Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) |
Author: Steve203 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 77800 
Subject: Re: A Complete Strategic Defeat
Date: 05/02/26 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 3
What was the particular thing? Enquiring minds want to know! :)

I don't recall if the particular item was even mentioned in the story I read.

This is what the net sifter says:

The story you're referring to highlights Henry J. Kaiser's reputation as a "can-do" industrialist who focused on production speed rather than technical jargon, often diving into new industries (ships, steel, cement) without prior experience.

While variations of this anecdote exist, it fits within the context of his massive World War II shipbuilding efforts. When government officials or representatives from the British Admiralty would approach him in Washington or at his [Richmond, California shipyards] with complex, urgent requirements, Kaiser would often accept the contract immediately before fully grasping the technical details.

The Typical Scenario:

The Ask: A government official would outline a new, complex vessel or specialized engineering request for the war effort.

The Response: Kaiser, known for his "Together We Build" slogan and speed, would say something to the effect of: "We can build it.".

The Question: Immediately after the official left, Kaiser would turn to one of his top engineers or aides (often [Clay Bedford], his key shipyard manager) and ask, "Now, what the hell is it?".

This anecdote highlights his trust in his team to solve technical problems, focusing himself on logistics, labor, and massive scale production, which allowed him to reduce Liberty ship construction time from months to days.


the second part of your two part question:

Trump was listening to Israel, MBS, and out hard liners.even now I hear MBS wants boots on the ground for regime change.

"Bibi" wants regime change, or a failed state, in Iran. He would not care about Venezuela or Panama. MBS would be all for the Strait being closed, because Saudi's pipeline to the Red Sea can handle virtually all of Saudi's normal export volume. Saudi would benefit from the Strait being closed by competitors being knocked off line, because Saudi export volume is unimpeded, while reaping higher prices.

It is only Trump the Conqueror's personal greed that brings Venezuela and Panama into the operation.

Steve
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds