Tag: finance

Most Americans Want Illegal Aliens Either Deported Or Detained, CBS Poll Says

Ignore the outrage surrounding the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policy: Polls are still showing that most Americans are on the president’s side. The latest proof of that comes from a CBS poll released Monday showing that a slight majority of Americans want to see illegal aliens detained or deported. Furthermore, 51% of respondents said that a border wall would be a good idea, even if it doesn’t cover the entire border.

The poll was conducted last week, between June 21 and June 22 – following nearly two weeks of intense public scrutiny surrounding Trump’s controversial border policy, which he rescinded last week with an executive order.

This all jives with what we reported last week – namely that a majority of voters think the parents of children detained at the US border are to blame for the crisis. Only 35% believe the government is at fault for enforcing the law, while 11% are unsure who is to blame.

While strong immigration policies remain broadly popular, politicians in blue states are growing even more hostile toward President Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts, directing most of their hostilities at ICE. Cynthia Nixon, who is challenging Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York State Democratic gubernatorial primary, just this week called for the abolition of ICE, saying the group has strayed far from its original purpose – even going so far as to label ICE a “terrorist organization.” She said this while the poll confirmed that the president’s approval rating has held strong, with more than 40% of respondents identifying as a “Trump supporter”.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MZF36e Tyler Durden

Trade War: Making Sense Of Trump’s Good Cop/Bad Cop Theatre

Authored by Christopher Wood via Grizzle.com,

Ongoing US monetary tightening is not the only risk facing Wall Street-corrected world stock markets. The past few weeks have seen renewed negative focus on the ‘trade war’ front. First, on May 29 the White House announced 25% tariffs on US$50 billion worth of goods imported from China containing “industrially significant technology”, as well as yet unspecified restrictions on Chinese investments. Second, on May 31, the US imposed 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the EU, Canada, and Mexico.

WALL STREET GLOBALISTS VS TRADE HAWKS

Stock markets were initially unfazed over these opening protectionist salvoes probably on the view that Donald Trump could turn on a dime again.

This is certainly possible given that Trump has continued to adopt a ‘good cop/bad cop’ strategy, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow on one side seemingly pursuing a different agenda from White House Trade Council Director Peter Navarro and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on the other.

The divergence in viewpoints was highlighted by press reports of Mnuchin and Navarro publicly shouting at each other outside a Beijing building during their visit to China in May. Interestingly, this was reportedly the first visit ever to China of Navarro, the co-author of the 2011 book Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action.

S&P 500

Source: Datastream

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY A KEY NEGOTIATING PLANK

Ultimately, how bad the trade friction gets will depend on which side Trump backs. Is he just using the hawks to increase his negotiating leverage? This may well be the case. But the Trump administration also does seem serious on the intellectual property issue in terms of wanting to see concrete results.

The trade hawks want to target China’s industrial upgrading strategy, known as “Made in China 2025”. The strategy was launched by Premier Li Keqiang in 2015 and targets China’s industrial modernization, including replacing foreign technologies with home-grown alternatives. The programme identified ten prioritized industries that China wants to become globally competitive in by 2025. These include aerospace, information and communication technology, robotics, ocean engineering equipment, agricultural machinery, railway equipment, power equipment, new materials, new energy vehicles, and medical devices. 

The reason stock markets have got more concerned on the trade issue over the past week is that it has looked as though Trump is increasingly siding with the trade warriors. To sum the most recent developments, the US administration announced on June 15 that a 25% tariff will be imposed on US$50 billion of goods from China that contain industrially significant technologies and that Washington will pursue additional tariffs if China engages in retaliatory measures.

China’s Ministry of Commerce responded on the same day in ‘tit for tat’ fashion by announcing tariff measures against the US of the same scale while also withdrawing previous concessions made. In response, Donald Trump on Monday asked the US Trade Representative to identify US$200 billion worth of Chinese goods for an additional 10% tariff, which will go into effect unless Beijing abandons its stated intention to retaliate.

CHINA IMPORTS FROM THE US AND AMERICAN IMPORTS FROM CHINA

Source: CEIC Data, US Census Bureau, China General Administration of Customs

COULD A TOTAL CONFRONTATION BE ON THE HORIZON?

So if the view of the ‘good cop/bad cop’ approach is wrong and Trump is really following a long-term policy of backing Navarro and Lighthizer by targeting China’s “Made in China 2025” policy and actively seeking to undermine it, then a total confrontation is coming. This is because China will not negotiate on its ability to upgrade its economy. This is already a priority of Beijing, and it has become even more of a priority, if that is possible, as a result of the reliance on US technology exposed by the ZTE affair.

The US Department of Commerce in April banned American companies from selling components to the leading Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE for seven years for violating the terms of a sanctions violation case regarding shipping American goods and technology to Iran.

But if China is not prepared to negotiate on upgrading, a deal can probably be done on intellectual property, which is another of the Trump administration’s core concerns. This is partly because Beijing will understand that Washington has a case, in part because much of the intellectual property has already been transferred and, perhaps most important, because going forward it looks increasingly likely that China will own much of the intellectual property itself. On this point, an article by a partner in a famous Silicon Valley venture capital firm this week in the Financial Times highlighted how China’s internet companies are massively out-investing their American counterparts (see Financial Times article “China is winning the global tech race” by Michael Moritz, June 18, 2018).

This is why the old view of China demanding transfer of intellectual property in return for market access is probably passé. But targeting ‘Made in China 2025’ is another matter. That is non-negotiable so far as Beijing is concerned given that, with its working-age population having peaked as a result of the 36-year-long ‘One-Child Policy’ (see following chart) and therefore demographics no longer working in its favour, China needs to upgrade its economy if it is to avoid the so-called ‘middle-income trap’.

CHINA’S WORKING-AGE POPULATION

Source: CEIC Data, National Bureau of Statistics

NAFTA: NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE IF LEFTISTS WIN MEXICAN ELECTION

Meanwhile it is worth remembering that on June 30 the US, in the form of the White House, is due to announce restrictions on Chinese investments in the US. This is unlikely to improve relations between the US and China, though clearly the devil will be in the details in terms of exactly what is announced.

There is also NAFTA to consider.

Negotiating a NAFTA deal is likely to become harder after the Mexican presidential election on July 1. The likely winner of the Mexican election is the leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (see following chart). That increases the risk that Trump will be tempted to withdraw from NAFTA, which came into force on January 1, 1994, before the November mid-term elections. That would certainly send a signal to his base that he is reversing globalization.

OPINION POLL FOR THE UPCOMING MEXICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Note: Poll conducted on 13-15 June 2018. Source: Arias Consultores

via RSS https://ift.tt/2lyIX9q Tyler Durden

Mattis Increasingly Shut Out Of Major White House Decisions

The Trump Administration has managed to make it without a high-level firing since March, when National Security Advisor John Bolton took over from HR McMaster. But could that streak be about to end?

Mattis

Defense Secretary James Mattis

According to NBC News, Defense Secretary James Mattis has been cut out of several recent high-profile administration decisions, including Trump’s final decision to pull out of the Iran deal, and the decision to call off military exercises around the Korean peninsula. Mattis reportedly learned about both decisions through a colleague and had felt “blindsided” when they were made. The decisions to circumvent the Secretary of Defense were reportedly made because Trump has become fed up with Mattis for stalling his policy decisions.

And as if the previous two incidents weren’t enough, Trump reportedly cut Mattis out of the loop when he made his decision to order the Pentagon to create a “Space Force” – a sixth branch of the military overseeing operations in space.

The two reportedly have had trouble getting along in recent months.

“They don’t really see eye to eye,” said a former senior White House official who has closely observed the relationship.

Mattis’ fall from grace contrasts with Trump’s early praise of the retired four-star general with the quotable nickname “Mad Dog” Mattis. Their relationship has reportedly shifted since the early days of the administration, when Trump would at least keep Mattis in the loop even if Mattis disagreed on Trump’s preferred course of action. However, Mattis’s fall from grace is the result of Trump blaming him for the administration’s clumsy rollout of its ruling on transgender soldiers, as well as for “talking down to him” and slow-rolling the administration’s other policies. Crucially, Mattis also opposed moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, arguing that it could heighten security problems in the Middle East. 

Trump now prefers advice from Bolton – of whom Mattis disapproves – and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who until recently led the CIA. One of Mattis’s other problems is that Trump has already cleared out Tillerson and McMaster, with whom Mattis shared an early alliance. When Tillerson and Mattis would both disagree with the administration’s position, Trump in the past would focus his anger on Tillerson. That isn’t so anymore.

To be sure, Mattis has convinced the president to follow through with keeping US troops in Syria and adding to the US’s numbers in Afghanistan, but it’s difficult to imagine that this would save him. The question is, how much longer until we see another high-profile Trump administration firing?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2yEpZI4 Tyler Durden

‘Deal Of The Century’ – What’s So Urgent About Kushner & Bibi’s Recent Meetings?

Via Middle East Monitor,

There are number of questions raised by the recent visit made by Kushner and Greenblatt to the Middle East, in particular their repeated and prolonged meetings with Israeli officials.

Israeli sources have said that the visits focused on putting the final touches on the American peace plan, known as the ‘deal of the century’. Yet the likely fate of this plan has already become clear: the US will present the plan and the Palestinians will completely reject it.

Meanwhile the Israelis with respond with yes. Nothing will change on the ground and the occupation and colonisation will continue (if not accelerate).

So, why have these meetings been numerous and urgent?

The key reason is Gaza: Kushner and Greenblatt, are particularly concerned with protecting Israel from the perils of its blowback from its own actions in the Strip. In other words, while Israel seems to be intent an aggressive stance, come-what-may, the US envoys want to prevent the situation in the Gaza Strip from blowing up in Israel’s face.

There are two particular problems Kushner and Greenblatt seem to be focused on:

The first is President Abu Mazen’s  rejection of any calming efforts Gaza and his insistence that sanctions remain in place in order to punish Hamas.

The second problem is the Defence Minister Lieberman’s rejection, as well as the rejection of the most important minister in the Cabinet, Naftali Bennett, to link calming the situation in Gaza to a truce.

Meanwhile, the ministers receive support and encouragement from the army and the military institution and receive no real objection from the Arab countries. According to Haaretz newspaper, the Jordanian King does not mind on the condition that this is not in the context of a plan to separate the West Bank from Gaza. As for the Saudi monarch, King Mohammed bin Salman, he, unlike his father, supports this process even at the expense of dividing the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the context of applying Trump’s plan.

A second goal that Netanyahu, Kushner, and Greenblatt are seeking to achieve is to ensure that Hamas, will not benefit from any economic or humanitarian aid or progress on negotiations. Nor will it reap the fruits of its patience and perseverance alongside its people in the face of the Israeli and non-Israeli blockade.

It is possible that the US and Israel will resort to some Arab friends as they often do in similar “hard times” in order to facilitate their aims. This could involve moving, and not resolving issues around captured soldiers’ issue, without this appearing to be an achievement for the resistance, but rather a concession they made in the face of Israel’s inflexibility.

To what extent will Netanyahu and Kushner achieve their plans and goals? This is clearly linked to the level of positions, priorities, and calculations of the Palestinian people, particularly their valiant resistance.

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2lxZytZ Tyler Durden

China Blocks HBO After John Oliver Compares Xi To Pooh

China has blocked HBO after host John Oliver devoted a considerable amount of time criticizing President Xi Jinping and China’s notorious crackdowns on dissent, at a time when Xi is trying to rebrand himself. 

In addition to calling out China over human rights violations and various forms of propaganda, Oliver pointed out that Xi is very sensitive Winnie the Pooh comparisons, which Xi has censored due to Chinese social media users using Pooh memes to mock him over the removal of presidential term limits. 

Xi “is very sensitive about his perceived resemblance to Winnie the Pooh,” said Oliver. 

The Daily Newsreports that HBO.com has been blocked for 100% of Chinese internet users following the segment – citing internet monitoring website Greatfire.org. 

Oliver also touched on China’s $1 trillion “One Belt One Road” initiative of economic expansion through new international trade routes as well as an infrastructure expansion in over 60 countries. Oliver notes that China has produced a “propaganda video” to tell the world how good the deal is. 

The HBO host also called China out over the “most intense crackdown on human rights since Tiananmen square” for assigning “social credit scores” to people, as well as Muslim reeducation camps that have recently made headlines. 

Other sites which have been blocked by China’s “Great Firewall” include the New York Times, Facebook and Twitter. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MWs4Ch Tyler Durden

Trade Tariffs Won’t Crash The World Economy, Monetary Policy Will

Authored by Carmen Elena Dorobăț via The Mises Institute,

As the Trump administration announces 25% tariffs on over $50bn of Chinese goods, and Europe and China prepare retaliation measures, The Economist concludes that “Rising tariffs are the worst of many threats to the world economy”, because, among other things, “Tariffs temporarily push up inflation, making it harder for central banks to cushion the blow.” 

This statement displays a deeply entrenched confusion—if not utter misunderstanding—of some basic economic concepts. Most important, many people fail to correctly distinguish between the causes and effects of price inflation and those of monetary inflation.

Monetary inflation is the increase in the quantity of money in an economy. This inflation causes the purchasing power of money to fall, which brings about price effects—a general rise in prices of goods and services—which we can refer to as price inflation. However, this general rise in prices following monetary inflation is disproportionate and staggered: prices will rise at different times and to different extents as money reaches a lower purchasing power. 

But monetary inflation also has non-price effects. One of these is the transfer of wealth between the last receivers of the new money toward the first receivers.

Another—and even more important—is the distortion of the pattern of investment and production, as the new money being created through credit expansion reaches stock markets and businesses—thus artificially reducing the interest rate. This latter effect explains the occurrence of production booms misaligned with consumer preferences, and the later, inevitable economic bust or crash. These price and non-price effects of monetary inflation are general and underline every possible economic activity.

Trade tariffs, on the other hand, affect only some markets and bring about increases in some prices in the economy. As this happens, our consumption patterns change: if we consume fewer imports, prices of domestic substitutes will rise. If our consumption of imports rises or does not change, we will have a reduced income to spend on other goods, whose prices will now fall. Whatever the result, it does not engender a ‘general’ rise in prices, or a depreciation of the currency as a result.

Moreover, even if tariffs were applied to every good and service, there would be no systematic, inter-temporal distortion of the structure of production. A stalling of productive activity and a rise in production costs is likely to occur, as capital goods—e.g. steel or aluminum—will now be more expensive. But capital is now underutilized, not squandered. There may be less investment, but no malinvestment.

Understanding this, it is easier to see then that trade tariffs, as bad as they are, cannot produce an economic bust in the same sense as occurs in the business cycle (just as simple domestic taxation, albeit reducing welfare, does not cause an economic crisis). As Rothbard (1963) explained,

“declines in specific industries can never ignite a general depression. Shifts in data will cause increases in activity in one field, declines in another. […]

The problem of the business cycle is one of general boom and depression; it is not a problem of exploring specific industries and wondering what factors make each one of them relatively prosperous or depressed. […]

In considering general movements in business, then, it is immediately evident that such movements must be transmitted through the general medium of exchange — money. Money forges the connecting link between all economic activities. If one price goes up and another down, we may conclude that demand has shifted from one industry to another; but if all prices move up or down together, some change must have occurred in the monetary sphere.”

It would be remarkably futile, then, to endeavor to cushion the blow of trade tariffs with loose monetary policy.

The worst thing, by far, for a world economy of interconnected financial and capital markets, is monetary inflation and credit expansion. It is never a cure, and always a curse. Trade tariffs are, however, the second worst threat to a global market—often likely to make the bust much worse and the recovery slower, and to diminish our hopes for peace.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2lDfJXf Tyler Durden

Burned & Decapitated Animal Carcass Left On DHS Employee’s Porch

A decapitated and burned animal carcass was found on the porch of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) staffer, the latest in a spate of threats tied to President Trump’s immigration policy, according to WTOP/ABC.

Around two dozen incidents have been reported against government employees issued in the past few days – primarily against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, which resulted in a determination by Homeland Security that there is a “heightened threat against DHS employees.” 

The uptick in threats comes amid multiple protests directed at ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers, as well as the DHS secretary. It’s unclear exactly how much the threats have increased. –WTOP/ABC

“This assessment is based on specific and credible threats that have been levied against certain DHS employees and a sharp increase in the overall number of general threats against DHS employees,” said Claire Grady, acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security in a Saturday letter to employees. 

The left loses its cool

DHS employees aren’t the only ones receiving backlash for Trump’s enforcement of existing immigration laws. On Sunday, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) openly called for people to form a mob and physically confront members of Donald Trump’s administration if they see them out in public after controversy over separated migrant families erupted two weeks ago. 

Waters’ rhetoric drew a sharp rebuke from President Trump, who wrote over Twitter: “Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!“

Waters’ comments came on the heels of several members of Trump’s administration being physically confronted by angry leftists.

Last week a group of protesters with the Democratic Socialists of America – including a DOJ paralegal – chased Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant near the White House. Days later, protesters showed up at Nielsen’s Alexandria townhouse.

And on Friday night, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was ejected from a Lexington, VA restaurant because the gay staff was too triggered by her presence. After the story went viral, Sanders posted to Twitter: “Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so“

Meanwhile, White House adviser Stephen Miller – largely credited with pushing President Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy of arresting and processing those entering the U.S. illegally – was heckled at a Mexican restaurant two days before Nielsen was harassed. And on Saturday, left-wing activists harassed Florida AG Pam Bondi at a movie theater. 

“It is part of a trend,” said Bondi. “When you’re violent and cursing and screaming and blocking me from walking into a movie, there’s something wrong,” she said. “The next people are going to come with guns. That’s what’s going to happen.”

Then of course there’s Peter Fonda, who wished in now-deleted Tweets that 12-year-old Barron Trump should be kidnapped and thrown in a cage with pedophiles – which First Lady Melania Trump called the Secret Service over. 

As Politico notes, shaming of public officials is nothing new. 

The public shaming of party officials is more closely associated with Latin American politics. Last year, Venezuelan expatriates in South Florida engaged in what they called a “social media manhunt” of officials with ties to the regime, chanting them out of diners. The protest confrontations have been traced back to what were called “escraches” in the 1990s in Argentina, where victims of the former military dictatorship accosted their accused torturers in public confrontations.

Just in the past week, a number of senior Trump administration officials were subjected to the U.S. version of escraches in both Washington, D.C., and outside the city. 

Meanwhile, the hate is starting to trickle down to average Trump voters.

“There’s not more energy on the left. There’s more hatred,” said Peruvian immigrant Jackie Toledo, a Tampa Republican who said her kids were harassed in a coffee shop. “I signed up for this. But my kids? I thought kids were off limits. Family is off limits. And it backfires when you attack families.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2N0uGij Tyler Durden

Russia And China Are Stockpiling Gold

Authored by Tom Lewis via GoldTelegraph.com,

President Trump has promised to institute trade tariffs on various imports, and some countries haven’t been happy about his actions. Russia has warned that it will retaliate against Trump’s 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent tariff on aluminum with levies of its own. Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Viktor Evtukhov has indicated that its steel industry may face $2 billion of losses as a result of U.S. tariffs. Its aluminum industry could lose $1 billion. Both metals are critical to Russia’s export trade. If Russia imposes its own levies against the U.S., the U.S. auto industry could soon see higher taxes.

In 2017, Russian imported $12.5 billion worth of commodities from the U.S., with aircraft, automobiles, and medical supplies making up the largest part of these imports. The import of cars alone totaled $837 million.

Russian’s Deputy Minister Evtukhov plans on disputing the upcoming tariffs with the World Trade Organization and has suggested other countries limit their imports from the U.S.

No decisions have been made in this upcoming trade war, where taxes are being used instead of guns in a quest for economic dominance. However, the effects will no doubt be felt on a global level.

Russia has already taken financial steps to protect its interest. In April, it sold off almost $5 billion in U.S. Treasuries. This is bad news for the Federal Reserve, which desperately needs buyers of its bonds to finance the U.S.’s increasing debt. In addition, Russia has added 600,000 ounces of gold to its reserves in 2017. This gold accumulation has been a Russian trend since 2015.

Other countries, especially China, has also been hoarding gold for years. This foreign increase in gold supply could devalue the U.S. dollar and dethrone it as the global reserve currency of choice. It would certainly create a bullish gold market.

The U.S. has been keeping the price of gold artificially low via paper contracts to prevent the further devaluation of the dollar. But this has made it easier for Russia and China to buy up and increase their already massive reserves.

Other countries are following suit.

In the event of the collapse of the dollar, Russian and China are well-positioned. It is believed that both countries are considering a gold-backed currency as a hedge against the U.S. dollar. If that were to happen, the U.S. dollar, which is not gold-backed, could lose its global dominance. While the value of currency will fluctuate, gold will retain its value. Precious metal has always been an island of stability amid economic chaos.

Russia and China have been very vocal in their efforts to increase their gold supplies, while the U.S. has remained vague on its actual gold reserves. The Federal Reserve claims to have 8,311 tons of gold, but the exact amount has never been verified.

While President Trump inherited a colossal debt of $20 trillion, the debt has increased to $21.6 in a year and a half. Unfunded debts are approximately $100 trillion. In the event of a trade war, these numbers could skyrocket and increase the risk of inflation.

If a trade war is imminent, the chances are everyone will lose. All global currencies will be affected. Those countries and investors with the most gold will best survive the turmoil.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KcU6vC Tyler Durden

“Words Fail Me. It’s Insanity”: Inside Tesla’s “Preposterous” Model 3 Production Tent

Bears and bulls alike following Tesla’s gripping nailbiter of a story – the company has until the end of the month to pumpt out 5,000 Model 3 sedans a week – both agree on one thing: the output of the company’s new “tent” structure which Musk erected recently to produce Model 3 vehicles is going to decide whether or not the company hits its production goal that it has touted over the last couple of months.

Photo Credits: Bloomberg

The tent was erected in just a matter of weeks, and came online in early June, to help the company produce more vehicles at a time when they are under the microscope. Until recently, we didn’t know the details as to when it was erected, what the timing looked like and what it is expected to produce. However, a Bloomberg article out today helped shed some light on the details of what is arguably the most important – if archaic – structure that Tesla has built yet.

Not surprisingly, opinions extend the whole gamut, with some manufacturing experts claiming the tent is “basically nuts”:

Elon Musk has six days to make good on his pledge that Tesla Inc. will be pumping out 5,000 Model 3 sedans a week by the end of the month. If he succeeds, it may be thanks to the curious structure outside the company’s factory. It’s a tent the size of two football fields that Musk calls “pretty sweet” and that manufacturing experts deride as, basically, nuts.

…

Inside the tent in Fremont, California, is an assembly line Musk hastily pulled together for the Model 3. That’s the electric car that is supposed to vault Tesla from niche player for the wealthy to high-volume automaker, bringing a more affordable electric vehicle to the masses.

Analysts at Bernstein are equally unimpressed. Here is a quote from Max Warburton who benchmarked auto assembly plants before his job as a financial analyst:  “Words fail me. It’s insanity,” said Max Warburton, who benchmarked auto-assembly plants around the world before becoming a financial analyst.

Ironically, Musk’s “Hail Mary” is the polar opposite of Tesla’s own vision for its future of state of the art robotics, hermetically sealed manufacturing facilities and millisecond efficiency.

To be sure, the tent is also a far cry from the automation that investors were promised during the early days of Tesla. The company‘s goal, which once was to have a state of the art factory producing vehicles, has now been reduced to a literal tent using manual labor and spare parts to put together cars. Worse, nobody seems to even know whether or not the line is up and running. Welcome to the future?

Musk announced it on Twitter on June 16, saying the company had put together an “entire new general assembly line” in three weeks with spare parts; the building permit was issued on June 13, though the company could have started working on aspects of the project before that.

Whether this new line is fully operational is unclear. Company officials declined to comment. The Tesla-obsessed users of Twitter and other internet forums have posted photos and videos and comments either praising or ridiculing the parking-lot big top. Apparently in response to the intense interest, the tent has recently been surrounded by very large trucks, which obstruct the view.

Predictably, the tent is being called a “hail mary” move by analysts, after the company finally admitted that its vision for automation and assembly – pitched as the “most sophisticated in the world” as recently as February 2018 -was  simply “not working”:

What gives manufacturing experts pause about Tesla’s tent is that it was pitched to shelter an assembly line cobbled together with scraps lying around the brick-and-mortar plant. It smacks of a Hail Mary move after months of stopping and starting production to make on-the-fly fixes to automated equipment, which Musk himself has said was a mistake.

“The existing line isn’t functional, it can’t build cars as planned and there isn’t room to get people into work stations to replace the non-functioning robots,” Warburton said in an email. “So here we have it—build cars manually in the parking lot.”

As Bloomberg notes, an April admission that he erred by putting too many robots in Tesla’s plants was a humbling moment for Musk. The chief executive officer had boasted in the past that his company would build an “alien dreadnought,” sci-fi bro code for a factory so advanced and robotic, it would be incomprehensible to primitive earthlings.

During a February earnings call, Musk told analysts that Tesla had an automated-parts conveyance system that was “probably the most sophisticated in the world.” But by the spring, it had been ripped out of the factory.

“We had this crazy, complex network of conveyor belts,” Musk told CBS This Morning in April. “And it was not working, so we got rid of that whole thing.”

Analyst Dave Sullivan, who previously used to supervise Ford factories and now works at AutoPacific, chimed in: “To say that it’s more efficient to build this with scrap pieces laying around means that either somebody made really bad decisions with the parts in the plant inside, or there are a lot of other problems yet to be discovered with Tesla’s efficiency.”

The article concludes with what may be the most suitable epitaph for Tesla should Musk disappoint in a few days when he reports Q2 production figures.

“It’s preposterous,” Bernstein’s Warburton said.

“I don’t think anyone’s seen anything like this outside of the military trying to service vehicles in a war zone. I pity any customer taking delivery of one of these cars. The quality will be shocking.”

Preposterous or not, the clock is ticking on Tesla.

The company has just days before it has to update investors on the current state of production and how the business is running. If the tent is any indication, expect many to voice their disappointments out in the open…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Kl15BB Tyler Durden

Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit

Submitted by Elizabeth Vos Savant via Disobedient Media

Disobedient Media has consistently reported on the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the disturbing, sometimes bizarre events surrounding the case. Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, that ruling is in the process of an appeal in the 11th Circuit appellate court.

Last week, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the suit submitted a supplemental authority letter in the case, arguing that the DNC’s suit against Russia was relevant to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. The cited relevance was due to arguments made by DNC defense counsel that stated donors did not contribute funds based on the promise of impartiality by the DNC towards Democratic Party primary candidates.

However, as the Beck’s submission points out, the DNC appears to have contradicted their defense by arguing in their separate suit against Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks that the DNC experienced a severe drop in donations in the wake of WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primary. Bloomberg reports that Democrats raised half as much as Republicans in 2017: In other words, primary source evidence of the DNC’s partiality towards Hillary Clinton has resulted in a steep decline in public donations.

As reported in April by CBS News, the DNC filed its own lawsuit against the “Russian government, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, arguing that the parties conspired to influence the 2016 presidential campaign in a way that damaged the Democratic Party.” That legacy press has consistently failed to point out the irony of the DNC’s claim is a stain on the deeply marred facade of American ‘journalism.’

The latest submission by Elizabeth Beck in the DNC Fraud lawsuit appeal, pictured below, states: “The complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee (“DNC,” also known as DNC Services Corporation, and a Defendant/Appellee in the instant appeal before this Court) in the Russia Lawsuit contains allegations made by the DNC which are relevant to the case at bar.”

The letter submitted by Elizabeth Beck goes on to state:

“Appellees/Defendants DNC Services Corporation and Congresswoman Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz (“Appellees”) have denied that the class members donated “in reliance on anything that Defendants said or did,”(Doc. 44, page 8), claimed in open court that it was implausible and “just doesn’t really make logical sense” that Appellees induced class members to donate to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, (April 25, 2017 hearing transcript, 68:14-21), speculated that “[t]here are many Bernie Sanders donors who gave because they thought the system was rigged…or…unfair,” (id. 96:9-12), suggested that it is “more logical” that voters would be more inclined to donate if they knew the system was “rigged.” (id. 97:23-98:3, 107:9-13) and stated in their Response Brief that Appellants cannot show a connection between Appellees’ conduct and Appellants’ financial injury (Response Br. at 20).”

“Appellants submit that the DNC’s complaint in the Russia Lawsuit contradicts these allegations and arguments that Appellees have submitted in this instant appeal, as the DNC now claim in the Russia Lawsuit that donations have dramatically dropped.“

To reiterate this point: Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the DNC Fraud lawsuit argue that, in a separate suit filed by the DNC against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, the claims of DNC regarding financial damage contradict the DNC’s defense counsel in the Fraud lawsuit.

Such a contradiction comes as little surprise to those who have observed the progression of the DNC’s willingness to admit their corruption in open court. The Democratic Party’s shamelessness was particularly visible earlier this year when lawyers representing the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz argued that the First Amendment protected the party’s primary rigging.

Again: DNC representatives have argued that the DNC had no established fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent, and that the donations were not given under the premise of impartiality – which is then contradicted by the DNC’s own admission that donations to the DNC have plummeted. That political corruption and hypocrisy in the US has escalated past the point of entertainment into the realm of the truly absurd is evidenced by current DNC Chairman Tom Perez’s straight-faced claim that:

“Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign… This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for president of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency.”

That the Chairman of the DNC would make such claims while the DNC’s legal counsel has defended the party’s assault on democracy during the Fraud lawsuit litigation, boggles the mind. Disobedient Media previously reported that during the DNC Fraud Lawsuit proceedings, DNC defense council Bruce Spiva infamously argued that the party had the right to pick a candidate. Spiva said in court:

“But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right…”

Disobedient Media will continue to report on the DNC Fraud lawsuit as it progresses.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KhjsYn Tyler Durden