Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Ah, the #GentryCommunist snark. Second line of defense right after total suppression.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm open to not allowing green card holders to collect welfare. The last time this came up I said I don't think it's fair to punish a green card holder from collecting unemployment or workers comp, if they're otherwise eligible, because they've been paying into the system in a sense. But that's really a state-by-state issue anyways.

Speaking big picture...I think one of the things that goes into economic health and growth is population growth. Particularly working-age population. The native-born birth rate in the US has been in decline for decades. And one of the ways we supplement that is through the immigration system. I imagine there is an optimal population growth rate somewhere and I'm speculating that it's above the natural birth rate.

So about skills-based immigration then: I can possibly get behind a significant shift in that direction but I'll oppose completely shutting down access to low-skill/poor immigrants on both practical and moral grounds. The practical side of this is that I'm skeptical that we can meet our immigrant "needs" through high-skill migration alone. Wealthy, advanced nations are less likely to produce immigrants that want to permanently resettle in America. That's just how it is. It's been a while since I was really familiar with this stuff, but the quotas that exist for most European nations or Japan/South Korea don't come close to filling up. If your home country isn't a shithole, there's probably not much incentive to leave permanently. And let's be honest, without low-skill immigrant labor (often illegal immigrant labor), American farming and meat-packing would be devastated. Unless American consumers really are quite willing to pay significantly more for meat and produce.

For a moral argument I'll be brief; I simply oppose stopping all refugee resettlement and low-skill immigration entirely on moral grounds. We can debate whether we are far too generous currently but ending those programs entirely is a deal-breaker for me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

New Hampshire's Republican establishment, including the Governor, have told Trumpworld they do not want Corey fucking Lewandowski running for Senate

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/14/lewandowski-trump-new-hampshire-senate-1463635

[iam416]

[Dr. Strangelove]

30-year Treasury bonds dip below 2% for the first time in history

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/us-30-year-treasury-yield-falls-below-2percent-for-the-first-time.html

[froot loops]

This article is right on the nose about the ridiculous Trump economic team.

[Jeff Buchanan]

No long term plan here, DSL ....... the hold on tariffs that would have targeted typical back to school and holiday goods IS a nod to consumers recognizing the tariff burden they carry. No secrets here. It's a politically motivated move. It's not an olive branch to the Chinese. Market futures were up around 200 points early this morning until an official Chinese announcement that they would retaliate if the US went ahead with it's threatened additional tariffs in September. It's now down about 200 points ..... and remember, we all understand that markets are a poor inicator of the state of the US and global economies.

Froot, none of the issues in your linked article are new. It's one author's rehash of Navarro/Trump statements that have been recognized as not making a lot of economic sense. Fine. They don't and should be recognized for what they are: political pablum for Trump's base not a "shocking revelation" of incompetence and disarray among Trump's economic advisers.

It bears repeating: I am among those that favor short term tariffs as a means of extracting trade concessions from the Chinese - all of them that most of us here have found reasonable. The questions I asked up thread, has Trump bitten off more than he can chew? ..... will China, given it's political nature, make the structural changes needed to accede to what amounts to the world's demands on trade?, remain definitively unanswered.

The market's volatility of late, in both the bond and equity markets, is the standard reaction to economic uncertainty that uncertainty mostly attributable to global trade tensions. I don't think Trump can survive a continuing trade war with China and the Chinese obviously know this. I think Trump and his economic team knows this. I can't predict the outcome but I do know the end game and I've not changed my position on the value of it. I also believe in phones and that trade reps on both sides continue to talk behind the glare of media lights. What gets reported is what's sexy, doomsday stuff and the front pages are full of it this morning.

[iam416]

30-year Treasury bonds dip below 2% for the first time in history

That certainly indicates that a recession is coming. I'm a little terrified of the timing as will likely mean we'll end up with our first Communist president.

[froot loops]

When the crash happened in 2008, it had a few things a lot of people saw coming. There are some issues with how the Bush administration dealt with some of these issues in the run up to the crash and they certainly botched the Lehman Brothers fiasco. But when push came to shove they had some competent officials to start to deal with the crash and they coordinated with the incoming Obama administration and it prevented a very bad recession from turning into a depression. Plus the Fed had a lot more tools at their disposal than they do now. Part of the reason the Fed wants to get interest rates up is to build up some slack to be able to smooth out the next rough patch.

Which leads to the worry here

[froot loops]

Froot, none of the issues in your linked article are new. It's one author's rehash of Navarro/Trump statements that have been recognized as not making a lot of economic sense. Fine. They don't and should be recognized for what they are: political pablum for Trump's base not a "shocking revelation" of incompetence and disarray among Trump's economic advisers.

It bears repeating: I am among those that favor short term tariffs as a means of extracting trade concessions from the Chinese - all of them that most of us here have found reasonable. The questions I asked up thread, has Trump bitten off more than he can chew? ..... will China, given it's political nature, make the structural changes needed to accede to what amounts to the world's demands on trade?, remain definitively unanswered.

Trump is just complaining about the Fed as if it is the problem for the trade war. That article is very relevant right now. This is a great point in the article:



True enough, Trump claims he wants to build up the manufacturing base. This in theory could do that over the long term(but manufacturers possibly would find cheaper countries other than the US). Short term tariffs won't do shit for that, this is long term engineering. Short term tariffs may get them to budge on the IP stuff, but that's part of the problem as that would hasten offshoring American jobs.

You can't effin complain about a strong dollar when you are the guy contributing to it. Again, if he wanted to put pressure on the Chinese, he would want them to let the Yuan devalue. That puts pressure on their economy, they are artificially keeping it up and have been for nearly 5 years. They want a stronger Yuan.

Lastly, when you commit to trade wars as your boy Trump has, you never think you have bitten off more than you can chew. Once you start, you can get into escalations that you didn't think possible. Smarter administrations knew when to cut their losses, President Festivus doesn't.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Stocks are up this morning on good economic news reporting increased retail sales and productivity. But never mind that news, a recession, wait, no, a depression is coming. An invertedy yield curve says so.

On the trade front, Chinese trade officials said within the last hour that China is hopeful that a deal can be reached. But, the sky is falling. Believe it.

[froot loops]

Stocks are up this morning on good economic news reporting increased retail sales and productivity. But never mind that news, a recession, wait, no, a depression is coming. An invertedy yield curve says so.

On the trade front, Chinese trade officials said within the last hour that China is hopeful that a deal can be reached. But, the sky is falling. Believe it.

Averting any type of recession is paramount with these guys in charge. Backing away from a trade war should be step one. This isn't a complicated concept. Any economic headwinds are coming from these dumb moves. Pray that China gives your boy a fig leaf that he can claim as a gigantic victory in one of his tweets.

[Jeff Buchanan]

They will and he will. Does that make the haters and doomsayers feel better? I really don't care how either side in this discussion of US-China trade feels. It's the nature of trade relations that both sides will give a bit. Trump nor Xi can ill-afford a prolonged tit-for tat trade war for different reasons but the nexus of Trump's and Xi's differing realities will almost certainly produce a deal at some point.

My hope is that the deal will come before supply chains are irrevocably damaged to the extent that business capital will seek safe haven rather than produce growth and expansion.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Dr. Strangelove]