larmor
Active Member
When Russia rejoins, it will be the G-7 again.... just sayin'
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion
- Thread starter FluxCap
- Start date
Given the targeting of the reciprocal tariffs, I wouldn't be completely surprised if some countries put tariffs on all US car imports except Tesla, or only on ICE cars. Of course, though, Germany wouldn't go for this, so the EU as a whole won't, but maybe other places?
sundaymorning
Active Member
Asian markets are trading in the positive today. Not much reaction to Trump’s usual tantrum....Putting tariffs on US cars are a bit challenging for other nations because the Us tariffs are much lower, while if we raise tarrifs it would put a big dent into imports from other countries. Tesla’s Model 3 will then dominate at home since a lot of Japanese cars are made in Canada. The luxury imports such as BMW Lexus Mercedes Audi’s will see an immediate rise of at least 10-15% in tariffs are reciprocal. Germany will be a big loser if his occurs.
Paracelsus
Active Member
On a slow news/posting day, here is some fascinating trig table news through the lens of rewriting history (poor Pythagorus):
Mathematical secrets of ancient tablet unlocked after nearly a century of study
Dating from 1,000 years before Pythagoras’s theorem, the Babylonian clay tablet is a trigonometric table more accurate than any today, say researchers
Mathematical secrets of ancient tablet unlocked after nearly a century of study
Mathematical secrets of ancient tablet unlocked after nearly a century of study
Dating from 1,000 years before Pythagoras’s theorem, the Babylonian clay tablet is a trigonometric table more accurate than any today, say researchers
Mathematical secrets of ancient tablet unlocked after nearly a century of study
Last edited:
It took a century to unlock this mystery?
They could have just asked the professor how it was used.
He was around back then, but he had a much younger woman.
Wasn't her name Mary?
Sorry, just amusing myself.
They could have just asked the professor how it was used.
He was around back then, but he had a much younger woman.
Wasn't her name Mary?
Sorry, just amusing myself.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Paracelsus
Active Member
I am hopeful she is making some sincere effort to please the US while the list of German auto industries and the scale of their violations that have unnecessarily poisoned the air in the US continues to grow without end in sight. In a more perfect world perhaps those industries would no longer be publicly traded in the US until all violations have been identified and properly corrected. But unrestrained capitalism usually stands at odds with a more perfect world.
The macro-political news is bound to affect the macro-markets tomorrow or the day after.
My best guess tomorrow's summit will be hailed a success by both participants regardless of meager real accomplishments. My best hope is at least a promise to work toward a peace treaty. "Our" president is in place, at least for the moment. Kim needs a success to survive, a matter of life or death, and Trump's PR meter needs a success to balance the disaster, from the rest of the world's position, save Putin.
On the latter, a NYT analysis is useful on several grounds. Our Canadian TMCers will welcome the dissemination of facts about their country after the Canadian G6.5, compliments to the intelligence and background of their Foreign Secretary, Freeland, and a warning about Hitler and Trump's not so secret political mojo apparently lifted from Madelaine Albright's recent book, which we should all heed. Last, but not least is a nagging question Kim must have as well as we.
First Canada Tried to Charm Trump. Now It’s Fighting Back.
Lifted from the end:
"Freeland said she had recently come across a 'terrifying' quote from Adolf Hitler, explaining his rise to power in Germany in a time of economic uncertainty and grievance. 'I will tell you what has carried me to the position I have reached,' Hitler had said. 'Our political problems appeared complicated. The German people could make nothing of them. ... I, on the other hand ... reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realized this and followed me.'
"She leaned forward, a look of concern in her eyes. 'How do you attract voters and public support compared with the flashiness of exciting, chaotic, fact-ignoring populism?' she asked. 'The reason Hitler won was because all of the other politicians were giving complicated and difficult explanations about difficult things. Hitler just told people simple things that they wanted to hear.'
……………….
“ 'Worthwhile Canadian Initiative’ can seem so boring,' Freeland said. Decades ago, at the dawn of Nafta, it was easy to ridicule the earnestness of 'worthwhile' Canadian ideals like free trade, a rules-based international order and the strategic importance of United States-Canada relations. But now a bewildering and belligerent new reality seemed to have dawned, one that inspired a final question for Freeland. It was a question that not so long ago would have seemed unthinkable to have to ask: If Canada can’t rely on the United States, then what country can?
"She considered for a moment before replying, speaking slowly, cautiously, but with resolve. 'Americans should be asking themselves that,' she said. 'It’s a good question.'”
I join with right thinking citizens of the U.S. in apologizing for our President. As you know better than we, all of us suffer from the consequences of such behavior. We shall see if the tides of November begin to overcome the delusions of our angry fellows.
My best guess tomorrow's summit will be hailed a success by both participants regardless of meager real accomplishments. My best hope is at least a promise to work toward a peace treaty. "Our" president is in place, at least for the moment. Kim needs a success to survive, a matter of life or death, and Trump's PR meter needs a success to balance the disaster, from the rest of the world's position, save Putin.
On the latter, a NYT analysis is useful on several grounds. Our Canadian TMCers will welcome the dissemination of facts about their country after the Canadian G6.5, compliments to the intelligence and background of their Foreign Secretary, Freeland, and a warning about Hitler and Trump's not so secret political mojo apparently lifted from Madelaine Albright's recent book, which we should all heed. Last, but not least is a nagging question Kim must have as well as we.
First Canada Tried to Charm Trump. Now It’s Fighting Back.
Lifted from the end:
"Freeland said she had recently come across a 'terrifying' quote from Adolf Hitler, explaining his rise to power in Germany in a time of economic uncertainty and grievance. 'I will tell you what has carried me to the position I have reached,' Hitler had said. 'Our political problems appeared complicated. The German people could make nothing of them. ... I, on the other hand ... reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realized this and followed me.'
"She leaned forward, a look of concern in her eyes. 'How do you attract voters and public support compared with the flashiness of exciting, chaotic, fact-ignoring populism?' she asked. 'The reason Hitler won was because all of the other politicians were giving complicated and difficult explanations about difficult things. Hitler just told people simple things that they wanted to hear.'
……………….
“ 'Worthwhile Canadian Initiative’ can seem so boring,' Freeland said. Decades ago, at the dawn of Nafta, it was easy to ridicule the earnestness of 'worthwhile' Canadian ideals like free trade, a rules-based international order and the strategic importance of United States-Canada relations. But now a bewildering and belligerent new reality seemed to have dawned, one that inspired a final question for Freeland. It was a question that not so long ago would have seemed unthinkable to have to ask: If Canada can’t rely on the United States, then what country can?
"She considered for a moment before replying, speaking slowly, cautiously, but with resolve. 'Americans should be asking themselves that,' she said. 'It’s a good question.'”
I join with right thinking citizens of the U.S. in apologizing for our President. As you know better than we, all of us suffer from the consequences of such behavior. We shall see if the tides of November begin to overcome the delusions of our angry fellows.
Trump will blame a loss at the polls in November on the "illegal Canadians voting here." Of course I expect to be deported along with other supporters of Bernie and other "air huggers" here.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Looks like the meeting with N Korea is going well:
Trump tells Kim 'we'll have tremendous success together'
Trump tells Kim 'we'll have tremendous success together'
If we were to utilize the tool in diplomacy we have in science, the process of symmetry, we could conclude there are many more reasons why weak Leninist regimes should mistrust the West and particularly the United States. We are not very good at assessing our enemies' strengths and weaknesses and as a result, thus all too often look for enemies from within the U.S. Without self-examination we thus fail to learn lessons for success the next time.
Some notable illustrations and then our current pattern in the news.
The first wave of the Nixon/McCarthy era was opprobrium heaped upon the Democrats because they "lost" China, attacks on Truman for stopping McArthur's quest for war with that nation to right that wrong, and rape of the State Department infidels who accurately reported the weakness of the Chiang-Kai Shek regime in the first Nixon/McCarthy era. At least on one occasion Lyndon Johnson admitted his own fears of similar retaliation explained his war policy. "I don't want to go down as another president who lost a country to communism." Later Nixon could rat on himself and McCarthy and take credit for the opening to China and Kissinger could refuse his Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Vietnam War with "peace with honor" after sacrificing unnecessarily 10,000 or so additional American lives along with perhaps ten times more of the "enemy." Hence Truman's decision decision to hand over Indo-China to French administration (expecting a stronger NATO) achieved nothing positive, not even a militarily stronger NATO. But weak men capable of asserting lethal military force on others in distant lands could sleep peacefully at night.
Leaving aside the little known hostility of all American administrations until FDR's, our relations with the USSR were in conflict even before the Pearl Harbor attack. Churchill and Roosevelt at their Argentia meeting resolved not to pursue the coming war for territorial reward, a mistake of World War I. This came into immediate conflict with Russia which demanded and eventually got a territorial concessions in Eastern Europe after hostilities ceased that were promised at Yalta. The Pentagon was under such pressure from the Russians who were desperate at the time, that FDR promised the opening of a second front in Europe proper in 1942. So Russia, dropped its demands until the successful Stalingrad campaign. General Marshall later said that was a "projection" not a promise. As a pragmatist, Stalin probably knew better though he publicly and on many occasions bitterly resented FDR's concessions to Churchill and our focus on the Far East. (He knew of the dangers of a two front war; but also that we had more landing craft in that theater than Europe in preparation for D Day. Strategically, in these cases our Joint Chiefs of Staff argued Operation Overlord, the cross-Channel attack, would be postponed because of Churchill's pressure in favor of the African campaign, then the attack of Sicily, and then attack of Italy where we really had very rough fighting. Stalin complained that permitted Hitler to move divisions to the Eastern front.)
In order to save American lives yet protect American interests in Asia, FDR had little choice. By Stalingrad Russia was going to end the war in a much more strategically advantaged position. (Not forgetting, of course, Russia received great material and financial support from the U.S.) My colleague, a U.S. diplomatic historian, faults Roosevelt for not preparing the American people for this result in the post war period. Consequently, the wave of Republican blame had a European focus as well.
Back to Korea
What does this have to do with the news of the day? We all should agree any progress in resolving the Korean War should be applauded. Nonetheless, the U.S. media and Democratic foreign policy leaders, like Leon Panetta, are worried Trump gave too much to Kim by calling off the usual joint exercises with South Korea (and I guess Japan as well) in favor of "vague promises" of nuclear disarmament. We already see stiffening of the military-industrial complex here and the pressure on President Moon must be strong in the south. Abe as well, but that's just a WAG. As noted by many, there are far fewer reasons to trust Trump than Kim's "vague promise." I firmly believe he must comply as needed. But the contrast with Obama's achievement in Iran and Trump's policies there should be screaming calls of alarm for anyone with a whiff of symmetrical thinking. As they blaspheme of the Good Lord, "with one hand he giveth, and with the other, he taketh away."
Some notable illustrations and then our current pattern in the news.
The first wave of the Nixon/McCarthy era was opprobrium heaped upon the Democrats because they "lost" China, attacks on Truman for stopping McArthur's quest for war with that nation to right that wrong, and rape of the State Department infidels who accurately reported the weakness of the Chiang-Kai Shek regime in the first Nixon/McCarthy era. At least on one occasion Lyndon Johnson admitted his own fears of similar retaliation explained his war policy. "I don't want to go down as another president who lost a country to communism." Later Nixon could rat on himself and McCarthy and take credit for the opening to China and Kissinger could refuse his Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Vietnam War with "peace with honor" after sacrificing unnecessarily 10,000 or so additional American lives along with perhaps ten times more of the "enemy." Hence Truman's decision decision to hand over Indo-China to French administration (expecting a stronger NATO) achieved nothing positive, not even a militarily stronger NATO. But weak men capable of asserting lethal military force on others in distant lands could sleep peacefully at night.
Leaving aside the little known hostility of all American administrations until FDR's, our relations with the USSR were in conflict even before the Pearl Harbor attack. Churchill and Roosevelt at their Argentia meeting resolved not to pursue the coming war for territorial reward, a mistake of World War I. This came into immediate conflict with Russia which demanded and eventually got a territorial concessions in Eastern Europe after hostilities ceased that were promised at Yalta. The Pentagon was under such pressure from the Russians who were desperate at the time, that FDR promised the opening of a second front in Europe proper in 1942. So Russia, dropped its demands until the successful Stalingrad campaign. General Marshall later said that was a "projection" not a promise. As a pragmatist, Stalin probably knew better though he publicly and on many occasions bitterly resented FDR's concessions to Churchill and our focus on the Far East. (He knew of the dangers of a two front war; but also that we had more landing craft in that theater than Europe in preparation for D Day. Strategically, in these cases our Joint Chiefs of Staff argued Operation Overlord, the cross-Channel attack, would be postponed because of Churchill's pressure in favor of the African campaign, then the attack of Sicily, and then attack of Italy where we really had very rough fighting. Stalin complained that permitted Hitler to move divisions to the Eastern front.)
In order to save American lives yet protect American interests in Asia, FDR had little choice. By Stalingrad Russia was going to end the war in a much more strategically advantaged position. (Not forgetting, of course, Russia received great material and financial support from the U.S.) My colleague, a U.S. diplomatic historian, faults Roosevelt for not preparing the American people for this result in the post war period. Consequently, the wave of Republican blame had a European focus as well.
Back to Korea
What does this have to do with the news of the day? We all should agree any progress in resolving the Korean War should be applauded. Nonetheless, the U.S. media and Democratic foreign policy leaders, like Leon Panetta, are worried Trump gave too much to Kim by calling off the usual joint exercises with South Korea (and I guess Japan as well) in favor of "vague promises" of nuclear disarmament. We already see stiffening of the military-industrial complex here and the pressure on President Moon must be strong in the south. Abe as well, but that's just a WAG. As noted by many, there are far fewer reasons to trust Trump than Kim's "vague promise." I firmly believe he must comply as needed. But the contrast with Obama's achievement in Iran and Trump's policies there should be screaming calls of alarm for anyone with a whiff of symmetrical thinking. As they blaspheme of the Good Lord, "with one hand he giveth, and with the other, he taketh away."
In frustration at repeated efforts to destroy agreements at cooperation with the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan once remarked: "There are two ways to go through a door. One is by opening it first." Trump has now opened the door for change in Korea. That should be the constant focus and all hands should be on deck to make it happen. Unfortunately there are early signs of fear that peace might break out.
Having viewed but a portion of our media's response to Trump's hopes for a benign settlement in Korea, it appears the "lame stream" media is following the lead of Democratic leaders in Congress. I certainly hope Dems up for election in November will stay away from this issue and focus only on economics or the prospects for peace.
I'm too lazy to retrieve it, but there is a great quote from John Quincy Adams on foreign policy where he argues among other advices, to change the world by the example of our own successes at home. The Soviets used to mock us on human economic rights, to no avail because economic democracy might mean higher wages for workers.
We faced the issue of illegitimate regimes early on in the case of the French Revolution and Jefferson's wise council on the test we should use to recognize a government. It became known as the de facto test for recognition, dependent only on who was in control of the territory. That changed in Woodrow Wilson's pious assertion called the de jure test and subsequently. Which means in practice we can judge the quality of the regime. For example, in Raymond Robbins' phrase, "Wilson sent our military into Mexico to teach them to elect good men."
I subscribe to and was informed by one of the greats of the realist school of foreign policy. Though one can have human concern for tragedies elsewhere, in equal measure that should be for those at home, where we can do something about them. In foreign policy expediency is the only moral concern and, by and large we are ill-equipped to judge others and underserved by a moralistic foreign policy. Many Christian proverbs come to mind about throwing stones or motes and beams in eyes. reflecting real morality, not just moralistic wishes. In addition I like the notion from Buddha, "everything is changing, so are you." The world is changing and my concern is we are not responding properly. Maybe Marx is right: "Tradition lies like a massive alp on the brain of the living," but I don't like it.
What does this have to do with the economy? Rather than modernize our nuclear weaponry, when only so few can humble our president into a mood for peace, how much would that savings do toward free college for everyone? At least a down payment. The multiplier for investing in something useful for a lifetime is much more than the expense of something which can never be used. Kim has got it, we hope. Moon certainly has, but the big Dems have not. Peace is bound to have an effect on the market, eventually, should we survive that long.
Meanwhile our favorite stock seemed very strong today, and with relatively high volume is up fractionally in aftermarket. Yeah TSLA!
Having viewed but a portion of our media's response to Trump's hopes for a benign settlement in Korea, it appears the "lame stream" media is following the lead of Democratic leaders in Congress. I certainly hope Dems up for election in November will stay away from this issue and focus only on economics or the prospects for peace.
I'm too lazy to retrieve it, but there is a great quote from John Quincy Adams on foreign policy where he argues among other advices, to change the world by the example of our own successes at home. The Soviets used to mock us on human economic rights, to no avail because economic democracy might mean higher wages for workers.
We faced the issue of illegitimate regimes early on in the case of the French Revolution and Jefferson's wise council on the test we should use to recognize a government. It became known as the de facto test for recognition, dependent only on who was in control of the territory. That changed in Woodrow Wilson's pious assertion called the de jure test and subsequently. Which means in practice we can judge the quality of the regime. For example, in Raymond Robbins' phrase, "Wilson sent our military into Mexico to teach them to elect good men."
I subscribe to and was informed by one of the greats of the realist school of foreign policy. Though one can have human concern for tragedies elsewhere, in equal measure that should be for those at home, where we can do something about them. In foreign policy expediency is the only moral concern and, by and large we are ill-equipped to judge others and underserved by a moralistic foreign policy. Many Christian proverbs come to mind about throwing stones or motes and beams in eyes. reflecting real morality, not just moralistic wishes. In addition I like the notion from Buddha, "everything is changing, so are you." The world is changing and my concern is we are not responding properly. Maybe Marx is right: "Tradition lies like a massive alp on the brain of the living," but I don't like it.
What does this have to do with the economy? Rather than modernize our nuclear weaponry, when only so few can humble our president into a mood for peace, how much would that savings do toward free college for everyone? At least a down payment. The multiplier for investing in something useful for a lifetime is much more than the expense of something which can never be used. Kim has got it, we hope. Moon certainly has, but the big Dems have not. Peace is bound to have an effect on the market, eventually, should we survive that long.
Meanwhile our favorite stock seemed very strong today, and with relatively high volume is up fractionally in aftermarket. Yeah TSLA!
Last edited:
In the summer of 1945 ex-President Herbert Hoover advised sitting President Harry Truman not to drop the atomic bomb, but rather let Japan keep its emperor and Korea which it already had long before the war. Hoover was convinced these were face saving gestures that would immediately end the war on the rest of America’s terms.
In hindsight, that would have meant no Korean War in the early fifties, and no North Korea problem today.
In hindsight, that would have meant no Korean War in the early fifties, and no North Korea problem today.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Let's not forget that Kim is a madman and we can't trust him as far as we can throw him. I don't think "peace" with N. Korea will trigger much downsizing of our military as long as he is still leading that country.
Last edited:
Agreed, but not my point. I don't expect our military budget to go down, but modernizing the nukes which, of course, Obama started. For real traditional security that could be better spent on counter insurgency.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Please elaborate, I don't understand the logic underlying your post. (Probably clouded by different sources of information as well.)
I think PMS Blacket got it right in 1949. We dropped the bombs on Japan and subsequently held them in no less than Stimson's phrase, "like pistols on a cowboy's belt to keep the Russians in heel." If I recall correctly, Stimson's warning came as the Secretary of War advised Truman at Potsdam when they discussed whether to inform Stalin of the Alamagordo success. Stalin, we now know, turned to Zhukov and said "we'll have to tell Kurchatov to hurry up." Scholars mark the origins of Kurchatov's atomic bomb project to 1941 or earlier when a physics student noted there were no articles on high energy physics in Western journals. (Stimson had earlier scuttled the plan to target Kyoto first.)
Textbooks on international relations call this "the security dilemma," when an arms innovation is matched by an adversary, justifying its inception and simultaneously encouraging imitation by the adversary. The same thing happened again when our first thermonuclear device's explosion proved to Sakharov, the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, that the concept worked. (Scientific American article by Herbert York.) The dilemma is a positive feedback mechanism, as we can hope will be the case in the instant news of opening the door to Korean negotiations of substance.
A brief description of Blackett's book. (He won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1948.)
Review on JSTOR
I think it is pretty obvious why our excessive nuclear arsenals exist. In Churchill's phrase, it is a race "to see how high the rubble bounces." It was fairly clear during the Nuclear Freeze initiative campaigns that the arms race was really a competition between our laboratories and Russia's.
I am relishing I.P.’s insights here regarding the USSR’s experience from the 1940s on.
From my perspective as a student of Japanese history and society, Stimson comes across as a cultural hero: it was he who successfully sheltered the historically and culturally magnificent - and fairly military insignificant - city of Kyoto throughout the US aerial bombardment of Japan, beginning with the Doolittle raids of Tokyo and, of course, ending with Nagasaki in August of 1945.
Regarding the Soviet Union, the little I have to contribute is something I heard Sec’y of State Madeleine Albright share at a lecture, as one of those compulsory introductory humorous vignettes. Hope I remember the Russian counterpart correctly.
Apparently, eventual Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko was the point man for negotiations with the US during the Lend-Lease operations between the US and our WWII allies, UK and USSR. Materiele was not getting through from our transport vessels at the port of Murmansk to the front lines. (Wish I could remember who represented the US. Dulles???? Stimson???? Let’s use Stimson’s name.)
Gromyko: “You’re behind in your shipments!”
Stimson: “You’re behind in your acceptances!!”
Gromyko: “We’re not talking of my behind but your behind!”
Gotta go. We got 4” of the heaviest slop-concrete snow yesterday. June 12th! I’m behind!!!
From my perspective as a student of Japanese history and society, Stimson comes across as a cultural hero: it was he who successfully sheltered the historically and culturally magnificent - and fairly military insignificant - city of Kyoto throughout the US aerial bombardment of Japan, beginning with the Doolittle raids of Tokyo and, of course, ending with Nagasaki in August of 1945.
Regarding the Soviet Union, the little I have to contribute is something I heard Sec’y of State Madeleine Albright share at a lecture, as one of those compulsory introductory humorous vignettes. Hope I remember the Russian counterpart correctly.
Apparently, eventual Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko was the point man for negotiations with the US during the Lend-Lease operations between the US and our WWII allies, UK and USSR. Materiele was not getting through from our transport vessels at the port of Murmansk to the front lines. (Wish I could remember who represented the US. Dulles???? Stimson???? Let’s use Stimson’s name.)
Gromyko: “You’re behind in your shipments!”
Stimson: “You’re behind in your acceptances!!”
Gromyko: “We’re not talking of my behind but your behind!”
Gotta go. We got 4” of the heaviest slop-concrete snow yesterday. June 12th! I’m behind!!!
Agreed. Stimson was a true mensch. Unless he occupied a lower position than Secretary of State, it wasn't Dulles who dealt with Gromyko. Cordell Hull was at State then.
In Sacramento we're getting the first highs of summer, 99 and maybe more two days in a row, then down to high eighties before the farenheits up. My wife still wants to see it 'snoring' in our mountains here. Maybe someday.
In Sacramento we're getting the first highs of summer, 99 and maybe more two days in a row, then down to high eighties before the farenheits up. My wife still wants to see it 'snoring' in our mountains here. Maybe someday.
Similar threads
