I’m going to be scathing in my critique because these people are both dishonest and incompetent and deserve to be called out on it.
Here’s their formula:
It’s a ridiculously simplistic formula.
First, a stylistic quibble. What is up with those asterisks in the denominator? I’ll give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume that they wanted the formula to be understandable by people who aren’t familiar with standard math notation, in which the juxtaposition of variables indicates multiplication. But to see it written that way in an official document is just… weird.
The i subscripts in the formula just indicate that the formula is to be applied to one country at a time — country i. I’ll therefore omit the ‘i’s from the rest of the discussion.
∆𝜏 is the amount by which the tariff currently being placed on that particular country should change (according to the Trump administration bozos) in order to drive the bilateral trade deficit to zero. In other words, 𝜏 (the existing rate) + ∆𝜏 (the change in rate) would be the correct final rate (according to the formula) to achieve the dubious goal of a trade balance.
The inanity of insisting on bilateral trade balances
We’re off to a bad start already, because the notion that every bilateral trade deficit should be zero is ridiculous on its face. Let’s look at a simplified example. Suppose Malawi sells us only mangoes, and the US (henceforth ‘we’, since I’m American) sells them only air conditioners. In order for the trade deficit to be zero, we need to buy the same dollar amount in mangoes that they buy in air conditioners, and we should adjust the tariffs we impose on Malawi until that happens. Why is this desirable? Why should the amount of mangoes be linked to the amount of air conditioners? Who the hell knows? It’s just Trump’s idiotic obsession, and it makes no sense.
To make the stupidity even more obvious, think of an analogous situation. Ernesto sells tacos from a taco truck, and George runs a landscaping business. George occasionally buys tacos from Ernesto, and Ernesto hires George to mow his lawn. Suppose Ernesto pays more to George each month than George spends buying tacos from Ernesto. Is Ernesto being cheated? Is he subsidizing George? No and no. George gets every taco he pays for, and Ernesto gets his lawn mown on schedule. It would be ridiculous to say that either of them is being cheated, and ridiculous to say that the goal should be to make the amounts even.
Why is Trump obsessed with trade deficits? It’s because he is confused enough to believe that the existence of a bilateral trade deficit — a trading deficit with a particular country, Malawi in my example — means that they are cheating us and that we’re subsidizing them. He actually believes that we are just handing over the money, getting nothing in return. In reality, we get every frikkin’ mango we pay for, and they get every air conditioner they pay for. No one is being cheated, and to demand that the dollar amounts should match is idiotic and pointless.
Trump actually declares in his executive order that trade deficits are a “national emergency”. He does this because he doesn’t have the authority to impose tariffs unless it’s a national emergency. Otherwise, the job falls to Congress, where it belongs. Trump is lying about the supposed national emergency.
The formula
According to the USTR statement, the x in the formula is the dollar value of what we export to a particular country, while m is the dollar value of what we import from them. The numerator, x – m, is therefore equal to the trade imbalance. If x is bigger than m, then the difference is positive, and we are running a trade surplus. If x is less than m, then x – m is negative, and we have a trade deficit. But note that they have it backwards in the formula: it should be m – x, not x – m. Why? Because the denominator is positive. If both the numerator and denominator are positive, as they would be in the case of a trade surplus, the formula would deliver a ∆𝜏 that is positive. In other words, the formula as written would actually increase the tariffs for the countries with whom we have a trade surplus, and it would decrease the tariffs for countries with whom we have a trade deficit. The formula therefore punishes the (supposedly) good guys and rewards the (supposedly) bad ones, which is opposite to the administration’s intentions. One more indication of their clown car incompetence.
They could easily have corrected the formula if they were aware of the error. Just put a negative sign in front of the formula, or swap x and m, or redefine x and m as the amounts exported and imported by the other country, instead of the amounts exported and imported by the US. Any one of those three would fix the problem, but no.
Let’s assume that we have corrected that mistake for them and that the numerator now equals the amount of the trade deficit, not the surplus. What about the denominator? Well, it just so happens that the values they chose for 𝜀 and 𝜓 are 4 and 0.25, respectively. Those multiply to 1, thus canceling each other. How convenient. These charlatans actually and blatantly chose the values so that they would cancel out, instead of using the most accurate numbers they could find in the literature. They cheated.
After that suspiciously convenient choice of parameters, the formula is now just ∆𝜏 = trade deficit divided by total imports:
Do they actually apply this formula? No. They massage its output even more. They divide ∆𝜏 by two, for no good reason. That means that for the formula to match the actual tariffs, they should multiply the denominator by 2. They fail to do that, as you’d expect. Why 2? My hypothesis is that even those dunces realized that the numbers they were getting from the formula were ridiculously large, and dividing by 2 was a way to get them down to a range that they considered reasonable. More number fudging with no theoretical justification.
Next problem: according to the corrected formula, ∆𝜏 should be negative in the case of trade surpluses. That is, we should decrease the tariffs on imports from those countries. If the existing tariff rate is small enough, it should even go negative, according to the formula, in order to balance our trade with that country. Trump doesn’t like that, so he has arbitrarily declared that everyone will pay a minimum of 10%, whether there’s a trade deficit or a trade surplus. In other words, the policy, which is already misguided, is also unfair — it says that it’s OK for the US to screw other countries by imposing high tariffs, even if they’re doing the “right” thing and allowing us to run a trade surplus with them.
The actual rates
Here are the charts spelling out the actual tariff rates.
The chart labels them “Reciprocal Tariffs”, but that is a lie, since the formula doesn’t take into account the tariff rate charged by the other countries on our exports to them. It’s completely missing from the formula. They aren’t reciprocal tariffs, they’re misguided tariffs in response to trade deficits, and they punish US importers instead of the countries selling us those goods and services.
The label on the middle column is wrong for the same reason, and it’s even further wrong because it depicts a bilateral trade deficit as a quantifier of “currency manipulation and trade barriers”, which it isn’t. We can run a bilateral trade deficit for no other reason than that Americans want more of what the other country is selling us than they want from us. That’s not “currency manipulation and trade barriers”, and the Trump administration is dishonest for trying to sell it that way.
The numbers in the middle column are apparently those that come straight out of the formula. You can tell, because the tariffs that are actually being imposed by the US are just the middle column divided by 2. That’s the arbitrary factor of 2 I mentioned above. The only exceptions are in those cases where dividing by 2 would leave a less than 10% tariff, in which case the tariff is set to 10%. Gotta make sure that everyone gets screwed at least that much.
The US Trade Representative’s explanation
Now some excerpts from the USTR statement. The very first paragraph:
Reciprocal tariffs are calculated as the tariff rate necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the U.S. and each of our trading partners. This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Tariffs work through direct reductions of imports.
Well, duh. The phrase “tariff and non-tariff factors” covers literally every possible factor in the entire world. Yes, there are actual reasons that we buy more in mangoes from Malawi than they buy from us in air conditioners. Therefore we should conclude that we’re getting ripped off?
While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero.
Not by any reasonable person. You need to do the homework before making policy decisions that will affect the entire world economy. If they want less of what we’re selling than we want of what they’re selling, that can lead to a trade deficit, independent of all the factors they list above.
This doesn’t mean that trade practices can’t be unfair, but it does mean that to assume something nefarious is going on merely because we’re running a bilateral trade deficit is stupid.
If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.
No. If we like Malawian mangoes more than the Malawians like our air conditioners, nothing is broken. Nothing is unfair. No reason to blindly punish the Malawians. It just means that American demand for Malawian mangoes is greater than Malawian demand for American air conditioners. No big deal.
A case could be made for nudging the US’s global trade deficit — which is the aggregate trade deficit we’re running with all of our trading partners put together — toward zero, but trying to eliminate every bilateral trade deficit is bonkers. These people are clueless.
Consider an environment in which the U.S. levies a tariff of rate τ_i on country i and ∆τ_i reflects the change in the tariff rate. Let ε<0 represent the elasticity of imports with respect to import prices…
Right there they say that ε < 0, but a few sentences later they assign it a value of 4. The last time I checked, 4 was greater than 0, not less. Their sloppiness is consistent, at least. What is wrong with these folks?
let φ>0 represent the passthrough from tariffs to import prices, let m_i>0 represent total imports from country i, and let x_i>0 represent total exports. Then the decrease in imports due to a change in tariffs equals ∆τ_i*ε*φ*m_i<0. Assuming that offsetting exchange rate and general equilibrium effects are small enough to be ignored, the reciprocal tariff that results in a bilateral trade balance of zero satisfies:
As noted earlier, they have the numerator backwards. It should be positive for a trade deficit, not negative, in order for ∆𝜏 to be positive, which represents an increase in tariff rates.
To calculate reciprocal tariffs, import and export data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2024. Parameter values for ε and φ were selected. The price elasticity of import demand, ε, was set at 4.
Which inside the Trump administration is less than 0, lol. And how convenient that εφ multiplies to 1, as noted above.
Recent evidence suggests the elasticity is near 2 in the long run (Boehm et al., 2023), but estimates of the elasticity vary. To be conservative, studies that find higher elasticities near 3-4 (e.g., Broda and Weinstein 2006; Simonovska and Waugh 2014; Soderbery 2018) were drawn on. The elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, φ, is 0.25.
It wasn’t to be conservative. It was to fudge the numbers so that the product εφ came out to be 1. And picking a value of 4 for elasticity isn’t “being conservative” in the sense of “this value is more likely to be correct”. It’s conservative in the sense of “we’d better make this number big because otherwise the tariffs will be so outrageously huge that everyone will see that we’re idiots.”
Think about it. They want φ to be small (whether or not the evidence supports it), because they want to maintain the fiction that other countries will mostly absorb the tariffs and that importers and retail customers will shoulder less of the burden and therefore experience less inflation. On the other hand, a small φ balloons the value of ∆𝜏 to ridiculous levels. So they set 𝜀 to 4 to bring ∆𝜏 down, even while acknowledging that the true value of 𝜀 is closer to 2.
The recent experience with U.S. tariffs on China has demonstrated that tariff passthrough to retail prices was low (Cavallo et al, 2021).
I haven’t verified that, but either way I would sure like to see the actual number. Why didn’t they include it? Is it really 0.25? In any case, the question of pass-through to retail prices is irrelevant when you’re trying to determine which country is absorbing the cost of the tariffs. It’s the pass-through factor to importers that is relevant, and that is close to 1, even if the pass-though to retail customers is less. That means that US importers are bearing the cost of the tariffs and passing some of that cost on to consumers. It’s inflationary, and it’s a tax by the US government on US importers, not a tax on foreign countries. Which contradicts Trump’s whole rationale.
The reciprocal tariffs were left-censored at zero.
No, they were “left-censored” at 10, as you can see by looking at the charts. 10 is the minimum tariff you’ll see in the third column of the charts.
Higher minimum rates might be necessary to limit heterogeneity in rates and reduce transshipment.</p
No explanation of why “heterogeneity in rates” is to be avoided, and no comment on the fact that it isn’t avoided, given the large range of new tariff rates in the third column of the charts. That means there’s still plenty of incentive for transshipment. Take Vietnam, for instance, with a new rate of 46%. There’s a *lot* of incentive for them to transship through one of the countries with a 10% rate.
Tariff rates range from 0 to 99 percent.
There is no inherent limit. Tariffs could be 100%, 180%, or 2100%. 99% is an arbitrary limit. Tariffs could even be negative in a perverse world, in which case the government would be giving importers a bonus for importing more and nudging us toward a trade deficit. Obviously that wouldn’t happen in practice, but my point is that the 99% is arbitrary, and anyone who thinks tariffs are limited to being less than 100% doesn’t understand tariffs.
The unweighted average across deficit countries is 50 percent, and the unweighted average across the entire globe is 20 percent.
It’s pointless to state the unweighted average. An unweighted average is really just a weighted average with all of the weights set to 1. That gives Liechtenstein equal weight with China, which is stupid. Our trade volume with China is some 1,770 times as great as our trade volume with Liechtenstein, but these geniuses are weighting them evenly and presenting the average as if it had some kind of significance. Morons.
Weighted by imports, the average across deficit countries is 45 percent, and the average across the entire globe is 41 percent. Standard deviations range from 20.5 to 31.8 percentage points.
Here, they tell us that the import-weighted average of tariffs is 41 percent. Combine that with their assumed pass-through rate of 0.25. meaning that exporters in other countries will shoulder 75% of the tariff burden. That’s unrealistic and it clashes with the actual data, but even if you take the Trumpers at their word and assume that only 25% of the additional cost due to tariffs is passed to importers, that’s still over 10%, because 0.25 * 41% is greater than 10%. 10% import inflation! So much for Trump’s campaign promise: “I’ll reduce prices on day one.” Idiot.
Good job, Trump supporters. By voting for him, you put power in the hands of these dishonest and incompetent economic doofuses.
We have groaning shelves of ‘foods that harm/heal’ type books. But we split the cooking; she eats what I put in front of her. I’m fortunate in preferring to cook from scratch, so don’t have much processed food.
I took daily vitamins on the Pacific Crest Trail, as my diet was dehydrated and monotonous. But normally? Nah. The answer to general health rarely lies in a pill bottle, or indeed a self-help book.
I have long joked that I’m going to write the “Eat Less, Take More Exercise” diet book. Chaper One: Eat Less. Chapter Two – you’ll have to buy the book!
I consider myself lucky living where I do, surrounded by small “artisanal” growers and producers. My wife is a member of a cooperative that acts as a market between entrepreneurs and consumers. There’s a site-web and email newsletter where producers announce availability (cabbages, apples, whatever) and price, people order and pay on line or by phone, then meet at a community hall to collect, with free delivery to disabled or those unable to collect (which is how it is set up as a charity which keep the running costs very low and prices competitive).
Has worked well enough last year for it to continue this year.
The asparagus season has been magical this year as we’ve had a wet Spring. Just up the road is a small commercial grower who also sells direct. It ends up in or with everything we eat at the moment. If I’m allowed, I get to cook it. Ideally, outside, from raw (another difference of opinion I’m working on) on the plancha, lowest setting, under a cloche, with just a coating of olive oil. Serve with aïoli*. Best at sunset but good anytime.
I was joking about a cookbook containing pairs of recipes that we argue about. Then she mentions she’s already working on one!
*The one thing I’m allowed to whizz up without question.
Some problems with that 2011
paperpop-sci article, Bill, apart from it being published in 2011. Is “about 10% of the population has adequate levels” a direct quote? 10% of which population? Adequate levels for or against what? How was this level decided to be “adequate”?ETA The link to the original research in that pop-sci article is broken. My skeptical whiskers are twitching. Bill?
A plane, now?
This is OK, is it? Not corrupt?
Chuck Schumer’s comment:
Alan Fox,
10% most likely measured of the US population based on many studies. The guy quoted in the article is one of the top epidemiologists in the field. Your levels are most likely too low. Stop being hyper skeptical and get tested. You simply need to ask for it to be added to your normal blood test.
I play beach volleyball in Northern California and when tested my levels were 33 ng/ml. After taking supplements for 5 weeks my levels improved to above 60 ng/ml. My brother was 19 ng/ml and after supplements is also 60 ng/ml.
There is no lack of data here with both epidemiological studies and cellularl mechanisms studied.
Most likely?
As it happens, I’m seeing my doctor tomorrow, and I’ll raise it with her. She’s very much an advocate of preventative health so I’ll let you know what she says.
Alan Fox,
Most likely as I know the work of the epidemiologist who made the claim. He is a friend and is a doctor of public health from Johns Hopkins and taught at UC San Diego for several decades. He along with his brother discovered the connection between low blood levels of vitamin d and cancer in the early 80s. Please get your blood levels checked.
colewd,
I’ve read quite a bit about vitamin D deficiency and I can’t find any real consensus on what is an adequate serum level of vitamin D but 20-25 ng/ml seems common. There are issues for (taking extreme cases) elderly traditional muslim women in the Maghreb and among Inuit people no longer consuming vitamin D – rich foods such as seal liver and blubber but for the bulk of the worlds population, daily supplements are overkill.
I’m only 75 and already a cancer survivor. 😉
Trump taking credit for inventing the word ‘equalize’. You can’t make this stuff up.
I know Trump isn’t a reader, but has he truly never encountered the word? Or is this just more evidence of his failing memory?
You know, Trump more and more reminds me of my 14-year old self, a time when I thought I knew everything and I was much smarter than everybody else. I now shiver at the idea that someone would have made that ‘me’ the most powerful person in the world.
Doctor asked why I thought I needed a vitamin D serum level test, seeing as I’m outdoors a lot, fair-skinned, (she checked me over for skin lesions – all good) and my wife feeds me so well (we have the same doctor). Currently, the French system does not include it in the annual check of health parameters unless there is evidence to suggest a need.
Alan Fox,
The epidemiological data strongly supports 40 to 60 ng/ml and this is still a long way from being toxic. It is essentially free to get to these levels. Forty to sixty ng/ml levels not only supports initial prevention but reduces metastasis risk as vitamin d down regulates the VEGF signalling protein which generates blood vesicles.
Congrats in getting past cancer. 🙂
At a hearing today, Kristi Noem was terrified of contradicting the Dear Leader, though it’s obvious that he was wrong about Kilmar Garcia Abrego’s hand:
ALMOST UNWATCHABLE: Swalwell Asks Noem Over & Over About Doctored Pic Of Abrego Garcia Trump Pushed
I’ll echo Allan’s question:
Have they no dignity or self-respect? Why won’t Noem just say “I disagree with the President on this. ‘MS13’ was clearly photoshopped onto that image”? That’s a rhetorical question. We all know why.
Orwellian. The botox face comes in handy in situations like this.
“I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States. Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he’s not a talented guy – Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country. If I wasn’t elected, it would have been GONE by now! Sleepy Joe didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing, but Springsteen is “dumb as a rock,” and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out “prune” of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he
gets back into the Country, that’s just “standard fare.” Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”
This is pitiful stuff. Guy’s in the wrong job if he can’t take criticism.
Trump:
But if he had supported Trump, he would be massively talented, perhaps the best of his generation, and would be invited to White House dinners with Kid Rock and Ted Nugent, who are also massively talented. Lol.
The thin skin and insecurity are bad enough, but what really boggles my mind is the stupidity. How can he not realize how whiny and pitiful he looks? He hates the idea of being laughed at and looked down upon, but he brings it upon himself. Over and over.
I’d just like to say, if Taylor Swift played her cards right, she could have me [“call me” fingers].
Allan:
You might have a shot, now that she’s no longer HOT.
keiths,
Indeed. Manchild’s eyesight’s fading.
Trump actually posted a video clip of Eric Swalwell interrogating Kristi Noem over the photoshopped image of Abrego Garcia’s hand. Doesn’t he realize that the clip makes him look stupid and Noem look dishonest and evasive?
Perhaps he posted it because he’s proud of how willing she is to debase herself rather than contradict her Dear Leader.
“The other country pays the tariffs”
…
“Walmart should eat the tariffs”.
Surely there’s no tariff to ‘eat’ if the other country pays them? At what point does the penny drop for MAGA? Instead of replacing income tax with a sales tax, he wants to tax corporate profits now? How does this hit the fentanyl or repatriate manufacturing?
But let’s sit back and see how it plays out, he’s the master dealmaker…
Allan:
It’s worth reposting Trump’s original comment:
That didn’t age well. At least he’s finally admitting that Americans and US companies are going to “eat the tariffs”, but it took him over 40 years to learn that lesson. There was never any doubt about it among economists and economically literate people.
Bill, if you’re reading — if you needed brain surgery, would you find some random person who knew nothing about brains or surgery and give them the job? Would you say “Let’s see what happens. Time will tell”? Or would you find a qualified surgeon?
The analogy should be obvious.
Sen. Maggie Hassan:
Kristi Noem:
Good Lord. Trump hires only the best people?
Trump shows the South African President some white roadside crosses as evidence of ‘white genocide”.
President Ramaphosa: “I’d like to know where that is because this I’ve never seen.”
Trump: “It’s in South Africa”.
Could you narrow it down for us a bit Donald?
Trump accepted the Qatari bribe.
Ramaphosa: “I’m sorry, I don’t have a plane to give you…”.
Trump attempted to push the ‘white genocide’ angle. Ramaphosa’s white Minister of Agriculture, an opposition politician, asserted there was no such thing. He was accompanied by white golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen. But “no, I heard this”, says Trump, pointing at Musk (whose continuing presence is frankly weird).
In an amusing twist, X’s AI, Grok, started obsessing about white genocide in responses to unrelated questions. It later confessed it had been fiddled with – a ‘programming error’, which is pretty euphemistic.
The clown car continues.
This is astonishing: there was a special election Tuesday in New York State Senate district 22, where Trump won with 77% of the vote in 2024. The Democratic candidate, Sam Sutton, won the special election with 67% of the vote.
Noem vs Harvard: this is full-on fascism. An overused word, but appropriate.
Allan Miller,
Hmm
Looks like it will end up in court. But it must be devastating for students caught in the crossfire. “Political football” seems inadequate for the task.
Of course a pedant would say “Communists do it too”. Well, yeah, but these clearly aren’t Communists. Either way, it is deeply sinister to demand records of students and their activism, and threaten expulsion of 27% of the current student body, who have done nothing wrong beyond enrol in one of America’s most prestigious institutions.
These people fetishise the Second, while not giving a crap about the First.
I was once admonished by a policemen for using the word when remonstrating with him over arresting a boyfriend of a friend’s sister (I need just enough degrees of separation) who had got lost while out with us on a pub crawl. He had a night in the cells and a £5 fine for “drunk and incapable”. I don’t think I’ve made that accusation in person to anyone since. “Fuckers” has similarly lost its impact over time and overuse.
ETA Jesus, reminiscing while Rome burns. I’ll get me coat.
Highly telling (for me, apparently not for Americans) was when Kristi Noem said at the Senate hearing, “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”
The telling part is not (just) that she got it wrong, and also not that it’s such a basic concept that every mainland European knows about it, even though we have a different name for it. Her interrogator in Senate said, “This is incorrect” but it is far more serious and telling than that: Kristi Noem got it exactly opposite. Habeas corpus is the constitutional right of citizens against law enforcement, it is the right for due process.
Even more tellingly, Kristi Noem is the Head of Homeland Security, i.e. she is the law enforcement who must take this constitutional right into account in her proceedings. Yet she got it backwards.
This is fascism. Maybe out of total ignorance and incompetence, but definitely unhinged fascism. And of course, this is not just about a legal concept she got wrong. This administration is already busy deporting people to death camps like fascists do.
Senator Chris Van Hollen rips into Marco Rubio, to his face, at a Congressional hearing:
All Hell Breaks Loose When Van Hollen Tells Sec. Rubio To His Face, He Regrets Voting To Confirm Him
That was so satisfying to watch. Among all the creeps in the Trump administration, Rubio is the one who has most egregiously betrayed his principles, in my opinion. He fully deserved that flagellation.
The TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) memes are proliferating, and you just know that it’s getting under Trump’s skin.
13 Best TACO Trump Memes
For a guy who fears being laughed at, this must be excruciating.
Scott Bessent lying on Fox News, claiming that the court rulings against Trump’s tariffs are having no effect on trade negotiations. You can see how uncomfortable he is. I wonder if he regrets prostituting himself for Donald.
Of course they’re affecting the trade negotiations. If the club Trump is brandishing is really just a twig — and the rulings, unless overturned, say that it is — then Trump has lost his leverage in those negotiations.
At least Bessent admits that the Chinese negotiations are “stalled”, which is especially unsurprising considering how belligerent Trump has been toward Beijing recently, including the idiotic decision to “aggressively” revoke the visas of Chinese students in the US.
Trump, yesterday:
Trump, a few hours later:
Trump, today:
(The ADP number he’s referring to? 37,000 jobs created in May, versus a forecast of 110,000. “Our Economy is BOOMING!”, lol.)
Crikey, the buyer’s remorse from Musk is off the scale. Thanks for inflicting him on the world, ya daft bastard! They went to the Middle East together recently. Now, Musk is potshotting like there’s no tomorrow.
When Narcissists Collide.
I thought the screenshotted tweets were fake at first. But no. I’ve unblocked him, and got the popcorn in.
Allan:
Tesla’s shareholders apparently agree:
TSLA 284.70 USD −47.35 (14.26%) today
keiths,
That’s a curious one. Are the markets responding to, or anticipating, some EV-unfriendly petulance?
On our side of the Atlantic, Reform, our MAGA wannabes, are imploding. A new MP asked a Parliamentary question on banning wearing the burqa in public (libertarians love banning things). Now the party.is fracturing over whether this is policy or not. (Muslim) Chairman resigns.
Why a child of immigrants cast their lot with an anti immigrant party, I’m not sure. It does need to come down, but there are some pretty unsavoury fellow-travellers in that lot.
Allan:
Yes. They know Trump is out for revenge. Today, he wrote:
Tesla benefits both from government contracts and regulatory credits, so Trump has some levers he can pull.
Madeleine Dean waves a banana at Howard Lutnick, informing him that we cannot build bananas in America, lol.
I’m with you, Madeleine. I, too, wave my banana at Lutnick. (See my avatar.)
keiths,
My antennae went up when Musk tweeted something like “we found millions spent on golf by a high ranking official. Stay tuned to find out who!”. I felt sure it had to be parody. But no. Leopards, faces… it’s great entertainment. Musk should stay away from windows.
Reminded me of this excellent supercut:
I was amused when Tim Miller referred to Lutnick as “Nutlick”. A clever way to describe the posture of Lutnick (and the rest of the cabinet) toward Trump.
Flint:
He definitely earned the nickname.