As I recall, part of the reason they "colluded" was that they will still need to produce 2 different models even with the deregulation. Because even if Trump prevented California from upping the standards, the rest of the world (e.g. Europe) would still require those standards. So this was the case of having similar, worldwide standards so that they didn't have to produce 2 models, or of having two different standards and having to pay the cost of 2 models.
Not even remotely correct. EU and US models are not now, nor would they be in the future the same. The EU has a completely different mix of cars/SUVs and trucks than the US and generally uses smaller vehicles in every classification. The issue isn't that Ford wants to build SUV's in a single plant in the US to send to the EU, it's that they don't want to produce a "CA complaint Ford" that is otherwise identical to the Ford in the rest of the country but costs $12k more, nor does the US government want to let them dump the costs of the CA version on the rest of the country by requiring they be sold at the same price.
Plus the fact that those higher standards are likely to come back (if Trump is even able to force CA to let them go) once Trump leaves office.
Maybe. Maybe not. The standards are aspirational not realistic. For a single vehicle they'd have to double their gas mileage in 6 years - not possible, so they have "credits" that can be earned for doing things like selling electric cars - a good thing - but doesn't justify putting every manufacturer that can't produce them out of business.
Announcing that job killing regulations were going to be repealed. Yes that was enough. Announcing we'd move to a competetive tax rate. Yes.
Which simply means that the market responded before the regulation reductions and tax reductions were a reality. Hope for change. Not actual policies or actions. Just promises.
Change in policy. You seem to think that's the equivalent of vapor ware. The business community knew that Obama could be counted on to add costs and burdens to every thing on earth, to look to tax everything on earth and generally to undercount the economic consequences of his actions. Believably announcing a change in that policy is a real thing.
In fact, I'm dumbfounded here, so many "change in policy" announcments have made real impacts in so many fields that it's almost like a serious case of willful blindness to make this claim (I mean heck, look at what a "sanctuary city" is, it's just a "change in policy" afterall).
Which also means that, if the hoped-for change is not up to snuff, the economic upturn turns to dust.
That doesn't make sense. Does the LGBTQ community give up on Obama if the court's frustrate a reform? Rational people, including business people, make judgements based on their belief in what an administration's policies are trying to achieve, not just it's sucess and failures.
Or to put it another way, a failing Trump is thousands of times better for business than a sucessful Warren or Sanders.
First, I doubt you're accurate on Trump's economic understanding.
LOL. Well, everyone has an opinion. I suppose you like the idea of negative interest rates for the Feds, too. What better way to get people to invest in Fed bonds! 
That's your answer or is it intended as a "proof" of some sort? I get it, calling people stupid makes you feel smart.
But second, the Fed was acting ridiculously. For all people want to rewrite Obama's history to pretend he had a great economy, the Fed didn't believe it and tried to prop him up with the lowest interest rates in history. When Trump got the economy bouncing back the Fed literally tried to put on the breaks because of "inflation concerns." You know what we haven't had? Material inflation, yet they clearly overcorrected and have had to back off.
Have you forgotten the Great Recession already? We needed those interest rates down to stimulate the economy to get it moving again.
Didn't forget that. It's part of what I think is a poor economic model, but it's still a legit belief that many hold that such a policy would work. It didn't work though, because even with historically low interest rates Obama's policies were all about dumping massive expenses on the economy.
I saw someone say that we should pay down the debt when the economy is hot and run deficits when it's not. But the corallary that seems to be ignored is that we shouldn't layer expensive and business killing regulations on the business world when the economy is in recession. But Obama had no choice, he was a believer and he had to pursue his non-economic policies while he could whether or not the economy could bear them.
Obama started with a lousy economy. But while he was in office, it built up again, at a rate comparable to increase during Trump's time.
Obama started with a lousy economy. He did not build it up at a rate comparable to Trump. In fact, his policies were a direct drag on what should have been a good recovery. This revisionism you guys participate in explains why you end up believing time and again that failed policies will work in the future.
But the main difference is that Trump started with a good economy, which meant that that growth could easily have created inflation. The Feds were doing their job, just the way they were intended to.
The Feds are reading out of a playbook that is wholly dependent on an economic philosophy that may not be true. Trump's economy was threatening to prove it wasn't true, and they literally overreacted and slowed growth. Don't believe me? Take a look at how they've had to walk it back after they actually slowed growth.
Even the NYTs acknowledged that the tax cuts gave big benefits to the majority of the tax base, with the middle class recieving real benefits that proporationately had a bigger impact on their incomes than the tax benefits to the rich. It's kind of just a lie and a talking point to keep repeating the false claim.
It is also just a lie and talking point to ignore that dollar-wise, the rich and especially companies gained the most.
Oh like WOW, you mean people that pay 90% of the taxes got more dollars back from a tax cut? Shocking!
You guys got caught selling a major lie about the middle class tax cuts, let it go. When even the NYTs admits it was a middle class tax cut it's over.
It's like a said: the Democrats may be the Tax and Spend party, but at least they tax. The Republicans are the Cut Tax and Spend party, because they don't understand basic accounting.
That's kind of funny, certainly was true for Bush. I think the new truth is that Democrats are supporting confiscate and spend but still funny.
Trump didn't create the trade wars, he's just fighting back on the ones that have been running for decades. I think the confusion here comes from misunderstanding the Economics 101 claim that tariffs only hurt yourself. I mean honestly, the US has the least restrictions to access of our markets of any country on Earth, and when we "trade" with China they exploit us at virtually every turn, yet "Trump started" a trade war with China by putting on mild restrictions compared to the Chinese ones?
Oh, come on. You know better. It's not just China. It's Europe, Mexico, Canada.
I do know better, do you? I agree, all of those countries have spent decades imposing unilateral constraints on trade to the detriment of the US. Heck I've even provided links to the report the US compiled on them (hundreds of pages long). That includes individual countries in the EU as well as the EU. Trade with the US has been a silent cold war, that's been complicated by our media's refusal to report anti-comptetive policies as part of a trade war.
He's imposed tariffs or threaten to impose tariffs on just about everyone. And for the most half-assed reasons imaginable--"National security." Bull! There was never a national security threat from steel imports at this time. He only used that excuse because it gave him authority to impose them.
Lol. Did you forget the prior discussions on this? Or did you just not read the. Steel is a national security issue, and the broad based tariffs were designed specifically to target Chinese steel produced at a loss in an effort to seize the strategic market in steel. They were released expressly when other countries agreed to provisions that constrained the ability of the Chinese to flood those other countries markets with steel (which would have displaced the other countries steel into the US).
Otherwise he couldn't do it. So the next time you pay hundreds of dollars more for a new washing machine and dryer, remember that you're doing it to keep you country secure! 
Where are you buying a steel washer and dryer? Lol. I'm more concerned about how washers and dryers have usable lives of less than 10 years, when they used to last 30 or more. Want to explain that against a backdrop of a word that has too much pollution and over production? My last washer had a component that spins the drum that in fact dissolves when exposed to steam (which the washer actually produced intentionally) - the way it was cited made it unreparable.
So to be clear, do you want US factory jobs? It seems like you have before. Can't have em if you're going to buy everything cut rate from China.
And while you might think he imposed tariffs on China to counteract Chinese tariffs, look again.
Love this claim. I never said he did it because of Chinese "tariffs" I said he did it in response to a Chinese trade war. This is the same thing the media does, they look for "tariffs" and ignore EVERYTHING else. China was literally engaging in the monopolistic practices of selling below cost to gain a strategic benefit by putting others out of business. It's literally part of their policy (e.g., the one belt one road initiative).
But hey, let's declare them "good guys" because they didn't use "tariffs" only cutting corners on environmental concerns, product quality, intelletual property theft, and government subsidies.
He never consistently stated exactly which tariffs he wanted removed. He keeps moving the line, changing what he wants. Ultimately, he seems to want China to buy as much of our stuff as we buy of theirs. And for some reason he thinks he can dictate that in a free market. 
I doubt that he truly understands what that means.
Based on what you say, I don't get the sense you understand trading and world markets. China's market is artificially closed, Trump wants it to open more. China's business success is built on cutting quality and environmental corners and stealing knowledge, Trump wants that playing field to be more level. China literally uses government funding as a form of economic warfare to dominate trade in critical areas, Trump is doing what any US President should and reacting to protect our strategic interests against that.
And, yes, we all understand that tariffs hurt China as well as us. Do you think Trump understands that they hurt us as well? If so, how do you explain him tweeting that China is paying for the tariffs. 
As if he didn't know that tariffs are paid by the importer, not the exporter. Moron.
Calling names makes you big again? I think Trump has correctly deduced that the tariffs are barely marginally hurting the average person, and are in fact redirecting a big chunk of high value jobs into the US, which is in fact helping the common people. Who are they really hurting? I suspect, if you follow the money its the same "corporate bad guys" you want to tax and regulate, who maximized their profits by exporting jobs, quality control and environmental compliance to China.
So yes, I get it, Econ 101 "tariffs bad" but I also get that notwithstanding that aggregate trade is hurt, these tariffs are providing direct and specific benefits to real people and acting to reset the overall trade in a way that will be better than before. That's just a fact, even in Econ 101, if you accept the rule that constraints on trade are always bad, using a tariff to force the Chinese to lift their constraints on trade must end up being a net good.
So what about the Republican non-deficit hawks? They bear none of the blame?
Sure, they're the same guys that supported Bush's spending without constraint. Blame them too.
When Republicans start blaming their own for the deficit, then I'll listen to you.
So are you listening to me now? I'm not convinced that there are more than a handful of politicians - in total - that are serious about cutting expenses. Every cut punishes someone who becomes an angry voter, every payout makes a voter happy. There is zero incentive for the politicians to cut and every incentive to spend.
But until then, as long as the deficit is always the Democrat's fault, I'll call bull. Republicans are worse for the deficit than Democrats, because at least Democrats are willing to raise taxes to pay for the spending.
That's really just a delusion though. Democrats are raising taxes to punish people not to increase spending. Go back and read old stuff from Pyrtolin, the reality is that Democrats really just believe in printing money to what ever extent they need to fund the things they want. The public demands a "fig leaf" to the idea that money is a real thing, hence the need to show taxes.
Well, he's done a lot that is objectively bad for the economy.
Okay, what would that be? Best case I can see is the mixed bag of tariffs, which have real tangible benefits and for which the harms are hard to see, and even there that's designed as a short term pain for a long term gain.
And the stuff that he has done, it sounds like most of the exuberance has come from anticipation rather than actual implementation. The objective evidence you have provided (rather than reassuring me exists somewhere) is a bit thin.
This is why we have trouble communicating. There are thousands of regulatory reversals that you haven't bothered to look at, yet you seem to think your ignorance of them is evidence. You can't understand why the economy is having positive results, even though those directly responsible for each of the components can and have told you (if you look for it in the media).
What do you want me to say? Just keep being "mystified" when the world works based on observable inputs and reactions, but I wish you'd stop voting based on willful blindness.
Oh, by the way, let's not forget that the tax cut was primarily Congress' plan. I don't recall the Trump Administration doing more than telling them "send me a plan"--much like Trump's plan to end ISIS in six months after he was elected (Candidate Trump: "I have a great plan to end ISIS in six months!" President Trump: "Generals, give a plan to end ISIS in six month!" )
Okay. Sure, go with that. And I learned my lesson about thinking you would be asking a question in good faith.
