For all the trump fans out there

[AcK + 50]

I know you are out there 🙂

How one of the most intelligent minds of this century, and a conservative to boot, is thinking about it...

https://youtu.be/XlgBS6ZB5gI

Min 38 onwards...

Way to go President Duck indeed!

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, AcK said:

I know you are out there 🙂

How one of the most intelligent minds of this century, and a conservative to boot, is thinking about it...

https://youtu.be/XlgBS6ZB5gI

Min 38 onwards...

Way to go President Duck indeed!

I think this analyst has it wrong.  The Big Tech companies aren't the only US AI companies.  They may not even be the leading US AI companies.  What they are is a serious privacy threat, creators of a massive public health problem, and not particularly loyal to the US. 

If the US government destroyed them, their AI expertise would flow into better US companies, which would likely make the US more competitive in AI.  Why?  Because those better companies would work on real problems (E.g. IBM and GE solving business problems) instead of finding ever more effective ways to create addiction in the general population. 

[snugly + 2]

My thought is that Trump won't press OPEC to keep price low, since he must be aware of the carnage in the shale patch and lay-offs caused by low prices coupled with debt and high production cost.  By now, he must be aware that it is in best interest of TX vote to stay mute on OPEC moves to prop-up oil price.  Brent at $80-$85, should correspond to WTI at $70-$75.  That won't harm economy, allows shale players to survive, and should satisfy OPEC member needs.  JMHO

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, snugly said:

By now, he must be aware that it is in best interest of TX vote to stay mute on OPEC moves to prop-up oil price

Another approach would be to levy a $10/bbl tariff on imported oil, from anywhere.  That would put money into the US Treasury, disadvantage off-shore oil, advantage shale oil, keep the US oilpatch employed, and be a real boon all around.  The Trump could make a waiver for Canada and Mexico, does not make that much difference and lets some heavy oil in for blending purposes.  Sure would be interesting!

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

7 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Another approach would be to levy a $10/bbl tariff on imported oil, from anywhere.  That would put money into the US Treasury, disadvantage off-shore oil, advantage shale oil, keep the US oilpatch employed, and be a real boon all around.  The Trump could make a waiver for Canada and Mexico, does not make that much difference and lets some heavy oil in for blending purposes.  Sure would be interesting!

Now that I think about it, that's a fairly obvious solution.  What's he waiting for? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

51 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Now that I think about it, that's a fairly obvious solution.  What's he waiting for? 

Nobody in Washington thought about it.  

OK, so the reason is:  because I don't work in the Administration. Oh, well.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

15 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Another approach would be to levy a $10/bbl tariff on imported oil, from anywhere.  That would put money into the US Treasury, disadvantage off-shore oil, advantage shale oil, keep the US oilpatch employed, and be a real boon all around.  The Trump could make a waiver for Canada and Mexico, does not make that much difference and lets some heavy oil in for blending purposes.  Sure would be interesting!

I am not sure a tariff on imported oil to 'advantage shale oil' is a wise idea. That would only effectively subsidize an industry that is financially irresponsible.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nobody in Washington thought about it.  

OK, so the reason is:  because I don't work in the Administration. Oh, well.

Please go work for the administration.  It needs you. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am not sure a tariff on imported oil to 'advantage shale oil' is a wise idea. That would only effectively subsidize an industry that is financially irresponsible. 

How is that worse than throwing money at a military-industrial-congressional complex to secure foreign oil? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Not sure what a "military-industrial-congressional complex" refers to. The term 'military industrial complex' is well documented, but throwing 'congressional' in there confuses the issue.

Assuming that you have a valid point, two wrongs do not make a right. Imposing a tariff on the competition simply to keep a segment of one industry afloat smacks of government subsidy...which we are presently at odds with China over.

Before you get on the bandwagon of 'that's exactly what Trump is doing', think again. Trump is using the only viable tool he has to address a trade imbalance between nations, not a specific industry.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

18 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

to address a trade imbalance between nations, not a specific industry.

There is precedent for using tariffs to support a specific single manufacturer within a specific industry.  When Harley Davidson was on the ropes and about to go bankrupt, its market being blitzed by big Honda machines, Ronald Reagan instituted a 100% tariff on large motorcycles, I think the criterion was motors over 900 cc., something like that.  The huge 100% tariff handed the market back to Harley until they could re-tool their production and redesign and rebuild the fabled "Harley Hog."  Once they were back on their feet and stabilized, Reagan removed the tariff.  That single tariff saved Harley from oblivion. 

[Meredith Poor + 897]

For those of you who are dyed-in-the-wool Trump (and Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch) partisans, the following article should be a perfect example of media bias. For everyone else, enjoy at your leisure (long read):

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

50 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is precedent for using tariffs to support a specific single manufacturer within a specific industry.  When Harley Davidson was on the ropes and about to go bankrupt, its market being blitzed by big Honda machines, Ronald Reagan instituted a 100% tariff on large motorcycles, I think the criterion was motors over 900 cc., something like that.  The huge 100% tariff handed the market back to Harley until they could re-tool their production and redesign and rebuild the fabled "Harley Hog."  Once they were back on their feet and stabilized, Reagan removed the tariff.  That single tariff saved Harley from oblivion. 

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/05/33-years-ago-today-tariffs-saved-harley-davidson.aspx

There is alot more to that story.

[AcK + 50]

21 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I think this analyst has it wrong.  The Big Tech companies aren't the only US AI companies.  They may not even be the leading US AI companies.  What they are is a serious privacy threat, creators of a massive public health problem, and not particularly loyal to the US. 

If the US government destroyed them, their AI expertise would flow into better US companies, which would likely make the US more competitive in AI.  Why?  Because those better companies would work on real problems (E.g. IBM and GE solving business problems) instead of finding ever more effective ways to create addiction in the general population. 

Same IBM that once famously said there was demand for maybe 5 PCs in the world - you may be having one of those PCs now Ben 😉

There will be institutional demand for AI and then in the Consumer Tech domain - cant see IBM/GE doing much in the latter now - the field is all divi'd up now.

Anyways the basic point is this, which I tried to make in few other places in the forum as well - you cant fight everyone. If US believes the trade-tech war with China is primary, you should be recruiting alies to fight that war. Cause you can bet China will be - a point that Stan makes in his comments as well. Then you cant weaken the hands of the corporations that will fight that war for you (look how serious a turn matters took when Google told Huawei - no andriod for you) - you let EU fight that battle for the time being. And yeah then you cant fight EU, Mexico, Canada, UK, India and Vietnam (or Southeast Asia). These are you natural alies in what could be a long and protracted fight.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

18 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

For those of you who are dyed-in-the-wool Trump (and Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch) partisans, the following article should be a perfect example of media bias. For everyone else, enjoy at your leisure (long read):

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

Are you honestly trying to justify the outrageous liberal media bias in the media today?

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

10 minutes ago, AcK said:

 Same IBM that once famously said there was demand for maybe 5 PCs in the world - you may be having one of those PCs now Ben 😉

There will be institutional demand for AI and then in the Consumer Tech domain - cant see IBM/GE doing much in the latter now - the field is all divi'd up now.

Anyways the basic point is this, which I tried to make in few other places in the forum as well - you cant fight everyone. If US believes the trade-tech war with China is primary, you should be recruiting alies to fight that war. Cause you can bet China will be - a point that Stan makes in his comments as well. Then you cant weaken the hands of the corporations that will fight that war for you (look how serious a turn matters took when Google told Huawei - no andriod for you) - you let EU fight that battle for the time being. And yeah then you cant fight EU, Mexico, Canada, UK, India and Vietnam (or Southeast Asia). These are you natural alies in what could be a long and protracted fight. 

My point is that Big Tech won't be the ones fighting this battle.  If anything, they'll side with China, turning them into a serious liability. 

[Meredith Poor + 897]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Are you honestly trying to justify the outrageous liberal media bias in the media today?

Am I trying to 'honestly' justify something? No, I'm lying through my teeth.

[wrs + 893]

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am not sure a tariff on imported oil to 'advantage shale oil' is a wise idea. That would only effectively subsidize an industry that is financially irresponsible.

I agree with the first part but not the second.  The housing industry was financially irresponsible and they got bailed out along with their complicit partners the shadow banking system when they blew up in 2008. The govt is still bailing them out with the artificially low interest rate environment the Fed is providing.  No one wants to pay the real price of the money they borrow and so the govt has decreed that will be so in order to benefit fiscally irresponsible behavior across the board, including it's own.

Edited June 30, 2019 by wrs

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

28 minutes ago, wrs said:

I agree with the first part but not the second.  The housing industry was financially irresponsible and they got bailed out along with their complicit partners the shadow banking system when they blew up in 2008. The govt is still bailing them out with the artificially low interest rate environment the Fed is providing.  No one wants to pay the real price of the money they borrow and so the govt has decreed that will be so in order to benefit fiscally irresponsible behavior across the board, including it's own.

And the low interest rate has set up inflation on a scale in last 20 years that makes a 2001 super duty ford diesel 32k, now same truck is 75k. Housing is same, so a dollar today is about 18cents....maybe!

[Marc Savoie + 19]

16 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am not sure a tariff on imported oil to 'advantage shale oil' is a wise idea. That would only effectively subsidize an industry that is financially irresponsible.

Agreed but the oil and gas industry in (NA, OPEC, Russia, et al.) isn't exactly a shining bright star in honesty, morality and fiscal responsibility.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

7 minutes ago, Marc Savoie said:

Agreed but the oil and gas industry in (NA, OPEC, Russia, et al.) isn't exactly a shining bright star in honesty, morality and fiscal responsibility.

Are you comparing the oil & gas industry to other multinational industries?

Can you support your comment that the O&G industry is somehow lying, immoral and itresponsible fiscally?

This may be your opinion, but leveling serious accusations such as you have needs to be supported.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 6/30/2019 at 4:17 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Now that I think about it, that's a fairly obvious solution.  What's he waiting for? 

Look at what the Jones Act did for the OSV sector in the US. Once world leading; now - to be polite - not so much. American producers would become complacent over time. 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 6/29/2019 at 1:54 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Another approach would be to levy a $10/bbl tariff on imported oil, from anywhere.  That would put money into the US Treasury, disadvantage off-shore oil, advantage shale oil, keep the US oilpatch employed, and be a real boon all around.  The Trump could make a waiver for Canada and Mexico, does not make that much difference and lets some heavy oil in for blending purposes.  Sure would be interesting!

No offence, but to hell with Canada and Mexico!! They have been getting the great side of the bargain for DECADES now, make em pay it back now......

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

28 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

No offence, but to hell with Canada and Mexico!! They have been getting the great side of the bargain for DECADES now, make em pay it back now......

Whatever the unhappiness, your suggestion is unworkable as neither country (as respects oil products and specifically crude) has any ability to "pay it back now."   If you don't have the ability, then the policy becomes meaningless, as there is no possible way that Canada for example could export one drop to the USA and pay a $10/bbl tariff.  Neither could Mexico.  And in the case of Canada, the US refiners need some heavy crude as that apparently is how their refineries are set up, they have to blend the LTO, or at least that is what everyone here proclaims, so where is the advantage to placing some barrier to the entry of Canadian WCS?  I don't see the logic.  Cheers. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

18 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Can you support your comment that the O&G industry is somehow lying, immoral and itresponsible fiscally?

This may be your opinion, but leveling serious accusations such as you have needs to be supported.

Yep.  Just saying  ...