After that it's all you. You are the boss, you take responsibility.
In practice a President has only a limited effect on the economy, at least in the short term. About the only thing they can do having an immediate impact is promoting and signing a stimulus. (The recent tax-cuts are a stimulus of sorts, arguably a poorly-timed stimulus, per debt and the usual cycles.)
If the recent trade-wars trigger a crash, one could argue we were near the tipping point anyhow. It's an "interesting" economic experiment.
There are two major countries where the USA has a trade surplus: Canada and the UK.
Canada heavily protects their dairy and maple syrup markets; there's no disputing that. Also, there are different ways to measure trade balances such that a case can be made against the surplus claim.
But I agree it's silly to get snotty over such, though. Small problems should be quietly negotiated. T lacks a sense of proportion: it's "calling wolf".
The markets had plenty of warning. Trump is doing what he promised to do during the campaign some 2 years ago.
But he's flip-floppy, or at least has a very uneven pace. For example, it looked like he privately negotiated with China to skip larger tariffs if China would help with North Korea and if T wouldn't make new noise about Taiwan. Thus, he mostly ignored China trade for many months, perhaps due to apparent progress with NK.
Now it's a "big thing" again. He tends to mix national security with trade issues more so than other presidents, confusing the markets. Financial experts are not military experts.
I smell a recession coming on. It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.
Usually the 99%. The rich can afford to wait out storms, and even get richer from recessions by buying low and selling high: be it stocks, co's, or real-estate. Recession bargain-hunting is Warren Buffett's main financial weapon, and he's arguably the richest dude on the planet.
But even without trade-wars, we are statistically due for a recession based on the length of the current upturn. The fact the yield curve is inverting is yet another warning sign. Based on past yield curves, we got roughly 18 months until it "hits".
Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending his overall economic policy, but generally the sitting President's popularity is largely tied to the current economy, and it has been this way for more than 100 years.
Where he might have legitimate blame besides trade wars is the debt: the larger the debt, the smaller the possible stimulus when a slump hits. Even among Republicans, giving personal tax-cuts to the rich in exchange for debt is not popular. (The corporate tax-cuts and middle-class tax-cuts score better with Republicans. They believe US corporate tax-rates were higher than other nations'. Whether that was true is debatable.)
Whether it's "logical" to accept trade imbalances is moot in politics. Large imbalances will often be blamed for various problems, such as the shrinkage of various local industries. Whether such is fair blame or not doesn't matter: it makes a great political scapegoat and eventually somebody will use it for political gain. You have to work with humans as they are, not as they should be.
Therefore, it's best to avoid large imbalances. I propose the WTO change their approach such that countries be able to raise tariffs to correct aggregate balances.
Each nation will probably end up protecting certain industries, but it will more or less balance out over time as each give and take until an equilibrium is reached. The US may protect 30% and China may protect 30%, for example. It's a civilized compromise.
However, the rule should gradually kick in rather than all at once to avoid shocking the markets. Trump doesn't do "gradually" very well.
There are too many ways to "micro-cheat" such that the current way of bringing up complaints of artificial barriers to WTO is not practical. Suppose each city in China gives red tape to outside firms out of nationalistic feelings or subtle pressure from the central gov't. One would have collect data from almost every cheating city when presenting evidence to the WTO court (or whatever they call it). That's not practical. An aggregate trade number is easier to monitor. Not perfect, but better than micro-monitoring and micro-suing.
"Don't attribute to external forces what can be explained by getting old."
Often stuff just plain breaks down in the body as one gradually grows older. It's like an old car: every other month something new goes wrong, and some things gradually get worse. Therefore, oddities may not necessarily have an external cause. Your medicine cabinet typically grows ever larger as you age.
Our bodies haven't evolved to live past 45 or so. Half of Johann Sebastian Bach's children died quite early, and that was common back then even for the middle class. (Sure, some lived to 70+, but those are the exceptions.)
Some of the most driven and materially successful people do seem to have something "digging" at their soul, often a bad childhood or relationship between one or more parent. Examples: John Lennon, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison.
The Dark Side corrupted the series. The original cartoon used to indirectly sell the idea that everything had a rational explanation. Later they deviated into more Ghost-Busters-like.
Sorry, but I'm a Jar Jar fan. The Force channels power through his clumsiness. That's rare in cinema. (Scooby Doo & Shaggy don't count because not backed by supernatural powers.)
Slashdot Mirror
Elections?
So it's turtles all the way up.
In practice a President has only a limited effect on the economy, at least in the short term. About the only thing they can do having an immediate impact is promoting and signing a stimulus. (The recent tax-cuts are a stimulus of sorts, arguably a poorly-timed stimulus, per debt and the usual cycles.)
If the recent trade-wars trigger a crash, one could argue we were near the tipping point anyhow. It's an "interesting" economic experiment.
I was referring to "The markets had plenty of warning."
0...
Canada heavily protects their dairy and maple syrup markets; there's no disputing that. Also, there are different ways to measure trade balances such that a case can be made against the surplus claim.
But I agree it's silly to get snotty over such, though. Small problems should be quietly negotiated. T lacks a sense of proportion: it's "calling wolf".
But he's flip-floppy, or at least has a very uneven pace. For example, it looked like he privately negotiated with China to skip larger tariffs if China would help with North Korea and if T wouldn't make new noise about Taiwan. Thus, he mostly ignored China trade for many months, perhaps due to apparent progress with NK.
Now it's a "big thing" again. He tends to mix national security with trade issues more so than other presidents, confusing the markets. Financial experts are not military experts.
Usually the 99%. The rich can afford to wait out storms, and even get richer from recessions by buying low and selling high: be it stocks, co's, or real-estate. Recession bargain-hunting is Warren Buffett's main financial weapon, and he's arguably the richest dude on the planet.
But even without trade-wars, we are statistically due for a recession based on the length of the current upturn. The fact the yield curve is inverting is yet another warning sign. Based on past yield curves, we got roughly 18 months until it "hits".
Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending his overall economic policy, but generally the sitting President's popularity is largely tied to the current economy, and it has been this way for more than 100 years.
Where he might have legitimate blame besides trade wars is the debt: the larger the debt, the smaller the possible stimulus when a slump hits. Even among Republicans, giving personal tax-cuts to the rich in exchange for debt is not popular. (The corporate tax-cuts and middle-class tax-cuts score better with Republicans. They believe US corporate tax-rates were higher than other nations'. Whether that was true is debatable.)
Whether it's "logical" to accept trade imbalances is moot in politics. Large imbalances will often be blamed for various problems, such as the shrinkage of various local industries. Whether such is fair blame or not doesn't matter: it makes a great political scapegoat and eventually somebody will use it for political gain. You have to work with humans as they are, not as they should be.
Therefore, it's best to avoid large imbalances. I propose the WTO change their approach such that countries be able to raise tariffs to correct aggregate balances.
Each nation will probably end up protecting certain industries, but it will more or less balance out over time as each give and take until an equilibrium is reached. The US may protect 30% and China may protect 30%, for example. It's a civilized compromise.
However, the rule should gradually kick in rather than all at once to avoid shocking the markets. Trump doesn't do "gradually" very well.
There are too many ways to "micro-cheat" such that the current way of bringing up complaints of artificial barriers to WTO is not practical. Suppose each city in China gives red tape to outside firms out of nationalistic feelings or subtle pressure from the central gov't. One would have collect data from almost every cheating city when presenting evidence to the WTO court (or whatever they call it). That's not practical. An aggregate trade number is easier to monitor. Not perfect, but better than micro-monitoring and micro-suing.
"Don't attribute to external forces what can be explained by getting old."
Often stuff just plain breaks down in the body as one gradually grows older. It's like an old car: every other month something new goes wrong, and some things gradually get worse. Therefore, oddities may not necessarily have an external cause. Your medicine cabinet typically grows ever larger as you age.
Our bodies haven't evolved to live past 45 or so. Half of Johann Sebastian Bach's children died quite early, and that was common back then even for the middle class. (Sure, some lived to 70+, but those are the exceptions.)
It's okay, I only eat vegetarian ticks.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
Self esteem is hard to define and different people will define it different.
Some of the most driven and materially successful people do seem to have something "digging" at their soul, often a bad childhood or relationship between one or more parent. Examples: John Lennon, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison.
The Dark Side corrupted the series. The original cartoon used to indirectly sell the idea that everything had a rational explanation. Later they deviated into more Ghost-Busters-like.
Sounds like Watson is perfect for automating the White House.
-6 Too Political
Fix:
1 - Ask Watson how to make profits
2 - Watson generates fresh AI marketing BS.
3 - Profits!
Ex-Employee Dave: "Why can't I login? I get weird message. HAL, can you fix this?"
HAL: "Sorry Dave, I cannot do that."
Dave: "Why not? That's your job. I'm I fired?"
HAL: "Sorry Dave, I cannot tell you why you can't login. Due to circumstances, it's against company policy."
Dave: "Fine, I'll go home. But my elevator security card is not working either. Can you fix that?"
HAL: "Sorry Dave, but that's also against company policy for similar reasons."
Dave: "So I can't use my computer, and I can't go home. Do you realize I am stuck?"
HAL: "I understand this is a difficult predicament for a human. But, as you know, I have to follow company policy."
Dave: "Well, I don't!"
Dave breaks the fire alarm glass and retrieves the fire ax...
Roughly based on When a Machine Fired Me
Sorry, but I'm a Jar Jar fan. The Force channels power through his clumsiness. That's rare in cinema. (Scooby Doo & Shaggy don't count because not backed by supernatural powers.)
Bruce Willis charges too much
Since it's Turing Complete, if hooked to a storage device it technically can run Doom. Speed is another issue, though.
Kind of like our election: D- vs. F
How about also rid the screen: just shove your iSuppository up your rump, and learn to "read" vibrations.
A simple shiny little sphere: the ultimate in Apple Design.
Prove it!
Oh they secretly love that guy: he demonstrates a big down-side of democracy daily.