..enough money was slipped into his offshore account or a good deal was set on a new Trump Hotel or golf-course in China?
The Art of The Deal. Just waft enough cash (China has plenty) and he folds...
President Donald Trump said he plans to revoke the ban, or, er, grant some licences to American companies supplying components and services to Chinese telecoms giant Huawei. Speaking after meeting the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, Trump said: "American companies that make product, that's very complex by the way, highly …
My impression that the deals made seem to follow a similar pattern: (1) throw around a lot of bluster, hot air, and insults to make the situation worse; (2) set up a meeting against this background of (possibly new and unnecessary) antagonism; then (3) if the browbeating and bluster hasn't worked, do some sort of ordinary deal, but use the constructed air of "mutual hostility" to suggest that it was in fact an amazing deal, considering the circumstances, and that the result proves yet-again that he is a brilliant deal-maker.
Of course, I'm probably entirely wrong. After all, what would I know? :-)
Exactly the kind of conduct that even the real operators in the NYC real estate market loathed to do business with him for. A self-absorbed idiot with a wad of cash, facilitated in part by Americans' worship of wealth (or the appearance of wealth -- Trump specializes in that).
Well a wad of debt maybe that makes the banks have to go along with you because you made yourself out to be such a 'super businessman'.
No bank wanted to look stupid by taking a huge hit calling in his debts. That or having the regulators look too closely afterwards.
My observation is similar, although I put it a little differently. Trump doesn't engage in negotiations. He engages in extortion. First, he breaks something big and causes a great deal of damage. Then he offers to stop breaking things and (maybe) fix some -- but not all -- of the damage, but only if his victim gives him everything he wants.
Ignoring the ethics (which are hugely abhorrent), this behavior can work in certain corners of the business wold like New York commercial real estate, but it doesn't work so well in most other realms, where people see the reality that the only way to deal with an extortionist is to fight him tooth and nail.
"Nice phone company you got here - oh, sorry, my government's clumsy, he seems to have broken it. For just one billion dollars a week we can guarantee that your phone company won't get broken, unless we need more cash."
Where's Spiny Norman when you need him?
That's ironic, given that by all accounts (other than his own) he had almost no part in actually writing the book. He of course disputes that.
I just watched Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and had a good laugh at Jared's attempts to broker a deal in the Middle East as well.
That is the "art of the deal", according to Trumps doctrine?
Problem with it is that it wears thin after a couple of tries....
N Korea - was begging to have a deal
China - US was begging for a deal
Europe (with its Nato contributions) - US wanted a deal - got that
Russia - still in play - but election interfering is really weak as a arguing point for trade deals.
Didnt work in Syria
Likely wont work in Iran - still in play.
I wonder if there is one for the Climate change thingy?
With the trade war going badly, Trump needed to pull out some sort of "progress" this week. So we got the announcement that "talks with China were on track".
Now obviously, the Chinese could call that statement out quite convincingly. So he needed to get them to play along, and to that end he's tossed them this bone.
Republican Rubio said the U-turn was a catastrophic mistake, adding: "It will destroy the credibility of [Trump's] administration's warnings about the threat posed by the company, no one will ever again take them seriously."
That boat has long sailed. Credibility in this matter? None. Credibility generally? Almost nill.
well , I thought the main problem with Trumps little tantrum and tech ban was that people couldnt use the tech Huwai creates , which must be a major problem in Telecomms . you'd have to use cisco!
That dosent appear to have changed.
Chip makers are now allowed to help China make the spyhardware - why is that a problem before or after today if you are not using the end result?
except cisco have no offering in the wirelss access market and they are far from a key player
Key participants in the marketplace include Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.(U.S.); Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen, Guangdong); Ericsson (Sweden); Samsung (Japan); and ZTE Corporation (China).
and the bit of Nokia that didnt get sold to MS has since Trump's intervention overtaken ZTE but market share wise its still tiny
I do wonder how history will remember Trump. Economically he is doing pretty good for the US but internationally he seems to be working long games. His meeting with Kim on the Korea border being an interesting example, he may actually make some form of progress with the N.Koreans. He keeps kicking off trade wars but I do wonder if it will disolve into good trade agreements.
People might see him as an idiot now but this guy did manage to take on both the democrats and republicans and get elected president. I wouldnt be shocked if the trade wars were to cause a problem he could suddenly solve if the economy back home took another hit.
Long games? I don't think the current administration have the remotest idea what they're getting into with North Korea, especially Trump who seems to believe one of NK's regular announcements about nuclear disarmament whatever it is actually means something.
My wife started her IT career in the steel industry doing SAS analytics to eventually running a bar mill, working with vendors and large customers.
She got to see the rough-and-tumble construction industry. She shares that in construction and large-scale commercial real estate, that that’s how things are done; high-stakes bluster, big gambles, pushing contractors and customers to the edge and eventually getting a project completed.
While Trump is embarrassing in the civil world, if you understand where he came from, you can get a glimpse into how he operates, and how he has been successful.
Not condoning his boorish behavior, but if anyone watched his television show, heard about bragging about fingers up a lady’s private stuff, they knew what they were getting.
When history is written at the end of his presidency, I’ll hold my nose, but believe that he will have accomplished a lot in international trade.
"internationally he seems to be working long games"
Internationally I expect the Chinese to be working the long games. I'm sure they've already decided that they want to be in a position where they can't be vulnerable to export technology bans again. They'll accept the breathing space this has given them but will emerge not only as self-sufficient but also as a more complete competitor to the US.
China are pretty interesting to watch. They seem to be going through a learning curve which is knocking them about a bit but they are persevering so far. They tried to abuse their monopoly over rare earths and took a big hit. They have taken a socialist, backward, peasant economy and are embracing capitalism and globalism taking them from dying in a field to designing technology used around the world. They are making a huge gamble by creating their own world bank and using it to boost east/west relations and to expand routes into Africa.
Of course they still have difficulty letting go of some of their past problems but I am hopeful for them.
The fun part will start when China starts playing the markets so the US has to start paying back all that money the US still owes it. What was it? A couple of trillion? I mean, if we talking slow developing strategies, go and talk to people who lived through Vietnam and experienced quiet, slow, but resilient Asian strategies first hand. But then again, some never were interested in other cultures any way...
Would of course not be wise if China did so, because China would cut off (one of) their own life lines. But think about all the posturing and boasting. Some might have less "great, absolutely fantastic" results to claim. Then again, this rather awkward image issue would probably be put away with "the guy before me caused all of this because he did a very bad job", and "Remember, if the other guys would be in power, it would have been bad. Much, much badder"... Ugh...
"They seem to be going through a learning curve which is knocking them about a bit but they are persevering so far. "
It's like Japan a few decades on.
"They're just making cheap copies of all the stuff we make."
"Oh, they're ahead of us."
The US, of course, doesn't like to admit it but it was also their getting on for a century or so before Japan.
"Economically he is doing pretty good for the US"
I was looking at some graphs on the Beeb news site the other day. It had pretty graphs showing all the usual metrics for the health of a countries economy and pretty much all of the metrics have carried on steadily in the direction they were moving since Obamas time in office. Which is interesting considering his aim was to destroy everything Obama did. What it looks like at a cursory glance, is that Trump has done nothing but maintain the rises and falls, despite his posturing etc. There's no sudden drops in unemployment or rises in wages that were not already happening. It's almost as if either he's a lot less effective than he portrays, or others, behind the scenes, are keeping things on track in spite of him.
"Economically he is doing pretty good for the US"
Well if you look closer he is doing pretty well for the 1% and no one else. Pretty much the same as Clinton/Bush and Obama before him. The 99% are on a loser still as they have been since 2008.
Remember the economy isn't there to benefit the 99%.
You have to look at the bigger picture, not just what the propaganda machine pushes.
Economically he is doing pretty good for the US
You really need to close both your eyes and put your hands over them to come to that conclusion. The deficit is ballooning and that's in a time of nearly full employment. As the world's largest economy with the world's reserve currency the US is able to exercise a great deal of influence on world trade. And it is currently doing this by undermining the multilateral rules-based approach. This is leading other countries to work on arrangements that not only don't include the US, but cannot be directly undermined by the US. Oh, and we're learning how belligerence pays off. Well, for Kim Youg Eun and Mohammad Bin Salman that certainly seems to be the case.
PS. Get your handlers to give you a new spell checker. Or more frog pills.
"You really need to close both your eyes and put your hands over them to come to that conclusion"
While this is a low blow you are a defender of the EU. A place that is still struggling with recovery from the last recession.
"The deficit is ballooning and that's in a time of nearly full employment"
Some would argue that it is at full employment and actually a little beyond that. The deficit ballooning should please leftists of the belief in public spending but the offset of that is monetary policy (the FED) reacting to it. Thats why Trump complains they are cooling the economy while he tries to heat it up (its what they are there for).
"And it is currently doing this by undermining the multilateral rules-based approach"
That is why I differentiated between his economic and trade policy but I might not have been clear enough, I think his domestic policy has been pretty good for the US but will see what happens for his foreign policies.
"Oh, and we're learning how belligerence pays off"
Amazingly this is the thing that might be working for him. As we agree its not doing any favours so far for trade, but in world relations he seems to be making more progress with long standing problems such as N.Korea and Iran. And he could be using the trade wars as easy wins when he 'resolves' them at opportune moments. I am interested to see.
"PS. Get your handlers to give you a new spell checker. Or more frog pills."
And comments like this are why I dont feel bad starting my response with a low blow. Go join the tinfoil hat brigade.
We could actually be going to war with Iran very, very soon. Trump almost bombed 3 different sites in response to zero loss of human life by the hands of Iran. We have been spiking their economy with sanctions and diplomatic talks have gone nowhere to backwards ever since Trump started dealing with it (though they weren't good to begin with). I don't see how any of this could be considered "progress"
"We have been spiking their economy with sanctions and diplomatic talks have gone nowhere to backwards ever since Trump started dealing with it (though they weren't good to begin with). I don't see how any of this could be considered "progress""
Obama was happy to bomb countries outside the warzone with drone strikes. Trump is dealing with a nuclear threat and Obama was striking civilian gatherings. Yes Trump is applying sanctions and upping the pressure. Obama's approach was to pretend everything was ok. The reason action looks extreme is because it contrasts with Obama drawing red lines, then stepping back to draw another.
Lets look at this another way. Iran is not a solid country with actual effective leadership. They have influential and sizeable factions who want to wipe Israel off the map and thats the start. Do we want them to have nukes? If not should we try to do something about it?
Why does everyone immediately quantify the effectiveness of a president by comparing them to other presidents? I don't care if Obama's shitshow was better or worse than Trump's, I just want better results in general. My two cents is that the US should never have been in the middle east, and since it has to be for some reason, let's not publicize and sensationalize the fact that something was almost bombed through a tweet.
And, no, an increase of tensions and violence I would still not call progress. Not that a peaceful resolution could have ever been met with Iran on a permanent basis.
But this is neither here nor there. I was only commenting on "his domestic policy" being to post on Twitter about deciding to bomb someone or not. That is most certainly not how you increase relations with a country.
But hey, I'm not a president.
"Why does everyone immediately quantify the effectiveness of a president by comparing them to other presidents? I don't care if Obama's shitshow was better or worse than Trump's, I just want better results in general."
How do you judge better in general without comparing previous presidents? Under Obama the US was weaker and thats after Bush! Under Trump it would seem to be stronger even if he is disliked (and there are good reasons to dislike him). He is unwinding damage inflicted by the previous president, so thats an improvement. The economy is in a better state even with some of his damaging ideas such as trade war.
"And, no, an increase of tensions and violence I would still not call progress."
Such as the arab spring? Increased tensions with Russia? N.Korea developing nukes? All before Trump and he would agree with you over not going to the middle east as was done. He is actually engaging with Russia (the one that told the US to get out of the way while it fired its missiles into Syria). He is engaging with N.Korea which may actually bring progress, something not yet achieved with the Utopia country. An ineffective agreement with Iran to stop trying to make nukes in such an unstable country was ditched for actual action, actual threat not some 'red line' to be redrawn.
"But this is neither here nor there. I was only commenting on "his domestic policy" being to post on Twitter about deciding to bomb someone or not. That is most certainly not how you increase relations with a country."
Did he nearly bomb them? He is quick to twitter and everyone soaks it up especially his opponents. Is he crazy enough to do it? Yes or no he has convinced plenty people that he would. Compare that to Obama who would retreat with red lines, does the US look more or less likely to act now?
As I have said there are many reasons not to like Trump but he certainly seems a step up from his predecessor who was worse than his predecessor.
Whenever Trump says something unforgivably stupid, his apologists claim he was "joking". Whenever he does something unforgivably stupid, they claim he's playing the "long game". Anyone who believes Trump is actually smart is either blinded by party or even more stupid than he is.
He lacks all intellectual curiosity, he's immune to facts that differ from what he believes even when he's proven wrong, and he has one and only one strategy for what he calls "negotiation". Threats, bluster, and knocking down everyone's sand castle including his own then saying "let's all build our sand castles almost identical to what we had before, and I'll take credit for everything"
Apparently the game will be so "long" that after he leaves office and the plans he was supposedly working on via bluster and threats like getting North Korea to denuclearize and getting Iran to permanently give up their nuclear plans instead of for 15 years ultimately fail, he'll blame whoever succeeds him. Whether democrat or republican. And some idiots will probably be dumb enough to believe him, and say "if it wasn't for president X, Trump's plans would have worked and North Korea would have a Trump Tower ...er I mean would have no nuclear weapons".
Trump is working with Kim Jong Un, hoping to get rid of the technology transfer restrictions.
North Korea have released some details such as how to ruin their own economy, and how the more poverty you have around you - the richer you yourself appear, but are holding back on the key technologies on establishing a despotic dynasty.
I don't see him as an idiot. I think he's a very clever and very nasty man.
Economically he's doing disastrously for the US. Sure, the economy is booming - that's what happens if you pump in trillions of dollars of newly printed money at the height of what was already an economic boom. There is a special place in hell for the congresscritters who blustered and protested about the deficit during the Obama years, but are happy to stoke it up now that an (R) is in the White House.
(Mind you, this is exactly the same as they did under both Bushes, and Reagan. It's why Clinton balanced the budget - it wasn't any particularly great management on his part, it was the Republican congress trying to crash the economy.)
The trade wars were completely unnecessary, and kicked off to make Trump look tough, while leaving open the option for him to declare victory whenever he wants. Take China, for instance - he's never spelled out what it is he wants the Chinese to do, so anytime he feels he wants a victory, he can simply announce that they've given in and the war is won. Of course, that's given China some leverage over the US that it didn't previously have - it can demand concessions from Trump to back up his bullshit - but that's fine - Trump can profit from that too (as in the present story, for instance - he's just created a whole new channel for himself and his henchmen to receive kickbacks, that's what "licenses" mean - as Republicans would be lightning-quick to point out, if it was the other side doing it).
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama and Clinton were both pretty poor presidents. But at least they had some respect for the ideas of law and democracy and republican government. Trump is a whole new level of two-bit, four-flushing, slimy, cheating turd, but he's pulled off the remarkable confidence trick of convincing over 40% of US voters that he's in some way "on their side". Anyone who thinks, at this point, that he's stupid just isn't paying attention.
"Sure, the economy is booming - that's what happens if you pump in trillions of dollars of newly printed money at the height of what was already an economic boom"
Not a defence in the slightest but thats what the dems wanted to do too. A prime difference was the dems wanting to fund projects directly while Trump gave tax breaks for private entities to take the risk and build. Obamacare was a project proven to be over expensive and ballooning in cost while under providing. The ever ongoing wars cost money. This isnt a defence of Trump but to say he might be costing less than the alternative. And if Bernie would have got in the US would be much worse off (deficit wise).
"The trade wars were completely unnecessary, and kicked off to make Trump look tough, while leaving open the option for him to declare victory whenever he wants."
Thats what I expect he is doing. Easy wins he can produce if he needs a distraction.
"Don't get me wrong, I think Obama and Clinton were both pretty poor presidents. But at least they had some respect for the ideas of law and democracy and republican government"
Talking of Obama, Clinton (and Bush I would add) the idea of respecting law and democracy was a joke. People got sick of the usual slime doing the usual actions which was in self interest. I wonder if they voted Trump so they could have some of the same motives but more open about it.
"remarkable confidence trick of convincing over 40% of US voters that he's in some way "on their side". Anyone who thinks, at this point, that he's stupid just isn't paying attention."
This is what worries me. Reading some of the comments here there are people who still think he is an idiot. This is a guy who beat the Republicans and Democrats to become president. Any capable opposition must be smarter than the last run against him. Looking at the Warren, OC, bernie options I am not convinced there is much of a challenge.
Consider for a moment that Trump had a party of people whose sole purpose was to get him elected. The level of intelligence of one is lesser to the strategies, action, and reaction of the platform as a whole.
I am not commenting on Trump's intelligence, only positing the idea that you should not continue to give the figurehead all the credit. The government is bigger than one man, especially when there are hundreds of mouths whispering in his ears.
"But at least they had some respect for the ideas of law and democracy and republican government."
When I think back on all the Presidents that have been in office in my lifetime, there's one thing I can say about them all regardless of whether (or how much) I agreed or disagreed with their positions on various things: I really think that they all prioritized what they thought was in the best interest of the US. Except Trump. I really think that the only thing he prioritizes is himself.
In that sense, Trump is truly exceptional.
Sorry to disagree mate. You really think this "brilliant short term flight diversion to have a cuppa with another great guy" was done to solve the tensions with North Korea? Could it perhaps have something to do with US elections, and beaming a picture home showing how a great statesman is reaching absolutely fantastic results in the area of world politics? And yes, Kim did welcome him coming by. Well, looking at how many cameras were around the gentlemen, I think that the other great guy probably could also use the footage for his own purposes...
> Economically he is doing pretty good for the US
Too much Faux News and Breitbart.
Rather auspiciously last night on NPR, Marketplace reported that a recent Fed (as in Federal Reserve) report said the Trump economy is mainly helping the 1%.
"Now, according to the Federal Reserve, more than a third of the economic gains are going to the richest 1%."
Quelle surprise, when last year's tax cut was entirely for the benefit of the 1%. I know I didn't see a cut in my tax bill this past April. I paid quite a bit more than I did last year. How about you?
I trust the Fed a hell of a lot more than I trust Faux and Friends or Breitbart.
Speaking after meeting the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, Trump said: "American companies that make product, that's very complex by the way, highly scientific... I've agreed to allow them to continue to sell that product."
So did he finally figure that an outright ban would hit the US economy as well or did they just bribe him?
among the usual balls. Thank you AP.
So many industries are so tightly integrated that they qualify as global not national. IT is a prime example.
Similarly (with apologies for even mentioning the topic) there is no “UK car industry”. It is a continental industry with massive volumes of parts and bits flowing across many borders in all directions. Are you listening, Brexiteers?
The answer to your question, of course, is No. It's globalisation that they hate. They want to live in the 1950s they see on the TV - but like the people who watch pseudo-history dramas they imagine themselves as being part of the upper classes, when in fact they will be the oppressed poor.
Chinese companies are going to avoid being potentially put into the place where Huawei was for several weeks. They are going to seek components from places where the USA could not capriciously shut the door; that could either be home made or elsewhere.
For the rest of us this could be good: a second source for components that compete with what the USA sells. Should bring the price down as well as increasing economic security.
Also good for places on USA sanctions lists, eg: Iran.
Totally. Not just parts. Huawei has stepped up development of its Android replacement. Im sure all Chinese companies will be doing similar.
This looks like a victory for Trump now, but give it 5 years, and you will be able to trace Chinese supremacy to this silly "trade war".
<< Republican Rubio said the U-turn was a catastrophic mistake, adding: "It will destroy the credibility of [Trump's] administration's warnings about the threat posed by the company, no one will ever again take them seriously." >>
Somebody took Trump seriously? <rotflol> <rotflmao> <ROTFPMS> (please stop,..... it hurts)
It's not an u-turn. The key phrase in Trump's statement is "to sell"
So, US Companies are allowed to export and sell things to Huawei but BUYING FROM and IMPORTING Huawei products is still banned. They just want Huawei's cash, not their products.
Trump said exactly that: "One of the things I will allow, however, is, a lot of people are surprised we send and we sell to Huawei a tremendous amount of product that goes into the various things that they make. And I said that that’s okay, that we will keep selling that product. These are American companies… that make product and that’s very complex, by the way, and highly scientific. And in some cases we’re the ones that do it, we’re the only ones that do it. What we’ve done in Silicon Valley is incredible, actually and nobody has been able to compete with it, and I’ve agreed and pretty easily, I’ve agreed to allow them to continue to sell that product. So American companies will continue and they were having a problem, the companies were not exactly happy that they couldn’t sell because they had nothing to do with whatever it was potentially happening with respect to Huawei, so I did do that."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019