China keeps 3 million in concentration camps, harvests prisoners’ organs, threatens Hong Kong and Taiwan daily and is arming North Korea. So why are we trading with them?
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/china-keeps-3-million-in-concentration-camps-harvests-prisoners-organs-threatens-hong-kong-and-taiwan-daily-and-is-arming-north-korea-so-why-are-we-trading-with-them/

China is alleged to harvest the organs of thousands of political dissidents it keeps in concentration camps, its humanitarian record is otherwise abysmal, it threatens Hong Kong and Taiwan daily, it appears to be funding and assisting the North Korean nuclear missile program and is using the hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficits to build a first rate navy to defeat us (every year’s trade deficit pays for more than two years of China’s military spending). So why are we trading with China and underwriting this totalitarian regime and mass murder with $380 billion of trade deficits every year?

Primary challengers of sitting presidents never win, even strong ones, and neither does their party:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/primary-challengers-of-sitting-presidents-never-win-even-strong-ones-and-neither-does-their-party/

Any Republican supporting a primary challenge against President Donald Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020, if it is successful or even if it just hampers the primary process, is virtually guaranteeing the next president will be a Democrat who will nominate the next Supreme Court and sign laws like the Green New Deal, socialized medicine and universal income. Every single one of the one-term presidents of the 20th Century — William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all faced strong primary challenges. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson both withdrew their candidacies from the elections of 1952 and 1968 respectively in the face of a strong primary challengers. In every one of these instances, the opposition party won. Every single time. All of which make such a primary challenge of Trump ill-advised, that is, if Republicans are in the business of winning elections. What do you think?

President Trump hits China with more tariffs, sanctions on fentanyl and threatens broader economic sanctions — and it’s about time:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/president-trump-hits-china-with-more-tariffs-plus-sanctions-on-fentanyl-and-its-about-time/

President Donald Trump stepped up the pressure on China last week by leveling sanctions against Beijing for its role in bringing tons of fentanyl to the U.S. that has killed more Americans than the Lusitania and Sept. 11, 2001 combined, plus a new round of tariffs to keep the pressure on Beijing to come to the table on trade. To top it all off, Trump threatened broader economic sanctions on China and urged U.S. companies to leave, citing authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to block transactions upon declaration of an emergency. Dialogue, of course, is preferred, but Beijing appears more interested in inflicting damage on the U.S. than talking ahead of the 2020 election in the hopes the American people elect a more acquiescent candidate. We’ll see, but history teaches it’s usually not a good idea to bet against America. What do you think?

Trump is not wrong about interest rates and the strong dollar, but does the Fed have any ammunition to do anything about it?
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/trump-is-not-wrong-about-interest-rates-and-the-strong-dollar-but-does-the-fed-have-any-ammunition-to-do-anything-about-it/

President Donald Trump is not wrong. Relative to other countries, interest rates in the U.S., as low as they currently are, are higher relative to our trading partners. And the federal funds rate at 2 percent to 2.25 percent is well above the 10-year treasury and have been inverted since May and so has the 10-year, 3-month treasuries spread. In the meantime, the U.S. dollar versus the Chinese yuan and the euro remains quite strong, making exports to the U.S. much cheaper. But even if it started aggressively cutting rates right now, can the Fed really do much about it? We were at near-zero percent on the federal funds rate and did trillions of dollars of quantitative easing during the Obama administration and growth was still tepid as we lost market share to China. Is monetary policy out of bullets?

Trump ends China’s monopoly on rare earths as Pentagon rapidly pushes for domestic mining and processing, invoking 1950 Defense Production Act:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/trump-ends-chinas-monopoly-on-rare-earths-as-pentagon-rapidly-pushes-for-domestic-mining-and-processing-invoking-1950-defense-production-act/

In a strong boost for the U.S. position in ongoing trade negotiations with China, it looks like Beijing’s monopoly on rare earth minerals used in smart phones, computers and high-tech military hardware is coming to an end as the U.S. Defense Department makes a big push for domestic processing of the sought-after materials. Just one less thing Beijing can hold over U.S. trade negotiators’ heads, and surely strengthens the U.S. position in those talks. China had placed a tariff on rare earths that were being shipped there for processing, but Beijing was never going to permanently be allowed to have a monopoly on elements essential to national security. Unlike his predecessors Bush and Obama, the American people can thank President Trump for that. What do you think?

Love President Trump or hate him, everyone including President Xi should be rooting for his China trade deal:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/love-president-trump-or-hate-him-everyone-including-president-xi-should-be-rooting-for-his-china-trade-deal/

If you’re a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, whether you like free trade or think it has hurt the U.S. economy the past three decades, if you’re in business with China or from China yourself, even Chinese President Xi Jinping, you should be rooting for President Donald Trump to succeed in his trade negotiations with Beijing. Ultimately, a deal with China will set the stage for the rest of the century and determine whether we can find a way to resolve our very real differences on competitive currency devaluations that Beijing uses to boost exports, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer, and sanctions against U.S. exporters, or if we are on a collision course for conflict. One need look no further than to the threat the 7.3 million people of Hong Kong or 23.6 million people of Taiwan constantly live under, or the continued nuclear threat from North Korea, to comprehend the threat that running a $380 billion trade deficit poses — more than twice China’s annual $152 billion defense budget. What’s better, trade or a war?

Up or down, President Trump owns the economy—and he has a lot to be proud of:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/up-or-down-president-trump-owns-the-economy-and-he-has-a-lot-to-be-proud-of/

Compared to this point in Obama’s first term, the Trump economy is great. 2018 was the strongest year for growth since 2005, and unemployment at 3.7 percent is still at its lowest point in 50 years since 1969. Obama got reelected with 7.8 percent unemployment in the final reading before the 2012 election. Almost 5.2 million jobs have been created since Jan. 2017 when President Donald Trump took office in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ household survey. That blows the Obama out of the water. At this point in his first term, the Obama economy had not produced a single job. How do you think the economy has fared since 2016?

Why we should be worried about Alan Greenspan’s negative interest rate prediction. It might mean the end of capitalism.
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/why-we-should-be-worried-about-alan-greenspans-negative-interest-rate-prediction-it-might-mean-the-end-of-capitalism/

While the financial and political media were panicking about the 10-year, 2-year treasuries interest rate inversion, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was predicting that U.S. treasuries’ interest rates could very well go into negative territory in the near-future. If interest rates are going negative, it could very well be forecasting slower economic growth or no growth at all, low inflation or even negative inflation, and higher unemployment. The federal government would earn interest instead of owing it for deficit-spending. Individuals would be incentivized to stop working and take on debt to earn interest. It would be helicopter money. Where would this lead our society?

Democratic candidates’ hateful labeling of President Trump and his supporters as white supremacists is wrong, dehumanizing and dangerous:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/democratic-candidates-hateful-labeling-of-president-trump-and-his-supporters-as-white-supremacists-is-wrong-dehumanizing-and-dangerous/

Leading Democrats for the presidential nomination have apparently decided that their path to victory in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings lays with demonizing President Donald Trump and his supporters as white supremacists and racists. They’re just saying it aloud now. One hopes this is just a cynical ploy to boost their poll numbers as the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses near, but it is hard not to start to worry that this is the radicalization of a mob that is thirsty for mob justice. Doesn’t anyone think this is way over the top? Or worried that this sort of dehumanizing rhetoric has dangerous implications for the future of this country? Or could be construed as another incitement to and legitimization of political violence? This is beyond irresponsible, it is reckless and dangerous. What do you think?

Deficit likely to come in just shy of $1 trillion in 2019, latest Treasury figures show:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/08/deficit-likely-to-come-in-just-shy-of-1-trillion-in-2019-latest-treasury-figures-show/

With just two months remaining in fiscal year 2019, come Sept. 30, the U.S. budget deficit appears likely to come in just shy of $1 trillion, the latest data from the U.S. Treasury shows. Since 1980, the debt has grown on average 8.8 percent every fiscal year, but during that same period, the U.S. economy has only averaged 5.4 percent nominal growth economic nominally before adjusting for inflation. As a result, the debt is now 105 percent of the economy. And if those trends were to continue, the debt will top $100 trillion in 2037, and exceed 193 percent debt to GDP. What does that look like? Just ask Japan, with a 200 percent debt to GDP ratio, whose economy has barely grown nominally in 20 years amid a declining population. What can be done to prevent such an outcome?