leedswolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 15,360
- Reaction score
- 3,957
They're yellow
Trump
- Thread starter Penk Wolf
- Start date
Jolemai
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 8,170
- Reaction score
- 518
They're yellow
That explains it.
leedswolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 15,360
- Reaction score
- 3,957
Trump says US airstrikes have 'killed many' ISIS terrorists in Somalia
The US president said a senior attack planner was targeted.
leedswolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 15,360
- Reaction score
- 3,957
US secretary of state says Panama must reduce Chinese influence on canal or face consequences
Donald Trump has previously called for the Panama Canal to be returned to the US, and made allegations of Chinese influence in the area.
Del Woppio
Virgin geek fuckwad
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 26,131
- Reaction score
- 12,844
Tony Towner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 39,603
- Reaction score
- 26,508
Has he gone a bit ga ga?
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 58,762
- Reaction score
- 9,324
"The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada. So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run. For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada. So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run. For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
Tony Towner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Messages
- 39,603
- Reaction score
- 26,508
Going down well in Toronto
EdgeOfTheAlps
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 257
What? Canadians don't want to become Americans.....I'm shocked!!
Del Woppio
Virgin geek fuckwad
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 26,131
- Reaction score
- 12,844
I think they're really, really serious about Greenland. You've got to presume that somebody in the White House will stop Trump from taking it as far as putting boots on the ground there, but where does it go? The response of "are you mental, you can't just 'have' another country" doesn't seem to be cutting through, but will he just get bored? Or will it cause him him to basically hate the EU and lead to him making further damaging decisions in trade etc?
Not sure about Greenland but I suspect his supporters are orgasming with excitement at Billy big-bollocks sticking it on the lefties and anyone else standing in their way.
Looks to me like we’re heading for another Covid-style crisis in costs and supply chains as this tit-for-tat tariff nonsense plays out and that’s going to hurt everybody. Hopefully it’s a temporary thing but with that nutcase anything is possible.
Looks to me like we’re heading for another Covid-style crisis in costs and supply chains as this tit-for-tat tariff nonsense plays out and that’s going to hurt everybody. Hopefully it’s a temporary thing but with that nutcase anything is possible.
Keef
Celebrity Slayer
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 5,139
- Reaction score
- 1,745
He was threatening Panama and /or China saying he’d be taking the Panama Canal by force when I went to bed last night, wonder if they’ll put fees up or just ban US boats from using it, which tbh wouldn’t calm matters at all
Walshes Wolves
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2022
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 210
Denmark vs the US: What Greenland really wants
The US president's talk about taking control has come at a time when many on the island are already considering their future
www.bbc.com
jd1981
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 16,414
- Reaction score
- 4,753
The article kind of says but Greenland isn’t a case of name your price.
The people of Greenland would need to vote to become a US dependency as opposed to being sold off by Denmark same as the Faroe Islands. Both are crown dependencies but both have devolved governments.
The people of Greenland would need to vote to become a US dependency as opposed to being sold off by Denmark same as the Faroe Islands. Both are crown dependencies but both have devolved governments.
Walshes Wolves
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2022
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 210
I think it says they have had enough of being colonised by anyone.
