Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia Trump's trump card. An authoritative move. Freezing the assets and transactions dealing with Chinese companies/nationals. China will have a very hard time obtaining U.S. currency. Interesting times we live in.

The reason the Chinese didn't devalue their currency further is that when interest rates were essentially 0% a significant amount of development in China was funded with loans from US banks in dollars. If the yuan devalues too much the developers holding the loans would go bankrupt trying to pay back the loans. The

If the Chinese couldn't get US currency, they can't pay back the loans it could badly hurt the US banks which could trigger problems throughout the US economy.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AZRI11
I think presidents & powerful men should be made to answer for their sins. We should start with Henry Kissinger.

Agreed. His initial claim to fame was arguing nuclear weapons could be used in war. He stepped back on that in his next book. His triangular effort to separate China and Russia to our advantage through the opening to China did not work out as planned and was later marked dumb in a book by one of the staff people at SALT negotiations. (I'm forgetting too many names now. That's what being 11 years out of the classroom will do to you.) Might have been this guy. http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/sites/default/files/articles/WQ_VOL1_A_1977_Article_01_1_2.pdf

The Shah's secret police, SAVAK, operating freely in the U.S. orchestrated an unsuccessful campaign against my department's hire of an assistant professor who was a former student. His sin, a few months earlier he was first in line to ask Kissinger a question after a speech at Johns Hopkins. Kissinger got so mad he walked off the stage fuming "Get your people in line." The question? "Dr. Kissinger do you consider yourself a war criminal?"

Of course Kissinger should pay for his sins. A lot of people in power or have been in power should be convicted of war crimes, but won't. High on my list is Lyndon Johnson for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and aftermath, W's letting Cheney get us the Iraq War which had predictable consequences that tampered with the delicate balance in the M.E., and on and on. Trump for waging war on my four grandchildren and four great grandchildren on behalf of the Kochs of the world.

There are never enough Mandelas in the world. I would like to hear from Warren her plan to unwind the damage of Trump. She could begin with listing proposed Cabinet nominees. On that Jay Inslee would be a great Secretary of Energy. Tulsi Gabbard at Defense? Corey Booker for A.G? But I ramble on and these would normally be ignored—they have a sense of morality.

Your picks?
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Artful Dodger
International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia Trump's trump card. An authoritative move. Freezing the assets and transactions dealing with Chinese companies/nationals. China will have a very hard time obtaining U.S. currency. Interesting times we live in.

That would be quite similar to the asset freeze imposed by FDR on the Japanese in July of 1941. He soon followed it with an oil embargo. Then in December he referred to the attack on Pearl Harbor as being "unprovoked" during his address before Congress requesting a declaration of war.
 
The United States Constitution mandates that revenue raising bills originate in the House of Representatives. That would include tariffs, which in the early days of the republic were the primary sources for revenues. Over a century ago during World War I, Congress ceded its obligation regarding tariffs to President Wilson. That has never been taken back.

Now President Trump has become dictator of tariffs. His tariffs have no connection to a shooting war as was the emergency case during WWI.

More properly, potential tariffs need to be first debated in Congress after receiving testimony in committees from businesses, farmers, consumers and economists. In most cases tariffs imposed on incoming foreign goods are counterproductive, infringe upon free trade, and are ultimately paid by American consumers. It is American importers who pay the tariffs to the US treasury, not foreign governments or manufacturers. The cost is then passed along the chain to US consumers. It also hurts investors.

Those who designed our Constitution insisted that tariffs be eliminated among the states, since free trade would be far more beneficial. The same would almost always be true in our trade relations with other countries.

You may want to contact those who represent you in Congress, and request that they reclaim their responsibility to determine tariffs. Then you might suggest that they abolish virtually all tariffs.

Unfortunately, what Trump is doing sets a precedent that future presidents will follow. If Congress is divided as it is now, and can't muster the votes to override the president, and a judge can't find anything unconstitutional or illegal about the order, he has carte blanche to issue any executive orders that he wishes.

Bernie Sanders, for example, says he wants to legalize marijuana by executive order. While I may agree with the goal, it takes the issue out of the hands of our elected representatives in Congress and we become effectively a serial monarchy. Let's say Trump can't stand electric vehicles because for some reason wants cars to run on coal. He can simply issue an executive order banning EVs. If Congress can't stop him, and it's not illegal to do so, there go our cars.

We need Congress to take back its Article 1 powers and reinstitute our system of checks and balances again. Getting rid of all tariffs would be good too.
 
Like Ed Sullivan, he's really big on those really bigs: #iherebyorder
  • March 3, 2017: "I hereby demand a second investigation, after Schumer, of Pelosi for her close ties to Russia, and lying about it"
  • May 20, 2018: "I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!"
  • April 13, 2019: "Just out: The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes!"
  • June 7, 2019: "I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended. Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to … stem the tide of Migration through Mexico, and to our Southern Border. This is being done to greatly reduce, or eliminate, Illegal Immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States. Details of the agreement will be released shortly by the State Department. Thank you!"
  • July 11, 2019: "RT @WhiteHouse: "I'm hereby ordering every department and agency in the Federal Government, to provide the Department of Commerce with all…"
 
Last edited:
  • Funny
Reactions: AZRI11
The trade war is shaking things up with China and China has taken a haircut, but one of the things frustrating trade negotiators is nobody knows what Trump's victory conditions are. The trade negotiators come to the US and ask what the US wants, the US negotiators ask Trump and they never get an answer because he doesn't know. He likes conflict and wants to create more and more of it.

This just flat out isn't true. The US was a hair's breath away from signing an agreement back in May, and the Chinese at the last moment sent over a revised document that stripped out the bulk of the meaningful points that the US wanted. There isn't a moving target here on what is wanted by the US, it's simply that the Chinese are doing everything that they can to not sign onto the changes in IP theft and technology transfer. They need American ingenuity, and they know it. They are GREAT at copying things, but horrible at original thinking to come up with innovative ideas themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: EVNow and SPadival
That would be quite similar to the asset freeze imposed by FDR on the Japanese in July of 1941. He soon followed it with an oil embargo. Then in December he referred to the attack on Pearl Harbor as being "unprovoked" during his address before Congress requesting a declaration of war.

This is an EXTREMELY one-sided take on this bit of history. What you are keenly leaving out is why FDR put an asset freeze and oil embargo on the Japanese. The Japanese were in an active militaristic expansion, including into US territories at the time (Philippines). The actions by FDR were completely justified, and supported by Congress.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AZRI11
Unfortunately, what Trump is doing sets a precedent that future presidents will follow. If Congress is divided as it is now, and can't muster the votes to override the president, and a judge can't find anything unconstitutional or illegal about the order, he has carte blanche to issue any executive orders that he wishes....

However, could a federal court find the ceding of tariff decisions by Congress to President Wilson as an emergency measure during World War I to have been unconstitutional? That act has never been rescinded.

In the early years of the republic, tariffs were the primary means for raising revenue. The writers of the Constitution insisted that revenue raising bills originate in the House of Representatives.

US Constitution:

Section 7
1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
 
This is an EXTREMELY one-sided take on this bit of history. What you are keenly leaving out is why FDR put an asset freeze and oil embargo on the Japanese. The Japanese were in an active militaristic expansion, including into US territories at the time (Philippines). The actions by FDR were completely justified, and supported by Congress.

My point was that justified or not, an asset freeze can lead to a shooting war.
 
lj9f0zs28ai31.jpg
 
Mark Blyth gets the Trump trade war strategy... and it's not ending any time soon. And I think Mark is absolutely right. Watch the youtube linked in the tweet below since I cannot link to the exact playback position on this forum :(.

So far, The Donald has been following Mark's playbook to a T, including urging US companies to shift production out of China.

S Padival on Twitter

Mark made a minor error - its the Martingale strategy, not Nightingale :)

By the way, Mark Blyth gave 60% chance of a Trump victory while the very serious "wonks" on TV like Nate Silver gave Hillary 70% chance.

ytCropper | PLENARY 7 - SHORT-TERM POLITICS VERSUS LONG-TERM RETURNS - LESSONS FROM HISTORY
 
Unfortunately, what Trump is doing sets a precedent that future presidents will follow. If Congress is divided as it is now, and can't muster the votes to override the president, and a judge can't find anything unconstitutional or illegal about the order, he has carte blanche to issue any executive orders that he wishes.

Bernie Sanders, for example, says he wants to legalize marijuana by executive order. While I may agree with the goal, it takes the issue out of the hands of our elected representatives in Congress and we become effectively a serial monarchy. Let's say Trump can't stand electric vehicles because for some reason wants cars to run on coal. He can simply issue an executive order banning EVs. If Congress can't stop him, and it's not illegal to do so, there go our cars.

We need Congress to take back its Article 1 powers and reinstitute our system of checks and balances again. Getting rid of all tariffs would be good too.

The Supreme Court has ruled that executive orders can only cover things Congress has not passed a law about. Obama was able to do the Dream Act executive order because Congress has debated the issue for decades but hasn't passed any laws. Congress made marijuana a class 1 drug by statute and it would be iffy to nullify that by executive order.

It is time that the old law be repealed, but that will probably take both houses of Congress held by Democrats as well as the White House.

This just flat out isn't true. The US was a hair's breath away from signing an agreement back in May, and the Chinese at the last moment sent over a revised document that stripped out the bulk of the meaningful points that the US wanted. There isn't a moving target here on what is wanted by the US, it's simply that the Chinese are doing everything that they can to not sign onto the changes in IP theft and technology transfer. They need American ingenuity, and they know it. They are GREAT at copying things, but horrible at original thinking to come up with innovative ideas themselves.

This is a bit hazy how the deal blew up. The claims the Chinese were trying to make the substantial last minute changes came from within the Trump administration and I don't trust them when they say its raining without independent verification. However it is possible the Chinese were trying to sneak through many changes at the last minute.

I guess a better way to phrase it is that Trump has a victory condition, but it's so unrealistic it will never happen. He wants to strike a deal with China that a) China will stick to, and b) will eliminate the trade deficit with China. Neither of those are realistic.

I do agree that the US system is one of the best in the world at developing new technologies and ground breaking science. The education system in China is far more focused on rote learning and there is little room for kids who are innovative. It stifles creativity. It's obviously not genetic (not that it would likely be that) because the US has a lot of very successful innovators of Chinese descent.

However, could a federal court find the ceding of tariff decisions by Congress to President Wilson as an emergency measure during World War I to have been unconstitutional? That act has never been rescinded.

In the early years of the republic, tariffs were the primary means for raising revenue. The writers of the Constitution insisted that revenue raising bills originate in the House of Representatives.

US Constitution:

Section 7
1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Specifically the law Congress passed was only to allow the president to impose tariffs for national defense like protect the steel industry so there would be one to build ships and tanks for the military. Trump has pushed that way too far, but the courts have been reluctant to get that deep in the weeds in defining what industries apply to national defense and what doesn't. Somehow I don't think cat toys made in China are a national defense issue.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Neodocjdg
Unfortunately, what Trump is doing sets a precedent that future presidents will follow. If Congress is divided as it is now, and can't muster the votes to override the president, and a judge can't find anything unconstitutional or illegal about the order, he has carte blanche to issue any executive orders that he wishes
Lots of ifs.

When businesses start hurting and Republican congressmen (yes, they are all mostly men) have to choose between donors and Trump … they will choose donors and override Trump. I also think the courts will probably step in and stop some of the executive action ...
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke
I was speaking culturally, not racially. And someone else has exactly explained why (the education system stifles creativity).

I really don't care if you believe me or not.
I've worked a lot with people educated in China and I don't see any kind of lack of creativity.

Your American "ingenuity" is based on the innovation and creativity of a lot of "cultures" with education systems which "stifle creativity".
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke
Status
Not open for further replies.