Economic, taxes, and tariffs discussion

[revo]

Give up on the "complete and total dysfunction of the Executive office." It may look chaotic, but it is not dysfunctional. The Trump administration has functioned quite well and has the results to prove it. It surprises even conservatives, eg: https://spectator.org/trump-the-best...idnt-vote-for/ I can understand how a Democrat or a liberal does not like the accomplishments, but they should be willing to acknowledge them if they are intellectually honest.

As the saying goes, he's not Dumb Donny, he's crazy like a fox. The stock market will be his friend in 2019 at least. A finance major knows that.

J

From Nouriel Roubini, one of the most respected economists on Wall Street:

"NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — Financial markets have finally awoken to the fact that Donald Trump is U.S. president. Given that the world has endured two years of reckless tweets and public statements by the world’s most powerful man, the obvious question is: what took so long?

For one thing, until now, investors had bought into the argument that Trump is all bark and no bite. They were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he pursued tax cuts, deregulation, and other policies beneficial to the corporate sector and shareholders. And many trusted that at the end of the day, the “adults in the room” would restrain Trump and ensure that the administration’s policies didn’t jump the guardrails of orthodoxy.

More than anything else, though, the sharp fall in U.S. and global equities during the last quarter is a response to Trump’s own utterances and actions. Even worse than the heightened risk of a full-scale trade war with China (despite the recent “truce” agreed with Chinese President Xi Jinping) are Trump’s public attacks on the Fed, which began as early as the spring of 2018, when the U.S. economy was growing at more than 4%.

But then came Trump’s decision to shut down large segments of the federal government over Congress’s refusal to fund his useless Mexican border wall. That sent markets into a near-panic, and the government shutdown was soon followed by reports that Trump wants to fire Powell — a move that could turn a correction into a crash. Just before the Christmas holiday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was forced to issue a public statement to placate the markets. He announced that Trump wasn’t planning to fire Powell after all, and that U.S. banks’ finances are sound, effectively highlighting the question of whether they really are.

Recent changes within the administration that do not necessarily affect economic policy-making are also rattling the markets. The impending departure of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis will leave the room devoid of adults. The coterie of economic nationalists and foreign-policy hawks who remain will cater to Trump’s every whim."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/roubini-president-trump-is-flirting-with-mutually-assured-economic-destruction-2018-12-28

Crazy like a fox my ass. You seem to think there's a method to his madness. The only method he has is ignore/fire his key advisers, find yes-men who won't get in his way, and make reckless spur of the moment decisions with ZERO thought given to any ramifications. This is well-documented, J. There's an extraordinary amount of known instances where advisers were caught off guard, or were totally blind-sided (most recent example: the Syria/Afghanistan decisions). Now there's just a series of Yes Men who will encourage his reckless Tweets and Lies at a risk of public humiliation and firing. But the market is no longer having any of it. That was very evident when he lied and/or greatly exaggerated the results of his meeting with Xi at G20. Once the market found out the truth, it plunged 1,000 points.

Why don't you understand this???

[DMT]

Because supporting and/or defending Trump requires suspension of disbelief.

[onejayhawk]

Because supporting and/or defending Trump requires suspension of disbelief.

Of course. One must be willing to look past the rhetoric and deal with facts, such as results. You disbelieve in Trump's efficacy, so you cannot see reality. Just this morning, there is an article looking back on 2018. You may not like some of the things he accomplished, but that's politics.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/30/trumps_top_10_achievements_of_2018_139046.html

J

[nullnor]

Of course. One must be willing to look past the rhetoric and deal with facts, such as results. You disbelieve in Trump's efficacy, so you cannot see reality. Just this morning, there is an article looking back on 2018. You may not like some of the things he accomplished, but that's politics.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/30/trumps_top_10_achievements_of_2018_139046.html

J

that's a better attempt than your list before.

surprisingly the writer didn't list one of his actual accomplishments getting a lot of conservatives or so-called 'Trump judges' appointed to the lower courts. i suppose we'll see how much sugarcoating it will take at the end to rate Trump's presidency.

[nullnor]

you want to read some top notch sugarcoating, read some of the stuff Ed Gillespie wrote for GW at the end of his 2nd term. it was brilliant.

[revo]

Apple plunges 8% after issuing revised revenue guidance that's vastly lower due to Trump's epic Trade War disaster and a slowdown in China also largely caused by tariffs. Wow, whoda thunk American companies would get slammed by higher tariffs? Not the stable genius! #thanksdonald



It also continues to amaze me that he's 100% tied his presidency to how the stock market is performing. It's almost as if he has no idea that the market is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator; nor does he understand that because of that fact, the "current economy" and the current stock market do not go hand-in-hand. Of course, I am extremely annoyed that the market, about the only good thing that's happened during his presidency, has been disastrous of late. What a putz.

[onejayhawk]

If he's tied to the stock market (not conceded) he's doing fine right now. Disastrous is a gross overstatement, for example. All the negative news has managed a correction which seems to be over.

I am surprised at the employment numbers. Labor participation took a beating over the last decade, but it's coming around (speaking of lagging indicators).

J

[revo]

If he's tied to the stock market (not conceded) he's doing fine right now. Disastrous is a gross overstatement, for example. All the negative news has managed a correction which seems to be over.

I am surprised at the employment numbers. Labor participation took a beating over the last decade, but it's coming around (speaking of lagging indicators).

J

Why do you say this? This quarter's earnings are going to be the first to show the impact of his Trade War disaster. Apple already took a pounding; Caterpillar and Cargill have warned that the epic Trade War disaster will affect their numbers; even Kevin Hassett, his chief economic officer, has warned many other companies will feel the impact of China and the epic Trade War disaster. You're just not getting it and have no backup for your "facts."

[onejayhawk]

I am tempted to wax sarcastic but I'll refrain. Only China, one country, is even arguably in a trade war with the US and it it is hardly a disaster. Sure, China-invested Apple took a hit--as expected. Is there a point to that? If there really were a trade war, Apple's massive China investment would now belong to China because they nationalized it.

Meanwhile the rest of the world goes on doing its thing. My 401(k) looks better this week. There's a fact for you.

J

[revo]

I am tempted to wax sarcastic but I'll refrain. Only China, one country, is even arguably in a trade war with the US and it it is hardly a disaster. Sure, China-invested Apple took a hit--as expected. Is there a point to that? If there really were a trade war, Apple's massive China investment would now belong to China because they nationalized it.

Meanwhile the rest of the world goes on doing its thing. My 401(k) looks better this week. There's a fact for you.

J

OK, discussing this with you is totally pointless. If you can't even acknowledge that there's a trade war with China, you're too far gone. Goodbye.

[onejayhawk]

OK, discussing this with you is totally pointless. If you can't even acknowledge that there's a trade war with China, you're too far gone. Goodbye.

Fine. I'll give you that there is a trade war with China--reservations not-withstanding--if you will agree that it is the only one.

BTW, since you claim there is a war, do you think China is winning? I don't think it's possible to make that case, but try if you want.

J

[nullnor]

China definitely seems to be annoyed by the trade war.

Taiwan i wonder how that all factors into it. that's the key really. that's where the last Chinese democracy went. can they make it back? it's like the war is still going on. how will China end up. it's all about Taiwan.

[onejayhawk]

China definitely seems to be annoyed by the trade war.

Taiwan i wonder how that all factors into it. that's the key really. that's where the last Chinese democracy went. can they make it back? it's like the war is still going on. how will China end up. it's all about Taiwan.

China is annoyed that we are finally calling foul to some of their predatory practices, particularly information theft. They have no copyright/patent system and refuse to abide by other rules even when it is in a treaty.

On an old subject, I saw this in the stack today. To give Obama his due, he got us back to Bush level employment. To give Trump his due, he pushed things to new levels.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-openings/more-u-s-regions-see-job-openings-outnumbering-jobless-idUSKCN1P20AP

[revo]

I agree with Nully -- China is annoyed. Their stock market is being affected, but at the same time, they still have a GDP that's about 6.0. They still have a president for life who has zero political pressure on him. They still are a communist government that can basically do whatever they want with little public issue. So are they "winning?" No one is winning. But they're not the ones who declared an economic war on a super-power with little to no plan. Trump has basically borrowed the Chinese strategy of the Korean War -- just overwhelm the enemy by using troops as cannon fodder. In this case, he's using small businesses as cannon fodder. Soybean sales to China were down a beyond-comprehension 94% from 2017 to 2018. Total agriculture sales to China were down a whopping 42% from 2017 to 2018. It's hard to say if those industries could EVER recover, because other countries have stepped right in to take our place, thank you very much.

The cracks are starting to show in other industries. Chancellor, where ever he is, argued that car companies are "changing strategies." That's just naive. Car sales in China have plummeted. If Obama declared a fiscal war on another country that destroyed business within an industry, Republicans would have been pounding on the White House door to evict him as fast as they could.

Is China doing things below board? Yes. Should it stop. Yes, especially trademark protections. I think everyone is in agreement there. But how can you argue against government subsidies when we're now doing it?? That's just plain dumb. And the tariffs are not the answer - -they're having almost no effect on companies moving jobs and production back to the US. But what they are doing is moving jobs and production to countries unaffected by tariffs, so Vietnam and Cambodia thank Donald Trump immensely.


And as far as the second part, the other "trade wars" have ceased, but the after-effects -- tariffs -- are still in place. So it's a ceasefire, but one that's still affecting US businesses. It's only a matter of time before they stop absorbing any tariff and start passing them along to the public.

[Judge Jude]

"On an old subject, I saw this in the stack today. To give Obama his due, he got us back to Bush level employment. To give Trump his due, he pushed things to new levels."

back in the 1700s, we fought for our independence from England - in large part because we didn't want one man, a king, having so much influence over us.

we succeeded. now no one man dictates our economy. but don't tell that to supporters of whomever is President when employment is high. they will swear to you that the King - er, President - made it happen. we have seamlessly shifted from how many "jobs Obama created" to how many "jobs Trump created" - with the majority of Americans only agreeing with one of those two inaccurate statements.

sigh.