The Off Topic Topic

[Barrister]

(which I've learned he can do on his own - no congressional vote needed)

Interesting. I guess there is no excuse for Trump to hide behind. He will either be a lying loathsome hypocrite, and make me happy, or be true to his convictions and piss me off.

Yup.  All he has to do is give 6 months notice and then POOF! NAFTA's gone.

On a related note this is why Obama's increasing reliance on Executive Orders was a bad thing - all can be reversed on Day One of the Trump regime.

[Admiral Yi]

I think Valmy's probably right.

As to where will interest rates go under Trump?  Trump's plan (such as it is) is massive tax cuts, together with absolutely no meaningful spending cuts.  That should in the long run be inflationary.  On the other hand his plan to tear up trade deals (which I've learned he can do on his own - no congressional vote needed) could easily lead to a massive recession, which would typically cause interest rates to fall.  So who knows.

Deficits are only inflationary if the Fed chooses to accommodate them.

What's your source on the executive order trade deals?  That doesn't sound right.

[Valmy]

On a related note this is why Obama's increasing reliance on Executive Orders was a bad thing - all can be reversed on Day One of the Trump regime.

Indeed. But he had little else to rely upon

Which is the source of the Constitutional Crisis we are presently heading towards.

[Barrister]

I think Valmy's probably right.

As to where will interest rates go under Trump?  Trump's plan (such as it is) is massive tax cuts, together with absolutely no meaningful spending cuts.  That should in the long run be inflationary.  On the other hand his plan to tear up trade deals (which I've learned he can do on his own - no congressional vote needed) could easily lead to a massive recession, which would typically cause interest rates to fall.  So who knows.

Deficits are only inflationary if the Fed chooses to accommodate them.

What's your source on the executive order trade deals?  That doesn't sound right.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/

[frunk]

On a related note this is why Obama's increasing reliance on Executive Orders was a bad thing - all can be reversed on Day One of the Trump regime.

I'm sure if he would have asked Congress nicely they would have passed whatever he wanted.  Without the executive orders simulating the inactive legislature nothing would have happened.

[Admiral Yi]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/

Yeah, that's pretty inflamatory for Money. 

My understanding is that trade deals, like any treaty the US signs, is then written into law through a bill passed by Congress.  A president can't just waive that law away.  Congress needs to pass a new bill repealing it.

[The Minsky Moment]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/

2205 doesn't answer the question of who in the US system has the authority to withdraw.
NAFTA was effectuated in the US by passage of legislation through Congress and then signed into law by the President.
Normally, a President can't repeal a law by fiat. 
The NAFTA implementing legislation is silent on how withdrawal is to occur.

[The Minsky Moment]

My understanding is that trade deals, like any treaty the US signs, is then written into law through a bill passed by Congress.  A president can't just waive that law away.  Congress needs to pass a new bill repealing it.

Right.

[Admiral Yi]

Read in The Economist that around 30% of US computer science grads get hired by Google, Amazon, and Facebook.

[Barrister]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/

Yeah, that's pretty inflamatory for Money. 

My understanding is that trade deals, like any treaty the US signs, is then written into law through a bill passed by Congress.  A president can't just waive that law away.  Congress needs to pass a new bill repealing it.

How about this article from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-trade-deals-20161109-story.html

[Barrister]

Not a trade deal, but Bush 43 withdrew from the ABM Treaty by fiat - it did not require a congressional vote.

[Valmy]

Was that passed into law by Congress? Like Trump can just dump TPP () at this point.

[Barrister]

Was that passed into law by Congress? Like Trump can just dump TPP () at this point.

According to Wiki, the ABM treaty was ratified by the senate in 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

[Admiral Yi]

How about this article from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-trade-deals-20161109-story.html

Better, but not great.

I imagine the Peterson Institute guy is talking about things like anti-dumping and countervailing duties, which are already legislated.  Not sure what the others are.  Maybe dual-use technology?  (I interned at Bureau of Export Administration.  )

But even there you have a bureacratic procedure.  Trump can't just waive a tiny fist at Mexico and declare countervailing duties.  And remember based on the Great Softwood War that even when the US makes a move, it can be overruled by the NAFTA panel.

[Zanza]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/

2205 doesn't answer the question of who in the US system has the authority to withdraw.
NAFTA was effectuated in the US by passage of legislation through Congress and then signed into law by the President.
Normally, a President can't repeal a law by fiat. 
The NAFTA implementing legislation is silent on how withdrawal is to occur.

Trump could just claim royal prerogative.