A weaker dollar will help exports, but when you're running a $891 billion trade deficit that doesn't seem like the wisest course of action. So of course Trump is all for it.
Eliminating tariffs in exchange for the retaliatory tariffs would also help exports, but he doesn't understand that. He really does just have a mercantilist view of how the world works.
This is probably the most generous statement made in this thread.
A weaker dollar will help exports, but when you're running a $891 billion trade deficit that doesn't seem like the wisest course of action. So of course Trump is all for it.
Eliminating tariffs in exchange for the retaliatory tariffs would also help exports, but he doesn't understand that. He really does just have a mercantilist view of how the world works.
This is probably the most generous statement made in this thread.
He has a zero-sum view of negotiation - something that most likely stems from his background in real estate, being part of the 80s New York finance scene, and from his upbringing. He cannot conceive of a mutually beneficial deal.
A weaker dollar will help exports, but when you're running a $891 billion trade deficit that doesn't seem like the wisest course of action. So of course Trump is all for it.
Eliminating tariffs in exchange for the retaliatory tariffs would also help exports, but he doesn't understand that. He really does just have a mercantilist view of how the world works.
This is probably the most generous statement made in this thread.
He has a zero-sum view of negotiation - something that most likely stems from his background in real estate, being part of the 80s New York finance scene, and from his upbringing. He cannot conceive of a mutually beneficial deal.
It's a basic part of how he views everything. There are winners and losers and no grey areas.
He talks about it constantly with trade. If other people are making money from a trade deal, to him that's america's money they are taking.
+16
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Follow the conflicts of interest within the administration to understand the source. Larry Kudlow, Peter Navarro, and/or Wilbur Ross are likely behind this.
Trump's undergraduate degree is in economics. I'll go out on a limb and propose that he is familiar with the concept of a mutually beneficial trade. If what you care about is a country's trade balance, devaluing its currency is a textbook play of how to improve it.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Assuming he went to fucking class which is doubtful
Trump's undergraduate degree is in economics. I'll go out on a limb and propose that he is familiar with the concept of a mutually beneficial trade. If what you care about is a country's trade balance, devaluing its currency is a textbook play of how to improve it.
Given he threatened all his schools with lawsuits if they ever disclosed his grades, I'm not going to join you on that limb.
Fortunately Chair Powell is unwilling to be to Trump what Chair Burns was to Nixon and yield to political pressure. He just said he won't resign if asked to and will fully serve out his term. Which has the law on it's side.
The president wants to control the central bank in order to control political power
Like he may seem stupid but he's got pretty solid instincts on how to concentrate his power.
I feel terrible almost hoping for a recession now
It's not so much solid instincts as it is that this is his reaction to literally everything. In every situation Trump's position is that he should have all the power all the time. It's why he loves autocracy so damn much.
Trump's undergraduate degree is in economics. I'll go out on a limb and propose that he is familiar with the concept of a mutually beneficial trade. If what you care about is a country's trade balance, devaluing its currency is a textbook play of how to improve it.
A weaker dollar will help exports, but when you're running a $891 billion trade deficit that doesn't seem like the wisest course of action. So of course Trump is all for it.
Eliminating tariffs in exchange for the retaliatory tariffs would also help exports, but he doesn't understand that. He really does just have a mercantilist view of how the world works.
This is probably the most generous statement made in this thread.
This is probably a stupid question but how do they compel prisoners to be slave labor?
Because the amendment that makes slavery illegal has a carve out that specifically states that slave labor for convicts is still legit.
Don't want to speak for Silence, but I'm curious as to how they compel the prisoners themselves.
ie, if a prisoner was told "You're working on the road gang", what's the incentive/disincentive to say "Yeah, I'll pass."
In the past, there were all sorts of punishments that could be provided. Are those still allowed?
The easiest is if you pass you get the bare minimum treatment. No extras no books to read no commissary privileges you get a couple cold sandwiches a day in your cell for 23 hours a day. As bad as prisons are there are a lot of pretty easy ways to make it a whole lot worse while still within the bounds of legality and not needing any physical violence or coercion.
Bad news: it's being reinstated in 2021, so it's not an issue for the rest of this section of Trump's presidency but Dem leadership seems to think that it wouldn't be abused in 2021 if the Presidency changes hands *headdesk*
At least it's raised for 2 years. Better than seeing what happens when the US defaults on trillions of debt.
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The increase usually happens to be after the next election, iirc.
+4
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
There is no way they are getting a deal eliminating the debt ceiling. There is no room for criticism there. GOP loves having that backward-facing gun and the Dems can run on eliminating it in 2021 because it's stupid as hell
Hope that the shit fucking republican party loses control of the Senate, doesn't gain the house and Trump gets the shit kicked out of him electorally in 2020. Then hope that the Democratic leadership in such a theoretical Senate nukes the filibuster. Then hope the democrats then proceed to vote the idiocy that is the debt ceiling out of existence because passing a budget should be an implied guarantee that the US pays it's fucking bills. Alternatively, if that doesn't happen, hope that things play out in a way that doesn't destroy the economy, while allowing SCOTUS to be like "this shit is fucking stupid. You cannot have a debt ceiling because it's fucking redundant, you have this thing called a budget and if you pass one, that implies that you fucking voted to fund things."
I suppose if this passes, which might not be guaranteed. It means the lunatics of the GOP have one less areas, at least for two years. Also looks like this ends the insanity that is sequestration, the BS that people swore up and down, when it got passed, that no one would trigger. Also as Butters pointed out, democrats could run on this because the whole concept of the debt ceiling is absolutely stupid.
Hope that the shit fucking republican party loses control of the Senate, doesn't gain the house and Trump gets the shit kicked out of him electorally in 2020. Then hope that the Democratic leadership in such a theoretical Senate nukes the filibuster. Then hope the democrats then proceed to vote the idiocy that is the debt ceiling out of existence because passing a budget should be an implied guarantee that the US pays it's fucking bills. Alternatively, if that doesn't happen, hope that things play out in a way that doesn't destroy the economy, while allowing SCOTUS to be like "this shit is fucking stupid. You cannot have a debt ceiling because it's fucking redundant, you have this thing called a budget and if you pass one, that implies that you fucking voted to fund things."
I suppose if this passes, which might not be guaranteed. It means the lunatics of the GOP have one less areas, at least for two years. Also looks like this ends the insanity that is sequestration, the BS that people swore up and down, when it got passed, that no one would trigger. Also as Butters pointed out, democrats could run on this because the whole concept of the debt ceiling is absolutely stupid.
The problem is, while it is absolutely stupid, mindfuckingly stupid, it's gonna be hard to convince the public to either understand it (because it'll intentionally be obfuscated by Republicans, cause it's one of their favorite toys), or to give a fuck about it. I doubt there are more than a handful of voters to whom this'd make any difference in who they vote for, with nearly any other message having more impact.
The problem is, how do you make a theoretical problem (because it hasn't happened yet, thankfully) be accepted as a real one, when there are already fifteen other crises that'll have a bigger impact on that voter's life, and more easily sway them.
Don't get me wrong, I think the debt ceiling is a fundamentally stupid idea, but I just don't see how you convince people it's removal is a vote changing issue. Especially with Republicans misrepresenting the position by shouting "See! The Democrats are all about unrestricted spending!", because they have no shame.
Those that argue for the debt ceiling, are essentially arguing that it's okay to order & consume a product or service, but then refuse to pay for it, by claiming the previous action wasn't an agreement to pay. That's pretty much how I would sell it to the public.
Those that argue for the debt ceiling, are essentially arguing that it's okay to order & consume a product or service, but then refuse to pay for it, by claiming the previous action wasn't an agreement to pay. That's pretty much how I would sell it to the public.
"Mill wants to spend money he doesn't have on stuff he can't afford, and will raise your taxes to pay for it! We need a limit on what Mill can borrow, or Mill will just keep spending!"
Again, not saying it's not a good position. Or that it's not one worth fighting for. But Republicans know that it's a fairly significant tool in their toolkit, and will misrepresent their position, and lie to the American people, to keep it.
And there are so many other fights that'll be much easier to spin. Fuck, I'd be trying to push the "Republicans campaign on fiscal responsibility, and Trump campaigned on eliminating the debt, yet the debt will have risen 25% in Trump's first term, despite claims of a booming economy.".
Kyle Griffin of MSNBC: The Trump admin will begin paying $14,500,000,000 to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war with China by the end of August.
It's the second round of aid the Trump admin will pay out.
Let me repeat that.
Fourteen Billion Dollars.
Just to placate farmers because of the Presidents own Trade War.
Any Republican that says anything about not having the money for something should be promptly smacked in the face with a trout.
+30
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I wonder how much of that is going to "farmers" rather than massive ag-corps.
I wonder how much of that is going to "farmers" rather than massive ag-corps.
Traditional "family farms" are down to under 5% of the overall agribusiness output. These days, most farmers are contractors and crop insurance is more relied upon than ever before. It has to do with what they deliver and if the farmer can't then not only are they out the contracted amount but also out the money they put into the crop and it's care as well. So it would appear that most of this money is going to be going to cover the market shortfalls which means it's not going to help individuals directly.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I feel this will be viewed positively by farmers who don't realize the Trump administration is partly responsible for their recent troubles. I come from a pretty rural area where farmers were not doing so well before the trade war, and it is a bit worse now. This pushed a family friend's farm over the edge and they are losing their farm. I was told they are glad that Trump is at least doing something, not connecting they were hurt by him.
Apple will not be given Tariff wavers, or relief, for Mac Pro parts that are made in China. Make them in the USA, no Tariffs!
Cause getting a cutting edge silicon fab facility up and running is so easy and cheap to do, they'll be able to have it done before Thanksgiving.
*headdesk*
So this is actually because Apple was planning to make the Mac Pros here in Austin with a contracted company (literally down the street from their second and soon-to-be largest offices outside of their home city), but changed contractors to put it all together cause importing all the parts from China would be more expensive than sending them all to, and putting it all together, in China even with the tariffs.
Apple will not be given Tariff wavers, or relief, for Mac Pro parts that are made in China. Make them in the USA, no Tariffs!
Cause getting a cutting edge silicon fab facility up and running is so easy and cheap to do, they'll be able to have it done before Thanksgiving.
*headdesk*
So this is actually because Apple was planning to make the Mac Pros here in Austin with a contracted company (literally down the street from their second and soon-to-be largest offices outside of their home city), but changed contractors to put it all together cause importing all the parts from China would be more expensive than sending them all to, and putting it all together, in China even with the tariffsTrump doesn't understand shit.
Heard on radio this morning that the farm payments are "capped at 500k per claimant", whatever that means. Perhaps less of a huge corporate handout than state-sponsored political handouts?
Yes bring those jobs which require suicide nets to keep your workers from killing themselves back home
(not to say those conditions are acceptable elsewhere)
One of the reasons why parts are more expensive to make here is that labor laws prevent the kind of punishing shift lengths that make factory workers in China so burned out.
So growth for the last quarter was out today. It was 2.1%. Which is slightly above estimates but lower than the 3.1% of the previous quarter. Lot's of factors showing it is a drop but also probably not the "warning light" yet.
Though it may lead the Fed to cutting interest rates by the end of the month. We will see.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I wonder how much of that is going to "farmers" rather than massive ag-corps.
I'm sure it'll be just like the last bailout to farmers last year, where less than 20% of the declared amount was actually sent out, and that primarily to ag-corps and giant farms (especially those of Senator Grassley of Iowa). The paperwork to apply for it will again be a nightmare, none of the farmers actually hurt will see a cent for it, and it won't matter for the GOP's election chances because they know their base cares more about their racism and their hate than their livelihoods anyway. They could lose the farm that's been in their family for generations and then will vote straight R after Fox News rails about Mexicans crossing the border.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is warning of a coming economic downtown either this year or the next. Of course, she has a plan for that, including reducing household debt, a Green Manufacturing Plan, and likely eliminating the debt ceiling.
+19
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is warning of a coming economic downtown either this year or the next. Of course, she has a plan for that, including reducing household debt, a Green Manufacturing Plan, and likely eliminating the debt ceiling.
I mean that’s been in the cards. Anyone in the financial sector is either bracing for it or gleefully ignoring it to make money from people bracing for it
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is warning of a coming economic downtown either this year or the next. Of course, she has a plan for that, including reducing household debt, a Green Manufacturing Plan, and likely eliminating the debt ceiling.
I mean that’s been in the cards. Anyone in the financial sector is either bracing for it or gleefully ignoring it to make money from people bracing for it
Posts
This is probably the most generous statement made in this thread.
He has a zero-sum view of negotiation - something that most likely stems from his background in real estate, being part of the 80s New York finance scene, and from his upbringing. He cannot conceive of a mutually beneficial deal.
It's a basic part of how he views everything. There are winners and losers and no grey areas.
He talks about it constantly with trade. If other people are making money from a trade deal, to him that's america's money they are taking.
Given he threatened all his schools with lawsuits if they ever disclosed his grades, I'm not going to join you on that limb.
Fortunately Chair Powell is unwilling to be to Trump what Chair Burns was to Nixon and yield to political pressure. He just said he won't resign if asked to and will fully serve out his term. Which has the law on it's side.
Like he may seem stupid but he's got pretty solid instincts on how to concentrate his power.
I feel terrible almost hoping for a recession now
It's what he did during the Great Recession.
It's not so much solid instincts as it is that this is his reaction to literally everything. In every situation Trump's position is that he should have all the power all the time. It's why he loves autocracy so damn much.
The easiest is if you pass you get the bare minimum treatment. No extras no books to read no commissary privileges you get a couple cold sandwiches a day in your cell for 23 hours a day. As bad as prisons are there are a lot of pretty easy ways to make it a whole lot worse while still within the bounds of legality and not needing any physical violence or coercion.
Bad news: it's being reinstated in 2021, so it's not an issue for the rest of this section of Trump's presidency but Dem leadership seems to think that it wouldn't be abused in 2021 if the Presidency changes hands *headdesk*
I know, not a democratic leadership thread.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/politics/budget-deal/index.html
I suppose if this passes, which might not be guaranteed. It means the lunatics of the GOP have one less areas, at least for two years. Also looks like this ends the insanity that is sequestration, the BS that people swore up and down, when it got passed, that no one would trigger. Also as Butters pointed out, democrats could run on this because the whole concept of the debt ceiling is absolutely stupid.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The problem is, while it is absolutely stupid, mindfuckingly stupid, it's gonna be hard to convince the public to either understand it (because it'll intentionally be obfuscated by Republicans, cause it's one of their favorite toys), or to give a fuck about it. I doubt there are more than a handful of voters to whom this'd make any difference in who they vote for, with nearly any other message having more impact.
The problem is, how do you make a theoretical problem (because it hasn't happened yet, thankfully) be accepted as a real one, when there are already fifteen other crises that'll have a bigger impact on that voter's life, and more easily sway them.
Don't get me wrong, I think the debt ceiling is a fundamentally stupid idea, but I just don't see how you convince people it's removal is a vote changing issue. Especially with Republicans misrepresenting the position by shouting "See! The Democrats are all about unrestricted spending!", because they have no shame.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
"Mill wants to spend money he doesn't have on stuff he can't afford, and will raise your taxes to pay for it! We need a limit on what Mill can borrow, or Mill will just keep spending!"
Again, not saying it's not a good position. Or that it's not one worth fighting for. But Republicans know that it's a fairly significant tool in their toolkit, and will misrepresent their position, and lie to the American people, to keep it.
And there are so many other fights that'll be much easier to spin. Fuck, I'd be trying to push the "Republicans campaign on fiscal responsibility, and Trump campaigned on eliminating the debt, yet the debt will have risen 25% in Trump's first term, despite claims of a booming economy.".
Let me repeat that.
Fourteen Billion Dollars.
Just to placate farmers because of the Presidents own Trade War.
Any Republican that says anything about not having the money for something should be promptly smacked in the face with a trout.
Traditional "family farms" are down to under 5% of the overall agribusiness output. These days, most farmers are contractors and crop insurance is more relied upon than ever before. It has to do with what they deliver and if the farmer can't then not only are they out the contracted amount but also out the money they put into the crop and it's care as well. So it would appear that most of this money is going to be going to cover the market shortfalls which means it's not going to help individuals directly.
(not to say those conditions are acceptable elsewhere)
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Cause getting a cutting edge silicon fab facility up and running is so easy and cheap to do, they'll be able to have it done before Thanksgiving.
*headdesk*
~ Buckaroo Banzai
So this is actually because Apple was planning to make the Mac Pros here in Austin with a contracted company (literally down the street from their second and soon-to-be largest offices outside of their home city), but changed contractors to put it all together cause importing all the parts from China would be more expensive than sending them all to, and putting it all together, in China even with the tariffs.
*eye twitch*
That being said, I don't know why anyone would reasonably expect Apple to get a pass on tariffs.
That type of nonsense is reserved for farmers.
Hard to tell what reality on the ground will be
One of the reasons why parts are more expensive to make here is that labor laws prevent the kind of punishing shift lengths that make factory workers in China so burned out.
So growth for the last quarter was out today. It was 2.1%. Which is slightly above estimates but lower than the 3.1% of the previous quarter. Lot's of factors showing it is a drop but also probably not the "warning light" yet.
Though it may lead the Fed to cutting interest rates by the end of the month. We will see.
I'm sure it'll be just like the last bailout to farmers last year, where less than 20% of the declared amount was actually sent out, and that primarily to ag-corps and giant farms (especially those of Senator Grassley of Iowa). The paperwork to apply for it will again be a nightmare, none of the farmers actually hurt will see a cent for it, and it won't matter for the GOP's election chances because they know their base cares more about their racism and their hate than their livelihoods anyway. They could lose the farm that's been in their family for generations and then will vote straight R after Fox News rails about Mexicans crossing the border.
I mean that’s been in the cards. Anyone in the financial sector is either bracing for it or gleefully ignoring it to make money from people bracing for it
It’s the latter