Moon Kil Woong: thanks for comment. We used to talk about comparative advantage where you produced what you were relatively good at producing. And as you say, this has gone pretty well for both China and the US over the last 4 decades. The future? I am hopeful. The US lobbyists for the farmers and other groups that China would target are working overtime to avoid a trade war. And while Trump is clueless about this stuff, he has become a politician and does not want to see his blue collar base hurt.

This is certainly a good strategy for those getting the news first. But my guess is that this information will almost instantly be reflected in prices....

Let's assume for the moment that man is not causing global warming. We should still plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Several reasons:

1. there is a limited supply of fossil fuels meaning that some time in the future, we will run out of them.

2. The mining of fossils fuels is dangerous with many thousands of deaths annually.

3. The burning of fossil fuels generates pollutants that also cause a large number of deaths every year.

There are also predictions that as a result of global warming, ocean levels will rise and more violent and dangerous storms will occur, In light of these predictions, precautions should be taken. And at the very least, the Federal govt. should stop subsidizing flood insurance in high risk areas.

Gary:

Was the Marshall Plan the result of global brainwashing? I think not. The US spent huge sums to get both allied and axis powers back on their feet after WW2.

Was it global brainwashing that led to the US funding the creation of the UN?

And when Kennedy created the Peace Corps. Was he brainwashed?

I think these 3 acts were the US at its best.

Pulling out of the Paris Peace Accord was conceding world leadership to others - not a good idea.

Gary: Thanks for your comment. I agree the earth will get warmer over at least the next decade as developing countries become more energy intensive. Nevertheless, the Paris Accord can bring pressure to bear on countries to reduce global emissions. It will also serve as an incubator for accelerated technologies. The US has already invested $1 billion in its climate fund and by leaving loses and say over how it is used.

There is also the point about the US abnegating its world leadership role. for more on this, see www.project-syndicate.org/.../paris-comes-to-pittsburgh-by-laurence-tubiana-2017-06

Consumers have to be considered as well. They do not want any duties/restrictions on imports.

Gary: Thanks for comment. Not sure why you say the UK is in driver's seat. Certainly its importers/exporters do not want increased restrictions on their access to the EU.

Chuck:

Thanks for your interesting piece. Just a couple of points I would mention:

1. Many have noted that P/E ratios are getting high relative to historic P/E. I would mention that the US has been the place for the world to invest. And this upward shift in demand will increase the "P" in the P/E ratio. So perhaps we should expect a higher P/E ratio going forward for US stock markets.

2. I am wondering how effective the Fed can really be in raising US interest rates. There is a healthy demand now for US Federal debt, and higher debt will certainly increase the demand for US debt.

Carol, Mary, Dick, Craig, Philip and Bill:

Thanks for your comments. I always learn a lot when discussing controversial issues when those involved show a degree of mutual respect.

I take the point made by many of you that the Arab world (and Iran) have been very bad actors. I But I view Israel as truly special. As I mentioned, the Security Council has condemned Israel 29 times for aggressive acts. No other country comes close. And in those votes, the US either voted for the condemnation or abstained (as it just did again).

And it is hard to argue the Security Council is a group controlled by Arab nations. The five permanent members who have veto power are the US, the UK, China, France, and Russia. Are they anti-Israel? The other members are drawn from 5 separate reasons: Latin America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Africa and Asia-Pacific. There is no reason to think these Security Council members should be anti-Israel without cause.

I often think what if either Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter could have worked out a two-state solution with Israel and the Palestinians. How different the world would be now! It appears from a reading of Bin Laden’s diaries that much of his anger stemmed from hating the US because of how protective it was of Israel. And projecting that to the current time, it is quite likely that a significant amount of today’s terrorism springs from that same anger.

I do think it is important to ask why was the US so protective of the Israel so as to generate so much anger among Arab nations and Iran. And here, I do believe the definitive piece was written by Mearsheimer and Walt, tenured professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard, respectively. They argue, and I believe convincingly, that the Jewish Lobby has been so effective as to get in the way of what US foreign policy should be. In short, they argue the lobby got Congress to be so pro-Israel as to anger other Middle Eastern countries.

Well, we are where we are today. What can be done? I do not believe a two-state solution is achievable with Netanyahu in power. That means much time will have to pass before anything meaningful can be done to remedy the situation. And of course, it is not as if the Palestinians have their act together….

Bill: I was thinking of the past. I do not think that today, Israel is as aggressive as other Middle East nations. Once the US invaded Iraq, the entire ME became destabilized and certainly more aggressive players emerged.

Dick: See my comments above on the UN. You are right peace cannot be forced. But I do not think the UN Security Council vote had anything to do with trying to force peace. It was merely an attempt to get Israel to stop building settlements in lands intended to be part of the Palestinian state.

Carol: I have read your response. Thanks for some corrections. I tried to address some of your points in the body of my comment above.

Helen:

I enjoyed your piece on Chinese millennials. They, along with the millennials of India will be the global economic growth drivers for the next two decades.

It is truly remarkable just how bad Victoria Secrets’ marketing approach was. As you say, The Chinese are extremely brand conscious which gives a company like VS a real head start – but to screw it up as they did – ouch!

I write about wine, and the brand consciousness of the Chinese are remarkable – they will pay thousands for a bottle from the “right” vineyards in the Bordeaux regions of France