US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Sorry mate, this is horseshit. More next week as sports trumps politics and there is a big event coming up!

 

[Federberg]

Sorry mate, this is horseshit. More next week as sports trumps politics and there is a big event coming up!

haha! Well of course you would say that. It does fit your narrative

Anyway I'll be rooting for your guys tomorrow mate. A few of my mates have gone over

 

[Federberg]

Dear Lord! What is Trump thinking with these tariffs against US allies? I can't think of a single major economy that's liking this. Of course Russia isn't one of those so perhaps Trump is doing Putin's bidding here. How can Republicans accept this. It's absolutely insane. This guy has to be removed. He wants to be like Reagan, but all the signs are he's more like Herbert Hoover

 

[Horsa]

Dear Lord! What is Trump thinking with these tariffs against US allies? I can't think of a single major economy that's liking this. Of course Russia isn't one of those so perhaps Trump is doing Putin's bidding here. How can Republicans accept this. It's absolutely insane. This guy has to be removed. He wants to be like Reagan, but all the signs are he's more like Herbert Hoover

That's what I thought. He appears to be trying to hoover up his countries nearest neighbours & best allies.

 

[britbox]

Dear Lord! What is Trump thinking with these tariffs against US allies? I can't think of a single major economy that's liking this. Of course Russia isn't one of those so perhaps Trump is doing Putin's bidding here. How can Republicans accept this. It's absolutely insane. This guy has to be removed. He wants to be like Reagan, but all the signs are he's more like Herbert Hoover

He came in on a premise of America first... I'm not sure why this is such a shock to you. Putin's bidding? Get a grip of yourself man.

 

[Federberg]

He came in on a premise of America first... I'm not sure why this is such a shock to you. Putin's bidding? Get a grip of yourself man.

Lol! You’re not thinking straight. That is not America First, it’s America alone. Even a moron with little education knows the causes of the Great Depression. His lack of interest in history is stunning. Seriously mate, think before you jump to his defence

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, after a 180 turn and admission on paying back Cohen, now comes another 180 turn and admission on dictating about "meeting to discuss adoptions".

Wait for more of them as they twist and turn to get out of this intricate mess where the legal jeopardy and political jeopardy requires diametrically different actions.

 

[britbox]

I'm not defending the policy - I'm saying nobody should be remotely surprised because he basically stated he was going to tear up a load of trade deals and implied that would include some with "allies" throughout his election campaign.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not defending the policy - I'm saying nobody should be remotely surprised because he basically stated he was going to tear up a load of trade deals and implied that would include some with "allies" throughout his election campaign.

Didn’t say you were. Mate you're a very intelligent guy, please take a considered view before you challenge comments. Think about what America First means before jumping to Trump's defence. It certainly doesn't mean America Alone. But that's exactly what his tariff policy risks doing. Tariffs against Chinese intellectual property theft is one thing, using a National security argument to implement actions against your allies is quite another. Name any nation that's likely to be a bigger beneficiary of such stupidity and I think you'll find Russia is top of the list. You might want to walk with your eyes closed but with respect... I don't

 

[Federberg]

oops... seems like accidentally posted in the UK instead of US thread..

 

[britbox]

oops... seems like accidentally posted in the UK instead of US thread..

I moved them across.

 

[mrzz]

It certainly doesn't mean America Alone

Politicians make a living out of those ambiguous distinctions. You are trying to honestly read what the "America first" expression should mean, and that is precisely what won't work. "America first" will mean whatever shit Trump wants it to mean at any given point in time. It was up to his opposition to force him to define previously what he meant. They left him off the hook allowing to campaign over such loose terms, and now the price is payed (because, yes, I agree that "America Alone", which is what he is doing, is idiotic. But I also agree with BB that it was completely expected, also given Trump's obvious incapacity to understand the global scenario. He is most likely to be played around by the ones who better understand geopolitics).

 

[britbox]

Didn’t say you were. Mate you're a very intelligent guy, please take a considered view before you challenge comments. Think about what America First means before jumping to Trump's defence. It certainly doesn't mean America Alone. But that's exactly what his tariff policy risks doing. Tariffs against Chinese intellectual property theft is one thing, using a National security argument to implement actions against your allies is quite another. Name any nation that's likely to be a bigger beneficiary of such stupidity and I think you'll find Russia is top of the list. You might want to walk with your eyes closed but with respect... I don't

OK, let's start at the top... The US has a trade deficit of what...around 500-600 billion dollars per year? I'm no economist so I'm thinking in laymen's terms that this deficit is largely funded by accruing more debt? Correct? (Correct me if I'm wrong by the way - you're in finance so I trust your opinion).

So we have a country racking up massive debt year on year with a hefty trade deficit and a mammoth national debt overall. We are perpetually seeing the can kicked down the road for somebody else to deal with - it's never being addressed. "The West" in general is creating a gigantic bubble that is going to burst at some point and make the 2008 crash seem like a family picnic.

Trump's economic reforms are radical... I think you'll agree even if you disagree with what they are and how he is going about it. Somebody is finally acknowledging the status quo is not the answer. That alone has an element of attractiveness.

I have no idea if they are going to be successful or disastrous... you seem to have made your mind up already. Yeah, mammoth protectionist policies have been disastrous in the past - i.e. The Great Depression... but everyone adopts protectionism to a degree... that is what tariffs are. In fact, they are essential in many respects - it's just getting the tipping point right.

Trump clearly sees the US is punching below its weight when it comes to trade agreements and is doing something about it. I don't think it is an "America Alone" policy.

Again, this Russia stuff is a red herring. The whole Russian stuff is beyond hysterical. The US' biggest exports are in services - that's not a void Russia is likely to fill. In fact, the crippling sanctions on Russia are forcing it to develop it's own industries and seek new markets. Russia has huge natural resources and it's been punching well below its weight - the sanctions are forcing it to grow up quickly.

 

[Federberg]

OK, let's start at the top... The US has a trade deficit of what...around 500-600 billion dollars per year? I'm no economist so I'm thinking in laymen's terms that this deficit is largely funded by accruing more debt? Correct? (Correct me if I'm wrong by the way - you're in finance so I trust your opinion).

So we have a country racking up massive debt year on year with a hefty trade deficit and a mammoth national debt overall. We are perpetually seeing the can kicked down the road for somebody else to deal with - it's never being addressed. "The West" in general is creating a gigantic bubble that is going to burst at some point and make the 2008 crash seem like a family picnic.

Trump's economic reforms are radical... I think you'll agree even if you disagree with what they are and how he is going about it. Somebody is finally acknowledging the status quo is not the answer. That alone has an element of attractiveness.

I have no idea if they are going to be successful or disastrous... you seem to have made your mind up already. Yeah, mammoth protectionist policies have been disastrous in the past - i.e. The Great Depression... but everyone adopts protectionism to a degree... that is what tariffs are. In fact, they are essential in many respects - it's just getting the tipping point right.

Trump clearly sees the US is punching below its weight when it comes to trade agreements and is doing something about it. I don't think it is an "America Alone" policy.

Again, this Russia stuff is a red herring. The whole Russian stuff is beyond hysterical. The US' biggest exports are in services - that's not a void Russia is likely to fill. In fact, the crippling sanctions on Russia are forcing it to develop it's own industries and seek new markets. Russia has huge natural resources and it's been punching well below its weight - the sanctions are forcing it to grow up quickly.

I'm sorry but you're making some fairly fundamental errors regarding US deficits, errors by the way that Trump in his ill informed way is also making. It's a whole other thing to go into a detailed rebuttal, but suffice it to say that if the US wants to maintain the dollar as the global reserve currency then deficits are an inevitable consequence. It's actually self-defining in the existing financial system. To deny it is like wanting to have your cake and eat it, so you'll excuse me if I disregard the rest of your response on economics.

Russia is not a red herring. You can keep deluding yourself if you want to. But by Trump's often times concessions on this matter he has already admitted to his guilt. We've now actually reached the Nixonian stage with this lunatic where his main argument is that he's above the law.

Look mate.. you might want to believe that because the US has intervened in the politics of sovereign nations in the past then all's fair in love and war. As a non-US citizen I do sympathise with that to a certain extent. But don't tell me Russia is a red herring. The evidence is clearly to the contrary. This might be post-truth era but I can still tell when the sky is blue because I have eyes

 

[Federberg]

Politicians make a living out of those ambiguous distinctions. You are trying to honestly read what the "America first" expression should mean, and that is precisely what won't work. "America first" will mean whatever shit Trump wants it to mean at any given point in time. It was up to his opposition to force him to define previously what he meant. They left him off the hook allowing to campaign over such loose terms, and now the price is payed (because, yes, I agree that "America Alone", which is what he is doing, is idiotic. But I also agree with BB that it was completely expected, also given Trump's obvious incapacity to understand the global scenario. He is most likely to be played around by the ones who better understand geopolitics).

Farmers in Iowa didn't vote for him to jeopardise their living mate. The man has no governing philosophy. The very fact you say that it can mean whatever he wants it to mean says it all. But there is a deeper issue here. The only rational defence for most of the things Trump does is that he's an idiot. But what if he's not? What if he's willing to sell his country down the river? You don't find it extraordinary that it looks like the Chinese have probably bribed him into backing off a trade conflict? You don't find it amazing that he may have sanctioned the Qatar (the Gulf country with the largest US military base) embargo as part of an extortion programme? You don't find it incomprehensible that at the same time as he is making concessions to North Korea that could well jeopardise US national security, he is accusing the US's closest allies of being national security risks? Exactly what will it take for you get off the fence?

 

[britbox]

I'm sorry but you're making some fairly fundamental errors regarding US deficits, errors by the way that Trump in his ill informed way is also making. It's a whole other thing to go into a detailed rebuttal, but suffice it to say that if the US wants to maintain the dollar as the global reserve currency then deficits are an inevitable consequence. It's actually self-defining in the existing financial system. To deny it is like wanting to have your cake and eat it, so you'll excuse me if I disregard the rest of your response on economics.

Russia is not a red herring. You can keep deluding yourself if you want to. But by Trump's often times concessions on this matter he has already admitted to his guilt. We've now actually reached the Nixonian stage with this lunatic where his main argument is that he's above the law.

Look mate.. you might want to believe that because the US has intervened in the politics of sovereign nations in the past then all's fair in love and war. As a non-US citizen I do sympathise with that to a certain extent. But don't tell me Russia is a red herring. The evidence is clearly to the contrary. This might be post-truth era but I can still tell when the sky is blue because I have eyes

You don't think the existing financial system is broken? I'd suggest it is and there will have to be some huge correction. The current status quo is unsustainable. The American Dollar won't forever be the global reserve currency either... it wouldn't surprise me if we saw that change in our lifetime.

You are going back to election meddling and mixing it up with Russian benefits from Trump's economic policies. You said Russia would benefit from American protectionism and/or addressing a trade deficit... I can think of plenty of countries who would benefit to some degree, but Russia wouldn't be high on the list. American exports are primarily service-based - so where would Russia benefit particularly with that?

...and yeah, I couldn't care too much about Russian interference in an American election because I don't think that was how Trump won it even if some direct links were established (yet to be proven). It seems more like an excuse for people unable to accept the result.

 

[mrzz]

but suffice it to say that if the US wants to maintain the dollar as the global reserve currency then deficits are an inevitable consequence

It is not that simple. World economy is not symmetrically anchored and currency can be sent out not only by trade but also by loans. Even if one would admit that a deficit is inevitable, it still could be way smaller and manageable.

Exactly what will it take for you get off the fence?

What fence? I don't like the guy. I don't like most of his policies.If the fence is to chose who is the "lesser evil", Trump or his adversaries, than, sorry, I will hardly get off it. I really don't see Trump as anything completely different in the political spectrum. He sells himself like that, but I do not buy it. I also don't buy that he is the greatest possible evil. Of course that there is a deeper political game being played, and the "stupid" label is over simplistic, but the narrative is far more complex than a few paragraphs too.

 

[britbox]

It is not that simple. World economy is not symmetrically anchored and currency can be sent out not only by trade but also by loans. Even if one would admit that a deficit is inevitable, it still could be way smaller and manageable.



What fence? I don't like the guy. I don't like most of his policies.If the fence is to chose who is the "lesser evil", Trump or his adversaries, than, sorry, I will hardly get off it. I really don't see Trump as anything completely different in the political spectrum. He sells himself like that, but I do not buy it. I also don't buy that he is the greatest possible evil. Of course that there is a deeper political game being played, and the "stupid" label is over simplistic, but the narrative is far more complex than a few paragraphs too.

There lies the problem with politics. It gets so tribal that you can't be interested or agree with a specific policy if it goes against the "tribal alignment".

 

[Federberg]

It is not that simple. World economy is not symmetrically anchored and currency can be sent out not only by trade but also by loans. Even if one would admit that a deficit is inevitable, it still could be way smaller and manageable.

Lol! So what are you saying here? Are you disagreeing or agreeing. I can never tell with you

 

[Federberg]

You don't think the existing financial system is broken? I'd suggest it is and there will have to be some huge correction. The current status quo is unsustainable. The American Dollar won't forever be the global reserve currency either... it wouldn't surprise me if we saw that change in our lifetime.

I think I'm on record in this very forum stating that I think the financial system is busted. I am also on record, here, stating that I believe the end of US dollar hegemony began in August 2008. So..... whatever inference you're trying to make from my comments you've strayed on to a wrong path