Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (128) |
Author: Brickeye   😊 😞
Number: of 21942 
Subject: Re: Berkshire and Tariffs
Date: 04/07/25 12:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 9
"Our military expenses have not been high to protect Europe, but rather to protect our interests. Sure, European countries enjoy national health car, free education, long vacations and so on, but they are paid for by much higher taxes. They have allowed their militaries to become small for two reasons - a lack of a major continental threat when the Soviet Union crashed, coupled with the US maintaining the attitude that we were more comfortable when Europe was "owing us one" and having bases throughout the continent than looking at an armed Europe from outside (as we did before the Second World War)."

The argument against Europe in the Nato debate is a total canard. Ok, on the surface they never paid their 2% but was it really that much of an issue? As you correctly point out we got to have our bases all throughout Europe and our defense contractors supplied the majority of armaments. From Europe's perspective nothing was broken with the arrangement and hence no need to heavily invest in military. It was all mutually beneficial.

Now that's not to say that the US shouldn't have gently nudged NATO counterparts to invest more. Almost all presidents did before but they were also acutely aware of the aforementioned benefits that came along with the alliance. Trump has been hostile to Europe from day one. That is not only negligent but frankly speaking downright bizarre!
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Brickeye here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 21,448 posts about Berkshire Hathaway. The article-length ones it recommended most:
BRK: Why Not XOM? · 62 recs · 2024
Second quarter comments · 60 recs · 2023
Berkshire's Profit Contributors · 57 recs · 2023
Summary of 2Q 2026 · 54 recs · 2026
3Q Summary · 53 recs · 2024
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (128) |


Announcements
Berkshire Hathaway FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community