BristolUK

So, in the case of these houses, the "print head" is making or moulding the shape of the house. But they will still need doors and windows - the equivalents of the labels and caps for the bottles. So this same piece of equipment will then make the doors and glass for the windows?

MarkG

Potentially, but I doubt it would be worthwhile at the moment: it's going to be easier to put a rectangular piece of plastic in the hole for a window than to take a reel of plastic filament and create a rectangular piece of plastic in the hole as you build the house.

Are these the same people?

https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...printed-houses

They're talking about hoping that, on later houses, 'the drainage pipes and other necessary installations will also be made using the printer', but it's not really clear what 'other necessary installations' covers.

Oakvillian

Maybe the bottle and cap analogy wasn't the best. Imagine a machine that can make an infinite variety of different shaped and sized bottles. No need to build a special machine to, for example, make a short-run promotional tie-in bottle in the shape of a cartoon charater. The same bottle cap could still be used, because the machine would produce the neck of the bottle at standard sizes (like the concrete machine can leave standard-sized gaps for doors and windows, whatever the shape and configuration of the house).

MarkG

Or, I guess, they could print non-rectangular windows, if you fancy living in one of Lovecraft's non-Euclidean houses. Or one of those roadrunner-shaped doorways from the old cartoons.

Theoretically you could use it to produce any kind of house that can physically be built. That may be the big advantage aside from not needing as many construction people to work on it.

scrubbedexpat091

Trump's tweets yesterday were a bit colorful after he left Quebec.

Anyhow in one he mentions Canada flooding the US market with cars, wonder if Trump is aware that a good chunk of these cars are US companies? lol. I could see if these were Canadian car companies, but they are not and he is only going to hurt US consumers and US companies in the end.

Not sure what his obsession with Canada trade is, especially on Dairy which seems to be the sticking point for Trump, but Canada isn't likely to budge much there due to the supply control in place in Canada for that industry.

Getting closer to an all out trade war it seems.

magnumpi

dave_j

Trump might be the worst chocolate in the box, the one that nobody likes and spits out, but.....
He does have a point about the US economy. I doubt that it's possible to sustain an ever rising annual financial deficit currently in excess of $800B. The US keeps it's head above water by borrowing and sooner or later the US turkey will come home to roost if things remain as they are.
Exiting WW2 as the world's superpower with wealth dripping from the fingers of each GI stationed in bankrupt countries has left a legacy that's been difficult to break free from and it's taken a renegade like Trump to start to loosen the stranglehold of those who see benefits in continually sucking wealth from the US economy.
I suspect that, like the bullet ridden messenger, he carries a message that most find extremely difficult to accept.

scrubbedexpat091

I am hoping this trade dispute doesn't hurt cross border air travel too much, my job and income would be in jeopardy if US airlines start to cut back services.

Siouxie

I found this quite interesting, the Canada-US economic history.

Canada–US Economic Relations - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Who knew the US owned so much of our resources?

iaink

It helps to understand what is going on. The dairy situation is interesting, unlike the US the cost of dairy in Canada reflects true supply and demand and production costs.

To some extent the world is awash in milk. Canadas solution to that oversupply has been to require farmers to purchase quota and limit the amount of milk produced here. On the other side of the coin the US has subsidized US farmers (currently to in excess of $20Billion) to keep them afloat. US government subsidies works out to about 35c / liter.

With subsidies there is no incentive for US producers to cut production as the government provides a safety net by buying the excess, and that means they have excess milk looking for a market. It also means that farmers in the US have been known to use BGH to increase milk yields, which is a practice banned in both Canada and the EU as the health implications are unknown.

So, in order to stop canada being flooded with milk produced by US governent subsidized farmers, Canada imposes a 270% tarif on milk imports. Trump is right that the playing field is not level, but if hes so concerned maybe he should look at the amount of money flowing from the US government to a US dairy industry that has become dependent upon them. The Canadian system isnt perfect either (ask the children of dairy farmers looking to take over their parents farm about having to borrow to buy quota in the face of large agribusinesses with deep pockets looking to expand their operations), but at least its being managed without a direct flow of money from taxpayers to big agribusiness.

So, as usual there is way more going on than can be explained or comprehended in 280 characters. Which is unfortunate if that is all your leader is capable of dealing with at a time.

MarkG

Yes. America is an empire that exists not by looting its colonies, but by subsidizing them. American taxpayers have been loaded up with ever-increasing debt to fund welfare states and military protection across the West.

And Trump is telling the colonies that the money is running out.

Just imagine the changes that would have to happen in Canada for the country merely to be able to defend itself without offloading the cost onto the US military. And then imagine someone like Trudeau in charge of the country when it's having to make those changes.

mrken30

Not sure where you get your information, but the US provides the least amount of welfare per capita than any other industrialized nation. Have you ever lost a job, earned minimumwage, or been sick in the US. I guess not. Or were you talking about countries taking on US loans and subsidies?

Almost Canadian

I have a number of neighbours that are dairy farmer so I believe I understand the issues quite well. It still results in Canadian consumers paying more than they ought to for dairy products, including cheese, which is exactly the reason why we will not be seeing cheese coming in from Europe at the price it should, as a result of the government's wish to protect them, at the expense of the consumer. Just as they do with cable, cell phones, lawyers etc. It's the Canadian way.

MarkG

I didn't say America. I said 'across the West'.

Few Western nations could afford their welfare states if they didn't have American taxpayers to borrow money to buy their stuff, and pay to protect them so they don't have to protect themselves.

Seriously, how much do you think taxes would have to rise here if America said 'bye, you can protect yourselves from Russia and China in future'?

mrken30

There are better, cheaper places to invade such as Africa. The Cost of invasion, compared to the wealth of natural resources, makes other nations a more likely target. So in answer to your question, not that much.

The biggest cost, is the cost of Policing and bullying the world, not protecting NATO States.