What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

My understanding comes from the economics of competition. If you assume two firms in an oligopoly market, if both set production simultaneously (Cornot), the optimal strategy ends with both producing the same.  If one acts first (Stackleberg) but knows the other will respond, the leader can secure a higher quantity.  The follower will accept less because the price impact of producing more will result in net less profit.  It's an interesting result in the economics of information because it arguably shows that having more information gives a worse result.

The scenario assumes fixed and unchanging supply and demand conditions over time and assumes a strict sequence in selection that can't be changed once made.  So it doesn't apply to a dynamic diplomatic situation.

I had it wrong. Forget Stackleberg, forget game theory.  Rational self interest can lead to unfairness.  Full stop.

[The Minsky Moment]

At risk of kicking the bee's nest, I'd suggest that the dispute over NATO relationships isn't about rationality; but about different priorities over principles.  Both sides are making rationally based arguments, but one side puts a higher value on reciprocity; the other on solidarity. That's also the source I think of the tension; the "Yuro side" perceives the "Yank side" critique as undermining solidarity; the Yank side sees the Yuros as endorsing unfairness.

[Admiral Yi]

At risk of kicking the bee's nest, I'd suggest that the dispute over NATO relationships isn't about rationality; but about different priorities over principles.  Both sides are making rationally based arguments, but one side puts a higher value on reciprocity; the other on solidarity. That's also the source I think of the tension; the "Yuro side" perceives the "Yank side" critique as undermining solidarity; the Yank side sees the Yuros as endorsing unfairness.

As I said earlier, the time for that debate was *before* the Yuros promised to raise their contributions.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

As I said earlier, the time for that debate was *before* the Yuros promised to raise their contributions.

Which most of them did.

[Admiral Yi]

As I said earlier, the time for that debate was *before* the Yuros promised to raise their contributions.

Which most of them did.

So what?  I'm not accusing them of having had a different POV. I'm accusing them of breaking a promise.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

So what?  I'm not accusing them of having had a different POV. I'm accusing them of breaking a promise.

You misunderstand me.  I'm saying most of them did keep their promise, and the ones who came in after the promise was made have also met or exceeded the promised level on time (though I think they all came in  above it already).

[Valmy]

Force the Republicans to tank the filibuster or make them cave.

And if they don't do either of those, what should the plan be?

Sounds like the Republicans problem. But in any case we will probably do this all over again next year.

[Admiral Yi]

You misunderstand me.  I'm saying most of them did keep their promise, and the ones who came in after the promise was made have also met or exceeded the promised level on time (though I think they all came in  above it already).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074

This article says 23 of 32 members met their commitments in 2024.  They have to use a lot  of clunky tenses because they're reporting in early 2025 when the 24 figures are still preliminary.  The original promise was by 2024.

So I know that not every country "met or exceeded the promised level on time" because on time was by year end 2024.

I'm pretty damn sure not every country will meet or exceed the promised level a year late because Spain has said they  can't/won't do it.