What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

Just put a tariff on the MSL. That will show them!

Does the US export much Mean Sea Level to Canada?

[Barrister]

Just that - once you've been confirmed by the Senate for one position, you do not need to be confirmed by the Senate if you move to another position that also requires Senate approval.

Now most of the time that's completely uncontroversial.  The Deputy Attorney-General is a position that needs Senate confirmation.  But, if later on the AG retires, the Deputy AG can move into the more senior spot without any fuss - and without a new confirmation hearing.

But there's some room for trickery here.  Trump could appoint someone grossly unqualified, but to a lower position, and the Senate just kind of gives up (aka flooding the zone with shit) and confirms the position.  Trump could then later appoint the person to a much more important position without Senate confirmation - because they've already been Senate-confirmed.

I think that you are confusing Senate confirmation with Senate confirmation hearings.  The Senate must confirm appointments, whether they have confirmed the candidate previously for a position or not.  What they can forgo in the case of the previously-confirmed appointee is the public confirmation hearing.

For instance, here is the Senate confirmation ticker for  Kevin G. Ritz to be promoted from US Attorney's for the Western District of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit Court.  He'd been Senate-confirmed in 2022 for the USA office, but still needed to be confirm as a Circuit Court judge.  As you can see, though, all the hearing he had was a brief one with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If your position were correct, then Trump could appoint anyone who'd been previously confirmed in his previous administration, for any position whatsoever, to any new administration position without Senate confirmation.

So I don't think I'm mistaken, but I'm hardly going to go "all in" on this point either - it's possible I'm mistaken, I just don't think I am.

I think it's probably limited to within the same administration (because yes, you certainly had someone like Bill Barr who was confirmed as Bush's AG who needed to be confirmed again for Trump, even though it was the same position).  That might also be the same reason for Kevin Ritz - or that the confirmation for Justices is different than the confirmation for executive branch positions.

[Barrister]

Does Canada really supply that much fenthanol to the USA?

I think Canada should impose a 20 per cent tariff on all US imports until America stops sending guns across the border.

No one really knows.  I mean I imagine there is some. but the major suppliers are either from China or domestically produced.  It's possible some amount comes from China to Canada and then the US.

Same thing for illegal immigration / refugees.  There is some amount coming across the Canada-US border, but it's around 1% of the number coming across the US-Mexico border.



Unfortunately this is typical Trump.  Make maximalist demands using outrageous threats, get everyone (and the markets) quite worried, likely eventually settle for some minor adjustment and claim it to be a "HUGE WIN".  Or at least that was pretty much the NAFTA->CUSMA story.

[crazy canuck]

I think Trump just liked the idea of getting Trudeau to kiss the ring.

[grumbler]

So I don't think I'm mistaken, but I'm hardly going to go "all in" on this point either - it's possible I'm mistaken, I just don't think I am.

I think it's probably limited to within the same administration (because yes, you certainly had someone like Bill Barr who was confirmed as Bush's AG who needed to be confirmed again for Trump, even though it was the same position).  That might also be the same reason for Kevin Ritz - or that the confirmation for Justices is different than the confirmation for executive branch positions.

It could be that you are correct and I am not, but I've seen (and shown) evidence that at least promotions/reassignments have to be confirmed and have never encountered the idea that they do not.  Can you help a brother out by providing some evidence for your position?

[The Minsky Moment]

Bessent is doing his level best to convince people of his incompetence.

The notion of escalate to de-escalate makes no sense in the tariff context. It presumes that there is something in the status quo that requires de-escalation.  But the status quo of trade between US-Canada-Mexico is USMCA, which is Trump's own bigly great deal (and definitely NOT anything like NAFTA, substance aside).

Perhaps the status quo that needs to be de-escalated is the drug trade?  But whatever the merits of tariffs (likely a null set), they lack efficacy as drug enforcement policy.  Drug cartels are not intimidated by tariffs. Drug smugglers are not well known for their meticulous accuracy in filling out customs forms or maintaining a clear paper trail on the national origin of components.

But let's assume counterfactually that there is something to de-escalate by escalating.  The effectiveness of the escalation to de-escalate tactic depends on convincing the other side that there is some meaningful probability that it is not mere bluff. Revealing the negotiation strategy in advance by announcing it in an internationally distributed business newspaper is suboptimal.

The defense of Bessent is that he knows his man well and doesn't really care about having an effective negotiation in substance at all.  Rather, making a lot of noise and then reaching a DEAL! that is 99% cosmetic but allows Trump to put his brand on it and declare victory.

Another four years of having national policy revolve around the need to stroke the ego of a 78 year old infant is unbearable.

[crazy canuck]

It is just like NAFTA.  A lot bluster and then, a branding change.

[Razgovory]

Bessent is doing his level best to convince people of his incompetence.

The notion of escalate to de-escalate makes no sense in the tariff context. It presumes that there is something in the status quo that requires de-escalation.  But the status quo of trade between US-Canada-Mexico is USMCA, which is Trump's own bigly great deal (and definitely NOT anything like NAFTA, substance aside).

Perhaps the status quo that needs to be de-escalated is the drug trade?  But whatever the merits of tariffs (likely a null set), they lack efficacy as drug enforcement policy.  Drug cartels are not intimidated by tariffs. Drug smugglers are not well known for their meticulous accuracy in filling out customs forms or maintaining a clear paper trail on the national origin of components.

But let's assume counterfactually that there is something to de-escalate by escalating.  The effectiveness of the escalation to de-escalate tactic depends on convincing the other side that there is some meaningful probability that it is not mere bluff. Revealing the negotiation strategy in advance by announcing it in an internationally distributed business newspaper is suboptimal.

The defense of Bessent is that he knows his man well and doesn't really care about having an effective negotiation in substance at all.  Rather, making a lot of noise and then reaching a DEAL! that is 99% cosmetic but allows Trump to put his brand on it and declare victory.

Another four years of having national policy revolve around the need to stroke the ego of a 78 year old infant is unbearable.

That's too complicated.  Trump is threating to hurt someone and unless they submit he will hurt them.

[Iormlund]

I work for a major automotive player. During our last town hall, the CEO was asked about the potential effects of trade wars.

He said tariffs on China would be a headache, but manageable. He then added pretty much nothing could be done to save North American supply chains if Trump started shit with Mexico.

[DGuller]

I work for a major automotive player. During our last town hall, the CEO was asked about the potential effects of trade wars.

He said tariffs on China would be a headache, but manageable. He then added pretty much nothing could be done to save North American supply chains if Trump started shit with Mexico.

What's the implication of saving or not saving North American supply chains?

[Iormlund]

I work for a major automotive player. During our last town hall, the CEO was asked about the potential effects of trade wars.

He said tariffs on China would be a headache, but manageable. He then added pretty much nothing could be done to save North American supply chains if Trump started shit with Mexico.

What's the implication of saving or not saving North American supply chains?

Judging from the post-COVID shock, shit gets expensive fast. Also, layoffs.

[Sheilbh]

Mexico has also been an entrepot for Chinese manufacturers looking to avoid US tariffs (from Trump and Biden) - I think with Trump especially that will make Mexico a target.

[Norgy]

Sadly, I don't have a link to the study, but a few Norwegian researchers have been looking at just how much information Chinese electric cars collect and store in central servers. The warning was that "If you have a politically exposed job or in central infrastructure, don't get one".

The Chinese embassy rejected such claims as pure conspiracy theory (and since I in no position to verify the claims, it might be right, but the PRC is not usually the most solid source).

The report apparently warn about chaos on the roads with cars piling up etc in a political crisis.

Too good to be true? Who knows?

These are times when I am glad I can't even set the clock right in my old diesel BMW.

[Sheilbh]

From my understanding that's also why it was seen as a big deal that Tesla was approved to do a deal with Baidu on GPS data and approved for use in the Chinese government fleet. The exact same security concern just from the Chinese perspective - they're not keen on Western companies having their own GPS systems operating in China etc.

Again something at least interesting in Musk's position around Trump (although he already has the feeling of someone taking too much limelight who Trump will get pissed off with and then start treating with visible disdain...)

[Zanza]

I work for a major automotive player. During our last town hall, the CEO was asked about the potential effects of trade wars.

He said tariffs on China would be a headache, but manageable. He then added pretty much nothing could be done to save North American supply chains if Trump started shit with Mexico.

Making parts more expensive is not in itself a significant supply chain disruption. It might make some business models unviable though, but that's the intention of the incoming administration.

No idea about Tesla's supply base, but all its competitors (Ford, GM, Chrysler, Japanese and German companies, plus heavy truck makers) have significant assembly operations in Mexico or Canada mainly exporting to the US. Tesla stopped its Mexican plant. In case Musk is influencing this decision, his intention here could be to damage his competitors. Of course the price will be paid by American consumers as many cars will become more expensive.