-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
JeffC
Member
Trade barriers are the opposite of free trade. Of course their trade barriers hurt trade in U.S. cars.
BTW the tariff on a very expensive car like a Model S in China is about 30% Tesla Sticker Shock in China Doesn't Tell the Full Story - Bloomberg Less expensive cars had tariffs in the 2 to 20% range U.S. prevails in WTO dispute with China over auto tariffs
Because China sells very few cars in the U.S., we would not have much leverage to push for more open car markets there at least if the trade barriers were based on similar products sold in each others' markets. e.g., cars for cars.
If the U.S. increases trade barriers with China or another country, the other country will generally raise more trade barriers against us in response. The result is usually even less trade between those countries, and higher prices on trade in both directions. This is very basic economics. Economists have understood it very well since Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
Last edited:
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
He is the perfect president to do something about the debt pile spiraling out of control.
Pro american manufacturing sounds great on paper for Tesla.
However my gut feeling is telling me that Trump will not be good for Tesla. Not sure what it is yet.
Pro american manufacturing sounds great on paper for Tesla.
However my gut feeling is telling me that Trump will not be good for Tesla. Not sure what it is yet.
JeffC
Member
Paul Ryan has been working on debt reform in a very serious way for a long time. So has John Kasich.
Trump claims to be for American manufacturing, but his policies of trade barriers would hurt it.
voyager
Active Member
According to the latest polls, Trump is already passed Hillary. Difficult to predict, he'll be good for the U.S. economy and employment, bad for free trade (and consequently stock markets), bad too for subsidizing any initiative that is meant to curb global warming. The balance might be more negative for Tesla than we'll all anticipate right now. Luckily, there's Congress. Here's Trump's stance on wind energy...
Last edited:
Predicting the outcome based on the polling in May is not very good.
Here are the polling in May of elections year past:
2012 - dead heat, Romney lost by 6
2008 - 2 major polls had McCain ahead, one had Obama ahead, Obama won by a healthy margin
2004 - dead heat, Bush won
2000 - No data in May, but in June Bush was way ahead, Bush won on a Supreme Court decision and lost the popular vote
1996 - Clinton had a comfortable lead and won by close to the same margin in the fall
1992 - Bill Clinton was in 3rd and he won in November
1988 - Dukakis was ahead by 16 points, but lost by 7
Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The super pacs haven't even started educating the American people about what a screwball Trump really is. There are GB of video of him saying contradictory things, saying things that more people find reprehensible, and tons of data on how poor a businessman he really is. I heard something from a Democratic opposition researcher who said what came out in the Republican primary was less than 10% of what they had already collected.
Demographics are also stacked against the Republicans as long as they cater to angry, older white voters. The white vote has been a decreasing percentage of the voter turnout for the last 50 years and it may decrease even more this year. Among ethnic groups Hispanics have the worst turnout, but this year the number of Hispanics who have registered to vote is on track to break records.
Overall the demographics are very bad for Trump:
Donald Trump will not be president: History, polling data and demographics all point to a single result
All that said, this is going to be a very weird and may be a difficult election to predict. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com who has an outstanding record predicting elections, didn't believe Trump could win the nomination, but it happened. He did an analysis of why he was wrong. He underestimated tribalism among Republicans among some other things.
We have a long ways to go until the election. Right now the American public sees a reality TV star who really isn't that well known by the public who aren't tuned into the political news (about 98%) vs a well known political figure from 20 years ago who has been consistently trashed by the right wing media and Republicans for all that time. It's no wonder they are close in the polls right now. We will be bombarded with ads over the next 6 months which will try to educate us about who these people are.
MSullivan
Member
Since we will all probably be a pile of radioactive dust I would say that is a negative for Tesla.
I was not talking about just cars though, there's many other things that they have high tariffs on and or are illegal to sell there. Even things they make for the US becaus they want to protect their market and their companies and their manufacturers and everybody just rolls over for them. Just look at the movie industry. They now own US movie studios and one of the biggest US movie theaters chains at the same time they've ban all but 30 foreign films and they have to be made in China or with Chinese actors or partially owned by chinese company and China friendly and say incorrect things about how Great China is if you want the movie shown there. Free trade can be good and all but there has to be a balance. For the most part company owners and Republicans use it as code to do whatever they want to make a buck. Whether it hurts the economy or people who cares they make money.
Lets not forget that EV1 was killed during GWB presidency. EV1 was discontinued in 2002 and in circa 2005 USA became the biggest ethanol producer in the world.
Under Republican president we can expect little protection of emerging alternative energy technologies. Also, we hear from Trump and other Republicans that that EPA impedes business and jobs growth. Softening pollution regulation will slow down investment in green technologies and make alternative energy less competitive.
Government can also stimulate growth through grants and loans. Republicans are against loans (Solyndra) while they are for oil subsidies.
For above reasons Clinton is better than Trump for green industry and Tesla.
If only army have embraced EV technology we would not need to worry who is going to be the President.
Under Republican president we can expect little protection of emerging alternative energy technologies. Also, we hear from Trump and other Republicans that that EPA impedes business and jobs growth. Softening pollution regulation will slow down investment in green technologies and make alternative energy less competitive.
Government can also stimulate growth through grants and loans. Republicans are against loans (Solyndra) while they are for oil subsidies.
For above reasons Clinton is better than Trump for green industry and Tesla.
If only army have embraced EV technology we would not need to worry who is going to be the President.
Last edited:
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
We're bring up all the likely names to "end debt problem" except for Mr Bill who gave us 2.5-4 surpluses.
So long as GDP growth stays on track Hillary should be able to work us back to surpluses with Ryan on day 1.
Maybe we didn't need 3 new destroyers for $12.5B?
So long as GDP growth stays on track Hillary should be able to work us back to surpluses with Ryan on day 1.
Maybe we didn't need 3 new destroyers for $12.5B?
GBleck
Member
I would think Trump would be bad for any company that doesn't have a massive pile of cash on hand and that is trying to grow with large capital requirements. Trump has made dangerous comments undermining the full strength and credit of the us treasuries department and the dollar. He could easily destroy the wold wide bond market and shut off the free flow of capital around the world. His threats to get into trade wars aren't great but his willingness to just declare bankruptcy on the us debt is worse.
Trying to avoid political statements:
Financial markets thrive on predictability, collapse on uncertainty.
Whether left or right governments hold power that holds true.
Mr Trump thrives on "flexible' positions and does not value consistency. Thus, he favors instability. That will be negative for any non-dividend paying security, most of all for fast growing speculative companies like Tesla. Tesla would lose capital access, probably fairly quickly.
In policy terms it is unclear whether he would favor a US company from California closely associated with a campaign to reduce contribution to global warming. Since Mr. Trump states that global warming is a hoax promoted by Chinese interests one can only assume he would be hostile to Tesla. Considering that the CEO is an immigrant from South Africa there might be other impediments also.
SpaceX and Solar City might also be quite volatile topics in a Trump Administration.
However, all that could change in a rapid about-face when considering that all three are bringing jobs to the US, advancing US industrial strength and competing with Chinese, Japanese and every other country active in all three areas. Mr Trump ought to love that. Clearly these three companies are "Making America Great Again"
Financial markets thrive on predictability, collapse on uncertainty.
Whether left or right governments hold power that holds true.
Mr Trump thrives on "flexible' positions and does not value consistency. Thus, he favors instability. That will be negative for any non-dividend paying security, most of all for fast growing speculative companies like Tesla. Tesla would lose capital access, probably fairly quickly.
In policy terms it is unclear whether he would favor a US company from California closely associated with a campaign to reduce contribution to global warming. Since Mr. Trump states that global warming is a hoax promoted by Chinese interests one can only assume he would be hostile to Tesla. Considering that the CEO is an immigrant from South Africa there might be other impediments also.
SpaceX and Solar City might also be quite volatile topics in a Trump Administration.
However, all that could change in a rapid about-face when considering that all three are bringing jobs to the US, advancing US industrial strength and competing with Chinese, Japanese and every other country active in all three areas. Mr Trump ought to love that. Clearly these three companies are "Making America Great Again"
JeffC
Member
The economy was good under Bill Clinton, but it was in large part due to Reagan's large tax cuts, and also due to Clinton and his Republican Congress not increasing spending and expanding the deficit. The Battle of the Decades; Reaganomics vs. Clintonomics Is a Central Issue in 2000
The effects of the tax cuts did not show up overnight. It took several years for their large effect to work their way through the economy.
JeffC
Member
In general, what makes America great is the entpreneurship of its people and the degree to which government doesn't interfere with or impede it. It's not clear that Trump understands that, if his many inconsistent and contradictory statements are taken at face value.
JeffC
Member
Trump confuses private defaults with public ones. If a private company goes bankrupt, it can renegotiate its debt in dollars. Same for a U.S. city or state that goes bankrupt. If a country like Argentina goes bankrupt it can revalue its debt referenced to U.S. dollars. America can't do that since the dollar is the main reserve currency used globally. If America effectively declares bankruptcy because it can't make interest payments on its ballooning debt, it would take the entire world economy down, since its money, the dollar, is the main global reserve currency, So no, Donald, America can't renegotiate its debt like a private company or smaller country can.
This is one of many things Trump appears to not understand, based on his own public statements.
(BTW the solution is to devalue the dollar, which we have been doing since abandoning the gold standard. It's the reason 5 cent candy now costs one dollar, why a car in the 1960s that cost a few thousand dollars now costs tens of thousands of dollars, why gold has gone from tens of dollars to over a thousand, etc. Those goods have not changed in value; the dollar is worth that much less. It's a way for America to cheat its debt holders such as China and Europe's holding of U.S. Treasury Bonds. We pay them back in cheaper, inflated, less valuable dollars. Other countries do the same thing. The losers are the people in those countries (i.e., basically everyone), who have their currency devalue through inflation. A dollar literally does not go as far as it used to because its worth less due to inflation.)
Last edited:
It’s complicated for sure but Reagan increased taxes, spending and government jobs. Like when Carly Fiorina ran HP into the ground with the Apple tie-in boondoggle and so on, she likes to tell people that she put changes in place before leaving and that’s why it got better after she left. Reagan fixed it all eight years after leaving office? Maybe, most likely not. Look where we were 7 years after Bill Clinton.
Free market? Yes. But you have to keep tabs on it somehow or you end up with banks and companies doing whatever they like and blowing up the economy and then getting a bailout.
JeffC
Member
Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending. Bill Clinton was not able to increase taxes or spending, which did help the economy. The tax cut was the key driver of economic growth through it all since it freed up more private capital (i.e., people kept and invested more of their own money) available for private enterprise, which is where new value in the economy comes from.
Banks that fail should go bankrupt. They should not get a bailout. Same with GM, etc.
Banks that fail should go bankrupt. They should not get a bailout. Same with GM, etc.
Last edited:
Again: It’s complicated for sure but Reagan increased taxes.
Like all administrations he did both but increased them more after realizing the shortfalls caused by cutting them in his first year.
JeffC
Member
Reagan cut tax rates a lot. Unless you're changing history... .
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After those two new laws, the tax rates were lower for most people.
Tax revenues increased a lot compared to Carter's recession due to Reagan's improving economy. The improving economy was a result of the lower taxes and streamlined regulations.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
