>>519607118
>reminder that both coffe and beef, the only products that really fell under the 50% tariffs, with the rest of our exports being exempt, have reached all time record high prices under Trump, not Biden and not Obama.
Also reminder that Goland Brumpf doesn't know what a tariff is, why it is used and why his "tariffs" are sanctions.
4chan Search
12 results for "ec3b39d8a61c7066d6ae1f7aa546e2f7"
Z
>>514861270
>b-but where does the IMF take all that money from?
>>514861422
>I don't think they have enough to cover even france. Wasn't their debt like 2.5tril, while the IMF reserve is less than 1 tril.
TOP KEK.
IMF doesn't have enough money to bail out France, which they have to, but they also have to bail out Britain and Germany.
With that said, they can invent the money.
The mutts will add probably $5-8 trillion in debt this year, if they create money (say 2 trillion) and lend it to the IMF at a higher rate, then IMF can package it with an austerity package to France.
So France will probably have to pawn stuff like their nuclear power plants, electric grid, biomass in the forests etc as well as pledge budget cuts.
The TLDR is that IMF will force France to pay, but the final benefactor and real muscle behind the threats will be the US (who are in an even worse position).
And the IMF will have to take on more debt (from the US) to be able to lend money to France.
>b-but where does the IMF take all that money from?
>>514861422
>I don't think they have enough to cover even france. Wasn't their debt like 2.5tril, while the IMF reserve is less than 1 tril.
TOP KEK.
IMF doesn't have enough money to bail out France, which they have to, but they also have to bail out Britain and Germany.
With that said, they can invent the money.
The mutts will add probably $5-8 trillion in debt this year, if they create money (say 2 trillion) and lend it to the IMF at a higher rate, then IMF can package it with an austerity package to France.
So France will probably have to pawn stuff like their nuclear power plants, electric grid, biomass in the forests etc as well as pledge budget cuts.
The TLDR is that IMF will force France to pay, but the final benefactor and real muscle behind the threats will be the US (who are in an even worse position).
And the IMF will have to take on more debt (from the US) to be able to lend money to France.
>>512532384
>nope, they are claiming "substantially lower radar cross-section than its predecessor"
That wasn't their design goals, and RCS reduction doesn't accidentally happen on planes like that.
But there are two ways both statements can be true.
First we define substantial RCS reduction (30-50% would be substantial, in particular on something like the B-2).
Secondly we specify the "predecessor" which could be the current upgraded B-2, the older ones with the old skin OR the current ones in their current used condition.
You see, when they leak information that turns out to not be impressive enough and then claw it back...
Then you know it was real.
And when they revise their claims and cloak them in ambiguity (like not mentioning the model they are "substantially" improving on), then you know it's just PR nonsense.
It's the exact same with the F-47.
>It breaks all sorts of records, it's magnificent, it's invisible!
>Can we see it?
>No! Are you an antisemite? Are you a Chinese spy?
The fact is that they still don't have the first flying F-47 and are just throwing vague statements out there.
For the B-21 it started with the claim that it was at least as stealthy as the B-2, but the focus was to make an affordable replacement that was easier to maintain.
As in the capabilities of the current B-2, but at a price the US can afford.
Now they are revising the claims, "actually it is 'substantially' stealthier than its [unspecified] predecessor".
What is "substantially", and what is the baseline model they compare with?
For instance, to cut detection range in half you need to reduce RCS by roughly 94%.
That type of reduction, which doesn't change reality much, is extreme.
A 30% RCS reduction (which is likely), could still be substantial though.
It's just that it has near zero effect on the result I mentioned.
>nope, they are claiming "substantially lower radar cross-section than its predecessor"
That wasn't their design goals, and RCS reduction doesn't accidentally happen on planes like that.
But there are two ways both statements can be true.
First we define substantial RCS reduction (30-50% would be substantial, in particular on something like the B-2).
Secondly we specify the "predecessor" which could be the current upgraded B-2, the older ones with the old skin OR the current ones in their current used condition.
You see, when they leak information that turns out to not be impressive enough and then claw it back...
Then you know it was real.
And when they revise their claims and cloak them in ambiguity (like not mentioning the model they are "substantially" improving on), then you know it's just PR nonsense.
It's the exact same with the F-47.
>It breaks all sorts of records, it's magnificent, it's invisible!
>Can we see it?
>No! Are you an antisemite? Are you a Chinese spy?
The fact is that they still don't have the first flying F-47 and are just throwing vague statements out there.
For the B-21 it started with the claim that it was at least as stealthy as the B-2, but the focus was to make an affordable replacement that was easier to maintain.
As in the capabilities of the current B-2, but at a price the US can afford.
Now they are revising the claims, "actually it is 'substantially' stealthier than its [unspecified] predecessor".
What is "substantially", and what is the baseline model they compare with?
For instance, to cut detection range in half you need to reduce RCS by roughly 94%.
That type of reduction, which doesn't change reality much, is extreme.
A 30% RCS reduction (which is likely), could still be substantial though.
It's just that it has near zero effect on the result I mentioned.
>>512191946
>Why are you in a western country instead of returning to russia?
Why are you making nonsensical ramblings instead of proper arguments?
>NATO and the west weak and poor
Never said it.
>russia stronk and rich
Never said it.
However, the western economies are unsustainable as anyone can see when glancing at their economic numbers.
The Eurozone has over 87% debt to GDP, which at a 3% yield means ~6% of all taxes collected goes to pay interest (and increasing).
The US is in that regard in a many times worse situation.
Both have massive issues finding a foreign partner willing to refinance their debts (China, India, Russia etc have stopped refinancing western debt or significantly reduced purchasing it).
And we see how the economy itself is devolving while the need for more debt keeps increasing.
In Russia they are cutting interest rates now, and their financial crisis if you will, was economic over heating with nearly 0% unemployment rates.
This does not mean Russia is rich or stronk, but it means Russia is growing economically, sustainably and quality of life in general is improving.
In the west we see the reverse.
Already I have actually considered moving with my family to Russia, but it would make visiting family much harder and it would be very difficult for the children and my wife to adjust.
That is mainly what is holding me back from going.
Family.
And ofc that my life here is very comfy.
And Sweden, after Switzerland, are probably the two European countries that in economic terms are the best to live in.
>Why are you in a western country instead of returning to russia?
Why are you making nonsensical ramblings instead of proper arguments?
>NATO and the west weak and poor
Never said it.
>russia stronk and rich
Never said it.
However, the western economies are unsustainable as anyone can see when glancing at their economic numbers.
The Eurozone has over 87% debt to GDP, which at a 3% yield means ~6% of all taxes collected goes to pay interest (and increasing).
The US is in that regard in a many times worse situation.
Both have massive issues finding a foreign partner willing to refinance their debts (China, India, Russia etc have stopped refinancing western debt or significantly reduced purchasing it).
And we see how the economy itself is devolving while the need for more debt keeps increasing.
In Russia they are cutting interest rates now, and their financial crisis if you will, was economic over heating with nearly 0% unemployment rates.
This does not mean Russia is rich or stronk, but it means Russia is growing economically, sustainably and quality of life in general is improving.
In the west we see the reverse.
Already I have actually considered moving with my family to Russia, but it would make visiting family much harder and it would be very difficult for the children and my wife to adjust.
That is mainly what is holding me back from going.
Family.
And ofc that my life here is very comfy.
And Sweden, after Switzerland, are probably the two European countries that in economic terms are the best to live in.
>>511272983
>People protest against corruption a lot in Russia, the difference is, it has never yielded any results.
In Russia protests and public opinion matters more than in the US.
Putins first years were essentially built on that.
He let radicals like Zhironovsky, float ideas, then looked at the public response and then acted on it if there was support.
In the west, the people in charge simply don't care because they will get the next step in their career at the "NGO"/banks etc if they deliver policies people hate but their backers want.
So protests and elections actually matter more in Russia than in the best western democracies in the world.
>People protest against corruption a lot in Russia, the difference is, it has never yielded any results.
In Russia protests and public opinion matters more than in the US.
Putins first years were essentially built on that.
He let radicals like Zhironovsky, float ideas, then looked at the public response and then acted on it if there was support.
In the west, the people in charge simply don't care because they will get the next step in their career at the "NGO"/banks etc if they deliver policies people hate but their backers want.
So protests and elections actually matter more in Russia than in the best western democracies in the world.
>>510552343
fatal filesystem corruption I guess
>>510552437
Katyusha-fren, your deep knowledge of the natural sciences is impressive!
fatal filesystem corruption I guess
>>510552437
Katyusha-fren, your deep knowledge of the natural sciences is impressive!
>>510528596
>then the phillipines can launch anti-ship missiles from land based positions
>this is our plan with the marine corps, they'll be island hopping on helicopters and taking pot shots
290 km range from their best missile systems is not really a range that matters.
And launches from land means Chinese retaliation against land.
Good luck with that...
In the meantime, they will be without both an air force and navy.
Each ship would cost 300 billion.
Also, I was wrong here >>510528517
>The Phillipines have 5 frigates with the armament of small corvettes (8 anti ship missiles and limited SAMs) +1 corvette with only offensive capability being torpedoes.
They only have 3 frigates and 1 corvette for a total of 4 lightly armed ships.
This is pretty much the limit of what they can afford.
>>510529069
>We don't have sea mines, AA, or even kamikaze drones, and our retarded government stole a ton of cash intended for the modernization program of the Armed Forces.
Pretty much.
So this makes any provocation against China nothing but angry barking.
Ofc with the risk that China actually takes the barking seriously and ends the Philipine navys existence.
The US ability to make their vassals seppuku themselves is remarkable.
>then the phillipines can launch anti-ship missiles from land based positions
>this is our plan with the marine corps, they'll be island hopping on helicopters and taking pot shots
290 km range from their best missile systems is not really a range that matters.
And launches from land means Chinese retaliation against land.
Good luck with that...
In the meantime, they will be without both an air force and navy.
Each ship would cost 300 billion.
Also, I was wrong here >>510528517
>The Phillipines have 5 frigates with the armament of small corvettes (8 anti ship missiles and limited SAMs) +1 corvette with only offensive capability being torpedoes.
They only have 3 frigates and 1 corvette for a total of 4 lightly armed ships.
This is pretty much the limit of what they can afford.
>>510529069
>We don't have sea mines, AA, or even kamikaze drones, and our retarded government stole a ton of cash intended for the modernization program of the Armed Forces.
Pretty much.
So this makes any provocation against China nothing but angry barking.
Ofc with the risk that China actually takes the barking seriously and ends the Philipine navys existence.
The US ability to make their vassals seppuku themselves is remarkable.
>>510528596
>then the phillipines can launch anti-ship missiles from land based positions
>this is our plan with the marine corps, they'll be island hopping on helicopters and taking pot shots
290 km range from their best missile systems is not really a range that matters.
And launches from land means Chinese retaliation against land.
Good luck with that...
In the meantime, they will be without both an air force and navy.
Each ship would cost 300 billion.
Also, I was wrong here >>510528517
>The Phillipines have 5 frigates with the armament of small corvettes (8 anti ship missiles and limited SAMs) +1 corvette with only offensive capability being torpedoes.
They only have 3 frigates and 1 corvette for a total of 4 lightly armed ships.
This is pretty much the limit of what they can afford.
>>510529069
>We don't have sea mines, AA, or even kamikaze drones, and our retarded government stole a ton of cash intended for the modernization program of the Armed Forces.
Pretty much.
So this makes any provocation against China nothing but angry barking.
Ofc with the risk that China actually takes the barking seriously and ends the Philipine navys existence.
The US ability to make their vassals seppuku themselves is remarkable.
>then the phillipines can launch anti-ship missiles from land based positions
>this is our plan with the marine corps, they'll be island hopping on helicopters and taking pot shots
290 km range from their best missile systems is not really a range that matters.
And launches from land means Chinese retaliation against land.
Good luck with that...
In the meantime, they will be without both an air force and navy.
Each ship would cost 300 billion.
Also, I was wrong here >>510528517
>The Phillipines have 5 frigates with the armament of small corvettes (8 anti ship missiles and limited SAMs) +1 corvette with only offensive capability being torpedoes.
They only have 3 frigates and 1 corvette for a total of 4 lightly armed ships.
This is pretty much the limit of what they can afford.
>>510529069
>We don't have sea mines, AA, or even kamikaze drones, and our retarded government stole a ton of cash intended for the modernization program of the Armed Forces.
Pretty much.
So this makes any provocation against China nothing but angry barking.
Ofc with the risk that China actually takes the barking seriously and ends the Philipine navys existence.
The US ability to make their vassals seppuku themselves is remarkable.
>>510091820
>stop replying to this elgin shill
I don't see what's surprising here.
They were taught by the French and excel in fighting like French..
>stop replying to this elgin shill
I don't see what's surprising here.
They were taught by the French and excel in fighting like French..
>>530700072
Consider this
Consider this
>>510008993
Golden kippah already in danger?!
Golden kippah already in danger?!