Blog

Don’t let them see you blink

Trump is probably enjoying flexing his muscles. First he imposes ridiculous tariffs on the entire world and markets crash losing $10 trillion in value. Then there is a rumor that he is going to backtrack and the markets rally. Then comes news that the backtrack news was fake news and the markets fall again. Then Trump, for real, announces a “pause” in most of the world’s tariffs and the markets roar back, gaining $5 trillion. For someone with such an ego, Trump must truly be in his glory. It is therefore, hard to imagine, as some have written, that Trump blinked.

But why did he backtrack? Some say it was the steep fall in the markets and Elon Musk’s displeasure at being a few billion dollars poorer. When Musk came out for zero tariffs – rather than Trump’s weird reciprocal tariffs – the commerce secretary Lutnick said that Musk was just an assembler. Musk then called Lutnick a moron and dumber than a sack of bricks. Temper. Temper. Some say that the fall in the markets spooked Trump and that his Treasury secretary, Bessent convinced him to a pause. Still others say that Trump really did not care what happened to the stock market – which I find hard to believe – because he really wanted a fall in the market that would lead to a fall in the 10 year Treasury. Weird? Here is the “logic”. When the market falls, investors run to safety and the 10 year Treasury is considered a safe haven. When the demand for treasurys rise, the price goes up and the yield falls. Since $9 trillion in US debt is maturing soon, the fall in the Treasury yield means that the maturing debt can be refinanced at a lower rate. Each basis point drop in the treasury rate translates to a savings of $1 billion a year. A basis point is one one-hundredth of a percent. And yes, initially the T-bond rate fell from 4.2% to 3.9% or a $30 billion savings if the bonds were refinanced at the lower rate.

But after the initial drop, the rate on the 10 year Treasury shot up to 4.5%. So investors did not run to Treasurys, rather they started to dump them indicating that no longer was the US considered to be a trustworthy safe haven. Also if tariffs sparked inflation, investors demand higher yields to protect the real value of their investments. Of course, Trump has been demanding that the Fed help him out by lowering interest rates, tweeting 

“This would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates. He is always “late,” but he could now change his image, and quickly. Energy prices are down, Interest Rates are down, Inflation is down, even Eggs are down 69%, and Jobs are UP, all within two months – A BIG WIN for America. CUT INTEREST RATES, JEROME, AND STOP PLAYING POLITICS!”

Trump sure loves caps and exclamation points. The Fed has resisted Trump’s entreaties. Its next Open Market Committee meeting is May 6-7 and there is no indication that they will lower rates. The expectation is that they will leave rates steady. In fact, the Fed is likely to resist overt political pressure from Trump to lower rates so that he can have the debt refinanced at a lower rate. So some say that Trump “backtracked” not because of the sell off in the stock market but because of the sell off in the bond market causing the 10 year Treasury to rise rather than fall. Regardless, Trump is now back to square one with the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and his 10% tariff on everybody else – but China.

Trump’s tariffs may have cast doubt in investors minds about the wisdom of putting their eggs in the dollar basket. Central banks hold dollars as their reserve currency. Businesses transact in dollars across borders. This means that there is a demand to hold dollars and this generally means holding treasurys. However, if Trump is lessening the US’s participation in world markets by increasing US tariffs then there will be less demand for dollars. Thus, Trump’s tariffs will in effect reduce the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. In addition, less dollars flowing overseas also mean lower demand for treasurys which are used to finance deficit spending. So in the words of the old adage, be careful for what you wish.

Our Gutless Congress and Free Trading Penguins

I once wrote that our congressional politicians were gutless to let the republican AGs do the heavy lifting in confronting the excesses of the Biden Administration. Well it continues. Trump’s usurpation of Congress is apparent to all. Article I, the Constitution vests the “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” in the Congress, not in the president. As a result, the president isn’t empowered to impose his “reciprocal” tariffs on all our trading partners. Yet Congress sits on its thumbs. Even the democrat AGs who are fond of suing Trump at every turn have not sued him on tariffs. Rather they seem content to try to defend their various constituents – LBGTQs, illegals, federal workers, bloated federal budgets and the green industrial complex. I know that the republicans in congress are afraid of Trump – except for Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, Thomas Massie, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins – which is why they are letting the president abrogate their powers. But why are the dems – who hate Trump’s guts – not suing him? Jasmine Crockett, Al Green, Hakeem Jeffries, AOC in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate are doing absolutely nothing to stop Trump. I want someone to kindly explain to me why.

The venerable Art Laffer has suggested an exit strategy for Trump – assuming that he is looking for one. Laffer once said that Trump at a G-7 meeting offered to drop all tariffs and subsidies if the other countries would do the same and there were no takers. He is now suggesting the same thing. He says that Trump “should give a globally televised address announcing to the world that the U.S. is ready to drop its tariffs and industry subsidies to zero tomorrow on any nation that does the same.” The only problem is that Israel has done exactly that and still has a Trump tariff of 17 percent. Singapore which does not impose any tariffs period yet has the Trump global minimum tariff of 10 percent. Singapore’s prime minister says that this minimum global tariff doesn’t appear to be open to negotiation. Vietnam has gone to zero but their tariff stays at 46 percent. So Dr Laffer, zero does not mean zero in Donald Trump’s world if a country has a trade surplus with the United States.

Again this is lunacy. How will Vietnam get its tariff down to zero? It must refuse to sell any goods to US customers past what it buys from us, dollar for dollar. Never mind that its per capita income is only a tenth of ours. It cannot even sell the goods to a third party because that third party will be hit with tariffs when it sells to US customers. That is supposed to be the reason why Trump’s tariffs extend to every bit of real estate on the planet. The democrats and their media exploded with mirth over tariffs imposed on uninhabited islands with only penguins. Even though this was clearly an error by the administration, commerce secretary Lutnick had to lie, saying it was to prevent a transfer of goods through those islands as if we would not know that a place with zero inhabitants could not sell us goods. Sorry Art but Trump does not want zero tariffs and zero subsidies, he wants a zero trade deficit which is impossible unless he can make American stop buying foreign goods.

(And thanks Lynne for the penquin)

I have some bad news and some good news.

What’s the bad news?

Trump’s tariffs are now in place. Knowing that there will be disruptions in financial markets and in consumer confidence, Trump tweets that we should “hang tough” as markets crash. Trump said the tariffs “won’t be easy, but the end result will be historic” as consumer prices to rise and the world teeters on recession. His surrogates, who should know better, are forced to lie in order to keep their jobs. His press secretary Karoline Leavitt said there is “not going to be any pain” from the tariffs for American companies or workers, claiming Americans can “expect price stability.” Huh? Who believes this nonsense? Scott Bessent the treasury secretary said that there was “no reason” to expect a recession based on Trump’s tariffs. Of course, if Bessent were still in the private sector, he would be singing another tune. Bessent implied that the some of the tariffs might not stay in place very long when he said that over 50 countries had asked for negotiations citing some countries lowering their tariffs to zero. However, as I have pointed out, even a zero tariff does not mean a zero tariff in Trump’s world. Since his so-called reciprocal tariffs are based on other things such as “currency manipulation” and trade deficits, the Trump tariff will remain positive.

It does not take a genius to figure out that consumer prices will increase but by how much. Some estimates are that it will be the equivalent of $4,000 to $5,000 per household a year. The tariffs will decrease economic growth and increase unemployment. The crash in the market of now around $10 trillion will negatively impact retirement plans, pension plans and 401Ks.

Some U.S. retailers and other importers may eat part of the cost of the tariff, and overseas exporters may reduce their prices to offset the extra duties. But for many businesses, the tariffs Trump announced Wednesday — such as 20% on imports from Europe — will be too large to swallow on their own. I have pointed out that the tariffs on automobiles is greater than the profit per car.

The stock markets fell sharply. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 1,679 points. The S&P 500 fell 274 points, or 4.8%, its biggest one-day drop since 2020. The Nasdaq dropped more than 1,050 points, or nearly 6%. All this also negatively impacted consumer confidence in the face of falling retirement plans and rising consumer prices.

What’s the good news?

Trump delayed announcing his tariffs until after the primaries in Florida. As it were, the republican margin of victory in both races was down from the precious election. If Trump had announced his tariffs earlier or if the elections had been later, both republicans would have likely lost. Things will get even worse for the republicans when consumer prices start to rise in a couple of months. Clothing prices will increase by more than the average given the high tariffs on Southeast Asian countries. Unless exempted, food prices and energy prices will also rise. Again many voted for Trump because of the Biden inflation. They have been thrown under the bus and since Trump is not on the ballot, republicans will feel the wrath of the electorate. I don’t think any republican seat is safe, including that of our Tim Burchett. Well maybe that of Rand Paul who has been the only republican brave enough to question the folly of Trump’s tariffs.

Trade deficit or investment surplus?

Are trade deficits bad? So says Donald Trump. Well I have a trade deficit with Kroger, Publix, Lowes, Amazon and Walmart. I have a trade balance with the University of Tennessee where I teach one class this semester. I trade them my services for payment for the class. However, I do not have a trade surplus with any other entity since I have retired from the boards of not-for-profits. There I supplied by service on their boards for no monetary compensation. As a consequence, for most of my retirement years I have been in a trade deficit. I have generated little if any income and live almost solely on my retirement accounts. My trade deficits with Amazon, Kroger, Publix, Lowes and Walmart have not made me worse off. As a matter of fact, they have made me better off. I am not hungry. I have been able to do home improvement chores and where else can I buy salsa, yogurt, light bulbs, rv antifreeze and jigsaw puzzles under one roof but Walmart?

So if my trade deficits have not made me worse off and to the contrary have made me better off, then why does Trump insist that trade deficits make the country worse off? The man is confused as evidenced by his wanting to increase foreign investment in the US while eliminating the deficit. Didn’t he crow that Taiwan Superconductor was investing $100 billion in the US? Where did they get the $100 billion? Trump loves to announce more foreign investment in the US and signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) aimed at promoting foreign investment. SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son announced a $100 billion investment over the next four years with a promise to create 100,000 jobs focused on artificial intelligence and related infrastructure. Where did he get the money? The United Arab Emirates committed a 10-year, $1.4 trillion agreement with the U.S. that will sustain existing investments in AI infrastructure, semiconductors, energy, and American manufacturing. Where did it get the money? Trump announced a $500 billion private investment in AI infrastructure led by OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank. Nvidia said it would invest hundreds of billions of dollars over the next four years in U.S.-based manufacturing operations. Total foreign pledges total over $1 trillion dollars. How did they get the $1 trillion? 

Trump is ecstatic and preening about proclaiming the success of his bringing business back to America. But his goals of attacking trade deficits as bad and encouraging foreign investments is contradictory. Pray tell where did the foreigners get the money from to invest in the United States? The answer: trade. When we buy foreign goods and services we pay for them with dollars. Some entities will accept dollars while with others we have to buy their currency by exchanging dollars. The foreigners are now in possession of dollars. What can they do with them? They can buy American. They can purchase US goods and services, US financial instruments, invest in US businesses, buy real estate or some other US product. But the point is, they must repatriate those dollars. So much of Trump’s touted $1 trillion in foreign investment in the US comes from the purchases of foreign goods by US customers. Some economists predict that the attack on trade deficits by Trump will lead to less foreign investment in US financial markets, causing stock and bond markets to fall in value. There would also be decreases in foreign investments in other sectors of the US economy. All this occurring while Trump is crowing about increased foreign investments caused by his tariff threats. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

Maybe we should tell Trump that a trade deficit was really an investment surplus.

Lawsuits everywhere – except where they really matter

The excesses of the Biden Administration were tempered by the republican AGs who filed 133 suits. Well 19 democrat AGs have sued over Trump’s order on federal elections. Other suits by democrat AGs include suing RFJ, jr over canceled health research, suits over plans to eliminate several federal agencies, suits over federal grants freeze, over education department firings, over DOGE access to sensitive data and over birthright citizenship among others. So far over 143 lawsuits have been filed by the democrat AGs and this does not include all those filed by private organizations over immigration and transgender rights. All of the democrat lawsuits are aimed at protecting their constituents deemed to be threatened by Trump’s actions.

However, to my knowledge no lawsuit has been filled by a democrat AG on perhaps the most important issue – the imposition of tariffs. In fact, only two lawsuits have been filed to date. The first is by a conservative legal group over Trump’s power to impose tariffs on China. The group called the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed suit that Trump lacked the legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The suit argues that Trump had “misused” emergency powers, “usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers.” The lawsuit asks a judge to block implementation and enforcement of the tariffs and undo Trump’s changes to the U.S. tariff schedule. The organization said it “does not quibble” with Trump’s declaration of an opioid-related emergency, “but it does take issue with his decision to impose tariffs in response, without legal authority to do so.” The suit was filed in Florida.

The second lawsuit was also filed in Florida and was by a small company. Simplified, a stationery company, filed suit to stop the Chinese tariffs saying that the increased tariffs cause it financial harm. It too is challenging the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. Simplified says that “Trade laws authorize the President to impose tariffs “only on industries or countries that meet specified criteria, and only under specified conditions, after following specified procedures. They also “require advance investigations, detailed factual findings, and a close fit between the statutory authority and a tariff’s scope.”

The Wall Street Journal says that Congress has given the President discrete authority to impose tariffs of up to 15% only for as long as 150 days to remedy “large and serious” trade deficits. Mr. Trump used IEEPA to circumvent those limits.” Trump has clearly violated the law. It is curious that the democrat AGs did not initiate any suits on this issue. Also the Congress has done absolutely nothing except that the democrats passed a resolution in the Senate wanting to claw back the president’s power to impose tariffs unilaterally. Only Rand Paul amongst the republicans has the guts to oppose Trump on tariffs. However, with all the moaning and teeth gnashing about Biden’s abuse of power, one would have hoped that there would have been enough angst on both sides of the aisle to rein in Trump’s excesses which singlehandedly have plunged the world into economic chaos.

Trump’s Tariffs: Stupid, Stupider and Stupidest

The Wall Street Journal called Trump’s tariffs “dumb”. I called them “stupid”. And then he rolled out his plan for all to see. Now the Journal is calling them “dumbest” and for me, is “stupidest” even a word? Let’s recount. First, he said he was going to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada until they stopped the flow of illegals and fentanyl. Both were threatened equally even though most of the influx comes across the southern border. Strangely, China, the source of fentanyl was only hit with a 10 percent tariff threat. Mexico and Canada took steps but the Trump lied. Now he wants to impose the tariffs to force manufacturing to move across the borders and into the states. I had called the “stop illegals and stop fentanyl” demand a ruse. And it was. Trump then openly said that he wanted to bankrupt the Canadian economy and force Canada to become the 51^st state. Strange because that would have put more democrat senators and representatives in the Congress. Trump said that the only way to avoid the tariffs was to move production to the US.

Trump then said that he was going to impose reciprocal tariffs on all our trading partners to equalize the tariffs across the board between countries. Then came the great reveal of “Liberation Day” where the reciprocal tariffs were not reciprocal at all. Rather Trump’s new tariffs were a mixture of tariffs, the trade (goods) deficit and “currency manipulation.” The result was that when Israel announced that it had lowered all its tariffs to zero, the Trump “reciprocal” tariff was not zero but 17 percent! This was because, I presume, that we run a deficit with Israel. Therefore, in order to get their tariff down to zero, Israel must tell its companies not to sell any more goods to the US when the amount sold equals to the amount purchased by the US. This is beyond dumb. This is beyond stupid. This means that because the trade deficit in goods (which ignores the trade surplus in services) is $1 trillion, in order to eliminate Trump’s tariffs, American’s must stop purchasing foreign goods. And this is supposed to make America great again?

I read somewhere where the total amount of tariffs on Chinese goods was 64 percent. When asked about how could China get the tariffs lower, Trump officials said that China needed to stop the flow of fentanyl.  Trump accused China of subsidizing chemical companies to export fentanyl and of providing a safe haven for Chinese criminal organizations that launder the revenues from the opioid trade. A statement from the White House said “Despite multiple attempts to resolve this crisis at its root source through bilateral dialogue, PRC officials have failed to follow through with the decisive actions needed to stem the flow of precursor chemicals to known criminal cartels.” The Chinese, of course, denied being complicit in the fentanyl trade. But really? In a country as tightly controlled as China do you seriously think that the government does not sanction the fentanyl trade? The drug and its damage to China’s enemies in the west are surely part of China’s overall strategy to weaken western economies. What do you want to bet that Xi and his cronies are getting wealthy off the fentanyl trade? There is enough money there to bribe hundreds if not thousands of western partners.

Yet even if China did take tough action to stop the flow of fentanyl, Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs would not vanish. They would not go away even if China reduced its tariffs to zero. Again look at the example of Isreal. Since the US runs a trade deficit with China, Trump would still keep his tariffs in place until that deficit goes to zero. The same is true for Mexico and Canada. Even if they reduce the flow of fentanyl to a mere trickle, Trumps tariffs will stay in place until the trade deficit goes to zero and production is moved into the US.

This is sheer lunacy. I once wrote that Trump was Herbert Hoover who signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff act that help plunge the country into the Great Depression. Well both Smoot and Hawley lost when they ran for re-election. Hoover lost and the republicans lost 100 seats in the congress.

Unless Trump stops this madness, look for the democrats to take back the House and possibly the Senate in 2028.

What happened to the University of Tennessee’s Critical Race Collective?  Parts of the University of Tennessee were all into the extremes of diversity, inclusion and equity as exemplified by its Critical Race Collective. That was a group of professors from across disciplines committed to the mantra of “anti-racism”. It was part of a larger national group focus on developing “knowledge justice tools for dismantling white supremacy and oppressive hierarchies as they manifest in spaces of work, education and society.” See their website at https://crtcollective.org. The website is telling with pictures of Marxists like Angela Davis and Che Guevera prominently displayed. 

Perhaps it was because of the dictates from the Trump Administration that the University of Tennessee’s webpage for its Critical Race Collective has been taken down. I wonder if it has just gone underground rather than gone away. Again, I am amused by white leadership at most universities and businesses embracing a racist Marxist movement intended to sow resentment and distrust amongst the races. Consider that the University’s now defunk website listed these five tenets of critical race theory that it adhered to:

1. Centrality of Race and Racism in Society: CRT asserts that racism is a central component of American life.

2. Challenge to Dominant Ideology: CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.

3. Centrality of Experiential Knowledge: CRT asserts that the experiential knowledge of people of color is appropriate, legitimate, and an integral part to analyzing and understanding racial inequality.

4. Interdisciplinary Perspective: CRT challenges ahistoricism and the unidisciplinary focuses of most analyses and insists that race and racism be placed in both a contemporary and historical context using interdisciplinary methods.

5. Commitment to Social Justice: CRT is a framework that is committed to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people.

The university also sponsored CRT seminars on the application of critical race theory to “research, teaching and scholar-activism.” Sessions included Assessing Systemic Inequity: Diversity, Whiteness, and Teacher Education, Black Travel Movement: Systemic Racism Informing Tourism, and How toDisrupt Racism and Anti-Blackness in Academia. Although the university has pulled down many of its CRT websites, they still exist at the usual suspects, the departments of education, sociology, and sadly at the medical center. For example, on the website “Critical Race Training in Education” is 

“Students in the Master’s of Social Work program were urged to attend trainings that separated the students by their race, provided by the White Accountability Group and the Black, Indigenous, Multiracial People of Color Affinity Group.” Isn’t it ironic that the left is now segregating us by race?

All this is interesting because in 2021 the governor signed a bill prohibiting CRT from being included in school curricula. Yet a year later the University of Tennessee announced the creation of its Critical Race Collective seeking to integrate social justice and anti-racism into various aspects of the school. It was criticized by Sen. Marsha Blackburn “Critical race theory is a dangerous agenda that teaches that we are either oppressors or victims. It has no place in our schools, and it creates a false narrative of division that pits Americans against each other. We should be bringing folks together and students should be taught to be independent thinkers. In Tennessee, we believe in equality, civility and opportunity for all.” Yet the university went ahead and created the Collective to “enhance research and scholarship capacity in this area of study and identify current racist policies and practices on campus.”

So despite the criticism from the state’s governor and senator, the UT collective was established and only now with the advent of Donald Trump threatening to cancel federal funding, has the University of Tennessee’s critical race collective disappeared from sight or again has it just decided to go sub rosa until the next democrat becomes president?

Do as I say (not as I do)

Remember Lord Acton’s famous line “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”? Dune’s Frank Herbert wrote

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.  

Both are true. Power does corrupt people but power also is “magnetic to the corruptible.” Harold Black’s 9^th Law is that “Any person desiring public office is not to be trusted.”

In another case of what goes around, the democrats were all atwitter over Trump’s firing on Biden appointees to “independent agencies”. The ruling by the US Court of Appeals upholding the Trump’s firings used as precedent Biden’s firing of a Trump appointee to something called the Administrative Conference of the United States. Strange that the democrats who supported the Biden firing would now be against it – not. 

I once wrote that I thought that tariffs were the province of the Congress and the president could only impose them under emergency powers. Well Trump did exactly that and invoked emergency powers to declare his rash of tariffs. There is a resolution before the Senate to revoke the emergency powers edit on Trump’s Canadian tariffs. All the democrats are on board and Rand Paul is a co-sponsor. Three other republicans – the usual suspects – Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are expected to join him. Of course, the resolution will not see the House floor and Trump would never sign it. Trump of course is outraged. But again the democrats should be careful of what they wish for. If passed, it would limit the power of a future democrat president. Don’t they ever think of this? BTW, I still contend that any “emergency” proclamation should have to get two-thirds approval in both the House and the Senate. So much for checks and balances.

The much watched Wisconsin Supreme Court contest went to the progressive who crowed about beating the world’s richest man. She didn’t say that George Soros was among her biggest contributors. The pundits are saying that the Wisconsin Court will re-gerrymander the gerrymandering done by the republicans when they were in power and give the democrats two more seats in the House. Lest one forgets, the redrawing of North Carolina districts gave the republicans two additional House seats this past election.

Trump’s spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, held up a chart showing high foreign tariffs. There was the 100% Indian tariff on agriculture, the 700% Japanese tariff on rice and the 270% Canadian tariff on dairy. Not surprisingly, the charts are misleading. Actually Japan allows 770,000 metric tons of rice to be imported at a very low tariff then the higher tariff kicks in. The same is true for Canadian dairy. Of course, if the quota were higher, even more would be imported at the low tariff. The Indian tariffs are not tied to quotas. Rather in India 43 percent of the workers are employed in agriculture with small farms being predominate. Contrast that to the US where only 1.6 percent are employed in agriculture. The Indians want to protect their small inefficient farms from American agriculture even at the cost of higher food prices. It is doubtful if India will remove those tariffs regardless of whatever action is taken by Trump. The question is whether the Japanese and the Canadians will remove their quotas.

But the US does the same. If the White House reporters were doing their job they would have asked Leavitt about sugar. Brazil has complained for years about the US quotas on sugar. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation says that it costs Americans billions a year more in higher sugar prices. Like the other tariffs, sugar is assessed a tariff of 0.66 cents a pound until the quota is reached and then assessed a tariff of 15.36 cents a pound effectively stopping all sugar imports into the states.  

Although many think the US has few if any retraints on trade such is not the truth. Prior to the president’s announcement on global tariffs, the US imposed quotas on steel from Argentina, Brazil and South Korea. On aluminum products from Argentina. On brooms, whiskbrooms, ethyl alcohol, milk and cream, olives, mandarins, tuna and upland cotton. Then there were tariff rate quotas on the following. A question is whether these tariffs and quotas are still in effect

• Animal Feed 
• Articles Containing Over 10 Percent By Dry Weight of Sugar 
• Articles Containing Over 65 Percent By Dry Weight of Sugar
• Beef 
• Blended Syrups 
• Canadian Cheddar Cheese 
• Card Strips Made from Cotton 
• Chocolate 
• Chocolate and Low Fat Chocolate 
• Cocoa Powder 
• Cotton [Staple length > 28.575mm but < 34.925mm] 
• Cotton [Staple length 34.925mm or more] 
• Dairy Products 
• Dried Milk and Dried Cream 
• Dried Milk, Dried Cream, Dried Whey (in excess of 224,981 kilograms) 
• Fibers of Cotton 
• Harsh or Rough Cotton 
• Ice Cream 
• Infant Formula 
• Milk and Cream 
• Milk and Cream (Condensed or Evaporated) 
• Mixed Condiments and Mixed Seasonings 
• Mixes and Doughs 
• Peanut Butter and Paste 
• Peanuts 
• Raw Cotton 
• Sugars 
• Tobacco 

What is the saying about persons living in glass houses?

Happy Liberation Day! 

Today Trump’s tariffs are to go into effect for Canada and Mexico. When asked if the tariffs would apply to intermediate goods travelling across the borders, Trump said yes. So there will be double, triple, quadruple counting. Trump’s tariffs on Mexico and Canada should – one would hope – be modified before it runs the small auto parts companies out of business. As it now stands, the parts will be assessed with the 25% tariff each time they cross the borders. I am certainly no supply chain expert but the supply chain of automobile parts looks a lot like a Rube Goldberg machine. Consider the manufacturing of pistons and its travels through Canada, Mexico and the US. First, the aluminum is shipped from Michigan to Ontario. The piston is cast and sent back to Michigan and then sent to Mexico to be finished. The piston is sent to Wisconsin to get assembled with rods and rings and sent to an engine plant in Michigan. It is put in an engine and sent to a vehicle assembly plant in Ontario. The vehicle is then shipped to the US as a Canadian export. 

There was a total of six border crossings. If the parts manufacturer has to pay a 25% tariff at each crossing then the price of the automobile will be inflated by those costs as well as the 25% on the finished product. One should note that the companies involved in making the parts are not the big automobile manufacturers. The company making the pistons in the example from the Wall Street Journal is Linamar which would pay a tariff each time the piston goes across a border into the US. One would assume that Linamar would pass the final cost onto the vehicle manufacturer who would then incorporate the cost into the final suggested price of the vehicle.

So first we have the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Then there will a tariff at each part of the supply chain that crosses borders. Then there is a tariff on certain parts such as engines and transmissions. Then a tariff on the assembled vehicle. So it seems to me that the final price of the automobile/truck will be higher than just the 25% imposed on the vehicle.

Of the Big Three, the least biggest loser is Ford, having the least production outside the country with most of its parts and plants in the country. The biggest winner, however, is Tesla which manufactures all of its cars and parts sold in the country manufactured in the US. I wonder why I haven’t seen the conspiracy theorists jumping all over this one, claiming that Trump is putting in his tariffs to help his buddy Elon Musk and Tesla?

Do you feel liberated?

Cover the children’s ears! The democrats are speaking.

What’s with this spate of foul language coming from the democrats? All the f-bombs and s – words. They must have some focus group that tells them to curse. Jasmine Crockett is leading the way cursing at every opportunity. She has become the younger generation’s Maxine Waters.

After the state of the union address she said “Somebody slap me and wake me the f -k up because I’m ready to get on with it.” She obviously doesn’t think that it is a bad look, but it is. Crockett has no shame. Remember when she said that Byron Donald was skin folk but not kinfolk? She said that he had been “whitewashed” by his white wife. If she said the same about Kamala Harris being married to a white man, I missed it. Also remember the back and forth with Nancy Mace that looked like it was going to come to blows? Or how about mocking her governor Greg Abbott as Governor Hot Wheels? 

Crockett is well educated with a degree from Rhodes college and a law degree from the University of Houston. But you would never know it as she tries to burnish her street creds. Consider what she said about Abbott. “We in these hot ass Texas streets, honey. Y’all know we got Governor Hot Wheels down there. Come on now! And the only thing hot about him is that he’s a hot-ass mess, honey! Yes, yes, yes, yes!” Again the language is appalling. If a republican mocked someone disabled, the media would have a field day. But for Crockett, only silence, Didn’t she say to “punch” Ted Cruz?  “I mean, like this dude has to be knocked over the head, like hard, right? Like there is no niceties with him, like at all. Like you go clean off on him.” Of course Trump said diplomatically that Crockett was a “low life” and a very low IQ person. Tit for tat? Crockett said that Trump was “draft dodging dumb dupe.”  She also said, “Unfortunately, we have someone that is occupying the White House, and as far as I’m concerned, he is an enemy to the United States.” She also called Trump “Putin’s ho” saying “I would tell him to grow a spine and stop being Putin’s ho.” She also said “Right now we have a white supremacist that is sitting in the White House. He is backed up by other white supremacists.” Oh and she also called Trump “a career criminal.”

Crockett isn’t a low IQ person. She only acts like it with all the cursing and the hip hop language. Then there was the incident where she and a correspondent had a physical altercation in the halls of the Congress. Maybe that is part of her tough girl persona. 

She also said that Elon Musk must be “taken down” and was chided by Pat Bondi to “tread very carefully.”

Then there was the hearing with the heads of NPR and PBS chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene. Crocket was her usual erudite self and said “The idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bull—t. We need to stop playing because that’s what y’all are doing in here. You don’t want to hear the opinions of anybody else.” The woman can’t quit cursing. If a man acted like this they would call him a “thug” and yes I know that is a loaded racially charged word. But what is Crockett? A thugette?

I just wish she would chill.