placeholder

The kind of government you long for worked well when economies were largely agrarian and populations were sparse. Not so much anymore.

How are you supposed "to find evidence of something so fundamental that it goes without saying?" Really? Remember Donald Rumsfeld's "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? But at least in that case there was not much contrary evidence. But in this case there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Trump hasn't a clue. But that doesn't count? Not even Rumsfeld ever said "Absence of evidence isn't evident of absence and counter-evidence doesn't count." I'll leave that kind of nonsense to you. And you claim you're not in the bag for Trump? It is to laugh. And it's not even clear that you understand this issue. What has the US being the world's reserve currency got to do with the basic economic fact of currency flows?

Elon Musk definitely disagrees your falsehood And your comment about China vis a vis Japan is nonsense. The China of 80 years ago is the same as the China of today. In fact, it was the China of roughly 70 years ago that fought Americas and its allies to a standstill in Korea. For the rest of your cherry picking well that's what it is cherry picking. The thrust of his article is how well prepared China is to face the United States. It has years. The US has midterms.

Something's wear out a lot more slowly than others. Buildings wear out after 10 years 20 years these are absurd rates of depreciation Who said loan shouldn't be paid back? I just said that rich people use loans instead of or in addition to earned income. I pointed out the reason why the government should tax inherited wealth . That was the founding father's reasoning. And you have no answer for why capital gains should be bumped up to a new basis with no tax consequences. In fact, whno less a person than Milton Friedman who pointed out that capital gains being taxed at a different rate is in effect saying that certain kinds of income are better than other kinds of income and it's a distortion of the marketplace. At this point in time it's too late to do anything about the exemptions granted for residences. But it does distort the marketplace.

There is absolutely no evidence of that Trump knows that at all. He's been very clear over and over again that he thinks a trade imbalance is proof of unfairness. I'm sure that most of his advisers, with the big exception of Peter Navarro, know that this is nuts.

Because they're subsidies to the rich. Should buildings even be allowed depreciation? Items like cars which invariably lose value over time (unless it's a collector's item) do lost value. But real estate like building often increase in value. Why do they deserve any subsidy much less a bigger one? As for rich people taking out a loan instead of getting paid...well for one thing it means that those income figures cited above don't really reflect all income. Just that which is technically income And why should capital gains taxes not be applied based on the original value? Why should the wealthy be able to escape taxes on them? And the thing is, all these deductions and a lot more like them allow for an entrenched hereditary class of the superwealthy. The founding fathers feared such a development since they saw the ills that such entrenched wealthy classes inflicted on Europe. That's why they supported strong inheritance taxes to keep that kind of thing in check.

Robotics are 1 of the 2 things that Musk is pinning the future of Tesla on. Maybe you should let him know he's mistaken. 400 billion to, say, Germany isn't the same as $400 billion to China. It's less than 3% of GDP. China isn't denying that it will hurt but given the huge size of its economy and its formidable engines of propaganda and repression, it's nowhere close to dangerous. You might want to learn about that from this Wall St. Journal article. https://archive.ph/eFLCR

Because military justice is honest? "Got any evidence that the courts are corrupt? You mean like ruling that a President can't be prosecuted for crimes he committed using his presidential powers? It's funny. An appeals court judge hearing this case asked incredulously if the President's lawyers could order say a Navy Seal team to assassinate a political opponent and he could never be charged with a criminal act after leaving office. The lawyers answered in the affirmative. That reply was widely ridiculed in the legal community. Until 6 right wingers on the Supreme court invented some new legal doctrine to claim that this was the case. So now we have a president who can commit crimes wholesale and never have to face prosecution. Now that's giving license to wholesale lawlessness.

When you've got nothing make it personal. You've got nothing.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

How about this. A real estate provision in the tax code used to allow for depreciation over 20 years. That is to say that you could deduct from your income 5 percent of that value of that real estate each year. After 20 years the value of that real estate for tax writeoffs is nothing. So what do you do? You create an LLC that buys the property and the tax write-offs begin all over again. But wait a minute, It gets even better, Let's say you become President of the United States. And you change the tax code to allow a write-off of 10% a year...do you see where I'm going with this. Or let's say you're a rich guy and you announce that you aren't going to take any pay for your services. How generous is that? Instead you take out loans using as collateral shares of stock Or some other asset. You pay a lot less in interest on those loans than you would in taxes. Because loans don't count as income, so that never shows up in income figures. Which means that the actual amount of earning plus such loans is greater than the reported amount of earnings. Let's say you're a rich person nearing the end of his life and you want to leave your wealth to your children including your stocks. Let's say you bought those stocks for $10 per share adjusted for inflation and at the time of inheritance they are worth$100. How much in capital gains does the person inheriting the stock have to pay? None except for what inheritance taxes might apply.. But get this, if the heir ever decides to sell the stock they will pay capital gains only on the value that is over $100, that being the value at the time of inheritance, instead of the $10 that was paid for it originally. As for inheritance taxes...well, that's another story.

Your claiming that China wants the money more than the US wants the products? How badly do you think manufacturers want the inputs that come from China? Not to mention the stuff that China can withhold. Elon Musk says China wants assurances that magnets for Tesla's humanoid robot won't be used for 'military purposes' Elon Musk said Optimus production faces challenges due to China's rare-earth export restrictions. The Tesla CEO said China wants assurance that the parts won't be used for "military purposes." Musk said they wouldn't be. Musk said Tesla plans to solve the issue and produce thousands of Optimus robots by the end of 2025. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-china-wants-175700361.html

The Mao post and other messages from Beijing highlight what China sees as one of its core advantages against the U.S.: While Trump and his Republican backers are vulnerable to the whims of American voters, the party that Mao built is deeply entrenched, having maintained power through more than seven decades despite war, famine, political upheaval and financial crises... ...Since an earlier trade war during the first Trump administration, he has intensified his grip on the country’s leadership and spent lavishly reinforcing the authoritarian tools that underpin the party’s longevity, including enhancements of the world’s most sophisticated systems for censorship and surveillance. The Chinese leader wants to harden his country specifically for a confrontation with the U.S., urging officials to engage in what he calls “extreme scenario thinking.” https://archive.ph/eFLCR I guess for reasons of arrogance, lots of members of this forum think China is a paper tiger and they resent any information that might not jibe with those beliefs. The last time I can recall thinking of this kind on a major scale was the 2nd Iraq War.

Thank you for your double demonstration of cluelessness.

8 years ago, sure. Nowadays https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

Well what happened if France isn't comparable. Those people who left, may have moved but they were still in the EU or, in the case of Switzerland, a country that freely trades with the EU.

I posted this topic as a test to see what Trump supporters would say. First off, it's significant that so few replied to it. And what's just as significant is how Trumpist did reply to it. Cagily. Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing but temporizing. And the reason for this is clear. They don't want to be burned again. Remember Trump's H-1B flip-flop? From being very negative to very positive? And how all the Trumpists followed suit? Well, they learned their lesson well. Don't get out ahead of Trump because you don't want to be caught out in opposition to whatever stance he assumes. Anyway, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say I'm fo raising taxes substantially on the wealthy.

Maybe to you terrorist means "foreign really bad person." But not to me. And I can't find that definition in any directory. And what exactly does transgenderism have to do with this?

But, thanks to science, it's a lot more difficult to give up.

I'll give Trump credit for not sounding like a broken record lately. Now he sounds more like a broken bully.

If you have zero interest then why even comment on it? The fact remains that it's obviously sleazy.

Again, the blinkered misunderstand of trade deficits. You persist in believing that the buyer holds the advantage over the seller. Yes, the US has something China wants. But China has lots of things the US wants. In fact, badly needs.

Good thing my sarcasm wasn't. Or was it? It was really all your comment deserved. Since when has a Treasury Secretary given privileged information to wealthy investors? These are people who can capitalize on that news big time. Why is that an appropriate venue? Why is that not sleazy? Apparently, you've got nothing. Of course, you could prove me wrong but offering something substantive. But I won't hold my breath.

We agree twice in a row. Amazing!

It's just a thought but i could see China be willing to have its auto companies build them in the United States like other foreign based companies. But that might be called a win-win. A concept that doesn't seem to exist in the zero-sum thinking of Trump and his fans.