Market politics

[voyager]

The Trump administration has reportedly expressed an interest in deciding where and how automotive manufacturers do their business if they want to secure duty-free deals under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) that’s positioned to replace NAFTA.

Trade War Watch: Report Claims White House Wants to Dictate Where Cars Are Manufactured

 

[Curt Renz]

Reuters: Trump thanks GM, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota on California emissions fight

 

[EVNow]

The Trump administration has reportedly expressed an interest in deciding where and how automotive manufacturers do their business if they want to secure duty-free deals under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) that’s positioned to replace NAFTA.

Trade War Watch: Report Claims White House Wants to Dictate Where Cars Are Manufactured

Problem is - everyone knows Trump administration likely has low shelf life. Who is going to make huge investment decisions based on what he says ?

 

[EVNow]

I think Bill misses his own point: Dems have nowhere else to go. I don't think Sanders is going to lose just because he supports prisoner voting, (even though I agree with Bill that it's a stupid issue to bring up).

I agree with anti-Trump rhetoric of Bill Kristal - and Bill Maher. Neither of those are progressive

I mean - he literally endorsed Amy Klobuchar. Why would anyone think Bill is anything but a Dem leaning right wing guy ?

ps : In '16 because he didn't like Hillary he used to say nice things about Sanders. Apparently it had more to do with dislike of Hillary than liking Sanders policies.

 

[Fred42]

This was back in 2017 when they were newer so the market might be more forgiving now. I sold mine last year for my 3 and resale value was still really good.

Great car all in all. No Tesla, but for good for an ICE car.

Volvo is also scamming the EV credit program by double dipping. I'm hoping that the Dems regain congress and we can fix the current law. ​

The Dems will not have 60 votes in the Senate and the R's will try to stop almost anything they want to do, with much success. Even if we have a Dem president and the Dem's control both houses of Congress, positive changes will be frustrated.

Then in 2022 the R's will say the Dem president has accomplished little and screech about good things he or she was able to accomplish that didn't require congressional approval or were accomplished with sufficient deal-making, and the R's will take back the House.

Looking to the federal govt to fix climate change and other things isn't a path to success.

 

[EVNow]

The Dems will not have 60 votes in the Senate and the R's will try to stop almost anything they want to do, with much success. Even if we have a Dem president and the Dem's control both houses of Congress, positive changes will be frustrated.

That's why most definitely Senate 60 vote rule's demise is imminent.

 

[Bobfitz1]

That's why most definitely Senate 60 vote rule's demise is imminent.

Can killing 60 vote rule be done by a simple majority vote?

 

[EVNow]

Can killing 60 vote rule be done by a simple majority vote?

Funnily, yes. Senate adopts rules after every election and the 60 vote rule can be changed then (or I guess at other times).

 

[bkp_duke]

That's why most definitely Senate 60 vote rule's demise is imminent.

It's not a rule, it's in the Constitution for removing a president that has been impeached. The Constitution requires 2/3's vote (not just 60). Good luck getting an amendment to change that . . .

 

[bkp_duke]

Funnily, yes. Senate adopts rules after every election and the 60 vote rule can be changed then (or I guess at other times).

Not for impeachment. That's not covered by "Senate Rules". Much much higher up the food chain in the legal stack: the Constitution alone dictates how many votes the Senate needs to remove a president that has been impeached.

 

[wdolson]

It's not a rule, it's in the Constitution for removing a president that has been impeached. The Constitution requires 2/3's vote (not just 60). Good luck getting an amendment to change that . . .

You are confusing the rules for cloture and impeachment. The Senate has had the filibuster since the early days. I believe it was in the 60s that cloture evolved to replace it. To invoke cloture one Senator can object to a bill moving forward and it takes 60 votes to overcome it. When the Democrats were in the minority during the GW years, they invoked cloture more to slow down the GW agenda. When the Democrats regained control in 2006, the Republicans weaponized cloture and invoked it on every single bill meaning basically nothing got through the Senate without 60 votes.

The last time the Democrats had control of the Senate they changed the rules to remove cloture on some nominations, but kept it for everything else. McConnell has removed it for all nominations, but it's still there for legislation. Rules changes have never been subject to cloture, so rule changes can be done with a simple majority. Technically rule changes can be done at any time, but traditionally they are only done in the first days of a session.

The 2/3 vote for removal under impeachment is constitutionally mandated and is unlikely to ever be changed.

I have been busy this week and haven't had time to answer some other posts. I'll try to get to them by tomorrow.

 

[Norbert]

That's why most definitely Senate 60 vote rule's demise is imminent.

Yes, the need to reduce CO2 emissions will require changing that rule, as republican senators would use it to (continue to) block resolving the climate emergency.

Democrats are coming around to consider it a *major* emergency, and that alone will be considered a more than sufficient reason to remove that rule.

 

[EVNow]

Its funny how Corbyn is going to invoke Trump's name to try to win the general election in UK.

 

[EVNow]

It's not a rule, it's in the Constitution for removing a president that has been impeached. The Constitution requires 2/3's vote (not just 60). Good luck getting an amendment to change that . . .

I know it can be confusing when posts from the market thread are moved here - but, obviously we were not talking about the impeachment.

 

[JRP3]

I mean - he literally endorsed Amy Klobuchar. Why would anyone think Bill is anything but a Dem leaning right wing guy ?

I think he used to be more progressive. Recently Micheal Moore was on his show chastising him for the change.

 

[Curt Renz]

CNBC - hour ago: Trump is the 'least worst option' for China, says professor

 

[RobStark]

Presumably it will eligible for the $7.5k US tax credit as well.

I cant see the US tax credit staying as it is in the scenario where the US EV vendors don’t get it while foreign EV vendors selling into the US do. Either the 200k vehicle cap disappears (good for Tesla) or the tax credit disappears entirely (which would be better for Tesla than current situation)

This was my theory as well for a very long time.

But impeachment may get in the way of getting anything done.

Then again USMCA appears heading for passage. It is a better deal for labor and the environment but Democrats were insisting on much higher standards, standards they knew Mexico would never accept. In order to deny Trump a win.

But sensible heads seem to be prevailing at least on this issue.

 

[Bobfitz1]

I think he used to be more progressive. Recently Micheal Moore was on his show chastising him for the change.

I suspect that Maher's progressive opinions and positions have not changed greatly over the past 5+ years. I don't claim to have researched that by going back over 5 + year old shows and comparing to recent year(s). Rather the Democrats have moved significantly more to the left of the political spectrum, making it appear that he used to be more progressive. It is indisputable that the Republicans have shifted far more to the extreme right than average Dems to the left. What hasn't changed with Maher is that he hates political correctness and BS and isn't afraid to point to examples of them on the left. The advent of social justice warriors trying to burn those not genuflecting to their opinions at the stake have given Maher a bigger supply of both to speak out against.

Maher and Bill Kristol would both laugh out loud to hear that some now consider them to be fellow travelers!
Bill donated a million of his own money to Obama campaign in 2012, then another million for Democrat Senate campaigns last year.
To the best of my knowledge Kristol did not. There are a number of former Republicans who have left the party as it has moved farther and farther to the right and now into Trump cultists or cynics who cynics who care more about staying in power than honoring their oaths of office. My question for them is why do they think the cancer now threatening our 250 year republic developed in the Republican right rather than the left?

 

[JRP3]

Biden drops in Iowa, Warren and Sanders rise, with some interesting details in the discussion

 

[Intl Professor]

On command incompetence of Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-exactly-how-attack-an-inept-commander-chief/

My wife, the gerontology major, exercised her homework assignment by administering several dementia tests to her 83 year old husband. I passed with flying colors, in no small part because of her in my old age (we were married in November 2003). There was one question that would ordinarily be troublesome “do you feel like something terrible is going to happen.” Yes, I could have a stroke or heart attack any day. What do you expect, I’m an old man and take a blood thinner as a precaution. She always counters, “But your Mom lasted for 99 years.” Worst thing that happened to her was a hysterectomy. Not one of my current complaints, I have several, but this is yet to come, if ever.

One test for delirium is interesting. Almost all signs are found in any extemporaneous remarks by Trump for any length of time. The test instrument is here. See p. 2: