[QUOTE=science_man_88;481594]Trump apparently said he wishes the USA had a for life president, it's happened before and if my history serves me correct most saw assasinations. [url]https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-says-maybe-u-s-will-have-a-president-for-life-someday-1.3827827[/url][/QUOTE]

The current authority on this topic is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]The 22[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment to the US Constitution[/url], which was proposed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by enough states to make it effective on February 27, 1951. It was clearly a reaction to FDR's serving three terms, then dropping dead near the start of his fourth term. So [i]Il Duce[/i]'s remarks come pretty near the 71[sup]st[/sup] anniversary of the adoption of a presidential term limit.

The US presidents who died in office so far have been William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy were assassinated; all shot. (In Garfield's case, the gunman had a major assist from the doctors.) Harrison, Taylor, Harding, and Roosevelt died of natural causes.

Zachary Taylor's Vice-President, Millard Fillmore, is the most recent US president who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican (he was a Whig).

The 22[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment reads:

[quote][b]Section 1.[/b] No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[b]Section 2.[/b] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.[/quote]

Thomas Jefferson commented on the lack of Constitutional limit at the time:

[quote]"if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life."[/quote]

Also, there have been

[quote]Attempts at repeal[edit]
According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University (who was opposed to repealing the amendment), "ever since 1985, when Ronald Reagan was serving in his second term as president, there have been repeated attempts to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution, which limits each president to two terms."[sup][11][/sup] In early 1989, during an exit interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC, President Reagan stated his intention to fight for the amendment's repeal.[sup][12][/sup] However, after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, his post-presidential ambitions had to be scrapped.

In addition, several congressmen, including Democrats Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. José E. Serrano,[sup][13][/sup] Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid,[sup][14][/sup] and Republicans Rep. Guy Vander Jagt,[sup][15][/sup] Rep. David Dreier[sup][16][/sup] and Sen. Mitch McConnell[sup][17][/sup] have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. Other alterations have been proposed, including replacing the absolute two term limit with a limit of no more than two consecutive terms and giving Congress the power to grant an exemption to a current or former president by way of a supermajority vote in both houses.[citation needed]

On January 4, 2013, Rep. José E. Serrano again introduced a resolution proposing an Amendment to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, as he had done every two years since 1997; he did not do so during the 114th Congress.[sup][18][19][/sup][/quote]

DrS, appreciate your thoughts re. Smoot-Hawley - some more stuff on that at bottom of this post.

[QUOTE=chalsall;481633]It seems quite clear that your president hasn't read Smith nor Nash.

But, then, this isn't all that surprising considering all evidence suggests he doesn't read anything....[/QUOTE]

If you have some specific links/quotes by Smith and Nash re. the issue, preferably ones which address the kind of faux-free-trade pacts underpinning the modern globalization regime, post them here. Or are you just name-dropping, "free trade, comparative advantage, the invisible hand of the free markets, what, what"-style in order to try to look smart?

Whatever Smith may have had to say about genuinely free trade (i.e. not at the point of a gun, British-empire-style, nor corporate-welfare-in-guise-of-free-trade as currently) is irrelevant to what [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/trumping-capitalism.html]currently passes as such[/url]:
[quote]Dani Rodrik, certainly no market fundamentalist, finds reason for hope in Trump’s opposition to “free trade” deals laden with provisions that have nothing to do with trade. As he puts it, “Adam Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” with the special preferences it offers specific industries and vested interests, and other newer trade agreements that Trump has denounced. All of them “incorporate rules on intellectual property, capital flows, and investment protections that are mainly designed to generate and preserve profits for financial institutions and multinational enterprises at the expense of other legitimate policy goals.”[/quote]
(Note there's a lot in that piece with which I disagree, but not the Rodrik quote.)

Another NC piece on the issue from January: [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/01/international-trade-globalization-benefits-truly-mutual.html]International Trade and Globalization: Are Benefits Truly Mutual?[/url]
[quote]The naive economic view that “more open trade is every and always better” is unsound. It’s based on the faulty premise that moving closer to an unattainable ideal state of frictionless, unrestricted trade is preferable.

But that notion was debunked over 60 years ago, in the Lipsey-Lancaser theorem, in their paper, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_second_best]“The Theory of the Second Best”[/url]. It found that moving closer to that unachievable position could make matters worse, not better, and (gasp!) economist and policymakers needed to assess tradeoffs, and not rely on simple-minded beliefs. And the example Lipsey and Lancaster used was in trade, a specific example where the country liberalizing trade would wind up worse off.[/quote]

Wikipedia's entry on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit]Balance of Trade[/url] mentions none other than John Maynard Keynes, in a section which also notes the various trends preceding and precipitating the Great Depression:
[quote]In the last few years of his life, John Maynard Keynes was much preoccupied with the question of balance in international trade. He was the leader of the British delegation to the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in 1944 that established the Bretton Woods system of international currency management. He was the principal author of a proposal – the so-called Keynes Plan – for an International Clearing Union. The two governing principles of the plan were that the problem of settling outstanding balances should be solved by 'creating' additional 'international money', and that debtor and creditor should be treated almost alike as disturbers of equilibrium. In the event, though, the plans were rejected, in part because "American opinion was naturally reluctant to accept the principle of equality of treatment so novel in debtor-creditor relationships".[27]

The new system is not founded on free-trade (liberalisation[28] of foreign trade[29]) but rather on the regulation of international trade, in order to eliminate trade imbalances: the nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it, and in doing so they would automatically clear other nations deficits.[30] He proposed a global bank that would issue its own currency – the bancor – which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange and would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country's trade deficit or trade surplus. Every country would have an overdraft facility in its bancor account at the International Clearing Union. He pointed out that surpluses lead to weak global aggregate demand – countries running surpluses exert a "negative externality" on trading partners, and posed far more than those in deficit, a threat to global prosperity.[31] In "National Self-Sufficiency" The Yale Review, Vol. 22, no. 4 (June 1933),[32][33] he already highlighted the problems created by free trade .

His view, supported by many economists and commentators at the time, was that creditor nations may be just as responsible as debtor nations for disequilibrium in exchanges and that both should be under an obligation to bring trade back into a state of balance. Failure for them to do so could have serious consequences. In the words of Geoffrey Crowther, then editor of The Economist, "If the economic relationships between nations are not, by one means or another, brought fairly close to balance, then there is no set of financial arrangements that can rescue the world from the impoverishing results of chaos."[34]
[b]
These ideas were informed by events prior to the Great Depression when – in the opinion of Keynes and others – international lending, primarily by the U.S., exceeded the capacity of sound investment and so got diverted into non-productive and speculative uses, which in turn invited default and a sudden stop to the process of lending[/b].[35][/quote]

Note that I never said tariffs are the best way to address chronic trade imbalances. But unlike trade pacts, where even the simplest bilateral variety invariably take years to hammer out, they are something that can be implemented quickly. Is there a real possibility of adverse blowback? Sure there is. But given the dire state of the US manufacturing and non-financial economy, more of the same bogus 'free trade' preached by the globalist financial-parasite class which dominates orthodox economics and the MSFM is absolutely the last thing the nation needs. In a long [url=https://www.alternet.org/economy/free-trade-problem-or-it-something-else]Alternet article this week[/url], Marshall Auerback effectively characterizes tariffs as an ugly solution to a real problem.

(Yeah, I know, a few too many the-globalist-point-of-view quotes by former Enron shill Paul Krugman, ugh. But as one commenter notes, even Krugman "[b]has emphasized that comparative advantage does not work to benefit both nations unless trade is balanced, there is no cross border movement of labor or capital, and there is full employment in both nations. Although the last point would be argued, nobody would suggest that the first three necessary assumptions are remotely true of USA’s foreign trade situation today.[/b]")

Lastly, re. the MSM hysteria over all things Trump, anyone remember the hue and cry from the globalists when St. Obama imposed a 266% duty on Chinese cold-rolled steel? Exactly. (In fact, it is precisely these pre-Trump tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium which explain why the Trump-proposed tariffs [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/03/trumps-steel-aluminum-tariffs-wto-retaliation-typically-works.html]will have a relatively tiny impact on US/China trade flows.[/url])

Well, [i]Il Duce[/i] has proclaimed the tariffs. And, -- surprise surprise -- he's exempted Canada (our biggest steel importer) and Mexico indefinitely -- apparently contingent on their kowtowing to the US regarding NAFTA, which up to now they have shown no interest in doing. I will dare to ask whether this apparent linkage blows the whole "national security" premise for the tariffs clean out of the water. Perhaps the Canadians and the Mexicans will ask the same question of the WTO or the World Court.

If [i]Il Duce[/i] has any facts or figures to justify his assertion that "Trade wars are good, and easy to win," he hasn't seen fit to share them with any of us.

Also in trade news, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which [i]Il Duce[/i] rejected about a year ago, but Treasury Secretary Steve "the foreclosure king" Mnuchin recently expressed renewed interest in, has now gone into effect with 11 signatories, none of them being the good ol' USA.

If [i]Il Duce[/i] wants to address our trade deficit with China, perhaps he should order the closure of MALL[b][SIZE="5"][sub]*[/sub][/SIZE][/b]WART or whatever the name of that big chain is, on national security grounds. You know, the one with the advertising slogan "Support tyranny. Live better." Or something like that.

If he really wants a border wall with Mexico, he shouldn't exempt Mexico from the tariffs then use the money from those tariffs to pay for it.

.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;481911]If you have some specific links/quotes by Smith and Nash re. the issue, preferably ones which address the kind of faux-free-trade pacts underpinning the modern globalization regime, post them here.[/QUOTE]

Having read both Smith and Nash, I'm not "name dropping".

Smith showed that focusing on what one is good at, and letting other do the same, and then trading the products is "more optimal". For example, I don't know how to (or choose not to) produce bread, but I know how to program. So I do the latter, make money, and buy bread.

Nash showed that this can be optimized further, by taking into consideration the actions of other "players in the game", particularly those that you don't have any control over.

All of this can, of course, scale from the individual all the way up to nations.

I will agree with you that the pure economics (read: the maths) become much more complicated when protectionist distortions (read: tariffs, taxes, et al) are introduced.

To be honest, I have no skin in this game. I had personally modelled that the US of A was going to lose its "world leader" status within 20 years. IMO, Trump is simply accelerating this time-line for the short-term gains of protecting a very few jobs in industries which no longer make much sense in the hopes of re-election.

Trump fires top diplomat Tillerson after clashes, taps Pompeo
 

[URL]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tillerson/trump-fires-top-diplomat-tillerson-after-clashes-taps-pompeo-idUSKCN1GP1NJ[/URL]
OMG! No love for Mr. Exxon here, but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo"]Pompeo[/URL] is a huge step down. He's on the wrong side of just about everything: a pliable, pro-Israel, war-mongering, surveillance freak. He wants Snowden brought back, given "due process" with a pre-determined death penalty.

I see this as a very dangerous development.

Dictator for Life: The Rise of the American Imperial President
 

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48934.htm[/URL]
[QUOTE][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The presidency will survive. [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][URL="https://newrepublic.com/article/75730/the-imperial-temptation"]The real question is what leads American presidents into the imperial temptation.[/URL][FONT=Times New Roman] When the American presidency conceives itself as the appointed savior of a world in which mortal danger requires rapid and incessant deployment of men, weapons, and decisions behind a wall of secrecy, power rushes from Capitol Hill to the White House.”—Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]Just in case there is any lingering belief that our political system is in any way democratic, I offer this cheerful assessment.
[QUOTE][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=5][SIZE=3]China—an economic and political powerhouse that [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][URL="http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/16/investing/china-us-debt-treasuries/index.html"]owns more of America’s debt[/URL][FONT=Times New Roman] than any other country and is [/FONT][URL="http://fortune.com/2016/03/18/the-biggest-american-companies-now-owned-by-the-chinese/"]buying up American businesses[/URL][FONT=Times New Roman] across the spectrum— now plans to make its president, Xi Jinping, president for life.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
President Trump thinks that’s a great idea.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
Trump thinks the idea of having a president for life is so great, in fact, that America might want to move in that direction. “[/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][URL="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/04/trump-praises-chinese-president-extending-tenure-for-life.html"]Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday[/URL][FONT=Times New Roman],” said Trump to a roomful of supporters.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]
Here’s the thing: we already have a president for life.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention that US Representative Mike Pompeo was known as "The Congressman from Koch."

Meanwhile, in military-related news...

The new US Air Force's [url=https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1520885388.pdf]Public Affairs Guidance[/url] turns the USAF into a black box. What are they trying to hide? Upon reading the memo, my answer is, [i]Everything![/i] I guess the enemy is the people. For example

[quote]Media embeds, media base visits, and interviews are suspended until further notice.[/quote]

Also,

[quote]Responses to queries regarding human interest, personality feature or other non-operational issues may be approved by the owning MAJCOM/PA[/quote]

In other words, a 4-star general has to OK even puff pieces.

As to the memo itself, it is

[quote]For Official Use Only -- Not for Public Release[/quote]

House Republicans Say Japanese Did Not Meddle in Pearl Harbor
 

[URL]https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/house-republicans-say-japanese-did-not-meddle-in-pearl-harbor[/URL]
[QUOTE]Reaching the opposite conclusion of many of their committee peers, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday that the Japanese did not meddle in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

“After an exhaustive investigation, we have come to the conclusion that there was no attempt by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service to influence the outcome of Pearl Harbor,” Rep. Mike Conaway, a Republican of Texas, said. “Any suggestion to the contrary amounts to nothing more or less than a witch hunt.”
[/QUOTE]While I am sick of the Russiagate distraction campaign, I have hand it to Andy B. once again for the satirical seasoning he adds to every topic he touches.

In the following 13 minute-plus video, [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRmt7UQfKEk]Authorities provide updates on Carson Midway Fire at news conference[/url], Colonel Ronald P. Fitch Jr, the garrison commander at Fort Carson, CO explains why they've been conducting live-fire exercises despite extreme fire danger. A combination of drought, tinder-dry dead grass and weeds, very low humidity, warm temperatures, and strong gusty winds mean that any fire that starts will spread extremely fast. This one got off the base and led to a lot of people being evacuated, and at least three homes being burned to the ground. [Col. Fitch isn't on the whole time. He hands off to the local Sheriff after several minutes.]

At around 2:15 and 3:15 of the video, Colonel Fitch gives some interesting information about recent and expected troop deployments. It seems the prospect of frequent deployments is driving a continuous training schedule, despite fire conditions.