What now, after Carney's bold stand at Davos? We too should import China EVs under a low quota. Inflation, spending, net worth. Japan's Truss moment: could it happen here?
Let's all decide not to live within the lie. If Trump can rename cabinet positions, so can we. The Department of Homeland Security is now the Department of Domestic Warfare. After all, he told us, "The enemy is within."
The only downside to limiting Chinese EVs is that it induces them to send their priciest ones. We actually want their lower-end models that compete with polluting used cars more than with new ones.
You may well be right. Recall the “voluntary” quota Nixon extracted from Japan: Honda and Toyota started bringing in more expensive models.
This past May I rented a BVD Seal U in Southampton, England. After a few days my verdict was in: I want one. In Dublin we rented a Peugeot 508 which was a darn sight better than anything Stellantis builds in North America, and in Edinburgh we had an absolutely so-what Mercedes GLC. BYD rocks, but that Seal U was by no means an econocar.
One thing from the Trump address at Davos, that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere in the media, is within his “Most Favored Nation” (on drug prices) part, where one might miss is that Trump asserts that a pile of European leaders have agreed to something that I doubt very much that they have agreed to.
You have to listen for about 5 minutes from here:
Trump at Davos on "Most Favored Nation Drug Prices":
If you listen for about 5 minutes from where the link is pointed to, Trump tells the whole world that numerous world leaders, starting with Macron of France, have ALREADY AGREED TO a doubling to quadrupling of their drug prices. And that they agreed to this as a result of Trump’s very bold tariff threats.
He illustrated, in his elaboration in his Davos address, how the negotiations resulting in the agreements went, first with President Emmanuel Macron of France. Trump voiced Macron trying to resist Trump's demands on the raised prices (in a mocking French accent: “non, non, non”), and then with Macron ultimately giving in, overpowered in the exchange, under the force of Trump’s massive threats.
He then moved on to a general statement that the other European leaders gave in, similarly, under the no-option-to-refuse threats.
Very diplomatic!
--
It's easy to see what happened here to make Trump insist on all other countries (which have price controls on pharmaceuticals, unlike us) increasing what they pay. The pharmaceutical-industry executives have convinced Trump that their total revenue from drug sales can’t be allowed to go down.
So, if ours prices paid go down (as Trump insists they will--by 50% or more uniformly and so that we pay the lowest price in the rest of the world--this is more than from the minor little concessions that Trump did get from the pharmaceutical industry so far), they have to go up a lot in many other countries. This is what Trump said at Davos the European leaders already agreed to! (I doubt that they have the same impression of what they agreed to as Trump!)
--
Otherwise, as a minor note, where I pointed the video to, you can see that Trump has been made aware by someone that the claims of 300%, 500%, 1100% drops in drug prices that he has talked about in numerous places are not possible unless when you get the drug, you also pay no money and get money back.
Trump took care of that by informing us that there are different ways to calculate price drop percentages.
I’m going to take a shot at what the president’s alternative-calculation method is. It would be, most-parsimoniously-stated: invert the price decrease. It becomes a (correctly-calculated) price increase of X %. X is the Trump-version of the decrease.
Example: a price drop from $120 to $10. Invert that, it’s an 1100% increase. So, the $120 to $10 price drop is an 1100% decrease! (By normal thinking, it is, of course, a (120-10)/120×100= approximately 91.7% decrease.)
( I sought confirmation in the Dr. Oz explanation of the calculation from a few months ago, of
Trump then Dr. Oz on drug price decrease calculation:
but I am afraid Dr. Oz moved on to “the bigger question we should be asking ourselves” before stating enough to let us pinpoint the alternative Trump (Wharton-School-of-Business?) method.
For PCE inflation, suggest looking at the New York Fed's Multivariate Core Trend of PCE Inflation. This analytical model estimates core inflation without resorting to manual removal of specific sectors. It provides what appears to be a statistically well behaved curve, complete with error bars. The resulting curve leads both headline and core PCE curves. It shows a downward slope from Sep to Nov 2025, very close to the Fed's target.
Personally, we're feeling inflation (when looking at our 2025 spending). But that's anecdotal, and the model above shows that the core rate may be declining for now.
does anyone else remember the news that China employees slave labor or at least exploited labor to make these extremely low cost vehicles? has anything changed about this? I know we all get excited about low prices, but there are, or at least should be, some other considerations.
In the not so distant past the market was sensitive to the world around it, it was “bullish” or “bearish,” today it seems immune, are the “magnificent seven” the only drivers of stock prices? If loans driving the massive data center construction stumble will it pull us all over the edge??? Hummm
Let's all decide not to live within the lie. If Trump can rename cabinet positions, so can we. The Department of Homeland Security is now the Department of Domestic Warfare. After all, he told us, "The enemy is within."
The only downside to limiting Chinese EVs is that it induces them to send their priciest ones. We actually want their lower-end models that compete with polluting used cars more than with new ones.
You may well be right. Recall the “voluntary” quota Nixon extracted from Japan: Honda and Toyota started bringing in more expensive models.
This past May I rented a BVD Seal U in Southampton, England. After a few days my verdict was in: I want one. In Dublin we rented a Peugeot 508 which was a darn sight better than anything Stellantis builds in North America, and in Edinburgh we had an absolutely so-what Mercedes GLC. BYD rocks, but that Seal U was by no means an econocar.
One thing from the Trump address at Davos, that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere in the media, is within his “Most Favored Nation” (on drug prices) part, where one might miss is that Trump asserts that a pile of European leaders have agreed to something that I doubt very much that they have agreed to.
You have to listen for about 5 minutes from here:
Trump at Davos on "Most Favored Nation Drug Prices":
https://www.youtube.com/live/qo2-q4AFh_g?t=2847s
If you listen for about 5 minutes from where the link is pointed to, Trump tells the whole world that numerous world leaders, starting with Macron of France, have ALREADY AGREED TO a doubling to quadrupling of their drug prices. And that they agreed to this as a result of Trump’s very bold tariff threats.
He illustrated, in his elaboration in his Davos address, how the negotiations resulting in the agreements went, first with President Emmanuel Macron of France. Trump voiced Macron trying to resist Trump's demands on the raised prices (in a mocking French accent: “non, non, non”), and then with Macron ultimately giving in, overpowered in the exchange, under the force of Trump’s massive threats.
He then moved on to a general statement that the other European leaders gave in, similarly, under the no-option-to-refuse threats.
Very diplomatic!
--
It's easy to see what happened here to make Trump insist on all other countries (which have price controls on pharmaceuticals, unlike us) increasing what they pay. The pharmaceutical-industry executives have convinced Trump that their total revenue from drug sales can’t be allowed to go down.
So, if ours prices paid go down (as Trump insists they will--by 50% or more uniformly and so that we pay the lowest price in the rest of the world--this is more than from the minor little concessions that Trump did get from the pharmaceutical industry so far), they have to go up a lot in many other countries. This is what Trump said at Davos the European leaders already agreed to! (I doubt that they have the same impression of what they agreed to as Trump!)
--
Otherwise, as a minor note, where I pointed the video to, you can see that Trump has been made aware by someone that the claims of 300%, 500%, 1100% drops in drug prices that he has talked about in numerous places are not possible unless when you get the drug, you also pay no money and get money back.
Trump took care of that by informing us that there are different ways to calculate price drop percentages.
I’m going to take a shot at what the president’s alternative-calculation method is. It would be, most-parsimoniously-stated: invert the price decrease. It becomes a (correctly-calculated) price increase of X %. X is the Trump-version of the decrease.
Example: a price drop from $120 to $10. Invert that, it’s an 1100% increase. So, the $120 to $10 price drop is an 1100% decrease! (By normal thinking, it is, of course, a (120-10)/120×100= approximately 91.7% decrease.)
( I sought confirmation in the Dr. Oz explanation of the calculation from a few months ago, of
Trump then Dr. Oz on drug price decrease calculation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtRwo1ccp7U&t=1264s
but I am afraid Dr. Oz moved on to “the bigger question we should be asking ourselves” before stating enough to let us pinpoint the alternative Trump (Wharton-School-of-Business?) method.
For PCE inflation, suggest looking at the New York Fed's Multivariate Core Trend of PCE Inflation. This analytical model estimates core inflation without resorting to manual removal of specific sectors. It provides what appears to be a statistically well behaved curve, complete with error bars. The resulting curve leads both headline and core PCE curves. It shows a downward slope from Sep to Nov 2025, very close to the Fed's target.
Personally, we're feeling inflation (when looking at our 2025 spending). But that's anecdotal, and the model above shows that the core rate may be declining for now.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/mct#--:overview
does anyone else remember the news that China employees slave labor or at least exploited labor to make these extremely low cost vehicles? has anything changed about this? I know we all get excited about low prices, but there are, or at least should be, some other considerations.
In the not so distant past the market was sensitive to the world around it, it was “bullish” or “bearish,” today it seems immune, are the “magnificent seven” the only drivers of stock prices? If loans driving the massive data center construction stumble will it pull us all over the edge??? Hummm