Political Posts

[John Hjorth]

Retuters - World [March 30^th 2025] : Trump 'pissed off' at Putin, threatens tariffs on Russian oil if Moscow blocks Ukraine deal.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

CREA - Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air [February 11^th 2025] : January 2025 — Monthly analysis of Russian fossil fuel exports and sanctions.

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Which Russian oil exports to the United States of America to impose tariffs on? - All spin and *BS*.

[John Hjorth]

14 minutes ago, LC said:

... I should save reading these posts for the evening, when I've had a glass of wine and can enjoy a good laugh.

 

@LC,

 

Great approach! 

[dealraker]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

OK, but my view about everything investment-related is completely emotionally detached.  There are important issues on which to spend emotional capital and investing is nowhere near the top.  For that matter neither is politics.

In my view Reds you are going to change your mind on this.  

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Spooky said:

 

Cubs the last director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, was appointed by Trump and was a Republican.

 

There were plenty of guys like Wray in the first term. Old news.

 

But the Democratic party has been hijacked by the far left - which Americans roundly voted against on Nov 5.  When they are warned that this is why they lost the election - they double down on the far left and force out the moderates.

 

It's wonderful to see, since it assures the death of the party.

[73 Reds]

28 minutes ago, dealraker said:

In my view Reds you are going to change your mind on this.  

Perhaps (never say never), but it will have nothing to do with making (or losing) money or silly words uttered by politicians that are often taken out of context.   In fact my bias toward Trump personally is probably a lot more like yours than you may think but I can appreciate the positives and potential he brings which many folks (never-trumpers and the like) are incapable of doing.  That's emotion, not reality.

[Ulti]

interesting take on how auto tariffs will work 
 

 

WrestleMania

In an effort to save US automakers, will Trump put them in a chokehold?

DOOMBERG MAR 30

READ IN APP

“All this negativity that’s in this town sucks.” – Rick Pitino

Like so many legendary college coaches before and since, Rick Pitino’s jump to the pros was marked by an inability to replicate the success he enjoyed on campus. During his three-and-a-half-year tenure as head coach of the Boston Celtics, the team never reached the playoffs, racking up a disappointing record of 102 wins and 146 losses. After a particularly tough home loss to the Toronto Raptors on March 1, 2000—Vince Carter hit a buzzer-beating three-pointer to win by two—a bitterly frustrated Pitino took to the podium to face the press. What followed was an iconic rant that will forever be part of Celtics lore:

“We’re going to be positive every day. You’re the people being negative. You and some of the fans. Larry Bird’s not walking through that door, fans. Kevin McHale is not walking through that door and Robert Parish is not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they are going to be grey and old.”

Not quite to plan | Getty

Bird, McHale and Parish—basketball phenoms at the core of the 1980s Celtics dynasty—fit into a broader renaissance of optimism that permeated US culture during that period. Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” was marked by a booming economy, soaring stock markets, and falling interest rates. The Los Angeles Lakers were showtime, Big Macs were cheap, and Mike Tyson burst onto the boxing scene with an electricity not felt since the times of Cassius Clay. In geopolitics, the Soviet Union was stared down and the space race was won. Heck, even US automakers got in on the action. Famed business icon Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler with the launch of the K-car platform, while Ford introduced the massively successful Taurus. Pitino had hoped to reprise that upbeat energy.

Judging by Hulk Hogan’s repeat appearances in Donald Trump’s campaign, the president clearly yearns to relive the heady days of the Reagan era as well. In a story brilliantly recounted in the February 14, 2025 edition of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, Trump made a huge splash in 1986 with an audacious plan to rebuild the Wollman skating rink in Central Park, individually accomplishing what the city had pathetically failed to do. The project’s success burnished his personal brand. Four decades later, neither the man’s energy nor the controversy surrounding him show signs of fading.

Sometimes you can just do things | Getty

A return to those glory days—the US manufacturing sector still made stuff back then—was a pillar of Trump’s winning platform in 2024, along with the contention that no self-respecting superpower should be without a vibrant set of assembly lines churning out muscle cars. A growling engine built by American hands and powered by plentiful, domestically produced gasoline is undoubtedly a great and seductive vision.

In Trump’s admittedly blunt view, the rest of the world has ripped off the US for decades by flooding the country with cheap exports while maintaining protectionist policies at home. Such a simple diagnosis comes with an equally straightforward prescription: dramatically ramp up tariffs to level the playing field. For the automotive sector, however, these tactics are likely to backfire. In fact, they could even call into question the solvency of the very companies he aims to help. Let’s explore the six main reasons why.

We begin with the observation that Trump’s main weapon—restricting access to the US domestic vehicle market—no longer delivers the leverage it once did. Total light vehicle sales in the country haven’t grown meaningfully in decades, with 2024 numbers barely reaching levels seen when Mike Tyson first became world boxing champion in 1986. Once the world’s dominant producer and consumer of cars and trucks, the US now accounts for less than a fifth of global unit sales. Additionally, the Big Three domestic players—General Motors (GM), Ford, and Stellantis—already hold roughly 40% of US market share, while foreign competitors like Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai-Kia operate sprawling assembly plants across the country, presumably insulated from the impact of tariffs.

Beyond the diminishing importance of the US market, there’s also the question of what it even means to “manufacture” an automobile in modern times—and whether any tariff regime imposed by Trump can deliver meaningful benefits to domestic champions. A new car today might contain 30,000 parts or more, each with its own complex supply chain spanning multiple countries of origin. A state-of-the-art assembly line operates as a symphony of just-in-time international logistics, making sweeping tariffs practically unworkable. Here’s more from a recent report by CBS News:

“Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at Edmunds, says it is a spreadsheet nightmare.

‘A lot of the vehicles are final-assembled in the United States, but get engines, transmissions from Mexico and Canada,’ Caldwell explained. ‘…If you look across the entire industry, there's nothing that's 100% American.’”

Trump would respond by noting tariffs could be avoided by moving operations to America—but such a massive reshuffling requires extensive product requalifications. Becoming an approved supplier in the auto industry is no small feat, and stringent testing is typically conducted on a factory-by-factory basis.

Harder than it looks | Getty

Third on the list of challenges is the aggregate friction of the transition. Our contacts in industry have been privately sounding the alarm that even the threat of tariffs is pushing the US economy toward recession. Major supply chains—including many critical to the automotive industry—have all but seized up, a dynamic not seen since the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. The velocity of the proposed policy changes isn’t helping matters, as it’s impossible to know what the next few hours will bring, let alone the coming days or weeks. Perhaps out of fear of becoming the subject of a future Truth Social post, few executives are speaking out publicly, but Trump’s inner circle must be aware of the impending crunch.

Another reality to be confronted is that other countries can retaliate—perhaps none more so than China. In an unsigned letter to the Trump administration, Tesla warned it would likely face retaliatory action if a tariff war erupted. Tesla’s most important factory is located in Shanghai, and the company relies heavily on China throughout much of its supply chain, including for many of its all-important battery packs. China is equally critical for GM, representing the company’s second-largest market for vehicles by unit volume.

Although not directly tied to Trump’s tariff initiatives, another headwind facing the industry is the complete about-face the new administration has executed on electric vehicle mandates. While many in the industry may quietly welcome the shift, the return to business as usual leaves billions of dollars in stranded investments—capital spent in vain to satisfy the unworkable diktats of previous administrations. Worse still, California remains resolute in its push to phase out internal combustion engines, setting the stage for years of regulatory and political battles. Ford, for its part, has already begun writing down prior investments and signaling that EV virtue strutting is no longer a top corporate priority:

“Ford CEO Jim Farley did not mince words while explaining some of the drawbacks of very large, fully electric SUVs and trucks. During Ford’s fourth-quarter 2024 earnings call on Wednesday, the automaker shared its electrification roadmap, reiterating that it would focus on small and medium-sized EVs that are more economically viable instead of going all guns blazing with battery-electric models across all segments.

‘For larger retail, electric utilities, the economics are unresolvable,’ Farley said. ‘These customers have very demanding use cases for an electric vehicle. They tow, they go off-road, they take long road trips. These vehicles have worse aerodynamics and they're very heavy, which means very large and expensive batteries.’”

This brings us to the final (and perhaps most existential) issue facing US automakers. In many of the technologies that matter, China has parlayed decades of unfair trade advantages into what now appears to be an insurmountable lead over the global competition. We have long warned of this developing crisis, and one can’t help but wonder whether the Chinese have reached escape velocity. News of a major battery breakthrough from BYD last week stunned many in the industry who doubted it could be real. Having observed China’s playbook for decades, we don’t share such doubts:

“Chinese electric car giant BYD has unveiled new battery technology it says will overcome one of the biggest criticisms levelled at EVs. The world's biggest electric car manufacturers overnight revealed its 'Super e-Platform' using the latest lithium-ion-phosphate Blade battery technology that it claims can charge at speeds of up to 1,000kW.

Using a new network of ultra-fast charging devices, it is capable of adding up to 470 kilometres (292 miles) of range from a charging session lasting just five minutes. This means it is almost equivalent to the time it takes to fill up a petrol or diesel car at the pumps.”

Trump’s intent to revive America’s manufacturing swagger is admirable and important. He’s correct in diagnosing the problem and remains one of the few US politicians willing to attempt a meaningful course correction. But like Pitino struggling with the Celtics long after their heyday, Larry Bird seems vanishingly unlikely to be walking through that assembly line.

Yao Ming seems a more likely 

[Sweet]

 

[Spekulatius]

Looks like the drug industry is next with a tariff bomb. That actually makes more sense to me than the auto tariffs. Most Pharma ingredients come from China and India which to me seem to me much more of a potential security problem than cars and car parts from Mexico and Canada.

Edited March 30, 2025 by Spekulatius

[no_free_lunch]

Just now, Sweet said:

 

Put your money with your mouth and send some weapons...  All I see from Europe is slogans and old weapons.  You are using Ukraine to kill your enemies, dont pretend its any other way.  You have no intention of actually stopping the war.

[cubsfan]

^^^ Bite your tongue!  That's blasphemy around here!

[Sweet]

36 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

Put your money with your mouth and send some weapons...  All I see from Europe is slogans and old weapons.  You are using Ukraine to kill your enemies, dont pretend its any other way.  You have no intention of actually stopping the war.

Europe has sent weapons, lots of weapons.  Why do you think it hasn’t?

 

Edit - btw, I’d like the war to stop tomorrow.  Said it many times.  Read the thread.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2025 by Sweet

[Sweet]

9 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^^ Bite your tongue!  That's blasphemy around here!

Come on cubs, you know I’ve advocated for Europe to do far more for a very long time.  Even before the Ukraine war I said Europe didn’t not spend enough on defence.  When Trump visited Europe in his first term and said Europe shouldn’t be buying Russian oil and gas and doesn’t spend enough I agreed with him.  In fact I’ve been saying it before Trump even ran for president.

[cwericb]

Could someone explain how this is going to work?

 

From Fox News:

 

"If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,"

 

Now the US doesn't buy oil from Russia.

 

So, could someone explain how this would work, or is Trump that out of touch?

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, cwericb said:

Could someone explain how this is going to work?

 

From Fox News:

 

"If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,"

 

Now the US doesn't buy oil from Russia.

 

So, could someone explain how this would work, or is Trump that out of touch?

He means he is going to tariff countries like India and China 25-50% if they buy Russian oil and gas.

 

I could be wrong of course, but that is how it was reported elsewhere earlier.

 

“Secondary tariffs could constitute up to 50% on goods entering the US from countries still buying oil from Russia. The biggest such buyers by a long margin are China and India.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x7z36d56o

 

Edited March 30, 2025 by Sweet

[no_free_lunch]

Just now, Sweet said:

Europe has sent weapons, lots of weapons.  Why do you think it hasn’t?

 

Edit - btw, I’d like the war to stop tomorrow.  Said it many times.  Read the thread.

 

 

I follow this war and it seems Russia is significantly outspending on weapons despite having what a quarter of the population?  I dont believe that Europe has any real interest in the war stopping.  This whole thing is some kind of training or testing ground for NATO weapons.  Yes what Russia is doing is pure evil but pushing Ukraine to fight witout giving them a way to win is also evil.  I just dont like any siimplifications of what is happening.  There are no easy answers and there are not a lot of good guys.

[Pelagic]

26 minutes ago, Sweet said:

He means he is going to tariff countries like India and China 25-50% if they buy Russian oil and gas.

 

I could be wrong of course, but that is how it was reported elsewhere earlier.

 

“Secondary tariffs could constitute up to 50% on goods entering the US from countries still buying oil from Russia. The biggest such buyers by a long margin are China and India.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x7z36d56o

 

Yeah secondary sanctions like are being enacted on Venezuela is the best guess. The oil will still likely make it to market, just in a circuitous way where it get's blended through ship to ship transfers and then through Malaysia, making the net proceeds to Russian exporters a lot less.

 

The NYT piece today is fascinating. The bit about the Biden admin being furious the Ukrainians sunk the Moskva without telling them seems to have attracted most of the attention but there's a lot more to it. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html

[no_free_lunch]

One other thing .. where is the Israel Palestine thread.  If yall want to walk war, lets talk war.

[dealraker]

Ed Yardeni has gone from endless DOGE, Musk, and POTUS praise, repeat of the Roaring Twenties assertion, and a huge S & P prediction all the way across town to sponsoring this?  How fragile it all really is!

 

https://www.yardeniquicktakes.com/reprint-the-protectionist-road-to-depression-deja-vu-all-over-again/

[Ulti]

28 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Did you get permission to post this?

My bad I did not… however I do not have a subscription and was sent to me with open access… usually they send it with a summary and cut it off… and ask for a subscription…also they clearly  label subscriber stuff in

their Doomberg archive page paid as below.. This full article was not labeled paid.. However thanks for pointing it out and I appreciate your supervision 

[Ulti]

40 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Did you get permission to post this?

https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/wrestlemania
 

same stuff again open and free access 

[Hektor]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/03/30/doge-privatize-government-usps-trump/
 

DOGE wants businesses to run government services ‘as much as possible’

Elon Musk’s effort is pushing privatization — a longtime goal for conservatives and for Silicon Valley alike — across federal agencies

 

Mail delivery. Real estate. Foreign aid grants. The Trump administration is moving to privatize a sweeping number of government functions and assets — a long-standing Republican goal that’s being catalyzed by billionaire Elon Musk.

 

Examples are popping up across Washington and in proposals from President Donald Trump’s allies, though the plans are various stages of development and, in some cases, have already encountered resistance.

 

At the DOGE-allied General Services Administration, officials are quietly moving ahead with a push to sell hundreds of publicly owned buildings to private companies — which can then lease them back to the government.

 

At the Postal Service, a plan for full privatization appears to have lost steam after facing pushback and legal hurdles. But private firms are preparing for a piecemeal government effort to outsource mail and package handling and long-haul trucking routes, while off-loading leases for unprofitable post offices.

 

At the Interior Department, Secretary Doug Burgum has proposed allowing private developers to build on federal lands across the West.
 

A Wall Street investor nominated to run the International Development Finance Corporation, has suggested redirecting a large portion of the $40 billion budget of the shuttered U.S. Agency for International Development to investors, start-ups and companies that work in developing countries.

 

The military contractor Erik Prince has pushed to turn over defense and immigration enforcement functions to private security firms, at one point pitching U.S. officials on a plan to execute operations in Africa.

 

Traditional Republicans have long argued that private companies can do a better job of managing government services than civil servants. But Musk and his Silicon Valley associates want to push the idea much further than the mainstream GOP. 
 

The tech crowd argues that entrenched corporations that historically have benefited from government largesse are as much a problem as government itself. They say “scrappy builders” from the tech industry — along with a leaner start-up mindset and superior technology — can rework government processes wholesale, rather than merely outsourcing the same work.
 

People in Musk’s orbit view companies that have historically done business with the government as “stagnant” and “monopolistic,”.

 

The Silicon Valley way of embracing privatization would be to first make information public and have a more rigorous open bidding process for contracts.

The administration is also laying the groundwork to sell potentially hundreds of federal buildings to private companies, who can then lease them back to the government.

[lnofeisone]

7 hours ago, Gregmal said:

This is false. They clearly pulled her nom because for months NY politicians in Albany have been scheming and concocting ways to either delay or deny her seat from being filled. 

What exactly is false? Reps don't want to lose the majority. Competing Stafanik's ticket is yet another uncertainty (and I personally like Stafanik as her views - outside of the trump alignment, are generally moderate republican). Sure, dems are pulling out all stops, but is that even a concern given how our executive has little regard for rules or even the court? Can't have it both ways, Greg. 

[lnofeisone]

8 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

The base of the Democratic party is being destroyed - with little help from Republicans.

 

Why did Republicans win?   They got:

Last election, 48% of Hispanics, 26% of  black males, Dems hemmoraging Asians & youth vote.

 

It's amazing to see Democrats polling at 27% approval with independents fleeing.

Down 20% from 12 months ago.

 

But when you don't address the fundamental issues hurting Americans,, this is to be expected.

 

No one can figure out what Democrats represent, except "We hate Trump"

I thought you no longer believed the polls? You don't believe the polls when it comes to Trump's popularity diminishing, but you believe the polls when it has to do with Democrats' approval rating? 

 

Look at the money pouring into special elections. This is like 2016 all over. Plenty of Democrats voted for Hillary even if they hated her as a candidate and a person. People hated the alternative. What you will see play out in the future is less to do with liking the democratic party. It will be about disliking the alternative - MAGA. 

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Pelagic said:

Yeah secondary sanctions like are being enacted on Venezuela is the best guess. The oil will still likely make it to market, just in a circuitous way where it get's blended through ship to ship transfers and then through Malaysia, making the net proceeds to Russian exporters a lot less.

 

The NYT piece today is fascinating. The bit about the Biden admin being furious the Ukrainians sunk the Moskva without telling them seems to have attracted most of the attention but there's a lot more to it. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html

This article from the NYT is one of best reports on the war I have read. The level of detail is astonishing. Thank you for sharing.

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, lnofeisone said:

 

Look at the money pouring into special elections. This is like 2016 all over. Plenty of Democrats voted for Hillary even if they hated her as a candidate and a person. People hated the alternative. What you will see play out in the future is less to do with liking the democratic party. It will be about disliking the alternative - MAGA. 

Would be nice to have a candidate to vote for that most people would like. Thats really the democratic parties job. Hoping that enough people hate MAGA to vote for anybody that evolves through the party ranks to become a candidate is strategy at best.

It would also a good opportunity to get rid of some undemocratic wrinkles like the supermandates.