Team Trump’s actions toward the PRC are becoming more aggressive.
Mike Pompeo’s blistering condemnation of China’s past actions on this 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre[1] — and China’s double-barreled retort — highlight a steadily deteriorating relationship between the US and China. It’s occasionally belied by the “Xi is my bestest friend (after Kim!)” rhetoric from the President but, coupled with the escalating trade war and tensions in the South China Sea, it’s more than a little ominous.
With this President, though, one always has to wonder. Would these storm clouds disappear if China satisfied Trump on something flashy, like trade? Or, conversely, is it setting up Trump to be the Great Hero against the Chinese Menace (since support for his escalating tariffs and and their economic disruption is tepid at best)?
In other words, how much of this is driven by authentic resistance to actual deplorable behavior by China — on human rights, on maritime law, on economic issues — and how much is a convenient excuse to beat the war drums (against yet another nation) so as to rally the country just in time for a presidential election …?
We will, doubtless, find out in the coming several months.
Trump has decided that fear-mongering about socialism is his path to the White House in 2020.
The question is not *whether* we will be a "socialist" nation, but how much and in what areas. (Ditto for "capitalist".) This is not a binary decision, dog-whistles notwithstanding. https://t.co/uYmK0GeguZ
The question is not *whether* we will be a “socialist” nation, but how much and in what areas. (Ditto for “capitalist”.) This is not a binary decision, dog-whistles notwithstanding. https://t.co/uYmK0GeguZ
We are not a capitalist country. We do not have a free-wheeling free-market economy. We do not live in a Hobbesian war of all-against-all, Dickensian workshop, Ayn Randian anarchy. Indeed, most people reject Scrooge’s idea of a capitalist ideal for those who don’t succeed:
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
We do have, in the United States, what are properly deemed socialist institutions. We have Social Security Insurance for the elderly, and Medicare and Medicaid for the poor and aged and disabled. We help poor people heat their homes in the winter. We have public-built roads, and police and fire-fighting forces that have their costs divided up amongst the whole population, not just those who explicitly call on them. We have national (and state, and local) parks, not just private preserves for those who own them. We have regulations about pollution, and about safe food, and proven drugs; about overtime pay and child labor and a five day work week; about requiring lenders to tell you the truth with some degree of clarity when you borrow money. We have tax incentives for public policy ends, some of them to support individuals, some of them to support businesses. We provide support to farmers to help them deal with wide-swinging fortunes in commodity prices and the weather.
Those are all “socialist” ideas — and many of them were attacked as dire deep-red socialism when proposed, threatening the moral fiber of freedom in our country when they were passed.
That said, we are not a socialist country, either — at least not in the state-controlled-economy Stalinist-Communist model, which is what the anti-socialist commentators condemn. Supply and demand largely control the economy. People can start (and end) businesses. People purchase goods and services almost solely from privately owned companies and corporations that are “public” only insofar as their stock is sold to the public. People can spend their money pretty much as they prefer, and pass on much of their wealth to their children (or to their cats, or to a charity of their choice).
There are no Democratic candidates who are proposing the sort of Stalinist/Maoist collectivist state as their ideal — even the stereotype of Bernie in his wildest dreams.
But that’s not what you hear from Trump and the GOP. From their perspective, the entire Democratic field consists of Levellers and people who want to tax everyone at 100% and allocate money out to everyone on an even basis, regardless of whether they are patriotic “maker” entrepreneurs or lazy “taker” welfare queens.
One could have a serious discussion about individual policy proposals — Medicare for All, Tuition-free College, Child Care subsidies for working parents, whatever — looking at the pros and cons of their goals, the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. Heck, one could have a considered relitigation of those socialist programs and policies already in our society.
But instead, the Right is pivoting Red-baiting mode, coloring any sort of “socialist” proposal as hurtling down Perdition Road toward a Venezuela or Cuba or Soviet Union. (If pressed, they’ll also condemn “Euro-Socialism” as a terrible evil, no matter how happy the people of the more socialist states in Europe poll as being.)
Ideally, as I said, we would debate individual proposals and policy points. Apparently Trump has decided — and the GOP have agreed to follow — the concept that anything done for the common good is some sort of crazed communistic “socialism,” and therefore should be painted as a horrifying evil. The goal of the Democratic candidate in 2020 — and of the party in general — has to be to note those areas where we already have “socialism” in what we as citizens accept as normal and beneficial, and clarify that the discussion should not be about facile philosophical labels, but about specifics as to what people do or don’t want, and the costs and benefits of pursuing that.
“Capitalism” and “Socialism” are neither necessarily contradictory, nor are they a binary choice of all-of-one or all-of-another. Making that clear is the best messaging that Democratic politicians could put forward, in opposition to the scaremongering already coming from the Trump campaign.
The idea of cashless stores that only support plastic and other non-cash ways of paying is, for me, not a problem. I only pay cash when forced to; being forced to keep a supply of cash for various purposes is, for me, a PitA. It’s far easier just to swipe and be done with it, paying my bill at the end of the month.
In my privilege, I never considered that such a shop might be a problem for the not-insubstantial number of poor people who don’t havecredit cards, or for whom the charges on a debit card are significant.
At least not until I read about cities that are beginning to ban such arrangements, and why. Which, on reflection, makes a lot of sense, at least as long as we’re a society where some people have to use cash.
Yes, Ivanka — AND people want to get a livable wage for what they work. The transaction goes both ways, remarkably enough. What makes you think someone working a minimum wage job isn't working enough to warrant that amount, or more? https://t.co/ONTzuR8iUg
Yes, Ivanka — AND people want to get a livable wage for what they work. The transaction goes both ways, remarkably enough. What makes you think someone working a minimum wage job isn’t working enough to warrant that amount, or more? https://t.co/ONTzuR8iUg
Oh, wait. They don’t seem to be touting how incredibly cool it is that the deficit grew 32% to $895 billion, even during such “incredible” economic times. (Emphasis mine).
The nonpartisan CBO reported that the central drivers of the increasing deficit were the Republican tax law and the bipartisan agreement to increase spending. As a result, revenue only rose 1 percent, failing to keep up with a 7 percent surge in spending, it added. Revenue from individual and payroll taxes was up some $105 billion, or 4 percent, while corporate taxes fell $71 billion, or 30 percent.
Part of that “bipartisan” budget was an additional $94 billion in Pentagon spending (reaching over $700 billion).
It’s amazing — knowingly spend more more than you bring in and your debt skyrockets. The Republican party once seemed to know that, and even campaigned on it (even if Reagan did much the same thing in his day).
Federal deficit soars 32 percent to $895B
The federal deficit hit $895 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal 2018, an increase of $222 billion, or 32 percent, over the same period the previous year,
(a) He doesn’t know about the internet and the ability to fact-check the things he tweets.
(b) He’s getting senile.
(c) He’s a compulsive liar.
(d) He’s hearing crazy stuff on Fox News and then mangling it in the retelling.
(e) He doesn’t care if anyone knows he’s lying because his True Believers will support him no matter what.
There are a lot of people who will tell you that the US has always been a pro-US corporation bully; if so, Trump is stripping away any pretense to being anything else.
I mean, threatening third world countries with economic sanctions, treating to cut World Health Organization funding, if WHO passed a resolution supporting breast feeding rather than formula feeding?
The US will be a century trying to live down what this President (who was almost certainly a bottle baby) has done in less than two years.
When you bump up tariffs, and other countries bump up tariffs in response, guess what happens?
Stuff that’s imported or relies on imported materials gets more expensive for American consumers.
American businesses that rely on exports — and the American states that rely on tax income from them — lose bigly.
The American Bourbon industry — and, pretty much, all American distilled spirits — just got shivved by Donald Trump. But, hey, at least he gets to look tough, and that’s the important thing, right?
Fun fact: In 1971 Richard Nixon triggered a trade dispute with Canada. He called the Canadian PM an "asshole" and a "son of a bitch". The Canadian said "I have been called worse things by better men".
The most generous and charitable interpretation I have here is that Donald felt he had to do something to stand tall and bold as he goes to visit his new bestie, Kim, and he just did it with that ham-handed, narcissistic flare that we’ve all come to know and cringe at.
Or we can go back to the interpretation of our Diplomat-in-Chief that he has no concept of “win-win” — that everything is a zero sum game where there is a winner and a loser, and compromise is the mark of a loser, so if he (and he alone) is not the clear winner, then he’s being made the loser.
Is the US strong enough to kick the EU, Canada, Japan, and, heck, let’s add Mexico (for NAFTA), and China (who Trump is separately trying to foment a trade war with) to the curb and still survive?
Maybe. We’re still a top-notch economy, even the top-notch economy. We could probably hurt any of them, even all of them, more than we’re hurt.
But we’ll be hurt. We’ll be badly hurt. Lost jobs that rely on imports. Lost jobs that rely on exports. Resources that have to be brought in from overseas. Huge hikes in labor rates. Increased cost of everything.
And that’s just in this country. Because even if we do “win,” the economies of all those other countries tank, which not only means a hella human suffering (yes, folk, even furriners can suffer, including people living in nations with marginal economies that will be hit even harder by a worldwide depression, let alone the beneficiaries of all the charitable / human aid work done by the wealthy countries that won’t be able to afford it any more), but a lot of wealth held by Americans will evaporate, too.
And if we get all of them working against us … well, Donald won’t care, because he’s set for life (in theory), or isn’t likely to live another twenty years. We, and our children, will be living a lot longer, and it won’t be pretty.
I mean it. The consequences of a gooftastic Donald Trump meeting with North Korea could lead to some very quick international horror, suffering, and loss of life. Declaring trade war on the rest of the world could be, if it seems possible, even worse, and for a lot longer.
In Canada, the government restricts the overall supply of dairy — controlling both domestic production and imports. As a result, Canadian dairy farmers are quite well off, the cost (about 40% higher) is spread out amongst consumers, but the consumers are generally okay with paying higher prices to have a healthy dairy industry that includes both large producers and small mom-n-pop concerns.
In the US, dairy producers are encouraged to produce as much as they can, leading to a glut on the market, prices crashing below the cost of production, bankrupt farms, rising suicide rates, and farmers literally dumping 100 million gallons of milk last year … and then the government gets into various payment schemes to cover some of them them for their losses, leading to an incremental tax burden that everyone hates.
And Canada still ends up importing more milk than the US imports. And US restrictions on dairy imports from Canada remain significantly more stringent as a percent of total domestic production than the Canadian ones.
So, naturally, Trump (along with congresscritters from dairy states) blames the whole situation on Canada and is ticked off that the Canadians are being really, really unfair.
There’s actually a new epidemic of a very serious black lung variant appearing out there, even as the Trump administration is pushing hard for coal consumption to go up again.
But this is the year when a special tax on coal which helps pay for a black lung medical fund dramatically drops. The GAO has estimated that, in fact, to keep the fund solvent, the tax needs to be increased beyond current levels.
The coal industry is outraged … that they might be asked to pay more.
Increasing the tax or even leaving the current rate in place would burden the coal industry, says Bruce Watzman, an executive at the National Mining Association. “The competition among fuels for electric generation is intense and a couple cents a kilowatt hour makes a difference in the fuel source that’s generating the electricity,” Watzman adds.
Mr Watzman, if you can’t actually make money to cover all the costs on your product … maybe your product needs to go out of business.
Or, alternately, don’t worry — Trump is considering plans to force utilities to buy coal power regardless of the price differential. Your Association should be just fine. Unlike your workers.
This article has an element of genius about it. Trump doesn’t care about what his economic policies actually do to the United States. He cares about looking strong, being admired for being tough and aggressive, and, pretty much, anything about him.
Which makes striking back at him all the more delightful.
Until this President, every previous modern occupant of the White House divested their assets upon assuming office. This eliminated the possibility personal business interests might benefit from political decisions. Conversely, it prevented others from threatening the President by attacking those assets. Trump, by refusing to give up his businesses, and by flagrantly violating the emoluments clause, has inadvertently handed us the perfect stick.
I propose that instead of taxing the import of American serviettes, we tax Trump. In the spirit of the Magnitsky Act, Canada and the western allies come together to collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets. This could take the form of special taxation on their current operations, freezing of assets, or even sanctions against senior staff. Canada could add a tax to Trump properties equal to any tariff unilaterally imposed by Washington. The European Union could revoke any travel visas for senior staff in the Trump organization. And the United Kingdom could temporarily close his golf course.
There is certainly precedent for this. We (the US) sanction, financially and from a travel standpoint, people in foreign countries who are hostile to us or who have been accused of improprieties. Turning that idea against the Trump family and friends has a certain appeal to it.
My only concern is that it might work too well. Again, Trump is a narcissist. A threat to his interests should get him to reconsider — but a reconsideration that makes him look weak is just the sort of thing to make him turn around an escalate in new, zany ways that cost us even more jobs and lead to economic turmoil that hurts even more people, here and abroad.
I love how so called “free market” conservatives will do the complete opposite at the drop of a hat. Also, this should provide much entertainment as the entire power industry sues the DOE so that they do not have to raise rates to buy expensive power.
Of course, the easiest solution, the one that conservatives will not do, would be to buy and operate the aging expensive facilities themselves if they were so concerned about it. The USBR already operates almost every major hydro facility in the US, so it would be easy for them to drop a billion dollars to buy these plants and maintain and run them in case of an emergency.
Trump Prepares Lifeline for Money-Losing Coal Power Plants
Trump administration officials are making plans to order grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear plants in an effort to extend their life, a move that could represent an unprecedented intervention into U.S. energy markets.
I would love to figure out if this is driven more by some vague sense that the US luxury auto market needs protection, or because Angela Merkel hasn’t been sufficiently fawning to him. His reported comment that he doesn’t want to see a single Mercedes or BMW driving down Fifth Avenue, unfortunately, doesn’t give us a clue to anything but his daftness.
As the article notes, both BMW and Mercedes-Benz have plants inside the United States (in South Carolina). Will those plants be shut down by the US, or by a retaliatory measure from the Germans? How will those voters act in November?
Trump’s escalating trade wars with, apparently, everyone, may or may not succeed in proving that the US economy is still number one, but regardless the cost in US jobs, and in US consumer price increases, will be staggering.
Granted there are lots of twists and turns and nuances involved, but the basic sequence of events in each pair is clear:
1. People who can make money doing dangerous and risky things try to do so, leading to substantial societal loss and harm (affecting most strongly those who weren’t making the money).
2. Everyone wrings their hands and Stern Measures Are Taken to Ensure This Never Happens Again.
3. People who can make money doing dangerous and risky things convince Congress that the Stern Measures are overreaching, unnecessary, and, hey, what are the chances this could ever possibly happen again now that we are so much wiser? Also, here’s some money to help you get elected next time around.
Because clearly Jesus was wildly in favor of offshore tax havens.
If Fox and Varney & Co. Aren’t careful in their tone-deaf, knee-jerk denunciations, people might actually begin to associate “socialism” with positive things, like caring for the poor and powerless.
Is it a sop to American high-tech companies that were suppliers to the Chinese telecomm giant?
Is it negotiating tactics regarding other Chinese trade kerfuffles?
Is it that the original charges against ZTE were filed during the Obama Administration, so Trump thinks this is more dismantling of the Obama legacy?
Because, frankly, tweeting “Too many jobs in China lost” seems kind of weird from the America First president, especially since ZTE got slammed in the first place for violating sanctions against Iran and North Korea, tools that Trump has repeatedly relied upon, doubled down on, and generally treated as acts of paramount national interest.
Now he seems to be saying, “Yeah, we need to impose new sanctions on Iran, and even take action against our allies if we’re not happy with how they follow suit, unless, of course, they’re a giant Chinese company, in which case we’ll roll back any punishment for violating sanctions.”
That’s all very interesting … but does that mean that basic physical possession of a credit card equates to being able to effectivley use it?
Well, yeah, I guess. That’s actually the rule now, given that most (live) merchants don’t actually pay much attention to signatures. If the banks / merchants are willing to live with that, I guess we consumers will have to go along.
