The DJIA was up more than 300 points when the announcement was made, then it ultimately ended the session down 280. The new tariffs are on the 300 billion in goods that have been, until this point, coming into the country without a toll. There are also 250 billion in Chinese goods that already have a 25% levy attached.
Recent trade negotiations in Shanghai concluded on Wednesday with little or no progress. Talks are scheduled to resume in September.
Speaking on July 30th, before reporters Trump speculated that China may be thinking of delaying a resolution until after the election in 2020, saying:
“They would just love if I got defeated so they could deal with somebody like Elizabeth Warren or Sleepy Joe Biden…. They’ll pray that Trump loses. And then they’ll make a deal with a stiff, somebody that doesn’t know what they’re doing like Obama and Biden, like all the presidents before.”
Donald J. Trump
Calling the tariff a “small additional levy” Trump also said in a series of tweets that China’s promise to buy large amounts of agricultural products from the US, was not kept.
While speaking to reporters this afternoon at the White House, he also threatened to lift the percentage to 25% and beyond, “But we are not looking to do that, necessarily”.
Products that will be included in this new batch of tariffed goods will be consumer electronics such as iPhones, toys and shoes, among other items.
There was some surprise noted, as the meetings and discussions in Shanghai appeared to end on a somewhat positive note, initially. Now, with this announcement, there is a sense of the talks having fallen short of any progress at all.
Fallout of the Trade War to Begin Hitting Home
Trump continues to claim that China will pay these levies, although studies have shown that the consumer in the US will ultimately pay through higher costs on all tariffed goods. The higher prices will also harm sellers in the US due to a reduced volume of sales.
While there is sill also a lot of “carrot” talk, how the negotiations can also take a turn for the better at any time, coming from both sides, it does not appear that there is much substance to be gleaned from these pronouncements.
Since the percentage of some of the products that will be affected, such as toys, include as high as 85% currently coming from China, these tariffs can have a substantial effect on the marketplace.
Also, possibly unintended beneficiaries to the trade war are neighboring countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, that are already showing signs of increased activity due to the shifting of origin of manufacturing to those countries in order to avoid the levies.
Tariff-man is staying true to his self-given moniker and in September, as the next wave hits, it is yet to be seen what the economic effects will be, either in China or here in the US.
Thankfully, weekend headlines were replete with stories denouncing Trump’s most recent barrage of racist tweets, these singling out Rep. Elijah Cummings and Baltimore, and the district that he represents.
@TheRealAdolfHitler: What if Hitler was on twitter? would he tweet about “rat infested” Jewish areas of Berlin?…
Even CNN, until recently not known for hard line resistance, pointed out and criticized the Nazi-like tone and technique in the tweets – how they echo the Nazi era anti-Semitic propaganda, that labeled Jews as “parasites” and used photos of rats to imply filth and disease. Infestation was also a concept used, the implication that Jews, like rats, carried disease and decay.
The most alarming, discouraging element of this ongoing debasement of our political discourse is the possibility that this disgusting circus could be extended initially through 2020, and even into another four years and beyond.
“It can’t happen here” is a well known phrase and the title of an influential novel from 1935 by Sinclair Lewis. In many ways, as others have pointed out, Trump echos the main character and could even conceivably have used his story as a blueprint for his career in politics.
The phrase, “it can’t happen here”, seems to be contradicted on a daily basis since November 9, 2016, and the degree to which the horrors of the past can be repeated, or at least echoed continues, with seemingly no end in sight.
The “enemy of the people”, as Trump has labeled the media (at least all that dare to speak out against him), seem to be the only hope, ultimately, of effecting a change for the better, which can only come once Trump is no longer in power.
The attacks on Cummings were racist propaganda, of that, there is no doubt. There is also a clear motive for the attacks, since the target is the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which is charged with overseeing the Executive Branch, including the office of the President.
After years of endless lies, Trump appears to be upping his game, ahead of the coming election. With a clear pattern of weekend twitter propaganda, such as the “go back” tweets, which for most represented a new low, and yet are clearly outdone by this weeks sequel.
Many articles and famous figures have responded, from the Baltimore Sun’s scathing inditement, to CNN’s Victor Blackwell and his live on-air, heart-felt reaction, and even Stephen Curry’s comment on his segment:
It's this kind of boldness that our country needs! Keep calling him out. I'm not from Baltimore- but I know countless people who are. Teammates, family, hardworking employees. All People that represent the best qualities of what it means to be American! & who want to live there!
As the years of this presidency have progressed, and the lies and vicious attacks have escalated, the press has also adapted and evolved.
For almost a year after the 2017 inauguration, the press generally avoided using the word “lie” in reports of Trump’s “untruths”. There was an attempt to maintain respect for the office and to somehow show deference to a man that, ultimately, has proven himself to be beneath that courtesy. As the lies continued to pile up and the press was directly attacked on many occasions, boldness and honesty begin to seep into the reporting.
“…all of us, starting with the media, must speak out now, and not stop until he is gone.”
Now, the words “racist” and “bigot” are necessary and accurate in any description of the man, or his actions and ideas. The tweets of the last few weeks have set a new lower standard, even for Trump, in how blatantly his bigotry and racism can be displayed.
The congressman himself had several strong responses to the attacks that should be seen:
Mr. President, I go home to my district daily. Each morning, I wake up, and I go and fight for my neighbors.
It is my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. But, it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents.
Mr. President, we can address this together. Two years ago, I went to the White House to ask you to endorse my bill to let the government negotiate directly for lower drug prices.
Ultimately, unless we want to see a future that mirrors the almost 12 years, between the time that Hitler became chancellor of Germany until his death, and experience a fate that is potentially even worse: all of us, starting with the media, must speak out now, and not stop until he is gone.
In the past, comparisons with Hitler were a kind of “red-line” that was seldom crossed, as the horrific historical legacy of the Nazis was thought to be too extreme, even to contemplate, in a modern day figure.
“Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth – – it would literally be over in 10 days” -because- “I just don’t want to kill ten million people”
Now, we are talking about a man who only last week boasted that, if he wanted, “Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth – – it would literally be over in 10 days” because “I just don’t want to kill ten million people”. Implying that he could change his mind about not killing 10 million in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, at any time.
This past weekend may, one-day, be seen as the beginning of a march toward 2020 and another Trump term, with consequent escalation of all the ugly policies and actions.
It could be just the beginning, with all this power-drunk behavior, from a man that has indicated that he believes his supporters might “demand” that he serve more than 8 years. And “joked” that he feels he should be “president for life”, after repealing the 22nd amendment.
Combine these disturbing ideas and extrapolate, even just slightly forward, and step by step, we are talking about a future that is virtually impossible to imagine in its potential for hate, death and destruction.
We are entering a time when the transition to calling “a lie” a lie, a “racist” a racist and soon a “fascist” a fascist, will either work to eventually re-establish the goal of democracy and equality and truth as our real American greatness, or Trump will indeed be a new, far worse, version of Hitler, Goebbles and the Third Reich all rolled into one.
Hyperbole? Hysteria? This is a time when a single man or woman can influence the future of this country and the world. Will it be this man? This racist, bigoted, hateful, corrupt “rat” of a man?
Or will it be you, as one of millions who will stop him? As history indicates, the real choice is to begin the movement to stop him now, or look forward to horrors from which the world itself may not survive.
At a staged speech in front of the White House on Monday under the auspices of a pre-planned “Made In America” event, Mr. Trump started off, as he often does, from the teleprompter, then, veered off into continuation of the weekend’s twitter tirade. The traditional, annual, event which is coordinated with “Made in America Day” and “Made in America Week” is a standard “pro-America” pep rally meant to give the President the opportunity to tout his patriotic agenda.
After a few remarks from the usual scripted pro-American manufacturing playbook, and his usual boasts about how the stock market and job market success are due, exclusively, to his having been elected, he launched into a defense of his racist tweets that have been dominating the news cycle over the weekend.
Reporters present pushed Mr. Trump to respond to the trending topic, rather than continue with the purported theme of the day, praise for American made jobs, products and manufacturers. In response to one reporter’s query:
“Does it concern you that many people saw that tweet as racist and that white nationalist groups are finding common cause with you on that point?”
He replied:
“It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me. And all I’m saying, they want to leave, they can leave.”
Everything New is Old Again
This exchange led to additional back and forth on the theme “Love It Or Leave It”, a hackneyed slogan from the sixties, and, with 50 year anniversaries of the Apollo Moon landing and Woodstock this summer, it seems oddly fitting that a Republican President, echoing Nixon, should be trying to re-ignite that tired refrain.
Even as reporters continued to try and question the motives and meanings of his, clearly racist, tweets aimed at the congresswomen, Trump continued to beat the “love it or leave it” drum:
“If you’re not happy in the U.S., if you’re complaining all the time, very simply, you can leave. You can leave right now. Come back if you want, don’t come back, it’s OK too. But if you’re not happy, you can leave,” Sadly this all seems like a scripted melodrama straight out of the Nixon campaign.
Meanwhile the specter of alleged communist sympathy, taking us all back to the “HUAC” witch hunts of the 50s, of all things, was hurled at the target of Trump’s weekend tweets, by none other than that schizophrenic sycophant, Lindsey Graham:
I see [Lindsey Graham’s] biggest issue w/ Trump’s racism is that it doesn’t go far enough – Graham wants to bring back 1950s McCarthyism, too.
GOP is doing this because they have no plan for our future.
We’re the ones fighting for healthcare, edu, good jobs, & they got nothing.
– ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ – IN A TWEET
I see @LindseyGrahamSC’s biggest issue w/ Trump’s racism is that it doesn’t go far enough – Graham wants to bring back 1950s McCarthyism, too.
GOP is doing this because they have no plan for our future.
We’re the ones fighting for healthcare, edu, good jobs, & they got nothing. https://t.co/pfAEATWbJl
Tired, Old Ploy, Once Again Trotted Out to Muddy the Waters
This entire episode, starting with the offensive tweets, is obviously a ploy to draw battle lines – again harkening back to the Nixon campaign and his “Silent Majority” refrain, complaining that protesters against the Vietnam war were a small minority, and that he spoke for the majority in his (soon to be proven criminal and corrupt) positions and policies.
Sadly, unless the strategy is undone by a more enlightened electorate, we could be headed for a similar fate: Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 only to resign before almost certain impeachment in 1974 after a “long national nightmare”.
Hopefully the parallels with ‘69 – ‘72 will end in November 2020.
Trump’s Goons Set Loose on Cities Across the Nation: Some ICE raids Currently Underway
As promised, ICE raids are in progress across the country, as announced by the Trump administration and widely reported.
There have been over 2000 immigrants targeted for arrest in a host of major cities: New York, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Houston, San Francisco and New Orleans. It appears, possibly as a tactic, that smaller rural communities are also seeing action.
Receiving reports of attempted but reportedly unsuccessful ICE enforcement actions in Sunset Park and Harlem.@NYCImmigrants and advocates are connecting with residents and distributing resources door to door.
Mayors in some cities have spoken out strongely against the actions, such as New York’s Mayor de Blasio as seen in the above tweet. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs added a video to remind those affected of their options under the law.
The video reminds those targets and any other immigrants that they have the right to refuse to open their doors and do not have to respond, according to the law in New York City, for example.
According to witnesses in areas already targeted in New York, people appear to be avoiding going out in public and streets are quieter than usual.
In what was likely not a coincidence, on Saturday, Trump chose to hurl xenophobic insults at Democrat Congresswomen, implying that they are not American and should “go back and help fix” the “places from which they came” :
The tweets, clearly meant for the progressive wing of the Democratic Congress, were not only racist and xenophobic but also, as is sadly, no surprise, wrong. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born in New York City, Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit and Massachusetts Congresswoman, Ayanna S. Pressley was born in Cincinnati. Only Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, was born outside the country, in Somalia.
“You are angry because you can’t conceive of an America that includes us. You rely on a frightened America for your plunder.
You won’t accept a nation that sees healthcare as a right or education as a #1 priority, especially where we’re the ones fighting for it. Yet here we are.”
– Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in Tweet responding to trump’s tirade
You are angry because you can’t conceive of an America that includes us. You rely on a frightened America for your plunder.
You won’t accept a nation that sees healthcare as a right or education as a #1 priority, especially where we’re the ones fighting for it.
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……
When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to “Make America Great Again” has always been about making America white again.
The LA Times reported, in an interview with Melissa Taveras of the Florida Immigrant Commission, based in Miami, that the onset of possible raids was like waiting for a hurricane:
“The overall environment is very much like a hurricane: When is it going to come, is it going to hit us, is it going to move north?”
Melissa Taveras , Quoted in the L.A. Times
“The overall environment is very much like a hurricane: When is it going to come, is it going to hit us, is it going to move north?” she said. “We have people in Homestead, Little Havana, Little Haiti — where we know there are concentrations of immigrants — distributing ‘know your rights’ pamphlets. That seems to be effective because we’re already hearing reports of people not opening their doors.”
Her organization was advising families to be sure to have a relative or attorney’s contact information memorized in order to contact them, if detained, and that they need to be sure to give them details of where they are taken, along with full name and birthday, in order to help try and get them released, if arrested.
Teeth or not in Inquiry? Jawboning or action for Targeted Tech?…
Commenting on the antitrust review announced by the Justice Department on Tuesday, in an interview on CNBC, Mnuchin said that “it is good that the attorney general is going to look into this”.
Also saying that Amazon has “limited competition”, “hurt small businesses”, and that it was “absolutely right” for the Attorney General to look into “these issues”.
Amazon "has destroyed the retail industry across the United States," says Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. "It's absolutely right the Attorney General is looking into" anti-trust issues. pic.twitter.com/z5Mhc96xMa
On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced via press release that it would initiate a review to determine if major online platforms had “reduced competition, stifled innovation or otherwise harmed consumers”.
”The Department of Justice announced today that the Department’s Antitrust Division is reviewing whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.”
Department of Justice Release from Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Interestingly, the idea of some kind of antitrust action against Amazon, Google or Facebook is one that is gaining traction among Republicans and Democrats alike. Senator Elizabeth Warren in particular has often spoken of the need for intervention.
Each of the “market-leading online platforms” have built-in defenses against traditional antitrust actions, which have traditionally looked for dominant companies where consumer prices were directly impacted by use of monopoly profits (such as in United States v. AT&T and later, v. Microsoft).
In the case of Facebook and Google, profits are hidden behind “free” products and services which allow the companies to claim that no harm comes to consumers as a result of their power. Naturally, the idea that the products and services come without cost is losing credibility in light of the many scandals and instances of harm, monetary or otherwise.
Kindergarten Colors and “Consumer Obsession” while Evil Lurks Beneath…
In the case of Amazon, it is even more complex, since, as a company famous for enormous losses rather than profit, all while using various loss leader strategies to prove that it is “consumer obsessed” and not a monopoly at all.
Indeed, Amazon’s response to the Justice Department’s press release was, through a spokesman, that Amazon accounts for “less than 4% of US retail sales” and that “small and medium-sized businesses are thriving with Amazon”. Not mentioned was the dominant 50% share of the online sales market.
By comparison the second largest online sales channel, eBay, for 2019 is estimated to reach 6.1%, while Walmart’s online platform has an approximate 4.6% share.
Rarely has the media been able (or willing) to unravel the deeply complex history of Amazon’s strategies – which can be traced all the way back to the incredibly favorable pricing of it’s stock during the dot.com bubble boom and it’s “stealth” transformation from “The World’s Largest Bookstore” into “The Everything Store” over a ten year period.
The closest definition for its business behavior is as a “monopsony”, which can be defined as holding a monopoly over suppliers or labor, not consumers.
And this is where the “hurt small businesses” comes in. Any small retailer wishing to survive, let alone make a profit, must have online sales in some form (ask Walmart if you doubt that online sales are a necessary requirement for a brick and mortar retail business in 2019) and the domination in that area – that is to say the control of the customers, by Amazon is so extreme that joining the Amazon Marketplace is the only option (other than trying to survive with 90% fewer online sales).
And the Marketplace is controlled with an iron fist by Amazon. For example, since around 2006 all communication between Amazon Marketplace sellers and their buyers is handled by an encrypted, anonymous messaging system designed to prevent sellers from obtaining any direct email addresses from buyers.
This amazingly elaborate system is a glaring indicator, hiding in plain sight, that Amazon views its “selling partners” as anything but.
Although third-party sellers accounted, for example, for 50% of paid units sold on Amazon in 2016, every customer was considered to belong 100% to Amazon and zero percent to the seller.
With fees that can total up to 50% (they use a complex exponential sliding scale which makes it impossible to quote any exact figure) the seller is doomed to have no brand value and no “good will” value as long as it agrees to cooperate on the platform. Not selling on Amazon, unless extremely well capitalized (such as a start-up with hundreds of millions of dollars), is a death sentence.
Naturally, the waters remain muddy, since examples of the precise opposite can be pointed to – if you are a manufacturer and your products are extremely cheap (you are probably in China) and you like to offer your margin to Jeff Bezos as “his opportunity” and, particularly if your products will harm an Amazon competitor that refuses to sell on Amazon, the red carpet will be laid at your feet.
3 Brands Take Over Earth, Almost No-one Notices
It’s odd, as an observer, to note that there is not a single “brand success story” that can be pointed to as having built their brand through the Amazon third-party Marketplace. Could this be more than a coincidence?
”What I am glad we never did and that we’ve avoided so far is being on Amazon”
Jen Rubio, co-founder and chief brand officer of Away
Take, for example, Away Luggage, who went from being a “direct to consumer” start-up founded in 2015 to recently reaching a valuation of over one billion dollars and who made it a point NEVER to sell on Amazon;
She added that a “deal breaker” was that Amazon does not share customer data with vendors.
”Just sticking to our guns and not going on the [Amazon] platform was important for us”
Jen Rubio, Away
In our own recent interview with a long time Amazon Marketplace seller, who insisted on not being named, “or my children’s lives would be in danger”, he stated that many more behaviors towards seller “partners” are anything but collegial.
One of many examples is the “co-mingling” policy. As with much of what goes on behind the scenes at Amazon, this is an opaque, complex concept where all products that reside in any Amazon warehouse (supplied by various sellers participating in the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program) are considered to be “co-mingled” once they arrive.
When an item is purchased from a particular seller any item from any supplier is “picked” and shipped to the buyer. If that item is somehow inferior or even counterfeit, the seller whose name is on the order is automatically blamed although there is no way to trace the item’s true origin.
Our anonymous interviewee stated that, in one case, he was put out of business and even sued as having sold a counterfeit item, even though all his inventory was purchased from the original authorized manufacturer, and he could prove it.
Why didn’t he fight the false and obviously bogus accusation? $50,000 to $100,000 in Legal fees and no chance of any remedy other than, perhaps, re-instatement with no guarantee that the same thing wouldn’t happen again 2 days later.
One could get the impression, surveying the various accounts from sellers, across many walks of life, that Amazon’s perspective is not only that it is unimportant what happens to a particular seller that runs into problems on its platform, but that the demise of any seller is a “win” and that harm to any seller is harm to a competitor, even if that entity is technically a “Marketplace Partner”.
If true, this is as disturbing as any “consumer harm” effected through higher prices, as the sellers, who are also consumers let’s not forget, are just as trapped in the platform’s private “hell” as any consumer who is forced to pay higher prices as a result of monopolistic behavior.
Stories like the one above are “out-there” by the thousands but, strangely, hard to find online. A search on Google (oh yes, one of the other companies being scrutinized by the Justice Department) for “Amazon harms sellers” would often, in the recent past, bring up nothing but links to Amazon itself and how it is harmed by “counterfeit sellers” as if all the problems on the platform are created by the “other guy”.
Interestingly, even that is beginning to change, and there are more and more articles by reputable outlets such as Forbes , The Verge and INC who are daring to take information publicly gathered, as in our case, often from anonymous sources fearing retribution, and report on it without fearing similar retribution to its own organization. It seems likely more such stories will be published in the coming days and months. And perhaps, as they say, one day, the chickens will come home to roost.
Isn’t it odd that everyone on the internet either seems to hate or love Elon Musk and Tesla? One theory behind why this may be the case, was put forth in a recent article by John Mayo-Smith published on Medium.com called Elon vs. The Alligators. In a nutshell, the article is a list, with a nice graphic in part II, of vested interests that would stand to lose from Tesla’s success and, conversely, benefit from its demise.
This Is Not A New Development and Elon is Not Alone
Fans of the 2006 documentary, “Who Killed The Electric Car” would be well aware of the “conspiracy” against the proliferation of electric cars. The rise of Tesla, by definition, signals the failure of those entrenched interests that previously banded together to try and stop the emergence of this essential technology in the transition away from deadly fossil fuels.
Musk and Tesla represent an initial sign that these kinds of cabals to suppress technological development may be losing their strangle-hold on our world. Meanwhile, overwhelmingly obvious facts, once seen as “conspiracy theories”, are beginning to be recognized for what they are: simple facts of history.
Take, for example, the video below “Why The US Has No High Speed Rail”, released on May 7th, 2019, by none other than that “underground, subversive organization” CNBC. This short documentary clip has already garnered more than 4.5 million views.
The video shows the highly evolved, generally safe, and amazingly comfortable high speed rail systems across the globe: China, Japan, France, Germany, India, Saudi Arabia and so on. And while more countries develop low emission, luxurious, high speed transport, the US still has no high speed rail.
Meanwhile, overwhelmingly obvious facts, once seen as “conspiracy theories”, are beginning to be recognized for what they are: simple facts of history.
The clip goes on to trace the history of the transportation infrastructure and show how it was dominated and controlled in the US by Big Oil, government road building subsidies and the Auto Industry. It follows the clear path of these forces, and how they systematically prevented any rise of non-automotive transportation.
As the Media Slowly Comes Around, the Dollars Still Twist the Story
Perhaps, even ten years ago, this video would have likely been systematically attacked, in the same way as previous stories, for daring to sing the virtues of highly efficient, low pollution transportation, and for the very same reasons.
Today, after a Sea change, it appears that it is not so easy to squelch access to information that lays out plain truths about the past. Information is no longer so easy to suppress. While we, as a species, face possible extinction from climate change / global warming, brought about at least partially by the precise “conspiracy” of corruption that is the reason the US still has no rail infrastructure, the need to face these kinds of facts is undeniable.
Could the large viewership, unchallenged, indicate that it is no longer possible to bully the citizenry into silence, simply by disparaging the source of information, be it journalistic or otherwise?
It doesn’t take an eagle eye to notice, that when it comes to auto fatalities, Tesla and Musk are held to a very different standard than any other car company. Doing any search of a general grouping of news reports pertaining to fatal auto collisions, instantly, a stark pattern emerges. Ford is not mentioned. Chevy? Nope. Neither is Toyota, or Nissan nor Chrysler or Subaru. Mercedes Benz? Never. This list could go on and on, but any casual observer can see the pattern.
Although there are almost 40,000 auto accident fatalities per year in the US, and a very tiny fraction of those involve any electric car, nevertheless, the name Tesla comes up again and again, as the headline of stories about car crashes, with or without fatalities.
Titles like: “5 killed on way to Funeral” or “His 6th DUI Proved Fatal” are common. But it appears that any crash, of any kind, that involves a Tesla is “news”. This is but one of endless examples that could be cited, and corroborated, showing a pattern of negative stories aimed at one car company above all others. Coincidence?
The Story of Suppression of Design Innovation, Particularly when that Innovation Threatens the Status Quo is, Unfortunately, a Long One
A little known episode in this long history is that of Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion car. Featured prominently at the 1933-34 World’s Fair in Chicago, it had an amazing fuel efficiency, with approximately 30 mpg, and at 20ft in length, could transport 8-11 passengers at up to 70 mph.
However, after a local Chicago politician (Chicago South Park Commissioner) ran his own vehicle into the first prototype, killing the driver of the Dymaxion, the whole episode was used, in bogus press reports, to bury not only public interest in the car itself, but any chance of the advances in gas milage and overall efficiency that it represented. Gas mileage in the 30 mpg range would then be delayed for decades.
Photo Credit / Medium.com
Headlines in New York and Chicago read: “Freak car rolls over – killing famous driver – injuring international passengers“. In a subsequent investigation the Dymaxion was cleared of any fault, and the politician and his car were found to have been illegally removed from the scene before any reporters arrived. To this day, the average fuel economy in the US is less than 30 MPG. Even after over 80 years, articles can still be found that smear the history of the car with lies and baseless inferences, the same ones propagated in 1933.
A Trillion Gallons of Gasoline Wasted by Intentionally Inefficient Cars
If suppression of inventions that could have reduced carbon emissions, the same polluting substances that, eventually, could destroy the earth, is not pure evil, it’s hard to say what is. And yet, those same forces and corrupt powers remain with us today. “Tump Loves Coal“.
It would be interesting to speculate why 4.5 million would want to know the answer to the question: “Why the US Has No High Speed Rail”. And what about the “Alligators” that are out to get Tesla and Elon Musk? Are they going to succeed? Or will 400 million decide that the alligator’s time, like the dinosaurs they resemble, is finally over.
***If you want to know what he actually said, and you are interested in the future of the country, please read the full text here:
“Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign.
They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election. These indictments contain allegations.
And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood.
That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation.
The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned.
When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report.
The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election.
This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.
The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.
Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.
Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.
And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime.
That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General – as required by Department regulations. The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself – no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress.
Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.
These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments – that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you”
Dow swoons again on news; down 400 points in early trading
The South China Morning Post reported today that Chinese State Media has responded to the threats in Trump’s tweets from Sunday to raise Tariffs, as well as adding new tariffs on additional goods.
“Things that are unfavourable to us, no matter how you ask, we will not take any step back. Do not even think about it.”
After first blocking media mentions or screen shots of Trump’s twitter threats early Monday, Beijing responded with defiance and even attempted a bit of theatrics, “Do Not Even Think About It” was the “Dirty Harry-esque” headline in the Hong Kong news outlet’s article cited above.
In spite of the heated rhetoric and brinkmanship from both sides, the Chinese Government still plans to send an envoy to the talks, although no time frame was specified.
From the U.S. perspective, according to the Trump administration, the talks are progressing “too slowly” and a mechanism for holding China accountable to reduce intellectual property violations and open up its economy is as yet undefined.
The harsh stances on either side to date, however, do not rule out the possibility that both can claim “victory” after looking tough at home, after ultimately announcing some kind of agreement to end the tensions and the tariffs. While this may even be the likely outcome, the potential for higher tariff percentages and new levies on other goods (on both sides) are a serious possible reality going forward.
Quoting the ‘Peoples Daily’ from its WeChat public account: “Things that are unfavourable to us, no matter how you ask, we will not take any step back. Do not even think about it.”
“Tariff-Man” talks tuff when traders expect cream puffs
Photo / Adobe Stock – Lynxotic
Nasdaq futures down over 2%
Futures began to tumble when Trump announced he would raise tariffs on $200 Billion in Chinese goods and soon add a levy on $325 billion more. In the largest drop in Futures since January, traders appear to be reacting to the expectation of a positive resolution to the trade tensions, only to be surprised by the escalation by Trump.
….of additional goods sent to us by China remain untaxed, but will be shortly, at a rate of 25%. The Tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on product cost, mostly borne by China. The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly, as they attempt to renegotiate. No!
Brinksmanship? Or will both sides make good on threats?
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, China may be pulling out of the talks, which only raises the stakes. It’s entirely possible that both sides are talking tough in an attempt to gain an advantage and claim victory, if and when the talks resume. A sudden positive, “unexpected” reversal on both sides would likely spur a knee jerk market rally, for example, so volatility in the markets appears to be likely for the week ahead.
Needless to say, a trade war escalation would be a serious event for both sides. Although China may feel the negative effects of such an all out Tariff avalanche first, the potential downside for the U.S.A. is not clear and would be by no means insignificant.
Photo / South China Morning Post
With both sides broadcasting extreme positions, on the other hand, the talks may well halt, which would “require” Trump to make good on his threats (in order to save face). Stay Tuned.
“I don’t consider “Bob”, at this stage, a career prosecutor”
– Attorney General William Barr
Attorney General calls published letter “Snitty” and refuses to acknowledge Mueller’s Reputation. When asked if he made a memorandum of his conversation he sheepishly replied “huh?” Before admitting after further questioning that “someone” had taken notes of the call.
“why should you have them?”
– Attorney General William Barr, when asked if congress could be allowed to have a copy of the notes from the call
Although Vice had only a modest showing at the box office (#6 on opening weekend and 40m as of January with a domestic-only-release) the film produced the second highest number of Oscar nominations at 8.
Christian Bale, with his otherworldly portrayal of GW’s Veep, appears to be a strong contender for Best Actor . Sam Rockwell gets the nod as Best Supporting Actor nominee for his work as our 43rd Prez., George W. Bush.
“…thank you to Satan for giving me inspiration on how to play this role”
Christian Bale, accepting his Golden Globes Award for Best Actor
In the A.V. Club December 2018 interview below, Bale shares his thoughts on Cheney, the man, and his experience of portraying a person who is neither “all villain” or “all saint”, noting that all humans display some of each of those qualities.
“…(Cheney)…..is a fascinatingly contradictory character, incredibly strong minded, absolutely refusing to apologize or to have any regrets.”
In the four-plus minute clip, Bale explains some of the techniques and methods he employed in order to transform into the extreme and unique personage that was Dick Cheney as seen in VICE. Thoughts on the current political climate, and more are also shared.
Known for his chameleon like transformations from an American Psycho, (as Patrick Bateman, lead character in the black comedy horror film from the year 2000) to comic book Super Hero (Batman) into eccentric introverted hedge fund genius (as Michael Burry in The Big Short), Bale is no stranger to extreme onscreen transformations. With the unrecognizable girth and “charisma free” personality created to play Cheney in VICE, however, it appears that the bar has been raised almost impossibly high. Oscar prediction: C.B. will win Best Actor Award on February 24th at the 91st Academy Awards.
President Trump declared the emergency on Friday to reroute billions of dollars to fund the creation of his long promised border wall. This, after Congress passed a bill that allocated $1.375 billion for its construction. With this emergency, Trump plans to allocate $8 billion to the wall, as well as $3.6 billion in military construction funds, and taking an additional $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense.
Presidents who claim National Emergencies rely on various moves and powers provided by Congress. Congress has long been the core source of emergency authority for the executive branch. Congress can pass laws to give the president wiggle room during military, economic, health, and labor issues.
In 1976, The National Emergencies Act was passed. It basically ended all previous national emergencies, and formally bestowed emergency powers to the president.
The White House has contended that the maneuver is a commonplace one and needed to skirt gridlock . According to the Brennan Center for Justice, presidents have declared national emergencies 60 times, including Trump.
Sixteen states have filed a lawsuit in a Northern California federal court against President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, in it, contending that the executive power to fund a border wall unconstitutional.
These 16 states argue that the Emergency Act is unconstitutional because it’s separating money and power from the states. In a recent widely covered speech, Trump acknowledged this legal hurdle with his sing-song break down:
This scenario is unique due to a National Emergency being linked to a rallying cry, and campaign promise.
Is it unconstitutional?
All roads lead to the Supreme Court—where the party line suits Trump.
As I predicted, 16 states, led mostly by Open Border Democrats and the Radical Left, have filed a lawsuit in, of course, the 9th Circuit! California, the state that has wasted billions of dollars on their out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion, seems in charge!
Reports indicate that Nike’s “Kaepernick” campaign was successful as both advertising (increasing sales) and as controversial social commentary. In this case, it appears to have had the intended effect.
The “Success has many Fathers” rule led, unavoidably, the next batch of socially aware commentary with a taste of controversy. A great new genre and, overall, a positive move and redefinition of advertising?
In the case of Gillette, it begs the question, why Gillette and why now? The previous Gillette campaign “Boston Made” was a stark departure from their staple of ads, oriented towards product shots and hawking of benefits, that go back decades. Why change now to new styles and directions?
A revolution in direct-to-consumer branding in the U.S.A., that’s why.
The huge and unexpected success of upstarts in the once impenetrable shaving supplies market by online “answer brands” like Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club was behind a drop in Gillette’s 70% of the market in 2008 to only 50% in 2017.
For more than a century Gillette and Schick were #1 and #2 in a huge men’s shaving industry which recently accounted for $2.8 billion in annual sales. Suddenly, the two main upstarts have grown to around 10% of that.
A bite of that magnitude, and one that is growing, was enough to awaken the sleeping giant. First, an attempt at rebranding as a kind of “local” start-up with the “Boston Made” campaign mentioned above, and now, with the “We Believe: The best men can be” ad, the giant is fighting back.
Problems of veracity with the Boston ads, and perhaps looking a little desperate with the newest socially aware salvo notwithstanding, we should all still applaud this story and others like it.
Having four or more choices and pricing options in a formerly closed market is a clear advantage for consumers. And, regardless of your take on the content or message in the “Believe” clip above, it’s still better and more interesting to see this than yet another animated imaginary blade cutting fake hairs on a cartoon chin “oh so close and easy”.
Even this video response from Égard Watch Company adds to the conversation and to the variety of opinions, not just on “what is a man?” but even more so: “what is an advertisement?”.
Ok, opportunistic? Sure. But at least new things are being tried and tested.
Be it Razor’s or a Mattress or any other product, with help from changes brought on by eCommerce, the wave of companies finding ways to capture even 10% of a previously stagnant market are a ray of hope and a healthy shot of competition.
“Even this video response from Égard Watch Company adds to the conversation and to the variety of opinions, not just on “what is a man?” but even more so: “what is an advertisement?”.”
Never mind that Harry’s was recently bought by Unilever (and was thereby swallowed up by Gillette’s main competitor since P&G owns Gillette), the wave of new companies across all categories, many of which were thought of as impossible to enter at any cost, is a win for us all and one of the most exciting trends to emerge as the internet begins it’s third decade.
So, hooray! and thanks to Nike (although, perhaps the extra $6 billion in sales are thanks enough). Here’s to hoping that more large companies will jump into the fray with more “crazy” campaigns to recapture relevance (and market share) from the new kids on the block.
