Update: The US has halted trade negotiations over IP issues. It is clear that the US is not interested in negotiating with China on trade. The US is taking a hardball approach and wants to humiliate China. Jim Cramer sided with Tech leaders in Silicon Valley who he says want the US to hammer out IP concessions. I wrote this is a very dangerous policy on the part of the USA and that it goes against Cramer's understanding that trade wars are bad and that Wall Street doesn't want them. Interesting to see how Cramer interprets this latest US roadblock to free trade. I think Wall Street should wake up but it likely is looking for soothing words from Jim and also from the liar in chief who said a trade war was likely, knowing it isn't.

Nice pep talk. Key is how open we are going forward. Certainly Ahlsten was astute to point out that we still have immigration. But Trump is becoming an isolationist in many ways, including even legal immigration. The method of US success appears to be turned on its head by POTUS, so will we recover from it?

It looks likeTrump is lying. Things are not going so well in the negotiations.

This is good so far. Rising wages without inflation is a good thing. The issue is, though, how much of a drag on the economy will automation and AI bring in a downturn.

Trade wars and militarization are a dangerous mix. Great article.

The Mises theory. Interesting. But without helicopter money creating demand, taking away stimulus is recessionary. Labor share of GDP does matter. Of course consumers in the USA are strapped, spending less than they need to spend. This is Mises' fatal flaw, not recognizing the weakness of the consumer across a broad section of the economy.

It could be added that the Fed seems to prune a rise in employment just before recessions. Some say pruning is not deliberate, but based on Kashkari and others' statements, I think the pruning is deliberate.

We could all be six feet under before the collateral is wrecked by rising bond yields. Otherwise, interesting article.

That is the question. If he won't back down, you are saying he will humiliate China. And if he humiliates China, I don't see long term success, but a lot more volatility. JMO.

Well, Cramer did reveal part of their thinking. He said they believe China is weak, with imports and exports diving. So, it is obvious that they believe China will accept a deal. China could accept a deal to kick the can, but it will cause massive resentment in the future. Would the deal result in our interest rates exploding? What would China sell to gain cash for more purchases of US goods? And how long would that last? I wonder if anyone has even thought much about the points that Michael Ashton made, let alone the complexity of intellectual property negotiations.