Trump signs tariffs

[fast4522]

The administration is preparing a tariff filing on more than 1,300 specific Chinese imports. Most of the products listed appear to be machinery or parts to be used by American manufacturers.

About two-thirds of our imports from China are parts or machinery used by US manufacturers in the production of American made products. So all costs of tariffs will be passed through to the American consumer.

Chinese retaliatory tariffs on American exports are expected, which will ultimately hurt American businesses that won't be able to sell their products in China, one of the world's fastest growing markets.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/05/heres-the-tariffs-that-will-piss-you-off

Compare what a machinist made for a living 30 years ago to what a machinist makes today.

Guess what folks, the same money. We have hollowed out our country for China. I say turn the screws to the Chinese government all the way.

[elysiantraveller]

Compare what a machinist made for a living 30 years ago to what a machinist makes today.

Guess what folks, the same money. We have hollowed out our country for China. I say turn the screws to the Chinese government all the way.

How do tariffs increase wages for the machinist?

If anything they would lower them as the company needs to pay less for labor to offset the now more expensive input and keep their margins.

[fast4522]

How do tariffs increase wages for the machinist?

If anything they would lower them as the company needs to pay less for labor to offset the now more expensive input and keep their margins.

Offset this thought and offset that thought if you want, 40 years of stupidity can not be solved over night. When you think about the miles and miles of shipping containers clogging up our shipping ports can be turned into tariffs in the trillions.

[elysiantraveller]

Offset this thought and offset that thought if you want, 40 years of stupidity can not be solved over night. When you think about the miles and miles of shipping containers clogging up our shipping ports can be turned into tariffs in the trillions.

So... it won't... just checking.

Now we are on to trillions of dollars paid for by the machinist on good arriving in containers...?

[Tom]

Pretty sure the sun came up today.......

[Clocker]

When you think about the miles and miles of shipping containers clogging up our shipping ports can be turned into tariffs in the trillions.

Tariffs are paid by the people that buy the stuff in those containers. Most of the stuff coming from China is going to US companies that use it as inputs into their businesses. They will pass those costs on to their customers. The rest of the things in those containers are consumer products, the tariffs on them paid for by Americans.

[Clocker]

Tariffs 101

http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Screen-Shot-2018-04-06-at-7.51.03-AM-300x239.png

[fast4522]

I am just as content to watching this all play out. China will flinch long before it slides into recession, because they are way more likely to crash. They will do much more before flinching, and we will all get to witness it.

[Clocker]

China will flinch long before it slides into recession, because they are way more likely to crash. They will do much more before flinching, and we will all get to witness it.

Trade wars will hurt consumers on both sides. Chinese consumers have no choice but to accept the decisions of their leaders.

American consumers will have a choice to respond at the polls in November and in 2020.

[classhandicapper]

People can talk about consumers getting hurt all they want, but the bottom line is we get cheap goods and they jobs, profits, and US assets.

You tell me who has the better deal.

Let's you and I do some trades.

I'll buy $1,000 of stuff from you. I'll sell $10,000 worth of stuff to you a little cheaper than you can get it at WalMart. Then I'm going to take the extra $9000 and buy a portion of your house every year until I eventually own it. After that, you can start owing me money. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to work for less because your manufacturing job is going to shift over to me so I can hire the cheaper labor I need to sell you those cheaper goods.

Don't worry, you are making out like a bandit. You'll have cheaper goods.

Of course, I'll have your salary, own your house, you'll owe me 10s of thousands of dollars and if you do anything I don't like I'll ask for your fist born.

Believe me it's a good deal. You'll have cheaper clothes and electronics etc..

Free trade is great in theory, but only works between partners with very similar education, skills, salaries, taxes, regulations, work ethic etc... Otherwise, one side wins and the other side loses.

Tariffs are a bad way to try to fix the situation, but people need to wake up and at least realize we are getting killed. We need to get some countries to the negotiating table to try to fix these imbalances over the next 10-50 years until we are trading as equals. Right now they are getting richer and their standards of living are rising. Our middle class is getting poorer. That's now how to achieve balance.

[fast4522]

What really pisses of the Chinese is when the President killed the deal that included 5 G cell service. When the next new things come out if they do NOT hold the designs sure they will copy it, but those knock offs become counterfeit available only in black markets. This is the real war Chinese are worried about. The exponential effect that relates to products sold inside these United States is of the highest concern to the Chinese, if they miss just one product cycle they will be in full blown recession.

[Clocker]

I'll buy $1,000 of stuff from you. I'll sell $10,000 worth of stuff to you a little cheaper than you can get it at WalMart. Then I'm going to take the extra $9000 and buy a portion of your house every year until I eventually own it. After that, you can start owing me money. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to work for less because your manufacturing job is going to shift over to me so I can hire the cheaper labor I need to sell you those cheaper goods.



I actually buy a lot of stuff from WalMart and they buy nothing from me. Why doesn't WalMart own my house by now?

This is a serious question. How is this any different than your hypothetical above?

[Tom]

Because Walmart uses your Credit Card as a third party.

You want to make the economy SUPER good - cancel all CC debt and then outlaw CC's.

Let the banks eat it.

[horses4courses]

Any truth to the rumors that Ivanka's clothing line (mainly supplied from China)
will be exempt from any tariffs? Or, is this just more fake liberal BS? :confused:

[Clocker]

Any truth to the rumors that Ivanka's clothing line (mainly supplied from China)
will be exempt from any tariffs? Or, is this just more fake liberal BS? :confused:

Must be true. Liberals would never lie about something this critical to the security of the country. :rolleyes:

[chadk66]

Ivanka will no doubt look to indonesia

[Inner Dirt]

I actually buy a lot of stuff from WalMart and they buy nothing from me. Why doesn't WalMart own my house by now?

This is a serious question. How is this any different than your hypothetical above?


We are total opposites, I buy as little as possible from Walmart. They might even lose money from my purchases. I pretty much get insulin, needles & shoes. I pay cash for my diabetic supplies and they sell a vial of insulin for $25 and everyone else is $100+. since I use almost two vials a month a Walmart trip is worth it. I think the insulin could be a loss leader. I can drive 50 miles round trip to Walmart and not buy another item. As for the shoes I have large duck feet, they are the only place I can find any selection off the shelf that fits decent.

[garyscpa]

We are total opposites, I buy as little as possible from Walmart. They might even lose money from my purchases. I pretty much get insulin, needles & shoes. I pay cash for my diabetic supplies and they sell a vial of insulin for $25 and everyone else is $100+. since I use almost two vials a month a Walmart trip is worth it. I think the insulin could be a loss leader. I can drive 50 miles round trip to Walmart and not buy another item. As for the shoes I have large duck feet, they are the only place I can find any selection off the shelf that fits decent.

Well, at least you can swim good. :)

[reckless]

I am surprised, make that shocked, shocked! that none of the 'free' trade experts and brilliant economists on here missed --ignored is more like it-- this very important news item:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/xi-jinping-china-trade.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fb usiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&p

... Mr. Xi highlighted areas where China was willing to give, including pledging to ease restrictions on imported cars by the end of the year as well as repeating open-ended promises to give foreigners greater access to the country’s financial markets — promises officials have made in the past. He also pledged to strengthen intellectual property rights, addressing one of Mr. Trump’s main complaints.

His comments struck a tonal contrast with the more combative language coming from Mr. Trump and his administration.

[Clocker]

His comments struck a tonal contrast with the more combative language coming from Mr. Trump and his administration.

Proving that Mr. Xi has a better understanding of the futility of trade wars than Mr. Trump. I don't remember the president making any offers to negotiate recently, just a unilateral declaration of trade war on his part.

In fact, when trade negotiations with China last summer produced a deal that Commerce Secretary Ross endorsed, Trump rejected it and negotiations broke off.

So much for the art of the deal.

Which brings us to the puzzling part. In July, trade talks between the United States and China simply failed. Press conferences were cancelled. There was scarcely a token attempt at positive spin. Such an abject breakdown is rare, particularly at the ministerial (cabinet) level. It was hard to know what had happened. Perhaps Team Trump had pushed too hard and run up against Chinese ‘red lines.’

Now, the Financial Times story reveals it was worse than that. The U.S. negotiating team had indeed succeeded, but President Trump rejected the deal! In the wake of a G20 meeting in which there were pledges to address global steel overcapacity, China – where the problem is most severe – offered to cut its capacity by 150m tons by 2022. Commerce Secretary Ross, who brings ample expertise from his time as a steel tycoon, endorsed the deal. He took it to the President.

The President said no.

Ross tried again a week later.

The President again said no. He evidently wanted to apply tariffs instead.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2017/08/30/president-trumps-failed-deal-making/#3572537e6e00

[reckless]

The 'intelligentsia' on here has repeatedly said that Trump knows nothing about trade. And once again Trump is showing the know-nothings ... basically all the geniuses on here and in the left wing media ... that he knows exactly what the poop is.

Never forget, everything you guys uttered about Trump, his lack of expertise and his leadership, etc., has been proven incorrect.

Well, you guys may want to forget but sound thinking people won't forget.

Keep getting annoyed by Trump, I personally love it.

Oh yeah, the Chinese boss blinked, like it or not. Deny all you wish.

[elysiantraveller]

The 'intelligentsia' on here has repeatedly said that Trump knows nothing about trade. And once again Trump is showing the know-nothings ... basically all the geniuses on here and in the left wing media ... that he knows exactly what the poop is.

Never forget, everything you guys uttered about Trump, his lack of expertise and his leadership, etc., has been proven incorrect.

Well, you guys may want to forget but sound thinking people won't forget.

Keep getting annoyed by Trump, I personally love it.

Oh yeah, the Chinese boss blinked, like it or not. Deny all you wish.

The intelligentsia around here hasn't been proven wrong on anything. Imports duties are still in place. The steel tariffs have been retaliated upon. Meanwhile we get more posturing from Chinese as they also lodge a WTO protest against the US on the same day.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/10/china-auto-tariffs-trade-trump-475612

You do realize the United States does in fact have a 25% import tax on all Trucks, Vans, and SUVs right?

[Clocker]

Meanwhile we get more posturing from Chinese as they also lodge a WTO protest against the US on the same day.



Xi also blew a lot of smoke up the media's collective butt. Everything that he announced today was things they were already phasing in or had already committed to do. Not that their commitment is worth a pair of used chopstick, but its the image that counts. And Xi gave China a big image boost today as Asian stocks rallied and he appeared calm and professional.

Xi pledged to reduce restrictions on imported cars by the end of the year, bolster intellectual property rights, and allow greater access to financial markets — all White House grievances. A day before Xi's speech, Trump tweeted about the injustice of China's 25% tariffs on foreign cars.

"We want the outcomes of our opening-up efforts to deliver benefits as soon as possible to all enterprises and people in China and around the world," Xi said.

Chinese officials and state media, in the lead-up to Tuesday, breathlessly billed his speech as a major announcement about the country's reforms. And yet few of his pledges signaled much change. China has previously agreed to strengthen intellectual property protections and make it easier for foreign companies to operate. Officials have gradually reduced taxes on auto imports and discussed chopping them further.

China said in November that it would ease restrictions on foreign ownership of financial institutions. It's still not clear when that will happen.

But Xi's vows, made in a cavernous room full of global investors and state dignitaries, carry greater weight. They may also help appease leaders frustrated by Trump's erratic behavior on trade. Stocks rallied across Asia on Tuesday and European shares rose in morning trading.


http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-china-xi-boao-speech-20180410-story.html

[elysiantraveller]

The Dean from Trumps famed Wharton...

In the past, I have argued that it is best to view things like trade spats between China and the U.S. as well-choreographed theater designed to appease domestic political audiences without threatening the underlying big economic win-wins between the two countries. It is easy to fit “steel for soybeans” tit-for-tat tariffs into that frame.

And how Trump sells the sizzle... not a good thing.

The problem with this thinking in the current situation is that the economic competition bleeds quickly over into concerns about military/security competition — and the rising power (China) versus incumbent power (U.S.) dynamic more generally.

[Clocker]

Trump's tariffs are taking a big hit on the US agriculture industry.

Throughout U.S. farm country, where Trump has enjoyed strong support, tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are boosting costs for equipment and infrastructure and causing some farmers and agricultural firms to scrap purchases and expansion plans, according to Reuters’ interviews with farmers, manufacturers, construction firms and food shippers.

The impact of rising steel prices on agriculture illustrates the unintended and unpredictable consequences of aggressive protectionism in a global economy. And the blow comes as farmers fear a more direct hit from retaliatory tariffs threatened by China on crops such as sorghum and soybeans, the most valuable U.S. agricultural export.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-steel-agriculture/trade-war-backfire-steel-tariff-shrapnel-hits-u-s-farmers-idUSKBN1HK0GV

[elysiantraveller]

Trump's tariffs are taking a big hit on the US agriculture industry.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-steel-agriculture/trade-war-backfire-steel-tariff-shrapnel-hits-u-s-farmers-idUSKBN1HK0GV

All those fields of unsold sorghum... pheasant hunting paradise!

"Thanks Trump"

- Togo (My dog)

[FantasticDan]

Trump's tariffs are taking a big hit on the US agriculture industry.

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/985116710033412096

[Clocker]

All those fields of unsold sorghum... pheasant hunting paradise!

"Thanks Trump"

- Togo (My dog)



Your dog may be the only one around that thinks this is good news: China just announced a 179% tariff on U.S. sorghum.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-17/china-slaps-179-tariff-us-sorghum-imports

[elysiantraveller]

:cool:

He's a big fan of these Dr. Evil type plans...

[incoming]

Your dog may be the only one around that thinks this is good news: China just announced a 179% tariff on U.S. sorghum.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-17/china-slaps-179-tariff-us-sorghum-imports

Over 5 million workers have received raises, bonuses and increased retirement incentives. Clearly, these companies foresee lots of growth. Companies are coming back home and bringing their cash with them. Foreign companies are planning to build new plants in USA. President Trump is in Florida negotiating a better deal with Japan as we type. I'm wondering why all of a sudden are we worried about deficits and tariffs the budgets has not been balanced since 1994.

All we hear from the snowflakes.....WOE IS ME!!!!

Where is that porn star when you need her. :)

[Clocker]

I'm wondering why all of a sudden are we worried about deficits and tariffs the budgets has not been balanced since 1994.



Anyone with any grasp of reality (which leaves out most politicians) has been worried about deficits for some time. We are hearing more about it now because the Republicans, who have long postured against deficits, are not only not making any attempt to fix the problem, they are making it worse.

We have not been very worried about tariffs for some time because this country was gradually moving in the right direction. Trump wants to change that, to the detriment of American consumers and most businesses.

[fast4522]

Anyone with any grasp of reality (which leaves out most politicians) has been worried about deficits for some time. We are hearing more about it now because the Republicans, who have long postured against deficits, are not only not making any attempt to fix the problem, they are making it worse.

We have not been very worried about tariffs for some time because this country was gradually moving in the right direction. Trump wants to change that, to the detriment of American consumers and most businesses.

People like yourself know only one thing, what they want. Several Presidents of late only advance the liberal agenda inches at a time while doing absolutely nothing with big issues of the day. This President has rolled back the liberal agenda significantly and is willing to take a stab at solving problems that have been with us for decades. So you do not like the head on approach and prefer the cowardly route, guess what you people lost the election so suck it up. I say keep the pressure on these people and maybe even increase the pressure as needed. China will blink and maybe even get rid of Kim Jong-un and his blood line forever. Completely ridding us of that NK threat would indeed be something that no President has ever come close to.

[Clocker]

guess what you people lost the election so suck it up.

You people? :D

You need to pay attention if you want to follow along in the discussion. I have said many times here that I considered Trump to be the lesser of two evils, but not lesser enough to vote for him. So I didn't vote for either of them.

We all lost that election. Some of us just haven't figured it yet.

[fast4522]

Do not expect me to agree with you, I viewed the one who lost as a criminal.

[FantasticDan]

We all lost that election. Some of us just haven't figured it yet.
That's positively poetic! :ThmbUp:

[garyscpa]

That's positively poetic! :ThmbUp:

Hey, it doesn't even rhyme.

[Tom]

We all lost that election. Some of us just haven't figured it yet.


Coming from a nonparticipant, that is a bold statement.
One that many of us who did take part do not agree with at all.
When you don't suit up, you don't get to keep score.:cool:

[Clocker]

Coming from a nonparticipant, that is a bold statement.
One that many of us who did take part do not agree with at all.
When you don't suit up, you don't get to keep score.:cool:

I didn't say I am a non-participant. I said I didn't vote for either of the major candidates.

[tucker6]

I didn't say I am a non-participant. I said I didn't vote for either of the major candidates.

By proxy, not voting for one of the major candidates is tantamount to voting for one of them. Let's say you voted for the socialist candidate rather than Hillary. In essence, that is a vote for Trump because that is one less Hillary vote. So you made your decision consciously knowing your vote likely helped the opposite position to the one you hold. I'm not here to say voting one of the other parties is bad, but let's be real. You knew going into the voting booth that you were supporting one of the major candidates by proxy.

[Tom]

I didn't say I am a non-participant. I said I didn't vote for either of the major candidates.
Ok, then you keep score.

[Tom]

The thing we have to do is get MORE people to vote third party.
Trump was never supposed to happen. The Deep Government had set it up so that it could never happen.
But it went wrong.

We can expect a very intense effort from the Shadow People in the next elections.

[Clocker]

By proxy, not voting for one of the major candidates is tantamount to voting for one of them. Let's say you voted for the socialist candidate rather than Hillary. In essence, that is a vote for Trump because that is one less Hillary vote.

That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that if I vote for the socialist, that is a vote for Trump. By that logic, if I vote for the Libertarian, that is a vote for Hillary. That is based on your opinion that I shouldn't vote third party, I should always just shut my mouth, hold my nose, and vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Not voting for the lesser of two evils sends a message: a pox on both your houses. Maybe some day "they" will figure it out. In the mean time, I still have my pride.

[tucker6]

That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that if I vote for the socialist, that is a vote for Trump. By that logic, if I vote for the Libertarian, that is a vote for Hillary. That is based on your opinion that I shouldn't vote third party, I should always just shut my mouth, hold my nose, and vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Not voting for the lesser of two evils sends a message: a pox on both your houses. Maybe some day "they" will figure it out. In the mean time, I still have my pride.
First of all, I respect everyone's right to vote however they wish. That said, there are ramifications to everyone's vote. No matter how you frame it Clocker, your vote helped either Trump or Clinton, and you knew that going into the booth. There is no other argument that can be made. Now you can call it a protest vote against the two party system, but you know what, the two parties don't give a crap about you or me. I respect what you did if it is what you believe, but just don't come on here and say your vote didn't help one of the two major parties because it most certainly did.

[Clocker]

but just don't come on here and say your vote didn't help one of the two major parties because it most certainly did.

No, you are still assuming that I should have voted for the lesser of two evils. Why is that my civic or moral responsibility?

If I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, I have three options. I can vote third party, I can vote for state and local candidates and leave the presidential choice blank, or I can just "elect" not to vote. Are those last two helping one of the two major parties? Or is it hurting them? Or is it at least sending a message to them?

[tucker6]

No, you are still assuming that I should have voted for the lesser of two evils. Why is that my civic or moral responsibility?

If I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, I have three options. I can vote third party, I can vote for state and local candidates and leave the presidential choice blank, or I can just "elect" not to vote. Are those last two helping one of the two major parties? Or is it hurting them? Or is it at least sending a message to them?
I don't care how you vote. I'm just pointing out that in our rigged two party system, EVERY action you take one way or the other supports one of those two major parties whether you like to believe that or not. And no, you may have tried to send a message, but it was returned to sender as undeliverable.

Let's take your choices one at a time, and let's assume you are a Green Party supporter, and lean left:

1. Vote for one of the two major parties. This is obvious. A Clinton vote helps Clinton, and I guess the rationale is that she'll keep supporting green initiatives.
2. Vote Green Party candidate. This helps Trump because Clinton now has one less vote than she would have if you had held your nose and voted for the lesser of two evils.
3. Decide not to vote for a president. In reality, your non vote helps Trump because you decided not to hold your nose and vote for Clinton.

The same scenario for Libertarians plays out the opposite way. Not voting for Trump helps Clinton. And it's okay. Look at Ross Perot. He killed Bush 41's numbers, and helped elect Clinton.

[fast4522]

Over 5 million workers have received raises, bonuses and increased retirement incentives. Clearly, these companies foresee lots of growth. Companies are coming back home and bringing their cash with them. Foreign companies are planning to build new plants in USA. President Trump is in Florida negotiating a better deal with Japan as we type. I'm wondering why all of a sudden are we worried about deficits and tariffs the budgets has not been balanced since 1994.

All we hear from the snowflakes.....WOE IS ME!!!!

Where is that porn star when you need her. :)

I hear solar panel company's inside these United States are doing much better now, I bet Stormy has a better chance selling panels than she will face with her legal terms agreement.

[elysiantraveller]

SEIA reports 18 companies reducing solar deployment, workforce in 2018 (https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/04/17/seia-reports-18-companies-reducing-solar-deployment-workforce-in-2018/)

[Clocker]

SEIA reports 18 companies reducing solar deployment, workforce in 2018 (https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/04/17/seia-reports-18-companies-reducing-solar-deployment-workforce-in-2018/)

Yeah, but the solar power manufacturers are in hog heaven. With big tariffs on imports, they can raise their prices and still be more competitive than they were. And since production is highly automated, it's all gravy. Just crank up the robots to warp speed, Scotty.

Now all they have to do is get home owners to buy the stuff.

[johnhannibalsmith]

First of all, I respect everyone's right to vote however they wish. That said, there are ramifications to everyone's vote. No matter how you frame it Clocker, your vote helped either Trump or Clinton, and you knew that going into the booth. There is no other argument that can be made. Now you can call it a protest vote against the two party system, but you know what, the two parties don't give a crap about you or me. I respect what you did if it is what you believe, but just don't come on here and say your vote didn't help one of the two major parties because it most certainly did.

On the other hand, any time you cast a vote and it isn't for one of the two major parties, you are beginning to scare the shit out of them. It is most certainly more than simply a vote for one or the other by proxy, even if it is that as well.

[Tom]

On the other hand, any time you cast a vote and it isn't for one of the two major parties, you are beginning to scare the shit out of them. It is most certainly more than simply a vote for one or the other by proxy, even if it is that as well.

If enough people voted third party, candidates would be dropping in the streets like flies.

Even more so than some are now.....:rolleyes:

[tucker6]

If enough people voted third party, candidates would be dropping in the streets like flies.



you missed a good Hillary meme pic in your post.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyUnknownAnemonecrab-max-1mb.gif

[PaceAdvantage]

you missed a good Hillary meme pic in your post.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyUnknownAnemonecrab-max-1mb.gifJust think, this could have been our president. What a loss.

[elysiantraveller]

"Very good chance" of a U.S.-China trade deal: Trump (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade/very-good-chance-of-a-u-s-china-trade-deal-trump-idUSKBN1HV24A)

[tucker6]

"Very good chance" of a U.S.-China trade deal: Trump (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade/very-good-chance-of-a-u-s-china-trade-deal-trump-idUSKBN1HV24A)

Was this ever in doubt? China has more to lose than us. I know some doubt this, but Trump is no dummy.

[fast4522]

Was this ever in doubt? China has more to lose than us. I know some doubt this, but Trump is no dummy.

Some of the sky is falling folks here are so upset because a President uses all the tools available when no other President was successful previously. It is like outrage that will grow into hallucinations if President Donald J. Trump actually accomplish something.

[elysiantraveller]

Grants another 30 day extension while exempting even more countries like Argentina, Australia, and Brazil.

Trump delays metal tariffs on Canada, EU, Mexico, exempts some others (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-metals/trump-delays-metal-tariffs-on-canada-eu-mexico-exempts-some-others-idUSKBN1I1164)

Whats interesting here is exemptions can be granted on the basis of "national security" since that's the impetus for sanctions... however... Argentina...? Brazil...? But not the EU? :lol:

More to that... Trump apparently is very upset that he can't negotiate bilaterally with EU members... apparently the concept of Trade Bloc is foreign to him.

[tucker6]

Grants another 30 day extension while exempting even more countries like Argentina, Australia, and Brazil.

Trump delays metal tariffs on Canada, EU, Mexico, exempts some others (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-metals/trump-delays-metal-tariffs-on-canada-eu-mexico-exempts-some-others-idUSKBN1I1164)

Whats interesting here is exemptions can be granted on the basis of "national security" since that's the impetus for sanctions... however... Argentina...? Brazil...? But not the EU? :lol:

More to that... Trump apparently is very upset that he can't negotiate bilaterally with EU members... apparently the concept of Trade Bloc is foreign to him.

You act surprised that concessions made by foreign countries are being met with a relaxation of tariffs.

As for the EU trade bloc thingy, I'm pretty sure that is #fakenews. Trump probably has more experience in int'l business than all members on this forum combined. I find it humorous when people want to believe the worst about Trump so much that they let common sense go out the window.

[Tom]

For someone who is opposed to the tarrifs, you seem to trying to have it both ways. You should be glad he is backing off some.

He is bad for doing it and for not doing it enough.
Your agenda is clear.

[elysiantraveller]

You act surprised that concessions made by foreign countries are being met with a relaxation of tariffs.

As for the EU trade bloc thingy, I'm pretty sure that is #fakenews. Trump probably has more experience in int'l business than all members on this forum combined. I find it humorous when people want to believe the worst about Trump so much that they let common sense go out the window.

What concessions?

He opened this can of worms and is now walking not some... but essentially all of it back.

[tucker6]

What concessions?



In a statement, the White House said the details of the deals with Brazil, Argentina and Australia would be finalized shortly, and it did not disclose terms.

Maybe keep your powder dry until we know.

[elysiantraveller]

For someone who is opposed to the tarrifs, you seem to trying to have it both ways. You should be glad he is backing off some.

He is bad for doing it and for not doing it enough.
Your agenda is clear.

My agenda here is to point out that the guy clearly has no idea what he is doing. That his policy is moronic and that he is simply pandering to the lower IQ voter that thinks everything is #winning.


What's going to be funny is when the EU gets it's exemption...

This will be a big nothing-burger in terms of policy at that point.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

So we place tariffs on steel imports but then offer exemptions to our leading importers...

No, my friend, this is an optics victory for the #Maga crowd that likely does nothing.

If you supported the policy when he first introduced it like all of you did then surely you must turn on him now right...? Selling us out to the globalists right...? Of course not...

[elysiantraveller]

In a statement, the White House said the details of the deals with Brazil, Argentina and Australia would be finalized shortly, and it did not disclose terms.

Maybe keep your powder dry until we know.

If they were #maga they would be releasing them instead of hoping until the next cycle kills the story.

[horses4courses]

Just think, this could have been our president. What a loss.

Well, considering the woman there is Agnes Something from Poughkeepsie,
I would have to say the chances were pretty remote. Nice try, though.

[classhandicapper]

More to that... Trump apparently is very upset that he can't negotiate bilaterally with EU members... apparently the concept of Trade Bloc is foreign to him.

A trade bloc is not a foreign idea. It's just a very bad idea unless you like handing some of your sovereignty over to a bunch of corrupt incompetent douche bags.

[elysiantraveller]

A trade bloc is not a foreign idea. It's just a very bad idea unless you like handing some of your sovereignty over to a bunch of corrupt incompetent douche bags.

In principle I agree with your opinion on the issue. I wouldn't have wanted to join the EU. Especially if I was a northern and western European country.

That said... THIS IS EXACTLY WHY TRADE BLOCS FORM.

Just like on the playground where you have the big bully, in this case Trump, what do all the other little kids do? Team up to take him on.

Optics and MAGA aside this is now the second time in as many months Trump's blinked at the EU.

[tucker6]

In principle I agree with your opinion on the issue. I wouldn't have wanted to join the EU. Especially if I was a northern and western European country.

That said... THIS IS EXACTLY WHY TRADE BLOCS FORM.

Just like on the playground where you have the big bully, in this case Trump, what do all the other little kids do? Team up to take him on.

Optics and MAGA aside this is now the second time in as many months Trump's blinked at the EU.
Nothing is as blinding as unadulterated hate. :ThmbUp:

[elysiantraveller]

Nothing is as blinding as unadulterated hate. :ThmbUp:

Like I said... second time in two months he's backed down and awarded exemptions.

At what point do his supporters though take him to task for his actions?

There is a reason the Breitbart's of the world are ignoring this story...

[mrhorseplayer]

Like I said... second time in two months he's backed down and awarded exemptions.

At what point do his supporters though take him to task for his actions?

There is a reason the Breitbart's of the world are ignoring this story...


with those exemptions what did we get or do you not know? President Trump wins aain

[horses4courses]

At what point do his supporters though take him to task for his actions?

They never will.
Tariffs are just a small part of it.
Trump is furthering the conservative ideal.
Nothing else matters to them.

[classhandicapper]

In principle I agree with your opinion on the issue. I wouldn't have wanted to join the EU. Especially if I was a northern and western European country.

That said... THIS IS EXACTLY WHY TRADE BLOCS FORM.

Just like on the playground where you have the big bully, in this case Trump, what do all the other little kids do? Team up to take him on.

Optics and MAGA aside this is now the second time in as many months Trump's blinked at the EU.

I think undoing about 30 years of committing economic suicide is going to be a lot tougher and take a lot longer than a single year in office. It also won't come without short term pain because once you organize a certain way, when you start undoing it there's going to be a lot of resistance and some big angry losers. It has to be done as slowly as it was put in place.

However, all that said, I am an economic nationalist.

I want what's best for this country as a whole and not just what's best for a handful of corporations and Wall St. I'm all for free trade and think it can be a "both sides win" kind of thing. It just hasn't been for the last 30 years.

Deals have to be fair and the deals have to make sense for the people of the United States.

[elysiantraveller]

with those exemptions what did we get or do you not know? President Trump wins aain

Source?

Because I can tell you pointblank that with the EU we got nothing.

The EU, Canada, and Mexico have said since the start they will not accept quotas.

[mrhorseplayer]

Source?

Because I can tell you pointblank that with the EU we got nothing.


cause you just know how President Trump runs things right

[mrhorseplayer]

Source?

Because I can tell you pointblank that with the EU we got nothing.

The EU, Canada, and Mexico have said since the start they will not accept quotas.

source is how good Trump has handled all negotiations to get whats best for America and the American citizens

[elysiantraveller]

They never will.
Tariffs are just a small part of it.
Trump is furthering the conservative ideal.
Nothing else matters to them.

If we look at just the EU:

MARCH:

Trump: Trade wars are easy to win. We will slap duties on their cars. Hey Europe how about quotas?

EU: Nope.

Trump: Okay, well we are close so we'll grant a temporary extension.

APRIL/MAY:

Trump: Alright so lets figure this out. Quotas?

EU: Nope.

Trump: Okay. 30 day extension but this is the last time! I mean it.


Meanwhile, Germany and several other European countries have stated... blatantly... multiple times... they are willing to address the issue of over-capacity but not as a result of punitive sanction actions.

Art of the Deal.

:rolleyes:

[mrhorseplayer]

If we look at just the EU:

MARCH:

Trump: Trade wars are easy to win. We will slap duties on their cars. Hey Europe how about quotas?

EU: Nope.

Trump: Okay, well we are close so we'll grant a temporary extension.

APRIL/MAY:

Trump: Alright so lets figure this out. Quotas?

EU: Nope.

Trump: Okay. 30 day extension but this is the last time! I mean it.


Meanwhile, Germany and several other European countries have stated... blatantly... multiple times... they are willing to address the issue of over-capacity but not as a result of punitive sanction actions.

Art of the Deal.

:rolleyes:


If we look at Just how Great of a job President Trump is doing for America and the American citizens its more then awesome its great cause he works for us not Europe

[PaceAdvantage]

My agenda here is to point out that the guy clearly has no idea what he is doing. That his policy is moronic and that he is simply pandering to the lower IQ voter that thinks everything is #winning.Is it that? Or is it he's just doing things in a way nobody else has done or thought of doing...

I mean, once again, I must ask someone on here to break out the "How to be POTUS" handbook and consult which pages cover this situation...:pound:

[Tom]

Armchair Presidents.......talk is cheap.

We got the tax cuts, we got the judges, we may soon have unexpected good news in Korea.

That outweighs the babble by so much it isn't even worth addressing.
All the "thinkers" are free to ponder and judge all they want to.

No one cares.

[elysiantraveller]

Is it that? Or is it he's just doing things in a way nobody else has done or thought of doing...

I mean, once again, I must ask someone on here to break out the "How to be POTUS" handbook and consult which pages cover this situation...:pound:

Yes.

He's pandering.

Again, I'll point out the second time now he's extended EU exemptions with nothing in return. After kicking the nest to begin with and stating he did it for his voters.

[mrhorseplayer]

Yes.

He's pandering.

Again, I'll point out the second time now he's extended EU exemptions with nothing in return. After kicking the nest to begin with and stating he did it for his voters.


How do you know we didnt get anything? Ill point again that President Trump works for America and the American people not Europe.

[Clocker]

Ill point again that President Trump works for America and the American people not Europe.

Then why is he taxing American consumers by putting tariffs on the products that they buy?

[mrhorseplayer]

Then why is he taxing American consumers by putting tariffs on the products that they buy?


What taxes has President Trump put on consumers?

[Clocker]

What taxes has President Trump put on consumers?

Tariffs are taxes on imports. Taxes get passed on to the consumer, or the company can't stay in business. Trump has imposed a 30% import tax on imported solar panels, and the great majority of solar panels here are imported. Who do you think pays that tax? It is simple economics.

[MargieRose]

If I am remembering correctly, Trump said that there will some "pain" to endure for a while in trying to get the trade deficit under control. So, some consumer goods will cost us more...for now. In the grand scheme of things, over the long haul, as a nation, we, especially the younger citizens of our society, will ultimately benefit more, I believe.

For something like solar paneling now, for some, they either don't want it, or if they do, they can't afford it at the pre-tariff price, to begin with. For those who do want it and can afford it now, they will still be able to afford it, even with a price increase, and they would likely be getting a better quality product, if they were able to buy competitively-priced American made...would be worth it.

[Clocker]

If I am remembering correctly, Trump said that there will some "pain" to endure for a while in trying to get the trade deficit under control. So, some consumer goods will cost us more...for now. In the grand scheme of things, over the long haul, as a nation, we, especially the younger citizens of our society, will ultimately benefit more, I believe.



Trump doesn't understand economics in general, or trade in particular. A "trade deficit", which is also known as a capital surplus, is not a bad thing for the economy. It keeps prices down and capital investment up. American steel makers have already increased prices in response to the tariffs. My guess is that those prices will stand as long as the tariffs are in place. During the 2016 campaign, Trump's economic expert said that his tariffs would increase consumer prices 10-15%. Is that an acceptable "pain" for the average American worker?

The trade deficit is a red flag issue for Trump because he believes that it is killing manufacturing jobs in this country. The truth is that over 80% of lost manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost to automation, not to jobs moving off-shore. And he doesn't understand that the resulting capital surplus creates more jobs. The problem for him is that they tend not to be manufacturing jobs.

For something like solar paneling now, for some, they either don't want it, or if they do, they can't afford it at the pre-tariff price, to begin with. For those who do want it and can afford it now, they will still be able to afford it, even with a price increase, and they would likely be getting a better quality product, if they were able to buy competitively-priced American made...would be worth it.Solar paneling was just a random example. Trump has also put tariffs on washing machines, steel, aluminum, and Canadian lumber, all of which mean higher prices for consumers. And higher prices mean lower demand for American products too.

Production of solar panels is highly automated, and even manufacturers in this country are mostly foreign companies. The big unintended consequence in this industry is because the vast majority of American solar jobs are in installation, not manufacturing. U.S. manufacturing of solar cells employed only about 1,300 people at its recent peak in 2012. ...tariffs would hurt homegrown companies that make racks, tracking systems and electronics that are part of a power system.Industry groups have estimated that decreased demand due to higher prices could eliminate up to 20,000 installer jobs.

How is any of this going to benefit the nation in the long haul?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-approves-tariffs-solar-panels/

[woodtoo]

Trump doesn't understand economics in general, or trade in particular. A "trade deficit", which is also known as a capital surplus, is not a bad thing for the economy. It keeps prices down and capital investment up. American steel makers have already increased prices in response to the tariffs. My guess is that those prices will stand as long as the tariffs are in place. During the 2016 campaign, Trump's economic expert said that his tariffs would increase consumer prices 10-15%. Is that an acceptable "pain" for the average American worker?

The trade deficit is a red flag issue for Trump because he believes that it is killing manufacturing jobs in this country. The truth is that over 80% of lost manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost to automation, not to jobs moving off-shore. And he doesn't understand that the resulting capital surplus creates more jobs. The problem for him is that they tend not to be manufacturing jobs.

Solar paneling was just a random example. Trump has also put tariffs on washing machines, steel, aluminum, and Canadian lumber, all of which mean higher prices for consumers. And higher prices mean lower demand for American products too.

Production of solar panels is highly automated, and even manufacturers in this country are mostly foreign companies. The big unintended consequence in this industry is because the vast majority of American solar jobs are in installation, not manufacturing. Industry groups have estimated that decreased demand due to higher prices could eliminate up to 20,000 installer jobs.

How is any of this going to benefit the nation in the long haul?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-approves-tariffs-solar-panels/

President Trump understands economics a helluva a lot better than you do.
I'm supposed to take your word over his, I don't think so. :faint:

[Clocker]

President Trump understands economics a helluva a lot better than you do.
I'm supposed to take your word over his, I don't think so. :faint:

Thank you for that detailed argument proving Trump's superior understanding of the subject.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word. I provide sources for what I say, something neither Trump nor the Trumpettes do. I have shown here many times that Trump's ideas on tariffs have been rejected, and proven wrong, by economists and top business sources from both sides of the aisle.

Trump studied economics at Wharton in the late 1960s. At that time, and when I first studied economics some years later, the mainstream economic theories were based on the writings of John Maynard Keynes. A large part of the economic theory that the Neo-Keynesians were teaching back then has been debunked. Most of us have moved on since then. Trump has not. At least as far as economics and trade are concerned, Trump is still living in the 60's.

[tucker6]

Trump doesn't understand economics in general, or trade in particular.

This statement simply makes you seem completely clueless and/or symptomatic of TDS that anything written after it is meaningless. As you can imagine, it saved me loads of time.

I can tell you that as a fellow graduate with an Economics degree, Trump definitely knows economics. He also knows trade. Just because you have bought into what others are saying doesn't make it true. There are plenty of us with economic degrees that aren't worried at all with Donald's actions. Why? That is the question you should research more before writing another tome that isn't worth reading.

I like you Clocker, but you have a burr in your saddle about Trump and it ain't pretty to look at. Listen, Trump is a blowhard, and an egotist, and loves himself much too much, and lies repeatedly, but I can live with all that because I also believe that he loves America like the common person does and knows what he is doing, both domestic and foreign. I didn't vote for him because I thought he was perfect. I knew what I was getting, which is why he will command 40% no matter what he does. We want a fixer. We want an anti-establishment guy. Is that so hard to understand? I wish Trump were Abraham Lincoln, but ya gotta take what you're given.

[tucker6]

Thank you for that detailed argument proving Trump's superior understanding of the subject.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word. I provide sources for what I say, something neither Trump nor the Trumpettes do. I have shown here many times that Trump's ideas on tariffs have been rejected, and proven wrong, by economists and top business sources from both sides of the aisle.

Trump studied economics at Wharton in the late 1960s. At that time, and when I first studied economics some years later, the mainstream economic theories were based on the writings of John Maynard Keynes. A large part of the economic theory that the Neo-Keynesians were teaching back then has been debunked. Most of us have moved on since then. Trump has not. At least as far as economics and trade are concerned, Trump is still living in the 60's.

trump is not a Keynesian. FDR was a Keynesian. As you know, there is a huge difference between the two.

[Tom]

0bama was the Keynesian! :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

0bama was the Keynesian! :rolleyes:

Ha, I knew that was coming. :lol:

Keynesian economics is a belief that govt can fix the problem through excessive spending, and to me, its roots are in socialism, not capitalism. So the Obama and Bush bailouts after the 2008 depression were Keynesian in nature. Hard to kill bad theories sometimes.

[MargieRose]

Trump doesn't understand economics in general, or trade in particular. A "trade deficit", which is also known as a capital surplus, is not a bad thing for the economy. It keeps prices down and capital investment up. American steel makers have already increased prices in response to the tariffs. My guess is that those prices will stand as long as the tariffs are in place. During the 2016 campaign, Trump's economic expert said that his tariffs would increase consumer prices 10-15%. Is that an acceptable "pain" for the average American worker?

The trade deficit is a red flag issue for Trump because he believes that it is killing manufacturing jobs in this country. The truth is that over 80% of lost manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost to automation, not to jobs moving off-shore. And he doesn't understand that the resulting capital surplus creates more jobs. The problem for him is that they tend not to be manufacturing jobs.

Solar paneling was just a random example. Trump has also put tariffs on washing machines, steel, aluminum, and Canadian lumber, all of which mean higher prices for consumers. And higher prices mean lower demand for American products too.

Production of solar panels is highly automated, and even manufacturers in this country are mostly foreign companies. The big unintended consequence in this industry is because the vast majority of American solar jobs are in installation, not manufacturing. Industry groups have estimated that decreased demand due to higher prices could eliminate up to 20,000 installer jobs.

How is any of this going to benefit the nation in the long haul?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-approves-tariffs-solar-panels/
I would never pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this subject to be able to debate you on your opinion; however, the author of these articles espouses a view that is contrary to yours. He, apparently, agrees with Donald Trump on this issue. He impressed me. What do you think?

Economists Are Liars: Here’s Why America’s Trade Deficit Is Bad

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/10/america-trade-deficit/

How Global “Free Trade” Killed the Middle Class

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/03/30/global-free-trade-killed-middle-class/

[Clocker]

This statement simply makes you seem completely clueless and/or symptomatic of TDS that anything written after it is meaningless. As you can imagine, it saved me loads of time.



That statement was a preface to the details that followed. I said that a trade deficit is not a bad thing and some reasons why. I pointed out that automation, not trade, is the major killer of manufacturing jobs. No one addressed any of those things but, as expected, made it about me and my "TDS".

Trump's own economic advisors said that his tariffs could raise the cost of living by 10-15%. No one addressed that, or why that would be a good thing according to them.

As one example, I showed evidence that Trump's tariffs on solar panels would help a heavy-automated industry with about 1300 employees, while potentially killing 20,000 installer jobs plus others in supporting industries. No one argued objectively to the contrary.

Tariffs are bad for consumers, period, no matter who proposes them. If anyone wants to objectively discuss the issues, like those above, I'd be happy to. But here it's all the usual response. Trump is MAGA, and critics are haters.

[elysiantraveller]

0bama was the Keynesian! :rolleyes:

Keynes was all about the tariffs towards the end of his career...

[elysiantraveller]

Ha, I knew that was coming. :lol:

Keynesian economics is a belief that govt can fix the problem through excessive spending, and to me, its roots are in socialism, not capitalism. So the Obama and Bush bailouts after the 2008 depression were Keynesian in nature. Hard to kill bad theories sometimes.

Keynesian economics is a at its most basic a nationalistic economic theory based around intervention.

Those here misunderstand Keynes if they think bailouts and deficit spending are his only tools and not tariffs as well. Trump checks two of those boxes btw.

You know who else was all about tariffs...? Everybody's favorite around here... Paul Krugman. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Keynesian economics is a at its most basic a nationalistic economic theory based around intervention.

And the Neo-Keynesians of the late 20th Century believed that the federal government could fine tune the economy with the various economic tools available to them. While Trump is not a strict believer in any particular school of economic theory, this view is what he is closest to. With a large topping of impulse and instinct. And he is certainly in no way a conservative.

[fast4522]

I would never pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this subject to be able to debate you on your opinion; however, the author of these articles espouses a view that is contrary to yours. He, apparently, agrees with Donald Trump on this issue. He impressed me. What do you think?

Economists Are Liars: Here’s Why America’s Trade Deficit Is Bad

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/10/america-trade-deficit/

How Global “Free Trade” Killed the Middle Class

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/03/30/global-free-trade-killed-middle-class/


MargieRose,

Thanks for the good reads.

I find it ironic that a nice lady (you) addresses a post to someone and he engages his boyfriend in posts while ignoring your post.

[Clocker]

I would never pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this subject to be able to debate you on your opinion; however, the author of these articles espouses a view that is contrary to yours. He, apparently, agrees with Donald Trump on this issue. He impressed me. What do you think?

Economists Are Liars: Here’s Why America’s Trade Deficit Is Bad

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/10/america-trade-deficit/

How Global “Free Trade” Killed the Middle Class

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/03/30/global-free-trade-killed-middle-class/


I got about half way through the first one and found so many misconceptions and errors about the way the economy works, I didn't bother reading further.

Picking two at random, he says:

The obvious question (that no one ever asks) is how can we afford this trade deficit? After all, nothing’s free.

Since America’s running a trade deficit, this means we’re either selling assets and/or debts to pay for foreign goods—there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
First of all, the US doesn't trade with China. American companies and consumers trade with Chinese companies and consumers. And they don't pay by selling assets and/or debts, they pay with a way he ignores, earned dollars.

In another place, he says that a trade deficit results in unemployment:
In 2015, America’s goods trade deficit was $736 billion, or 4% of our GDP. Since GDP is simply the total output made by America’s working population, and since 4% of America’s GDP is imported, then it follows that 4% of America’s workers are displaced by these imports.No, 4% of GDP is not imported. Imports are not counted in GDP. If he is trying to say that GDP would be 4% higher if those imports were manufactured here, he would still be wrong. We buy those imports because they are cheaper than they could be made here. If we made them here, Americans couldn't afford them, or would have to give up other purchases to pay for them. And the things he is talking about would most likely be produced by automation, rather than creating a lot of new jobs.

[elysiantraveller]

MargieRose,

Thanks for the good reads.

I find it ironic that a nice lady (you) addresses a post to someone and he engages his boyfriend in posts while ignoring your post.

The first is a trainwreck of economic misconceptions... it's misplacing sound economics by cherry picking data...

I posted a Friedman video or two on the subject so far in this thread and it's been ignored like it has leprosy.

Here is something to look at that kinda debunks the first one in a graph...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/U.S._Trade_Deficit_Dollars_and_percentage_GDP.png

Margie does get props though for at least posting something relevant as opposed to your drivel. Thanks Margie. :ThmbUp:

[newtothegame]

Thank you for that detailed argument proving Trump's superior understanding of the subject.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word. I provide sources for what I say, something neither Trump nor the Trumpettes do. I have shown here many times that Trump's ideas on tariffs have been rejected, and proven wrong, by economists and top business sources from both sides of the aisle.

Trump studied economics at Wharton in the late 1960s. At that time, and when I first studied economics some years later, the mainstream economic theories were based on the writings of John Maynard Keynes. A large part of the economic theory that the Neo-Keynesians were teaching back then has been debunked. Most of us have moved on since then. Trump has not. At least as far as economics and trade are concerned, Trump is still living in the 60's.

Either Trump is the luckiest SOB on the planet or he does know something about business and the economy....
You can ask almost ANYONE about his wealth and I'm sure they almost unanimously agree it starts with a "B".....
That's all the credentials I need to see that he knows something about what the hell he is doing when it comes to business and the economy...:headbanger:

[mrhorseplayer]

Tariffs are taxes on imports. Taxes get passed on to the consumer, or the company can't stay in business. Trump has imposed a 30% import tax on imported solar panels, and the great majority of solar panels here are imported. Who do you think pays that tax? It is simple economics.


what was the price of the solar panels before President Trump imposed the 30 % import tax? What is it currently? If any went up did all USA companies solar panels go up in price?

[mrhorseplayer]

Trump doesn't understand economics in general, or trade in particular. A "trade deficit", which is also known as a capital surplus, is not a bad thing for the economy. It keeps prices down and capital investment up. American steel makers have already increased prices in response to the tariffs. My guess is that those prices will stand as long as the tariffs are in place. During the 2016 campaign, Trump's economic expert said that his tariffs would increase consumer prices 10-15%. Is that an acceptable "pain" for the average American worker?

The trade deficit is a red flag issue for Trump because he believes that it is killing manufacturing jobs in this country. The truth is that over 80% of lost manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost to automation, not to jobs moving off-shore. And he doesn't understand that the resulting capital surplus creates more jobs. The problem for him is that they tend not to be manufacturing jobs.

Solar paneling was just a random example. Trump has also put tariffs on washing machines, steel, aluminum, and Canadian lumber, all of which mean higher prices for consumers. And higher prices mean lower demand for American products too.

Production of solar panels is highly automated, and even manufacturers in this country are mostly foreign companies. The big unintended consequence in this industry is because the vast majority of American solar jobs are in installation, not manufacturing. Industry groups have estimated that decreased demand due to higher prices could eliminate up to 20,000 installer jobs.

How is any of this going to benefit the nation in the long haul?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-approves-tariffs-solar-panels/




Do you know President Trump? Do you hang out with President Trump? Do you do business with President Trump?

[mrhorseplayer]

Thank you for that detailed argument proving Trump's superior understanding of the subject.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word. I provide sources for what I say, something neither Trump nor the Trumpettes do. I have shown here many times that Trump's ideas on tariffs have been rejected, and proven wrong, by economists and top business sources from both sides of the aisle.

Trump studied economics at Wharton in the late 1960s. At that time, and when I first studied economics some years later, the mainstream economic theories were based on the writings of John Maynard Keynes. A large part of the economic theory that the Neo-Keynesians were teaching back then has been debunked. Most of us have moved on since then. Trump has not. At least as far as economics and trade are concerned, Trump is still living in the 60's.


are theses the same business peeps that got us in the economic trouble we are in? Are these the same business peeps that allowed most countries to sell products here and screw us when we try to sell products there?

[Clocker]

Either Trump is the luckiest SOB on the planet or he does know something about business and the economy....
You can ask almost ANYONE about his wealth and I'm sure they almost unanimously agree it starts with a "B".....
That's all the credentials I need to see that he knows something about what the hell he is doing when it comes to business and the economy...:headbanger:

Success in one area doesn't mean you can automatically do well in another. You don't have to know anything about tariffs to be a big success in New York real estate or as a TV entertainer. And being good in those areas doesn't say anything about your abilities to run a casino. As somebody once said, a man's got to know his limitations.

[Clocker]

Do you know President Trump? Do you hang out with President Trump? Do you do business with President Trump?

What has any of that got to doing with knowing that his tariff policies have been tried and failed in the past, and he wants to repeat the same failed policies?

George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs on China and they were a failure. What makes anyone think that Trump tariffs are any different than Bush tariffs?

Why can't Trump supporters attack the criticism of Trump's policies rather than attack the critics?

[mrhorseplayer]

What has any of that got to doing with knowing that his tariff policies have been tried and failed in the past, and he wants to repeat the same failed policies?

George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs on China and they were a failure. What makes anyone think that Trump tariffs are any different than Bush tariffs?


Cause you stated President Trump does not understand economics in general or trade in particular and if you dont know him then how could you make this statement?


How long has President Trumps policies been in effect? How many of President Trumps policies have failed? Dont you believe it would take at least a little time to know if they work or not?

[mrhorseplayer]

maybe the difference in bushs tariffs and President Trumps tariffs is the art of the deal, you know the exemption

[Clocker]

Cause you stated President Trump does not understand economics in general or trade in particular and if you dont know him then how could you make this statement?


I am jumping to the rash conclusion that his tariff policies are what he says they are. And what they are have been proven unworkable.

Do you know him? How can you support his tariff policies if you don't know him?

[mrhorseplayer]

I am jumping to the rash conclusion that his tariff policies are what he says they are. And what they are have been proven unworkable.

Do you know him? How can you support his tariff policies if you don't know him?


How long could President Trumps policies have possibly been in effect?


You can support his policies without knowing him however to say he does or dosnt know something you would have to know him on a personal level.

[fast4522]

Something new?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/president-trump-asks-for-national-security-investigation-of-automobile-imports.html

[fast4522]

Another.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-weighs-new-tariffs-on-imported-vehicles-1527106235?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=0&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

[Clocker]

Tell me this is from The Onion, please?

Something new?

"There is evidence suggesting that, for decades, imports from abroad have eroded our domestic auto industry," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement.

The Commerce Department announcement said the investigation "will consider whether the decline of domestic automobile and automotive parts production threatens to weaken the internal economy of the United States, including by potentially reducing research, development, and jobs for skilled workers in connected vehicle systems, autonomous vehicles, fuel cells, electric motors and storage, advanced manufacturing processes, and other cutting-edge technologies."


So those sneaky bastages in Germany and Japan came up with an evil plot to undermine the US economy by building better cars than Detroit and selling them over here. Clearly done to avenge their loss in WWII.

To keep the nefarious plot secret, they even built factories over here, so that if some genius like Wilbur figured it out, they could continue to undermine the US economy by building cars here and avoiding the tariffs they knew would eventually happen.

I think Wilbur should have consulted with Mr. Ed before going public with this idiocy. It seems we need a little more horse sense in Washington.

[elysiantraveller]

Trump moves forward with tech limits, tariffs ahead of China trade meeting (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/389666-white-house-to-announce-further-trade-action-against-china-by-june-30)

And... its back on folks!

This week Wilbur Ross will be meeting with China and not the Free-Traders Mnuchin and Kudlow so...

Ambling...

[woodtoo]

Tell me this is from The Onion, please?



So those sneaky bastages in Germany and Japan came up with an evil plot to undermine the US economy by building better cars than Detroit and selling them over here. Clearly done to avenge their loss in WWII.

To keep the nefarious plot secret, they even built factories over here, so that if some genius like Wilbur figured it out, they could continue to undermine the US economy by building cars here and avoiding the tariffs they knew would eventually happen.

I think Wilbur should have consulted with Mr. Ed before going public with this idiocy. It seems we need a little more horse sense in Washington.

America imports nearly $300 billion in automobiles annually if halve were built in the US of A, that would be friggin awesome!

Wilbers nick name is Wolverine one of the best negotiators on the team.:ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

America imports nearly $300 billion in automobiles annually if halve were built in the US of A, that would be friggin awesome!

Wilbers nick name is Wolverine one of the best negotiators on the team.:ThmbUp:

BMW builds more cars in the US than it sells here. In fact, BMW is the number one exporter of American-built cars. Mercedes, Toyota, Kia, and many other "foreign" companies also have large plants here.

Foreign motor vehicle manufacturers are now making more cars and trucks in the United States than General Motors, Ford and all other U.S. companies, a first in U.S. history. That's based on projections for the first quarter of 2018 from WardsAuto.com, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. So just what is it that "Wolverine" hopes to do to remedy this horrible situation?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2018/01/22/insult-to-injury-foreign-manufacturers-now-making-more-cars-in-u-s-than-u-s-companies/#4d75191f1fd8

[woodtoo]

BMW builds more cars in the US than it sells here. In fact, BMW is the number one exporter of American-built cars. Mercedes, Toyota, Kia, and many other "foreign" companies also have large plants here.

So just what is it that "Wolverine" hopes to do to remedy this horrible situation?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2018/01/22/insult-to-injury-foreign-manufacturers-now-making-more-cars-in-u-s-than-u-s-companies/#4d75191f1fd8

I Don't know his plan, build even more cars in America?

[Clocker]

I Don't know his plan


But the incredible Wolverine will make it all better? :jump:

[reckless]

Trump moves forward with tech limits, tariffs ahead of China trade meeting (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/389666-white-house-to-announce-further-trade-action-against-china-by-june-30)

And... its back on folks!

This week Wilbur Ross will be meeting with China and not the Free-Traders Mnuchin and Kudlow so...

Ambling...

Thank God for this. Trump is back on track!

Larry Kudlow was a strong supporter and advocate of allowing the Communist and criminal country of China into the WTO. Never forget that.

Steve Mnuchin is a graduate of the 'free' trade, paper shuffling, f--k the USA and the rest of the world as long as I receive millions in bonuses annually, banking cabal of Goldman Sachs -- a spot he 'earned' by simply being the son of a GS managing partner -- isn't white priviledge and affirmative action wonderful??

The two of them are only protecting their Wall Street and banking benefactors and NOT the best interests of America and its citizens.

Hundreds of billions of annual trade deficits and trillions in transferred wealth must stop and the sooner the better.

[fast4522]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-29/soros-sees-new-global-financial-crisis-brewing-eu-under-threat

Anything that gets George Soros depends in a twist I am for.

[fast4522]

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-hits-china-with-50b-tariffs-investment-restrictions/

Today?

[woodtoo]

No more exemptions for China, Japan,Mexico,Canada and EU.
NAFTA more or less dead with their threats of retaliation.

Plus WTO running out of judges to settle disputes, Trump administration vetoes judge appointments. They are now in a pickle also.

Rumours of new tariff on sour grapes coming. :D

[Clocker]

Trump announced his weekly flip-flop on tariffs today, saying that tariffs will be imposed effective June 1 on steel and aluminum imported from Canada, Mexico and the EU.


Here's a rundown of the announced or expected countermeasures from the US allies:


Mexico: Its government said it would impose "equivalent measures" on US products — including flat steel, lamps, pork legs and shoulders, sausages and food preparations, apples, grapes, blueberries, various cheeses, and more.
EU: Juncker said the bloc would move forward with tariffs on equal value to the steel and aluminum measures. The EU had previously released a list of US products that would be subject to tariffs in the event the metal restrictions went into effect. The list included blue jeans, motorcycles, boats, bourbon whiskey, rice, playing cards, and steel.
Canada: Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters that Canada would impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods including steel, aluminum, and more — up to a value of $16.6 billion. According to Freeland, the tariffs were the "strongest action by Canada in the post-War era." In addition to the industrial metals, the Canadian tariffs would apply to some consumer products, such as maple syrup, pizza, and toilet paper.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-steel-aluminum-tariffs-europe-mexico-canada-list-2018-5

[Clocker]

No more exemptions for China, Japan,Mexico,Canada and EU.
NAFTA more or less dead with their threats of retaliation.

Plus WTO running out of judges to settle disputes, Trump administration vetoes judge appointments. They are now in a pickle also.

Rumours of new tariff on sour grapes coming. :D


Our president is screwing around with your economy, and you think it's great? :confused:

Better be careful, Trudeau is cracking down on thought crimes.

[reckless]

Our president is screwing around with your economy, and you think it's great? :confused:

Better be careful, Trudeau is cracking down on thought crimes.

And yet, despite millions of lost jobs, nominal GDP growth these last 20+ years, wages compressed to historic lows, the transfer of trillions of dollars overseas, historic trade deficits, all thanks to 'free trade' that you advocate ... and YOU think that's great?

No wonder you are confused.

[Clocker]

despite millions of lost jobs
Off to a good start, yelling "the sky is falling", without data or proof of cause. And ignoring all the new jobs created by trade. Enlighten us poor ignorant souls, please. Tell us how those millions of jobs were lost. Hint: automation is a YUGE cause.

One opinion from Trump's alma mater:

While conceding that many U.S. high-wage manufacturing jobs were relocated to Mexico, China and other foreign locations as a result of NAFTA, Morris Cohen, Wharton professor of operations and information management, argues that NAFTA has, on balance, been a good thing for the U.S. economy and U.S. corporations. And another monster under the bed, "historic trade deficits". Trade deficits are not a bad thing. Among other benefits, they keep the cost of living down for our citizens. The vast majority of business people and economists understand that.

Trump has repeatedly said that we run a trade deficit with virtually every country we trade with. Actually, we have a trade surplus with more than half the countries we trade with, including Canada.

Trump says that he strongly believes in free trade, but it has to be fair trade. Let's ignore for the moment that free trade and fair trade are mutually exclusive. If Trump wants fair trade, and if trade deficits are not fair, why isn't he doing anything about eliminating the trade deficits that we are causing so many of our trading partners, including Canada?

[woodtoo]

Our president is screwing around with your economy, and you think it's great? :confused:

Better be careful, Trudeau is cracking down on thought crimes.

You have been getting screwed for many many years by NAFTA, Turdeau is a joke I have to put up with until another kindergarten teaching job opens up in a couple years. I'm willing to take some lumps for a better future.;)

[FantasticDan]

Republicans are :mad: :ThmbDown: :

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/republicans-gop-react-tariffs-trade-trump-aluminum-steel-imports/index.html

[Show Me the Wire]

Republicans are :mad: :ThmbDown: :

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/republicans-gop-react-tariffs-trade-trump-aluminum-steel-imports/index.html

Great news:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

[elysiantraveller]

And yet, despite millions of lost jobs, nominal GDP growth these last 20+ years, wages compressed to historic lows, the transfer of trillions of dollars overseas, historic trade deficits, all thanks to 'free trade' that you advocate ... and YOU think that's great?

No wonder you are confused.

Google capital investment by country and get back to me...

You're the one that is confused.

[Clocker]

Google capital investment by country and get back to me...

You're the one that is confused.


True believers have their minds made up, and are not confused by facts.

[fast4522]

And yet, despite millions of lost jobs, nominal GDP growth these last 20+ years, wages compressed to historic lows, the transfer of trillions of dollars overseas, historic trade deficits, all thanks to 'free trade' that you advocate ... and YOU think that's great?

No wonder you are confused.

Your post is spot on in this post. People who are invested heavy into emerging markets will bare the brunt of the pain, for instance investments in the country Turkey are getting croaked real bad right now. Guess who is heavy into emerging markets ? The same guy mentioned in the Malaysian passenger jet missing Thread.


http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/#

[reckless]

Off to a good start, yelling "the sky is falling", without data or proof of cause. And ignoring all the new jobs created by trade. Enlighten us poor ignorant souls, please. Tell us how those millions of jobs were lost. Hint: automation is a YUGE cause. ...



YOU are the one that has been predicting the sky will fall with the Trump tariffs. You also regularly predicted about how dumb Trump is on all matters of commerce yet you've been proven wrong on each and every turn.

Do you believe me --or maybe not-- when I wrote countless times that thanks to the 'free trade' policies that you say has benefitted the USA that we have lost millions of jobs, closed tens of 1000s of manufacturing factories, has had nominal GDP growth annually, saw wages compress for decades and has had trillions of our sovereign wealth transferred overseas?

You deny what I've been writing as true?

Do you also deny that all this has happened since 'free trade' been enacted and accelerated from the 1970s onward?

Hint -- automation is NOT the sole reason for this 35 year mess. That's the slippery smart ass answer justifying the theft of our wealth, IP, deficits, underemployment and more.

We produce agricultural products more cheaply and efficiently than any country on earth YET Canada still has kept our products out of their markets... Gee, so much for the Hint: automation argument you make. Canada has been in a recession now, yet that isn't mentioned when baby Justin threatens the USA. He's a clown, a boy trying to play a man's game.

We'll see when Justin, the EU, China, Mexico and others get schooled by Trump before all this is done with.

And, with US trade reciprocity and our production capabilities, the US economy will kiss 5% next year or so and then the anti-Trump smart-asses will need to look for another shallow excuse to knock this guy and his supporters.

[Clocker]

YOU are the one that has been predicting the sky will fall with the Trump tariffs.

No, I have predicted that Trump's tariffs would be back for the country in the long run, just as similar tariffs always have been in the past. Can you show me any previous tariffs that did what they were claimed to do?

Do you believe me --or maybe not-- when I wrote countless times that thanks to the 'free trade' policies that you say has benefitted the USA that we have lost millions of jobs, closed tens of 1000s of manufacturing factories, has had nominal GDP growth annually, saw wages compress for decades and has had trillions of our sovereign wealth transferred overseas?You have written that same thing countless times. You have never provided any data or studies to show that those things were caused by free trade.

And that "sovereign wealth transferred overseas" screed is total nonsense. I and a few others here have posted many expert studies and articles explaining it, and no Trumpster has ever responded. Leading to the belief none ever read any of it. Neither you nor Trump nor his advisers have ever provided any serious discussion to show that it actually happens. It's just a political slogan with no basis in reality.

[fast4522]

Data or studies to show that those things were caused by free trade are not needed when 1/2 of the country supports the Presidents policy. The maximum pressure against China is having a ripple effect with NK currently. If by luck that problem gets resolved you globalist will get no traction for 25 years. Forget bad mouthing the previous administration for the NK problem, no administration in the last 40 years did anything about it. When it is your turn at bat and you refuse to swing, who needs your sorry ass globalist ideas? In short your investments and globalist viewpoints are moot while looking at the complete picture that now includes JOBS.

[Clocker]

Data or studies to show that those things were caused by free trade are not needed when 1/2 of the country supports the Presidents policy.


My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. :D


More than half the country supported Hillary, too. You sure you want to use that as an argument?

[fast4522]

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. :D


More than half the country supported Hillary, too. You sure you want to use that as an argument?

If you had a winning argument this would not be so funny.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQMC6nUVmMc

[mrhorseplayer]

LOL hired union workers at his Hotel in LV well how many hotel workers in LV are non union LOL

[Clocker]

If you had a winning argument this would not be so funny.




My argument is based on the proven bad effects of tariffs on the economy, both jobs and consumers. Trump and his supporters are using emotion and scare tactics.

No one here has ever refuted the historic facts.

[fast4522]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us-economy-suddenly-looks-like-its-unstoppable.html

Your getting no positives today for your positions, RINO's are not running for reelection. Number of democrats in the congress welcome tariffs, so you have in essence lost the argument right?

[elysiantraveller]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us-economy-suddenly-looks-like-its-unstoppable.html

Your getting no positives today for your positions, RINO's are not running for reelection. Number of democrats in the congress welcome tariffs, so you have in essence lost the argument right?

The day I want democrats managing the economy I'll have a tag on my toe...

Brilliant argument there... :lol::lol::lol:

Your own article BTW:

The White House's decision this week to forge ahead with steel and aluminum tariffs stoked fears that the administration could be its own worst enemy on the road to 3 percent-plus growth.

[fast4522]

The day I want democrats managing the economy I'll have a tag on my toe...

Brilliant argument there... :lol::lol::lol:

Your own article BTW:

The thing is everything Trump is a negotiation, you can rail against policy that is part of negotiation and its final result tuns out to be something you can be fine with. Forcing people to negotiate in areas extremely uncomfortable can result is those very same people asking WTF just happened, when the not oblivious objective is achieved that others failed at. Yes or No answers have no place when the final objective is not in plain view.

[Clocker]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us-economy-suddenly-looks-like-its-unstoppable.html

Your getting no positives today for your positions, RINO's are not running for reelection. Number of democrats in the congress welcome tariffs, so you have in essence lost the argument right?


So your argument is that we should go ahead with tariffs, because Democrats don't understand them any better than the Trumpettes do, and neither understand the negative impact on the economy? :rolleyes:

[elysiantraveller]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us-economy-suddenly-looks-like-its-unstoppable.html

Your getting no positives today for your positions, RINO's are not running for reelection. Number of democrats in the congress welcome tariffs, so you have in essence lost the argument right?

You're also suffering from the all or nothing fallacy of thinking.

I can agree with certain policies while saying others are stupid.

Here is an exanple:

Bush II and Obama essentially saved the western financial system from complete and catastrohpic failure. However, Bush II failed to act early to head off the crises and the Obama Administration slowed recovery by tossing trillions at stupid stimulus projects and hampered recovery through over regulation.

Trump earns marks for peeling back regulation and rolling back corporate taxes. That doesn't mean his buffoonery on trade is intelligent, sound, or proven... it's not. Clocker and I have consistently demonstrated that and aside from campaign rhetoric it's crickets.

The focus of the article you posted is that the economy is strong... it's right and it has been for awhile now. So why not take the "Republican" and "small government" approach of getting the f*** out of its way and let it do it's thing?

[fast4522]

So your argument is that we should go ahead with tariffs, because Democrats don't understand them any better than the Trumpettes do, and neither understand the negative impact on the economy? :rolleyes:


What I am saying is that you are pissing against the wind, the wind does not care and your wet as the result.

[Clocker]

The thing is everything Trump is a negotiation,

The problem is that those that Trump is negotiation with don't understand tariffs any better than he does. So instead of working to avoid the tariffs, they just put tariffs on American imports into their countries, just making the situation worse for us and them.

And some of his "negotiation" positions are totally nuts. He says that Mexico has an "unfair" competitive advantage over us because wages there are much lower

So in the current NAFTA negotiations, he wants a $16 an hour minimum wage in Mexican auto plants. The average wages in those plants now is $8 an hour, and the minimum wage for all of Mexico is under $5 a day.

Imagine The Donald's reaction if another country tried to tell us what we should pay our workers.

[fast4522]

You're also suffering from the all or nothing fallacy of thinking.

I can agree with certain policies while saying others are stupid.

Here is an exanple:

Bush II and Obama essentially saved the western financial system from complete and catastrohpic failure. However, Bush II failed to act early to head off the crises and the Obama Administration slowed recovery by tossing trillions at stupid stimulus projects and hampered recovery through over regulation.

Trump earns marks for peeling back regulation and rolling back corporate taxes. That doesn't mean his buffoonery on trade is intelligent, sound, or proven... it's not. Clocker and I have consistently demonstrated that and aside from campaign rhetoric it's crickets.

The focus of the article you posted is that the economy is strong... it's right and it has been for awhile now. So why not take the "Republican" and "small government" approach of getting the f*** out of its way and let it do it's thing?

"Bush II and Obama essentially saved the western financial system from complete and catastrophic failure"

Trump would have let this family have catastrophic failure, sure we would have had some pain.

[Clocker]

The thing is everything Trump is a negotiation, you can rail against policy that is part of negotiation and its final result tuns out to be something you can be fine with.


This ultimate rationalization by supporters on Trump's negotiating skills does not hold water.

Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are in violation of NAFTA. If Trump violates existing agreements with two of our most important trading partners, how can anyone in the world now expect him to negotiate in good faith?

[fast4522]

This ultimate rationalization by supporters on Trump's negotiating skills does not hold water.

Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are in violation of NAFTA. If Trump violates existing agreements with two of our most important trading partners, how can anyone in the world now expect him to negotiate in good faith?

NAFTA is dead, policy will not bend any time soon. Fair trade is now the standard, and is also stated the minimum. Every President has had the tools available to fix problems, just because none did you find fault with our President. At the very least you actually have what your basis is of your coming from, but that does not reflect we may be in uncharted areas. Several things are different, most importantly is our new tax policy and the volatility of country's today. One product cycle and even China can sink into an abyss.

[elysiantraveller]

NAFTA is dead, policy will not bend any time soon. Fair trade is now the standard, and is also stated the minimum. Every President has had the tools available to fix problems, just because none did you find fault with our President. At the very least you actually have what your basis is of your coming from, but that does not reflect we may be in uncharted areas. Several things are different, most importantly is our new tax policy and the volatility of country's today. One product cycle and even China can sink into an abyss.

What problems?

Meanwhile the rest of the world is now pissed and actually seeking protection from each other while we take a back seat on the international prestige bus.

Here's the list of what's happened lately:

:1: TPP passed without us and the 20 pages of amendments aimed at hurting the Chinese.

:2: EU, Australia, New Zealand free trade agreement announced.

:3: EU and Mexico free trade agreement announced.

:4: India, China holding trade talks even though they hate each other.

:5: Several nation's including the previous two have stayed they will ignore the United States actions on JCPOA.

:6: EU plans to launch retaliatory tariffs.

:7: We have now violated NAFTA while supposedly working on it.

While this may not mean much to you it's causing irreparable damage to this countries bargaining power and prestige as these nations begin to form blocs weakening our power in global commerce.

So what problems currently exist that you think all this will fix? I'm waiting. Don't say "trade deficit" as we've covered it a million times and none of you care to actually debate those facts... from YOUR OWN ARTICLE AGAIN:

The White House's decision this week to forge ahead with steel and aluminum tariffs stoked fears that the administration could be its own worst enemy on the road to 3 percent-plus growth.

The articles you quote don't even support you.

[fast4522]

What problems?

Exactly, you want a Dr Dolittle. That is not what will be, they will become reasonable and you will not credit the President. This we also understand about you, but you do not matter because most will give credit when it is due. The maximum pressure against China will yield positives. Get over yourself and understand the President intends to succeed in areas his predecessors did not even try. Be open enough to know if so then next is part of the plan, and it is because he is not surrounded by a bunch of bums that say it can not be done. Very few understand how powerful it is when you do not care what they think of you. All your bullet points mean zero, if Europeans want to war in the markets they will burn because that is what they want. But I just do not see it going down that road, because they have no position. Myself I would love to see the European union blow up, it is already splitting at the seams.

[elysiantraveller]

Exactly, you want a Dr Dolittle. That is not what will be, they will become reasonable and you will not credit the President. This we also understand about you, but you do not matter because most will give credit when it is due. The maximum pressure against China will yield positives. Get over yourself and understand the President intends to succeed in areas his predecessors did not even try. Be open enough to know if so then next is part of the plan, and it is because he is not surrounded by a bunch of bums that say it can not be done. Very few understand how powerful it is when you do not care what they think of you. All your bullet points mean zero, if Europeans want to war in the markets they will burn because that is what they want. But I just do not see it going down that road, because they have no position. Myself I would love to see the European union blow up, it is already splitting at the seams.

Again you have zero points...

Nice dodge again.

What problems?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I think we all should be in a wait and see mode.


We've beat our head against the post for decades and have accepted the results.



Change always scares people. Not a fan, but many an expert has been woefully wrong about Trump and our economy.

[Clocker]

NAFTA is dead


NAFTA is an existing agreement that we are a party to. If it there are problems, change it or formally dissolve it.

Trump's tariffs are in violation of NAFTA. We aspire to a position of world leadership, but don't honor our commitments. And how can Trump expect to have any credibility in the eyes of other countries in future negotiations he is promising to "win" after reneging on existing agreements?

[mrhorseplayer]

America first .

[fast4522]

NAFTA is an existing agreement that we are a party to. If it there are problems, change it or formally dissolve it.

Trump's tariffs are in violation of NAFTA. We aspire to a position of world leadership, but don't honor our commitments. And how can Trump expect to have any credibility in the eyes of other countries in future negotiations he is promising to "win" after reneging on existing agreements?


Everything is a process and formally dissolving it is under way. We have no need to buy products from any country that are automated. The automation can and will be done here, sure automation means less workers but those less numbered workers should be Americans. As in Canada they have raw wood that they can sell to us and China, but it costs more to ship to China and therefore it means we should know what the Chinese pay and not pay more. Canada can't sell finished wood products into China because they levy duty's making it impossible. The leverage is all ours if you understand how China operates, and wood products are just the example of a much larger set of products. When we own automation we can make more things here and free up our ports clogged with shipping containers and the amount of people needed to verify, scan, and check for smuggled contraband that is potentially dangerous. Obliviously I am not a globalist, and the process of making more things here means actually starting that process, your seeing history in the making disassembling what made China its presences today. This is just the start, and the size of our economy can fuel all Americans dreams and aspirations instead of the worlds dreams and aspirations.

[fast4522]

Again you have zero points...

Nice dodge again.

What problems?

We did not vote for little Marco, because we did not want to elect your slag.

We wanted this, this is not a dodge.

We want Donald J. Trump to rock the world.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/may-jobs-numbers-are-bad-news-for-democrats.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yBpoTtxbIo

[johnhannibalsmith]

Agreed.

[elysiantraveller]

Change always scares people. Not a fan, but many an expert has been woefully wrong about Trump and our economy.

No.

Cutting taxes and repealing regulations are not unique to Trump. Those are mainstay GOP pillars. Those were fine...

This is that dumb stuff that accomplishes nothing but votes.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

No.

Cutting taxes and repealing regulations are not unique to Trump. Those are mainstay GOP pillars. Those were fine...

This is that dumb stuff that accomplishes nothing but votes.


What votes?


Who is voting for tariffs?



We've been a bitch to China and many others. I say we let this play out a bit.

[elysiantraveller]

We did not vote for little Marco, because we did not want to elect your slag.

We wanted this, this is not a dodge.

We want Donald J. Trump to rock the world.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/may-jobs-numbers-are-bad-news-for-democrats.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yBpoTtxbIo

Again... zero points... more deflection.

Trumps accomplishments to date are the same as "little Marcos" campaign goals.

Cut taxes and deregulate.

Nobody has a problem with that... we have a problem with this dumb shit thay none of you can actually argue because... quote frankly... the average Trump voter either doesn't understand economics and/or doesn't care.

You're both.

[elysiantraveller]

What votes?


Who is voting for tariffs?



We've been a bitch to China and many others. I say we let this play out a bit.

I say you'll see a slowing economy, rising consumer prices, and ultimately more jobs lost in "protected sectors"... pick the metric and the wager.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I say you'll see a slowing economy... what's the wager?


$100 the tariffs are gone before the year ends .

[elysiantraveller]

$100 the tariffs are gone before the year ends .

Of course they will be. They're stupid.

This is for votes

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Of course they will be. They're stupid.

This is for votes


How is this for votes?



Nobody wants tariffs. Not even Bernie Sanders.

[Clocker]

Everything is a process and formally dissolving it is under way.


You are dodging the issue. The US is a signatory to an agreement. By imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we are violating that agreement. What does that tell the world about our country and our credibility?

Do you want and respect a president that doesn't honor our commitments?

[elysiantraveller]

How is this for votes?



Nobody wants tariffs. Not even Bernie Sanders.

Read the posts on this forum about the subject.

People are against free trade. They're convinced they're getting screwed. They aren't sure by who or how but they are convinced of it. Some blame the elite, China, the EU is a fun a humorous new target on here. Some think trade deficits are inherently bad when it's been shown they aren't and only tell half the story. Others think that slapping tariffs creates more jobs here overnight when it doesn't. People blame off shoring when that isn't the case either.

People are just mad and they don't know why but here comes Trump blaming everyone else and by god he's gonna so something about it! ;)

Nevermind the fact the United States the economy is fine... let's have the government get involved.

Nevermind the fact 7 or 8 of the largest car manufacturing plants in this country are actually European and Japanese makers.

Nevermind the fact it's the UNITED STATES that has a 25% import tax on all light trucks and vans.

People get real quiet when it comes to that...

Why are we waging a trade war with Mexico, Canada, and the EU over steel when China is supposed to be the problem?

It's for votes... it's too incoherent not to be. So far Trump has been a deal-breaker in Chief certainly not a dealmaker.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Read the posts on this forum about the subject.

People are against free trade. They're convinced they're getting screwed. They aren't sure by who or how but they are convinced of it. Some blame the elite, China, the EU is a fun a humorous new target on here. Some think trade deficits are inherently bad when it's been shown they aren't and only tell half the story. Others think that slapping tariffs creates more jobs here overnight when it doesn't. People blame off shoring when that isn't the case either.

People are just mad and they don't know why but here comes Trump blaming everyone else and by god he's gonna so something about it! ;)

Nevermind the fact the United States the economy is fine... let's have the government get involved.

Nevermind the fact 7 or 8 of the largest car manufacturing plants in this country are actually European and Japanese makers.

Nevermind the fact it's the UNITED STATES that has a 25% import tax on all light trucks and vans.

People get real quiet when it comes to that...

Why are we waging a trade war with Mexico, Canada, and the EU over steel when China is supposed to be the problem?

It's for votes... it's too incoherent not to be. So far Trump has been a deal-breaker in Chief certainly not a dealmaker.


Fantastic diatribe.


Still confused as to how this equals votes? When, where, and how is this "Votes"?

[elysiantraveller]

Fantastic diatribe.


Still confused as to how this equals votes? When, where, and how is this "Votes"?

The #MAGA crowd loves this. The #winning.

They love the "trade wars are easy to win" tweets.

He's just tapping into the populist/nationalist base. Even admitted the steel tariffs were to appease his voters.

It has to be for votes because if it wasn't why wouldn't he just work with our allies and trade partners to iron out issues. They've shown willingness. You have to frequent news sources that most of his voters don't but they've all been more than willing.

Want to get tougher on Iran? Offered.

Want to work on some TPP protocols? Offered.

Want to address overcapacity in the steel industry? Offered.

Want to rework NAFTA? Offered then rescinded because of the Pence ultimatum... Gotta read elsewhere again.

It may be a diatribe but it's backed by facts...

[fast4522]

You are dodging the issue. The US is a signatory to an agreement. By imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we are violating that agreement. What does that tell the world about our country and our credibility?

Do you want and respect a president that doesn't honor our commitments?

It means the signatory is only good while that President is in office, it is not binding to following Presidents. There is NO confusion to what President Trump said about NAFTA before he was elected or after his election, the message was the same and the promise to scrap or amend is NOW. The tactic used is roll with the United States or kiss NAFTA goodbye. When it is opportune for the President it will be a formal televised event, until then it is a time for those in NAFTA to give in order to get.

[elysiantraveller]

Fantastic diatribe.


Still confused as to how this equals votes? When, where, and how is this "Votes"?

And right on time fast hops on in the above post to show my populist point....

The word and good faith of the United States means nothing now. Everyone is a target. Everyone is screwing us.

It has to be for votes because nothing else about it makes sense.

[fast4522]

When you hang your jockstraps outside on the clothesline expect someone to put something on them, the ones laughing at you jump around screaming are likely the ones responsible for your distress. In other words, expect more uncomfortable times because it was intended for you.

[Clocker]

It means the signatory is only good while that President is in office, it is not binding to following Presidents.


If there ever was any chance of intelligent conversation in this thread, that blows it out of the water.

What planet are you from, really?

[fast4522]

If there ever was any chance of intelligent conversation in this thread, that blows it out of the water.

What planet are you from, really?

The one that FU is a universally understood, globalist have much to fear.

[elysiantraveller]

If there ever was any chance of intelligent conversation in this thread, that blows it out of the water.

What planet are you from, really?

You think farmers were upset with TPP?

Just wait until NAFTA falls apart.

It's an election year right? ;)

Perfect time for a tit-for-tat trade war if you're a western democracy. The Chinese don't care and will fight whenever as their people do as told but the more the merrier right? ;)

[Clocker]

Just wait until NAFTA falls apart.



Our "local expert" says NAFTA isn't in force any more. Clinton signed it, and it was no longer a binding agreement on the country or on future presidents once he left office. :rolleyes:

Some one needs to inform the rest of the world about this. The leaders of Canada and Mexico in particular are laboring under the impression that we still have an agreement, and are upset because they think that Trump is violating it.


I wonder if that means we are still at war with Germany and Japan, effective when Truman left office?

[fast4522]

You said in a different thread the President can not impose tariffs, to that I said he will. I guess you knew more right?
The part that you did not copy me on was what President Trump said before the election is the same after he was elected. A very convenient omission.
What President in recent history has kept that many promises after elected?
He cares not what you think of him, but only cares that it is another promise he can check off in the long list of them that he made. This is exactly why it is so powerful when he does not care what you think. In the end when China blinks and effects change in NK, and you have criticism then for lightning up on them after we get our intended objective in NK who is going to pay attention to you guys?

[fast4522]

You think farmers were upset with TPP?

Just wait until NAFTA falls apart.

It's an election year right? ;)

Perfect time for a tit-for-tat trade war if you're a western democracy. The Chinese don't care and will fight whenever as their people do as told but the more the merrier right? ;)


I think farmers should raise their prices in anticipation for very bad crops that will be felt in places other than These United States, the uproar of price increase during unforeseen calamity we do not need. I say soccitothem now.
NAFTA is garbage that the advantage is with them and not us. As for the European union, Germany can not take any more pressure. Just think of all the fun Italy presents for them.

[Clocker]

You said in a different thread the President can not impose tariffs
I never said he couldn't, I said he shouldn't. It is terrible policy that hurts American businesses and consumers.

Every president has limited power to impose tariffs. His claim that tariffs on imported automobiles is justified by national security concerns is nonsense.


What President in recent history has kept that many promises after elected?
Trump has been unable or unwilling to keep most of his major promises, especially the ones that got his base excited. Like repeal and replace ObamaCare, deport 12 million illegals, build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, etc.


Trump is preferable to Hillary, but he isn't the greatest president ever as his fan boys make him out to be.

[Clocker]

I think farmers should raise their prices in anticipation for very bad crops that will be felt in places other than These United States, the uproar of price increase during unforeseen calamity we do not need. I say soccitothem now.



Farmers have zero power to set prices. Farm prices are a function of supply and demand in the market, and farmers are forced to take that price.

[elysiantraveller]

I think farmers should raise their prices in anticipation for very bad crops that will be felt in places other than These United States, the uproar of price increase during unforeseen calamity we do not need. I say soccitothem now.
NAFTA is garbage that the advantage is with them and not us. As for the European union, Germany can not take any more pressure. Just think of all the fun Italy presents for them.

Google the USDA and farm subsidies.

Every time you talk you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on all things economic.

Farmers already have surpluses which is why farm subsidies exist.

By your logic farmers should raise prices on produce they already have a hard time selling all of?

https://youtu.be/NBh895KdXAU

<--- Owns farm land.

[elysiantraveller]

Farmers have zero power to set prices. Farm prices are a function of supply and demand in the market, and farmers are forced to take that price.

Never fails to demonstrate he has no clue what he is talking about.

:pound::pound::pound:

[johnhannibalsmith]

You guys are talking about all things before Trump. Your kind understands not that big things can change with a real leader and not the kind you prefer!

[fast4522]

Farmers have zero power to set prices. Farm prices are a function of supply and demand in the market, and farmers are forced to take that price.

That can change, soon the world faces a very bleak shortage of food. The Bilderburg Group that meets in Italy next week are sure to side with you two. It is a sure bet they are not happy that their puppet did not win. It is going to get a much worse for them not being able to control a American President and watching their positions shrink.

[Clocker]

The Bilderburg Group that meets in Italy next week are sure to side with you two. It is a sure bet they are not happy that their puppet did not win. It is going to get a much worse for them not being able to control a American President and watching their positions shrink.


Oh no, the sky is falling and there are monsters under the bed. :eek:

Don't tell anyone, but a number of representatives of the Trump administration attended the meetings last year, including that flaming globalist, Wilbur Ross.

[fast4522]

You guys are right, we got to tariff produce.

[elysiantraveller]

You guys are right, we got to tariff produce.

:pound::pound::pound:

Just stop dude... it's okay...

We are a major net exporter of foodstuffs... but you're right let's tariff bananas since we grow so many here! Teach those Costa Ricans a lesson!

"#MAGA instead of Mango!"

- Trump 2020 Campaign slogan.

Stop while you're not ahead.

[Clocker]

We are a major net exporter of foodstuffs... but you're right let's tariff bananas since we grow so many here! Teach those Costa Ricans a lesson!



Most of our exports are grains and beans.

...the proportion of the imported fresh fruit eaten in the United States rose to 53.1 percent in 2016, from 23 percent in 1975, according to the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service (https://www.ers.usda.gov/). Fresh vegetable imports rose to 31.1 percent from 5.8 percent. (Still, the United States remains a net agricultural exporter, with grains, soybeans, meat and nuts accounting for most of the trade surplus.)

For consumers, the chief advantages of the import boom are the increased availability and variety of fresh produce, particularly in winter, when imported berries, grapes and stone fruit now compete with citrus and stored apples.And if you want to talk about really serious issues, 93% of Hass avocados sold in the U.S. come from Mexico. Holy guacamole!!! Tariffs on those and tequila would be just cause for rebellion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/dining/fruit-vegetables-imports.html

[fast4522]

Mexico will pay for a wall, hardball is the name of the game.
You guys find it so shocking that follow threw occurs.

[fast4522]

Last week just like last year around the same time homeland and ICE had checkpoints just south of Canada on 93S. Hmmm why did they not have checkpoints on 93N to Canada? It does not really fit into this thread but figured you two would enjoy.

[Clocker]

Mexico will pay for a wall, hardball is the name of the game.
You guys find it so shocking that follow threw occurs.

No, I would find it shocking if follow-through occurred.

Two things have to happen for that, and I would guess the probability of either is zero.

First, Trump has to get the money from Mexico. They already said that would never happen.

Second, Congress has to allocate the money to be spent on a wall. No Dems will vote for it without a lot of conditions that Trump won't accept, like amnesty for all illegals. In a recent poll of Republicans in Congress, 25% said they supported the wall. Most of the rest refused to answer the question.

[fast4522]

No, I would find it shocking if follow-through occurred.

Two things have to happen for that, and I would guess the probability of either is zero.

First, Trump has to get the money from Mexico. They already said that would never happen.

Second, Congress has to allocate the money to be spent on a wall. No Dems will vote for it without a lot of conditions that Trump won't accept, like amnesty for all illegals. In a recent poll of Republicans in Congress, 25% said they supported the wall. Most of the rest refused to answer the question.

Cool, first I want to take a break from this subject and tell you that it is quite cool your level of participation. With most its tampon on and gone, you have kept posting now there might be a following with others to see what is going on in the thread. Part of this is because it is very current. Enough of the niceties.

Brace yourself, your right that it has been a real slog that should not be. In a previous post in this thread I should have included a link.

http://www.wmur.com/article/25-arrested-for-immigration-violations-during-i-93-checkpoint-in-nh-officials-say/12107913

And the road goes on forever and drugs pour in, and people die, and the cost for these people being here illegally continues to soar. This should be a no brainier, so instead look forward to continued everything that some folks do not like. In the next few days we will have plenty of new material to keep this thread hot, tariffs real hot all summer perhaps petering out if good news occurs in NK.

[Clocker]

Cool, first I want to take a break from this subject



Why? The subject of this thread is tariffs. That other stuff is not relevant, and a deflection from the question of how Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for his wall.

[incoming]

Why? The subject of this thread is tariffs. That other stuff is not relevant, and a deflection from the question of how Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for his wall.

Renegotiating of NAFTA would be one of the many ways that the president has at the tip of his fingers in order to raise revenues. Of course, you already know this.

[Clocker]

Renegotiating of NAFTA would be one of the many ways that the president has at the tip of his fingers in order to raise revenues. Of course, you already know this.
No money is exchanged between countries in trade, trade takes place between companies and consumers in one country and those in another. The only source of revenue to a country from trade is from import taxes (tariffs) on its own citizens.

Higher tariffs on imports from Mexico would increase revenues to the US, but the money would not be coming from Mexico, it would be coming from Americans. Tariffs are taxes on goods imported into a country, not on the exporting country of origin. That is nothing like what Trump claims he can do.

[fast4522]

Why? The subject of this thread is tariffs. That other stuff is not relevant, and a deflection from the question of how Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for his wall.

The President helps with new material, plus a new week is upon us. Sometimes I need to catch up on events prior to slapping the clip in to post. The pain in Canada and the EU has to continue for some time to not let China have avenues around it. There is not going to be any letting up, the commitment for everyone to have nosebleeds is definite. These United States is in a position of power with the economy to crush any and all brave enough to challenge us in trade. I do expect others to jump in as events happen during the week.

[Clocker]

The President helps with new material, plus a new week is upon us. Sometimes I need to catch up on events prior to slapping the clip in to post.

Trump officially launched his run for president in June, 2015. Three years later, none of his supporters can explain how he plans to get Mexico to pay for a wall.

The truth, I strongly believe, is that Trump never had a clue. It was just an idea he had that sounded good, so he stuck it in his speeches. He meant to do it, but didn't know how.

Similarly, he said that he would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something terrific. When really pressed by the media as to his plans, he said that he would hire some really great people who knew how to do it.

[fast4522]

The Presidents shortcomings in operating as a politician instead of a business man few can find fault with. Reconstructing health care will literally take decades. Replacement of Obama care means stripping out government completely, for those who believe in the tooth fairy I am sorry but supplements are not going to be part of the solution. Having a country that has the most jobs with benefits that include health care is the goal, before Obama care you could buy insurance and that will be again but better. But in no way is there ever going to be Europe or Canada 2.0 here.

[reckless]

The 'free traders' and Trump bashers say that Trump will kill the economy with his protectionist and America First trade agenda.

Yet, these same people are not calling for any ending of farm and dairy subsidies, now are they?

[Clocker]

Reconstructing health care will literally take decades.

Why? The bill was passed in a few months and implemented in a few years.

One week before the election, Donald Trump traveled to the Philadelphia suburbs to deliver a health-care policy speech that was light on details and heavy on grand promises and dramatic warnings.

In a hotel ballroom in King of Prussia, his running mate, Mike Pence, introduced him as a dealmaker, fighter and winner “who never quits, who never backs down.” Trump promised to “convene a special session” of Congress as soon as he was sworn in — an idea that confounded many, as Congress was already set to be in session — so that lawmakers could “immediately repeal and replace Obamacare.” All of this would happen “very, very quickly,” he said.

“If we don’t repeal and replace Obamacare, we will destroy American health care forever,” Trump said. “It’s one of the single most important reasons why we must win on November 8th. We must win.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-grand-promises-to-very-very-quickly-repeal-obamacare-run-into-reality/2017/07/18/91b5f220-6bd3-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.6b07ff4ecf56

[Clocker]

The 'free traders' and Trump bashers say that Trump will kill the economy with his protectionist and America First trade agenda.

Yet, these same people are not calling for any ending of farm and dairy subsidies, now are they?

Oh look, a squirrel.

A weak attempt at deflection. In fact, the issue was brought up earlier in this thread. And it is a problem. And so are tariffs. And it is a lot easier to stop tariffs before they happen than to get rid of them, or farm subsidies, after they are in effect.

Yes, farm subsidies should be fixed, but tariffs are the squeaky wheel at the moment.

[reckless]

Oh look, a squirrel.

A weak attempt at deflection. In fact, the issue was brought up earlier in this thread. And it is a problem. And so are tariffs. And it is a lot easier to stop tariffs before they happen than to get rid of them, or farm subsidies, after they are in effect.

Yes, farm subsidies should be fixed, but tariffs are the squeaky wheel at the moment.

Better to be a squirrel than a skunk.

Once again. I ask you.... the US economy has been on a downward slope since pre Bill Clinton thanks to the free trade deals you insist is good for America.

Trump has turned around this economy -- which you and many others have basically ignored.

You accuse me of deflection -- ha ha ha. Thats a sign of someone who has lost the argument ... which we all know you have. You are now on top of the stupid list as far as I am concerned.

Never forget, for we wont, annual trade deficits since the 1970s, compressing wages for an equal amount of time, the trillions of US wealth transferred overseas, and more, has resulted thanks to the so called free trade policy you promote ... that YOU say is good for America. :lol:

You've proven to be a clown. Enjoy your status.

[Clocker]

You accuse me of deflection -- ha ha ha. Thats a sign of someone who has lost the argument ... which we all know you have. You are now on top of the stupid list as far as I am concerned.




Personal insults and unproven claims are all you have.

Never forget, for we wont, annual trade deficits since the 1970s, compressing wages for an equal amount of time, the trillions of US wealth transferred overseas, and more, has resulted thanks to the so called free trade policy you promote

You have provided nothing to show that deficits harm the economy, that free trade in and of itself hurts wages, or that "trillions of US wealth transferred overseas".

The last is clearly wrong because the US has for sometime now been running a record high capital surplus equal to the trade deficit. You and Trump harp on the trade deficit, but never mention the corresponding capital surplus. Do you even know what that is?

[fast4522]

Why? The bill was passed in a few months and implemented in a few years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-grand-promises-to-very-very-quickly-repeal-obamacare-run-into-reality/2017/07/18/91b5f220-6bd3-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.6b07ff4ecf56


I think the whole dynamic changed when they removed the individual mandate, basically the ACA is unconstitutional because it is no longer a tax. If someone was paying $700 a month it will become ten times that. I don't see it being a product in 2019. So new product has to fill the void, much is happening even though we are not hearing much. Several States have filed lawsuits specifically for unconstitutionally grounds, that is a slam dunk. New things from this administration with the effort in drug policy in prescriptions and competition across state lines etc. But it might not heat up till November.

And this is the wrong thread, expect those in the fall.

[reckless]

Personal insults and unproven claims are all you have.

You have provided nothing to show that deficits harm the economy, that free trade in and of itself hurts wages, or that "trillions of US wealth transferred overseas".

The last is clearly wrong because the US has for sometime now been running a record high capital surplus equal to the trade deficit. You and Trump harp on the trade deficit, but never mention the corresponding capital surplus. Do you even know what that is?

Unproven claims is all I have ? :lol::lol:

So, you need proof that since the late 1970s when unfettered 'free' trade policies were set in place that we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, proof that tens of thousands of plants have closed, proof that our transfer of wealth in the trillions have happened. You don't BELIEVE all this? Jesus H. Christ. You need proof? I cannot believe YOU.

So the $375 billion annual trade deficit w/China and the trillions in toto with other countries is not proof enough that your idea of 'free' trade is a farce? Gimme a break.

We also have huge trade deficits with both Mexico and Canada, totalling about $90 billion. Yet with all these unfavorable, one-sided and corrupt trade deals with these 'allies' of ours, Canada is still in recession and Mexico is still a third world nation. No wonder they don't want NAFTA renegotiated.

YET baby boy Trudeau takes advice from Obama no less on how to handle Trump. :lol:

This is the same Obama who said the 'new normal' in the US economy is low/no growth. Less than 2% GDP over eight years. He also said Trump will never bring back manufacturing jobs ever again -- you and the other genius basically said the same -- often wrong, never in doubt. So, true, so true.

Yet just the other day it was announced that 259,000 new manufacturing were created, and the unemployment rate is the lowest in decades, plus the participation rate is the highest in ages too. And we'll consistently be over 4% annually in no time, and for years to come. Go to the bank on this.

Wow, that Trump is something else, isn't he? Oh yeah, you were the one that constantly told us --starting in 2015, no less-- that Trump was a dope on business and economic matters, weren't you? :lol::lol::lol:

[classhandicapper]

You have provided nothing to show that deficits harm the economy, that free trade in and of itself hurts wages, or that "trillions of US wealth transferred overseas".

The last is clearly wrong because the US has for sometime now been running a record high capital surplus equal to the trade deficit. You and Trump harp on the trade deficit, but never mention the corresponding capital surplus. Do you even know what that is?

If I buy a car from Japan, in "X" number of years the value of that car will depreciate to zero.

If the dollars I used to buy that car from Japan get invested in US bonds (or other assets via the capital surplus), in the same "X" number of years, that Japanese holder will be wealthier. The interest payments making him wealthier are coming from taxpayers to buy even more bonds or assets instead of going to US investors.

Countries that are running a trade surplus will slowly get richer faster than they otherwise would have.

Countries that are running a trade deficit will not get wealthy as fast as they would have if their trade was balanced.

If the imbalance gets too huge over time, it's likely the debtor currency will eventually be depreciated if not collapse.

[classhandicapper]

Unproven claims is all I have ? :lol::lol:



Our country has been in a coma for several decades.

The "theory" is fine. That's why so many people (including me) fell for it. The part everyone missed is that in order for it to work well, incomes, benefits, regulations, taxes, and other factors have to be similar and the deals have to be fair. If they aren't, one country will have an advantage and gain jobs and standards of living at the expense of the other until balance is achieved many years later. In our case, standards of living in some 3rd world countries advanced at the expense of US workers and tax payers (since much of the wealth gets invested in treasuries).

[Clocker]

Countries that are running a trade deficit will not get wealthy as fast as they would have if their trade was balanced.



Not true. As the dollars are invested back in this country, they create jobs and stimulate the economy.


The dispiriting thing about hearing American politicians complain about trade deficits is the fact that the United States enjoyed its greatest economic growth levels in recent years in the 1980s and 1990, at a time when the country recorded its highest trade deficits. Some of its worst years for economic growth occurred in the 1970s, when the country recorded a couple of years of trade surpluses.
From "Think That Trade Deficits are Bad? Think Again" at RealClearMarkets:


https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2017/04/28/think_that_trade_deficits_are_bad_think_again_1026 59.html

[classhandicapper]

Not true. As the dollars are invested back in this country, they create jobs and stimulate the economy.



From "Think That Trade Deficits are Bad? Think Again" at RealClearMarkets:


https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2017/04/28/think_that_trade_deficits_are_bad_think_again_1026 59.html

This is the typical mainstream nonsense that got us into this mess.

US dollars primarily go into treasuries and other liquid investments. To the extent they go into direct business investment in the US they will create US jobs, but the bottom line is that the OWNERS of all those assets are not AMERICANS. It's foreigners that are getting richer at our expense. If US businesses were making those sales instead, they'd be making the same investments (creating jobs here) and Americans would be getting richer.

I'll offer this deal to you all you want.

I'll manufacture something you need and you buy it from me. I'll take the dollars you give me and buy a percentage of your house each year. After "X" years when I own your house, you let me know if you still like that deal. If you do, we'll take an inventory of your other assets and I'll start buying those. At the end of this little experiment, let me know which of us got richer.

The most balanced stuff written on this subject was written by Warren Buffett. He likens trade deficits to slowly selling off the family farm. If I can find the articles he's written. I'll post them. I don't necessarily agree with his solution, but he's definitely right about the process.

[Clocker]

This is the typical mainstream nonsense that got us into this mess.


How do you explain the historic results of a weaker economy when we had a surplus and stronger when we had a deficit?

[Clocker]

So, you need proof that since the late 1970s when unfettered 'free' trade policies were set in place that we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, proof that tens of thousands of plants have closed, proof that our transfer of wealth in the trillions have happened. You don't BELIEVE all this? Jesus H. Christ. You need proof? I cannot believe YOU.




I need proof of cause and effect. Job loss and plant closings happen for a lot of reasons, including automation, inability to compete (even against other American companies), etc. Even in a strong economy, thousands of jobs are eliminated every day, and thousands more created.

I need proof of this "transfer of wealth" you keep ranting about. If it is so bad, why are we not broke? How can our economy be booming if we are loosing all of our money?

You just keep repeating the same slogans over and over with no facts to back them up.

[classhandicapper]

How do you explain the historic results of a weaker economy when we had a surplus and stronger when we had a deficit?

There are too many variables in an economy to try to look for neat relationships like that, but generally, when money is very loose you get an explosive economy in the short term. That tends to suck in imports also as the country starts consuming more than it produces with all the easy credit.

[Clocker]

There are too many variables in an economy to try to look for neat relationships like that


Then how can all of our economic "woes" be blamed on China?

[tucker6]

Then how can all of our economic "woes" be blamed on China?
Who is blaming China for all our woes? That seems strawmanish to me. I don't blame China or the EU or our NAFTA partners. I blame our govt and our companies for giving things away needlessly for short term political or personal economic gain while weakening our position long term. Well, the long term is here, so it needs to be dealt with.

Classy's posts are spot on. You are a proponent that trade deficits are not a bad thing. If that is true, then why aren't any of our trade partners jumping at the chance to change our trade agreements with them so that they can enjoy the deficits for awhile?

[elysiantraveller]

Who is blaming China for all our woes? That seems strawmanish to me. I don't blame China or the EU or our NAFTA partners. :1:I blame our govt and our :1a:companies for giving things away needlessly for short term political or personal economic gain while weakening our position long term. Well, the long term is here, so it needs to be dealt with.

Classy's posts are spot on. You are a proponent that trade deficits are not a bad thing. If that is true, then why aren't any of our trade partners jumping at the chance to change our trade agreements with them so that they can enjoy the deficits for awhile?

:1: Which economy in the world is the strongest right now? Using overall and per capita?

Just curious.

You guys make statements like the bolded ones that aren't backed by any facts... you have no premise other than "Trump said so..."

:1a: Secondly, you actually want the government telling employers how to do business?!?!

[tucker6]

:1: Which economy in the world is the strongest right now? Using overall and per capita?

Just curious.

You guys make statements like the bolded ones that aren't backed by any facts... you have no premise other than "Trump said so..."

:1a: Secondly, you actually want the government telling employers how to do business?!?!
I saw the stealing of intellectual property first hand when it was known beforehand that it would happen. It was against all sound business reasoning.
The answer turned out to be that upper mngt in Denmark was looking to maximize revenue and profitability to increase the stock price so that each of the four upper mngt guys could collect on a $5M individual bonus. True story. They sold out the USA wing of the company's future for short term personal gain. That's the bad side of capitalism. I'm against govt input in general, but there needs to be some standardized process for use of intellectual property and the payment of royalties and the institution of restrictions of use and such. That can only come through govt to govt negotiations.

So no, I don't want the govt telling companies how to conduct their business, but I do want govt telling businesses what the maximum they can give away and the minimum they can receive in return for the value they are giving away. That is not to protect the companies, but to ensure the playing field doesn't tilt too much. The Chinese figured out that they could entice capitalists to give away the farm. Using our own system against us so to speak.

[Clocker]

Classy's posts are spot on. You are a proponent that trade deficits are not a bad thing. If that is true, then why aren't any of our trade partners jumping at the chance to change our trade agreements with them so that they can enjoy the deficits for awhile?


Trade deficits are not a bad thing if you have a strong economy and a strong currency.

Also, there is little or no evidence that our trade partners understand trade any better than Trump.

There are several articles at this site today that do a good job of explaining the issues: https://cafehayek.com/

[Clocker]

Secondly, you actually want the government telling employers how to do business?!?!


Or telling us what we should or shouldn't buy with our own money? Trump keeps saying that he believes in free trade, but manipulating prices to influence consumer choice is hardly free trade.

And by the way, all of these tariffs are based on lies. The president's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs is conditioned on issues of national security. Please tell me how Canadian lumber or South Korean washing machines threaten national security.

Or even Chinese steel. We make about 75% of the steel we use. The vast majority of the rest comes from our allies. Only a few percent of the steel we use comes from China. How is that a threat to national security?

[elysiantraveller]

I saw the stealing of intellectual property first hand when it was known beforehand that it would happen. It was against all sound business reasoning.

You can hit PAUSE right there...

That is an issue... one that has nothing to do with Trade Deficits...

Especially those we have with countries like Mexico and the EU.

More moving targets.

Finally, if a company wants to sell its intellectual property like your example who gives a sh*t? Its their property!

[tucker6]

You can hit PAUSE right there...

That is an issue... one that has nothing to do with Trade Deficits...

Especially those we have with countries like Mexico and the EU.

More moving targets.

Finally, if a company wants to sell its intellectual property like your example who gives a sh*t? Its their property!
They didn't sell their intellectual property. They allowed Chinese companies to use the intellectual property in exchange for royalty payments. Problem is, they used the technology and never paid a dime in royalty as we all suspected before the fact. The Chinese govt will not punish Chinese companies in Chinese courts for non-payment of royalties or outright stealing of intellectual property.

That is what I have a problem with. Maybe my last post wasn't clear. Multi-tasking.

[elysiantraveller]

They didn't sell their intellectual property. They allowed Chinese companies to use the intellectual property in exchange for royalty payments. Problem is, they used the technology and never paid a dime in royalty as we all suspected before the fact. The Chinese govt will not punish Chinese companies in Chinese courts for non-payment of royalties or outright stealing of intellectual property.

That is what I have a problem with. Maybe my last post wasn't clear. Multi-tasking.

In any case this has nothing to do with Trade Deficits.

[fast4522]

They didn't sell their intellectual property. They allowed Chinese companies to use the intellectual property in exchange for royalty payments. Problem is, they used the technology and never paid a dime in royalty as we all suspected before the fact. The Chinese govt will not punish Chinese companies in Chinese courts for non-payment of royalties or outright stealing of intellectual property.

That is what I have a problem with. Maybe my last post wasn't clear. Multi-tasking.

I am with you Tuker6, it is going to take shutting them out of a product completely and not letting them have the the intellectual property in the first place. This is the road that they fear the most. Sure they can actually steal it and clone it, but they will not be able to market it openly. The Chinese government will be very useful with us in the upcoming NK summit.

[classhandicapper]

Then how can all of our economic "woes" be blamed on China?

I never blamed all our economic woes on China.

I think free trade has been a huge negative for US workers, enriched foreigners, put trillions of dollars of US bonds in foreign hands that gives them influence over our fiscal and monetary policy (they can and have threatened to dump them), yielded large benefits to already rich investors, and small benefits to all consumers.

Overall it has been a huge net negative for millions of people and put the country at greater risk all so already rich people could get richer.

[classhandicapper]

I get how hard it is to understand trade deficits when you've been brainwashed into thinking free trade is always mutually beneficial. It took me close to 30 years to figure out how wrong I was even though I think about these things all the time as an investor (I personally benefited). But there's no question that if there's a large trade deficit, one side is benefiting at the expense of the other. The losing side is slowly giving away jobs and selling off pieces of the family farm.

"In effect, our country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4% more than we produce--that's the trade deficit--we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own".

Warren Buffett's original writings on trade deficits. I'm not a fan of his solution, but he explains in simple terms what's going on without even addressing the jobs issue.

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm

[elysiantraveller]

Buffett doesn't even believe that anymore.

“When you think about it, it’s really not the worst thing in the world to have somebody send you a lot of goods that you want and hand them pieces of paper. The balancing item is if you have a surplus or a deficit in your trade, you’re going to have a surplus of investments.”

- Warren Buffett, May 5th 2018

I love how "Republicans" now argue for less individual economic freedom.

You call it "brainwashed" I call it capitalism.

[classhandicapper]

In any case this has nothing to do with Trade Deficits.

Of course it does.

They steal our intellectual property and then use it to either compete on international markets against us and take market share or they manufacture for themselves so they don't have to buy from us.

Ross Perot was right on this issue when he ran for president and so is Trump. Both of them are businessmen that understand when workers are getting bent over and taking it without the Vaseline.

You can argue with tariffs as a means to get other countries to the negotiating table. That might backfire and escalate the problems. But the goal of the tariffs in this case is not to balance the trade deficits. It's to make the rest of the world so uncomfortable with the thought of an escalating trade war they come to the table and work out deals that are not so one sided. It's going to take awhile to find out if it that strategy is going to work. The very fact that China, Mexico, and Canada are at the table at all is a positive.

[elysiantraveller]

You can argue with tariffs as a means to get other countries to the negotiating table. That might backfire and escalate the problems. But the goal of the tariffs in this case is not to balance the trade deficits. It's to make the rest of the world so uncomfortable with the thought of an escalating trade war they come to the table and work out deals that are not so one sided. It's going to take awhile to find out if it that strategy is going to work. The very fact that China, Mexico, and Canada are at the table at all is a positive.

Canada walked out so did Mexico and the EU.

Sorry you're wrong.

On TPP:

The TPP’s biggest provisions concern protection for intellectual property, liberalising trade in services and enforcing stricter labour and environmental standards. All this probably helps American workers. Mr Autor and two of his most frequent co-authors support the deal, arguing that the globalisation of manufacturing is a fait accompli. Blocking the TPP or other modern trade deals will not undo the failure to help those who lost out from trade with China.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/04/02/trade-at-what-price

Furthering the reason why trade blocks actually exist:

“We are determined to do what has to be done, and we are also working with many other countries, because this is not only the EU against the U.S.,” Malmström said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “So we are reaching out to other countries in Mexico, Japan, Canada … we are doing trade agreements with a whole lot of countries creating this circle of friends who believe in … international rules.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-trade-chief-marshals-leading-world-economies-against-trump/

You guys just keep tossing things... anything... hoping it will stick.

For those keeping score on recent trade deals...

Pacific Rim - 1
EU - 2
Australia - 1
Canada - 1
Mexico - 1
Brazil - 1
India - 1
China - 1

Deal maker in chief- 0 (though he's blown up 3.)

[Clocker]

A number of posters here are praising Trump for the strong economy while crying that the sky is falling because of the trade deficit. If the trade deficit is bad for the economy, and the trade deficit is growing, why is the economy getting stronger? Inquiring minds want to know.

...the May employment report highlights one of the many contradictions at the heart of the Trump administration’s trade and economic policies. The president and his trade team claim they need to rescue American workers from the misery inflicted by previous trade policies, while at the same time they claim credit for the strong momentum of the current economy.

The administration’s worldview is that trade agreements, unfair trade, outsourcing, and trade deficits have caused massive job losses in the U.S. economy, especially in the manufacturing sector. Trade advisor Peter Navarro even claims that passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement 25 years ago and the rise of China have created “hell for American workers and hell for the American manufacturers.”

Some hell. According to this morning’s Establishment Survey report, another 223,000 jobs were added to U.S. payrolls in May, including 18,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. According to the separate Household Survey, the civilian unemployment rate dropped to 3.8 percent, a level not seen since the frothy peak of the dot-com bubble in 2000.
https://madabouttrade.com/trump-team-inflicting-its-bad-trade-medicine-on-a-healthy-patient-191a481de1e2

[classhandicapper]

Buffett doesn't even believe that anymore.

“When you think about it, it’s really not the worst thing in the world to have somebody send you a lot of goods that you want and hand them pieces of paper. The balancing item is if you have a surplus or a deficit in your trade, you’re going to have a surplus of investments.”

- Warren Buffett, May 5th 2018

I love how "Republicans" now argue for less individual economic freedom.

You call it "brainwashed" I call it capitalism.


What he's implying is that we are getting cheap financing and have the power to inflate our paper debts away, but when asked he said he still believes what he was said in 2003.

I believe in capitalism also.

A fundamental aspect of capitalism is trying to win.

Why would anyone engage in an activity when they are losing?

I'll give you the answer. The people making the policy are winning.

If you are a global company and can hire cheap labor in Mexico, Asia, or some other 3rd world country, you can get higher profit margins.

If you are a multinational bank or global Wall St investment bank you will do way more business if money is flowing all around the world, large deals are being made, and companies need to raise capital.

If you are an investor buying shares in global US and foreign companies benefiting from all this trade, you are getting rich as share prices rise to reflect all the cheap labor and higher profits.

The common thread to this is that the rich are getting richer, US workers are taking it in the butt, and the country is sending IOUs overseas that put it's finances at risk.

The rich are making policy and deals that benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the country. They are not making policy that benefits the country and getting a fair share of that.

[elysiantraveller]

The common thread to this is that the rich are getting richer, US workers are taking it in the butt, and the country is sending IOUs overseas that put it's finances at risk.

The rich are making policy and deals that benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the country. They are not making policy that benefits the country and getting a fair share of that.

More garbage from you.

You claim to be a capitalist then you know the guy at the top who makes the initial financial capital investment is the one that starts the cycle.

Workers don't just "work."

You're borderline socialist sounding wanting the government to come in and make it "fair."

We've now retreated to the plight of the plebes...

Did you support the Obama tax increase as well?

As far as Buffetts quote I'm sorry it's crystal clear... nice try. We have capital surplus and dollars and they have cheap goods.

[classhandicapper]

Canada walked out so did Mexico and the EU.

Sorry you're wrong.

On TPP:



https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/04/02/trade-at-what-price

Furthering the reason why trade blocks actually exist:



https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-trade-chief-marshals-leading-world-economies-against-trump/

You guys just keep tossing things... anything... hoping it will stick.

For those keeping score on recent trade deals...

Pacific Rim - 1
EU - 2
Australia - 1
Canada - 1
Mexico - 1
Brazil - 1
India - 1
China - 1

Deal maker in chief- 0 (though he's blown up 3.)

This is all a crock of crap.

This is the kind of analysis that was written by the same people that advocated the deals that already indisputably cost us millions of jobs and transferred trillions of dollars of wealth to foreigners.

The negotiations with Mexico, Canada, the EU, China etc...are all still on going. It's all back channel stuff. There are articles almost every week about talks collapsing and then they go back to table because they have to. Everyone knows that the surplus countries need the US market more than we need theirs. What everyone is afraid of is that they will all be too stubborn to do what has to be done and renegotiate. Then there will negative implications for everyone. I think it's a mortal lock they negotiate new deals, but these are really tough business negotiations and no one is going to cave and give up an inch until they have to.

[classhandicapper]

More garbage from you.

You claim to be a capitalist then you know the guy at the top who makes the initial financial capital investment is the one that starts the cycle.

Workers don't just "work."

You're borderline socialist sounding wanting the government to come in and make it "fair."

We've now retreated to the plight of the plebes...

Did you support the Obama tax increase as well?

As far as Buffetts quote I'm sorry it's crystal clear... nice try. We have capital surplus and dollars and they have cheap goods.

Dude, read everything Buffet has said in the last few years. He still believes what he said in 2003, but not because of opinions on economics or politics. It's because it's basic indisputable math. If you actually read his article you would understand what he is saying.

It's also indisputable that countries negotiate trade deals because experience has taught them that if they don't, there will be cheating, currency manipulation, theft, and all sorts of criminal activity that benefits some countries at the expense of others when the common goal is free and FAIR trade.

So I am saying as long as they are going to negotiate deals, they may as well actually negotiate fair deals that don't bend millions of US workers over and send trillions of dollars of wealth overseas all to benefit the small percentage of people that are already wealthy.

[elysiantraveller]

This is all a crock of crap.

I'm sorry but no your attempt at explaining away Buffetts quote was a crock of crap.

Glad you're out there crusading for the everyman though... Clickers right you guys oscillate from highfiving over the economic data to the unsound "were taking it up the butt" pretty quickly.

If you're so worried about treasuries where was the outrage at a simultaneous tax cut and omnibus bill?

Here was my post right after the tax cut..

Nope.

Again if you would read some of my comments on the matter without knee-jerk partisan reaction you would know I favor a corporate tax cut.

Here are my issues:

- The the rest of the cuts I'm not on board with. They aren't necessary.

- Making the ACA more insolvent without a solution guaranteeing it will require future taxpayer bailouts.

- Cutting revenue before pursuing spending initiatives

- Doing nothing to reform our entitlement system which is going to be the real driver of future debt.

It all boils down to credits and debits. This plan decreases revenue while increasing spending.

I don't seem to recall yours though I do believe you blamed everyone but Trump on the omnibus bill. Oh wait... found it...

He probably did not want to sign it, but he knew the downside of not signing it was going to be worse than signing it. So he did the smart thing and signed it.
I would have held my nose and signed it too.

What this tells me is that we have to clean out the Senate and get rid of all the swamp creatures there now pretending to be conservatives and pretending to have the best interests of the people in mind. They are all despicable scoundrels. Our one hope of doing some smart things for the first time in decades is being forced into compromises that are continuing the damage of the pinheads that came before him.

But yeah... you're right it's the trade deals... :pound::pound::pound:

[Clocker]

It's also indisputable that countries negotiate trade deals because experience has taught them that if they don't, there will be cheating, currency manipulation, theft, and all sorts of criminal activity that benefits some countries at the expense of others when the common goal is free and FAIR trade.


There is no such thing as free AND fair trade if "fair" is defined as anything other than what the parties agree to and find beneficial to them.

As to trade deals, Hong Kong is the poster child to show that free trade, without deals, tariffs or government interference, produces wealth.

That Hong Kong is open to the world’s plenty very much explains why it's so prosperous. The sole purpose of work is to exchange it for other goods and services, which means Hong Kong’s citizens get the most in return for their work.

Even better, the eagerness of Hongkongers to divide up production with the rest of the world means that they’re most likely to be doing the work that most amplifies their talents. The latter is a reminder of just how incorrect President Trump’s faux trade guru (Peter Navarro) is about openness to global production coinciding with job loss and impoverishment. If it were true, Hong Kong would be the living definition of poor and unemployed. That it personifies rich is a reminder that free trade doesn’t force us into breadlines as much as it makes it much more likely that we’ll get to do the work most commensurate with our talents.

To be clear, the fact that Hong Kong is a Duty Free marketplace is a major driver of its immense prosperity. An economy is just a collection of individuals, and individuals are better off when they have the whole world competing to meet their needs. After that, they’re much, much better off when they’re doing that which elevates their skills the most. Division of labor is what enables the latter. As such, Hong Kong’s authorities are in a very real sense the ultimate dealmakers precisely because they’ve made no “trade deals.” Crucial here is that they don't conern themselves with high tariffs in other countries, or the false notion of a "level playing field." What matters is that Hongkongers are free to purchase whatever they want tax free.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/06/05/donald_trump_thinks_winning_is_making_the_us_less_ like_hong_kong_103292.html

[classhandicapper]

A number of posters here are praising Trump for the strong economy while crying that the sky is falling because of the trade deficit. If the trade deficit is bad for the economy, and the trade deficit is growing, why is the economy getting stronger? Inquiring minds want to know.

https://madabouttrade.com/trump-team-inflicting-its-bad-trade-medicine-on-a-healthy-patient-191a481de1e2


There are dozens of reasons an economy can be weak or strong that have nothing to do with trade. Trade is just one factor.

However, the reality is that if we weren't running such a huge trade deficit the economy would be even stronger than it is now because we would be manufacturing hundreds of billions of dollars more goods than we are now.

Of course we couldn't do that quickly because all the factories and jobs were exported over the last 30 years and we can't. But in a theoretical sense if we negotiate better deals that lead to more exports, some jobs return due to lower tax rates, and markets that were closed are opened, that would narrow the trade deficit and be a net plus for the economy relative to where it would be otherwise.

[elysiantraveller]

There are dozens of reasons an economy can be weak or strong that have nothing to do with trade. Trade is just one factor.:1:

However, the reality is that if we weren't running such a huge trade deficit the economy would be even stronger than it is now because we would be manufacturing hundreds of billions of dollars more goods than we are now. :2:

Of course we couldn't do that quickly because all the factories and jobs were exported over the last 30 years and we can't. But in a theoretical sense if we negotiate better deals that lead to more exports, some jobs return due to lower tax rates, and markets that were closed are opened, that would narrow the trade deficit and be a net plus for the economy relative to where it would be otherwise.:3:

:1: :pound: "Up the butt I tell you!"
:2::pound::pound: "Billions of $$ from that 3.8% unemployed"
:3::pound::pound::pound: Bring back the textile mills!!!

[classhandicapper]

There is no such thing as free AND fair trade if "fair" is defined as anything other than what the parties agree to and find beneficial to them.

[/URL]

This is such utter nonsense I know you know better.

Two guys walk into a room and negotiate a deal. One of them is brilliant and willing to cheat. The other is a moron. The two parties agree that they have a mutually beneficial deal. 10 years later one is dominating in part because of the rules of the deal and partly because of his cheating.

Was it a fair deal just because they reached an agreement and one of them was a dumb ass and thought he had a good deal?

[classhandicapper]

:1: :pound:
:2::pound::pound:
:3::pound::pound::pound: Bring back the textile mills!!!


You guys must like being bent over. :rolleyes:

There are many things we ARE competitive at that we could export if foreign markets were open, foreigners weren't placing tariffs on our goods, they weren't subsidizing their industries, they weren't stealing our intellectual property, and our own environment was more friendly to investment.

The idea has been to reduce our regulations (being done), lower our tax rates (done), put some tax changes in place to pull investment forward (done). All of those will make us more competitive at the margin and attract more investment here than would otherwise be the case.

The second part is to negotiate new deals to ensure our companies aren't placed at a disadvantage because of tariffs, subsidies, closed markets due to the politics in the foreign countries etc... That's the much tougher part. The original deals took many years to negotiate and a lot of business is going to be disrupted trying to fix it. That's tough to change!!! Even if new and better deals are made, the results may take 10 years to fully develop. But there's no question we should be doing exactly what Trump is trying to do. The only question is the approach. He's using a stick (tariffs) because the carrot and dumb asses didn't work for 30 years. We'll see if that works better. It may or it may not.

[Clocker]

This is such utter nonsense I know you know better.

Two guys walk into a room and negotiate a deal. One of them is brilliant and willing to cheat. The other is a moron. The two parties agree that they have a mutually beneficial deal. 10 years later one is dominating in part because of the rules of the deal and partly because of his cheating.

Was it a fair deal just because they reached an agreement and one of them was a dumb ass and thought he had a good deal?


So we are right back at the progressive, socialist, Democratic Party philosophy that the elites have to protect the commoners from their own stupidity. People are too stupid to know what is good for them, so let's legislate an individual mandate for health insurance.

Who would you trust to oversee, and approve or disapprove of, any such deal you were involved with?

[elysiantraveller]

It may or it may not.

It took you this long to admit this "may not" work...

You couldn't think of any other possible approach that might have been better?

:pound::pound::pound:

<checks bank account to see how "bent over" he is>

What this actually boils down to is most Americans are too lazy or ignorant to admit the economy has changed and adapt to it.

I'm glad you want Uncle Sam to help them out though.

[classhandicapper]

So we are right back at the progressive, socialist, Democratic Party philosophy that the elites have to protect the commoners from their own stupidity. People are too stupid to know what is good for them, so let's legislate an individual mandate for health insurance.

Who would you trust to oversee, and approve or disapprove of, any such deal you were involved with?


Whether you like it or not, this is the reality.

1. Countries trade

2. Some countries cheat at trade

3. The cheating countries cause economic damage to the others.

Because of #2 and #3, countries/politicians negotiate deals to try to ensure everything is fair

4. Some politicians are dumb as a rock

5. Some politicians are corrupt and willing to sell out their citizens for personal gain, political contributions, and power

Because of #4 and #5 some countries negotiate bad deals


1-3 are unavoidable. The rest are tough problems but not entirely unavoidable.

Since this is all going to happen no matter what, the idea would be to have smart businessmen that are less corruptable by politics to do these deals because they are more likely to come away with a good one. There really is no other option.

[classhandicapper]

It took you this long to admit this "may not" work...

You couldn't think of any other possible approach that might have been better?

:pound::pound::pound:

<checks bank account to see how "bent over" he is>

What this actually boils down to is most Americans are too lazy or ignorant to admit the economy has changed and adapt to it.

I'm glad you want Uncle Sam to help them out though.


I said from the very beginning that there is a risk to tariffs, but imo they are a better idea than doing what we were doing. Doing nothing was a guaranteed loser. We know that from years of experience. We should try to save and attract every good job we can. I think new deals are going to be made at some point in the next 2 1/2 years because everyone will be afraid to damage the global economy by escalating.

[fast4522]

I said from the very beginning that there is a risk to tariffs, but imo they are a better idea than doing what we were doing. Doing nothing was a guaranteed loser. We know that from years of experience. We should try to save and attract every good job we can. I think new deals are going to be made at some point in the next 2 1/2 years because everyone will be afraid to damage the global economy by escalating.


What will happen is those who hold positions in emerging markets are going to get smoked. All the leverage is to the larger economy, those who moved positions to this in anticipation will do very well.

[tucker6]

In any case this has nothing to do with Trade Deficits.

What? Then I respectfully suggest you haven't a clue on the subject. The Chinese are taking that unpaid for intellectual property and making products that they resell back into the USA or into other markets. So not only do the USA companies not get royalties, they now get competitors at home using their own technology!!! And you suggest the govt stay out of it? That is what govts are for. Economic wars are no different than military wars in the sense that govts need to fight them and not leave it up to the citizenry to negotiate the peace treaty.

[elysiantraveller]

What? Then I respectfully suggest you haven't a clue on the subject. The Chinese are taking that unpaid for intellectual property and making products that they resell back into the USA or into other markets. So not only do the USA companies not get royalties, they now get competitors at home using their own technology!!! And you suggest the govt stay out of it? That is what govts are for. Economic wars are no different than military wars in the sense that govts need to fight them and not leave it up to the citizenry to negotiate the peace treaty.

No. More moving targets to explain unsound strategy. That has nothing to do with steel tariffs on the EU, Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

If you really wanted to go after the Chinese for IP theft you'd want your allies to build a coalition to apply pressure. Not piss them off with unrelated punitive measures.

[tucker6]

No. More moving targets to explain unsound strategy. That has nothing to do with steel tariffs on the EU, Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

If you really wanted to go after the Chinese for IP theft you'd want your allies to build a coalition to apply pressure. Not piss them off with unrelated punitive measures.
If I believed that temporary tariffs were an unsound strategy, then I might agree with you. That's probably the crux of our disagreement. I consider the tariffs a short term tactic and not a strategy. The strategy is to lower the trade imbalance to improve our positioning in the global economy vis-a-vis other economies. Everything else are tactics to support that strategy.

[elysiantraveller]

If I believed that temporary tariffs were an unsound strategy, then I might agree with you. That's probably the crux of our disagreement. I consider the tariffs a short term tactic and not a strategy. The strategy is to lower the trade imbalance to improve our positioning in the global economy vis-a-vis other economies. Everything else are tactics to support that strategy.

If the goal is China and IP theft how are steel tariffs on our allies sound tactics?

That's the whole point none of this agenda is coherent.

If you want to go after China you sign TPP. You coordinate with your allies who have the same gripes against the Chinese. You don't waste your time talking about irrelevant matters like trade deficits. You target a specific thing and then build a coalition to apply pressure.

It's ambling and incoherent policy. Same as the Iran Deal. It's becoming the norm with this administration.

But slap a couple #MAGA on it and you guys think it's great. It's not. It makes no damn sense to anyone who understands economics.

The only thing this administration has remained somewhat consistent on is North Korea and when the talks fail or a watered down agreement created I'll shrug and say we did what we can... this makes no sense though.

[woodtoo]

If the goal is China and IP theft how are steel tariffs on our allies sound tactics?

That's the whole point none of this agenda is coherent.

If you want to go after China you sign TPP. You coordinate with your allies who have the same gripes against the Chinese. You don't waste your time talking about irrelevant matters like trade deficits. You target a specific thing and then build a coalition to apply pressure.

It's ambling and incoherent policy. Same as the Iran Deal. It's becoming the norm with this administration.

But slap a couple #MAGA on it and you guys think it's great. It's not. It makes no damn sense to anyone who understands economics.

The only thing this administration has remained somewhat consistent on is North Korea and when the talks fail or a watered down agreement created I'll shrug and say we did what we can... this makes no sense though.

What dont you get about fair and reciprocal trade?

[Clocker]

What dont you get about fair and reciprocal trade?


What don't you get about opposition to Big Brother government deciding what is "fair", and taxing consumers who buy products that Big Brother doesn't want them to buy?

[elysiantraveller]

What dont you get about fair and reciprocal trade?

I don't get what "fair" is... if two sides agree to it by definition it would be considered fair.

You guys sound like Marxist/Alinsky/Class Warfare types.

Its hilarious.

[elysiantraveller]

What don't you get about opposition to Big Brother government deciding what is "fair", and taxing consumers who buy products that Big Brother doesn't want them to buy?

Unfairness exists EVERYWHERE in the business world.

There is a lender where I'm located that due to a massive deposit balance and strong finances is able to absolutely crush me and basically every other lender in the area with their portfolio programs.

When I run up against them I don't stomp my feet and pout. I don't call my investors and ask them to help me. I don't report them to Trump. I don't lobby Congress to enact tougher regulations on portfolio lenders.

I take a shot and move on. I have my own advantages.

China biggest and most apparent advantage is they have four times as many people and pay them a third as much. You wanna offset that advantage start pumping out babies and tell your boss you're willing to work for less.

That will eat into the trade deficit.

[classhandicapper]

If I believed that temporary tariffs were an unsound strategy, then I might agree with you. That's probably the crux of our disagreement. I consider the tariffs a short term tactic and not a strategy. The strategy is to lower the trade imbalance to improve our positioning in the global economy vis-a-vis other economies. Everything else are tactics to support that strategy.

This is exactly correct.

Trump knows full well that tariffs are not a solution to the trade imbalances and may have short term negative consequences to the US economy. However, he is willing to accept the bad press and deal with the short term negatives to get our trading partners to the negotiating table.

When you have the upper hand in a deal and can cheat and get away with it, there's no way you are going to come to the table and negotiate away your advantage. However, if your trading partner is willing to take the political and economic heat from putting tariffs on your goods and watching you respond in kind, then you are going to be damaged also.

So you ask yourself, I am willing to get into a damaging trade war with this guy or am I simply better off going to the table and negotiating away some of my unfair advantage?

Most sensible people will weigh both sides and ultimately end up negotiating, but it may have to escalate a bit before they do. That's what Trump is counting on. He doesn't give a crap what all the pundits and globalists that are screaming have to say about it. They are the ones that sold us out to begin with.