What do you think of Donald Trump as our President ?

Ranting senile guy with nukes who gets all his info from Fox News. Worst president in American history.

4

2.25

“the country is running pretty well”

Well besides the fact that’s there’s a mass shooting almost every week.

1. Just the other day the real Trump was musing about how great it would be if the US had a President for life. Wonder who he had in mind? Sure, why not - complete our slide into a banana republic complete with military parades.

(I would say 5, but I’m afraid of a visit from the Secret Service)

He’s a complete weirdo and a fraud as well as a super flimflam man otherwise he’s doing a hell of a job.

Mass shooting every week? Moron. Democrats held the Presidency; Senate and House and no one even submitted gun control legislation because dead kids are political fodder for lefties. I vote 3, but can tolerate 4. I'd give Trump credit for destroying race relations in perpetuity, impotently drawing a red line in Syria and letting the Russians hack the election while doing nothing, but I don't want to deprive Obama of the credit for the few things he actually did.

1. at least he's not a bought-politician

^^^Got to give him credit his mentals are the highest just ask Kim un fatso

“at least he's not a bought-politician”

Right. If you don’t count the Russians

If you don't count the Russians? LOL. Nitwits make stupid comments.

Revised vote #6: please keep eating those cheeseburgers.

Maybe Trump should fly pallet loads of cash to Iran in the middle of the night or let " JV terrorist want-to-be's in Lakers jerseys " rape and murder their way to a special little Caliphate so he can get more 2s from Dick Durbin lovers.

I'm good with 4 or 5!

1. He's not as bad as I thought he would be. Very mediocre so far. A mix of good and bad. I put him in the same category as Eisenhower, JFK, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these guys did good things by accident. Some of them tried to do bad things but failed. And all of them did a mix of good and bad things during their time in office.

In Trump's case, he has outsourced most of his policy decisions to Pence and the GOP leadership, so it hasn't been completely horrible. But unfortunately, once in a while, he still has to throw his base a bone. Also, sometimes it would actually have been better if Trump would be his own person: on the issue of the War in Afghanistan, for example, his instincts are actually better than the GOP's instincts. But he let them call the shots anyway. So it's been a mixed bag.

^^^If he did anything good by accident I bet he’d reverse it with a tweet the next day.

Trump has handled North Korea far better than the last 5 of his predecessors. Casualty predictions? Lol. Could be the entire earth or 500 people too. Hysterical much?

1. No question.

@Skibum two mentally unstable mofos I guess KimJung Un is the only one taking his meds.

Biff gave Kim a "George Mcfly" noogie

Says Kim "I was just kidding Biff"

5

3

2

2

4

6-- The turd in the punchbowl of the American republic.

In my life time:

1. Reagan (8 years)
2. Trump (Only 1 year so he has time to climb. Without the "opposition", he'd be much closer).
3. JFK

All pretty much for the same reason, economics. A prosperous country is a happy country. In spite of ALL the "opposition" and "resistance" and with the economy heading north quickly, his popularity keeps rising.

Juice and Rech for 2020!!!!!

A solid 4+. Will support his re-election bid.

I'd pay him $75 for a BBBJ, but would not tip him.

4

@subra

That was a stretch for a joke but kudos on going for it

:)

3

somewhat 2, definitely 3, 2.5?

DC,

"North Korea has tens of thousands of artillery weapons constantly trained on Seoul."

You know this, HOW? Hopefully you don't say something stupid like that's what I heard on cnn.

Well my vote for Gary Johnson didn't mean anything for years. At least this time I voted for someone whose campaign sent me a postcard with a thumbs up picture. That was better than all the political flyers from other candidates. Not my top choice. 3 He would have been immediately fired from the company I used to work for. Several reasons. I think if he made a campaign promise that he would shoot a hole in the ship he was riding in across the Altantic Ocean, he would take a cannon and shoot a hole in the bottom of the ship just to fulfill the promise. Thinking about steel and aluminum tariffs that affect a few thousand raw material producers but ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Americans working at companies that use those materials. I read companies may build facilities overseas to use cheaper raw materials now and ship partial assemblies into the US so now we can lose more jobs. I disagree with taxes on allies when China overcapacity I heard was the main issue. We import most steel and aluminum from Canada and Brazil. China is number 11. Going to hurt many US companies. What's next? Tariffs on textiles so that we can build new textile factories here in the US? It wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years, robots can make textiles cheaper here in the US rather than oversees anyway.

I did hear some comment about tariffs for national security. Maybe for a future war, we want to keep a certain level of steel and aluminum production here in the US. If that's the case, seems like there could be some kind of quota cutoff for tariffs. I'm not sure how that would work.

Market should be down over 300 points tomorrow after Gary Cohn resigned. Trumps soon to be former economic advisor turned in his resignation notice. It appears tariffs are going on full blast. Save a few hundred to a thousand jobs making steel and aluminum, hurt hundreds of thousands of jobs making cars, trains, and everything else since the US is the biggest importer of steel I read in the world.

Papi: tuscl humor is no place for the weak and cowardly

4, which oddly enough is his emotional age.

@OrionSmith: "I did hear some comment about tariffs for national security."

Yes, we've been importing most of our Al and steel from our mortal enemy -- Canada.

^^ LOL @subra - TUSCL logic is unsurpassed

Not for nothing...

youtu.be

"Yes, we've been importing most of our Al and steel from our mortal enemy -- Canada."

It's about time those frozen fucks pay the piper for all those cold fronts they send down here

I've gone from go to hell money to FUCK YOU money.

I enjoy those fronts here in South Carolina. Was running my air conditioner for 3 days in February. It's awful here in June, July, August.

At least I've gotten better at predicting Trump messes. Sell sell sell. Then like Vegas, give a little back to keep people in the game.

Trump says people want to work in the White House. Less than 2 hours later, his economic advisor resigns. Guess he felt ignored.

Trump had two distinct strategies for the economy

1. Lower taxes ( especially business taxes ) and regs
2. Renegotiate trade arrangements to increase US jobs

The Wall Street guys, like Cohn, were all in on #1 and fiercely opposed to #2. Once tax reform was in place, it was inevitable that Cohn would leave.

China produces an amazing 50% of all the steel in the world. They’ve increased their production five fold in recent years. All this Chinese steel is made by government owned entities.

As a result, there is immense over capacity. Prices are so cheap that it’s impossible to make money without government subsidy. US steel industry was approaching extinction.

While our steel imports may come from Canada and Brazil, the tariffs will have an affect on China.

In my mind, this is a national security issue as much as a jobs issue. We need a viable steel industry to avoid having China wield the sale of steel as an economic weapon, much like Russia uses energy exports to threaten Eastern Europe.

The fucktard wants to build a wall between us and the paradise that is Tijuana. That's fine if you have billions and can pay off pron stars left and right or get away with fondling and groping strange women. But some of us need that TJ pussy. We don't want to have to scale a wall to get it, dammit! 4.

Oh, Clubber...as usual, your "list" is wrong. If you're basing it on "All pretty much for the same reason, economics. A prosperous country is a happy country." then Bill Clinton has to be #1. His two terms are still the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history. No wars. And he balanced the budgets/produced budget surpluses in 1998-2000. Conservatives/republicans claim they want to balance the budget, but when they get in power they run deficits instead. Reagan ran huge deficits. Trump is on track to have a $1 trillion deficit this year.

And yes, the fact that North Korea has tens of thousands of artillery weapons constantly trained on Seoul is well established.

stratfor.com_

ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com

Of course, I don't know why I bother - if Clubber and his ilk doesn't see it on Fox and Friends, or hear it on Russ Limbaugh, it can't be true.

I say 4. Trump has no business being anything more than a hamburger flipper. I wouldn't rule out impeachment after the midterms, but if they actually sent him to prison, do we really want religious nutjob Pence?

Realdougster is dumber than the original dougster and his last post on clinton is a 100% lie. Clinton's first term coincided with the S+L crisis and a failing economy. It was a disaster until Gingrich took over. A republican Congress balanced the books, but stupid people think balancing the budget means a big deal, when all it is is not spending more than you take in, except for the trillions you spend on interest on the debt, which clinton increased by 50%. His surpluses were PROJECTED and he left Bush with a recession. God you're an idiot.

^^^The S & L crisis started in 1980 how does the make it a Clinton caused problem?

I know it's useless to try and use facts to argue with skimbum's addled brain, but for anyone actually interested:

fred.stlouisfed.org

"President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998-2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001."

en.wikipedia.org

Try reading and comprehending 25, instead of reading just toi make some snarky, ill-informed comment., I said it coincided with his first term, not that he started it. It went from 1980 through 1995 and in the early 90's it was at its peak affect on consumers. Sellers used to bring a check to closings to make up for mortgage shortfalls. The point was that the economy sucked in his first term, not that he started it. Only a total turd cites wikipedia. A budget surplus is not big deal when debt keeps increasing. Congress passed budgets he signed. A Republican Congress. Damn you're an idiot, under every name you use. Why stupid people don't get the difference between a budget and debt is mind boggling.

So how do you propose to reduce the debt without running a surplus? Default? Declare Bankruptcy? Oh, wait, we do have the perfect President for that

Mediocre actual governmental performance. Abominable excuse for human being. That they are are willing to tolerate such a creature just so they can get their tax break is a stain on the conservative movement... then there's "take the guns first, give due process later". Dude has jackshit of a notion of what is Rule of Law.

OTOH back in the day I could have given Melania a whirl in VIP.

I comprehended just fine the S & L crisis was caused 100% by Jimmy Carter and the deregulation of the banking and lending industry and made worse by the anti inflationary measures pushed by the fed under Ronald Reagan, Clinton was a lot of things and got quite a bit wrong, but his policies made a lot more sense than the current moron who inherited a growing and strengthening economy, and seems determined to shit all over his own success.

BTW where is my snarky I’ll informed comment, this stuff I’m repeating is generally accepted as the truth by both sides left and right.

@twentyfive - stop trying to confuse Skibum with stuff like facts and truth

Who else just came for the shit show of comments?

Going to treat reading thru this like a trip to the VIP: how long can I last?

DC,

No, Forbes is not. The ONLY people that really KNOW what goes on with NK are NK and our intelligence community. I can guarantee NK exaggerates and that our intelligence community is NOT going to let ANYONE know the detailed truth.

Realize, that what I just typed does not mean that that NK doesn't have artillery aimed at SK, nor does it mean we would not have the ability to wipe out what they might have. Nor does it mean anything other than YOU don't know either or do I!

real,

From the Times, "The U.S. economy performed very well during both the Clinton and Reagan years. In fact, total economic growth was almost identical, averaging about 4 percent per year, with Reagan edging out Mr. Clinton by less than 1 percentage point for the total eight-year period. (Note: all the data in the accompanying table and in this commentary are derived from official U.S. government sources.) Actually, Mr. Clinton partially adopted Reagan’s policies — remember his State of the Union address in which he said: “The era of big government is over” and where he partially reversed his 1993 tax increase by cutting the capital-gains tax in 1996."

Please note: "all the data in the accompanying table and in this commentary are derived from official U.S. government sources." NOT from Limbaugh or Fox.

"at least he's not a bought-politician"

That's meant to be humorous, right?

My point was that a lot of career-politicians make their $$$ thru politics whereas Trump already had $$$ and in fact may have actually lost $$$ by getting into politics by the many business entities that severed ties with him.

i.e. seems he didn't get into politics for $$$ b/c he already had it and may have actually lost $$$ b/c of it

@Clubber - Now we’re having an actual discussion/debate with facts and stuff. I still give Clinton the edge for sounder fiscal policy.

@twentyfive said

"the S & L crisis was caused 100% by Jimmy Carter and the deregulation of the banking and lending industry"

How did deregulation cause the S&L crisis? Did Carter sign a bill saying "From here on out, it's OK to lose money and make bad loans?" That's silly.

@realDougster,

Giving Bill Clinton credit for balancing the budget would be the equivalent of giving The Patriots credit for the Eagles winning the Super Bowl. Clinton opposed every spending cut until his back was up against the wall, and he had no choice. His White House consistently issued press releases railing against the Republicans' budget "austerity." And he also proposed several costly proposals which, thankfully, died on the vine, each of which would have busted the budget (most notably Hillary-Care).

@Cheo_D,

I basically agree. After Trump, the movement isn't going to have much left in the tank. They showed that they were willing to look the other way and to make one exception after another for Trump. So they're not going to have a leg to stand on when the Democrats nominate a similar creature one day.

@BHF do you even know what the S & L crisis was all about?

@Papi_Chulo,

For the past several years, anecdotal reports indicated that Trump was actually hoping to lose the election, subsequently claim that he was "robbed," and then channel the inevitable resentment among his base into a TV news network and alternative media empire. If you believe these reports (and they always sounded very plausible to me) then it seems that he may indeed have been trying to make money off of his run for the presidency. Not that he'd be the first. Every election cycle we have at least one implausible vanity candidate who is really just running to secure a better book deal.

@twentyfive,

Yes, I'm familiar with it, thanks. And the only Carter-era deregulation that I'm aware of that would have had a direct impact on the S&Ls was when he repealed Regulation Q. This allowed financial institutions to pay interest on instruments that had previously been legally non-interest bearing. Such as checking accounts. And if you can explain to me how this could have caused the crisis, I'd love to read it.

Btw, Carter also allowed more financial institutions to borrow overnight from the Fedreal Reserve. And this might have contributed to the crisis, because the S+Ls would now be more dependent on government money and there would be an implied bailout guarantee... But this is NOT an example of deregulation!

^^^

I just looked it up: to clarify, Carter modified Regulation Q to allow interest on various consumer accounts, but it wasn't officially repealed until 2010. Other than that, my statement still stands.

@BHF you really don’t know what the crisis was all about do you, I’m not going to spend hours but I’ll give you the nutshell answer. Prior to that deregulation certain banks S&Ls were restricted from commercial banking their primary business regulated by the stated and being allowed to write home mortgages and sell CDs. After that prohibition was removed they moved into more capital intensive and larger structured debt that they were not qualified to undertake. The payout of huge interest rates combined with shortages of capital, caused over a thousand banks to collapse, what was inflationary was the paying of 10-15% on short term CDs predicated on borrowed money. There is a lot more to it but basically Carters deregulation allowed them to move into risky businesses, then Reagan’s fed loaning at discount rates to undercapitalized banks caused a chain reaction of defaults. I am not interested in debating this endlessly. That is what happened if you were alive then you might remember the banks offering baby grand pianos and all sorts of teasers to get people to deposit into high paying certificates of deposit with short term maturities.

Today's inane comment of the day: :generally accepted by those on the left and the right. Lol.

@twentyfive,

A) People can be aware of events that occurred before they were born: it's called history. I was alive during the Savings and loan crisis, although I wasn't paying much attention to banking at the time.

B) They were giving out pianos (and toasters) to induce people to open non-interest bearing accounts. Glass Steagall had made it illegal to pay interest on checking accounts. After Carter's deregulation in 1980, they were again able to pay interest, and the practice of giving gifts to lure customers slowly stopped over time. Old habits die hard, but people preferred money over a toaster.

C) S&Ls were never restricted from commercial banking. Writing mortgages and selling CDs is the essence of commercial banking. Perhaps you mean lending to businesses? Well, somehow commercial banks manage to accomplish that feat without collapsing. The S&Ls can do the same. Allowing them to borrow from the Fed window is merely putting them on equal footing. If they can't handle it, too bad.

D) I love how you emphasize that it was all predicated on borrowed money. Isn't all banking based on borrowed money?

1. You are uninformed about events taking place at that time 2)They were handing out pianos and toasters for CDs not checking accounts
2. The certainly were and commercial banks were not allowed to sell insurance deregulation changed the composition and there are no more pure thrift institutions as a result of this. The few that remain are fully immersed in the the business. Allowing unchartered institutions to dabble in leveraging taxpayer dollars is the height of irresponsibility
3. banking is a lot more than borrowed money, it is actually achieving a balance between capital and labor and leveraging capital to a purpose.

@twentyfive,

1. No comment.

2. My mother was a bank teller from 1970 to 1984 and she says they gave out gifts when you opened a checking account. Probably CDs, too, but especially checking accounts. CDs were always allowed to pay interest, so what does it prove if they gave out gifts when you opened a CD?

3. If savings and loans were allowed to make mortgages, then they were engaged in commercial banking by definition. And commercial banks weren't allowed to sell insurance until 1999. You're definitely right that no one should be allowed to gamble with taxpayer dollars. But commercial banks have been allowed to gamble with taxpayer dollars ever since the creation of FDIC in 1933.

4. Your 4th point sounds like some kind of Marxist propaganda.

"Trump already had $$$ and in fact may have actually lost $$$ by getting into politics by the many business entities that severed ties with him."

You're going to need to show me some examples of businesses that have crimped the hose on Trump and his business enterprises. Being President (and in particular, being a former President) is typically financially enriching. Just ask the Clinton and Bush families.

"seems he didn't get into politics for $$$ b/c he already had it and may have actually lost $$$ b/c of it"

Again. Being President may be a pay cut. Being a former President, not so much. Also, you seem to think that the only way to buy a politician is money, whereas they are more easily bought off with power.

1. No reply
2. Glass_Steagle did not make it illegal to pay interest on checking accounts, I have had an interest paying checking account for over thirty years, true the interest is pitiful but it is paid 3)Thrifts were in the busines of mortgages, they were not commercial banks look it it up yourself 4)How is my 4th point marxist propagandan nonsense, that is the basis of capitalism, the banking system is the necessary for capitalism to function cohesively,

I didn't pay much attention to politics in the Clinton years thus IDK how much credit he's due, but Clinton did have the good fortune of an out of this world historic stock market ushered-in in large part by the beginning of the internet revolution which was the biggest game-changer of the last 100 years

@twentyfive,

1. Glass Steagall did make it illegal for banks to pay interest on checking accounts, through Regulation Q. Carter significantly eased this restriction in 1980. And then Regulation Q was finally officially repealed as part of Dodd-Frank in 2010. The reason you've been able to earn interest on your checking account for the past 30 years is because of Carter's deregulation. Here's a brief description of Regulation Q:

investopedia.com

1. There are two basic types of banks: commercial banks and investment banks. Commercial banks make mortgages. What I think you meant to say is that S&Ls began making loans to businesses during the 1970s and 80s. This might be a fair point. Except that Chase, Bank of America, and Citi have been doing the exact same thing for centuries without causing trouble. So what's the problem if the S&Ls want to do it too?

2. That's right. Banking is one of the key pillars of capitalism. And banking is essentially the business of borrowing and lending money.

2

I didn’t like the guy and didn’t vote for him but now I’m almost wishing I had! He’s cut taxes (though didn’t reduce spending), he’ll rolling back regulations, he’s generally disrupting things. I don’t think he’ll be a great President but he may end up being a good one.

It’s actually a nice change from the usual Neoconservative movement that’s infiltrated the Republican Party since President Bush (43). You know the platform: bash gays, ban abortion, and let’s shoot people. And with Secretary Clinton hijacking the DNC, the Democratic Party has essentially turned into Neocons, too. I dunno. I still think I want to see more “Protest Candidates” like President Trump and to a lesser extent, Senator Sanders.

We need to deregulate as much as possible. This will let me compete with the wealthy unless government pigs intervene on their behalf as they tend to do. Fuck uncle sam.

real,

You know of course, that the clinton presidency which stated with the '92 election, took a decidedly right turn after the '94 election. BOTH chambers of the Congress were out of democratic control. Now since the House sets the budget and it became BALANCED, seems clinton just went along with the Republicans. Likely the wisest choice he made during his terms.

To answer the original question - 2. I think 3 is valid too.

I also like that he's looking into reworking the trade deals as well as tariffs to protect some US industries. This will help some regular people out. They've been shit on. That's how we end up with Trump. Even with the whine about the costs of things going up, perhaps that's not a horrible thing. As a society we buy too much useless, disposable junk as it is. I hear there more real dollars in cost from healthcare or pensions than there is in steel in the price of a new car anyway. It's time for an economy that works for everyone not just the top 20%. And maybe stop calling half of the voters deplorable.

@Dominic that would be fine if it were true, but please explain how a tariff on steel and aluminum would hurt our enemies and adversaries. The Chinese don’t ship us much steel, but they sure as fuck will laugh their asses off if construction costs go up here.

25,

As to steel from China, depends on if you include transshipment or not. That makes things very murky.

Here’s a simple example. Cars shipped from Europe to the US pay a 2.5% tariff. US cars shipped to Europe pay a 10% tariff. The globalists think that’s fair.Trump wants to change it.

^^^Well Mark94 the market disagrees with you. That’s the measure that is more important.

3.) but then who wasn't.

And Clubber you want to save a few hundred jobs at the expense of the two industries that employ millions, construction and the auto industry. Great smart deal making.

Oh also @Mark94 China is shipping us how many cars exactly?

Just read an article about trans shipment of steel.

The real target of the steel tariffs is China, has been all along. The problem is trans shipment, letting China circumvent tariffs.

So, the only way to “catch” the China Steel was to apply the tariff to everyone. That led to an outcry to target the tariff for only China ( not possible with trans ).

So, Trump cleverly put in targeted EXEMPTIONS, requiring countries to prove they didn’t trans ship ( a new process ), That establishes a process and precedent for stopping Chinese trans shipment of a wide variety of goods.

Now, we can establish trade deals with countries and include a ban on ( Chinese) trans shipments, a newly accepted provision and process. This sets the stage to squeeze China in a way they never anticipated possible.

That’s just stupid if you believe that there’s a bridge in Manhattan goes to Brooklyn I’ll sell you cheap.

Band China!

@Dominic77,

If you don't mind everyone's costs going up a little bit in order to keep a few thousand steel workers employed, then how would you feel if the government just handed them free money and told them to stay home from now on? It's the same basic idea. Welfare by any other name is still welfare.

@mark94,

You're right, it is unfair - to European consumers who are now forced to pay more for cars. It's bad enough that other countries do things to impede the free flow of goods. Why should we make it worse by piling on? Besides, America may not impose high tariffs on imported cars, but that's only because we directly impose import quotas. It's naked protectionism and it's been that way since at least the 1980s.

In response, foreign automakers are basically forced to open plants in the U.S. and assemble their cars here so that they can pretend that their cars are American products and thereby avoid the quotas. This crooked deal keeps the cartel of manufacturing workers in business and allows American politicians to crow about keeping jobs in their districts. Everyone is happy... except for consumers who are forced to pay an extra thousand dollars on average per car as a result.

At the time, U.S. automakers argued that they needed the quotas in order to grow stronger and compete with foreign companies... but then in 2008 they still needed a huge bailout! It turns out that people who live on welfare are not very competitive; the same can be said about corporations that are on welfare. And that's exactly what trade protectionism amounts to: welfare.

The way you're looking at the economy is just backwards. It's the way leftists have always viewed the economy. Thanks to Trump, Republicans and conservatives are now looking at the economy the same way that liberals always have. The point of an economy is to efficiently provision goods and services... NOT to keep everyone employed!

There's a difference b/w protectionism and playing-fairly - is China steel playing fairly or not - if not, then they should be forced to do so if possible - just getting stuff cheaper is not a justification if it's thru unfair means; equivalent to getting stuff cheap thru buying stolen-goods and saying it's a good-thing b/c it keeps stuff cheap.

@Papi_Chulo,

The only people who are being stolen from are the citizens of the countries that impose tariffs. Trump is arguing that we should steal from ourselves in order to make this right. But he's framing the debate as though we are the victims. Which simply isn't true.

Would you really want to go to war to avenge the Chinese consumers who are being victimized by their own government?

IDK enough about the situation to know what's the right course - all I'm saying is that if other countries are not playing fair then we should not be pussies and afraid to confront that shit.

25,

How about you use your magic ball and tell us all something that we are guaranteed to make bundles of money by investing in it. So called experts can be as incorrect as anyone. Just think how accurate they were on 11/8/16. These days a coin flip is good. At least a 50% chance of getting it correct. :)

BHF: if the only goal of government is to increase economic wealth and purchasing power, you would be correct in assessing tariffs as a negative. However, the primary duty of any government is to protect its citizens.

China produces half the worlds steel and sells it below where it can be produced. The steel industry in the US couldn’t compete at these prices. We were fast approaching a point where steel making would cease in the US, leaving us at a huge risk for economic interference from China.

Remember the days when the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the silver market ? There was chaos. Now, imagine if China managed to do this with a more essential metal, steel. They are getting very close.

The economic rules change at the extremes, such as monopolies.

Elon Musk sides with Trump on trade with China, citing 25% import duty on American cars

Elon Musk believes China isn't playing fair in the car trade with the U.S.

The auto executive says the Asian country puts a 25 percent import duty on American cars, while the U.S. only does 2.5 percent for Chinese cars in return.

"I am against import duties in general, but the current rules make things very difficult. It's like competing in an Olympic race wearing lead shoes," Musk tweets.

Tesla's Elon Musk is complaining to President Donald Trump about China's car tariffs. "Do you think the US & China should have equal & fair rules for cars? Meaning, same import duties, ownership constraints & other factors," Musk said on Twitter in response to a Trump tweet about trade with China. "I am against import duties in general, but the current rules make things very difficult. It's like competing in an Olympic race wearing lead shoes."

The auto executive said China puts a 25 percent import duty on American cars, while the U.S. only does 2.5 percent for Chinese cars. He added that no American car company is "allowed to own even 50% of their own factory" in the Asian country, but China's auto firms can own their companies in the U.S.

Trump responded to Musk's tweets later at his steel and aluminum tariff press conference Thursday.

"We are going to be doing a reciprocal tax program at some point, so that if China is going to charge us 25% or if India is going to charge us 75% and we charge them nothing ... We're going to be at those same numbers. It's called reciprocal, a mirror tax," Trump said after reading Musk's earlier tweets out loud.

The Trump administration has also asked Beijing for a $100 billion reduction in the U.S. trade deficit with the Asian country, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the talks.

cnbc.com

@Papi_Chulo,

Uh, what Chinese cars? There are no Guangzhous or DongFengs being driven around my neighborhood. I think Buick manufactures a few hundred thousand cars in China for export and sale in the US, conveniently skirting our import quotas because GM is an American company. (So, you know… it gets to break the rules.)

By contrast, American car companies sell millions of cars each year in China. Granted, most of them are manufactured in China due to Chinese restrictions. But this is similar to how Nissan is forced to manufacture in Tennessee, Toyota in Kentucky, Hyundai in Georgia, Mercedes in Alabama, and BMW in South Carolina. So by Trump’s definition, if China is ripping us off, aren’t we therefore also ripping off Germany, South Korea, and Japan?

And as for Elon Musk, what would you expect him to say? He wants to get the best deal for his company, not necessarily for American consumers and taxpayers.

@mark94,

The duty of a government is to protect its citizens from violence, fraud, and coercion… not from foreign competition. I wasn’t born quite yet, but yes, I am aware of the Hunt Brother’s attempt to corner the silver market. And I’m aware that they got their asses handed to them in the process. In the Hunt brothers’ case, it was because margin requirements were changed, but in general, when you attempt to corner the market on any resource that can be mined out of the earth, you will eventually cause the price to increase, and then other market participants will ramp up production to cash in, crushing you in the process. That’s how it works.

If Ronald Reagan was willing to sell commodities to the Soviet Union, the psychotic country that regularly threatened us with instant nuclear death and once placed missiles in Cuba… then surely we can buy commodities from China, the psychotic country that regularly sends us panda bears for our zoos and once sold me a nice cellphone case.

Well I heard Trump and Kim will be doing peace talks about removing nukes from North Korea. I wish them success. I really thought we were going to have a nuclear war this year and thought neither would back down. Still could happen. It would be much better for everyone if it didn't. How it gets verified North Korea is honoring the deal is another story. Bill Clinton already did that deal a long time ago. If Kim was serious and ditched all his muscles and nukes, he could enjoy some major economic reforms if he wants to be like a minii China. Of course how he convinces everyone after reneging before is a different story.

I would want North Korea to stop teaching their kids to hate the US. Number one though, get rid of nukes and missiles. The US will soon be a number 2 superpower after China. We don't need to waste money on another war if we can avoid it. More economic growth and more jobs, less deficit spending except for the poor and elderly is what we need unless it improves future job prospects and our economy. The demographic super cycle is about to cause a major slow down in consumer spending as baby boomers cut their spending so tax cuts and increased government spending might keep things humming.

I doubt the rest of the world wants NK to be a mini China with a promise not to build any more nukes after their long history of breaking deals. NK should release all American prisoners as a peace gesture if they are serious. I thought I read they still had American prisoners.

The statement tonight by South Korean National Security Adviser Chung Eui-yong is so jaw-dropping in significance it has left the professional diplomatic apparatus stunned.

A year of targeted and strategic geopolitical policy execution by President Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has resulted in North Korean leader Kim Jong-un accepting denuclearization and requesting a meeting with President Trump to achieve terms therein.

Yeah, HO-LEE-CATS is an understatement. The possibility of a willingly denuclearized Korean peninsular is such an astounding policy victory; it is difficult to conceptualize.

Erin Burnett says, if Trump pulls this off, he will go down in history as a great President. Might want to hold off on this poll.

^^^

Well, it might change the opinions of historians, academics, and perhaps even the public, but it won't affect my view. As of now, I would give him a 3 whether North Korea gives up their nukes or not. I just don't understand why it's any of our business whether or not they have nuclear weapons. Any American who is legitimately afraid of North Korea is just pathetic.

Trump was correct during the campaign when he said that America should mind its own business and focus on our own problems first. And he was correct when he said that previous American Presidents had been taken advantage of by North Korea by bribing them for denuclearization, only to have them renege on the deal after being paid off. If there is a deal with NK, even if it's successful, the best case scenario is that it will look very similar to the Iran nuclear deal - which he famously referred to as the worst deal in human history.

Hope that it’s real not another NK trick we’ll see if it happens! If it does great job !