Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
“So, you’ve got nothing. Ok.” (Punctuated like an adult for adults)
Psssst…where you see Spirit, you see Boeing (the Wichita facility was and is about to return to being a Boeing facility…or, don’t you know what’s going on as of late…?).
You’re posting dated Boeing web publications. Good for you. Tell us, how long have you been a Boeing vendor? How long have you been in the industry? How long have you been in Aerospace?
I’ll ask AGAIN…
Do you know HOW & WHY these other counties “got in on”…777, 787…737 MAX…?
Do you know the detrimental program impacts/actualities of all these “global suppliers” and the actual points of production for all the parts you’ve charted…especially when shit goes wrong…like, oh, I don’t know….remember the 787 battery failures/fires/groundings/program stoppages…?
The real comedy is this: an internet info-surfing-expert squawking about the things some of us in here deal with daily.
So, tell me..again…how I’ve got nothing whilst you play internet detective wannabe aerospace dude. M’kay?
Not to derail this super focused thread, but I am curious your thoughts on why Boeing has these distributed suppliers? McDonald-Douglas bean counters chasing every last penny would be the stereotypical guess
Customer Countries wanted a piece of the action. PERIOD. You see, your very wise question is what I wanted the A380 wannabe from AirBus Central to answer…but, you see…he didn’t know. 🤣
I watched this happen on F16…many, many years ago.
And, more recently, I saw it “attempted” on F35.
We're running in circles, most people thinking about "made in USA" probably don't realize how much Boeing and others are dependant on foreign suppliers. Tariffs are going to be really bad for some US companies, in particular for aerospace, and most of all for Boeing. Good luck flying a commercial airplane with 100% US parts!
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Au contraire!
All those foreign supply/joint manufacturing/production off-sets and conjoined purchase contracts are pre-negotiated and approved by various U.S. depts like State & Commerce; hence, there are duties and tax codes already written into the agreements and contracts.
Now, how is it that I know this?
You’re consistently commenting as if these off-shore suppliers are absolutely necessary or as if the a/c couldn’t be built without those joint manufacturing agreements…yet, that’s certainly not the case. What’s the off-shore content of an F22 or an F35 or the B21? How much more complexity is in those a/c versus these commercial clown show aircraft we’re discussing?
Again, why do I know these things?
F35 offshore content of F35...
Sharing the work around, so foreign customers will buy the plane.
Good luck building (and even more selling!) your 100% american commercial Boeing. It's going to be a proper revolution. Please send me a PM to remind me when this happens, it's going to be quite a while 😁
Hey, uh, what year is that projection from?
How much Turkish content?
😂
No idea.
The F-35 is a great example of procurement based on politics, manufacturing parts in different countries and different states to get foreign sales and senate support, too big to fail, to many people have vested interests.
He might win the next one too!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/european-union-ready-negotiate-trump-163141673.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
European Union is ready to talk
Rejected!
He wouldn’t even win if it was today.
Good points on China US back and forth - a little different insight
2026 MX gear looks like its going to be might expensive,
Not for us!
Pit Row
This kind of thinking will not only skyrocket costs for Americans, but could lead to WW3 as the current tact is viewed as quite malicious. Instead, we should let the US trade negotiators do their work and keep wingnuts like Trump and Navarro out of it. You don't have to listen to me, the consensus among the best and brightest economists in the US is that what Trump/ Navarro are doing is extremely dangerous with almost guaranteed negative long-term consequences for the US.
This thread has already shown how you have been lied to by POTUS regarding the tariffs imposed on US goods. China is a concern, but the Trump tariffs attack a slew of countries.. EXCEPT Russia. Why would you trust the policy of someone you know has lied to you in such a big way. And as for Peter Navarro, he is not recognized as having any credible work or ideas. Unlike leading economists, he does no credible research that can be published in noted economic journals. He is a slimy grifter and outright extreme nutcase. He does try to sell books to the general public and he quotes an economist in his book to try and give credibility to his crazy assertions and claims, but that economist is completely made up.. This so called economist, "Ron Vara", is a play on his own name. What a lunatic! We have complete lunatics running this show!
if gear companies lose out on sales in the US market because of these trade barriers, i am pretty sure said companies will try to make their loses up in other markets with price increases across the board.
Good point, capitalism at work.
Yeah, WW3 will fix the problem (and everything else)! 🤣
That's about what I would expect from someone like you. Child.
Now that the US trade representative has acknowledged so-called "tariffs imposed on the US" had nothing to do with tariffs imposed on the US, the government have pivoted their discourse to trade deficit (which is how these ludicrous numbers have been calculated even though they didn't explain it at the big reveal).
So far the US still failed to explain why it was a problem for them to run a trade deficit with Vietnam and many of the poorest countries in the world. Why is it bad to buy more stuff from Vietnam (or Zimbabwe , Cambodia, Madagascar, Falkland islands lol) than they buy from you?
Fortunately we got an answer from the big man himself :
"To me, a deficit is a loss. We're going to have surpluses or at worst, going to be breaking even."
He doesn't like the word, sounds brilliant doesn't it? The US rightfully says 0 tariff offered by Vietnam won't solve trade deficit... but nothing will! How can you expect a country whose GDP is 2% of yours to buy as much stuff from you as you do from them?
And another nugget from the big man :
"I'm telling you these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass."
Here's me thinking kissing the ring would be bad enough...
So that's it folks, that's why the US are starting a trade war with the rest of the world, that's why, according to latest estimates, the US are set this year to lose half a million jobs and pay $4k more taxes (per average household).
Good luck.
The United States has a largely information and serviced based economy, and as such, produces much less per capita than countries with manufacturing and resource based economies. The United States is also a country that consumes a lot per capita. So, the United States consumes a lot per capita and, relatively speaking, produces little. Given this set of facts, one would expect trade deficits. Why would anyone think that a trade deficit is, in itself, an indication that somebody has been ripped off? I'm not sure who said this, but it sounds right to me: The United States being mad about trade deficits makes about as much sense as me being mad at grocery stores because I buy more from them than they buy from me.
I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea that somehow, the United States having a trade deficit with a country like Canada is indication that Canada is ripping off the United States. The United States does not trade with Canada. Americans trade with Canadians, and any trade deficit or surplus is the aggregate outcome of many transactions, each of which may be fair, mutually beneficial, and freely chosen as part of the way that individuals choose to do business. If the trade deficit is, in fact, the result of protectionism in Canada, then that's another story all together. But it seems that the mere existence of a trade deficit troubles Trump. That, to me, is odd. I'm completely open to the possibility that there's something I'm not understanding. I'm not an economist - I don't claim to understand this especially well, But conceptually, trade deficits don't strike me as problematic. Especially when it's with an country (Canada) with a huge, resource rich land mass and a very small population. Of course Canadians are going to sell more to Americans than Americans sell to Canadians. We (Canadians) have a lot of stuff, and there's more of them (Americans).
This is exactly what the administration is changing.
1. Return to manufacturing things…like we once did…here, in the USA…&…I believe…ultimately…making North American Manufacturing Great Again.
2. Become less dependent on foreign suppliers and markets.
3. Address the self-inflicted resource denial on our own continent.
4. Put a stop to funding China’s global march.
5. Drop energy prices such that it is great for us and not so great for others that are invading and intimidating other countries and people.
So, when some folks…as exemplified around here…get all crazy and hysterical…and those of us that seem to have an understanding of what’s going on and why…well, we’re just gonna sit on the sidelines and laugh…as the “hysterical minions” squeal and flail (not implied towards my Lemmy-bro…just a reflection on some of the silliness the haters have shat upon this thread & others).
Manny
That sounds like a worthwhile goal. If you think about how a service economy functions, it isn't sustainable long term. A country needs to produce something tangible - not just pass wealth around by creating a whole lot of transactions that basically facilitate laziness. Think, for example, about all the meal delivery services that seem to be proliferating: I went to McDonalds with my wife one Friday evening at about 10 p.m. after an event, and it took me forever to get my food because I was in a line behind about a dozen delivery service drivers. Think about that: People are paying as much as their hamburger costs to get the fucking thing to their door. It's costing the restaurants and the consumers and the only value it's adding is allowing people to sit on their fat asses and get fatter. An economy that's not anchored to something tangible, and that passes around money without anything to show for it, sounds to me a lot like an economy built on a house of cards.
The problem that you have, it seems to me, is that people want two irreconcilable things: They want to be paid handsomely for their labor (car manufacturing jobs pay what, $40 an hour or so?), and they want to buy cheap shit for next to nothing at Walmart. These things are incompatible: People will either have to be paid less for their labor, or pay more for their goods. The cheap shit at Walmart is possible because someone somewhere is being paid a few cents an hour to work in a sweat shop.
Relatedly, people will have to be willing to work again - in jobs that can be demanding, possibly dirty, and in many cases boring. I wouldn't want to work in a factory. So there's the problem of creating jobs that nobody wants. Pay enough, and they may be enticing. But then the end product wiil reflect that cost.
I'm not trying to say it can't be done. But there are certainly challenges. The biggest of which is if the next President has a different agenda and view of things, all of the growing pains will be for nothing. This project will take long-term commitment and buy-in from the population. If people are only concerned about the short term effects - which may be painful - then the project will be exceedingly difficult. I'd suggest that the administration should do a much better job of communicating its vision. The way that Trump pitched the "reciprocal tariffs" was, to my eyes, an abysmal failure. He could have simply been frank that it's trade deficits that he's after, and he could explain why - or have someone who is well-versed in the economics of the matter do it for him.
Canada would also do well to become more self-sufficient. We have ample resources, and it would sure be nice if we were using our own oil instead of importing it from Saudi Arabia.
Finally, it seems neither possible nor desirable to eliminate all trade deficits. With Canada, for example, just the mere difference in population would make it impossible.
A big caveat to everything I'm saying is that I have no expertise in this area whatsoever, so forgive me if some of what I say is nonsense.
Nothing wrong with wanting to re-industrialize your country.
Not sure how tariffs would make Nike want to build US factories, what do you think you are going to "manufacture" in the US that you currently buy from Vietnam, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Madagascar?
T-shirts, jeans, shoes? Are the US going to "make" vanilla, gold, diamonds, nickel?
If you think about EU, the US is already making cars, so Americans currently have the option to buy American, some of them prefer European or Japanese cars. You could probably repatriate more parts of the supply chain to make "more American" cars, that will also make them more expensive, will that help selling more domestically and abroad?
I should add that my jabs at service industries above are quite tongue in cheek. I work in a service industry. - that doesn't escape me. The point is that you can't just have service industries.
Post a reply to: Will new Auto Tariffs impact dirtbikes?