After all, he's best at shooting himself in the foot and making things worse for him. — ssu

Nicholas Nassim Taleb writes this about Trump in his new book:

When I saw Donald Trump in the Republican primary standing next to the other candidates,
I became certain he was going to win that stage of the process, no matter what he said or did. Actually, it was because he had visible deficiencies. Why? Because he was real, and the public - composed of people who usually take risks, not the lifeless non-risk-taking analysts [...] The detractors of Donald Trump, when he was still a candidate, not only misunderstood the value of scars as risk signaling, but they also failed to realize that, by advertising his episode of bankruptcy and his personal losses of close to a billion dollars, he removed the resentment (the second type of inequality) people may have had toward him. There is something respectable in losing a billion dollars, provided it is your own money.

Moving back to Trump, what do people think of his tariffs on Steel and Aluminium Tariffs?

Reelection move. It gives him a helluva talking point in the Rust Belt which he must win.

Reelection move. — Cavacava

So soon?

The President desperately wants to shore up his support with Rust Belt voters who voted for him based on his promise to fight for their jobs. This has become especially important as his support is now, as Axios noted, falling with nearly all demographic groups, including those who backed him until now.

CNN

Do you really believe in all this religious crap? What is wrong with you people? Can you not think for yourselves and see how rubbish this all is?

"the rich people are given a choice, but if they choose wrongly their reward is death,"

Nearly the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. First of all, sorry to break the news to you but we ALL die one day, regardless of how rich, poor, good or bad we are. Secondly, I see more poor and innocent people die than rich, privileged and without moral conscience. So your theory doesn't hold water. And pleeeease don't give me that crap about heaven and hell. There is only one thing after death and that is eternal nothingness. Like, where exactly were you when someone by the name of Jesus was around convincing the naive and gullible masses that he was god? You did not exist then and you won't exist after you die. I know its a hard pill to swallow but I can't sugarcoat it for you. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Reelection move. It gives him a helluva talking point in the Rust Belt which he must win. — Cavacava

Oh I agree with this one. After all, he just focuses on his base as he (perhaps correctly) understands he has absolutely no way to get new supporters. And it's only about the perception what his actions give, not the actual outcome to the economy.

Yet the problem is that people will vote for Republicans or Democrats (and later for him) depending on how the economy goes. The signs aren't so good for that. A trade war is the last thing the global economy needs.

Says who, the financiers who make money by stealing from those who produce, the money changers and the leeches of society who suck those who are actually productive dry?

No. Say the people who know more about economics than the hillbillies who think that Trump is on their side.

No. Say the people who know more about economics than the hillbillies who think that Trump is on their side. — CuddlyHedgehog

No, those "who know more about the economy" are the leeches who make money by being money changers, speculators, etc. I have almost zero respect for such people. Whenever I see someone making a lot of money out of working a job actually - I don't respect that person, because they don't deserve the money, they don't take risk. The entrepreneurs, not the analysts and speculators, should run the economy.

Protectionism is bad for those money changers - they're used to pulling all the strings, but this has got to stop.

Well, they still know more about the economy and are in a far better position to form a realistic view on it. Protectionism is bad for the economy as a whole. And guess who is going to get hurt first and foremost >>> the entrepreneurs!

Protectionism is bad for the economy as a whole. And guess who is going to get hurt first and foremost >>> the entrepreneurs! — CuddlyHedgehog

No, I disagree. Local industries have to be protected, and access to finance needs to be made much easier than it is for local entrepreneurs. Banking should be nationalised, there should be no "for-profit" money changing. That is a monstrosity.

Lawyers and doctors need to have their salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels, which can still be quite high - say $150K in US.

Wall Street - taxed at 90% on profits.

Anyone who is a leech and not productive has to be thrown out. We have many leeches as it is in politics, in the banks, amongst lawyers, etc. - people who survive in the system because of their social relations, instead of merit & risk taking. Nobody who does not risk must be extraordinarily rewarded or accorded social status for that matter.

The entrepreneurs, not the analysts and speculators, should run the economy. — Agustino

Well Agustino, entrepreneurs do run the economy.

But if companies are making fewer investments, people are spending less, that has an effect on what entrepreneurs do. The economic boom bust cycle still happens no matter what. Some actions what a President does can only influence the outcome a bit.

You can look for the culprits you want and accuse these or those people to be leeches or whatever and hate the monetary system we have, but that doesn't make it different. The economy is far more complex than those seeing one definite culprit (for all the negative aspects) think.

The fact is that protectionism can work... if the industry protected would use it to modernize itself to compete in the end at the World market. But except for perhaps Germany in the 19th Century, that doesn't typically happen. The industry typically just takes the tariffs/subsidies etc. as a given and doesn't do anything to improve it's situation. Why should it, if it's protected?

In the end, if you just want to pay more for having an uncompetitive industry that actually doesn't deliver, well, then why not.

Yeah, count on Trump to increase taxes on the rich. Trump is not an entrepreneur. He inherited his fortune from his family and he screwed up several times, declaring himself bankrupt and dodging paying his debts and taxes. Now he is screwing up the whole country and the rest of the world with it.

Well Agustino, entrepreneurs do run the economy. — ssu

No, they don't. Entrepreneurs are finding it harder and harder to take decisions on their own, and more and more they have to be at the mercy of boards of directors, investors, politicians etc. It would be good if the entrepreneurs actually ran the economy.

The industry typically just takes the tariffs/subsidies etc. as a given and doesn't do anything to improve it's situation. Why should it, if it's protected? — ssu

Well, people are usually driven to growing - that's what most entrepreneurs intend to do anyway. So even if it might not happen in the short-term, I see no reason not to expect it sooner or later.

In the end, if you just want to pay more for having an uncompetitive industry that actually doesn't deliver, well, then why not.

Sure, after years of barely making an income, I think we can afford to let the entrepreneurs bank a little dough home for awhile. There are many entrepreneurs out there who are persistently, sometimes for many years, barely surviving, and some of them even run quite large companies.

Yeah, count on Trump to increase taxes on the rich. — CuddlyHedgehog

You shouldn't increase taxes on the rich just because they're rich. That's also not fair, because some people deserve to be rich.

Trump is not an entrepreneur. He inherited his fortune from his family and he screwed up several times, declaring himself bankrupt and dodging paying his debts and taxes. Now he is screwing up the whole country and the rest of the world with it. — CuddlyHedgehog

He lost more than a billion dollars and remade it - he is an entrepreneur.

It is the similar to the actions that Bush and Obama took. Bush raised steel tariffs 30%

In March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed a 30% tariff on Chinese steel. The results were chaotic. In a report put out by Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition in February of that year, the coalition found the tariffs against China boosted the overall prices of steel and cost the U.S. 200,000 jobs in businesses that buy steel, representing $4 billion.

...in September 2009, President Obama imposed a three-year tariff on car tires from China. Chinese imports went down, but the tires were simply sourced from other countries, the LA Times noted. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1,200 tire jobs were saved in the U.S., but through costs passed along to American consumers, 2,500 jobs were lost indirectly.

Both of these presidents were reelected to a second term.

Banking should be nationalised, there should be no "for-profit" money changing. — Agustino

That simply doesn't work. It has been proven again and again. And it basically goes against the whole idea of entrepreneurship. If you take a risk, you should get also bigger profit for it (if things go well) than not taking the risk. Money has to have a price. Heck, if I lend to the bank my money, I ought to get an interest on it.

The most idiotic idea ever is to think that you can replace the market mechanism with a government bureacrat. Because that is what you are saying. (Just as, well, the central banks do now for the money markets).

What the government should do is simply to look that theft, various kinds of rackets, and price fixing by large corporations doesn't happen. Basically not to make the economic boom bust cycle worse. What this means is to oversee that things defined by law to be criminal don't happen. What is as detrimental to economy as nationalization or socialization of the economy is, is also to leave the markets to "self-regulate" themselves. You simply cannot leave foxes in charge of the henhouse as it will leave the door open for reckless rackets that in the end blow up.

What I'm sick and tired of is the ludicrous idea that either the economy should totally be EITHER under government control or that there ought to be no government involvement in the markets whatsoever. And if those would be the only options.

No, they don't. Entrepreneurs are finding it harder and harder to take decisions on their own, and more and more they have to be at the mercy of boards of directors, investors, politicians etc. It would be good if the entrepreneurs actually ran the economy. — Agustino

You don't understand my point. They do run the thing. It's they who create jobs, make new industries and are crucial to the health of the economy.

And entrepreneurs by definition are self employed, so they don't have board of directors above them. If you have perhaps something under 30 million entrepreneurs in the US, they surely would be heard and followed by any politician, if they could speak with one voice. But 30 million people don't speak with one voice, have similar ideas and views. You can gather around one table the ten biggest corporations in the country, but you cannot gather around in similar fashion 30 million people.

So the simple fact is that entrepreneurs cannot run the economy. The only way they have influence is that when enough people would be entrepreneurs, the politicians surely would listen to them. But they are a minority. There are for example in the US far more government employees and employees of large corporations or pensioners that don't have at all similar preferences as a self-employed or a small business owner would have.

That simply doesn't work. It has been proven again and again — ssu

No it hasn't. Only nationalising the whole economy doesn't work. I didn't recommend that we do that.

And it basically goes against the whole idea of entrepreneurship. If you take a risk, you should get also bigger profit for it (if things go well) than not taking the risk. Money has to have a price. — ssu

Yes, you should - but not as a sleazy banker who doesn't produce anything and just watches money pour in. That's not "risk-taking". When the bank offers you a loan on terms that 99% of possible scenarios they win - that's not right, that's theft.

The most idiotic idea ever is to think that you can replace the market mechanism with a government bureacrat. Because that is what you are saying. (Just as, well, the central banks do now for the money markets). — ssu

In some cases that is already done - roads, the military, many natural resources etc. - doesn't seem to be a problem in those cases. Banking should be one of those industries, since making profits out of banking is ridiculous - nothing gets produced by bankers.

What I'm sick and tired of is the ludicrous idea that either the economy should totally be EITHER under government control or that there ought to be no government involvement in the markets whatsoever. And if those would be the only options. — ssu

Sure, that's not what I suggested.

YOU sir are what's wrong with America today. So many ill-informed ignoramuses shooting themselves in the foot and buying into propaganda that's against their own interests. Good luck living in Trump's world. You will come to your senses one day when you'll wake up and realise you have been left behind by a "deserving" bourjois who won't allow you access to healthcare unless you are willing to trade a kidney for it. As Trump himself would say ..."Enjoy!"

Well, I'm not American, and I don't live there. So I certainly am not what's wrong with America.

Oh, so you are talking from a place of safety. You should be living the "dream" most Americans do today and I would like to see how fond of the orange imbecile you would be then.

Banking should be one of those industries, since making profits out of banking is ridiculous - nothing gets produced by bankers. — Agustino

What is your reasoning?

Basic banking is a service just as anything: those who have savings will get an interest, the banker then chooses which people will he or she then lend money. And if those loans given out cannot be paid back by the people who took the loans, the banker ought to lose his job. Who the hell do I know to which barber or car mechanic can pay his loans or not?

Besides, when you nationalize banks, there is an evident temptation for the government to misuse the banks. Now if there is a banking crisis, for the government to step in is a good idea, but then the objective would be to get the sector healthy again.

The problem (which you likely know) is that that in the present systems the risks and rewards don't go hand in hand and hence you have had very reckless banks.

Oh, so you are talking from a place of safety. You should be living the "dream" most Americans do today and I would like to see how fond of the orange imbecile you would be then. — CuddlyHedgehog

Trump can't be responsible for the condition the US is in today - he was barely President for one year. Blame your other ex-Presidents like Clinton, Bush, Obama - all of them terrible.

And he is the cherry on the cake who's going to put everything right, correct? His attitude towards women, minorities, immigrants and anyone who is poor and downtrodden and his allegiance to Russia and the white supremacists is indeed very promising!

Trump can't be responsible for the condition the US is in today — Agustino

But Trump is responsible for the actions he takes and those he doesn't (as not doing anything does have consequences too) when in charge.

What the Trump presidency seems to be is rampant cronyism that is only restrained by the absolute ineptness of the President to be a leader as he has no leadership skills. I've now seen twice when Trump sits down in a bipartisan meeting how totally clueless he is and literally goes along with the idea that the last person speaking says.

What is your reasoning? — ssu

1. Banking is not productive - bankers don't produce anything or add any value. Ideally, banking should facilitate the development of industries by providing access to capital. This shouldn't be done SOLELY with the profit motive - a business may not be able to earn great profits at first, but it may be, for social reasons for example, necessary - it should still get funding.

2. For-profit banking is the equivalent of making money out of thin-air, and it creates entire social classes which profit from this without doing much. They are given higher social status, and are set apart from others based on literarily no merit whatsoever.

Basic banking is a service just as anything: — ssu

Yeah, a service where the banker pretty much cannot lose.

And if those loans given out cannot be paid back by the people who took the loans, the banker ought to lose his job. — ssu

If the loans can't be paid back, not a problem. Seize his house, seize his assets, why do you care? You may have some logistical issues selling those assets, so you just bunch them together, and sell them all at once at some discount and make your money back. No wonder - bankers usually make terrible administrators.

Who the hell do I know to which barber or car mechanic can pay his loans or not? — ssu

You don't need to know, because it's simply set up that you pretty much cannot lose. When you propose conditions for a mortgage for a property investment and give me a variable interest rate based on a reference rate + 1-2% - while that reference rate usually ends up somewhat higher than inflation anyway at least for the foreseeable future, AND force me to guarantee with the property, then you pretty much cannot lose. In fact, I calculated it for one such case - the scenarios in which the bank really loses are basically non-existent. Whereas I will be a slave to you for quite a few years if I fail to pay you the capital. Those aren't fair conditions, they are abusive, and discourage entrepreneurial activity.

Trump fantasises on becoming a dictator some day. Had his power not been limited by the American constitution and other democratic constraints , he would have no moral qualms in pursuing a totalitarian regime. He is already practising the skill by firing whoever opposes him or in anyway challenges his authority. He has a very fragile ego that needs constant validation, just like most dictators in history.

Yeah, a service where the banker pretty much cannot lose. — Agustino

I am not defending the bankers in any way, I think they're parasites and should not be rewarded the way they are, however, if the banks fail, say tomorrow, your savings are gone, your business is going down as people will have no money to buy your stuff and you will starve unless you have enough money stashed away under your mattress. The issue is much more complicated than you'd like to think and a simplistic "get rid of the banks and bankers" type of solution is unrealistic and frankly rather naive and juvenile.

The problem (which you likely know) is that that in the present systems the risks and rewards don't go hand in hand and hence you have had very reckless banks. — ssu

You get very reckless banks precisely because the social classes I was talking about have already formed. They insulate themselves from the risks, while accumulating more and more rewards. They don't care about the risks - whatever happens, for the most part, they will manage. They just set out the game that way - and if things really go bad, go beg a little to politicians and they'll save you even then.