Do you really think that it is a good idea (from investor's perspective) to involve TSLA in political statements while the US public (and potential customer base) is split in half?
I'm no expert, but I believe most large companies are opposed to the tariff war. Apparently their CEOs agree a trade war is not helpful, negotiations for collective benefit, on the other hand, are. I could be wrong but I believe the Chinese opening bid included negotiations on all outstanding issues including intellectual property rights. But in his superior wisdom, the Donald believes a lot of huffing and puffing has to occur first before the other side pleads "uncle." The Chinese then realized he was not a serious person. Ask the Brits, French, Germans, and Canada about this. Look at NAFTA, the name has changed, but the terms of the new accord? Meanwhile, how much have investors lost because our current prez worried about his precious bodily fluids?
You're right about the public split on Trump. Silver's aggregate of the polls estimate is something like 53.8% disapprove to 41.1% approve. On policies, its more like a 7 to 3 ranking in favor of almost every progressive issue. One of Robert Dahl's famous categories to rate democracies is high on the probability the public's preferences are likely to be implemented. Of traditionally wealthy countries I suspect we rank at the bottom on this score, a tribute to the founders' fear of democracy.
I would agree that there is a very great deal wrong with what the experts have told us about foreign policy and a host of naive presidents who have implemented it. Those policies go way back and were worst when we took the position of "our way or the highway" as gut is substituted for intelligence. One great example, the Baruch Plan on nuclear weapons under Truman called for international control of weapons and technology, but only after the Soviet Union had agreed to it. Truman was not interested in negotiating as an equal in getting there. Conservative governments in Israel do the same, agree to the end result, then we will negotiate how to get there. The relative success of Bush I's Gulf War had many features, but among the best, a collective effort with relevant allies. Contrast that with his son's, strike that, Dick Cheney's approach. When he found out State had convened a panel of experts to plan for the aftermath of the war, he stopped it forthwith out of fear the problems might lead to a more cautious approach at getting into it.
As my teachers said we almost never made a mistake in foreign policy until the Spanish American War and on. As a weak power we had to think carefully about what we did or didn't do. Let's you and him fight is a good strategy under such conditions. That's why when it became clear the British superpower would enforce it, Madison declared Latin America off limits for further imperialism. Except, of course, for economic imperialism by the U.S. When necessary we have not been shy about using the marines to enforce it. (They occupied Nicaragua for fifteen years for God's sake!)
And today in domestic policy the Government remains closed, its employees and ultimate employers, the people, remain hostage to a bullying president. To Nancy: "OK, suppose I agree to open the government for negotiations on the wall to proceed, in February do you guarantee the negotiations will lead to the solution I propose now on a wall?" "No." "Then I'll leave because you can't guarantee what I want at the beginning."
What a shiney wonderful thing is a veto power in the hands of a bully. Wait until I have a nuclear crisis with Korea or Russia, or Germany. We fought on Hitler's side then, or did he correct that, or is that a slip by one of his advisors?
Edit: George Kennan who was always frustrated by our Soviet policy used to say of negotiations: "There are two ways to get people to go through a door. One is by opening it." The real Nobel Peace Prize winners will be Kim and Moon when they announce their peace treaty.
