placeholder

That rise was to be expected because of inflation. But when investors would rather cash out and put their funds into foreign funds rather than in T-bills, that's a vote of a lack of confidence.

The Food and Drug Administration is suspending a quality control program for testing of fluid milk and other dairy products due to reduced capacity in its food safety and nutrition division, according to an internal email seen by Reuters. The suspension is another disruption to the nation's food safety programs after the termination and departure of 20,000 employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, as part of President Donald Trump's effort to shrink the federal workforce. The FDA this month also suspended existing and developing programs that ensured accurate testing for bird flu in milk and cheese and pathogens like the parasite Cyclospora in other food products. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/us-fda-suspends-milk-quality-tests-amid-workforce-cuts/ar-AA1DlucF It was Teddy Roosevelt who was responsible for creating the FDA. This is how he responded after hearing the news:

But what you haven't noted is actually a far more important indication of investor sentiment concerning the US. Of course, I'm referring to bonds. Usually when people sell their stocks, they'll park the cash in T-bills. Now they're fleeing to other countries bonds. That's because there's increasingly less confidence in how the US is being governed as far as economics go . Which means that the interest rates offered on new T-bills have to rise. Which ends up increasing the rate of US indebtedness.

What does that have to do with the executive branch threatening to defy the rulings of the judicial branch?

SEOUL, April 22 (Reuters) - Beijing recently asked South Korean companies not to export products containing China's rare earth minerals to U.S. defense firms, the Korea Economic Daily reported on Tuesday, citing government and company sources. The report said China's commerce ministry delivered the message in letters to Korean companies which make power transformers, batteries, displays, electric vehicles, aerospace and medical equipment, all of which use the key materials. The letters said Korean companies could face sanctions if they violate the export restrictions, the report said https://archive.ph/RmmQM It will be interesting to learn how this will play out. I don't think China has exatlyendeared itself to South Korea given its continued support of the Kims. On the other hand, if South Korea doesn't comply, then maybe its supply of rare earths will dry up. And on the third hand, there's Trump's proposed tariff of 25%. Quite a dilemma.

Sure. Barr was castigated by a Federal judge for lying about the Mueller report by denying that there was anything in it that warranted prosecution. For that he was celebrated by right wingers. It was only after he refused to back Trump in his election denialism that he became a villain to right wingers.

You mean like when William Barr and John Durham looked to find evidence of malign intent in the Justice Dept. towards Trump with respect to their investigations of him. And right wingers were jubilant and sure that deep state actors were going to be handcuffed, perp-walked, and sent to prison.And after 4 years Durham came up absolutely empty-handed.

What did they do that was an attempt to undermine one of the three constitutionally protected branches of government?

Dreaming of a fascist America?

Less debt? Slashing taxes and gutting the IRS? Maybe that works in opposite world. Not so much in this one.

So rather than putting the interest of the United States first, he's acting out due to a desire for revenge.

So it works to America's advantage to confuse and anger what used to be America's allies? It works to America's advantage to break its word? It works to America's advantage to be seen as unreliable? So, it's a bad thing to question and criticize any president on foreign policy issues? That's the kind of argument supporters of George Bush and Lyndon Johnson used in defense of certain wars. Or is it just this criticizing this president that should be taboo?

And the point of the article is that if he was going to invoke the statute the IEEPA wasn't the one he should have used. But, apparently, he was too impatient to use a more targeted statute.

That wasn't what you said.Xi has been consistent in saying a tariff war is a bad idea.

Thank you for providing further proof of my point.

And how will this be an improvement on what was the status quo before Trump launched his economic warfare? In fact, conditions will be worse because who will trust the United States to keep its word after what Trump has done?

Ask the businesses trying to make plans if it's a good thing that no one knows what Trump is thinking. I don't know if it even works to his advantage, given his poor history of negotiating, but how does it work to America's advantage?

Another case of bothsidesism. Xi has already emphatically stated that this tariff nonsense is not good. Don't try to pin any of it on him.

I'm sure you wouldn't make that kind of blanket assertion without offering some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up. I await one or the other or both with interest.

It's a good thing you cdidn't read the story. The current Supreme Court has imposed major changes in legal doctrine. The statute that Trump invokes to justify his imposition of tariffs clearly violates their new doctrine.

So the chief justification for deporting immigrants was it they were stealing American jobs. So if they're allowed legally to return I guess that would mean they wouldn't be stealing jobs and therefore American workers wouldn't be hurt?

The Trump administration’s trade war has prompted chaos and countermeasures across the globe, but a potent counterattack has emerged in the courts in recent weeks — and in the long run, it could fatally undermine President Donald Trump’s unprecedented global tariff regime. The challenges were inevitable, but they are also strong on the merits — drawing directly on the interpretive tools and legal doctrines frequently embraced by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. The question is whether the courts — including perhaps the Supreme Court itself — will agree, or whether they will blink in the face of the economic and diplomatic turmoil that Trump has unleashed. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/21/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-legal-arguments-00299467

Well, being worried makes sense. It's not being worried, as Trump claims to be, that's a problem. I remember when proponents of Brexit were saying they're not worried about the consequences, it's the Europeans who should be worried. The Chinese understand that both sides lose in a trade war like this. The same can't be said of Trump.

Because if there's one country Trump has it in for, it's the Russians?

Do they want to make a deal? What terms would they accept? Do they want to stall for time? Will Trump be willing to accept the kind of promises Scott Bessent said would suffice? So, Chinese threats wouldn't be taken seriously but US threats are?