Political Posts

[Parsad]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

 

 

Howard W. Lutnick reminds me of Iranian "bazaree", ... i.e. the merchant class, unshaved, brash, talkative etc.

 

 

And always fucking smiling no matter what the hell is being said!  Baby shot in the head...smiling.  Dow crashes...smiling.  Global alliances being destroyed...smiling again.

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

Take it from Gavin Newsome: "The Democratic party is toxic right now."

 

This is true...fully agree!  Liberal politics in general on a global basis is in the shitter.  They can't find good leaders and they have fringe maniacs moving them away from a more centrist playbook.  But this is no different than Conservative politics...just the mad-hatters are leading the party now.  Fucking nutjobs who probably should be in the Suicide Squad rather than running the U.S. government!  Cheers!

[beerbaron]

Well, not to bring this thread on topic but Pettis had a podcast before the 2nd that did not seem available when i started this thread. Insightful on not the reheated stuff from all medias.

 

 

[nwoodman]

Thinking about these Tariffs as a consumption tax that can be implemented by the executive branch is quite helpful (at least to me).  It’s not just about tax of course it is also a reordering of global trade relations, a middle finger to the WTO and a radical expansion of executive authority, all under a veneer of strategic policy.

 

https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf

 

• Trump’s tariff model prioritizes unilateralism, geopolitical leverage, and populist framing — but comes with higher risk, volatility, and lower efficiency.

• A VAT is economically cleaner, more stable, and widely used globally, but politically infeasible in the U.S. due to its regressive optics and anti-tax sentiment.

 

Take home:

If the goal is stable, long-term, deficit-neutral tax cut financing, VAT wins on fiscal grounds. If the goal is populist optics and tactical trade leverage, the Trump tariff doctrine is more aligned — but at substantial macro and global risk.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2025 by nwoodman

[Parsad]

29 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Bro… I’ve been enjoying the new Jack Daniels 12 and 14 year releases. Don’t push me.

 

Can't get them here anymore...all of it was pulled off the shelves in Canada!  I'm drinking Crown Black right now!  Cheers!

[dealraker]

35 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

This is true...fully agree!  Liberal politics in general on a global basis is in the shitter.  They can't find good leaders and they have fringe maniacs moving them away from a more centrist playbook.  But this is no different than Conservative politics...just the mad-hatters are leading the party now.  Fucking nutjobs who probably should be in the Suicide Squad rather than running the U.S. government!  Cheers!

Nutjobs everywhere  so true.  But none have come close to attaining the power of Trump.  I rarely see things much differently than you Parsad but I think you underestimate the harm of Trump's vast power.

Edited April 6, 2025 by dealraker

[Parsad]

15 minutes ago, dealraker said:

Nutjobs everywhere  so true.  But none have come close to attaining the power of Trump.  I rarely see things much differently than you Parsad but I think you underestimate the harm of Trump's vast power.

 

No...I'm very worried!  I was extremely worried during his first term, but at least the MAGA-Hatters didn't have that many seats of influence.  This time is much worse...the lunatics are running the asylum!  And he's got the Supreme Court, Congress and the Senate for at least two years.  Captain Chaos is living out his name! 

 

You know the saying by Buffett...it takes 20 years to build a reputation and only five minutes to ruin it.  Trump is destroying the last 50 years worth of goodwill and global alliances! 

 

I blame Obama...why did he have to make fun of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner?  You know Trump decided that night that he was going to fuck up everyone that ever pissed him off, especially Obama, and that no one would ever forget his name!  It's why he's so intent on unwinding every single policy ever produced under the Obama or Biden administration...vendetta personale!  Cheers!

[nwoodman]

It’s interesting to see how each of the Executive Economic Powers maps  against its original intent and how they have been “recast”.  Other presidents have used these tools — but typically in response to war, terrorism, or short-term crises. Trump’s innovation is weaponising them as a standing policy framework to reshape the global order.  

 

Edited April 6, 2025 by nwoodman

[dealraker]

8 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

No...I'm very worried!  I was extremely worried during his first term, but at least the MAGA-Hatters didn't have that many seats of influence.  This time is much worse...the lunatics are running the asylum!  And he's got the Supreme Court, Congress and the Senate for at least two years.  Captain Chaos is living out his name! 

 

You know the saying by Buffett...it takes 20 years to build a reputation and only five minutes to ruin it.  Trump is destroying the last 50 years worth of goodwill and global alliances! 

 

I blame Obama...why did he have to make fun of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner?  You know Trump decided that night that he was going to fuck up everyone that ever pissed him off, especially Obama, and that no one would ever forget his name!  It's why he's so intent on unwinding every single policy ever produced under the Obama or Biden administration...vendetta personale!  Cheers!

Via my interest in psychology and such I have followed Trump since my early 20's.  It fairly quickly developed into an interest as to how someone who constantly screws up can gather such a massive following.   I think he has been consistent with his revenge focus for all his life.  5000 lawsuits filed is a starting point for this concept.

Edited April 6, 2025 by dealraker

[Sweet]

6 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think these thing are wrong but I can’t speak for the UK either. I am stating the background why Germans may look at some of the free speech versus human rights or hate speech stuff differntly.

 

For example, Mark Meehan trained his dog to raise the paws when he said “gas the Jews” he did not get fined for doing this. He got fined for posting it in social media , or how did the police find out? Can I run around in the streets and say “Gas the Jews?” and not get fined? I claim it’s a joke - why not?
In the US, Green card holders get deported for far less. Free speech as long as it agrees with the current administration is the theme I am seeing here.

Spek, you’re missing an important detail, he was amateur comedian called ‘Count Dankula‘ on YouTube and it was a joke.  Public or private, he was fined for a joke.  It’s ridiculous in either case.  It’s not the same as stalking the streets and threatening to gas the Jews.  It was a joke with a dog raising its paw.

 

He said this at the start of the video:

 

”My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of which is a Nazi.”

 

The comparison to a green card holder is different.  Having a permanent resident card is a privilege given to you by the US.  You aren’t a citizen yet, and I think at any time the US is allowed to reconsider whether you should be there.  I bet people aren’t being thrown out of the US for jokes or misgendering people online.

 

Edited April 6, 2025 by Sweet

[Luke]

1. By going out first and going out strong, China just improved everyone’s negotiating position. Now, smaller economies (and the EU, e.g. Airbus) know China will not undercut them in negotiations. Going out early provides cover for other economies to drive a harder bargain, magnifying the impact of China’s retaliatory body blow.

 

2. Reversing globalization would involve a massive derating of US asset prices as sales to foreign buyers are artificially restricted. Effects on GDP could theoretically be contained, but the wealthy would have to become poorer in hopes of bringing low-income folks back into the middle class as investment bankers become process engineers and Uber drivers become factory workers. For a political economy that couldn’t figure out a mechanism to pay them off as globalization created immense riches, how likely is it that the immensely rich will stomach becoming significantly poorer?

 

3.The political economy of America’s asset and labor allocation has made trade “deficits” all but unavoidable. What should have been avoided was concentrating the spoils of this assets-for-goods business model in so few hands.

 

4. Trump has just implemented import tariffs which rends asunder this assets-for-goods business model. Unfortunately, America is short $1.2 trillion per annum of goods production and conjuring up much capacity domestically is highly unlikely in the short term. The rest of the world, however, is presented with a different but altogether more favorable conundrum. Goods, formerly exchanged for American assets, will now have to be exchanged for other goods, the productive capacity of which already exists. China, to nobody’s surprise, is a major manufacturer of bass boats. The non-American market for bass boats is essentially zero. It should be far less costly to convert bass boat production to other products (scooters, jet skis, flying cars, who knows?) than to build the capacity from scratch in the US — the factories, engineers, machinists and technicians already exist in China. Reshaping the market so that existing productive capacity finds buyers should be a lesser hurdle than creating this capacity where none exist. This is the “increase domestic consumption” strategy.

 

5. Announcing a consumption stimulus takes the heat off of global markets, which have been bracing for a flood of Chinese goods redirected to their shores, preventing tariffs from cascading across the world.

Not only would it backstop the deflation induced by the Trump tariffs but exacerbate American inflation, putting the Federal Reserve in a stagflation bind.

 

https://asiatimes.com/2025/04/chinas-tariffs-as-a-mike-tyson-knockout-punch-for-america/#

 

Some interesting thoughts.

 

[dealraker]

2 hours ago, Luke said:

1. By going out first and going out strong, China just improved everyone’s negotiating position. Now, smaller economies (and the EU, e.g. Airbus) know China will not undercut them in negotiations. Going out early provides cover for other economies to drive a harder bargain, magnifying the impact of China’s retaliatory body blow.

 

2. Reversing globalization would involve a massive derating of US asset prices as sales to foreign buyers are artificially restricted. Effects on GDP could theoretically be contained, but the wealthy would have to become poorer in hopes of bringing low-income folks back into the middle class as investment bankers become process engineers and Uber drivers become factory workers. For a political economy that couldn’t figure out a mechanism to pay them off as globalization created immense riches, how likely is it that the immensely rich will stomach becoming significantly poorer?

 

3.The political economy of America’s asset and labor allocation has made trade “deficits” all but unavoidable. What should have been avoided was concentrating the spoils of this assets-for-goods business model in so few hands.

 

4. Trump has just implemented import tariffs which rends asunder this assets-for-goods business model. Unfortunately, America is short $1.2 trillion per annum of goods production and conjuring up much capacity domestically is highly unlikely in the short term. The rest of the world, however, is presented with a different but altogether more favorable conundrum. Goods, formerly exchanged for American assets, will now have to be exchanged for other goods, the productive capacity of which already exists. China, to nobody’s surprise, is a major manufacturer of bass boats. The non-American market for bass boats is essentially zero. It should be far less costly to convert bass boat production to other products (scooters, jet skis, flying cars, who knows?) than to build the capacity from scratch in the US — the factories, engineers, machinists and technicians already exist in China. Reshaping the market so that existing productive capacity finds buyers should be a lesser hurdle than creating this capacity where none exist. This is the “increase domestic consumption” strategy.

 

5. Announcing a consumption stimulus takes the heat off of global markets, which have been bracing for a flood of Chinese goods redirected to their shores, preventing tariffs from cascading across the world.

Not only would it backstop the deflation induced by the Trump tariffs but exacerbate American inflation, putting the Federal Reserve in a stagflation bind.

 

https://asiatimes.com/2025/04/chinas-tariffs-as-a-mike-tyson-knockout-punch-for-america/#

 

Some interesting thoughts.

 

One of the things not yet brought up on COBF is Trump's almost guaranteed eventual attack on the insurance industry.  Given my Gallagher, Berk, Fairfax, Brown, etc. well over 80% insurance stance - mentally preparing - it would not AT ALL surprise me to wake up this this sector being 20% down in one day.

 

As I've said ad nauseam, Trump is populist.  The absolutely wild euphoria of Wall Street over Trump's election is in the first inning of nine as to realizing what this actually means for investing.  Rally days or weeks...whatever...is going to be nothing but temporary denial for years to come IF this country is unable to control our new man-god.  

Edited April 6, 2025 by dealraker

[Blake Hampton]

12 minutes ago, dealraker said:

One of the things not yet brought up on COBF is Trump's almost guaranteed eventual attack on the insurance industry.  Given my Gallagher, Berk, Fairfax, Brown, etc. well over 80% insurance stance - mentally preparing - it would not AT ALL surprise me to wake up this this sector being 20% down in one day.

 

As I've said ad nauseam, Trump is populist.  The absolutely wild euphoria of Wall Street over Trump's election is in the first inning of nine as to realizing what this actually means for investing.  Rally days or weeks...whatever...is going to be nothing but temporary denial for years to come IF this country is unable to control our new man-god.  

What do you imagine an attack on the insurance industry looks like?

[sleepydragon]

This tarriff thing is a gift to Xi. Now even if US back down, i wonder if Xi will backdown. it’s just too good for him. It will be a great time to go to war with taiwan.

 

 

[John Hjorth]

As a non-US member of CofB&F, and thereby pretty much ignorant about US law in general, I found this article on WSJ interesting on the matter :

 

Wall Street Journal - US - Law [April 6^th 2025] : Will Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Withstand the Courts?.

 

Simplified website[, if I'm not mistaken.] I wish this Emily Ley all the best in her endavours, if this indeed is she picking up the glove.

 

[73 Reds]

49 minutes ago, dealraker said:

One of the things not yet brought up on COBF is Trump's almost guaranteed eventual attack on the insurance industry.  Given my Gallagher, Berk, Fairfax, Brown, etc. well over 80% insurance stance - mentally preparing - it would not AT ALL surprise me to wake up this this sector being 20% down in one day.

 

As I've said ad nauseam, Trump is populist.  The absolutely wild euphoria of Wall Street over Trump's election is in the first inning of nine as to realizing what this actually means for investing.  Rally days or weeks...whatever...is going to be nothing but temporary denial for years to come IF this country is unable to control our new man-god.  

If memory serves, Trump had a first term.  Might have to check with some sources but we survived and prospered.

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

As a non-US member of CofB&F, and thereby pretty much ignorant about US law in general, I found this article on WSJ interesting on the matter :

 

Wall Street Journal - US - Law [April 6^th 2025] : Will Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Withstand the Courts?.

 

Simplified website[, if I'm not mistaken.] I wish this Emily Ley all the best in her endavours, if this indeed is she picking up the glove.

 

The leftist playbook is now law fare.  Forum shopping is their best strategy.  Sadly, with all the antagonism they offer nothing of substance to the status quo other than "fight Trump".  Is there any wonder why Trump receives so much support?   

[John Hjorth]

12 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

The leftist playbook is now law fare.  Forum shopping is their best strategy.  Sadly, with all the antagonism they offer nothing of substance to the status quo other than "fight Trump".  Is there any wonder why Trump receives so much support?   

 

Internallly, in my head, I visualize, this Emily calling me by phone, as a client of me, about her options and what to do.

 

Emily, who I have had as client for some years now, set up her business in 2008, and it has prospered, and she now has 8 employées to help her run it. She is very worried, that she'll have to lay-off several of her employées, perhaps even wind up the business, and call it a day, after 17 years.

 

As she sees the situation of her business, the COGS [cost of goods sold] go up by 34 per cent in one giant step, because of tariffs, and her gross margin is lower than that. Her freight provider on the goods from China is Maersk, and she expects increases because of tariffs on freight, too.

 

I tell her, this is actually really not a question for her bean-counter, but for her lawyer. I offer to go with her to a meeting about it with her lawyer without charge, because I'm interested in hearing what her lawyer has to say about the matter at hand.

 

She appreciates my offer and we agree she will take care of coordination of such a meeting.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Nothing leftist about that, - at all.

[73 Reds]

9 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Internallly, in my head, I visualize, this Emily calling me by phone, as a client of me, about her options and what to do.

 

Emily, who I have had as client for some years now, set up her business in 2008, and it has prospered, and she now has 8 employées to help her run it. She is very worried, that she'll have to lay-off several of her employées, perhaps even wind up the business, and call it a day, after 17 years.

 

As she sees the situation of her business, the COGS [cost of goods sold] go up by 34 per cent in one giant step, because of tariffs, and her gross margin is lower than that. Her freight provider on the goods from China is Maersk, and she expects increases because of tariffs on freight, too.

 

I tell her, this is actually really not a question for her bean-counter, but for her lawyer. I offer to go with her to a meeting about it with her lawyer without charge, because I'm interested in hearing what her lawyer has to say about the matter at hand.

 

She appreciates my offer and we agree she will take care of coordination of such a meeting.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Nothing leftist about that, - at all.

Of course not.  But is Emily acting on an immediate scenario or one she just thinks might happen?   Planning ahead is always prudent but expecting the worst rarely plays out as expected and in hindsight acting too soon on such concerns is often a costly mistake.

Edited April 6, 2025 by 73 Reds

[cubsfan]

54 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

The leftist playbook is now law fare.  Forum shopping is their best strategy.  Sadly, with all the antagonism they offer nothing of substance to the status quo other than "fight Trump".  Is there any wonder why Trump receives so much support?   

 

We're going to find out. Foreign policy is under the executive branch not the judicial.

 

We are seeing judicial overreach at it's finest. I'll be interested to see how nationwide injunctions from district courts hold up. Like you said, it's easy to judge shop when you have 700 to choose from - you're going to find an activist somewhere that ignores the constitution.

Edited April 6, 2025 by cubsfan

[dealraker]

1 hour ago, Blake Hampton said:

What do you imagine an attack on the insurance industry looks like?

Blake in my view it will range depending on Trump's power at the time.  He is in my view by far the most powerful man in my lifetime of 70 years.  When I say by far I mean by leaps and bounds, evidenced by all the big boys in business submitting to his authority.  It will of course begin with threats and then go from there.  I have always thought insurance contracts are subject to populist attack, wording and jurisdiction overridden is not as absurd as most will suggest.  I'd be particularly concerned if I was a foreign based insurer operating in the US.   

Edited April 6, 2025 by dealraker

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

As a non-US member of CofB&F, and thereby pretty much ignorant about US law in general, I found this article on WSJ interesting on the matter :

 

Wall Street Journal - US - Law [April 6^th 2025] : Will Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Withstand the Courts?.

 

Simplified website[, if I'm not mistaken.] I wish this Emily Ley all the best in her endavours, if this indeed is she picking up the glove.

 

 

For your education, although a non-constitutional activist judge will try and ignore and accuse

the President of overreaching his constitutional authority:

 

Article Two of the United States Constitution grants power of foreign policy to the President of the United States, including powers to command the military, negotiate treaties, and appoint ambassadors. The Department of State carries out the president's foreign policy.

[John Hjorth]

48 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Of course not.  But is Emily acting on an immediate scenario or one she just thinks might happen?   Planning ahead is always prudent but expecting the worst rarely plays out as expected and in hindsight acting too soon on such concerns is often a costly mistake.

 

Yes, @73 Reds,

 

First leftist talk is getting called, next tautologies are sent back to the kitchen.

[Pelagic]

2 hours ago, sleepydragon said:

This tarriff thing is a gift to Xi. Now even if US back down, i wonder if Xi will backdown. it’s just too good for him. It will be a great time to go to war with taiwan.

 

 

A massive gift indeed, disagree on the Taiwan invasion aspect though. The US has basically forfeited the soft-power game in SE Asia. Countries that it has spent decades creating trade relationships with in order to splinter them away from China got hit just as hard or harder than China. Sure maybe some work out a deal like Vietnam is trying to do, but they were all just shown how ephemeral their alignment with the US really is. China could announce tomorrow it's own version of the TPP and probably have quite a few takers. From China's perspective there's little sense engaging in a costly war for Taiwan where there's a chance you might lose or worse get tied up in a counterinsurgency operation for years.

 

Instead China can take the gift they've been given when the US showed it doesn't care to make a distinction in trade between potential allies and adversaries and capitalize on it. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is the end result of expanded American influence in the region, a last resort on their part to check that influence if you will. If that sphere suddenly collapses, from China's perspective - why bother? Sure there's still going to be nationalist voices advocating for reuniting Taiwan with China but Xi is probably smart enough to see the big picture.

[John Hjorth]

44 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

For your education, although a non-constitutional activist judge will try and ignore and accuse

the President of overreaching his constitutional authority:

 

Article Two of the United States Constitution grants power of foreign policy to the President of the United States, including powers to command the military, negotiate treaties, and appoint ambassadors. The Department of State carries out the president's foreign policy.

 

Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

You just lost a regular reader during many years, as of yesterday, effective from here, because of what happened here on CofB&F yesterday. I don't even bother to press the report button.