rand:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publi...-governors.htm

LOL truth, and thanks. I thought about researching it myself but I really don't feel good about finding answers so most of those questions...

I'll post back here with what I do find.

I actually don't think that they are...

Definitely go buy some silver.

Are you in school at Stanford? Where are you from?

And btw, I'm not exactly saying you are wrong in a sense. Theoretically. But probabilistically your outcome is low IMO.

The profits get split between the illuminati and the rothschild family

That is definitely a "buy silver" belief.

To be fair, I do own some silver. But I will also say, some lessons you have learn the hard way.

I know the Fed was created by an act of Congress in like 1914. And I know the president appoints and can apparently fire chairs.

But, I have also heard that it is a private, independent organization.

It appears, that the answer is more or less that they are both: https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-...-reserve-banks

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank's board of directors.
-from the first source

Their profits go to the Treasury. Their member banks get a dividend that was determined by Congress (currently equal to 10 year treasuries).

Trump is wrong on almost everything regarding trade and the few things he is correct about, such as the shady things the Chinese government does, he has no good solutions for.
And instead of negotiating, he is trying to bully.
He is trying to change rules of globalism when the US corporations are its biggest beneficiaries for the sake of what, a few hundred manufacturing jobs almost nobody young wants to do? In the meantime, thousands of much better jobs will be destroyed in the US.
Consider this:
Even the allegedly largest issue, tech transfers, is exaggerated. You can steal blueprints, but they will mostly be useless without the experience and entire ecosystem built around the product. And that experience and ecosystem will not exist if the product isn't mostly built from scratch. And starting from scratch will be China's only alternative if they are isolated by the US.

The suggestion that China will capitulate when their economy starts hurting is incredibly myopic and shows lack of any perspective of what life is like in developing countries.

My sliver of hope is that Trump will do anything to remain popular, does another u-turn and fires that moron Navarro. He will lie as usual about everything already on record and his cult will accept it as new reality.

So you are a fan?

I suggest everybody reads Navarro's bio on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Navarro

Unhinged nobody obsessed with the Chinese to the point of extreme paranoia.

They said the same about Churchill with regards to Hitler. He was actually ostracized from polite society in the 30s, called a warmonger, dangerous, unhinged for his constant warnings about and obsession with Hitler.

Besides all that, a mad dog on your team is exactly what you want when negotiating when a tough but scared opponent who eventually has to concede.

Yeah, I thought that was obvious but I guess not.

How to scare the living daylights out of Iran, Russia, Syria, and North Korea - make super neo-con John Bolton your National Security Advisor and have SecDef Mattis annihilating Russian battalions and bombing Syrian runways

How to scare China - fire Gary Cohn because he doesn't believe in applying tariffs to China, make Navarro your director of the White House National Trade Counsel and have Ross and Lighthizer negotiate bilateral trade deals to freeze China out

Maybe Trump is bluffing, but as a foreign country you can't really afford to take that chance. So you deal in view of the possibility that Trump is actually listening to the madman.

This sounds good in theory, but in practice what has been actually conceded to Trump so far with mad dog tactics?

yeah, go read some history. Start with Pericles. sigh.

we are way early in the trade war, the argument of "what's been conceded?" is a tad weak. S&P down like 2% ytd, china indexes down 25%.

if china continues to not concede, they risk real permanent damage to their financial system. trump is hoping to wait this out; 30% stock correction in US is peanuts if it means china drops 65% and finally agrees to open up their market to us.

I am not terribly informed and I am not trying to nit-pic. But when I read this my thought was, that it is not so much about them opening their markets to us as it is about their honoring IP and the property rights of westerns...or people in general. I also think it is cultural, like central planning vs capitalism. I am wrong (about the italicized stuff)?

I just read up on Taiwan and China, it was terribly interesting. ROC vs PROC. Very interesting.

Yes because reading Pericles is going to help answer my question of 'whats been conceded so far' ?? I know it's not very far into the game, but I thought maybe there was something I was missing.

Thanks for a thoughtful answer. And if they never concede and just focus on getting their agricultural products and raw materials elsewhere? Sounds like Brazil will be happy to cut down their rainforest to supply China with all the soybeans they need.

I guess I'm just trying to figure the likelihood that this trade war hurts in the short run and is beneficial in the long run or it just turns into a race to the bottom. I wandered in here thinking that with the action in the market recently that this might be a hotter topic on this forum.

I really hope this doesn't end badly:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ondon-new-york

Could end badly for everyone. Or maybe just the Chinese. I think the least likely scenario is that it ends badly for just the green back.

lol, he was agreeing with you (under the assumption that your question was rhetorical and intended to point out the ineffectiveness of Trump's tactics).

Ohhhh I def read into that wrong

This is the lack of perspective I mentioned. Large parts of the Chinese population remember when getting food every day was their only problem. Even now hundreds of millions still live in the kind of poverty that makes the American unemployed look rich in comparison.
real permanent damage to their financial system." is not a problem when Navarro wants to do the same to them anyway. And in the current scenario, it's easy to blame the US for the outcome.
30% is peanuts? That's trillions of wealth destroyed and direct negative impact on GDP. And the Chinese stock markets are nowhere near as important to their economy as the Western are.
But what's even worse is the uncertainty and destruction of global business and trade cooperation.
You then get consequences like fascists popping up everywhere as people panic and go into a defensive mode.

Have a look at reactions of US companies and farmers. They are not complaining about the Chinese. Tariffs is their problem.

For Navarro, this is an ideological issue.
He is just another theoretician who has never managed a business let alone taken business risk by owning one, who thinks he knows exactly what the problems are and how to solve them.
In the real world, people with experience and skin in the game say this: