Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (1082729)	8/11/2018 8:27:07 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1578331

BREAKING BOMBSHELL: North Korea rejecting US proposals in diplomatic standoff By Michelle Kosinski, CNN Updated 3:51 PM ET, Fri August 10, 2018 cnn.com North Korea officials skip meeting with US Kim Jong Un snubbed Mike Pompeo, source says N. Korea to Pompeo: You may not have slept well Trump touts confidence in Kim Jong Un N. Korea upgrades nuclear facility, images show Trump jokes about wanting Americans to be like N. Koreans UN: N. Korea still pursuing missiles program Pompeo: Kim Jong Un not acting consistently Clarke: Trump diminishes US role and influence Trump privately expressed N. Korea frustration North Korea officials skip meeting with US Washington (CNN)The US has made repeated proposals to North Korea on denuclearization, all of which have been rejected, according to senior diplomatic sources. The United States has made, and continues to make, "specific proposals for starting and proceeding to the end point of fully verified denuclearization," including a timeline, these sources say. North Korea has rejected all of these proposals, considering them "gangster-like," one of the sources said. The impasse has brought the rocket-like trajectory of Trump administration diplomacy with North Korea down to earth and the more typical grind of talks with Pyongyang that have stymied prior administrations. The vague promises that emerged from President Donald Trump's June summit with leader Kim Jong Un have led to a diplomatic disconnect. The brief document produced after the leaders met included no time frame, no specific promises or milestones to meet, allowing both sides to interpret it as they wished. A 'bold move' While the US is demanding full, verifiable denuclearization and says it will maintain sanctions until that happens, North Korea says it wants sanctions pressure lifted and a peace treaty before it will take further steps. Continued negotiations between the United States and North Korea hinge on Washington's willingness to make a "bold move" and agree to a peace treaty with Pyongyang, according to an official with close knowledge of North Korea's position on the matter. The US has been asking for a big gesture on the part of North Korea, in the form of giving up a portion of its nuclear weapons in the near term. The diplomatic sources did not know of specific percentages or timeframes. Kim Jong Un is insisting he will make a step towards denuclearization if the US moves on security concerns -- likely meaning a peace proposal — but will not move otherwise, the diplomatic sources say. Pyongyang points to goodwill gestures they say they've already made, including a halt in missile testing and the repatriation of US remains, arguing that the US is backtracking. WaPo: Spy images show N Korea may be building new missiles 02:51 On Thursday, North Korea issued a forceful statementat the United Nations, saying that elements of the US government are not adhering to the spirit of the dialogue established by Trump and Kim at their Singapore summit. Pyongyang said while it had taken "such practical denuclearization steps as discontinuing nuclear test and ICBM test fire" and "broadminded measures" like the repatriation of US Korean War remains, "the US responded to our expectation by inciting international sanctions and pressure against (North Korea)." The statement, credited to North Korea's Foreign Ministry, notably did not blame Trump, but singled out "some high-level officials within the US administration," who it said were going against the President's will. It also echoed criticism of previous administrations' approaches to North Korea that Trump himself has made. The statement seems intended to hit a target audience in the US, being released in English by North Korea's mission to the United Nations in New York, rather than just through the state-run Korean Central News Agency, the usual avenue for government announcements. The State Department did not respond to requests for comment.

To: longnshort who wrote (1082729)	8/11/2018 8:35:02 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1578331

LYING LOSER POS trump: In U.S., wage growth is being wiped out entirely by inflation washingtonpost.com By Heather LongAugust 10 at 6:40 PM Rising prices have erased U.S. workers’ meager wage gains, the latest sign strong economic growth has NOT translated into greater prosperity for the middle and working classes. Cost of living was up 2.9 percent from July 2017 to July 2018, the Labor Department reported Friday, an inflation rate that outstripped a 2.7 percent increase in wages over the same period. The average U.S. “real wage,” a federal measure of pay that takes inflation into account, fell to $10.76 an hour last month, 2 cents down from where it was a year ago. The stagnation in pay defies U.S. growth, which has increased in the past year and topped 4 percent in the second quarter of 2018 — the highest rate since mid-2014. The lack of wage growth has befuddled economists and policymakers, who hoped that after job openings hit record highs and the unemployment rate dipped to the lowest level in decades, employers would give beefy raises to attract and retain workers. But so far, gains have been slight, and small recent increases are being eclipsed by rising prices. Inflation hit a six-year high this summer, in part because of a jump in energy costs. The price of a gallon of gas has increased 50 cents in the past year, up to a national average of $2.87, according to AAA. Some analysts expect the climb in energy prices to halt soon, which should bring the overall inflation rate down and possibly lift real wages slightly. Consumers are also paying more for housing, health care and automobile insurance, the federal government reported Friday. Additional price increases could be coming as President Trump’s new tariffs boost the prices of cheap imported products on which U.S. consumers rely. And many economists warn that growth might have peaked for this expansion. The combination of rising prices and stagnant wages poses a problem for Trump, who campaigned on promises of jobs and raises for the working-class Americans he called “the forgotten men and women of our country.” Delivering prosperity for those workers has proved difficult for Trump, as it was for Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Trump’s top economic advisers warn against focusing too much on one measure of wage growth. Other metrics have shown stronger pay gains. The Atlanta Federal Reserve’s wage tracker, which does not take inflation into account, is showing 3.2 percent wage growth over the past year, and White House officials promise that further gains are coming soon. “We’re close to full employment,” said Kevin Hassett, the chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, who added that businesses are making new investments in the United States, which should increase workers’ productivity and pay in the coming years. “All of the preconditions are there for wage growth north of 4 percent,” he said. Hassett said many lower-skilled workers have reentered the labor force in recent months, an encouraging sign, but also a trend that might be holding down average pay since many of these workers cannot immediately command high pay. Thus far, however, most benefits of the strong economy appear to have gone to high-paid workers, stock market investors and corporations. The stock market hit record highs this year. Corporations, benefiting from a historic Republican cut to the corporate tax rate passed in December, have seen profits soar. Second-quarter earnings are up more than 20 percent over last year among companies that have reported so far, according to FactSet, a financial data tracker. Within the workforce, gains have been uneven, even as unemployment fell from a peak of 10 percent in October 2009 to the current 3.9 percent in July. Workers in the top 10th of the U.S. pay scale saw their wages jump 6.7 percent from 2009 to 2017, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Workers in the bottom 10 percent saw a boost of 7.7 percent, largely the result of a slew of minimum-wage increases passed on the city and state level. But for those in the middle, wages have been flat or even slightly down. African American workers, male workers and people who graduated from high school but never completed college have had an especially hard time. (Wage data broken out by income group for 2018 was not available, but EPI economist Elise Gould said all signs indicate the trends have continued.) Workers as a whole are getting a smaller share of the gains than they did the past. In the last boom era of the late 1990s and early 2000s, labor was getting more than 82 percent of corporate-sector income, according to EPI. Today it is less than 77 percent. Some estimate that the frustration stretches back even further. Pew Research wrote in a report this week that, “despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago.” “We are nearly a decade into the recovery and we’re still arguing about whether or not we’re seeing meaningful gains in wages. That should be a given at this point in the cycle,” said Lindsey Piegza, the chief economist at Stifel, an investment firm. Numerous polls and surveys say Americans are more confident about the economy and their ability to get jobs, but many workers are wondering why their pay isn’t higher at a time when so much in the economy seems to be going well. “I’m just a regular Joe, but I see that Fortune 500 companies are raking it in and the stock market is at an all-time high. Pay should be going up, too,” said Morris Tate, at 36-year-old who works for a logistics company in North Carolina. There is no consensus explanation for why wage gains have not materialized. Some economists think it is an aftereffect of the Great Recession, when workers were grateful to be employed and hesitant to agitate for more earnings at a time when they could be replaced with candidates from the glut of unemployed people looking for work. Now, with employers struggling to fill open positions, many employees have either not realized their newfound leverage or have been hesitant to use it, according to Gould. “Workers don’t feel like they have the power to ask for higher wages, and employers still feel like they don’t have to pay more,” she said. Other economists says a lack of growth in productivity is the reason for low pay: Employers do not want to pay more if workers are not producing more. Some experts also point out that the cost of benefits such as health care has been climbing, meaning some employers may be paying more for benefits even though they are holding down hourly pay. Without raises, workers are opting to work more hours to stay afloat. The Labor Department reported that Americans are putting in more time on the job this summer vs. last summer, which is helping to keep family earnings about the same for now. Penny Harford, a 67-year-old in Filer, Idaho, thought she would be retired by now. Instead, she’s working two part-time jobs at retail stores. She took on the second job last year as energy prices started to climb and she realized she needed more hours to pay bills. Harford says she prides herself on being “budget conscious,” adding that she cooks her meals and will not use credit cards. But she says that with one job paying $12.65 an hour and the other paying $11, getting ahead is hard. “I was talking with my co-workers yesterday,” she said. “We’re all desperate for more hours because we can’t make it.”

To: longnshort who wrote (1082729)	8/11/2018 8:51:50 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1578331

MORON LYING LOSER POS trump: America's Trade Deficit Is Still Growing Eric Boehm\|Aug. 7, 2018 1:15 pm reason.com Judging by President Donald Trump's favorite metric—America's trade deficit—he is losing his trade war. Luckily, trade deficits don't matter too much. According to data released Friday by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, America's trade deficit rose to $46.3 billion in June, up from $43.2 billion in May. A trade deficit is the gap between the amount of goods a country exports and imports—the amount it "sells" versus the amount it "buys"—and June's increase was driven by a less than 1 percent uptick in imports along with a comparatively small reduction in exports. Source: U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisTrump worries a lot about the trade deficit. He's argued that America's trade deficit is such a threat to domestic manufacturing that it justifies an expensive trade war. In announcing tariffs targeting Chinese goods in March, Trump specifically pointed to America's trade deficit—"it's out of control," he said at the time—as one of the justifications for the bellicose trade actions. Going back to his time as a presidential candidate, Trump has singled out the trade deficit as a serious problem, pointing to it as evidence that China is "killing us" on trade. As president, Trump has made reducing the trade deficit a main policy goal, asking not only Chinese officials but also those from the E.U. and Canada (a country with which America has a trade surplus) to reduce their deficits by buying more American goods. Politically, Trump has used the trade deficit as an easy way to signal his support for blue collar workers and to justify protectionism. Economically, though, there's really not much reason to worry. In fact, a rising trade deficit can be a good thing. "Despite the false narrative of rising trade deficits leading to U.S. job losses, the exact opposite has been true for nearly the last half-century," says Mark Perry, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the think tank's Carpe Diem blog. "Increases in the U.S. trade deficit are associated with rising, not falling, employment levels in the U.S." Source: Mark Perry, American Enterprise Institute; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Bureau of Economic Analysis It's also worth keeping in mind that the trade deficit isn't something that the leaders of two countries can really negotiate. Sure, governments can impose policies that favor or disfavor trade, but the existence of a trade surplus or deficit is the result of millions of individual decisions made by businesses and consumers in the United States and China. "People typically forget that the imports that make up the U.S. trade deficit are, like all American imports, goods and services that Americans voluntarily purchase—meaning, goods and services each of which is judged by its American buyer to be worth more than the money paid for it," writes Don Boudreaux, an economist at the Mercatus Center, a free market think tank based at Virginia's George Mason University. None of those exchanges are forced. American consumers and businesses voluntarily trade their dollars for imported goods. Cutting off that trade, Trump has argued, would "save us a hell of a lot of money," but that really misses the point. You'd save a hell of a lot of money if you didn't buy groceries every month, but you probably wouldn't be better off. As long as the national economy remains strong, America will likely continue to run a trade deficit and an investment surplus—the result of personal consumption being high and the United States remaining an attractive place for investments. Indeed, the trade deficit essentially disappears if you also consider foreign investment in America as a form of trade, which it really is. Trump's continued obsession with the trade deficit remains a bit of a mystery. It could be, as Reason editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward speculated on yesterday's edition of the Reason Podcast, that Trump fails to understand the distinction between the budget deficit and the trade deficit. This actually makes a lot of sense, particularly in light of the president's bizarre tweet over the weekend suggesting that tariff revenue could be used to pay down the national debt. After all, tariffs generate tax revenue and tax revenue is what you need to reduce the deficit—the budget deficit. But economists mostly agree that tariffs won't do much of anything to reduce the trade deficit—though tariffs could have a secondhand effect on the trade deficit if they become severe enough to slow the economy as a whole and reduce consumer spending, which is the thing that really drives the trade deficit. "A country is far more likely to run a trade deficit when its economy is booming and personal consumption is high," writesDaniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, in The Washington Post. "If Trump really wanted to shrink the trade deficit, he would push to revoke his own tax bill. But he really does not want to do this." Unfortunately, a widening trade deficit combined with Trump's apparently faulty understanding of what's driving the trade deficit could be a formula for an escalating trade war—a war that could do a lot of damage without accomplishing what the president wrongly thinks it will.

To: longnshort who wrote (1082729)	8/11/2018 8:55:07 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1578331

BOMBSHELL: “A blue flood, more than just a wave”: 8 experts on midterm elections after the Ohio special election; Things are looking better and better for Democrats. By Li Zhou li@vox.com Aug 10, 2018, 11:00am EDT vox.com Supporters of Ohio Democratic congressional candidate Danny O’Connor wait for him to speak at an election-night rally on August 7. Scott Olson/Getty Images The results from this week’s special election in Ohio’s 12th District are widely viewed as the latest indicator that Democrats are due for a strong performance this fall. Republican Troy Balderson still has a slim lead as of press time, but the fact that Democratic candidate Danny O’Connor garnered so much support in a heavily conservative district (he’s hovering around 49 percent of the vote) is just another sign that the GOP should be worried, experts say. O’Connor’s solid showing in the special election comes in the wake of a stunning upset by Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania’s 18th District earlier this year. Both elections, in addition to another special election in Arizona, suggest that Democrats could continue to build on voter momentum to spur a potential “blue wave” this fall. While Democratic odds for retaking the House seemed more uncertain earlier this summer, the party’s performance across different races since then have seemed to improve the broader outlook of this possibility. Here’s what eight experts had to say about the likelihood of a “blue wave” in November. These responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity. Travis Ridout, public policy professor, Washington State UniversityThe closeness of the special election in Ohio — in a historically Republican district — suggests that Democratic voters are motivated to a much greater extent than Republican voters this year. Even millions in spending on political ads may not be enough to enthuse GOP voters this fall. If a “blue wave” means greater-than-average Democratic participation in the midterm elections, then the chances of that happening are very high. But how many more congressional seats that nets for Democrats is still a big question. On the low end, it could be as few as a dozen. On the high end, it could be 40 seats. Margie Omero, Democratic pollster, GBA StrategiesThe results so far in OH-12 — remember thousands of ballots are still being counted — should give Republicans everywhere yet another sign of the momentum on the left. There was higher turnout than usual in suburban Franklin County. Republican groups spent millions more than did Democrats. Republicans couldn’t find something that really stuck, and so they used scattered messaging and frequent traffic changes. And, perhaps most importantly, there are 79 districts where Trump performed worse. Democrats have had the advantage in the generic all cycle. Republicans are showing no signs of changing their fortunes. The question isn’t whether there is a wave but just how high. Will it be high enough to take back the House? The Senate? State legislative chambers around the country? In past waves, things started to break late. We’ll probably see that this year, too. Celinda Lake, Democratic pollster, Lake Research PartnersGenerally, I think the blue wave is a blue swell and we will have to work hard for it. In the final analysis the key vote may well be the turnout of millennial, young women. They are voting very democratic and very much for women candidates. I think OH-12 shows the potential. Trump energized some of his base, and the margin was really closed by a surge of Democrats. That district is very Republican, and the blue wave there almost breached the dike. Barry Burden, political science professor, University of Wisconsin MadisonThe double-digit shift away from what Trump earned in the district is another sign that the GOP will need to play serious defense in November. Despite personal appearances by Trump and Pence, the race was basically even, a troubling sign for the party’s fortunes in the general election. Democrats are sure to make gains in November, but it remains to be seen whether it resembles the normal amount of wins that would be expected from an out-party in a midterm election, or whether it will snowball into a thunderous victory like what Republicans delivered in 2010. There are signs, such as the high number of Republican retirements from Congress, that 2018 could be a historic wave in the Democrats’ favor. Tim Malloy, assistant director, Quinnipiac University PollThere’s been a sense in the past couple of months that the blue wave has been rebuilding, and it has a lot to do with the president’s behavior. A lot of these states that are tentative and at risk rise and fall with the popularity of the president. A lot of the experts looked at Ohio as a litmus test. No matter how the White House or the GOP tries to spin it, whether the Republican wins or not, it’s not a good day. There’s every reason to believe that if it could happen in Ohio, where the president was up by 11 points, it could happen in other places. Everybody is being urged to turn out. When you see this kind of momentum, this kind of race in Ohio, that’s the kind of thing that spurs turnout. Turnout is key and turnout will very likely be high on the Democratic side. Spencer Kimball, communication studies professor, Emerson CollegeThe results from this race found that Democratic voters came out at a higher percentage than normal — e.g., Franklin County, which was expected to be about 32 percent of the vote [but] was closer to 35 percent. We saw this also in PA-18. Democratic voters were more likely to vote for their nominee than the Republican voters — i.e., 91 percent of Democrats were voting for the Democrat and 82 percent of Republicans were voting for [the] Republican. This is the opposite of what we saw in 2016, when Republicans were voting more in line with the party candidate while Democrats saw more melt from their base. Most exciting for Democrats and disturbing for Republicans are independent voters, who in OH-12 were breaking for the Democrat nearly 2 to 1. I think a blue wave is coming in the governor and US House races, but I am not sure if it will be strong enough for Democrats to take the Senate and expect the Republicans to maintain control of the upper chamber. Helmut Norpoth, political science professor, Stony Brook UniversityThe Democratic near miss in the Ohio special election augurs well for the party’s prospects in November. This district has been in GOP hands for almost a century. Since 1938, a Democrat has held it for only two years, and that was in the early ’80s. Plus, in the last congressional election, the Republican candidate won it by a margin of 130,000 votes-plus. Okay, that was a presidential year. In the last midterm year, 2014, the margin was about 90,000 votes. To make up such enormous deficits in districts across the country could mean that Democrats might win not just the minimum 23 seats for a majority, but more like 50. A blue flood, more than just a wave. Also remember the record number of prominent GOP House members who are retiring. Foremost is Speaker Paul Ryan. Not really a man with 30 terms-plus in the House, but one at or near his prime. To quit at that stage must mean he does not expect his party to win in November and thus for him to be speaker again. Minority leader? Nah! Robert Erikson, political science professor, Columbia UniversityPast wave elections have been surprisingly strong. One reason is that seats that had previously seemed safe for incumbents suddenly became endangered. Why? In the prior election, the out-party (Dems today) had not competed strongly for a seat that they could only come close to winning but not win. The combination of a wave of new support for the out-party plus the out-party’s renewed effort can tip the balance where incumbents had previously seemed safe enough. With a supersize wave, bigger than observers now predict, the fallout can be enormous because gerrymandering only rearranges district lines and cannot manufacture more votes for a party. Designers of gerrymanders ignore the possibility of a 100-year flood, so their dikes are shallow. A large wave can wash away many in-party seats. I hope this analogy is clear. But as of now, the generic polls do not show a supersize wave. The central question is more modest: Which party controls the House? The Democrats are favored but not certain of winning the most seats. Meanwhile, if there is the wave that people think is coming, the Senate might be more in play than people think today. A strong blue wave could probably help almost all, if not all, of the vulnerable Democrat senators survive. Meanwhile, the Dems could pick up one to four seats, possibly regaining a Senate majority.