Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 324K
  • Politics 
The only thing I see that would lead me to believe he doesn't spend his every waking moment hoping to increase his wealth is acting like a complete idiot and hurting his businesses. It was probably only a few years ago where Tesla And SpaceX were absolute darlings of the left, and Musk was widely admired for his scientific and business accomplishments. And then he ruined all that by tweeting like a monkey. It's hurting his wealth and he just doesn't care.

If his one and only goal was to get richer and richer, he'd be Larry Ellison or Sergey Brin: basically invisible and enjoying their vast riches. Even Mark Zuckerberg seems well adjusted compared to Musk in the last few years.

That's why I think Musk doesn't spend his every waking moment hoping to get even richer. I mean he'll do it when he can but I don't think that's his overriding purpose. He's beaten the become the richest person in the world video game. He's moving on to something else which seems to be political power and influence.
He realized that the path to greater richest was controlling politicians and that was much easier done by controlling the kind of folks who vote MAGA because they are so easily manipulated. The political power is just a path to further wealth.

He has already used it to block stiff EV competition by killing the CR.
 
He realized that the path to greater richest was controlling politicians and that was much easier done by controlling the kind of folks who vote MAGA because they are so easily manipulated. The political power is just a path to further wealth.

He has already used it to block stiff EV competition by killing the CR.
Time will tell. At the end of the day it doesn't matter his motivation as He's using his money to inject himself into the political process and I don't agree with most of his policies.
 
Not gonna lie, I kinda hope farm bankruptcies triple over the next 4 years. Some as trade war casualties, others due to a lack of affordable labor.
In the last trade war debacle, Trump wrote a check for over 30 billion dollars to bail out the farmers.

He will have no qualms doing the same after next year's trade war debacle.
 
This “negotiating” style is keeping homeowners interest rates higher than they would be, and having a dampening effect on the stock market.
So, to those who defend Trump as saying this is just his style, then I’d say his style is actively hurting Americans, and it isn’t doing any good and will not have any tangible positive effects in the future.
Last time he did this our farmers lost large markets and never got them back. That necessitated Trump bailing them out with socialist payments the republicans claim to abhor so much.
None of this can be defended in good faith, imo.
 
Last edited:


“… The debate broke out late last week on social media as Mr. Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy defended the legal, high-skill H-1B visa program from critics who want to sharply reduce even legal immigration. “I have many H-1B visas on my properties,” Mr. Trump told the New York Post. “I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”

Mr. Trump may be confusing the H-1B program with the H-2B visas he has used for workers at his hotel properties. But the point is that both are legal programs that help to fill labor needs in the U.S. economy. Unlike illegal migration, these programs don’t offend the rule of law or risk importing criminals.

… Some critics say H-1B visas let companies pay less than U.S. workers earn, but under the law employers must pay H-1B visa holders the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to comparable U.S. workers. Mr. Anderson says the average annual salary for an H-1B visa holder in 2023 for computer-related jobs was $132,000, according to U.S. immigration data. This isn’t exploitation of cheap labor. [MyNote — it is a bit more complicated when you factor in expected hours worked and inability to switch jobs]

… Some conservatives want to define nationalism solely by geography and ethnicity. But the U.S. has thrived because it has invited talented newcomers from many nations who add to U.S. strength and vitality. This is intelligent nationalism of the kind we assume Mr. Trump wants. …”
 


“… The debate broke out late last week on social media as Mr. Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy defended the legal, high-skill H-1B visa program from critics who want to sharply reduce even legal immigration. “I have many H-1B visas on my properties,” Mr. Trump told the New York Post. “I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”

Mr. Trump may be confusing the H-1B program with the H-2B visas he has used for workers at his hotel properties. But the point is that both are legal programs that help to fill labor needs in the U.S. economy. Unlike illegal migration, these programs don’t offend the rule of law or risk importing criminals.

… Some critics say H-1B visas let companies pay less than U.S. workers earn, but under the law employers must pay H-1B visa holders the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to comparable U.S. workers. Mr. Anderson says the average annual salary for an H-1B visa holder in 2023 for computer-related jobs was $132,000, according to U.S. immigration data. This isn’t exploitation of cheap labor. [MyNote — it is a bit more complicated when you factor in expected hours worked and inability to switch jobs]

… Some conservatives want to define nationalism solely by geography and ethnicity. But the U.S. has thrived because it has invited talented newcomers from many nations who add to U.S. strength and vitality. This is intelligent nationalism of the kind we assume Mr. Trump wants. …”

Also worth noting that for things like data science, ML/AI engineering and senior software engineers, $132k is not very much.
 


“… The debate broke out late last week on social media as Mr. Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy defended the legal, high-skill H-1B visa program from critics who want to sharply reduce even legal immigration. “I have many H-1B visas on my properties,” Mr. Trump told the New York Post. “I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”

Mr. Trump may be confusing the H-1B program with the H-2B visas he has used for workers at his hotel properties. But the point is that both are legal programs that help to fill labor needs in the U.S. economy. Unlike illegal migration, these programs don’t offend the rule of law or risk importing criminals.

… Some critics say H-1B visas let companies pay less than U.S. workers earn, but under the law employers must pay H-1B visa holders the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to comparable U.S. workers. Mr. Anderson says the average annual salary for an H-1B visa holder in 2023 for computer-related jobs was $132,000, according to U.S. immigration data. This isn’t exploitation of cheap labor. [MyNote — it is a bit more complicated when you factor in expected hours worked and inability to switch jobs]

… Some conservatives want to define nationalism solely by geography and ethnicity. But the U.S. has thrived because it has invited talented newcomers from many nations who add to U.S. strength and vitality. This is intelligent nationalism of the kind we assume Mr. Trump wants. …”

Shocking that WSJ would come down on the side of business in this dispute. Never saw that coming.
 
I just ran across something in a book I was reading that made me look this up. Seemed like it belonged on a thread so much about information gathering and transfer. When the Library of Congress was established in 1800, it had 740 books and 3 maps. I get the feeling the Founding Fathers might be staggered by what's available today and maybe even confused.
 

Many US midwestern grain farmers will lose money this year after reaping a bumper crop, and the outlook for their future income is bleak.

US farmers harvested some of the largest corn and soybean crops in history this year. Big harvests traditionally weigh on crop prices because of plentiful supply. And those price pressures comes at a time when costs remain persistently high to grow corn and soybeans, the US’s most valuable crops.


That double whammy is hurting farmers. Income will vary per farmer and per state, yet even for producers in top agricultural states such as Illinois, losses could be staggering.

Agricultural economists from the University of Illinois and Ohio State University estimate that the average Illinois farm could make a loss of $30,000 for 2024. Their projections place farm incomes at the lowest level since the 1980s’ farm crisis led to bankruptcies.

The decks are stacked against farmers for 2025 as well. Costs for seed, fertilizer and other inputs rose during 2022, fueled by the Russia-Ukraine war, which also lifted crop prices to record highs.

While crop prices are down nearly 50% from those highs, in part due to a global supply glut, input prices remain elevated. Sterling Smith, an independent commodities researcher, says the national average break-even price for corn is $5.67 a bushel, and $12.72 a bushel for soybeans. Those levels are far above current Chicago Board of Trade most-active futures prices of $4.43 for corn and $9.76 for soybeans.

“We’re looking at this crop, that, when it gets planted, of being a money-loser next year,” Smith says.

And things could look worse for farmers if Donald Trump places tariffs on imports. Trump pledged to impose across-the-board tariffs of 20% on all US imports, with a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. Recently, he advocated for 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.

...

Until the first trade war between China and the US in 2018, China was the No 1 destination for US agricultural goods. That came to a halt during the trade war, although China and the US eventually signed an agreement in 2019 to import a set amount of agricultural goods for two years.

During the skirmish, China began diversifying its suppliers, including buying from Brazil. Brazil was already a global grower and exporter of soybeans, but Chinese investment ramped up expansion, Smith says.

“China is not going to put their food supply at risk,” Smith says.

Brazil increased their soybean production by the equivalent of an area the size of the state of Kansas, and some estimates suggest it has as much as 70m acres (28m hectares) of unused pastureland it can plant to crops, the equivalent of two states the size of Iowa.

Brazil can also grow the equivalent of two crops in one year, planting soybeans in September and after that harvest, quickly plant a corn crop, he says, increasing Brazilian corn production. If Brazil continues with its aggressive expansion and the US continues its traditional output, a global situation of habitual oversupply will result, especially for soybeans, Smith says.
Hmmm, didn't the tariffs during his first administration impact the farmers?

This seems like another area where we really need to look for more balance, we need food producers, we should pay enough for them to stay in business and live. Of course, I believe we may also need to consider the actual crops. Why do we grow so many acres of these low-cost grain crops?
 
Not gonna lie, I kinda hope farm bankruptcies triple over the next 4 years. Some as trade war casualties, others due to a lack of affordable labor.
See this is where I have issues with the fuck around and find out position.

I just can't hope for people to struggle, but this is a case if they don't struggle, they will never learn. So, I'm torn.

Of course, farm bankruptcies probably only impact the family farms and not the corporate farms. We probably need to get rid of all subsidies and let the markets work for the farmers. If that means food prices go up, it's ok. You can't demand low food prices, and living wages for farmers, can you?
 


Not what Trump ran on but I agree with the broad strokes of what Pete Hegseth says here.
 
Back
Top