521–530 of 777 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The man is 78 years old There's a good chance he doesn't even live to the end of this term, forget running for president again at 82...
Trump's father lived to 93, and mother to 88. He doesn't have any serious medical conditions (that we know of). There isn't a high chance that he's going to die of natural causes in the next 4 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nov 2024 analysis, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/north-america-prepar... > Some Members of Parliament have also advocated for increasing trade barriers on Chinese imports alongside the United States, which the Canadian government has recently begun doing unilaterally. Suggesting Canada could be interested in coordinating those China-related trade policy measures across all three USMCA members, Deputy Prime…
That doesn't seem to support canada wanting to renogtiate usmca. The best way of handling that issue is probably not renegotiation (its way too specific of a situation to write a clause into the agreement for). Furthermore, Chrystia freeland hasn't been deputy PM for four months now, and the situation has changed a lot since then (not to mention we also have a new prime minister since then). At the time of that state…
> A broader change to the USMCA also looks likely, with Carney saying there had been “so many violations” that the free trade agreement needs “a renegotiation”.
You know the craziest thing about watching this as an outsider in Canada is that we as a nation are losing one reliable trading partner (and obviously losing an ally but that's another conversation). Germany - losing a trade partner. Japan? And so on. But the US has lost 180 reliable trading partners. You're already seeing in the first week burgeoning trade alliances between nations who wouldn't have cooperated befor…
4D chess is an absurd notion when you consider the actors involved. Only malice and incompetence are credible theories.
Trump believes that the he/the US has the more powerful position in all of these relationships and wants to impose his will on the rest of the world and make them submit to his/US superiority. Which might actually work if he picked one target at a time. But you can't beat up the whole school at once. The fact that he can't do this to everyone at once, combined with his utter misunderstanding of what trade imbalance actually means, will lead to an outcome that is bad for everyone, but worse for the U.S. than most.
There are two other theories that I think have some shred of credibility, and they're both worse:
1. Trump intends to use his apparent ability to unilaterally impose or negate these taxes at will on a granular level to force countries, companies, and individuals to come groveling to him for favors, allowing him to use the presidency to further enrich and entrench himself.
2. Trump is divesting of dependence on allies because he thinks they might soon be adversaries. That's the most harrowing potential interpretation, but it relies on the notion that he has any kind of foresight. This is really only credible if you genuinely believe that it's Putin pulling his strings. Which is a possibility that's hard to dismiss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Supposedly they have a seasoned economic expert on staff, Stephen Miran. Is this guy a kook? https://financialpost.com/news/stephen-miran-economist-trump... > Currently a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management LP and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York City, Miran holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and his dissertation advisor was Martin Feldstein, an eminent American economist…
We don't actually know if Trump's tariff strategy is Stephen Miran's strategy, nor do we know what Stephen Miran thinks of the strategy. What we do know is that Trump disproportionately attacks people who criticize him, withholds security protection from them, and sometimes even sends mobs to have them assassinated. It also took some time before Mark Esper told the public that Trump ordered that protesters be shot. T…
> The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is a United States agency within the Executive Office of the President established in 1946, which advises the president of the United States on economic policy. The CEA provides much of the empirical research for the White House and prepares the publicly-available annual Economic Report of the President.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It amazes me the contortions some people go through to maintain the belief that this administration is competent. Occam's razor suggests that they just have no idea what they're doing.
I'm fairly convinced it's easier feel like there is some plan, even if a bad or sinister one, than things being in a state of genuine chaos. You occasionally see the people jumping between different ideas as to what the underlying plan is, once events no longer support their initial idea.
1. When equities crash, market liquidity floods the bond market causing yields to drop
2. Refinance debt at these lower rates massively reducing interest burden
3. Cut government spending to cause rates to drop further
4. Reduced rates with a balanced budget results in non-inflationary borrowing and an economic upswing
Along the way, eliminate taxes for those earning below $150k.
If all of the above happens at the expense of equity holders so be it.
This plan has been made clear by multiple people from within the administration (namely Bessent who is one of the greatest macro investors of all time).
Now there’s many things to criticize in this plan (and lots of risk and unknown possible second order effects), but to describe it as “genuine chaos” or ineptitude is strange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK but they still just need a majority in the house to undo that? And that is assuming that silliness isn't smacked down in the courts forcing them to hold a vote anyway.
It’s more that it absolves them from having to hold a vote to continue the “emergency”. I believe the emergency act requires congress to vote to continue the emergency after a certain number of days. But the republicans know that would be embarrassing to hold a public vote to do so- so they sneak in shit like this, to continue to be cowards since they’re too scared to publicly endorse the cruelty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the explanation! Most of what you wrote makes sense to me. In particular, I think the concept that going hard -> soft economic assets is easier than the reverse is really interesting. I'll have to think on that more. Things that still give me pause: 1. I don't understand why hard economic assets like manufacturing are more heavily impacted by this phenomenon. Wouldn't exporting a $50,000 car and a $50,000…
1. The further you are up the chain of abstraction, the less “valuable” the export is as a form of power. Think of this as a spectrum between hard and soft assets — if you decline to sell advanced computing software to your rival, you may harm their ability to optimize crop yields, or whatever. But if you decline to sell them steel, or oil, you may decimate their energy supply and bring their economy to a halt. So, g…
https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Tracing-...
That a Dutch company, ASML, commercialized a technology pioneered in America’s national laboratory ecosystem and largely funded by Intel also has important lessons for policymakers interested in protecting and promoting the next emerging technology.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quick note that Europeans have had nuclear weapons since 1945.
Europe is openly talking about its own cooperative nuclear umbrella. Trump is correct that he deserves 100% of credit/blame for that, taking the heat for Putin.
In fact they are reopening and massively developing an airbase that will be hosting nukes near Colmar, 200 km from the German border. That's a 6 minute flight for a Dassault Rafale.
Aren’t the tariffs that the US is imposing half of what other countries have? Or was that fake news from the admin?
They aren’t the tariffs other countries are imposing, they are basically the trade deficit ratio instead. A country could have a 0% tariff on American goods but if Americans had a trade deficit with that country they would have been slapped with a tariff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure the only ones it will be good for are the rich. Make the rich richer. They will be able to buy stocks cheaply. They will be able to buy homes cheaply as people lose their jobs and foreclose. They will make the USA into a nation of renters. They will increase inflation and prices of everything so most people will be on the cusp of insolvency so they have to work multiple jobs for lower wages and can ne…
The rich have most of their money in stocks, saying they can lower stocks to buy stocks doesn't make much sense