@Catch22- Well, he's been busy here, for one thing:
Trump declares national emergency over telecom threats
"The order, which has been under review for more than a year, is aimed at protecting the supply chain from “foreign adversaries to the nation’s information and communications technology and services supply chain”, said the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, Americans will be able to trust that our data and infrastructure are secure,” he said."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/787623/000119312519148019/d751316d497.htm
Update:
497 1 d751316d497.htm TRANSAMERICA MULTI-CAP GROWTH FUND
TRANSAMERICA FUNDS
Supplement to the Currently Effective Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and
Statement of Additional Information
Transamerica Multi-Cap Growth
The Board of Trustees has approved a reorganization pursuant to which the assets of Transamerica Multi-Cap Growth (the “Target Fund”), a series of Transamerica Funds, would be acquired, and its liabilities would be assumed, by Transamerica US Growth (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of Transamerica Funds, in exchange for shares of the Acquiring Fund. The Target Fund would then be liquidated, and shares of the Acquiring Fund would be distributed to the Target Fund shareholders. Under the reorganization, Target Fund shareholders would receive shares of the Acquiring Fund with the same aggregate net asset value as their shares of the Target Fund. It is anticipated that no gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes would be recognized by Target Fund shareholders as a result of the reorganization.
The reorganization does not require shareholder approval, but is subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions. An information statement describing the reorganization will be mailed to Target Fund shareholders in advance of the closing of the reorganization. If the closing conditions are satisfied, the reorganization is expected to occur on or about August 2, 2019. Effective on or about July 24, 2019, Transamerica Multi-Cap Growth will be closed to new and/or additional investments.
* * *
Investors Should Retain this Supplement for Future Reference
May 15, 2019

Meaning what exactly?
1) An absolute pass, or
2) Hard to pass
(Sometimes your extremely short comments are worthy of the Delphic Oracle.)

Meaning what exactly?
1) An absolute pass, or
2) Hard to pass
(Sometimes your extremely short comments are worthy of the Delphic Oracle.)

absolute
as in hard no
hard right
or a hard maybe :)

Everyone of sense knows we have major problems with China. This is not how to deal with them. Chiefly the problems involve IP theft.
This is from a year ago; there is much since, largely similar so far as I can sense:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/06/14/trumps-focus-on-china-trade-right-target-wrong-approach/
If you like getting into the weeds:
https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/will-us-china-trade-deal-remove-or-just-restructure-massive-2018
https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/trump-trade-war-china-date-guide

Meaning what exactly?
1) An absolute pass, or
2) Hard to pass
(Sometimes your extremely short comments are worthy of the Delphic Oracle.)

@johnN: I be interested in knowing what the % of rise from just before The market started to TANK !!
S&P 500 Jan1 2000 = 1499
S&P 500 July 1 2007 = 1527
S&P 500 April 1 2009 = 919
S&P 500 Recently = 2856
Close to doubling !
Have a nice day,Derf

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/05/15/cashin-traders-think-president-got-mondays-market-message.html?&qsearchterm=Art Cashin

Hi @Gary
I can not vouch for the results of the study performed that brought forth the $767 amount for a family of four tariff impact. This number, per the study; is the initial baseline and does not include the most recent tariff actions.
You may choose to read the below linked report to help determine what number is real or not. And, I have no clue as to the political bias or not from this organization. Perhaps you will be able to discover this status and keep us posted.
Trade Partnership Worldwide study, tariff impact study

Hi @Ted: Thanks for posting the Bespoke Trend Analyzer updates. Good information. Old Skeet's market barometer, based upon its metrics, scores the S&P 500 Index (SPY) at fair value with a reading of 154. This is just short of entering undervalue on the barometer's scale.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-average-401-k-soared-466-over-the-past-10-years-194608825.html
Fidelity’s latest quarterly retirement savings update had something special to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of “the bottom.”
Keep buying...

What is truly important is not the bluster (LSummers counsels exhaling, or something like it).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-a-revealing-puzzle-in-the-china-tariffs/2019/05/14/75df04de-7675-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html
... even when nations have objectives that are in conflict, it is important to seek compromise, to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and to confine rather than enlarge the areas where demands are being made.

Please correct me for any of this write.
--- My brief overview of the tariffs.
1. Item "x" arrives from China and has a 25% tariff applied and paid for by the importer.
2. The tariff duty is paid to the Customs Dept., a sub bureau of the Dept. of Commerce. This money finds its way to the Treasury/general fund. This money is apparently available for whatever use.
3. Item "x" may be a finished product such as a plastic toy; and may be a machine part such as a ball bearing or an assembled bearing set that is part of a front wheel spindle set for a John Deere grass mower built in the U.S.
4. At some point, the importer has a few choices. Eat all of the higher cost and impair their profit margin; eat some of the cost and hope to retain enough of a profit to continue their business model or pass through the higher cost to whomever purchases the item.
5. If the majority of the higher cost is passed to the next purchase level, at some point these folks will have to determine how much of this cost is passed along and eventually becomes a new, higher cost item at the consumer retail level.
Another consideration based upon a 25% or whatever price markup, is a consumer will pay more in excise, possible other federal, state and local taxation on the new retail price. The new, higher price has now risen a bit more.
In spite of the verbal crap being spewed; the end user/consumer will pay the tariff.
I'm sure I'll think of something else as soon as I return to yard work. Oh, well.
Your thoughts please.
Take care,
Catch

Thank you @davfor
I recall this tariff implementation with President Reagan's actions to save a dying Harley Davidson in 1983. HD in the '70's had become known for quality problems and were having their butt's kicked by quality bikes from Japan.
A snippet from the NYT article, and the full article, should be readable from this link.
--- The action, which becomes effective in 15 days, affects large highway motorcycles with an engine displacement of more than 700 cubic inches,the only market in which Harley-Davidson now manufactures. It would raise the current tariff of 4.4 percent to 49.4 percent in the first year of the five-year program. ---
THIS tariff is of the type that had the common usage of protecting a company, no matter the reason. One might look at this as the old fashioned tariff practice.
More later........chores call on a warm, sunny spring day in Michigan.

From that article:
Last year, the U.S. government established a program meant to provide economic support to farmers affected by the trade war. A spokesman for the Agriculture Department confirmed the total amount paid out by that program as of Monday was $8.52 billion, with payments most heavily going to producers of soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton and sorghum.
But here we see the calculus laid bare: Farmers get $8.52 billion of the $18 billion paid in tariffs by consumers through April.
Seems pretty straightforward. So where's the BS?

Why is this not comparing apples to oranges?
"Over the 12 months through June, only 36 percent of active U.S. equity funds outperformed their benchmarks, according to Morningstar. But more than 70 percent of intermediate-term bond funds outperformed their passive indexes over the same time period, the investment research firm found."
I'll bet Ted's chimps can do this good - and cheaper!!

Here is a little info from "Trump is taxing Americans to support farmers struggling from his trade war" that may serve to generalize a couple of the comments:

....here we see the calculus laid bare: Farmers get $8.52 billion of the $18 billion paid in tariffs by consumers through April...It’s important to remember that farmers are central to Trump’s political rhetoric and a key part of his base.

Hopefully this link works for those who do not subscribe to the Washington Post:
https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/14/trump-is-taxing-americans-support-farmers-struggling-his-trade-war/?utm_term=.56ac1cc45d2a

Well, after all, Uncle Sam needs income from whatever source possible to send money to @Ted for not growing stuff. $15 billion here, $15 billion there... pretty soon this starts to add up.

FYI: Tacking onto the past week's losses, yesterday was the first decline of over 2% in more than five months for the S&P 500 (SPY). Currently, every major index ETF has now declined over 4% in the past five days. Small caps and mid caps, in particular, have gotten hit hard as each one has fallen over 5%. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq (QQQ) has more dramatically underperformed, currently sitting just under 6% below where it was last week at this time. QQQ has still outperformed all other major index ETFs on a year to date basis, though. There is also no longer any major index ETF sitting above the 50-DMA. Whereas last week the group was entirely overbought, they head into trading today at either oversold levels or neutral and on the cusp of oversold. As seen through the long tails across each name in our Trend Analyzer, the movement towards this lower end of the ETFs' trading ranges has been rapid. But this pullback provides a good timing opportunity considering each one is still in an uptrend over the past six months
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/interactive/posts/think-big-blog/trend-analyzer-5-14-19-oversold-shift

The below chart is for the etf EEM beginning Oct. 31, 2007. I used this date, as this is near top + or - a week or two for a lot of equities worldwide; prior to the full market melt in 2008. The total return for EEM during this period (through May 13) is -7.9%.

What this shows is just that emerging markets have done slightly worse than, but in line with, developed foreign markets.
Try this plot, where I've added EFA into the mix.
FNMIX, EM Bond, EEM, EFA total return (Oct 31, 2007 through May 13, 2019)
Developed and emerging foreign markets seem to track pretty closely, at least from the visual. According to M*'s chart, EEM lost a total of 4.38% ($10K became $9,562), and EFA gained a total of 8% ($10K became $10,800).

China's wages or per capita income are less than 1/4th that of the U.S. https://stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/january/income-living-standards-china
Yet Arends says:

The tariffs are simply a means to an end. The president is trying to get China to start buying more of our stuff. He knows the so-called Middle Kingdom, which now has the second-biggest economy in the world, responds to incentives more than to nice words. These tariffs give China an incentive to open up.

How much more of "our stuff" is China going to buy based on a tariff when they can manufacture many things locally for 1/4th the labor cost?