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.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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.

My source showed 8 falling short, but that's why I said "most".

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

I never said that, and you dropped the "the ones who came in after the promise was made have also", which completely changes the meaning of the statement.  It refers only to Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland, and Sweden, who were not yet members when the 2% commitment was made.  Something seems to have changed between the time of my source and the BBC article and Montenegro didn't make it, but the other three are there.

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.

As of June, NATO seemed to think everyone would be at target this year, and the BBC article doesn't indicate otherwise.  That's still probably wishful thinking, as it should have happened already, but as indicated in that article the countries aren't ignoring the target, they have to deal with domestic opposition.  That's why they had 10 years, and presumably they all thought they could overcome other domestic priorities to hit hit.  Some failed; how much was lack of effort, and how much was determined domestic resistance, is unknown from the final result.  Spain, at least, clearly realizes the 5% target is unreachable with the domestic opposition they dealt with trying to get to 2%, which is why they didn't commit this time.

[Admiral Yi]

I did misunderstand the part about countries who came in after 2014. I withdraw my objection.
I also misunderstood Spain's unwillingness to commit to 5% as unwillingness to live up to 2%. Sloppy reading, me culpa.
Your remaining point is I'm tarring with an unfairly wide brush when I talked about Yuros.  I was mirroring Joan's language.  I understood what he meant, he understood what I meant, and it saved us both a shitload of keystrokes.

But to clear up any further misunderstanding, to the 31 or 32 members who did what they promised, you are all fine upstanding members of the community of honest, dependable countries in my opinion.

As to the last part, that does dismiss the charge of broken promises against the citizenry of the eight welching countries, but not the charge against the individual who made the promise.  It's a theoretical possibility that the actual language of the 2014 pledge was something like I will make my best efforts but can't promise results.  In which case my beef would be with the press for bad reporting in calling it a pledge.

[Tonitrus]

Schumer and all eight senators who voted with the GOP on this should be primaried.

I believe none of the 8 who are running are up for election in 2026.  Not a coincidence.

Two are...Shaheen and Durbin.

Personally, I lean towards agreement that they should have held until the GOP broke the filibuster...that'd be the most likely outcome, as Trump was already pushing it.  And his contention that the Dems would (and should) likely break it later is correct.  If they were lucky enough to take back both the House and Senate, they would need to.

[The Minsky Moment]

Shaheen and Durbin both previously announced their retirement; they are not running in 2026.

[Tonitrus]

That'll do it then.

Sticking it our for the Dems (or the GOP) was soon going to get much harder.  Most of the federal workers can probably survive a month without a pay...but getting into 2-3 months starts having real consequences (evictions, etc).  If Trump hadn't covered the military paychecks, I would content that most of those folks are likely to be poorer and really living paycheck-to-paycheck than other federal employees. 

It's easy to say "this is for the greater good" when you're livelihood is not directly affected.  The blame for that may still split both ways, but we shouldn't be cavalier about it. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Your remaining point is I'm tarring with an unfairly wide brush when I talked about Yuros.  I was mirroring Joan's language.  I understood what he meant, he understood what I meant, and it saved us both a shitload of keystrokes.

But to clear up any further misunderstanding, to the 31 or 32 members who did what they promised, you are all fine upstanding members of the community of honest, dependable countries in my opinion.

As to the last part, that does dismiss the charge of broken promises against the citizenry of the eight welching countries, but not the charge against the individual who made the promise.  It's a theoretical possibility that the actual language of the 2014 pledge was something like I will make my best efforts but can't promise results.  In which case my beef would be with the press for bad reporting in calling it a pledge.

I did overly latch on to the breadth of your statement, but yes you were both speaking in fairly broad terms.

On the language, the actual declaration is a little loosey-goosey about it:

• Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
• Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
  
  • halt any decline in defence expenditure;
  • aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
  • aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
• Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
• All Allies will:
  
  • ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
  • ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.

I think there's room in there to criticize the members who didn't make it, but it's not a promise to hit that specific level in that time, either.

[Admiral Yi]

No, the word "aim" turns the whole thing into a weaselfest.  I withdraw all my objections and apologize for any hurt feelings I have caused.