Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

The Fed in general effed up in 2015. They stupidly raised rates and the GOP Congress fucked up by not having more fiscal stimulus when the economy needed it. The Birthers in Congress didn't want the economy to get better back then to try and get Obama, he was a Muslim Kenyan after all and they hired the Chief Birther. Now we have the Proud Boys running wild to thrill the Trump supporters.

Big government deficit spending and lower interest rates are back in style for the formerly principled Birthers. It still doesn't make the incompetent nomination of gold bug Judy Shelton to the Fed any smarter. A administration in disarray makes dumbass nominations like this. Cain, Moore and Shelton. It's like nominating DaGeezer to the Fed.

But AOC"s question to Powell is a hell of a lot more pertinent than any recitation of the Dow. The Fed twin mandates do not include the Dow. She got them to admit the long term forecasts of unemployment and interests has been utter shit.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Powell also indicated today that manufacturing and business investment were particular weak points in the economy. The trade wars were supposed to help the manufacturing sector (they haven't) and the tax cuts were supposed to spur business investment (they haven't).

[iam416]

[Dr. Strangelove]

[iam416]

Harris was terrible, too. Her healthcare nonsense was self-inflicted. Her time as AG is Woke-inflicted.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The Fed in general effed up in 2015. They stupidly raised rates and the GOP Congress fucked up by not having more fiscal stimulus when the economy needed it. The Birthers in Congress didn't want the economy to get better back then to try and get Obama, he was a Muslim Kenyan after all and they hired the Chief Birther. Now we have the Proud Boys running wild to thrill the Trump supporters.

Big government deficit spending and lower interest rates are back in style for the formerly principled Birthers. It still doesn't make the incompetent nomination of gold bug Judy Shelton to the Fed any smarter. A administration in disarray makes dumbass nominations like this. Cain, Moore and Shelton. It's like nominating DaGeezer to the Fed.

But AOC"s question to Powell is a hell of a lot more pertinent than any recitation of the Dow. The Fed twin mandates do not include the Dow. She got them to admit the long term forecasts of unemployment and interests has been utter shit.

Aside from this simpering laced post, Froot and I agree on the fundamentals:

The Fed fucked up in 2015 .......

Nominating a gold bug to the FOMC was dumb .......

And I also agree with DSL:

The politicization of the Fed for the purposes of enhancing Trump's chance for re-election may be the most dangerous thing the Trump administration is undertaking because it is going to create short term gains and long term pain. I don't think any reasonable economists think what the Fed did yesterday was a useful way to stimulate business investment and raise a flagging GDP.

The absolute best way to improve GDP is to do a trade deal with China, maybe not at any cost, but get-er-done.

https://ritholtz.com/2019/07/todays-...fomc-rate-cut/

[Ghengis Jon]

The absolute best way to improve GDP is to do a trade deal with China, maybe not at any cost, but get-er-done.

No question about that. But the US can't change China's behavior on it's own. You have to take away China's options. Right now, the policy is "oh, if you (non-US person/business) act contrary to our trade declarations, we'll sanction you." It's usually more effective to have nations acting together with a common goal than it is to bark out orders and issue economic threats. Sometimes going it alone will achieve a goal but other times it requires a team effort. In regards to China, let me quote Bo Schembechler....


The team....the team....THE TEAM.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Jeff Buchanan]

......... getting the deal I speak of, Jon, is not going to be facilitated by obtaining the cooperation of other nations in putting trade pressures on China.

First, China-US trade dwarfs that of trade between any two countries and specifically between other countries and China. The US and China have the first and second largest economies in the world. The rest are far behind and any disputes, say, between China and India would have limited impact on the global, supply chain oriented, economy. The big boys are China and the US. So, this is by nature a bi-lateral dispute involving China and the US with other nations on the side lines.

Second, the trade disputes between the US and China are immensely complex and multi-dimensional. There are two that stand out. The first is how China interprets who the WTO defines as Non-Market Economies (NMEs). This affects the legality of imposing tariffs when an NME country provides a slew of cheap products, made so by state provided subsidies, to a non-NME country. China insists it's status as an NME country expired in 2016. The US says it didn't expire. This is a macro problem. The second is the treatment of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs). US corporations wishing to do business within China have a hard time competing with the product price offerings of SOEs. This is a micro problem.

One last comment. Lighthiszer is a WTO hater, plain and simple, and the policy emanating from Washington that paints the WTO as the bad guy has more to do with how slowly the WTO Dispute Resolution Arm deals with Macro and especially Micro issues of US-China Trade rather than the overall utility of that organization which the US played a major hand in creating. Based on my reading. Lighthizer has a point. The neutering of the dispute resolution arm precipitated by the Trump Administrations veto power over who sits on it is a calculated tactic to take resolution of the dispute regarding China's NME status to arbitration out side of the WTO along with the disadvantages to US corporations having to unfairly compete on pricing in China markets with SOEs ..... and that is just part of this, IMO, justifiable tactic.

I've linked to an article below that is very thorough in discussing all aspects of the trade dispute between the US and China. I'd recommend folks interested in the nitty gritty of the US-China trade dispute, instead of relying on the mostly superficial and therefor inaccurate picture that is painted by those reporting on it in the US and Europe, read Chapters 9 and 16. I particularly like the glass-half-full conclusion in Chapter 16 that lists the main disputes between the US and China and how they can and should be resolved.

https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/piieb17-1.pdf

[Panoptes]

A bunch of word salads to say #DeathToChina

http://www.detroitlionsforum.com/forums/forum/general-discussion-forums/politics/6324-china-is-your-enemy/page6#post1639457

[Ghengis Jon]

I see it as the two global giants in a slugfest that remains a draw. We need that little extra umph to win the battle. Going it alone will not succeed, regardless of who is President. If the US does this, then China will do that (soybean is a good example). We need to take away China's "thats" if we want to achieve our goal - something I have seen no indication we can do alone.

I will read the rather lengthy link (but not at woirk).

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Ghengis Jon]

Woo Hoo !!! Lets increase the Trump Tax on American businesses by 10% ! That'll show the Chinese !

[froot loops]

Lighthizer is a fool.