My Rebuttal to: Trump’s Multi-Front War That Spooks Oil Markets

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

About an hour ago, I posted a comment in a different thread.  This was before seeing this new, lead article on Oil Price main news site.

I stick by my comment.  I see nothing to worry about with Trump's actions against U.S. trade with China, and Trump's actions against Mexico targetting illegal immigration using tariffs.

I support Trump's actions on both fronts, and my only minor quibble would be that the 25% ceiling on tariffs against Mexico is probably too low.

Here is my comment verbatim from a different thread, which will be followed by the Oil Price lead article.  Yes, I'm doing this bass ackwards by starting with my rebuttal first, because I commented about this before the Oil Price article was posted.

My earlier comment:

If you have the time, you can watch the first 5 minutes or so of this news video.  It's about the escallating tariffs being imposed on Mexico by the U.S. until Mexico takes substantial action to address and reduce illegal immigration from Central America through Mexico, and into the U.S.

Trade issues are addressed as well.

There are clear links in the strategies in how the U.S. is tackling both China trade and Mexico illegal immigration, the logic is a beautiful thing.

The Fox News anchor (Chris Wallace) apparently is a bumbling, mindless, talking head dressed up in a pinstripe suit (I've never heard of this news anchor before, but I generally don't watch TV news, or TV, or Fox) but pay attention to the remarks by White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.  Logical zingers galore.

 

====================================

And the lead article on Oil Price main news site:

Trump’s Multi-Front War That Spooks Oil Markets

President Trump decided to open up yet another front in his trade war, this time turning his sights on Mexico.

Trump took to twitter on Thursday to announce a 5 percent tariff on all goods coming from Mexico would take effect on June 10. The tariff would then rise by 5 percent each month until Mexico cut off illegal immigration, with tariffs topping out at 25 percent by October. Trump said the tariffs come in response to illegal immigration. ...

 

 

======================================

/ side note, I'm looking to write some news articles for the Oil Price main news site, to counterbalance some of the anti-Trump leanings I've been noticing.  Not enough pro-oil + pro-Trump news articles these days, in my opinion.

Anybody think this would be a good idea? Bad idea?

@Rodent  @TomTom

 

[James Regan + 1,776]

@Tom Kirkman Pro-oil + Pro-Trump will be interesting when you combine the two, Trumps agendas Concerning oil don’t seem to gel. 

Off to work, look fwd to reading the articles.

[Bill Bradnick + 2]

Go for it Tom, we need to keep active to prevent the supine cancer which results in us  thinking that someone else can do it! The Left wing RINO voices that you hear constantly, (which Wallace is a lily livered member, just does what his left wing nut boss wants) are not the beliefs and attitudes of the "most" anyhow. Our voice is muted in case we get balled out or a milkshake chucked at us. 

We have to make our voices heard so that others are also encouraged to speak truth to those in power...the Power Hungry Elites spreading disillusionment and lies. We can see from the current election results everywhere that the decent people, the ordinary people are waking up!

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

side note, I'm looking to write some news articles for the Oil Price main news site, to counterbalance some of the anti-Trump leanings I've been noticing.  Not enough pro-oil + pro-Trump news articles these days, in my opinion.

Anybody think this would be a good idea? Bad idea?

Nothing better for a news site than to take a political stance. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Bill Bradnick said:

Go for it Tom, we need to keep active to prevent the supine cancer which results in us  thinking that someone else can do it! The Left wing RINO voices that you hear constantly, (which Wallace is a lily livered member, just does what his left wing nut boss wants) are not the beliefs and attitudes of the "most" anyhow. Our voice is muted in case we get balled out or a milkshake chucked at us. 

We have to make our voices heard so that others are also encouraged to speak truth to those in power...the Power Hungry Elites spreading disillusionment and lies. We can see from the current election results everywhere that the decent people, the ordinary people are waking up!

Hi Bill, great to see you joining in over here from LinkedIn!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Nothing better for a news site than to take a political stance. 

Understood your gentle poke.

My views tend to be a pushback against the prevalent anti - Trump and anti - oil bias in the media that seems neverending, and blatant, these days.

The leftist agenda needs a bit of rightist counterbalance, in my opinion.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

12 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Understood your gentle poke.

My views tend to be a pushback against the prevalent anti - Trump and anti - oil bias in the media that seems neverending, and blatant, these days.

The leftist agenda needs a bit of rightist counterbalance, in my opinion.

Would it not be best to counter the leftist agenda with facts and correct analysis? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Anybody think this would be a good idea? Bad idea?

@Rodent  @TomTom

It is a lousy idea.

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The leftist agenda needs a bit of rightist counterbalance, in my opinion.

No, it doesn't.  At this point in its development, the "leftist agenda" is nothing more than white noise, nobody even hears the content any more, to the extent anybody would pay attention, it is all preaching to the choir, the prattle of the uninformed.  It is not that the population no longer ascribes credibility, it is that the population does not even hear the chatter.  And I suspect that is likely either true, or soon will be also true, for "rightist counterbalance" that others would be writing and propagandizing on the TV.  

What are the real facts?  OK, let's take Mexico for starters.  It is a poor State.  It is crippled by criminal gangs, mostly who smuggle people and drugs into the USA for that huge market, that gulps dope like some gasping guppy, which makes Americans themselves the prime mover for mexico's many problems.  Those same criminal gangs also buy and smuggle large numbers of firearms from the US Southwest back into Mexico, where they are used to murder policemen, judges, rival gang members, young women (after raping them), citizens who resist their predations, and even American border policemen.  At one point some US Federal Agency, I recall it to be the BATF, even was the organized supplier of those guns! 

This puts enormous pressure on the internal workings of Mexico and hamstrings the Mexican Government.  They need an inflow of cash from exports to the USA, and if you start whacking the Mexican economy by putting up tariff walls, all you do is prolong the agony, cut the financial ability of that government to deal with the drug traffickers, and will, by creating even more unemployment and more chaos, push even more migrants into the USA.  So for Trump to hit Mexico with tariff walls is both dumb and counter-productive. 

There is a big difference between putting up tariffs against Chinese products, than to do that to Mexican products.  Trump does not grasp that.  He is attempting to use his one size fits all formula.  Trump is not a sophisticated man.  What he is doing is stumbling around looking for a solution, and his ridiculous aides and advisors continue to cater to dumb ideas and push the Administration down dark paths that will hurt Americans.  You really don't want to get entrapped in all that. 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

20 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

It is a lousy idea.

No, it doesn't.  At this point in its development, the "leftist agenda" is nothing more then white noise, nobody even hears the content any more, to the extent anybody would pay attention, it is all preaching to the choir, the prattle of the uninformed.  It is not that the population no longer ascribes credibility, it is that the population does not even hear the chatter.  And I suspect that is likely either true, or soon will be also true, for "rightist counterbalance" that others would be writing and propagandizing on the TV.  

What are the real facts?  OK, let's take Mexico for starters.  It is a poor State.  It is crippled by criminal gangs, mostly who smuggle people and drugs into the USA for that huge market, that gulps dope like some gasping guppy, which makes Americans themselves the prime mover for mexico's many problems.  Those same criminal gangs also buy and smuggle large numbers of firearms from the US Southwest back into Mexico, where they are used to murder policemen, judges, rival gang members, young women (after raping them), citizens who resist their predations, and even American border policemen.  At one point some US Federal Agency, I recall it to be the BATF, even was the organized supplier of those guns! 

 This puts enormous pressure on the internal workings of Mexico and hamstrings the Mexican Government.  They need an inflow of cash from exports to the USA, and if you start whacking the Mexican economy by putting up tariff walls, all you do is prolong the agony, cut the financial ability of that government to deal with the drug traffickers, and will, by creating even more unemployment and more chaos, push even more migrants into the USA.  So for Trump to hit Mexico with tariff walls is both dumb and counter-productive. 

There is a big difference between putting up tariffs against Chinese products, than to do that to Mexican products.  Trump does not grasp that.  He is attempting to use his one size fits all formula.  Trump is not a sophisticated man.  What he is doing is stumbling around looking for a solution, and his ridiculous aides and advisors continue to cater to dumb ideas and push the Administration down dark paths that will hurt Americans.  You really don't want to get entrapped in all that. 

It seems to me that controlling their Southern border - the current source of most illegal immigrants - would save Mexico some money.  If so, then Trump's tariffs give Mexico an incentive to do the obvious. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

27 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is a big difference between putting up tariffs against Chinese products, than to do that to Mexican products.  Trump does not grasp that.  He is attempting to use his one size fits all formula.  Trump is not a sophisticated man.  What he is doing is stumbling around looking for a solution, and his ridiculous aides and advisors continue to cater to dumb ideas and push the Administration down dark paths that will hurt Americans.  You really don't want to get entrapped in all that. 

Short term media gains versus longterm benefit to America. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Historically Mexico has considered illegal immigration to be a problem strictly for the US to resolve. Keep in mind that virtually all of the illegal immigration into the US, from Central America, MUST PASS THROUGH MEXICO. Furthermore, a significant portion of Mexico's economy depends on remittances from illegal aliens residing in the US.

Playing nice with Mexico has not resulted in any effort from Mexico to address either their citizens illegally entering the US or Mexico preventing illegal aliens from Central America transitting Mexico for the sole purpose of entering the US illegally.

Trump is finally using a tool to make Mexico realize that problem is now not solely an American problem.

I am behind Trump all the way on this issue.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 6/3/2019 at 5:22 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

It seems to me that controlling their Southern border - the current source of most illegal immigrants - would save Mexico some money.  If so, then Trump's tariffs give Mexico an incentive to do the obvious. 

Not really.  Large areas of that Border are infested with those heavily-armed gangs.  You would have to take on the gangs head-on with vast numbers of Federales, which Mexico does not have and cannot keep free from corruption.  They have a real problem there. They just do not have the ability to fight those very rich and very well-armed gangs, and friction between the USA and Mexico is preventing a mutual arrangement wherein US patrols could cross into Mexico and shoot it out with the gangs.  Another problem is that US recruitment into the Border Patrol has been poorly vetted and the build-up of personnel has resulted in numbers of unqualified, and even corrupt, people getting on board.  There have been cases of US guards shooting kids on the Mexican side across the Rio Grande River.  The kids would have a little fun running across the river (it is very shallow) and part way up the bank to play "touch" with that US fence, then run back before the US guards could catch them.  So one moron just took his AR-15 rifle and shot the kid dead - when he was long back on the Mexican bank and waving at the US guards, in effect taunting them.  This kind of outrageous behavior has spooked the Mexicans about letting US personnel confront Mexican people on Mexican soil, and you can see how that got started. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jan van Eck
changed "into" to "about" for better clarity

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Trump is finally using a tool to make Mexico realize that problem is now not solely an American problem.

It is a huge Mexican problem because of all the criminal gangs that bring US guns into Mexico, to shoot Mexican policemen and judges.  Don't kid yourself that this is one-sided.  The Mexicans are effectively helpless to fight it head-on. They do not have the resources, and the US is not helpful. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Many of the weapons utilized by the various criminal gangs are not even available in the US.

These gangs are more interested in military type weapons (selective fire rifles, combat handguns and RPG's), they generally could care less about shotguns and rifles designed for hunting or revolvers.

Furthermore, they need to buy in bulk and the weapons they purchase need to shoot an identical cartridge to make the purchase of ammunition in bulk easier.

These gangs/cartels have the cash to purchase from the international arms dealers.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

28 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Large areas of that Border are infested with those heavily-armed gangs.  You would have to take on the gangs head-on with vast numbers of Federales, which Mexico does not have and cannot keep[ free from corruption.  They have a real problem there. They just do not have the ability to fight those very rich and very well-armed gangs, and friction between the USA and Mexico is preventing a mutual arrangement wherein US patrols could cross into Mexico and shoot it out with the gangs.  Another problem is that US recruitment into the Border Patrol has been poorly vetted and the build-up of personnel has resulted in numbers of unqualified, and even corrupt, people getting on board.  There have been cases of US guards shooting kids on the Mexican side across the Rio Grande River.  The kids would have a little fun running across the river (it is very shallow) and part way up the bank to play "touch" with that US fence, then run back before the US guards could catch them.  So one moron just took his AR-15 rifle and shot the kid dead - when he was long back on the Mexican bank and waving at the US guards, in effect taunting them.  This kind of outrageous behavior has spooked the Mexicans into letting US personnel confront Mexican people on Mexican soil, and you can see how that got started. 

Recently there was a report of two Border Patrol being disarmed by Mexican law enforcement NORTH of the border. The Mexicans eventually said that they were not aware that they crossed the border (???).

Years ago several Americans were killed in Big Bend National Park. There are signs up in some areas warning Americans to stay out of parts of their own country due to violence. 

At what point do you say 'enough is enough'?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

25 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Recently there was a report of two Border Patrol being disarmed by Mexican law enforcement NORTH of the border. The Mexicans eventually said that they were not aware that they crossed the border (???).

True report, yes that did happen.  But you see the problem.  There is this institutional distrust between Mexican and American border guards.  Now, do you seriously think that the Americans and the Canadians would be pointing guns at each other?  Disarming each other?  Arresting each other?   No chance.  I have seen Canadian troops crossing over into the USA in army trucks to take part in joint training exercises.  Nobody stops them, nobody is searching them.  You don't have that collaboration on the Mexican Border.  And the US is just as much if not more so to blame than the Mexican police.  It is the US that is fuelling the border violence with their insatiable demand for dope.  Let's get real here.  How much of the world's production of narcotics is being consumed inside the USA?  Figure 25%?  It is a lot. If Americans were not such drug addicts we would not behaving these problems with Mexico. 

30 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Years ago several Americans were killed in Big Bend National Park. There are signs up in some areas warning Americans to stay out of parts of their own country due to violence. 

Also true.Ugly business.

30 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

At what point do you say 'enough is enough'?

I would say, about fifty years ago. 

The Washington "War on Drugs" is a colossal failure, and it leaves us with this legacy with Mexico that will take a lot of fresh effort to clean up.  I would suggest one solution, where the govt distributes all the dope the druggies could possibly want, for free, to any druggie that applies.  You are not going to change druggie behavior.  Stoners are going to be stoners, forever.   What you can do is take the profit motive out of the trafficking.  That puts the criminal gangs out of business. 

It is now so ridiculous that Mexico cannot keep the traffickers from cutting into oil pipelines and stealing so much oil that the country no longer has any to export.  Now, that is seriously ridiculous. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Watch how fast Mexico will magically be able to do something to improve the situation when they get slapped with 25% tariffs.

Time to stop rewarding bad behavior.

Severe reality adjustment is needed.  Change the mindset and watch how fast action takes place.

Pic related.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Dope is now legal in several States and that will probably gain traction in others simply because it is taxable. The fringe benefit of taking the profit incentive out of smuggling and selling it illegally probably never entered the politicians heads.

That said, do you truly believe that the government shout get into the business of selling meth, heroin and crack to addicts? True, it would remove the profit incentive for the cartels...but do we really want to go there?

Where would you draw the line about behavior that you cannot change? Perhaps the government should get into the kiddy-porn business as well. 

The fact is, we have a problem with illegal immigration on our southern border and need to resolve that issue. To remain with the status quo is unacceptable.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

15 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The fact is, we have a problem with illegal immigration on our southern border and need to resolve that issue. To remain with the status quo is unacceptable.

As long as life is shitty in some places and better in others people will find ways to get to the better places. Walls or no walls. It is just a fact.

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The Washington "War on Drugs" is a colossal failure, and it leaves us with this legacy with Mexico that will take a lot of fresh effort to clean up.  I would suggest one solution, where the govt distributes all the dope the druggies could possibly want, for free, to any druggie that applies.  You are not going to change druggie behavior.  Stoners are going to be stoners, forever.   What you can do is take the profit motive out of the trafficking.  That puts the criminal gangs out of business. 

Switzerland has done something along these lines with great success. It reduces crime massively. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-drugs/swiss-drug-policy-should-serve-as-model-experts-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

22 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Where would you draw the line about behavior that you cannot change?

see my above. Do you want change for the better (i.e. safer communities and savings to government and state budgets), or throw more money at a strategy that has been proven not to work? 

Trump is first and foremost a pragmatist. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

Either legalize the stuff, or start shooting drug dealers and publicizing this action far and wide.  One or  the other.  Middle road does NOT work. Of course the rebellious immature teens will just find some other self destructive thing to all herd towards, all the while claiming they are "independent" and "rebelling" against the system.... all in teh exact same clothes and same direction... Ah humanity... never changes

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Watch how fast Mexico will magically be able to do something to improve the situation when they get slapped with 25% tariffs.

Time to stop rewarding bad behavior.

Severe reality adjustment is needed.  Change the mindset and watch how fast action takes place.

Pic related.

 

As long as life is shitty in some places and better in others people will find ways to get to the better places. Walls or no walls. It is just a fact.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

33 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Switzerland has done something along these lines with great success. It reduces crime massively. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-drugs/swiss-drug-policy-should-serve-as-model-experts-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025

Rasmus,

I get your point, but providing free methadone will not eradicate ALL of the desire for opiates, there will still be a market for 'the real deal'. Supporting 'poor' behavior is not something that I am comfortable with. Furthermore, this program is much easier to facilitate when you already have massive social programs in place along with massive taxes.

An error often made is to assume cultures are identical and transference is easy to make. Americans are not Europeans and culturally we are far removed from them. Free clean needles have been available, and from what I hear they are used then end up on streets and playgrounds.

Re you comment that people will always move from poorer areas to more affluent ones, what do you suggest? Why do we even have borders in this case? I am sure that those who have contributed to the better areas and paid their dues would not be willing to share with those who have not.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Large areas of that Border are infested with those heavily-armed gangs.  You would have to take on the gangs head-on with vast numbers of Federales, which Mexico does not have and cannot keep[ free from corruption.  They have a real problem there. They just do not have the ability to fight those very rich and very well-armed gangs, and friction between the USA and Mexico is preventing a mutual arrangement wherein US patrols could cross into Mexico and shoot it out with the gangs.  Another problem is that US recruitment into the Border Patrol has been poorly vetted and the build-up of personnel has resulted in numbers of unqualified, and even corrupt, people getting on board.  There have been cases of US guards shooting kids on the Mexican side across the Rio Grande River.  The kids would have a little fun running across the river (it is very shallow) and part way up the bank to play "touch" with that US fence, then run back before the US guards could catch them.  So one moron just took his AR-15 rifle and shot the kid dead - when he was long back on the Mexican bank and waving at the US guards, in effect taunting them.  This kind of outrageous behavior has spooked the Mexicans into letting US personnel confront Mexican people on Mexican soil, and you can see how that got started.  

 

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Many of the weapons utilized by the various criminal gangs are not even available in the US.

These gangs are more interested in military type weapons (selective fire rifles, combat handguns and RPG's), they generally could care less about shotguns and rifles designed for hunting or revolvers.

Furthermore, they need to buy in bulk and the weapons they purchase need to shoot an identical cartridge to make the purchase of ammunition in bulk easier.

These gangs/cartels have the cash to purchase from the international arms dealers.

 

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Recently there was a report of two Border Patrol being disarmed by Mexican law enforcement NORTH of the border. The Mexicans eventually said that they were not aware that they crossed the border (???).

Years ago several Americans were killed in Big Bend National Park. There are signs up in some areas warning Americans to stay out of parts of their own country due to violence. 

At what point do you say 'enough is enough'? 

 

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

True report, yes that did happen.  But you see the problem.  There is this institutional distrust between Mexican and American border guards.  Now, do you seriously think that the Americans and the Canadians would be pointing guns at each other?  Disarming each other?  Arresting each other?   No chance.  I have seen Canadian troops crossing over into the USA in army trucks to take part in joint training exercises.  Nobody stops them, nobody is searching them.  You don't have that collaboration on the Mexican Border.  And the US is just as much if not more so to blame than the Mexican police.  It is the US that is fuelling the border violence with their insatiable demand for dope.  Let's get real here.  How much of the world's production of narcotics is being consumed inside the USA?  Figure 25%?  It is a lot. If Americans were not such drug addicts we would not behaving these problems with Mexico. 

Also true.Ugly business.

I would say, about fifty years ago. 

The Washington "War on Drugs" is a colossal failure, and it leaves us with this legacy with Mexico that will take a lot of fresh effort to clean up.  I would suggest one solution, where the govt distributes all the dope the druggies could possibly want, for free, to any druggie that applies.  You are not going to change druggie behavior.  Stoners are going to be stoners, forever.   What you can do is take the profit motive out of the trafficking.  That puts the criminal gangs out of business. 

It is now so ridiculous that Mexico cannot keep the traffickers from cutting into oil pipelines and stealing so much oil that the country no longer has any to export.  Now, that is seriously ridiculous. 

So Mexico has a problem.  Is it that they can't fix it, or that they won't fix it?  Is the Mexican government actually cooperating with the cartels because it brings money into the country?  If so, tariffs will fix this problem by giving the Mexican people as a whole an incentive to stop the drug running. 

Meanwhile, the US is perfectly capable of defending a border - should it choose to do so.  It would also be capable of invading parts of Mexico to root out the gangs.  If Mexico is "unable" to maintain their own sovereignty, wouldn't this be a reasonable course of action?