Market politics

[Reciprocity]

So the troops will assume you are armed as well when "they come for you".

Yes, they will. Especially when they are coming for your guns. Or maybe they are really dumb. There is also the fact that its hard to miss when one is pointed at you. Certainly the civilian will be out gunned but the troops will have to decide whether following orders out weighs doing whats right. Lets hope it doesnt come to that.

 

[Reciprocity]

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part has been determined to be unnecessary.

I agree, because of the second part.

 

[JRP3]

There is also the fact that its hard to miss when one is pointed at you.

Yet unarmed people are shot by police quite often.

 

[JRP3]

I agree, because of the second part.

Second part is predicated on the first. Example:

If I want to be a better basketball player, I have to practice my shots.

If the first part is not true then the second part is also not true.

 

[AudubonB]

MODERATOR WARNING:
JRP3 and Reciprocity - your arguing goes to PMing each other right now. No further open-thread discussion of that topic.

 

[Curt Renz]

Regarding concern about Amazon.com taking business from other retailers: That’s a result of the American free competitive enterprise system that naturally rewards innovations that benefit consumers.

When I was a kid, there was a small shopping district in our Chicago neighborhood on the short block of Montrose just west of Ashland. On the south side of Montrose were separate mom & pop shops: bakery, butcher shop, vegetable store and drugstore (pharmacy). My mother and grandmother would visit them regularly, and got to know the proprietors as friends. My native German grandmother particularly liked to haggle with them regarding price and quality. Then around 1950 an A&P supermarket opened across the street. Shoppers were aghast that the small shop-owners were being pushed out of business, nevertheless folks went to the A&P due to convenience and prices.

Then around 1960, large shopping malls began putting out of business many neighborhood retailers including the A&P. Again folks were aghast, nevertheless they enjoyed trips to the malls.

Then around 1970, big-box department stores started taking business away from not only neighborhood retailers, but also the shopping malls. Of course folks were again aghast, but they flocked to Walmart and Target.

Then around 2000, online retailing started taking business from brick-and-mortar retailers of all sorts. Amazon.com has developed the most successful way of accomplishing that. Now not only are folks aghast, but so is a particular federal politician. But almost everyone now enjoys the convenience and pricing from ordering online products that are quickly delivered to their front doors.

Of course about a decade ago Tesla developed a business model that obviates the need for franchised car dealerships. In this case consumers generally are not aghast, but the dealerships are fighting hard against Tesla and asking state governments to block the innovation. Their greatest concern is likely that the other manufacturers will eventually emulate Tesla. Indeed, that could come to pass.

As consumers we’ve always benefited from ever evolving retail business models. Eventually, someone’s even better idea may affect Amazon.com. If Amazon’s current dominance bothers you, I suggest writing Congress. But I doubt many consumers will do that. Political tweeter #1 may want to step down from his bully pulpit regarding this. If the other concern is that Amazon.com should force its associate vendors to collect state sales taxes, that should be a matter for state and local politicians, not federal.

 

[Intl Professor]

Let me rephrase, how do we even out the playing field with China in regards to fair trade?

A wonderful question and very on point. Unfortunately I am totally incompetent to answer. To confirm my amateur status I will nonetheless reply.

I read somewhere, probably Krugman, the problem with China is not so much the physical trade balance, but restrictions on services where the US has clear advantages and the country has constructed a Great Wall against financial services, for example. Tariffs on goods by both sides will be paid for by consumers so this kind of tit for tat will inherently be unpopular, and Wall Street knows it. Further, it agitates supply streams of goods affecting both party's businesses. Leaving aside the obvious leadership advantages China has, one cannot see how the administration's approach will affect services, especially as China has supposedly offered some wiggle room on this score. (I wouldn't trust them to do so, but that avenue hasn't been tried, although our trade representative has said talks are underway.)

As I've hinted, our more open society and China's experience with a planned economy (combined with Xi's recent accumulation of power—guaranteed by the constitution!!) means in any bullying approach, China will win. I hope sanity will prevail on both sides and Trump will back off, or Xi will in the end, but in the meantime while a twitter rush may appeal to some, I'm much more a conservative about human nature.

I've been trying to wrap my mind around the psychology of bullies and what they do when they meet. As a self-confessed physical coward all I can come up with is I wouldn't try to beat a better bully than I. Throughout Asia the Chinese are dominant in the business communities of many countries. An old conservative friend of mine as an executive with Proctor and Gamble once sold a factory to China. He said the negotiations were the most difficult of his career. (Sorry for the implied racism, but it's there.) In the comparative government literature there is an example of a Chinese entrepreneur, based in Singapore, who explained the secret to business success was Confucianism.

 

[Sean Wagner]

We have none of our erstwhile allies - many of whom share our grievances - at least in the loop.
We have no plan, although that would have been so easy - hence nothing to talk about and no way forward.
We have a gigantic "fail" button that can convulse the world - but turn it upside down too, and leave China to emerge riding on top.
They want that badly, and are only shrewdly and patiently gauging the interim damage and pain.

The toddler doesn't want to talk first: he needs damage, confrontation, and a state of constant turmoil.
Classic agitprop, and lies taller than you first think will go down - and that is the true danger to the Republic he poses.

So instead of removing the tariffs Tesla faces, it's all going the other direction, while China is sucking in billions in support of its quest to dominate key future industries like transportation.
...

...
Let's not forget here, the trade deficits is $500B+. We dont send much there. Taxing soy beans and pork will hurt their own citizens by raising all the prices for those products in China and all the products made from those commodities. I know China can just drive a tank down your street to shut you up if you complain about anything, so I'm sure they will be ok. Hungry, broke, but happily silent.

Don't worry to much, this is all really face saving posturing. I'm sure Trump is winning in the negotiations. That or more tariffs are coming for Chinese goods.

Trump is not negotiating. He does not have a plan for the future except confrontation and mayhem.
As expected after he left us open to extremely dangerous retaliation with a gigantic deficit, and tore up both key free trade agreements [TTIP and TPP] that would facilitate a shift away from China [which would be good].

Or does anyone seriously think we're going to start making and buying clothes that cost 10X more than those sourced from say Viet Nam now?

#News Quoting the Financial Times [5 hours ago]:

China rejected the idea of negotiating with the US to ease escalating trade tensions, and accused Washington of misleading global markets about the state of the dispute.

The Chinese commerce ministry on Friday denied that Washington and Beijing were talking to prevent an all-out trade war. The denial came one day after Larry Kudlow, White House chief economic adviser, suggested that the US and China were trying to find a solution after tit-for-tat threats to impose tariffs on $100bn in bilateral trade.

“It has been months since fiscal and economic officials from both governments have had any negotiations,” a Chinese commerce ministry spokesperson said in Beijing.

The commerce ministry accused the White House of misleading financial markets by hinting that talks were under way, declaring that “this is not the real situation”.

Mr Kudlow conceded on Friday that no substantive negotiations had been held with Beijing yet, though he insisted they remained a possibility.

“They have not really begun yet,” Mr Kudlow told Bloomberg TV. “There may be negotiations in the next couple of months. I hope so. I think everyone hopes so. I don’t want to disrupt the economy. The president doesn’t want to disrupt the economy. We need not disrupt the economy.”
...
Subscribe to read

That leaves Kudlow looking very much like a wishful thinker at best.

The trade deficit in goods with China is actually 375B USD for 2017. See Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with China
It's the toddler in the White House who bandies about 500B, actually the total for Chinese goods exports to the US.
Freudian slip?

poor people spend their money, while rich people mostly don't.

And I'm afraid playing with money has the potential to seriously distort the part of the economy that matters to the most.
Just think asset bubbles or leveraged buyouts.

Even if new tariffs are devised for all the trade in goods [and services?] between the US and China, nothing is resolved at all.
This cannot hinge on tweets. Will not do.

 

[sundaymorning]

A wonderful question and very on point. Unfortunately I am totally incompetent to answer. To confirm my amateur status I will nonetheless reply.

I read somewhere, probably Krugman, the problem with China is not so much the physical trade balance, but restrictions on services where the US has clear advantages and the country has constructed a Great Wall against financial services, for example. Tariffs on goods by both sides will be paid for by consumers so this kind of tit for tat will inherently be unpopular, and Wall Street knows it. Further, it agitates supply streams of goods affecting both party's businesses. Leaving aside the obvious leadership advantages China has, one cannot see how the administration's approach will affect services, especially as China has supposedly offered some wiggle room on this score. (I wouldn't trust them to do so, but that avenue hasn't been tried, although our trade representative has said talks are underway.)

As I've hinted, our more open society and China's experience with a planned economy (combined with Xi's recent accumulation of power—guaranteed by the constitution!!) means in any bullying approach, China will win. I hope sanity will prevail on both sides and Trump will back off, or Xi will in the end, but in the meantime while a twitter rush may appeal to some, I'm much more a conservative about human nature.

I've been trying to wrap my mind around the psychology of bullies and what they do when they meet. As a self-confessed physical coward all I can come up with is I wouldn't try to beat a better bully than I. Throughout Asia the Chinese are dominant in the business communities of many countries. An old conservative friend of mine as an executive with Proctor and Gamble once sold a factory to China. He said the negotiations were the most difficult of his career. (Sorry for the implied racism, but it's there.) In the comparative government literature there is an example of a Chinese entrepreneur, based in Singapore, who explained the secret to business success was Confucianism.

Past presidents has been particularly docile in pressing China to an open market economy with fair trade. The result of their non-agitation approach has China acting as though it is the golden child in world manufacturing and nothing can stop it from stealing valuable IP. Here’s the thing, every country manufactures something, items such as TVs, small electronics, etc. can be produced anywhere in the world, ie Mexico, other parts of Asia.

Mexican TVs and Pork Poised to Benefit From U.S.-China Trade War

If tariffs are high enough to where it would make sense for American companies to look elsewhere, then guess what, other countries will happily step in and provide the supply chains that Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. would need to meet US demands. The supply chains, of course cannot ramp immediately, but it will eventually catch up (ie M3 ramp). Other countries have been begging for the USA to buy from them, but we don’t because many Chinese companies are state owned, and as a result, they can artificially depress prices at will and dump their supply in order to prevent foreign competitors from overtaking their manufacturing prowess (which provides jobs for their 1.3 billion population). The evidence for this is right before our eyes (think about the solar industry and how much China has affected its outcome—dumping its supplies worldwide). Chinese state owned companies enjoy unfair advantages that private companies could never compete with.

Are China’s Big State Companies a Big Problem for the Global Economy? | TIME.com

State owned companies are strong, and they possess a vital competitive edge in today’s market. Take for example how Dubai’s state owned airline Emirates have benefited in today’s market. Or how the government still owns Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (to stabilize the US real estate market), or owning a percentage of GM, etc. These government owned companies are quite effective and I think the US will eventually bolster markets that needs extra government incentives by providing subsidies to compete with China; for example, the soy bean market that will be affected (im pretty sure the US will incentivize this sector should a trade war rises, and it’ll likely prove effective).

The approach I would take if I were Trump is slow and methodical. Start out with implementing a $2B tariff within 6-12 months, within 12-24 months hit the electronics sector. This will provide American companies such as Wal-Mart, Target, Costco ample time to find a supply chains elsewhere that can, ironically, ramp and provide the products we need without consumers paying too much in tariff fees. If nothing gets done, China is going to screw us all regardless:

U.S. won’t have a future if China continues unfair trade practices, says Trump adviser

Read about “China 2025” and how it plans to overtake every emerging technology industry such as AI to dominate world trade. They do this by dumping money and acquiring foreign businesses. I think Trump is onto something, they need to devise a plan to counter.

 

[Intl Professor]

A+ information at Sean Wagner. The Chinese bully is calling out disorganization at the White House. My P&G executive friend complained the Chinese were really adept at ping ponging about who could really make a decision. Very frustrating to him. That is not the plan of the Trump administration but Xi et al. are calling out the US because they don't even know what could be negotiated and what couldn't, and NO ONE ON OUR SIDE knows who can make a decision here either. How can talks begin when the agenda itself is unknown?

As I said earlier, amateurs in government are like new drivers on ice. I can just imagine Beijing night show hosts (or news anchors) having and generating enormous giggles about this. A cartoon version would emphasize a Tiger playing with its prey. So much for world wide respect for the institution of our presidency. I'm old enough to remember ping pong diplomacy with China. Can you imagine two players, one with whale nut brains, and the other with, what is it Elon says...?

But to put things in perspective, the impact on Europe of the last Republican's amateurism and Obama's stoking of the Mideast democratic spring, along with climate change (source of Syria agricultural wipeout), has created more chaos from refugees in real misery. Much more human misery than investor complaints about market disruption.

As both Socrates (the early Plato) and Confucius warned, politics is not for amateurs who intend to govern. As we and Trump are learning, winning does not mean you are qualified and just as he was surprised at his win, he certainly had no idea about governing. His intent was not to do so. Shame on us.

 

[Intl Professor]

Aristotle learned, and taught us nearly 2400 years ago that stable polities have large middle classes. China is growing one; we are slowly learning we've been shrinking ours. Political change to reverse direction is becoming much more imperative while our Nero twitters. Wall Street should be worried about that.

 

[Sparky]

I'm sure there is some tyranny you wouldn't put up with....

This is a good opening for a thought experiment. There's lots of tyranny. Anyone who has cable TV is familiar with putting up with tyranny.
So, it's 5 years in the future, and an AI presence (I call him/her Marvin) is on the loose and given the generic task of ending fetishes in the population because they're harmful to... whatever (stay with me).
So apropos of nothing, let's say gun ownership is on the fetish list. Marvin's task is to get the vast majority of the population to give up their guns but first Marvin has to get the humans to employ the usual fetish blockade:

Stop thinking about their guns.
Stop having a desire to act out with their guns.
Stop finding guns physically, emotionally, intellectually, maybe spiritually stimulating.

Whether guns are legal or not doesn't matter to Marvin. Marvin's not trying to alter the Constitution, just the fetish.

Could Marvin the AI do this on a large scale? I'd say yes. It wouldn't matter that we have lots of guns because there's no way to shoot an AI-bot.
Perhaps it wouldn't be brute force anyway. Marvin can easily figure out who has guns just by looking at their buying habits, hangouts, NRA dues (duh, Marvin). Marvin can control what they see on TV, and what the internet presents to them as facts. Marvin provides positive reinforcement only, free beer comes to the door when they watch Rachel Maddow (please Rachel, get to the GD point so I can have a beer!), nothing on the doorstep when subject tries (but fails) to access NRA YouTube channel. Maybe there's a reason why the above couldn't happen but free will is a weak force. Dogs & dolphins; monkeys and people are all easily manipulated with the right behavior modification. Don't think Marvin can't figure it out. Marvin's got lots of time and nowhere to "be".

Sometimes I wonder if this is where our politics is headed.

 

[Intl Professor]

We've been there for a long time, at least since sometime before Orwell published Nineteen Eighty-four in 1949. You're funnier.

 

[SwTslaGrl]

I think the solution to trade deficit in goods with China is to produce the goods in the US. Use high tech to set up alien dreadnoughts in every industry to undercut the import prices

 

[Thumper]

The greatest danger to Tesla (and everything else) is the worldwide rise of fascism. Like last time, it is being chosen democratically, more or less. People will believe what they are repeatedly told to believe and the increasingly unified media message will be whatever the oligarchs want us all to believe. Tesla already gets press coverage that is, at the least, not evenhanded and this problem is likely to increase as Tesla is a greater threat to established players of all sorts. I hope for the best but fear the worst.

 

[AudubonB]

And, on the subject of fascism, former Sec'y of State Madeleine Albright has an essay - almost pleading in its poignancy - in this Sunday's New York Times:

Opinion | Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?

 

[sundaymorning]

Trump tweets and predicts China will make concessions on IP and reciprocal tarrifs “because it’s the right thing to do.”

Trump says China will take down trade barriers, deal on IP - Tweet

The market will always figure out what to do, don’t feel bad for soybean farmers. Europe stepped in to scoop the buying.

Redirect Notice

 

[Intl Professor]

And, on the subject of fascism, former Sec'y of State Madeleine Albright has an essay - almost pleading in its poignancy - in this Sunday's New York Times:

Opinion | Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?

The greatest danger to Tesla (and everything else) is the worldwide rise of fascism. Like last time, it is being chosen democratically, more or less. People will believe what they are repeatedly told to believe and the increasingly unified media message will be whatever the oligarchs want us all to believe. Tesla already gets press coverage that is, at the least, not evenhanded and this problem is likely to increase as Tesla is a greater threat to established players of all sorts. I hope for the best but fear the worst.

I couldn't agree more.

The one positive thing about Trump, however, is that his anger is so prevalent and much more powerful than his intellect or curiosity, he spurs increasing activism by people of good will. In terms of the quality of his presidency, unless he gets us into a war, he will be judged less influential in the wrong directions than George W. Bush, Molly Ivins' shrub.

When he chose Dick Cheney as his running mate, like a lot of conservative commentators, I mistakenly thought "at least now an adult is in charge." Wrong!!! Even some of Cheney's friends have been quoted as saying, in effect, "the man I knew has changed." I suspect if there were a trigger it was sitting for hours in the bunker under the White House in the early hours of 9/11 when it was thought the bunker had been hit with a bio-chemical weapon. That stress certainly had an effect, but it doesn't matter what was the ultimate cause.

The Iraq war along with local responses to it, principally in Egypt and Libya, rocked the Middle East so much that we are still seeing massive efforts by people to flee out of it, principally to Europe. Thus is fueled the "populist" response we see today in Germany, Denmark, Hungary, etc. (In the long run this may be a good thing in Germany as it is already affected by the age bomb—not so much as Japan, but that's a special case. Italy's problem is somewhat different.) Adding to this exodus is of course the effects of global warming, most stark in the stupid response by Asad to a six year drought which fell most heavily on Syria's farmers.

In an even more dangerous long term effect, Cheney's secret energy meetings furthered disastrous energy policies by Bush, and later. (Just a sample: water contamination cannot be used against fracking.)

If we have a happy history, the shrub may be worse than twig-brain. It all depends on us. As Madison said, "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government." I do not believe his "auxiliary precautions" in our Constitution are enough—certainly not so long as Republicans control Congress.

Edit: The courts may do their job in the end, but as Albright says we may not have time and the legal process is oh so slooooow.

 

[neroden]

Does the black panther party have 50 million members?

The NRA doesn't either. They inflate their membership numbers. I know; I'm technically a life member.

And LoL at the impeachment talk. Good luck with that. You realize you need an actual crime to have been committed in office then you need cash majorities of the house and Senate.

Actually, you just need "high crimes and misdemeanors", which legal experts say includes threats to the integrity of the Republic as well as crimes. But Trump's already been proven to have committed a lot of crimes, mostly of the self-dealing (using public office to extort money for his personal projects) variety.

By my whip count there's already a majority in the House to impeach Trump, frankly, but they're waiting until they can get a chance of success in the Senate. There's *also* probably already a majority in the Senate, but the damn impeachment provision requires 2/3 and there's nowhere close to that yet. (This is a serious error made by James Madison. When asked about the dangers of a President making himself into an lawless dictator, he always claimed that impeachment was the solution; but you can't get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for practically *anything*.) After a while, the House will run out of patience and impeach him, but I dunno if he'll get convicted in the Senate.

It's not about policy or even about his crimes. It's about his spectacular incompetence and failure to actually operate the government. This is starting to freak out even the most diehard Republican loyalists in Congress, because they need a functioning government. It's certainly caused the *entire business lobby* to oppose Trump, because they *especially* need a functioning government.

And then what? You think the Trump is stepping down? LoL.

His ghostwriter on The Art of the Deal actually predicted that Trump would resign and declare victory, which is in character. Trump likes to quit things halfway through. He clearly doesn't really want to do the job of being President. And he *isn't doing the job*. He's leaving major governmental positions unfilled, golfing most of the time, and refusing to learn anything about anything.

He's actually much worse -- more ignorant, more out of touch with reality -- than I initially thought before he took office. People who've known him a long time say he's changed and actually suspect dementia.

I'll happily eat a player full of crow if he is impeached. He is a jerk and crude, but that's not impeachable.

Good to have the old neo back. 17 dislikes overnight. 5 likes though. I think you are 30% or more of my negative feedback and yet I missed you.

 

[neroden]

The 2nd Amendment was specifically created to have a militia instead of a professional standing army. Long ago we realized that a highly trained professional fighting force is necessary and a militia is not.

Personally I sometimes disagree, and I'll make a controversial argument here.

In the War of 1812, a war in which *the US was the villain*, evidence shows that the militia did what it was supposed to -- refused to invade Canada -- while Madison had to organize a professional army in order to invade Canada, attack the Native Americans in violation of the treaties, and commit suchlike aggressive wars of invasion.

The US proceeded to commit wholeheartedly to aggressive wars of invasion, particularly in the 20th century, which is arguably why the US needed a professional army. I think we shouldn't have one, because it is a threat to the security of a free state. But for some reason Congress insists on renewing army funding over and over again, I guess so that they can keep invading and oppressing foreign countries. *A militia would be more likely to refuse to do that*.

The last war where the US was able to primarily rely on a volunteer militia was the Civil War, and that's because the Union was actually fighting for what was right, and was doing so domestically. (The Confederacy, on the side of evil, started drafting people almost immediately.)

Switzerland has been able to rely on the militia system precisely because they haven't invaded any other countries in hundreds of years.