Johnson effectively did a similar thing by enacting a hard brexit, that the majority of the UK didn't want. Nobody did a thing. He was only thrown out because of the chronic lying and belief that the rules didn't apply to him. A notion that appals the compliant queuing brits.
Experience teaches us that people will do what their media programmes them to do. What's the media in the states making people think about?
The only way to get rid of him is congress impeaches (on a majority), senate convicts with a 2/3rds majority. Not going to happen with a Republican majority in both houses even though I think that invoking emergency powers without an emergency should probably be sufficient.
Setting tariffs is congress's responsibility in the constitution - they've just given the power to the president because they can't agree anything. They can take it back.
Bloke on Politics Live saying this was pretty much the case now.
New business idea for Ingo.
Buy iPhones from China, ship them here, sell on to the USA. Tax to UK is only VAT, can reclaim on export and the buyer just pays 10% US tariff on the UK import.
"The secret ingredient is crime."
By some extraordinary oversight, there are no tariffs on Russia.
Hard to Believe!!!!
Chicago: Aghast!
Trump latest: 100% tariff on movies made outside the US; reopen Alcatraz.
Isn't that effectively similar to what we are doing (in reverse) with the tax incentives we offer
I assume it is only on films made by US studios?
Not sure anyone knows but nothing I've been reading has said that.
Most films made by Hollywood studios are at least in part filmed outside US you'd think, assume the idea is to make them filmed wholly inside US like making cars and iPhones there.
Seems like a significant difference between saying "make your film here and we'll charge you less tax" and "if you don't make your film here, we'll fine you". (100% tariff of what? The budget? The ticket price?)
Does it apply to, say, British films? Is he saying that Bond (under Amazon, clearly a US production) has to be made fully in the US? Does that apply to CGI houses based outside the US?
Not important to me as a foreigner, but given that's it's obvious nonsense, how much effort is he intending the US government to put into figuring out what he means?
Is part of it being wholly in US to give greater control over the content and messaging?
Put the egg in your mouth, and suck, grandma: aka Of course it's nonsense (see Alcatraz), it's divisive populist nonsense (aka fascism) designed to froth people by feeding out all sorts of nonsense to trigger different groups, with everything being contrary, unworkable, or just plain marketing without any intention of delivery. The intended outcome is to destabilise the population - not to effectively govern the country for the people, by keeping their eyes and ears in the wrong place, and thereby control and exploit them (aka russian intelligence tactics developed in south america).
The more people do "Oh look at that" and try stamping out the little fires, the more successful it will be. What populations need to do is gather together (not allow themselves to be divided) and assert the power of their numbers.
Divided we fall.
That this is clearly being done in a co-ordinated way, across multiple territories, using many actors and groups, and the intention is not explicitly stated, while there is clear collusion on funding, strategy, and policy goals, then it's clear evidence of, brace yourself, conspiracy.
I do not for a moment believe that trump, and the johnson, and truss, and farage, and bolsonaro, and orban, et al....have spontaneously hit on the same values and behaviours independently. I do not believe that the mainstream press has objectively and fairly decided to sideline normal behaviours and promote and slant towards fascist ones. I do not believe that the obviously opaquely funded divisive movements that spring up, are groundswell movements based on genuine democratic wishes. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it comes at a time when large sums of money are being leveraged to prolong petrochemical based prevalence, undermining genuine scalable non-petrochemical alternatives, and using tactics used by Putin in securing unchallengable power in Russia allied to techniques developed in destabilising south american countries during the cold war. Simply put, I don't believe it's an accident (oh! Another mistake). It's design.
YMMV.
I'm not sure I agree, both are attempts to distort the market, one with a carrot, one with a stick.
Presumably we offer significant tax breaks as otherwise the films wouldn't be made here.
But I agree, it sounds unworkable as how will the definitions work and be policed.
I have half a notion that there was a very successful government in germany, that was quite famous for it's propaganda, that exerted an intense level of control over the arts, and film...as well as more traditional messaging.
Can't quite place the memory though. You know how forgetful I am.
It is if you listen to Steve Bannon (not that I recommend it).
