Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

He said and they said:

Quote

China's descriptions of the Trump-Xi deal differ from the White House's in a lot of ways 

  • Many Chinese-language state media outlets left out apparent key points the White House said it had secured, including that the U.S.-China agreement to not increase tariffs is conditional on the two sides reaching a resolution on other issues within 90 days.
  • Chinese media also said the two countries will work toward eliminating all tariffs — which was not something mentioned in the U.S. statement.
  • WeChat users were also unable to share a Chinese and English-language version of the White House Press Secretary's statement from the U.S. embassy's official WeChat account.  
Kevin Lemarque | Reuters
Chinese President Xi Jinping and members of Chinese delegation attend a working dinner with U.S. President Donald Trump after the G20 leaders summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina December 1, 2018. 

While both the U.S. and China called this weekend's meeting on trade very successful, many Chinese-language state media left out references to a 90-day condition for both sides to agree on issues such as technology transfer.While it's typical for there to be some daylight between governments' spin about bilateral meetings, a host of differences between the Chinese and the American version of events points to a potentially challenging road ahead for any negotiations.

Another apparent discrepancy come from Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's, who remarked that the two countries will work toward eliminating tariffs. A White House Press Secretary statement posted online, for its part, did not include that point.

 

The White House did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment outside of U.S. business hours. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment ahead of a daily afternoon press conference.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met over a dinner during the G-20 summit in Argentina after months of increasing trade tensions between the two countries. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, while Beijing has retaliated with duties on $110 billion of U.S. goods.

The White House's latest round of tariffs on $200 billion goods was set to rise to 25 percent from 10 percent on Jan. 1, 2019, but Trump agreed at the G-20 meeting not to do so.

The catch is, however, that Xi and Trump must find resolution on "forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber theft, services and agriculture" within 90 days, according to the White House press secretary's statement.

That gives the leaders until early March — past Christmas, New Year's and Chinese New Year — to find a way to keep tariffs from rising.

However, official online statements about Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's briefing on the meeting did not discuss the technology transfers or the 90-day condition.

The timeframe and details on areas of disagreement also did not appear in online reports from China's state news agency Xinhua, People's Daily — the official Communist Party paper — and CGTN — the English-language version of state broadcaster CCTV.

The articles did note the U.S. and China agreed to work towards mutual benefits, and generally indicated Beijing would increase purchases of U.S. goods. The state media also said the two parties discussed North Korea denuclearization. The Chinese press also said Trump upheld a "One-China Policy" regarding Taiwan — something not mentioned in the White House statement.

On top of that, Trump tweeted late Sunday evening that "China has agreed to reduce and remove tariffs on cars coming into China from the U.S. Currently the tariff is 40%."

Prior to that Twitter post, there had not been any mention of such an agreement in Chinese sources.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi's remarks and some articles also discussed how China would move toward controlling fentanyl, which is linked to the opioid crisis in the U.S.

Again, such a remark fell short of the second paragraph in the White House's statement that: "President Xi, in a wonderful humanitarian gesture, has agreed to designate Fentanyl as a Controlled Substance, meaning that people selling Fentanyl to the United States will be subject to China's maximum penalty under the law."

In addition, Chinese state media did not mention the White House's claim that "Xi also stated that he is open to approving the previously unapproved Qualcomm-NXP deal should it again be presented to him."

However, English-language editorials in Global Times did note the 90-day condition, and mentions of the timeframe were scattered throughout private Chinese-language reports and social media discussion.

But WeChat users were unable to share a Chinese and English-language version of the White House Press Secretary's statement from the U.S. embassy's official WeChat account. The post had more than 100,000 views and 5,423 likes as of Monday morning. Users could share other embassy posts.

WeChat, developed by Chinese tech giant Tencent, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"The U.S. Embassy faces regular and routine blocking of social media posts in China," according to a U.S. embassy spokesperson. "The U.S. believes the free flow of information, including citizens' access to media, plays an important role in fostering mutual understanding."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi deicer,

I know the thread topic here is about Trump but I can’t help but wonder if you feel the same level of animosity toward JT and the machinations of the Liberal government. While I’m not a single issue voter, or at least I try not to be, their lies and manipulations on those issues I have first hand knowledge about like the hand gun issue, the F18 thing and access to information ( to name a few) strike me as appalling and worse than anything DJT has even contemplated. 

I consider myself something of a “middle of the road” voter and I tend to see DJT as someone who is doing his best for the US and the people of America…. albeit with a few faults and missteps along the way. In my view, he has accomplished a lot on their behalf and I think they are foremost in his thinking and actions. As a result, I’m inclined to forgive the lack of presidential bearing he exhibits at times.

If you were to consider Ford to be in the same boat, I could understand the comparison, but (and it’s a big but) you know where you stand with these guys and you know where they stand on the issues and, as a result, you (we) are in a better position to support them… or not. I like that and find it refreshing.

I could also add that I consider Shear to be a weak conservative leader whose party has now taken over what used to be the domain of the Liberals I once supported and can no longer tolerate. He is no longer a good option in my view and the PPC is likely to split the conservative vote with the prospect of another 4 years of JT. So, apologies for the thread drift…. a simple JT yes or JT no will suffice and I will pursue the matter no further as I fear it's really that simple.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump could be the most honest president in modern history.

Donald Trump may be remembered as the most honest president in modern American history.

Don’t get me wrong, Trump lies all the time. He said that he “enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history” (actually they are the eighth largest) and that “our economy is the strongest it’s ever been in the history of our country” (which may one day be true, but not yet). In part, it’s a New York thing — everything is the biggest and the best.

But when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty. For better or worse, since taking office Trump has done exactly what he promised he would.

Trump kept his promise to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, something his three immediate predecessors also promised yet failed to do. He promised to “crush and destroy ISIS,” and two years later he is on the verge of eliminating the Islamic State’s physical caliphate. He promised to impose a travel ban on countries that he saw as posing a terrorist threat, and after several false starts the final version of his ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. He promised to punish Syria if it used chemical weapons on its people, and, unlike his immediate predecessor, he followed through — not once but twice.

Trump pledged to nominate Supreme Court justices “in the mold of Justice [Antonin] Scalia,” and now Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh sit on the high court. Trump also pledged to fill the federal appellate courts with young, conservative judges, and so far the Senate has confirmed 29 — more than any recent president at this point in his administration.

Trump vowed to pass historic tax reforms and signed the first major overhaul of the tax code in three decades. He vowed an unprecedented regulatory rollback, with a strict policy to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation. In his first year, he achieved $8.1 billion in lifetime regulatory savings and is on track to achieve an additional $9.8 billion this year.

During the campaign, he told African American voters, “What do you have to lose? . . . I will straighten it out. I’ll bring jobs back. We’ll bring spirit back.” On his watch, African American unemployment reached the lowest level ever recorded, and his tax reform included a little-noticed provisioncreating “Opportunity Zones” to try to revitalize struggling towns and inner-city communities.

 

Trump promised to cancel President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Planwithdraw from the Paris climate accord, approve the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. He fulfilled all of those pledges.

On trade, he kept his promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. He also committed to renegotiating NAFTA and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement — and recently signed new deals with Mexico, Canada and South Korea. He committed to imposing tariffs on China to force it to open its markets and stop its theft of intellectual property — and is following through on that pledge. Whatever one thinks of Trump’s trade policies, he is doing exactly what he said.

The president pledged historic increases in defense spending, and delivered. He pledged to bring back manufacturing jobs, and manufacturing jobs are growing at the fastest pace in more than two decades. He pledged to sign “Right to Try” legislation to give dying Americans access to experimental treatments, and did. He pledged to take on the opioid epidemic and will soon sign a sweeping bipartisan opioids package into law.

Where Trump has failed to keep promises, such as building the wall or repealing Obamacare, it has not been for a lack of trying. Only in a few rare instances has he backtracked on a campaign pledge — such as when he admitted that he was wrong to promise a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and reversed course. I’m glad he did.

But whether one agrees or disagrees is not the point. When Trump says he will do something, you can take it to the bank. Yes, he takes liberties with the truth. But unlike his predecessor, he did not pass his signature legislative achievement on the basis of a lie (“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it ”) — which is clearly worse than falsely bragging that your tax cut is the biggest ever.

The fact is, in his first two years, Trump has compiled a remarkable record of presidential promise - keeping. He’d probably say it’s the best in history — which may or may not end up being true. It’s too soon to tell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Hi deicer,

I know the thread topic here is about Trump but I can’t help but wonder if you feel the same level of animosity toward JT and the machinations of the Liberal government. While I’m not a single issue voter, or at least I try not to be, their lies and manipulations on those issues I have first hand knowledge about like the hand gun issue, the F18 thing and access to information ( to name a few) strike me as appalling and worse than anything DJT has even contemplated. 

I consider myself something of a “middle of the road” voter and I tend to see DJT as someone who is doing his best for the US and the people of America…. albeit with a few faults and missteps along the way. In my view, he has accomplished a lot on their behalf and I think they are foremost in his thinking and actions. As a result, I’m inclined to forgive the lack of presidential bearing he exhibits at times.

If you were to consider Ford to be in the same boat, I could understand the comparison, but (and it’s a big but) you know where you stand with these guys and you know where they stand on the issues and, as a result, you (we) are in a better position to support them… or not. I like that and find it refreshing.

I could also add that I consider Shear to be a weak conservative leader whose party has now taken over what used to be the domain of the Liberals I once supported and can no longer tolerate. He is no longer a good option in my view and the PPC is likely to split the conservative vote with the prospect of another 4 years of JT. So, apologies for the thread drift…. a simple JT yes or JT no will suffice and I will pursue the matter no further as I fear it's really that simple.

Good Morning Wolfhunter

An interesting point you have raised.  Thank you.  

Like yourself, I see myself as middle of the road as well.  I like to look at the political landscape as a fluid entity, much like an ocean.  There are calm times, there are stormy times.  As we see at this point, it is very stormy.

When you asked the question of JT yes or no, it needed some thinking on my part.  It is such a complex issue based not only on what is happening currently but also on what has happened in the past.

So I know it is probably going to frustrate you, my answer is JT maybe.

I look at our current government from a realistic point of view, subtracting the Russian style of meddling where memes become the influencer.  Having said that, overall the Canadian economy has been doing OK.  (until the recently induced PIO from south of the border).

Jobs were up, GDP was up, overall we were looking good on the world stage. Canada was a world leader in 'stable'. 

With that, even though I too think JT is a bit of a flake, overall, his team was doing a decent job.

Looking at the alternatives, not from a Red/Blue team perspective, but once again from realistic point of view, the alternatives to JT aren't as palatable.  The Canadian blue team, to me, has a reputation of only looking after the affluent.  Going back to Mulroney, I was against NAFTA at the time, knowing it would hurt jobs.  I was very against it.  However, it was very profitable for the corporate world at the expense of the average citizen.  Fast forward 30 years, and with the adjustment period over, Canada's economy adjusted along with the world, and things stabilised.  We went through a period under Chretien/Martin where the deficit was eliminated and even some of the debt.  Then, as it normally does, the pendulum swung back to the blue side.  We then had a prime minister(Harper) that had the agenda of dismantling that which makes us Canadian in the name of profit.  It wasn't so much the push of change that was unpalatable, it was how he was doing it.  The secretive way of hiding things in omnibus bills, (and while acknowledging that other governments had prorogued) the way he used the move to avoid losing was so distasteful.

Couple that with the Harris years in Ontario (where I live) and the damage that was done during that time.  We are still feeling those effects.  The selling off of provincial built entities, the downloading of responsibilities and services on municipalities is hurting us to this day.  That is why we ended up with the red team for so long.  Then once again, change was needed.  Unfortunately the people of Ontario thought the populist movement south of the border looked appealing and we now have a premier who is more interested in cronyism and vendetta's than in supplying good governance to our province.  I agree that change is good, however, change should be progressive, not an attempt to turn back the clock to more uninformed times.  

Is it an easy answer?  No.  Like all things, I am grateful that I have been around long enough to see the pendulum swing from one side to the other, and the truth is it never stays in one spot, it is always swinging.  

In the end, my answer to you is that I look for leadership that not only can lead, but which when I am selecting, looks like it would do least harm.  

Sorry if it is a bit ambiguous, but it isn't easy to put down the nuances of it all in just a short post.  It probably would take a long weekend over a few beers.

Thanks for listening.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camille Paglia: ‘Hillary wants Trump to win again’

The author and academic discusses 2020, Trump and Jordan Peterson

 

Camille Paglia is one of the most interesting and explosive thinkers of our time. She transgresses academic boundaries and blows up media forms. She’s brilliant on politics, art, literature, philosophy, and the culture wars. She’s also very keen on the email Q and A format for interviews. So, after reading her new collection of essays, Provocations, Spectator USA sent her some questions.

You’ve been a sharp political prognosticator over the years. So can I start by asking for a prediction. What will happen in 2020 in America? Will Hillary Clinton run again?

If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball’s chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky.

To win in the nation’s broad midsection, the Democratic nominee will need to project steadiness, substance, and warmth. I’ve been looking at Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. As for Hillary, she’s pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it’s hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it’s in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don’t see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.

Has Trump governed erratically?

Yes, that’s a fair description. It’s partly because as a non-politician he arrived in Washington without the battalion of allies, advisors, and party flacks that a senator or governor would normally accumulate on the long road to the White House. Trump’s administration is basically a one-man operation, with him relying on gut instinct and sometimes madcap improvisation. There’s often a gonzo humor to it — not that the US president should be slinging barbs at bottom-feeding celebrities or jackass journalists, much as they may deserve it. It’s like a picaresque novel starring a jaunty rogue who takes to Twitter like Tristram Shandy’s asterisk-strewn diary. Trump’s unpredictability might be giving the nation jitters, but it may have put North Korea, at least, on the back foot.

Most Democrats have wildly underestimated Trump from the get-go. I was certainly surprised at how easily he mowed down 17 other candidates in the GOP primaries. He represents widespread popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Both major US parties are in turmoil and metamorphosis, as their various factions war and realign. The mainstream media’s nonstop assault on Trump has certainly backfired by cementing his outsider status. He is basically a pragmatic deal-maker, indifferent to ideology. As with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump rose because of decades of failure by the political establishment to address urgent systemic problems, including corruption at high levels. Democrats must hammer out their own image and agenda and stop self-destructively insulting half the electorate by treating Trump like Satan.

_____

Does the ‘deep state’ exist? If so, what is it?

The deep state is no myth but a sodden, intertwined mass of bloated, self-replicating bureaucracy that constitutes the real power in Washington and that stubbornly outlasts every administration. As government programs have incrementally multiplied, so has their regulatory apparatus, with its intrusive byzantine minutiae. Recently tagged as a source of anti-Trump conspiracy among embedded Democrats, the deep state is probably equally populated by Republicans and apolitical functionaries of Bartleby the Scrivener blandness. Its spreading sclerotic mass is wasteful, redundant, and ultimately tyrannical.

I have been trying for decades to get my fellow Democrats to realize how unchecked bureaucracy, in government or academe, is inherently authoritarian and illiberal. A persistent characteristic of civilizations in decline throughout history has been their self-strangling by slow, swollen, and stupid bureaucracies. The current atrocity of crippling student debt in the US is a direct product of an unholy alliance between college administrations and federal bureaucrats — a scandal that ballooned over two decades with barely a word of protest from our putative academic leftists, lost in their post-structuralist fantasies. Political correctness was not created by administrators, but it is ever-expanding campus bureaucracies that have constructed and currently enforce the oppressively rule-ridden regime of college life.

In the modern world, so wondrously but perilously interconnected, a principle of periodic reduction of bureaucracy should be built into every social organism. Freedom cannot survive otherwise.

What is true multiculturalism?

As I repeatedly argue in Provocations, comparative religion is the true multiculturalism and should be installed as the core curriculum in every undergraduate program. From my perspective as an atheist as well as a career college teacher, secular humanism has been a disastrous failure. Too many young people raised in affluent liberal homes are arriving at elite colleges and universities with skittish, unformed personalities and shockingly narrow views of human existence, confined to inflammatory and divisive identity politics.

9781524746896-fullsize-rgb.jpg?auto=comp

The cover of Provocations, Camille Paglia’s new collection of essays

Interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was everywhere in the 1960s counterculture, but it gradually dissipated partly because those most drawn to ‘cosmic consciousness’ either disabled themselves by excess drug use or shunned the academic ladder of graduate school. I contend that every educated person should be conversant with the sacred texts, rituals, and symbol systems of the great world religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam — and that true global understanding is impossible without such knowledge.

Not least, the juxtaposition of historically evolving spiritual codes tutors the young in ethical reasoning and the creation of meaning. Right now, the campus religion remains nihilist, meaning-destroying post-structuralism, whose pilfering god, the one-note Foucault, had near-zero scholarly knowledge of anything before or beyond the European Enlightenment. (His sparse writing on classical antiquity is risible.) Out with the false idols and in with the true!

There’s a lot of buzz about the ‘intellectual dark web’. One of its leading figures is Jordan Peterson, who is in some ways like you — he provokes, he works in an array of disciplines, he encourages individual responsibility. I saw your podcast with him. What did you make of him? Why is he so popular?

There are astounding parallels between Jordan Peterson’s work and mine. In its anti-ideological, trans-historical view of sex and nature, my first book, Sexual Personae (1990), can be viewed as a companion to Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999). Peterson and I took different routes up the mountain — he via clinical psychology and I via literature and art — but we arrived at exactly the same place. Amazingly, over our decades of copious research, we were drawn to the same book by the same thinker — The Origins and History of Consciousness (1949), by the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann. (My 2005 lecture on Neumann at New York University is reprinted in Provocations.) Peterson’s immense international popularity demonstrates the hunger for meaning among young people today. Defrauded of a genuine humanistic education, they are recognizing the spiritual impoverishment of their crudely politicized culture, choked with jargon, propaganda, and lies.

I met Peterson and his wife Tammy a year ago when they flew to Philadelphia with a Toronto camera crew for our private dialogue at the University of the Arts. (The YouTube video has had to date over a million and a half views.) Peterson was incontrovertibly one of the most brilliant minds I have ever encountered, starting with the British philosopher Stuart Hampshire, whom I heard speak impromptu for a dazzling hour after a lecture in college. In turning psychosocial discourse back toward the syncretistic, multicultural Jung, Peterson is recovering and restoring a peak period in North American thought, when Canada was renowned for pioneering, speculative thinkers like the media analyst Marshall McLuhan and the myth critic Northrop Frye. I have yet to see a single profile of Peterson, even from sympathetic journalists, that accurately portrays the vast scope, tenor, and importance of his work.

Is humanity losing its sense of humor?

As a bumptious adolescent in upstate New York, I stumbled on a British collection of Oscar Wilde’s epigrams in a secondhand bookstore. It was an electrifying revelation, a text that I studied like the bible. What bold, scathing wit, cutting through the sentimental fog of those still rigidly conformist early 1960s, when good girls were expected to simper and defer.

But I never fully understood Wilde’s caustic satire of Victorian philanthropists and humanitarians until the present sludgy tide of political correctness began flooding government, education, and media over the past two decades. Wilde saw the insufferable arrogance and preening sanctimony in his era’s self-appointed guardians of morality.

We’re back to the hypocrisy sweepstakes, where gestures of virtue are as formalized as kabuki. Humor has been assassinated. An off word at work or school will get you booted to the gallows. This is the graveyard of liberalism, whose once noble ideals have turned spectral and vampiric.

 

https://spectator.us/camille-paglia-hillary-trump/


 
Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article highlights the damage that is being thrust upon the United States and how it's only going to make it worse.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/09/18/president-trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-america-more-than-china/#45fe4e4e6276

President Trump's Tariffs Will Hurt America More Than China

 

Frances Coppola Senior Contributor

Markets I write about banking, finance and economics.

Let’s stop pretending. An import tariff is nothing but a tax on consumers and businesses. Not in the exporting country, but the importing one. So the 10% tariff on $200bn of Chinese imports that President Trump has just imposed is in reality a new tax on Americans. And it will hurt America much more than China.

On September 18th, 2018, in an increasingly bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies, President Donald Trump imposed a 10% tariff on $200 billion of dollars worth of Chinese goods, rising to 25% in January 2019 if China does not agree to a deal. China has said it will retaliate. (JOHANNES EISELE/AFP/Getty Images)

It is at present unclear exactly how this tax will bite, but we can expect it to have three broad effects on the U.S. economy.

The tax will raise input prices for American businesses, increasing their operational costs and putting pressure on profit margins.This is likely to feed through into weaker wage and employment growth, leading to poorer retail sales and declining economic growth. The Trump boom is already fading: this tax seems likely to hasten its end.

The tax will raise headline CPI inflation. How much inflation will rise depends on the extent to which producers are able and willing to absorb higher costs rather than passing them on to customers.The Fed might respond to rising cost-push inflation by increasing the pace of interest rate rises. This would dampen consumer demand at a time when it was already under pressure because of the wage and employment effects of the tax. Fed interest rate policy has previously accelerated consumer demand slumps, most recently in 2006-7, when the Fed continued to raise interest rates despite rising unemployment, falling house prices and weakening consumer demand. I suppose we might hope that the Fed would act more responsibly this time, but the “mood music” from the Fed these days is increasingly hawkish. I am therefore doubtful that this time would be different.

The tax will strengthen the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate. At the time of writing, the U.S. dollar was already up 10% versus the (offshore) Chinese renminbi. If China allows the onshore renminbi to depreciate, this would largely negate the impact of the tax on Chinese exporters while making life more difficult for U.S. exporters

Of course, although the tax falls primarily on American consumers and businesses, there will be a knock-on effect to Chinese producers through reduced exports. But in their snap response to the tariff announcement, CLSA (via FT Alphaville) estimated that the impact on China’s exporters might amount to little more than a flea bite:

Based on our previous scenario analysis of 10% tariffs on US$200bn Chinese imports alongside 25% tariffs on US$50bn Chinese goods, we expect that the negative impact on China’s export growth may range from -3.4% to -2.0%, while on nominal GDP growth it is -0.5% to -0.3%.

That’s export growth, not total exports. So if China’s exports would have grown by 10% in the next year, they will now grow at somewhere between 9.6% and 9.8%. In trade estimates, that’s little more than a rounding error.

This tax will rise to 25% in January. President Trump has also signalled that he wants to impose a 10% tax on an additional $200bn of China’s exports to the U.S. On trade tariffs, at least, he has established an impressive record of doing what he says, so I would take this threat seriously. He has also indicated an intention to impose tariffs on automobile-related imports from Canada and the EU. It is hard to quantify what the impact on American businesses and consumers of all these new taxes would be, but the Tax Foundation has made a credible attempt:

If the Trump administration enacts additional tariffs on automobiles and parts and additional Chinese tariffs, the Tax Foundation model estimates that GDP would fall by an additional 0.44 percent ($111.3 billion), resulting in 0.29 percent lower wages and 345,170 fewer full-time equivalent jobs.

This is without retaliation. President Trump’s tariffs mainly hurt his own people.

China has already said it will retaliate to the new tariffs, as it did to the previous $50bn of tariffs. Other countries have also retaliated to tariffs. Retaliation primarily hurts their own producers and consumers, of course. But it also has  a negative effect on American output and jobs through reduced exports, though considerably smaller than the direct effect of President Trump’s tariffs. The Tax Foundation estimates that if other countries retaliated, U.S. GDP would fall another 0.09 percent ($23.5 billion) and cost an additional 72,864 full-time equivalent jobs.

This tells us that if other countries respond in kind to President Trump’s tariffs, output in all countries will fall. Trade will shrink and global GDP will be lower.

Everyone is a loser in a trade war, Mr. Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Largest Oil and Gas Reserves Ever Assessed Found in West Texas

The U.S. Department of the Interior announced Thursday the Permian Basin’s Wolfcamp shale and Bone Spring formation spanning parts of West Texas and eastern New Mexico hold the largest potential oil and gas resources ever discovered. Federal surveyors note the Bone Spring plays could offer roughly seven times the amount of oil as the Bakken shale in North Dakota.

In a new assessment, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated these untapped regions in the Delaware Basin of the Permian contained 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, more than two times larger than its 2016 assessment of the Wolfcamp shale play in the Permian’s Midland Basin.

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke in a prepared statement. “American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy.” Zinke added, “Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation.”

 

https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-announces-largest-continuous-oil-assessment-texas-and-new-mexico

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will claim responsibility for that too 😉

I don't think it was just 'discovered'.  Much like the Bakken, they knew it was there, only kept it quiet.  With the talk of the Middle East running out of oil, I think it has been the U.S. plan to keep importing, even when they were pumping it back into the ground in old salt mines as part of the strategic petroleum reserve, knowing the day was coming that they would be the leader in oil.

Only problem is, the rest of the world is moving forward with renewables, and the U.S. might be caught holding the bag of product that nobody wants.  

Why do you think the U.S. has been pumping out and exporting like crazy the last little while?  The current global glut is because the U.S. has increased exports by 2 million barrels a day recently.

Not because of the Saudis or Iran. They have only been pumping what their clients order.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37092

Other than a distraction here, shouldn't this post above be in the 'Energy' thread?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Only problem is, the rest of the world is moving forward with renewables, and the U.S. might be caught holding the bag of product that nobody wants.  

LOLOL...good luck with those thoughts. If anything, OPEC should be worried. With the US now the largest supplier of oil in  the world, and god knows how much more to develope, their extortion gravy train may be coming to an end,

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More bull **bleep** from the LEFT.

Yep...once again....fake news...what’s really surprises me is that Occupy Democrats would post a meme that’s so easily disproved. Just makes them look like the extreme far Left idiotsmthey actually are.

 

What's True

 

Images show President Trump with his hands at his side during President George H.W. Bush's funeral while other government officials and civilians had their hands placed over their hearts.

 

What's False

 

President Trump did have his hand over his heart as the casket passed his pew; President Trump did have his hand over his heart as the casket was carried out of the cathedral; President Trump wasn't the only person who was pictured with his hands at his sides during the procession; placing one's hand over the heart is a voluntary sign of respect and not a mandatory gesture.”

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bush-funeral-hand-heart/

6D812AF4-A7F7-432E-A787-F158BF826245.jpeg

8D7D6159-1039-40AA-B41D-C424B7B43773.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller now showing a bit of what he has, and the noose tightens even more.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics/mueller-manafort-cohen-comey-trump/index.html

Consider what we learned from the filings from Mueller and the Southern District of New York on Friday:

1. Trump directed Cohen to pay off both porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal, both of whom have alleged they had affairs with the President in the mid 2000s, during the 2016 campaign. Cohen had already pleaded guilty to purposely circumventing campaign finance law to make the payments -- and said he did so at the direction of and coordinated with Trump. Trump has denied that he knew where the money was coming from and that he had anything to do with the decision to pay off the women.

2. In November 2015, a Russian national spoke with Cohen and attempted to offer "political synergy" with the Trump campaign (Mueller's office said Cohen didn't pursue the outreach).

3. Cohen lied to Congress about the nature and extent of his involvement in trying to cut a deal on Trump Tower Moscow with the Russians to hide "the fact that the Moscow Project was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government."

4. Manafort lied about the extent of his contacts with a Russian -- named Konstantin Kilimnik -- who has ties to the Russian military intelligence agency accused of hacking into the Democratic National Committee's servers, which led to the publishing of emails via the site WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

5. Manafort continued to stay in touch with White House officials long past the point we knew prior. CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Marshall Cohen write: "The document also contains the stunning disclosure that Mueller can show, including with text messages, that Manafort was in contact with Trump administration officials early this year -- even after he was indicted in late 2017."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for Deicer to post a bunch of negative stuff about Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter seeing they don't have their hands over their hearts during this snapshot in time. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...and he headed the FBI ?  I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth....( if I can conveniently remember it )

DEA5B000-7FB9-47F2-9F5E-E9A90997F820.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting?

Once again Deicer has shown himself to be a 'purveyor of fake news'.

 

Edited by DEFCON
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed the DOW is continuing to crash.

It would appear the market is losing confidence daily, and being confidence is the basis of the entire show, I think we should be concerned.

The market seems to be reacting to the fact the democrats only plan is to annoy the Trump government come January when they take over the lower house, which isn't going to do anything to further the interests of the people and the investor knows it.

So take a bow Deicer, when the entire economy comes crashing down, your side will be able to declare victory.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Just noticed the DOW is continuing to crash.

It would appear the market is losing confidence daily, and being confidence is the basis of the entire show, I think we should be concerned.

The market seems to be reacting to the fact the democrats only plan is to annoy the Trump government come January when they take over the lower house, which isn't going to do anything to further the interests of the people and the investor knows it.

So take a bow Deicer, when the entire economy comes crashing down, your side will be able to declare victory.

 

Aren't you the one that said that the market was so successful because of Donnie?

Well, his takeover of success from Obama has now been replaced with his trade wars, record deficit due to his tax cuts with no revenue replacement, upheaval of staff in the Whitehouse, and legal problems(how many indictments and more importantly, convictions?)

The dems have had no power over the last two years, they are in minority, remember?

It's all about Donnie!  

Enjoy the show.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, deicer said:

Aren't you the one that said that the market was so successful because of Donnie?

Well, his takeover of success from Obama has now been replaced with his trade wars, record deficit due to his tax cuts with no revenue replacement, upheaval of staff in the Whitehouse, and legal problems(how many indictments and more importantly, convictions?)

The dems have had no power over the last two years, they are in minority, remember?

It's all about Donnie!  

Enjoy the show.....

I guess we also blame your Donnie?😀

There's one sector in the market doing great on Monday: Defense stocks

  • The group of defense stocks is one of the only bright spots in a widespread market sell-off.
  • Politico reported that President Donald Trump is asking for a $750 billion defense budget in fiscal 2020.
  • The president has swung back-and-forth on the issue of defense spending.
Published 1 Hour Ago Updated 54 Mins Ago CNBC.com

Defense stocks rose on Monday after Politico reported that President Donald Trump is asking for a $750 billion defense budget in fiscal 2020. The group of defense stocks is one of the only bright spots in a widespread market sell-off.Trump's request to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis represents a higher-than-expected budget. The president has swung back-and-forth on the issue of defense spending — calling his Cabinet earlier this year to cut spending across all agencies by 5 percent while also signing in August a colossal defense spending bill.

Shares of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman rose more than 2 percent each in trading. General Dynamics also gained 1.3 percent, while Boeing rose off the lows of the day.

The president declared last week that U.S. defense spending is "crazy!" The president said that the United States, China and Russia would "at some time in the future" begin talks to end what he described as an uncontrollable arms race.

The $750 billion would be even more than the $733 billion request that the Pentagon had been expected to make for fiscal year 2020. It is also well above a $700 billion figure Trump cited in October.

A U.S. official told Reuters that Mattis had discussed the budget with Trump in recent days and outlined the risks of flat defense spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, invest in defence if you want.

The question that it raises though is,,,,

How is he going to pay for it?

The deficit in the U.S. has been raised by Donnie by over $1.2 TRILLION this year alone, never mind in the coming years.

Then again, running up the debt is only bad if you're a democrat or liberal, or so I keep getting reminded 😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, deicer said:

Then again, running up the debt is only bad if you're a democrat or liberal, or so I keep getting reminded 😋

Unless used wisely, as a financial tool, running up the deficit is likely always a bad thing. It’s just that by the time Liberals and Democrats actually come to that realization, it’s always late in the game.

I think of it a bit like the current plague of obesity here in North America. Nobody really wants to be fat but the buffet closes in 20 minutes and there is no time for delay. A sense of desperation prevails as people load up on wings before the big silver tray is removed and then gorge themselves until closing. In about 3 weeks time, I will be seeing a legion of these folks at the gym each morning but there will only be one out of a hundred still there come April.

The answer to “how did the deficit get so high” strikes me as analogous to someone who lost 120 lbs and then gained it all back. At what point do you press the brakes firmly and let the anti skid do its intended job. You might think passengers get upset by hearing that clunking sound as the brakes cycle but I find it comforting to feel the hand of firm control and a rate of deceleration that coincides with distance markers. If you think firm braking upsets passengers, try running off the end of the runway…. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this