Trump Still Arguing He Has Authority To Order Companies Out Of China

President Donald Trump is basing his arguments on a 1977 law that he says gives him the authority to order companies to leave China and prevent them from doing business with the rival country. But does he really?

The trade war between the United States and China is still going strong, although many signs point to the media’s hype over the confrontation may be a tad overstated (and not doing serious economic damage to either country, but we won’t know for sure for some time). China recently unloaded another layer of tariffs on nearly $75 billion in United States products. The escalations don’t seem any closer to calming down.

Trump tweeted: “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China including bringing …your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”

Naturally, Trump’s political opponents — and just about everyone else — jumped at the opportunity to remind him that he completely lacks the authority to make such an order. He’s been justifying the argument ever since.

Before heading to the G7 summit in France, he said to reporters: “I have the absolute right to do that, but we’ll see how it goes.”

Why does he think he has the right?

Apparently the best he’s come up with is the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). He tweeted: “For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., trying looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!”

The law was drafted in the somewhat tumultuous era following the Watergate scandal and war in Vietnam, and provide a president with the ability to declare a national emergency before choosing to regulate economic transactions due to threats to national security. 

Few people seem to understand how this gives the president the authority to do what he wants to do (because it doesn’t), especially since he hasn’t declared a national emergency. Even if he were to do so, he would still be forced to report his desired actions before Congress, and then expressly ask permission to implement them. It seems unlikely that even a Republican-controlled Congress would authorize the president to “order” American companies operating in China to leave the country.

The IEEPA has been used many times before, such as when President Carter used it to impose trade sanctions against Iran in response to the hostage crisis of 1979. 

Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas tweeted: “One of the enduring phenomena of the Trump era is going to be the list of statutes that give far too much power to the President, but that many didn’t used to worry about — assuming there’d be political safeguards. Today’s entrant: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

What Effect Is The Trade War Having In China And The United States?

We’ve all heard the many blown-up promises of the Trump Administration: he said everyone would love him and he’d improve relations with countries all over the world. He said he’d be great for the economy. He said a lot more. But we’ve also come to expect that most of what he says is one great big lie, drawn out over an extended period of time. Global stocks are all over the place today, in large part due to Trump’s recent threat of tariffs. This is good news for absolutely no one.

Trump announced a surprise hike on tariffs: ten percent on nearly $300 billion worth of goods stamped “Made in China.” This new round of the trade war will begin on the first of September. Why he did it is anyone’s guess, but China’s government predictably responded with threats of their own. Unfortunately the Chinese didn’t say exactly what they would do, save for retaliate. Ignorance is never good for the world economy, and it had a chilling effect on today’s markets in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

China’s currency lost value compared to the dollar, falling to 6.9520, the lowest since December 2018. 

On Thursday the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell about 281 points because of the news.

Although the proposed tariffs aren’t huge in comparison to the GDP of either country, the real difference is in the mind of the investor. Maybe a year ago — or even a few months ago — investors may have assumed that the trade war would end quickly. But Trump shows no signs of wearing down, and neither do the Chinese. If this new status quo persists for too long, the economies of both countries will begin to crumble, and so too will the economies of smaller countries all over the world. 

Because consumer confidence is beginning to falter in both countries, China’s economy has already shown strong signs of slowing down due to the trade war. Sales of electronic goods and some vehicles are slowing down. While this pressure may eventually force Chinese President Xi Jinping to find common ground with Trump soon, no one should expect this outcome. 

China’s imports have also slowed to a crawl. Integrated circuits, industrial products, and military purchases are declining as the war drags on. Consumer spending even during a big Chinese holiday — National Day break — didn’t give investors much confidence. It was the slowest period since the holiday started in 2000.

It’s anyone’s guess what will happen next.

How Will Man-Made Global Climate Change Affect Our Future Economy?

It’s one of the greatest ironies of our time: so many of us are indifferent to the catastrophic effects of man-made global climate change because we’re so brainwashed into thinking today’s economy is more important than any future problems. It’s no surprise. It’s the same argument we heard when we asked people about their position on civil rights like gay marriage: “I think we should focus on the economy, that’s today’s problem. When we fix it, we can worry about gay marriage.”

Or here’s one better for you: “I think we should focus on the economy, that’s today’s problem. When we fix it, we can worry about slavery.”

The more times change, the more they stay the same. Humans are easy to manipulate; find something that excites them to passion, like the exaggerated or outright fall stories on Fox News, and you can pretty much convince them that anything is important (like building a financially and environmentally costly border wall). 

But what’s the ironic part? Well, man-made global climate change, left unchecked, will completely devastate the global economy. And faster than most of us realize.

People mistake the idea of climate change to think that it will affect every part of the world uniformly, which is part of the reason a couple of degrees of average warming doesn’t sound like a big deal. But that’s not how it works. One area might experience summers ten or twenty degrees warmer than average, causing catastrophic heat waves and droughts, tornadoes and wildfires. Other areas might experience cooler than average temperatures, leading to winter blizzards or springtime floods and landslides.

All of those things cost money! These extreme weather events have cost us in the neighborhood of $1.6 trillion since 1980 — and that’s a time before the effects of climate change were really well known or even in full swing. These effects have only grown, and they are growing exponentially.

Here’s the bottom line: scientists argue that a temperature increase of two degrees Celcius would slash the global gross domestic product by about fifteen percent, or 25 percent if the temperature rose by three degrees Celcius. Right now, if we continue to go about our business as we have been, these realities are inevitable. 
That’s nothing when you stop to consider the lives lost due to extreme weather, or the financial cost of the hundreds of millions who will be displaced from larger cities due to rising sea levels. That’s nothing when you stop to consider the impact on global food production. In fact, it’s nothing when you stop to consider what actual people will have to go through because of everyone who said this wasn’t a problem for today.

Teaching Your Children About The Economy

As our kids get older they ask very difficult questions to answer. Where do babies come from? Is there a god? What’s the economy? While we might not be able to help answer the first two questions, we can help you explain the economy to your children. The economy in the simplest of terms is all about money being made and then how that money is being spent. Here are some concepts that you can explain to your children about how the economy works:

There are two groups that make up an economy: buyers and sellers. For children, it is easy for them to understand that when we shop in a store that we are buyers and then the store is the seller. But it’s also important for them to understand that going to work makes us also sellers. We sell our time and knowledge to our employers who then buys it from us by giving us a salary.

When people in the country have more money they need in order to survive this is called a surplus. When people in the country don’t have enough money in order to survive this is called a depression. It’s important to also stress what the phrase “in order to survive” means. Can they survive without toys and video games? Can they survive without food and shelter?

Games that teach out to balance resources and money are great for kids to understand how the economy works. Games such as Pay Day, Powergrid, Monopoly and The Game of Life can show how expenses come up unexpectedly and how a slow economy can impact cash flow.

The best way to show them the impact of the economy as a whole is to show them the fluctuation in gas prices. Bring them to the gas pump and show them how much one-gallon costs. Write a list of all the prices that you see each month. If the price of gas goes up – which means the economy is not doing well – they can see how $2.50 will no longer be able to get them one gallon of gas. If the price of gas goes down – which means the economy is doing well – they can see how $2.50 can get them more than one-gallon of gas.

 

 

What Is The Difference Between Positive Law And Normative Law In Economics?

Both these principles deal with the economic analysis of law, a field which is most often discussed in terms of positive law and economics or normative law and economics. These concepts are discussed in theoretical terms so as to predict the development of various legal rules. Whether or not either of these analytic tactics make any sense or work when used in the real world is up to the individual to decide. The data supplied on the subject is endless.
Positive law and economics is used in an attempt to predict how legal rules and regulations will affect the efficiency of the economy or legal actions. Positive economics is often described as more objective, steeped in empirical fact. It is used to explain the behavior of those who write our laws or carry them out.

Normative law and economics is a little bit different. Although the former principle will sometimes try to explain how those rules and regulations develop, normative law and economics will actually attempt to use the predictions and explanations of economic consequence in order to recommend new policy. Here, this principle is used in order to increase or maintain efficiency. Normative economics is often described as more subjective, steeped more in a value system. This makes it almost impossible to prove or disprove, which leads to endless argument.

The idea that economic analysis of law can influence judicial opinions isn’t a new concept. It’s relatively routine in the United States and is becoming more routine in Europe as well. Education in the subject is just as common.

These principles are just as often criticized for their real-world value. Rational choice theory presents the case that normative law and economics analysis almost disregards the fundamental human rights that are so important to this country and its historical growth, and relates concerns that these rights could be encumbered.

Another criticism occurs in the form of pareto efficiency. This critique relates that any activity made in order to increase efficiency is just as likely to result in a decrease in efficiency. In addition, what one group might view as an optimal result can differ from another group.

Economic Law When Applied To India

India was recently labeled as the world’s sixth largest economy, narrowly beating out France. That said, India is also holds one of the world’s biggest populations and so it certainly has a lot of growing to do yet. That’s why entrepreneurs and corporations alike around the world are watching its potential for business ties in the future. But what should we know about economic laws on the books in India?

Some of the most important laws have been around since 1872, and we still need to watch out for them when doing business in or with the country. The Indian Contract Act of that year is responsible for outlining the rules and regulations that determine how a contract can be executed or enforced. Here are a few more!

The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 determines how compensation is paid out to workers who were injured on the job.

The Payment of Wages Act of 1936 determined the minimum salary for those working in industrial occupations. The factories Act of 1948 went on to regulate the labor in similar occupations.

Mothers benefitted from the Maternity Benefits Act of 1961 which set limitations on time off from work during and after a child’s birth.

Bonuses are a regular part of Indian industries, but these payments are strictly regulated by the Payment of Bonus Act of 1965.

India restricted the growth of certain types of businesses with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969.

The Indian Patents Act of 1970 determines when a patent is or is not protected under law. The Copyright Act of 1975 does the same for copyright protections. Then there is the Trademarks Act of 1999 and the Designs Act of 2000.

Gratuities are regulated under the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972.

Competition is becoming more and more important to the Indian economy, and so the Competition Act of 2002 led to the creation of a commission with a mandate to promote competition while protecting consumer interests by managing trade freedoms.

If you set your sights on business in India, then you have a lot of work to do. The laws overseeing economy in India are similar in nature, but different in practice. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Economic Law Gone Wrong: How We Good Outcomes Arise From Bad Laws

Law is big, burdensome, and overwhelming for many of us–and that’s even before we forget that in the U.S. alone there are more than fifty separate governments keeping track of what we can and can’t do. Sounds ridiculous, right? State government and federal government must all work with one another, and they all have different laws making it virtually impossible to do so. Some of those laws are missteps trying to achieve similar goals, but we can learn from the mistakes and still move forward because they inspire competition. Here’s how.

Here are a few questionable laws:

  • Californians were barred from ordering goose liver pate as an appetizer.
  • Music therapists in Georgia must be licensed, the requirements for which are determined by already-licensed music therapists. Think about that.
  • Students in Tennessee are barred from wearing saggy pants so as not to disrespect their elders.
  • Interior designers in Connecticut must be licensed.
  • Retailers in Connecticut must provide you with a free product if that product rings up for a higher price than labeled.
  • Virginia motorists cannot drive if they are not wearing shoes.

The economic effects of these laws aren’t all that savory. In California you can smoke up instead of appetize yourself. In Georgia your competitors determine how easy it is for you to obtain a music therapy license you probably shouldn’t need in the first place. Students in Tennessee will probably find other ways to disrespect their law-making elders. Artsy folks in Connecticut will probably sell their designs regardless of laws trying to bar them from doing so. Retailers won’t start giving Connecticut shoppers free merchandise. Instead, they’ll change the signage to reflect that prices could be higher than they appear.

It’s actually because of these absurd laws that state governments so effectively compete with one another. States with bad policies must in turn respond to those with good ones. If one state passes laws legalizing a recreational marijuana industry, the other states are forced to do so as well or fall behind. That’s because at the end of the day, the consumer decides where and on what to spend money. Each dollar is a vote, and we vote every day.

Bad decision-making on the part of businesses is reflected when people in turn refuse to shop at those businesses. When decision-making on the part of governments goes the wrong way, the reality is reflected at the polls–when people cast a more literal vote to push that government out the door. That’s how laws change over time and mold our society into an economic success. Laws aren’t concrete. They’re experiments. And experiments are like to change over time, the same way our laws and the economy that fuels our country ebbs and flows.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AND FEDERALISM

Nuclear energy is the new black when it comes to renewable sources of electricity, even as it has existed in America for more than 40 years.

For a time, nuclear energy was chastised as an environmentally friendly source of electric power because of the risks that were revealed by the nuclear plant meltdown in Chernobyl in late 1986, followed by a similar incident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011.

However, as solar and wind power have been either insufficient or still prohibitively expensive, nuclear energy has started to get into the good graces of the alt-energy movement, as there has been a push for more nuclear power plants to eventually replace coal-powered plants.

While there is a federal agency called the U.S. Department of Energy, most nuclear power plants fall under state regulation and lawmaking, because nuclear plants generally generate electricity only for consumers inside the state; anything that goes outside state lines is considered interstate commerce and thus are subject to federal regulation.

This is mentioned because, while most nuclear plants do provide power to residents of their state, some electrical power is bought and sold in a domestic and/or international marketplace, which means that electrical power is subject to regulation and state’s rights don’t apply. There has been some federal legislation passed that helps the feds regulate and monitor that energy marketplace and the distribution of that energy.

With those differences, how are energy credits handled? Are they a federal matter, or do they fall within state jurisdiction? After all, are these credits considered separate from the energy and are the transactions such as should be regulated like energy in a marketplace?

That question is in the appeals process after the states so New York and Illinois introduced programs designed to subsidize and support nuclear energy plants to produce electrical power with no greenhouse-gas emissions (GGEs). While on paper these seem promising, the nuclear-energy industry has filed suit, claiming that the state programs violate federal law – but brings up the question as to whether federal law even applies in these cases.

The question specifically boils down to what New York and Illinois call Zero Emissions Credits (ZECs), which are similar in ways to Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), which are approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). These credits, similar to ZECs are sold to FERC, and electric companies buy them to encourage them to provide electricity with as few GGEs as possible.

However, ZECs are treated as separate from the power the plants generate, in that these SECs are sold to the state regulatory agency at a certain price, and then electric companies in the state are then supposed to buy a proportional number of ZECs according to its percentage of sales statewide.

Federal law refers to the power itself being sold in a marketplace as having federal oversight – but there is nothing in the act regarding energy credits that are sold within a state albeit through a marketplace.

The nuclear industry wants federal law to dictate these credits and wants the state regulations to be voided based on Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Are energy credits, not the energy itself, subject to federal oversight when they aren’t power and they are bought and sold in a state marketplace like what New York and Illinois have set up? These are going to be the bellwethers for future policies that maybe proposed in other states, so the results of these lawsuits could have large implications in the alt-energy movement.

 

What Is The Average Credit Card Debt

Credit cards are one of those items that have made buying very easy for people. However, after people have bought the items they will find they still have to make the payments on the cards. They tend to have a deferred type of payment in mind and this means they are going to pay it off over time. This is a good idea as long as people are able to pay off the cards, but typically people will keep buying more items on with the credit cards. This only leads to increasing the credit card debt they have to carry.

Now, what people need to realize is doing this is going to increase their debt to income ratio. This means that people are going to lose more of their buying power over time. If they are carrying the balance from month to month and not making the payments in a timely manner they will end up getting the balance of the card even higher. This will, in turn, push the payments higher on people and over time lead to them accruing even more debt than what they could ever handle.

When people are looking at credit card debt, they will find that they are going to have some. However, if they are looking at the average credit card debt for the American households they will notice it has a tendency to be around the sixteen thousand dollar mark. This is quite a bit of debt and definitely something that people need to be aware of. It could easily cost them more money than what they imagined. Since it takes so long to pay off people who got a credit card in their twenties could still be paying off the outstanding balance when they are in their thirties or even forties.

Credit cards are one of those things that people need to be aware of. However, what people need to realize is the credit card debt is something that can cost people quite a bit of money. This is when people should know more about what the average credit card debt is and how they can handle this debt. By knowing about the cost of this debt it will be very easy for people to see if the debt is going to cost them quite a bit or if they are carrying as much as the average individual.

Why Are Their Campaign Finance Laws?

Special thanks to Rick Navarette for helping us write this article. You can see his website here: https://nstexaslaw.com/

In 1971, The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was passed, a statute that governs political campaign, spending and fundraising for federal elections whether it be for House, Senate or President. With this statute came the creation of the FEC (Federal Election Commission). Originally the act was established to aid in the disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns and has been amended 7 times.

History of this bill originates from Theodore Roosevelts urge for campaign finance reform as early as 1910. There was a huge push to regulate corporate as well as union spending on campaigns for federal office and an urgency to report how much money was donated. In the Acts first iteration in 1971, donations made to a federal campaign were considered a tax right off leading to a ton of financial abuse. This prompted the first amendment in 1974 which established a limit to how much money individuals, political parties and PACs could donate.

But why do these laws exist? To put it simply – no one should be able to buy being President. Also, no one should have the powers to manipulate a political candidate by having donated the most money to their campaign. Believe it or not, campaign finance fraud occurs all the time. In 2014, Dinesh D’Souza donated tens of thousands of dollars to a US Senate campaign for New York’s Wendy Long which is well above the $5,000 individual limit. How did he do this? He donated money giving money to other people and then having them donate on his behalf.

With the 2016 presidential election being the most expensive in history, the FEC will have their job cut out for them when it comes to the mid-term elections this fall and the presidential 2020 election. We will see if there is any more campaign fraud or just Russian collusion.