open for another 10-20 years?

 

[Northern Voice]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Interesting. Maybe a dumb question - but it’s not like these shipping channels are new - they’ve always been there. Why aren’t the open now, and why aren’t they projected to be open for another 10-20 years?

The channels are currently/have always been frozen, they won't be in 20 years. Also, add "taking back" the Panama Canal to this Canada/Greenland discussion, it's all the same conversation and connected.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

It's an interesting thought. Along the same lines, Greenland is in an important strategic location with respect to missiles from Europe and Russia. Canada most likely is for other potential threat vectors for similar reasons. I suppose space-based weapons and sensors might eventually make land-based ones obsolete, but probably not yet.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Interesting. Maybe a dumb question - but it’s not like these shipping channels are new - they’ve always been there. Why aren’t the open now, and why aren’t they projected to be open for another 10-20 years?

The channels are currently/have always been frozen, they won't be in 20 years. Also, add "taking back" the Panama Canal to this Canada/Greenland discussion, it's all the same conversation and connected.

Hopefully this isn't straying too far into the political realm, but there are a zillion reasons why Greenland is extremely valuable and purchasing it makes a lot of sense, both economically, strategically, and socially.

Economically you've already touched on. As that passage opens up more and more it will become extremely valuable, not to mention the minerals that are becoming easier and easier to get to as the climate changes.

Strategically it is of massive importance and that was temporarily satiated over the last 50 years by Denmark allowing the US military to operate some important bases there. But there are concerns about how permanent that will be as China is making a big play on it with economic investments there. There is also concern (from many NATO countries, not just the US) that Denmark doesn't have the resources to patrol such a large area that could soon become so strategically crucial.

Socially sentiment towards the US is generally positive in Greenland, especially amongst their younger generation. The reality is that Denmark will likely not be tied to Greenland 20 years from now. It's just a drain on them currently, they subsidize Greenland's government and get nothing tangible in return. 20 years from now it's very plausible that Greenland will either be completely independent or partnered with someone else. On the independence side it's tricky, because they don't seem to necessarily be gungho about that (I believe they have the option to vote on that now and haven't bothered) as they rely heavily on subsidation to make things work up there, with half of their Government revenue being the money Denmark just gives them.

I think there is concern that China will continue investing there economically and turn sentiment to a place where when Denmark does eventually wash their hands of it, if total independence is still not something Greenland wants, they may turn in China's direction.

Everyone is playing hardball right now but there is a very plausible win-win-win scenario out there where...

- Denmark makes a bunch of money instead of just paying out money every year for an area they don't have the resources to monetize

- Greenland continues getting the subsidation they need to survive, and maybe even gets a raise as the US could easily afford to give them a lot more than Denmark

- The US secures future economic and strategic security for themselves, while also taking it off the table as a place where our geopolitical enemies could one day end up with it or at least end up with a presence there.

 

[Redwes25]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Interesting. Maybe a dumb question - but it’s not like these shipping channels are new - they’ve always been there. Why aren’t the open now, and why aren’t they projected to be open for another 10-20 years?

The channels are currently/have always been frozen, they won't be in 20 years. Also, add "taking back" the Panama Canal to this Canada/Greenland discussion, it's all the same conversation and connected.

Hopefully this isn't straying too far into the political realm, but there are a zillion reasons why Greenland is extremely valuable and purchasing it makes a lot of sense, both economically, strategically, and socially.

Economically you've already touched on. As that passage opens up more and more it will become extremely valuable, not to mention the minerals that are becoming easier and easier to get to as the climate changes.

Strategically it is of massive importance and that was temporarily satiated over the last 50 years by Denmark allowing the US military to operate some important bases there. But there are concerns about how permanent that will be as China is making a big play on it with economic investments there. There is also concern (from many NATO countries, not just the US) that Denmark doesn't have the resources to patrol such a large area that could soon become so strategically crucial.

Socially sentiment towards the US is generally positive in Greenland, especially amongst their younger generation. The reality is that Denmark will likely not be tied to Greenland 20 years from now. It's just a drain on them currently, they subsidize Greenland's government and get nothing tangible in return. 20 years from now it's very plausible that Greenland will either be completely independent or partnered with someone else. On the independence side it's tricky, because they don't seem to necessarily be gungho about that (I believe they have the option to vote on that now and haven't bothered) as they rely heavily on subsidation to make things work up there, with half of their Government revenue being the money Denmark just gives them.

I think there is concern that China will continue investing there economically and turn sentiment to a place where when Denmark does eventually wash their hands of it, if total independence is still not something Greenland wants, they may turn in China's direction.

Everyone is playing hardball right now but there is a very plausible win-win-win scenario out there where...

- Denmark makes a bunch of money instead of just paying out money every year for an area they don't have the resources to monetize

- Greenland continues getting the subsidation they need to survive, and maybe even gets a raise as the US could easily afford to give them a lot more than Denmark

- The US secures future economic and strategic security for themselves, while also taking it off the table as a place where our geopolitical enemies could one day end up with it or at least end up with a presence there.

I would just like to point out the treaty we have that basically allows us to treat the entire island however we want for defensive purposes (1951 Greenland Defense Agreement). Basically that was sufficient for entire Cold War, which was clearly as frought from a defense perspective as the north atlantic is now. Honestly it was probably worse then since Soviet Union had a clear plan to try and breach the GIUK Gap. Russia for all their actions in Ukraine and Eastern Europe is in no position to threaten those areas or even contemplate it.

Avalon Project - Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951

 

[The Duff Man]

World Map from North Pole View

 

[Dr. Octopus]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Interesting. Maybe a dumb question - but it’s not like these shipping channels are new - they’ve always been there. Why aren’t the open now, and why aren’t they projected to be open for another 10-20 years?

They were filled with ice, which is slowly melting away.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You need what we have. badly. Just as we need you.

I still think the real reason for this trade war / 51st state bluster is the looming opening of the northern sea route. It's the same reason the current administration covets Greenland. With the climate going as it is (and this is not a political statement, but a fact of life), the northern sea route is projected to be open between 2030 - 2040. It's a major economic shipping lane, and will have major military implications with Russia in control just across the pole from both Canada and Greenland. There's also the northwest passage, which is projected to open this century. Control of these territories is a major strategic advantage in the long-term.

Interesting. Maybe a dumb question - but it’s not like these shipping channels are new - they’ve always been there. Why aren’t the open now, and why aren’t they projected to be open for another 10-20 years?

The channels are currently/have always been frozen, they won't be in 20 years. Also, add "taking back" the Panama Canal to this Canada/Greenland discussion, it's all the same conversation and connected.

Hopefully this isn't straying too far into the political realm, but there are a zillion reasons why Greenland is extremely valuable and purchasing it makes a lot of sense, both economically, strategically, and socially.

Economically you've already touched on. As that passage opens up more and more it will become extremely valuable, not to mention the minerals that are becoming easier and easier to get to as the climate changes.

Strategically it is of massive importance and that was temporarily satiated over the last 50 years by Denmark allowing the US military to operate some important bases there. But there are concerns about how permanent that will be as China is making a big play on it with economic investments there. There is also concern (from many NATO countries, not just the US) that Denmark doesn't have the resources to patrol such a large area that could soon become so strategically crucial.

Socially sentiment towards the US is generally positive in Greenland, especially amongst their younger generation. The reality is that Denmark will likely not be tied to Greenland 20 years from now. It's just a drain on them currently, they subsidize Greenland's government and get nothing tangible in return. 20 years from now it's very plausible that Greenland will either be completely independent or partnered with someone else. On the independence side it's tricky, because they don't seem to necessarily be gungho about that (I believe they have the option to vote on that now and haven't bothered) as they rely heavily on subsidation to make things work up there, with half of their Government revenue being the money Denmark just gives them.

I think there is concern that China will continue investing there economically and turn sentiment to a place where when Denmark does eventually wash their hands of it, if total independence is still not something Greenland wants, they may turn in China's direction.

Everyone is playing hardball right now but there is a very plausible win-win-win scenario out there where...

- Denmark makes a bunch of money instead of just paying out money every year for an area they don't have the resources to monetize

- Greenland continues getting the subsidation they need to survive, and maybe even gets a raise as the US could easily afford to give them a lot more than Denmark

- The US secures future economic and strategic security for themselves, while also taking it off the table as a place where our geopolitical enemies could one day end up with it or at least end up with a presence there.

I would just like to point out the treaty we have that basically allows us to treat the entire island however we want for defensive purposes (1951 Greenland Defense Agreement). Basically that was sufficient for entire Cold War, which was clearly as frought from a defense perspective as the north atlantic is now. Honestly it was probably worse then since Soviet Union had a clear plan to try and breach the GIUK Gap. Russia for all their actions in Ukraine and Eastern Europe is in no position to threaten those areas or even contemplate it.

Avalon Project - Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951

Yes, but that treaty is with Denmark, not Greenland. The same Greenland that has a provision that they can vote for independence at any time (at which point the treaty would be terminated and have to be renegotiated) and with whom China has been investing heavily towards building better relations with.

Currently Greenlandish sentiment towards the US is higher than towards China. But the US number is falling while the China number is rising. 10 years from now those numbers may be flipped. Do we want to try and re-negotiate a new treaty under those circumstances while China is trying to do the same thing?

 

[General Malaise]

Unlike Ukraine, Greenland actually HAS rare earth elements in commercial deposits - in fact, it's one of the richest REE places in the world. China is the world's leading refiner of REE so their interest is real and I can see why this is a strategic piece of property that has the interest of the world's largest players.

Rare Minerals <> Rare Earth Elements.

 

[The Z Machine]

EU retaliates against Trump’s trade moves and hits beef, whiskey, motorcycles with targeted tariffs

"The EU measures will cover goods from the United States worth around 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will also be hit,"

GRRRRR, as someone that lives in Europe and prefers American whiskey (Rye in particular) to scotch or Irish whisky, this is ungood.

 

[Northern Voice]

EU retaliates against Trump’s trade moves and hits beef, whiskey, motorcycles with targeted tariffs

"The EU measures will cover goods from the United States worth around 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will also be hit,"

GRRRRR, as someone that lives in Europe and prefers American whiskey (Rye in particular) to scotch or Irish whisky, this is ungood.

Tons of great Canadian Rye Whiskey, I'd assume lots makes it to Europe (hopefully not just the cheap blended stuff) and if it doesn't they can still get it. It's Bourbon that's truly US only and is going to be really hit and that's by design based on the states it's produced in and how they lean politically.

 

[The Z Machine]

EU retaliates against Trump’s trade moves and hits beef, whiskey, motorcycles with targeted tariffs

"The EU measures will cover goods from the United States worth around 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will also be hit,"

GRRRRR, as someone that lives in Europe and prefers American whiskey (Rye in particular) to scotch or Irish whisky, this is ungood.

Tons of great Canadian Rye Whiskey, I'd assume lots makes it to Europe (hopefully not just the cheap blended stuff) and if it doesn't they can still get it. It's Bourbon that's truly US only and is going to be really hit and that's by design based on the states it's produced in and how they lean politically.

A lot of Canadian Rye isn't made with > 50% Rye, which i prefer. I'm sure some are, but i dont know them well. If you know some that are, please let me know.

 

[Northern Voice]

EU retaliates against Trump’s trade moves and hits beef, whiskey, motorcycles with targeted tariffs

"The EU measures will cover goods from the United States worth around 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will also be hit,"

GRRRRR, as someone that lives in Europe and prefers American whiskey (Rye in particular) to scotch or Irish whisky, this is ungood.

Tons of great Canadian Rye Whiskey, I'd assume lots makes it to Europe (hopefully not just the cheap blended stuff) and if it doesn't they can still get it. It's Bourbon that's truly US only and is going to be really hit and that's by design based on the states it's produced in and how they lean politically.

A lot of Canadian Rye isn't made with > 50% Rye, which i prefer. I'm sure some are, but i dont know them well. If you know some that are, please let me know.

Yeah, that was I was referring to with the blended comment, I'll send some good recommendations later tonight. They probably aren't the first ones shipped to Europe right now but they may be soon based on these tariffs, is what I'm thinking.

 

[Stoneworker]

Hopefully this isn't straying too far into the political realm, but there are a zillion reasons why Greenland is extremely valuable and purchasing it makes a lot of sense, both economically, strategically, and socially.

Economically you've already touched on. As that passage opens up more and more it will become extremely valuable, not to mention the minerals that are becoming easier and easier to get to as the climate changes.

Strategically it is of massive importance and that was temporarily satiated over the last 50 years by Denmark allowing the US military to operate some important bases there. But there are concerns about how permanent that will be as China is making a big play on it with economic investments there. There is also concern (from many NATO countries, not just the US) that Denmark doesn't have the resources to patrol such a large area that could soon become so strategically crucial.

Socially sentiment towards the US is generally positive in Greenland, especially amongst their younger generation. The reality is that Denmark will likely not be tied to Greenland 20 years from now. It's just a drain on them currently, they subsidize Greenland's government and get nothing tangible in return. 20 years from now it's very plausible that Greenland will either be completely independent or partnered with someone else. On the independence side it's tricky, because they don't seem to necessarily be gungho about that (I believe they have the option to vote on that now and haven't bothered) as they rely heavily on subsidation to make things work up there, with half of their Government revenue being the money Denmark just gives them.

I think there is concern that China will continue investing there economically and turn sentiment to a place where when Denmark does eventually wash their hands of it, if total independence is still not something Greenland wants, they may turn in China's direction.

Everyone is playing hardball right now but there is a very plausible win-win-win scenario out there where...

- Denmark makes a bunch of money instead of just paying out money every year for an area they don't have the resources to monetize

- Greenland continues getting the subsidation they need to survive, and maybe even gets a raise as the US could easily afford to give them a lot more than Denmark

- The US secures future economic and strategic security for themselves, while also taking it off the table as a place where our geopolitical enemies could one day end up with it or at least end up with a presence there.

Very insightful post

Not to minimize the complexities, but it seems more a matter of the West heeding the China wake-up call to finally gets its act together developing a long-term strategic pact vs. China actually having an inside track to woo an independent Greenland. No?

From what I've read Greenland was somewhat ignored in the 2010s which is when China made their move. But both Denmark and the U.S. rebuffed Chinese efforts to go beyond mining investments to finance (and therefore control) airport and other infrastructure. At this point China doesn't appear to be retreating per se but there doesn't appear to be recent evidence of accelerated investment either.

 

[fatness]

China retaliated against President Donald Trump’s tariffs with an additional 15% tax on key American farm products, including chicken, pork, soybeans and beef.

 

[General Malaise]

Hopefully this isn't straying too far into the political realm, but there are a zillion reasons why Greenland is extremely valuable and purchasing it makes a lot of sense, both economically, strategically, and socially.

Economically you've already touched on. As that passage opens up more and more it will become extremely valuable, not to mention the minerals that are becoming easier and easier to get to as the climate changes.

Strategically it is of massive importance and that was temporarily satiated over the last 50 years by Denmark allowing the US military to operate some important bases there. But there are concerns about how permanent that will be as China is making a big play on it with economic investments there. There is also concern (from many NATO countries, not just the US) that Denmark doesn't have the resources to patrol such a large area that could soon become so strategically crucial.

Socially sentiment towards the US is generally positive in Greenland, especially amongst their younger generation. The reality is that Denmark will likely not be tied to Greenland 20 years from now. It's just a drain on them currently, they subsidize Greenland's government and get nothing tangible in return. 20 years from now it's very plausible that Greenland will either be completely independent or partnered with someone else. On the independence side it's tricky, because they don't seem to necessarily be gungho about that (I believe they have the option to vote on that now and haven't bothered) as they rely heavily on subsidation to make things work up there, with half of their Government revenue being the money Denmark just gives them.

I think there is concern that China will continue investing there economically and turn sentiment to a place where when Denmark does eventually wash their hands of it, if total independence is still not something Greenland wants, they may turn in China's direction.

Everyone is playing hardball right now but there is a very plausible win-win-win scenario out there where...

- Denmark makes a bunch of money instead of just paying out money every year for an area they don't have the resources to monetize

- Greenland continues getting the subsidation they need to survive, and maybe even gets a raise as the US could easily afford to give them a lot more than Denmark

- The US secures future economic and strategic security for themselves, while also taking it off the table as a place where our geopolitical enemies could one day end up with it or at least end up with a presence there.

Very insightful post

Not to minimize the complexities, but it seems more a matter of the West heeding the China wake-up call to finally gets its act together developing a long-term strategic pact vs. China actually having an inside track to woo an independent Greenland. No?

From what I've read Greenland was somewhat ignored in the 2010s which is when China made their move. But both Denmark and the U.S. rebuffed Chinese efforts to go beyond mining investments to finance (and therefore control) airport and other infrastructure. At this point China doesn't appear to be retreating per se but there doesn't appear to be recent evidence of accelerated investment either.

China has its hands everywhere. Nobody - and I mean NOBODY- is talking about the conflict in the Congo, but it's a big F'n deal. That country is under attack by M23 rebels from Rwanda and for those unaware, The DRC is where 65% of the world's cobalt comes from, along with several other key metals needed for EVs and their expansion.

You know who does care about this? China, and brother, they are over there taking a running head start on the rest of the world controlling the flow of raw materials back into their borders.

China already controls the world's exports of refined critical metals. They don't have to have Greenland to remain in the pole position, they're there. And while we scream and yell about Ukraine and Greenland and MINERALS China is out there just controlling the flow.

It's one thing to discuss the importance of critical metals for technology advancement but critical metals for military applications is another kettle of fish and guess who the US leans on for those metals?

 

[fatness]

Goldman Sachs’ chief economist just downgraded the entire U.S. economy

Goldman’s GDP growth projection for 2025 now sits at 1.7%, down from 2.4% at the start of the year. That’s because the firm now sees the average U.S. tariff rate rising by 10 basis points this year, twice Goldman’s previous forecast and about five times higher than the increase during Trump’s first term. President Donald Trump’s tariff salvos have deeply rattled a stock market previously bullish about his supposedly pro-growth agenda.

the firm now sees the average U.S. tariff rate rising by 10 basis points this year, twice Goldman’s previous forecast and about five times higher than the increase during Trump’s first term. Disappointing economic data over the last few weeks did not prompt the new projection, said Hatzius, who gained renown for his bearish forecasts prior to the onset of the great financial crisis in 2007.

“Instead, the reason for the downgrade is that our trade policy assumptions have become considerably more adverse and the administration is managing expectations towards tariff-induced near-term economic weakness,”

 

[Soulfly3]

Hopefully this isn't straying too far into the political realm, but there are a zillion reasons why Greenland is extremely valuable and purchasing it makes a lot of sense, both economically, strategically, and socially.

Economically you've already touched on. As that passage opens up more and more it will become extremely valuable, not to mention the minerals that are becoming easier and easier to get to as the climate changes.

Strategically it is of massive importance and that was temporarily satiated over the last 50 years by Denmark allowing the US military to operate some important bases there. But there are concerns about how permanent that will be as China is making a big play on it with economic investments there. There is also concern (from many NATO countries, not just the US) that Denmark doesn't have the resources to patrol such a large area that could soon become so strategically crucial.

Socially sentiment towards the US is generally positive in Greenland, especially amongst their younger generation. The reality is that Denmark will likely not be tied to Greenland 20 years from now. It's just a drain on them currently, they subsidize Greenland's government and get nothing tangible in return. 20 years from now it's very plausible that Greenland will either be completely independent or partnered with someone else. On the independence side it's tricky, because they don't seem to necessarily be gungho about that (I believe they have the option to vote on that now and haven't bothered) as they rely heavily on subsidation to make things work up there, with half of their Government revenue being the money Denmark just gives them.

I think there is concern that China will continue investing there economically and turn sentiment to a place where when Denmark does eventually wash their hands of it, if total independence is still not something Greenland wants, they may turn in China's direction.

Everyone is playing hardball right now but there is a very plausible win-win-win scenario out there where...

- Denmark makes a bunch of money instead of just paying out money every year for an area they don't have the resources to monetize

- Greenland continues getting the subsidation they need to survive, and maybe even gets a raise as the US could easily afford to give them a lot more than Denmark

- The US secures future economic and strategic security for themselves, while also taking it off the table as a place where our geopolitical enemies could one day end up with it or at least end up with a presence there.

Very insightful post

Not to minimize the complexities, but it seems more a matter of the West heeding the China wake-up call to finally gets its act together developing a long-term strategic pact vs. China actually having an inside track to woo an independent Greenland. No?

From what I've read Greenland was somewhat ignored in the 2010s which is when China made their move. But both Denmark and the U.S. rebuffed Chinese efforts to go beyond mining investments to finance (and therefore control) airport and other infrastructure. At this point China doesn't appear to be retreating per se but there doesn't appear to be recent evidence of accelerated investment either.

It's one thing to discuss the importance of critical metals for technology advancement but critical metals for military applications is another kettle of fish and guess who the US leans on for those metals?

Tell us!!!!

 

[Penguin]

From Henrik Zeberg...

He feels the pullback will end in the next 10 days or so, then due to all the liquidity the final blow off the top run will start ending in the worst recession since 1929

Great video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_TBttTftZM Well worth the 54 minute listen

I've been following Henrik for around 4 years and he's always been spot on

 

[need2know]

From Henrik Zeberg...

He feels the pullback will end in the next 10 days or so, then due to all the liquidity the final blow off the top run will start ending in the worst recession since 1929

Great video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_TBttTftZM Well worth the 54 minute listen

I've been following Henrik for around 4 years and he's always been spot on

guy is on a pro gold channel being paid to talk about buying gold.

 

[gianmarco]

My link

 

[beer 30]

China has its hands everywhere. Nobody - and I mean NOBODY- is talking about the conflict in the Congo, but it's a big F'n deal. That country is under attack by M23 rebels from Rwanda and for those unaware, The DRC is where 65% of the world's cobalt comes from, along with several other key metals needed for EVs and their expansion.

You know who does care about this? China, and brother, they are over there taking a running head start on the rest of the world controlling the flow of raw materials back into their borders.

China already controls the world's exports of refined critical metals. They don't have to have Greenland to remain in the pole position, they're there. And while we scream and yell about Ukraine and Greenland and MINERALS China is out there just controlling the flow.

It's one thing to discuss the importance of critical metals for technology advancement but critical metals for military applications is another kettle of fish and guess who the US leans on for those metals?

I read a book a couple years ago about the Congo and cobalt, Cobalt Red. Quick read more focused on the humanitarian aspect of cobalt mining in the Congo.

Anyhow, while China has definitely got the jump on the flow of precious/rare earth minerals/metals isn't their big contribution that they do the refining as well which is dirty, dangerous and full of environmental hazards that the rest of the world has gladly let them take on to save their respective countries from having to do it? It takes us (US) 10+ years to build a nuclear plant, no way they are opening up refining processing plants to take this on, right?

I'll hang up and listen off air.

 

[Sand]

Initial jobless claims back to a low from November. Continuing jobless claims are static. We seem to be muddling along here - no cliff evident yet (and unemployment is by far the best indicator).

 

[Sand]

Anyhow, while China has definitely got the jump on the flow of precious/rare earth minerals/metals isn't their big contribution that they do the refining as well which is dirty, dangerous and full of environmental hazards that the rest of the world has gladly let them take on to save their respective countries from having to do it? It takes us (US) 10+ years to build a nuclear plant, no way they are opening up refining processing plants to take this on, right?

I'll hang up and listen off air.

It's going to be hard. China has never been afraid to rape and pollute the earth and they rule the roost on these materials because of that. Rare earths aren't rare, they're just hard to process as they're very similar chemically.

I don't see the US being willing to do the same thing as China, which means a higher cost supply. Our public lands have become as important economically as tourist and recreation areas as anything else. I don't think anyone wants an open pit mine in the Tetons.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

From Henrik Zeberg...

He feels the pullback will end in the next 10 days or so, then due to all the liquidity the final blow off the top run will start ending in the worst recession since 1929

Great video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_TBttTftZM Well worth the 54 minute listen

I've been following Henrik for around 4 years and he's always been spot on

guy is on a pro gold channel being paid to talk about buying gold.

It was basically a commercial to buy gold.

 

[Schmeabs]

Initial jobless claims back to a low from November. Continuing jobless claims are static. We seem to be muddling along here - no cliff evident yet (and unemployment is by far the best indicator).

Yep the fear seems to be coming from the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow tracking estimate of -2.4% for first quarter. This is not an official forecast from the Fed and this report is distorted. Consumer spending for January was down .5% in January but it was also down last January after seasonally larger December spending. The larger than normal trade deficit in January also lowered GDP estimates. This was caused by a couple of factors. With impending tariffs many people front loaded imports which makes sense. There was also a surge of gold imports. This is important because GDPNow does not distinguish between gold and other goods but the official GDP estimate does. The GDPNow estimate would be about 2 percentage points higher adjusting for trade in gold. The March 6th Labor report will also add another .5% to the GDP tracking estimate which puts GDP around .4%, while not great but better than -2.4%.

 

[the moops]

Yep the fear seems to be coming from the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow tracking estimate of -2.4% for first quarter.

There is a lot more that is leading to this fear than the Fed's forecast

 

[Schmeabs]

Yep the fear seems to be coming from the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow tracking estimate of -2.4% for first quarter.

There is a lot more that is leading to this fear than the Fed's forecast

Yes sorry I forgot to include the obvious tariffs. I am in the camp though that these Tariffs are more of a negotiation and will not cause long term economic damage. Short term I expect continued volatility.

 

[SWC]

brohans we are only down like 300 points so far today so things are looking up take that to the bank bromigos

 

[Soulfly3]

brohans we are only down like 300 points so far today so things are looking up take that to the bank bromigos

SWC on the ticker, LFG BABY

 

[fatness]

Trump threatens 200% tariff on E.U. wine and liquor, says world is 'ripping us off'

"The U.S. tariff comes after the European Union moved to reinstate an import tax on American whiskey.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday on Bloomberg Television that Trump was “totally annoyed” by the EU’s actions, leading to the latest threat.
The U.S. still plans to announce an additional round of so-called reciprocal tariffs in April. European countries are expected to be impacted by those measures as well."

 

[The Duff Man]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

 

[General Malaise]

Anyhow, while China has definitely got the jump on the flow of precious/rare earth minerals/metals isn't their big contribution that they do the refining as well which is dirty, dangerous and full of environmental hazards that the rest of the world has gladly let them take on to save their respective countries from having to do it? It takes us (US) 10+ years to build a nuclear plant, no way they are opening up refining processing plants to take this on, right?

I'll hang up and listen off air.

It's going to be hard. China has never been afraid to rape and pollute the earth and they rule the roost on these materials because of that. Rare earths aren't rare, they're just hard to process as they're very similar chemically.

I don't see the US being willing to do the same thing as China, which means a higher cost supply. Our public lands have become as important economically as tourist and recreation areas as anything else. I don't think anyone wants an open pit mine in the Tetons.

Funnily enough, the US is the 2nd leading producer of Rare Earths behind China, but it is a MASSIVE gap between the two. And where do we mine these? California! Which would seem like the hardest place in the country to mine for rare earths due to.......well, reasons. But no, we've been in Mountain Pass for years digging 'em out of the ground. Used them for color TVs back when Curtis Mathis and Zenith were kings of the industry.

But you're right, they're not only hard to process but EXPENSIVE. And we're not going to come close to being the low-cost refiner China is.

 

[The Z Machine]

But you're right, they're not only hard to process but EXPENSIVE. And we're not going to come close to being the low-cost refiner China is.

Something tells me the native Greenlanders won't want their lands despoiled by mining operations even it brings economic prosperity.

 

[Chemical X]

Trump threatens 200% tariff on E.U. wine and liquor, says world is 'ripping us off'

"The U.S. tariff comes after the European Union moved to reinstate an import tax on American whiskey.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday on Bloomberg Television that Trump was “totally annoyed” by the EU’s actions, leading to the latest threat.
The U.S. still plans to announce an additional round of so-called reciprocal tariffs in April. European countries are expected to be impacted by those measures as well."

don’t touch my porchetta

 

[Joe Bryant]

February numbers are in.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cpi-inflation-data-cools-in-february-easing-investor-fears-about-the-health-of-the-us-economy-133313159.html

February's Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed inflation pressures eased in February, calming some fears about the health of the US economy during a rocky few weeks for markets.

The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 2.8% over the prior year in February, below January's 3% annual gain and ahead of economist expectations of a 2.9% annual increase. The index rose 0.2% over the previous month, a deceleration from the 0.5% increase in January and a beat compared to economists' estimates of a 0.3% monthly uptick.

On a "core" basis, which strips out the more volatile costs of food and gas, prices in February climbed 0.2% over the prior month, lower than January's 0.4% monthly gain, and 3.1% over last year — the lowest yearly increase in core CPI since April 2021.

 

[-OZ-]

February numbers are in.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cpi-inflation-data-cools-in-february-easing-investor-fears-about-the-health-of-the-us-economy-133313159.html

February's Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed inflation pressures eased in February, calming some fears about the health of the US economy during a rocky few weeks for markets.

The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 2.8% over the prior year in February, below January's 3% annual gain and ahead of economist expectations of a 2.9% annual increase. The index rose 0.2% over the previous month, a deceleration from the 0.5% increase in January and a beat compared to economists' estimates of a 0.3% monthly uptick.

On a "core" basis, which strips out the more volatile costs of food and gas, prices in February climbed 0.2% over the prior month, lower than January's 0.4% monthly gain, and 3.1% over last year — the lowest yearly increase in core CPI since April 2021.

Timing is everything. Let’s see March before we believe the fears of the US economy are calmed.

ETA - sorry, this is just CPI. That stat Might not be bad but it’s not the only relevant one.

 

[-OZ-]

We should just all stop trading with each other altogether.

That seems to be the goal or end state here.