Trump signs tariffs

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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...

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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...

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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/art...ng_103292.html

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by 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.

https://madabouttrade.com/trump-team...t-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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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.

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

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Clocker

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]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Bring back the textile mills!!!

You guys must like being bent over.

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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?



<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]

Originally Posted by Clocker

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]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

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?



<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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

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]

Originally Posted by tucker6

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]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

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]

Originally Posted by tucker6

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.