#trump wants to increase tariffs on all goods.

[yet-another-clown]

[sanguinifex]

Something else that stands out: Trump was repeatedly asked questions about what he would do to improve various issues: healthcare, the environment, the war in Gaza. And all he does is say “well this problem never would have happened if I had been the president.” And that’s not the question asked! Like, tough luck, but you weren’t president. Here is what the situation is now. What are you going to do about it? And he doesn’t have an answer. Not on healthcare, not on environment, not on Gaza. He appears to think that all these problems will magically disappear if he becomes president. Well, they won’t. The problems will still exist, and he has no plan to deal with any of it; if he had a plan, he would have told us. (He’s so good at telling us his plans for illegal immigrants, after all.) He does have a plan for the economy, but it’s a complete disaster that would raise the cost of living and increase the deficit—tax breaks always increase the deficit unless you offset them with a tax hike somewhere else, and the cost of tariffs is always passed on to consumers (which is why Harris was calling it a sales tax, because more people would understand how that affects cost of living). Oh, and he also accused immigrants of eating cats, accused the FBI of fraud, repeatedly trashed our country, and generally sounded like a listing for an alphabet-soup brand’s product on Amazon, only instead of “chair seat papasan loveseat perfect for living room bedroom parlor,” it’s “immigrants crime China Mexico Venezuela fracking guns executing babies.”

Harris, by contrast, has plans. I personally think they are pretty good plans. There are some minor details I would change, but it’s a hell of a lot better than “no plans, I’m too awesome for plans” and/or a reskinned Project 2025. She also hasn’t accused immigrants of eating cats or accused anyone of “wanting abortions in the ninth month” (an utterly ridiculous claim; if someone doesn’t want a baby at that point, you induce labor and the newborn becomes a ward of the state).

It’s a race between utterly incompetent dictatorial insanity and a competent woman whose policy positions may be somewhat off from your preference (or not).

Please don’t vote for the guy who thinks immigrants eat cats and dogs.

[batboyblog]

In speeches, interviews and campaign videos, Trump has promised to:

Use the military to participate in the largest deportation of undocumented immigrants in American history;

Order the National Guard into cities with high crime rates, whether local officials want it or not;

Prosecute Californians who protect minors coming to the state for gender-affirming care;

Impose a 10% tariff on almost all foreign goods, increasing prices for consumers;

Appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” his political opponents, beginning with Biden;

Purge the federal civil service of anyone who questions his views.

lets be clear here, Donald Trump wants to use the military to hunt immigrants and if you think it'll stop at "illegal" immigrants I have a bridge to sell you. He wants to place major American cities, Democratic cities under military occupation, oh also while he fires any Democrats from the civil service and "goes after" his political enemies. And as a cherry on top he'll make being trans illegal.

right now the world is trying to distract you from this, trying to act like this is a normal election with two more or less equal choices that both have problems and draw backs, thats not true. One side is selling an authoritarian dictatorship that wants to carry out a genocide of trans people, the other side is not.

[mariacallous]

When Donald Trump first ran for the U.S. presidency in 2016, a wave of writing suggested that he was a realist. In this framing, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton was presented as a neoconservative hawk who would start wars. Trump, by contrast, would balance U.S. commitments with its resources. He would avoid foreign conflicts and quagmires. He would be less ideological in his approach to nondemocratic states.

In 2024, this thinking has returned. Some realist voices are again suggesting that Trump is one of them. Trump’s desire to end the war in Ukraine—even though he simply intends to let Russia win—is taken as evidence of this. So is the selection of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his vice presidential candidate. Vance has famously said that he does not care what happens to Ukraine. Conversely, he is a China hawk who seems to believe the United States cannot support both Taiwan and Ukraine simultaneously.

The notion that U.S. support for Taiwan and Ukraine is a trade-off is the most controversial component of the Trump realist position. Former Defense Department official Elbridge Colby, for example, has argued prominently that U.S. support for Ukraine undercuts its ability to help Taiwan, and that Europe should be almost exclusively responsible for helping Ukraine (or not).

But these hopes are badly misplaced. A second Trump term may well take an entirely different tack on China from the hawks—and even if he wants to move against Beijing, he lacks the discipline and ability to do so.

There is far more in Trump’s first term to suggest indiscipline, showboating, and influence-peddling than the clear-eyed, bloodless calculation of national interest that realists aspire to.

On China, Trump was undisciplined and sloppy. Yes, he turned against China in 2020, during the final year of his term, but that was more to deflect blame for COVID-19 than out of any realist or strategic reappraisal of U.S.-China relations. COVID-19 suddenly became the “kung flu” in Trump’s vernacular in an openly racist bid to change the subject.

Trump also undercut any ostensible focus on China by picking unnecessary fights with the United States’ regional partners. U.S.-South Korea and U.S.-Australia relations, for example, sank to their lowest point in years as Trump picked fights with their leaders because he wanted a payoff for the U.S. alliance guarantees.

Realism values allies for their ability to share burdens, project power, and generate global coalitions. Trump does not seem to grasp that at all. When Trump backed off his criticism of Japan, the turning point was apparently then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s relentless flattery, including giving Trump a gold-plated golf club, rather than any strategic reevaluation by Trump or his team. Such frippery is exactly the opposite of the cold calculation that we associate with realism.

Trump also sank the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and all but dropped earlier U.S. rhetoric about a pivot or rebalance to Asia. Were China a threat that Trump took seriously, then building a tighter trade area among the United States’ Asian partners would be a smart move to pool local allied economic power and build patterns of administrative coordination among those partners. Indeed, that was the rationale behind TPP and the “pivot” to increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific when it was proposed by the Barack Obama administration. Trump did not see that, either; he is obsessed with imposing tariffs, even against allies, which violates the realist tenets that concern allied power accumulation and coordination against shared threats.

Finally, Trump’s admiration for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s autocracy was blatant, and Trump has once again recently praised Xi as his “good friend.” The former U.S. president has spoken approvingly of China’s crackdowns in Tiananmen Square, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. He solicited Chinese help in the 2020 election, and China happily channeled money to Trump’s family and his properties during his presidency.

Trump clearly craves authoritarian powers at home and is happy to take China’s money. He was happy to pardon Republican lobbyist Elliott Broidy, who was convicted for illicitly acting on Beijing’s behalf. It stretches credulity to suggest that Trump will lead the United States, much less an Indo-Pacific coalition, in a major shift against a power that he admires. China will probably just throw money at him if he is reelected—especially after seeing his U-turn on a TikTok ban, a policy that he backed in his first term but failed to deliver on, after facing pressure from billionaire TikTok investor Jeff Yass.

Little else in Trump’s first term suggests s a thoughtful, realist weighing of priorities: Trump’s most important first-term foreign-policy venture was the attempted denuclearization of North Korea. Unsurprisingly, that effort was amateurish, sloppy, and unplanned—and it failed.

There is a realist argument for reaching out to Pyongyang. The United States’ long-standing policy of containment and deterrence has not changed North Korea, nor did it prevent its nuclearization. North Korea is now a direct nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland. A realistic foreign policy would accept that as an unchangeable fact and react to it. Perhaps a bold move by a risk-taking statesman could break the logjam.

Trump might have had the chance to pull this off, but he failed due to his own lack of discipline. Trump did not prepare for his meetings with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un; instead, he simply walked off the plane and thought his New York tough guy shtick would somehow bowl over a man raised in the crucible of North Korea’s lethal family politics. There was no interagency process to build proposals ahead of time, nor any kind of realistic, measured deal that could have won over Pyongyang.

According to John Bolton, then Trump’s national security advisor, the president did not even read in preparation for the summits. Instead, Trump demanded the complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmament of North Korea in exchange for sanctions removal, then walked out of the Hanoi summit when Pyongyang predictably rejected this wildly unbalanced so-called deal. Talks collapsed because Trump had not prepared and had no idea how to bargain on the issues when his first offer was rejected.

But Trump did get what he really wanted—lots and lots of publicity. His hugely hyped—and criminally underprepared—first summit with Kim in Singapore brought a week of nonstop news coverage. His later trip to the Demilitarized Zone, which included briefly walking inside North Korea, brought another wave of coverage. Trump even demanded that he receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This is showboating, not strategy.

The big issue in the realist case for Trump and Vance is that they will put Taiwan explicitly ahead of Ukraine in a ruthless prioritization of U.S. interests. As Andrew Byers and Randall Schweller write, Trump “understands the limits of American power.” From this perspective, the United States cannot reasonably hope to fight Russia and China simultaneously, much less a coordinated “axis” of those countries working with rogues such as Iran and North Korea. This notion is particularly connected with Vance, who has explicitly advocated abandoning Ukraine.

Yet Trump himself does not think this way. Trump’s supposed policy positions emerge on the fly as he speaks. He is lazy. He is not capable of the strategic thinking that realists want to attribute to him; one must only listen to his campaign speeches this year to see this. He routinely lies, makes up stories, and speaks in indecipherable word-salads. When Trump has spoken on Taiwan, he makes it clear that he sees it as just another free-riding ally that owes the U.S. protection money. In an interview with Bloomberg, Trump said the United States was “no different than an insurance company” and that Taiwan “doesn’t give us anything.”

It stretches psychological credulity to suggest that the United States under Trump will ruthlessly abandon a struggling, nascent democracy under threat by a fascist imperialist, but then abruptly fight for another new democracy under threat by an ever more powerful fascist imperialist. The prioritization of Taiwan over Ukraine misses the obvious precursor that the Middle East, in turn, is less valuable than Ukraine. But instead of reevaluating the United States’ position in the Middle East, Trump will almost certainly deepen U.S. involvement in the region because of the ideological fixations of his Christianist base.

The strategic case for elevating Taiwan over Ukraine is also far more mixed than Vance and Trumpian realists suggest.

First, China is much more powerful than Russia. So, a conflict with it would be far more destructive. The Russia-Ukraine war has been locally contained and, despite Russian bluster, not escalated to nuclear confrontation. That seems less likely in an open, U.S.-China war. It is an odd “realist” recommendation to suggest that the United States should take a provocative line against a stronger power, which increases the risk of great-power war, but not push its preferences on a weaker opponent where U.S. involvement is limited to a lower-risk proxy war.

Second, the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is much less costly than a parallel commitment to Taiwan. The United States is not fighting directly to defend Ukraine. It would have to do so to defend Taiwan. Taiwan defense would require the United States to project enormous force over a huge distance of open water at great expense—plus, there would be combat losses of major U.S. platforms, such as ships and aircraft.

By contrast, U.S. aid to Ukraine has mostly come in the form of money and midsized, ground-based platforms, totaling around $175 billion over two-and-a-half years. This is small and easily manageable because of NATO’s propinquity. U.S. national security spending is approximately $1 trillion annually; the country’s annual economic production is approximately $25 trillion. Notions that U.S. aid to Ukraine is an unsustainable overstretch, or that it is bolstering another “forever war,” are simply not correct.

In Ukraine, the United States is also using intelligence assets and coordination relationships with NATO allies that have long been in place—and resources that have little relevance to a Taiwan conflict. Washington is not going to engage the Chinese army in ground conflict, just as it does not need U.S. aircraft carriers to help Ukraine. As a specific example of a possible trade-off, Vance has suggested the United States lacks the artillery shell production capacity to meet both national defense needs and those of Ukraine. But that argument implies abandoning Ukraine today for an unidentifiable but apparently imminent U.S. ground war tomorrow.

Realist hopes for Trump and Vance assume an intellectual discipline that both men lack and elevate geopolitical trade-offs that are less acute than realists admit., Trump is lazy, unread, venal, easily bought, susceptible to autocrats’ flattery, captive to the ideological fixations of his domestic coalition, ignorant of U.S. strategic interests, and dismissive of alliances that amplify U.S. power. Vance is ostensibly more clear-eyed, but he is a foreign-policy neophyte in the pocket of Silicon Valley donors, including his mentor Peter Thiel. He has been a senator for less than two years, before which he was a financier and author whose interests were local.

The fiscal space to reorient U.S. defense spending is there. If Vance and Trump were truly serious about confronting China, they would not be proposing yet another massive Republican tax cut, for example. The traditional liberal internationalism Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden represent is far more likely to build a durable global coalition against Chinese and Russian revisionism than the venal caprice masquerading as strategy that Trump would bring back to the White House.

[misfitwashere]

The one big constraint on Trump

ROBERT REICH

NOV 25

Friends,

Will anything stop Trump? 

He will have control over both chambers of Congress, a tractable Supreme Court, a political base of fiercely loyal MAGAs, a media ecosystem that amplifies his lies (now including Musk’s horrific X as well as Rupert Murdoch’s reliably mendacious Fox News), and a thin majority of voters in the 2024 election. 

He doesn’t worry about another election because he won’t be eligible to run again (or he’ll ignore the Constitution and stay on). 

Of course, there are the midterm elections of 2026. But even if Democrats take back both chambers, Trump and his incipient administration are aiming to wreak so much havoc on America in the meantime that Democrats can’t remedy it. 

The Republican-controlled Senate starting January 3 won’t restrain Trump. Yes, Trump overreached with his pick of Matt Gaetz for attorney general. Apparently even Senate Republicans can’t abide sex trafficking girls for drug-infested orgies, but this is a very low bar. 

So, as a practical matter, is anything stopping Trump? 

Yes, and here’s a hint of what it is: On Friday, Trump picked Scott Bessent to serve as treasury secretary. 

Bessent is the man Elon Musk derided only a week ago as the “business-as-usual choice” for treasury secretary, in contrast to Howard Lutnick, who Musk said would “actually enact change.” 

Musk’s view of “change” is to blow a place up, which was what Musk did when he bought Twitter. 

Over the last two weeks, Musk has convinced Trump to appoint bomb-throwers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Health and Human Services and Pete Hegseth to Defense, and to put Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. 

But Bessent is the opposite of a bomb-thrower. He’s a billionaire hedge fund manager, founder of the investment firm Key Square Capital Management, and a protege of the MAGA arch-villain George Soros (he’s also gay, which the MAGA base may not like, either). 

Why did Trump appoint the “business as usual” Bessent to be treasury secretary? Because the treasury secretary is the most important economic job in the U.S. government. 

Trump has never understood much about economics, but he knows two things: High interest rates can throttle an economy (and bring down a president’s party), and high stock prices are good (at least for Trump and his investor class). 

Trump doesn’t want to do anything that will cause bond traders to raise long-term interest rates out of fear of future inflation, and he wants stock traders to be so optimistic about corporate profits they raise share prices. 

So he has appointed a treasury secretary who will reassure the bond and stock markets. 

Stock and bond markets constitute the only real constraint on Trump — the only things whose power he’s afraid of. 

But wait. What about Trump’s plan to raise tariffs? He’s floated a blanket tariff of 10 to 20 percent on nearly all imports, 25 percent on imports from Mexico, and 60 percent or more on Chinese goods.

Tariffs of this size would increase consumer prices and fuel inflation — driving interest rates upward. (The cost of tariffs are borne by American businesses and households, rather than foreign companies.)

Tariffs could also invite retaliation from foreign governments and thereby dry up export markets for American-based corporations — in which case the stock market would tank. (The last time America raised tariffs on all imports — Herbert Hoover’s and Congressmen Smoot and Hawley’s Tariff Act of 1930 — the Great Depression worsened.) 

In short, tariffs will rattle stock and bond markets, doing the exact opposite of what Trump wants. 

So Trump has appointed a treasury secretary who will soothe Wall Street’s nerves — not just because Bessent is a Wall Street billionaire who speaks the Street’s language but also because the Street doesn’t really believeBessent wants higher tariffs. 

Bessent has described Trump’s plan for blanket tariffs as a “maximalist” negotiating strategy — suggesting Trump’s whole tariff proposal is a strategic bluff. The Street apparently thinks tariffs won’t rise much when other countries respond to the bluff with what Trump sees as concessions. 

Instead, the Street expects Bessent to be spending his energies seeking lower taxes, especially for big corporations and wealthy Americans, and helping Musk and Ramaswamy cut spending and roll back regulations.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of American democracy when the main constraint on the madman soon to occupy the Oval Office is Wall Street. 

I suppose we should be grateful there’s any constraint at all. 

[spotlightstory]

Question: If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care more affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?

Trump: "Well I would do that and we are sitting down. You know, I was somebody - we had Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about - that, because look, child care is child care, couldn't - you know, there's something - you have to have it in this country. You have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels they are not used to. But they'll get used to it very quickly. And it's not going to stop them from doing business with us. But they will have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers we are talking about, including child care, that it's going to take to care. We are going to have, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. (What's that crazy self talk???) But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I am talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just - that I just told you about. We're going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we will be taking in. We are going to make this into a incredible country that can afford to take care of its people. And then we will worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people. But we are going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about make America great again. We have to do it because right now, we are a failing nation. So, we'll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you." Link to video

uh huh, m'hmm... WTF??? Trump knows nothing about American families or child care. He's so disconnected and demented. Trump is not fit for office.

JD's answer on child care wasn't much better. It was basically "Get Grandma to do it" and "Deregulate it".

Fun Fact - US Deficit: the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2024 is $1.9 Trillion. Adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments, the deficit amounts to $2.0 trillion in 2024 - Congressional Budget Office dot gov

Import Tariffs: increase the price of goods and services in domestic markets by applying a tax on imported goods that is paid by the domestic importer. To cover the increased costs, the domestic importer then charges higher prices for the goods and services. Are Americans ready for Trump's $10 banana? Those 'trillions' he's talking about from "countries sending product into our country" will increase the price of those products !!!

We are already struggling with Shrinkflation, Greedflation and the cost of living. This con man is not fit for office. Vote Blue

[bibliophilea]

No, that gets filed under "misinformation". Specifically, misinformation that could have been corrected just by taking 10-20 minutes to look up and think about both Harris's and Trump's basic platforms.

Trump wants to cut taxes for corporations and put tariffs on imported goods. The costs of these actions will fall on the average American.

Harris's platform, meanwhile, addressed cutting taxes for the middle class, making rent and home ownership affordable, supporting the economy through supporting small businesses and cracking down on the actions large companies have taken to artificially increase costs to turn a profit, decreasing the cost of healthcare, and a variety of other issues that directly affect the average American.

Harris's platform is the first thing you get when you google "Kamala Harris platform". Her website's talking points show specific, actionable ideas towards the points above. Trump's platform (also the first thing you get when you google "Donald Trump platform") talks a big game, but it doesn't say anything actionable. It's mostly buzzwords, and it doesn't talk at all about how he plans to do any of it. And if you're worried about the cost of living and the economy, you've gotta wonder how he's going to pay for "carry[ing] out the largest deportation operation in American history" or "strengthen[ing] and moderniz[ing] our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world". A whole lot of buzzwords, and multiple contradictory points if you actually read the page and take a few seconds to think about them.

So why didn't most Americans do those 10-20 minutes of research and exercise a little bit of critical thinking? Why was there a surge in voters turning out for Trump, and a large number of voters who stayed home or voted third party? A part of it is people wanting someone anti-establishment, sure. They didn't see the things Biden managed to do to keep things from being worse now than they are, because things are still terrible. But you'd think they'd have learned from last time that "anti-establishment" doesn't mean "good", and that when it comes to Trump in particular, "anti-establishment" means "bad".

Anyways, what's done is done. People's actions speak louder than their intentions. And the actions of most people who voted, alongside the inaction of everyone who chose not to vote, resulted in another four years of POTUS Trump. People are going to far suffer worse than under a Harris administration, and it's going to take more than 4 years to fix what can be fixed.

That's what this post is saying. Regardless of your ideology or your intention, this is the result. And we all have to live with it.

To be clear, if Trump has won this election it is because of misinformation, electoral interference, corruption and mostly bigotry.

However, if you knew what was at stake and decided that you were willing to accept the possibility of a Trump victory rather than vote for Harris, you do not get to walk back an inch of that choice. You accepted responsibility at the ballot box, and now you get to own it.

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Low Lifes Put In Charge By Trump

Donald Trump, the President elect, has picked cabinet appointees as compromised as himself. I mean, nominating Matt Gaetz for Attorney General was an attempt at putting the sleaze in place early. Gaetz, like Trump, is a serial sexual abuser of women and these are the people Americans want in charge of their country. Low lifes put in charge by Trump. The Gaetz nomination failed early but it set the tone for the next Trump administration. Trump wants others around him who are as compromised as himself, as it is easier to manipulate those who owe you something. The nomination of Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary is another clouded in similar issues around the treatment of women. “Mr Gaetz was Donald Trump's pick for attorney-general in his incoming administration but he pulled out of contention as sexual misconduct rumours swirled and senators indicated they were likely to block his appointment. The new report was produced by the ethics committee, which is comprised of five Democrats and five Republicans. It says Mr Gaetz's conduct while a congressman "reflects discreditably upon the House". It alleges he "violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use" and other matters.” (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-24/matt-gaetz-us-congress-ethics-committee-report/104759696)

Trump Owes A Lot Of Powerful People

America is a disappointing place, in my view, with a corrupt and dysfunctional administration about to take up the reins. On the one hand, Donald Trump owes so much to so many that he has sold the integrity of the executive before a shot is even fired. Elon Musk is the most obvious large creditor following the re-election of Donald Trump to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Musk is the unelected power behind the throne who is not shy of throwing his weight around. The richest man in the world will want a return on his investment, that’s for sure. Low lifes put in charge by Trump.

SpaceX Demo-2 Preflight (NHQ202005270020) by NASA HQ PHOTO is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 Low Life’s & Billionaires Lining Up Behind Trump Musk is not the only creditor, however, just the greatest and the latest in a long line of them. Trump has done so many deals in his desperate bid for a second term in the White House that it will be government for the billionaires by the billionaires. The ordinary schmucks who voted for Trump and all those who didn’t are going to be in for a rough ride, I predict. You cannot be but hugely disappointed in the American people at what has transpired and is about to over the next 4 years, at least. Democracy has been a thin coating stretched to breaking for a long time and now its failure is out in the open. Perhaps, that will be a good thing going forward. I mean, you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone is the old song lyric. Vested interests have been running the show for much of history with window dressing concerns for diversity and equal opportunity. Now, the people who brought you United Healthcare and the greed of Wall St want to wipe those from the Constitution too. The American people elected them on this basis when they had the chance to vote for an alternative.

Stupid is as stupid does. Bernie Sanders has been telling the American people how it really is for decades. It seems that not enough people are listening. Trump the reality TV star is more real than real to too many Americans. A nation that gets lied to every minute of the day. They believe the BS that is fed them, especially via TV. If you keep telling folk that all their problems are because of someone else you increase your political popularity but you never hope to solve the problem. That is not the game. Trump will again make a lot of noise and get f*** all done. This tariff strategy is just another fund raising scheme for the grifter. Low lifes put in charge by Trump.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com Trump threatens countries with high tariffs on their goods coming into the US. Meanwhile, behind closed doors deals are done that benefit him personally and his benefactors. Already, he is picking public fights with soft targets like Panama and Greenland. He is warning Canada and Mexico, both political enemies because of their current leadership. The US has a convicted felon for President elect and the world’s expectations are low in light of who Trump is. The foxes are going to be in charge of the hen house to use an old analogy. Stupid folk have voted for Trump in the hope that they will get some scraps from the high table. Whites have put him in office to restore their long standing unfair advantages. Black men to bolster their status in the face of progressive women. Latino men likewise to keep their machismo intact. They all hope that a crook in charge of the economy will make them more money. Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of America Matters: Pre-apocalyptic Posts & Essays in the Shadow of Trump. ©WordsForWeb https://www.midasword.com.au/product/america-matters-pdf-version/ Read the full article

[mercoglianotrueblog]

Western disorder

#Trump to end #Ukraine war?No

90% of aid remains in #US,creates Ks jobs

he wants #EU countries spend 5% of #GDP that will go to US #military ind.& increase purchases of US #oil,gas otherwise he'll impose huge #tariff on all EU goods

EU "#hawks" will agree

https://salvatoremercogliano.blogspot.com/2024/12/western-disorder.html?spref=

[pscottm]

Trump says he wants to impose tariffs on foreign goods, lower tax rates and lighten regulations, policies that could rev up the economy, but also fuel inflation and increase U.S. government debt — and, say some economists, lead to higher interest rates and in turn higher mortgage rates.

“Trump’s fiscal policies can be expected to lead to rising and more unpredictable mortgage rates through the end of this year and into 2025,” said Lisa Sturtevant, chief economist with Bright MLS, who no longer forecasts the average rate on a 30-year home loan to dip below 6% next year.

Homebuilding sector analysts at Raymond James and Associates see mortgage rates remaining “higher for longer,” given the outcome of the election. They also said in a research note last week that first-time homebuyers “are likely to face even greater affordability challenges this spring,” typically the peak sales season of the year for homebuilders.

Higher mortgage rates can add hundreds of dollars a month in costs for borrowers, reducing their purchasing power at a time when home prices remain near record highs despite a housing market sales slump dating back to 2022.

Elevated mortgage rates and high prices have kept homeownership out of reach for many first-time buyers. They accounted for just 24% of all homes purchased between July 2023 and last June, a historic low going back to 1981, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. Prior to 2008, the share of first-time buyers had historically been 40%.

[enterprisewired]

U.S. Businesses Brace for Potential Trump Tariffs, Opt for Diverse Strategies Amid Uncertainty

Source: intellinews.com

Share Post:

LinkedIn

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

With President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs looming, U.S. businesses are strategizing ways to protect their operations from the potential economic ripple effects. Trump’s proposal includes a 10% tariff on all imports and a substantial 60% tariff on goods made in China, a significant trading partner for the U.S. There is also a suggested 25% levy on imports from Mexico. If enacted, these measures could elevate consumer prices and provoke retaliatory tariffs from affected countries, leading to a cascade of economic consequences. Economists warn that Trump’s tariff plan, which may be his most impactful economic policy, could drive inflation, disrupt U.S.-China trade, and revert import duty rates to levels not seen since the 1930s.

Businesses Respond by Front-Loading Inventories

Many U.S. businesses are taking proactive steps to mitigate risks. For example, M.A.D. Furniture Design, based in Hong Kong, is accelerating shipments of its Chinese-manufactured furniture to a warehouse in Minneapolis, anticipating a smoother transition if the tariffs come into effect. Similarly, Joe & Bella, an online clothing retailer based in Chicago, has significantly increased orders for popular Chinese-made items, such as shirts and pants, to ensure supplies last through the upcoming Chinese New Year when factory operations pause for several weeks. “We wanted our merchandise delivered before Chinese New Year to avoid potential delays and tariff impacts,” said co-founder Jimmy Zollo.

Front-loading, or preemptively increasing inventory, has been a common strategy among importers to avoid trump’s tariff costs. However, with the breadth of products that could be affected by Trump’s proposed tariffs, experts speculate that U.S. ports might become congested if many companies employ similar tactics. This strategy requires businesses to invest heavily in storage and logistics, a costly endeavor that some, particularly small businesses, may not be able to afford.

Smaller Businesses Weigh Options Amidst Uncertainty

While larger companies with sufficient resources might lean toward front-loading, some small business owners are adopting a cautious approach, prioritizing cash flow over large, preemptive stockpiling. Hilla Hascalovici, CEO of New York-based Periodally, a company that sells Chinese-made heating patches for menstrual relief, has decided against early orders, citing the high costs of storage and expedited shipping as deterrents. Similarly, Max Lemper-Tabatsky of Denver-based Oaktree Memorials, which imports cremation urns from Asia and Europe, has chosen a “wait-and-see” approach rather than committing significant capital based on potential trump’s tariffs that may not materialize.

Freight companies, too, are preparing for the potential changes. Alan Baer, president of OL USA, a freight handling company, anticipates a slowdown in shipments if the tariffs are enacted, potentially leading to reduced demand for his firm’s services. “Tariffs in shipping are challenging no matter the scenario,” Baer remarked, highlighting the potential for workforce reductions if tariffs lead to decreased import volumes.

In light of Trump’s tariff policies during his presidency from 2017 to 2021, many in the business community remain skeptical but cautious, acknowledging that campaign promises do not always result in implemented policies. However, with the possibility of substantial tariffs, U.S. businesses are adopting a mix of preemptive and conservative strategies to navigate the uncertainty ahead.

[ask-the-crimson-king]

Hey, think of the positive (probably the only good one, but we all need at least something), Trump can’t be elected again. The two term limit makes sure of that

You think he'll stay until only 2028?

He's going to do what Putin and Netanyahu have done. He's going to stay in power. He doesn't give a fuck about the law nor Constitution, and they only matter when they're enforced.

Sorry for this becoming a vent post, anon. I know you mean well, but I still have thoughts.

Putting it under a cut retroactively. My words are sharp and without much forethought but I'm standing behind them for now. Will probably delete later.

I wish everyone who didn't vote a very Go Fuck Yourselves. The lives of countless millions are going to get materially worse within the first weeks of this fucking bastard taking office.

They can come and fucking get me. I'm not going out without a fucking fight. My very life, my very act of being is now political resistance.

Fuck them. And fuck everyone who sat this one out. Trump showed the same numbers as 2016 and 2020 just about. Fuck everyone who was too lazy this go-around.

Oh, and for those of NH, a very "go fuck yourselves" for allowing Ayotte in. Fucking jackals, every single one of you.

And triple fuck you to everyone who voted no on Prop 5 in Massachusetts. How the fuck are you going to get rid of the fucking MCAS as a graduation requirement yet not up the minimum wage for tipped workers? Actual fucking jackals.

We're so beyond fucked. I can't even finish my degree now. I'm 3 semesters short. Luckily the money is due before the fucking Fanta Fascist takes office so I can at least get it down to 2 semesters off. But I'll never be able to fucking complete it in my lifetime. Colleges are about to see enrollment fucking DROP like flies.

Fuck EVERYONE who sat this one out. Don't even TRY justifying your inaction on this. Don't. I don't want to hear "oh but both parties bad" when our EPA is about to be destroyed as well as the FDA, the CDC, and more. Shut the actual fuck up. I wish the hell that I and countless others are weathering comes down upon you thricefold.

We're fucked.

Welcome the Day One Dictator. Hope the 5c off gas/gal is worth the +50% increase in prices of literally everything else because you don't know how fucking tariffs work.

[starseedfxofficial]

Trump Back on Top? APAC Markets React—Uncover Hidden Forex Opportunities Now! Trump Leads, APAC Reacts: A Rollercoaster Ride with Ninja-Level Forex Tactics You Need Well, well, well, look who’s back in the lead—it's The Donald himself, doing what he does best: shaking up global markets. APAC stocks took the cue like a dance partner caught in a whirlwind. While Wall Street went full risk-on as Trump crept up in the US Presidential Election results, Asia-Pacific followed suit, with each market responding in its own delightful way. So, hold on tight, dear traders, because this isn’t just your regular market recap. We’re about to uncover some serious behind-the-scenes action, from next-level Forex strategies to some laughable pitfalls – and how you can turn all that chaos into an absolute trading gem. Grab your favorite coffee (or matcha, if you’re in Tokyo), and let’s break it down. The Aussie Punch: ASX 200 Goes All-In with Tech and Financials It seems like the Aussies are taking a page from the American playbook—if you're gonna go in, might as well go all-in. The ASX 200 saw some turbocharging in sectors like tech, consumer discretionary, and financials. Imagine the market riding a kangaroo, hopping higher and higher. And hey, if that sounds a bit like a wild ride, it’s because it is. What’s the Insider Angle Here? It’s easy to watch the broader movements, but this is where the pros separate themselves from the rookies: look under the hood. The rotation into tech and consumer discretionary isn’t just “luck” or “following trends”—it’s investors betting on rising consumer confidence as election results unfold. The insider tip? Keep an eye on the Aussie consumer sentiment. When the market gets political, the wallet gets emotional—and emotional wallets make for strategic opportunities. Start placing your bets where emotions sway the most. Nikkei 225: Yen Drops, Nikkei Pops—The Classic Forex Tango No surprises here: the Nikkei 225 hit a whopping 39,000 level, all thanks to a weakening yen. Remember that classic FX trick? When the yen dives, exporters thrive. This time around, Japan’s currency is giving us a reminder of the good ol’ days of depreciation-driven gains. It’s almost like watching a heavyweight boxer take a dive—but, plot twist, his manager (in this case, the Nikkei) profits massively. How You Turn This Trend to Your Favor So, what’s the play here? Glad you asked, grasshopper. When currencies weaken, big exporters like Toyota get an indirect ‘subsidy’ to their profits. And if you’re looking to capitalize, this is the perfect moment to ride those blue-chip Japanese waves. Want ninja-level tactics? Here’s one: consider leveraging USD/JPY positions to amplify your profit—but be ready to hedge. In markets like this, opportunities come in pairs (pun intended). Hong Kong's Hangover: Hang Seng Gets the Tech Tariff Blues Meanwhile, over in Hong Kong, Hang Seng had a serious case of Monday blues (even if it wasn't Monday). Tech took a beating amid fresh tariff threats. It's like that one friend at the party who thought it was all going well until they realized, oh no, they’re out of their depth—and tariffs are being slapped like the worst hangover cure ever. The Hidden Secret No One Talks About The under-the-radar gem here is that while tariffs wreak havoc on the obvious tech darlings, secondary sectors like Hong Kong’s utilities and real estate can become safe-haven plays. Here's a little-known secret: when in doubt, rotate out. Spot the bearish trends in tech? Slide into those dividend-paying utility plays to stay safe and get a cushion while tech sorts itself out. Shanghai Composite: Fiscal Stimulus to the Rescue (Kinda) China’s Shanghai Composite was left wondering what exactly it should do—stay optimistic with upcoming fiscal stimulus or freak out about increased tariffs? It felt like watching a cat trying to decide if it should jump or stay put. Spoiler: it kinda did neither, ending the day just as confused as it started. Opportunity in Uncertainty For the savvy trader, this kind of indecisiveness means there’s some hidden gold. Stimulus always ends up somewhere—the trick is anticipating who gets the pie. If you’re willing to dig into the weeds, sectors that are primed to benefit from China’s stimulus (such as infrastructure and electric vehicles) could offer golden entry points—but beware, the road is littered with potholes in the form of erratic policymaking. BoJ Gets the Spotlight: The “Will They, Won’t They” Rate Hike Saga Continues Ah, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and their almost Shakespearean take on monetary policy. Their September meeting minutes gave us one of those long, drawn-out dramas. Members can’t seem to agree whether to raise rates or hold off while markets remain turbulent. It’s like that awkward family dinner where half the table thinks you should buy a new house while the other half just wants to wait until the economy stabilizes. Master-Level Insight The real edge here? Follow the yen futures. When central bankers get indecisive, currency futures start revealing the truth way before official policy. Also, if you’re still listening to the BoJ’s dithering for your cue to trade, it’s time to upgrade your playbook. Get in front of the markets, not behind. Quick Hits & Hidden Gems: The Rest of the APAC Scene - China & Malaysia's Cosy Chat: Chinese Premier Li wants to push flagship railway and industrial projects with Malaysia. Wanna ride this wave? Keep an eye on the commodities market—steel and construction-related plays might just have a ‘railway rally.’ - Japan's Currency Talk: Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Hayashi mentioned wanting stability for the yen, stating, “Intend to watch closely on FX moves with a higher sense of urgency”—which translates to, “We’ll intervene if things get too crazy”. Take this as a sign: keep your JPY risk tight and stay nimble. - UMC Sales Report: Taiwan’s UMC had a stellar October. Sales were up +11.36% year-on-year—because, hey, semiconductors might be getting a lot of geopolitical heat, but they’re still hotter than a chip pan. Consider rotating into these players when others get scared. Ninja Moves to Wrap Things Up Feeling overwhelmed by all the action? That’s the thing with global politics and markets—they move together, but never in a straight line. So, what can you do as a trader? You look for where things are not obvious. - Use Election Outcomes to Predict Short-Term Market Emotions: The result of elections is like a firework—a bright burst of noise, followed by fading glitter. Learn how to profit during both parts. - Weak Yen? Strong Opportunity: Whenever the yen goes on a dive, turn your focus to export-heavy Nikkei stocks. Toyota, Honda, Sony—they’re practically begging you to capitalize. - When Tariffs Threaten Tech, Utilities Become Heroes: It’s a simple reallocation strategy, but it works. Watch Hong Kong closely. And as always, if you want to stay ahead of the curve and need more of these insights on the regular—whether it’s daily alerts, in-depth education, or strategic tools—don’t miss out on the StarseedFX offerings. - Latest Economic Indicators and Forex News: Stay informed on market movements and groundbreaking concepts with exclusive, real-time updates at StarseedFX Forex News. - Forex Education: Expand your knowledge with in-depth resources, advanced methodologies, and little-known strategies at StarseedFX Education. - Community Membership: Join the StarseedFX community for expert analysis, daily alerts, live trading insights, insider tips, and elite tactics by visiting StarseedFX Community. - Free Trading Plan: Set goals, manage risks, and track progress with our detailed trading plan. Discover rare strategic advantages at StarseedFX Trading Plan. - Free Trading Journal: Enhance performance and refine strategies with real metrics using advanced methods for progress tracking at StarseedFX Trading Journal. - Smart Trading Tool: Optimize your trading with automated lot size calculations, insights, and order management at StarseedFX Smart Trading Tool. Stay sharp, stay informed, and remember—in the game of Forex, it’s the ones who look beyond the surface that win big. —————– Image Credits: Cover image at the top is AI-generated   Read the full article

[erebusvincent]

Then came the McKinley tariff. Going into effect in October 1890, it raised the average tariff nearly to 49 percent. It did its job of reducing imports and also reducing income to the Treasury, even as the Sherman Silver Purchase Act increased the Treasury’s payouts.2 The surplus compiled under Cleveland turned swiftly into a deficit under his successor, Benjamin Harrison.

Beyond that, the U.S. government was in the position of buying silver with currency backed by gold, thus steadily reducing the amount of gold it held and increasingly undermining investors’ confidence in the dollar.

Anticipating a crisis, British investors began liquidating U.S. securities. Gold left U.S. coffers. By the start of 1893, U.S. gold reserves fell below $100 million, triggering a general panic of stock-selling and bank withdrawals. Bank runs and failures ensued, followed by commercial and agricultural failures. Double-digit unemployment persisted for years. If we had reliable data on the 1890s, we would understand that depression to have been as severe as the one that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929.

The right thing to do on the heels of the boom on the 1880s and the government surplus might well have been to lower tariffs. But the McKinley Republicans wanted to give something to their Eastern supporters while they were wooing their Western supporters. And, in the way of nineteenth-century Republicans, they thought tariffs were a beautiful thing. They reduced government income, they increased government expenditure, and they undercut foreign investors’ confidence in U.S. reliability, leading to catastrophic effects for ordinary Americans.

Donald Trump’s proposals today would surely do the same.

Get 30 day free trial

Trump’s proposed tariffs would occasion another problem: retaliation from trading partners raising their tariffs on U.S. goods. That was a major feature of the nationalist 1920s when, again, Republicans returned to control of Washington after a brief Democratic interlude—this time, the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. In response to the recession that followed World War I, the Warren Harding administration introduced an emergency tariff, as well as emergency immigration restrictions. Both emergency statutes were developed into ongoing policies with the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 and the National Origins Act of 1924. Other countries’ retaliatory tariffs and nationalist policies helped ossify the global economy, all but ensuring that the 1929 panic led to the Great Depression.

In campaigning on his nationalist policies in 1920, Warren Harding not only blathered in a notoriously incomprehensible way familiar to voters now subject to the Trumpian “weave,” he emerged from his fog of bloviation to make promises we might recognize today: “to safeguard America first, to stabilize America first, to prosper America first, to think of America first, to exalt America first, to live for and revere America first.”

Both the politically motivated McKinley tariff and the later protectionist program of the proto–America Firsters led to record-setting depressions. Neither is a policy we should repeat let alone feel nostalgia for.

[dallasareaopinion]

Vote Independent or third party, why?

From MSN article by Andrew Lisa: “Even so, the rich get richer with every presidential cycle while the middle class continues shrinking.”

This may seem like it could be taken out of context. It wasn’t, this is from an article talking about what Trump will do for the middle class, by the way, the article goes on to say:

“A second Trump presidency could affect middle-class finances through potential tax policy changes,” Pace said. “During Trump’s first term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 offered limited benefits to middle-income earners and more extensive benefits to the wealthy and corporations. Similar future policies could result in minimal tax relief for the middle class and possibly larger budget deficits, raising concerns about future tax increases or cuts in essential services.”

In assessing the impact of the TCJA, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Brookings Institute wrote, “The 2017 tax law doesn’t help the middle class. The benefits of the law tilt toward the well-off both now and in the future, according to the distributional analysis of the Tax Policy Center. By 2027, benefits of the tax law flow entirely to the rich.”

Yet don’t think I am supporting Harris. Go back to the opening sentence… the rich get richer in every presidential cycle…  the author may tend towards Harris, but the reality is for the last forty years or more the wealth gap has been shrinking, yet the stock market has gone up. So why does the gap shrink;  because no one in either party actually fights for the middle class. Sure every now and then a bill gets passed that sounds good, but overall the working and middle class have absolutely no representation in Congress.

Why? Because the Democrat and Republican party has only one goal, getting elected and re-elected. So you hear quite a bit of talk every election cycle, but by the next cycle you need to hear the same promises again because nothing was done for you.

Tired of it yet? Obviously I have been for quite some time which is one reason I keep beating the same ole horse all the time, but hopefully one day people’s eyes and ears will open.

And Trump will raise your taxes indirectly with tariffs and Harris will do what all Democrats do raise your taxes to pay for benefits our government can no longer afford.

To me our government could afford the benefits by making the distribution more efficient, but don’t expect a Democrat to figure that out. Oh by the way, Musk’s efficiency idea though is not what I am talking about. He will just shut down the government and shift all benefits to a few billionaires and you will be holding one giant bag of nothing costing you a fortune.

People will say you are wasting your vote if you vote third party or independent. Ask them when wasn’t my vote wasted. Everything is getting worse, wealth gap, quality of education, social security needs work (fixable, but nobody in Congress wants to do what is best for you) and so on.

A republican or democrat will tell you some inkling of an idea or fact that sounds like they did something, but again the slow deterioration is still happening. If either was actually doing something, then things would change. And then they will say, it is not us, it is the other side. That should tell you right away, that the blame game is part of the problem. If people really wanted to do something they would overcome the other side and do better.

So be bold, be strong and vote for your interests. Find a third party or independent candidate and vote for them. Sure they probably won’t win, but once you make the first step it is easier to start looking for something better. And once we get out of the mindset we must vote for the duopoly or the lesser of two evils others will see it can be done. Just think if third parties receive larger numbers then other people will notice and eventually people with viable ideas will feel that might have a chance to make changes.

I will be writing in a name for President and the Senate race in Texas. And both are approved write in candidates so my votes should be counted. I am going to go over my precinct results to make sure at least one for each and possibly two since the better half has come over to the force and no longer votes for the dark side. Research all your available options in your area and see which of those come closest to your values. No one may be perfect, but seriously if you are holding your nose and voting for someone you don’t like because you feel you have to, start researching.

And don’t let people say the other side is so bad you have to vote for my side, stop right there, wish them well and go back to researching. The hyperbole is insane and not real and this election is going to be close so voting outside the duopoly will make a bigger impact because both parties will realize you have learned they don’t care a damn about you, but themselves.

VOTE!  And check your precinct results, because you would have a very real and serious case if you know who you voted for and nothing shows.

Cheers

[mariacallous]

If anything is clear in this turbulent election season, it is presidential candidate Donald Trump’s intention to levy high tariffs on all U.S. imports. Experience shows and economists agree that tariffs lead to persistently higher prices for customers. But the near-term damage will be even greater if massive disruptions in supply chains create chaos for businesses that rely on imports.

Trump has promised to increase tariffs on imports from China by 60 percentage points and on all other imports by 10 to 20 percentage points. His insistence that this would not make American consumers and businesses pay higher prices reflects a basic misunderstanding of how tariffs work in practice.

When an importer brings a good into the United States, it pays a tariff to the U.S. government equal to a percentage (for example, 10 or 20 percent) of the price paid to the foreign exporter. Importers have essentially three choices in this situation: (1) pass the tariff along to their customer, (2) eat the tariff and suffer lower profits, or (3) renegotiate contracts with suppliers or find and then switch to suppliers with lower prices (a costly process).

Some foreign exporters will doubtless lower their prices to stay competitive in U.S. markets, in which case foreigners would indeed bear part of the burden of the tariff (while the U.S. Treasury would collect less revenue from importers). However, studies of the duties levied during the last Trump administration show that price reductions by exporters were minimal at best.

Instead, the 2018–19 tariffs nearly always meant that, including the tariffs, U.S customers paid higher prices for the affected imported goods—in fact, prices that were higher by the full amount of the tariff.

The 2018–19 tariffs had other negative effects. The U.S. tariffs reduced exports of U.S. manufacturers that relied on imported intermediate goods because those U.S. companies couldn’t completely reconfigure their supply chains to offset higher costs. Trump’s tariffs also brought on retaliatory tariffs by other countries, which caused some U.S. exporters to substantially lower the prices they charged abroad to maintain foreign market share. The Federal Reserve’s Beige Book, which compiles concerns raised by the U.S. business community, mentioned tariffs 30 times in its 25-page November 2019 edition. Many respondents cited tariff and trade uncertainties as worries, while others complained about supply-chain disruptions, tariff-related cost increases, stock-building as a hedge against trade uncertainty, or pressure from clients to absorb the costs of tariff hikes through lower profit margins. A study of quarterly earnings calls of publicly traded companies in 2018 found that supply chain disruptions and raw material costs were the two most frequently mentioned concerns. In addition, global manufacturing contracted in the wake of Trump’s tariffs.

A less visible cost of the tariffs came from the frenzy of appeals for exemption. A bewildering array of politically favored importers won tariff relief from the Trump administration. This process imposed heavy costs on small- and medium-sized enterprises that were ill-equipped to jump through the bureaucratic and political hoops.

In thinking about how costly Trump’s proposed tariffs on all goods imports would be, consider this: He now wants to levy tariffs on more than 10 times the amount of imports as in his first trade war. The earlier Trump tariffs covered around $380 billion of U.S. imports, while goods imports totaled $3.1 trillion in 2023. Aside from inflation and other adverse macroeconomic effects, including the effects of retaliation from our trade partners, chaos would erupt in global supply chains as U.S. importers struggled to avoid the impacts of tariffs.

The repercussions of these tariffs would be felt by every firm that sells imported goods and by every firm that uses imported inputs to run its business. Prices will rise, production will be depressed, and employment will likely fall, particularly in sectors exposed to higher input prices or foreign retaliation.

What should worry us just as much, however, is the prospect of near-term chaos. Every importer and every purchaser of imported intermediate goods would shift attention from day-to-day business needs in their scramble to renegotiate contracts, reconfigure supply chains, and lobby for tariff exemptions—all in an uncertain, highly politicized trade environment. Thanks to the pandemic, we know what our economy looks like when supply chains are massively disrupted: Product costs spike, and shelves are empty. Why on earth would we want to repeat that mess?