Financial turmoil forced the US President into a pause, if not a U-turn. But this crisis could soon look very different if he can start securing some mutually beneficial bilateral trade deals.
These two sound like Trump`s spokesperson! HE LIES! Over and over and over....Trump has no interest in the Rust Belt. This administration`s strategy is completely contradictory. Lowering the dollar to ease US exports? Uh huh, so how does that align with Miran`s speech last week where he stated his logic that the cost of the tariffs will be absorbed by exporting countries currency weakening..."in 2018 -2019 China bore the cost of President Trump`s historic tariffs THROUGH A WEAKER CURRENCY"?? That is quite a bit of magic : both the USA and China`s currencies weakening at the same time against each other. Ever seen a see-saw?
It is a joke. Amateur hour in the White House and a shame that Liam G is sitting on the fence here and that is very disappointing. You've let yourself down.
If you want solid analysis with numbers to support not just rhetoric Ben Norton blows holes in this lot:
What strikes me in the same vein is how contradictory and also unplanned (not thinking about consequences of actions) is Labour's "growth" Strategy in the UK. Whilst we might not have the shock and awe of Trump or the trying unconventional approaches, the common thread is Government's saying one thing and doing another.
The anti-growth measures include:
1. Employers NI increases
2. Employment Rights Bill
3. Above inflation changes in the minimum wage:
to which we can add:
4. Nationalising British Steel part A = Capital allocation theory gone mad/crowding out other investment. Screw AI or other large growth investments
5. Part B = Setting an exemplar for other "legacy" sectors and Unions clamouring for intervention for what are profoundly unreformed/non-productive assets
6. Contemplating changing rules to Tax DB Pension Surpluses to free up investment. Wouldn't a more rational move be to reform public sector pensions where the Taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill
Thanks Liam. Its very difficult to find measured analysis of Trump's motives.
Solid analysis
Great comment, as nearly always
Americans think they can buy Chinese products without consequences ...
Eventually .. US$ will run out .. and then the Americans won't be able to even buy a sausage
These two sound like Trump`s spokesperson! HE LIES! Over and over and over....Trump has no interest in the Rust Belt. This administration`s strategy is completely contradictory. Lowering the dollar to ease US exports? Uh huh, so how does that align with Miran`s speech last week where he stated his logic that the cost of the tariffs will be absorbed by exporting countries currency weakening..."in 2018 -2019 China bore the cost of President Trump`s historic tariffs THROUGH A WEAKER CURRENCY"?? That is quite a bit of magic : both the USA and China`s currencies weakening at the same time against each other. Ever seen a see-saw?
It is a joke. Amateur hour in the White House and a shame that Liam G is sitting on the fence here and that is very disappointing. You've let yourself down.
If you want solid analysis with numbers to support not just rhetoric Ben Norton blows holes in this lot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnajhDMAWVA
What strikes me in the same vein is how contradictory and also unplanned (not thinking about consequences of actions) is Labour's "growth" Strategy in the UK. Whilst we might not have the shock and awe of Trump or the trying unconventional approaches, the common thread is Government's saying one thing and doing another.
The anti-growth measures include:
1. Employers NI increases
2. Employment Rights Bill
3. Above inflation changes in the minimum wage:
to which we can add:
4. Nationalising British Steel part A = Capital allocation theory gone mad/crowding out other investment. Screw AI or other large growth investments
5. Part B = Setting an exemplar for other "legacy" sectors and Unions clamouring for intervention for what are profoundly unreformed/non-productive assets
6. Contemplating changing rules to Tax DB Pension Surpluses to free up investment. Wouldn't a more rational move be to reform public sector pensions where the Taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill
Strategy, what strategy?