FYI: U.S. stock futures pointed to a recovery Monday morning after President Trump said China is ready to come back to the negotiating table following a phone call Sunday and the two countries will start talking very seriously.
Dow Jones Industrial Average futures traded 154 points higher, indicating a rise of 208.10 points at Monday’s open, as of 3:27 a.m. ET Monday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures also pointed to opening gains for both indexes.
Global stocks and government bond yields fell on Monday as a new escalation in commercial tensions between the world’s two largest economies cast fresh doubt on growth prospects.
Regards,
Ted
:
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-fall-as-trade-tensions-escalate-11566787858
Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-25/yen-gains-stocks-to-drop-as-trade-war-ramps-up-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-china-trade-war-trumps-apple-stock-market-rally-fed-cuts-tesla-boeing-micron/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/25/dow-futures-drop-300-points-at-the-open-as-us-china-trade-war-escalates.html
U.K.
Closed
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-stocks-tumble-on-trade-war-blows-idUSKCN1VG0HQ
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-sink-as-trump-ratchets-up-trade-tensions-2019-08-25/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/26/treasury-yields-fall-investors-flee-risk-trade-war.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/26/forex-markets-us-china-trade-war-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/26/oil-markets-us-china-trade-war-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/26/gold-markets-us-china-trade-war-us-stocks-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

+1.

All I have to say after reading the article is that I admire the framers of our constitution even more. Limiting the president to a 4 year term might limit the harm she or he could inflict, while allowing a successful performer to repeat their success. While it might be better for the non-Russian or Chinese world to have a shorter term, it's not realistic in this era.
While I do agree with the basic observations in the article, based on my psychology undergrad degree, I also have a minor in West European history focused primarily on Germany in the 1930's. The environment is much different here, and I don't see Trump as the new Hitler, and the economy is markedly better than that in the Wiemar republic; but I am concerned with the concept of Dr. Goebbels that repeating the same lies consistently makes them believable.
Hitler was not the leader of the dominant world power; but the American president is; and he has to convince his inferior associates that he has a viable concept of the future.
I suspect these people are holding their breath until late January 2021. They don't really care whether Ruth Ginsburg survives until lat January 2021 or if "Moscow Mitch" is re-elected (sorry, but the alliteration is too perfect), but intellectually coherent individuals have to be concerned about the short-term future of our country.

"the collectivist ideology of the 'free press' "
Translation: If the story doesn't exactly parrot the desired Trumpian story line then it's obviously commie propaganda. Factuality is not a redeeming consideration.
And I quote:
"We certainly don't want to stifle free speech, but... I don't think that the mainstream media is free speech... because it's so crooked." (1)
(1) The Economist, August 17th-23rd, 2019, pg 44.

Wow!
Since we seem to be operating in data free space, I do hope that anyone voting on my behalf is considering the US citizens, which includes the consumers buying cheap Chinese made products and the workers whose incomes are reduced by the pressures of the "flat world."
Personally, I'm willing to pay a few dollars more for American-made goods by American workers (curse you, Wal-Mart!, but I may buy groceries there, since I am fairly sure they didn't come from China.)
While I have no idea where Edmond gets his data that half of the "shareholders" are against supporting American workers, I want to see the survey that shows that 51% wants companies to place their interests above that of their fellow citizens.
So far as "the collectivist ideology of the 'free press' " comment [it's really hard to get the punctuation correct here], , I doubt that Jefferson, Adams, or Hamilton would have a clue what this means. BU.T, I doubt they would have regarded it as a threat to the republic

Looks like he is a winner - 3 hots a cot and $1.45 mil for 4 years of his time at some white collar country club all expenses paid.

There might be an issue OTHER than monetary policy goals which impacts Nigeria:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/07/17/new-taxonomy-for-corruption-in-nigeria-pub-76811
https://www.pwc.com/ng/en/press-room/impact-of-corruption-on-nigeria-s-economy.html
"...corruption in Nigeria could cost up to 37% of Gross Domestic Products (GDP) by 2030.."

"...Once in power, individuals with narcissistic personality disorder see themselves as history makers. They view themselves as great heroes who, unbound by the rules which govern lesser human beings, can bend history to their will and refashion the world in their image.
If there is hope in our present situation, it lies in the fact that the current occupant of the White House, in attempting to do just that, is opening our eyes to the reality that individuals with dangerous personalities can plunge entire societies into division and moral confusion. Creating a collective understanding of this fundamental truth is the first essential step to recovery from the collective madness."
https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/14/unpicking-donald-trump-s-psychopathology-helps-explain-the-toxic-reality-facing-america-vi
(Surely, "unpAcking" is intended in the title?)

FYI: Big funds should use their votes as shareholders on behalf of the workers whose money they invest.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/mutual-funds-shareholder-activism.html

more
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch
and
https://www.theonion.com/david-koch-pumps-billions-of-dollars-into-campaign-to-s-1837513455

@MSF You're right that the ideal benefactor in Jewish tradition, although I'm not sure it's Maimonides who mentions this--is it?--gives anonymously so they get no ego-boost. Today's rich Americans are not like this for sure. (Oh wait, I see from your link it was Maimonides.) Yet there's also this: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/for-third-year-in-a-row-trumps-budget-plan-eliminates-arts-public-tv-and-library-funding/2019/03/18/e946db9a-49a2-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on
Public funding for the arts is always threatened by Republicans and sometimes Democrats who will often claim it's a waste of money. The NEA has been under threat by the GOP now for decades. New York is a very liberal city so I assume there will be funding earmarked for culture, but the U.S. is not New York. One could argue if the wealthy were taxed appropriately, there would be enough funding for the arts, although I have a feeling there would still be a claim that it was an "inefficient" use of public funds in many local governments. It is an unfortunate reality that museums today often need wealthy benefactors to keep them going. I am surprised and disappointed to hear that the Met has changed its policies. That wasn't my experience when I went there. MOMA has long charged an arm and a leg to get in though. Interestingly, Koch didn't give to MOMA. I could see him hating modern art and preferring classical portraits of kings and queens.

If he signs China would not be surprise if DOWS upswing 10 to 15% in few days WEEKS... He need to be fair and compromise everyone... Which maybe very hard to do w personalities issues

The whole thing amounts to a mini-tantrum and he is angry at everybody including China who he blames them on the market and the economy on chairman Powell. The biggest mistake is the belief that lowering interest rates by 25 or 50 bp (or even 100 bp as he floated the idea early in the week) will do anything to revive the economy. Realistically there is not much left in Federal Reserve to bail out the economy, unlike the 2008 timeframe.
In the recent weeks, Friday marked third declines in S&P500 of more than 2% with the a total decline of 5.8% of the last 4 weeks. Next fight is at G7 summit.

I agree that giving money to the top tier museums is not a bad thing. But let's face it - giving money to a specific recipient in exchange for publicity is not exactly high up on Maimonides' eight levels of charitable giving. At best what you've got is trickle down culture.
Citing NYC museum admission policies, and the Met's in particular, was not the best example one might have come up with. The Met sits on public land; as a condition of that public gift, it is required to offer free admission. Until recently, "free" was interpreted as requiring at least a penny's payment from all visitors. But in early 2018, the Met started limiting "free" admission to only those visitors who could prove they were NYS residents. (Ironic that your link was to a tourist site.)
MoMA and the Guggenheim suffer no such constraints. Consequently, they charge visitors full freight; no "pay what you want" policy for them.

“We’re the only major art museum in the world that has recourse neither to mandatory admissions or significant government funding,” he said, pointing out that both the Smithsonian in Washington and the Louvre in Paris receive considerable public support. The Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim already charge $25 — though, unlike the Met, they are not in city-owned buildings nor supported by taxpayer dollars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/arts/design/met-museum-admissions.html
To add to the matter of NYC, the Cooper Hewitt museum, a NYC branch of the usually free Smithsonian charges mandatory admission (except for three hours of "pay what you want" once a week). And the Met implemented the mandatory fee for out-of-towners in part because NYC had decided to spread its art dollars around more widely to enhance diversity. So NYC at least is not a local government unwilling to pay for "artsy" things. It's just more interested in supporting the arts more broadly than wealthy donors tend to do.

Yes.. Better be correct and honest on ur irs 1099 w2 misc incomes.. The irs knows more about your incomes than your father mother know about you for sure

@MikeM2: Try this !
1. In Firefox Browser highlight, copy and paste article title to Google. Put Firefox Browser in Private Window mode and click enter. When article appears you should able to read.
2. In Chrome Browser do the same steps to Google. Put Chrome Browser in Incognito Window mode and click enter.
Regards,
Ted

@MSF My feelings about charities and charitable giving are rather ambivalent, but I don't believe giving money to the American Museum of Natural History or the Metropolitan Musem of Art are bad things even if the rich intend to hobnob there at galas, etc. The reason is these museums offer a "pay what you want" entrance fee, allowing poorer citizens a chance to be inspired by great works of art and natural wonders: https://lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/americas-united-states-of-america/united-states/many-nyc-museums-can-cost-0-01-yes-really-you-decide
I also think it is precisely such "artsy" things local governments don't want to pay for, even though they can have great cultural, educational and spiritual value to some people. I would compare donating to these museums favorably to for instance a rich person buying a Picasso and locking it up in a vault somewhere or in their house where no one else can see it. That happens too. The opera on the other hand I do not believe offers free admission so I feel differently about it. Cancer hospitals I think are also worthwhile causes. My point is none of this giving cancels out the far greater harm this person has done to our planet. In fact, it is rather ironic that Koch was such a big donor to cancer research and hospitals because fossil fuels and pollution are major causes of that terrible disease. I also think the Sacklers' giving to museums doesn't cancel out the ravages of the opiod crisis in the U.S. today.

Charitable causes? Depends on how you look at the recipients and at the motivation.

I’m all in favor of supporting fancy museums and elite schools, but face it: These aren’t really charities as most people understand the term. They’re often investments in the life-styles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have as well. Increasingly, being rich in America means not having to come across anyone who’s not.
They’re also investments in prestige – especially if they result in the family name engraved on a new wing of an art museum, symphony hall, or ivied dorm.

Robert Reich, Rich people's idea of charity: Giving to elite schools and operas
https://www.salon.com/2013/12/14/the_wealthy_give_to_charity_elite_schools_and_operas_partner/
Center for Public Integrity / Dave Levinthal , How the Koch Brothers Are Influencing U.S. Colleges
https://time.com/4148838/koch-brothers-colleges-universities/

I would have concurred last week in the first sentence from @kings53man, but this is sobering, about self-reinforcing trade stupidities:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/23/1880993/-The-Trump-presidency-may-well-have-entered-its-endgame-today

Just like Al Capone - they got him on tax evasion.
"“No matter what the source of income, all income is taxable,” said Guy Ficco, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge. “Scott Capps failed to report the money he stole and that is a violation of the federal tax laws."
I wondered why he wasn't convicted of simple embezzlement. " He admitted that through his employment he had access to dormant accounts." That's what you need for embezzlement.
The reason is that this was federal prosecution, so he was only tried for federal crimes like mail fraud, and not state crimes like vanilla embezzlement.