Easy and good trade war must be working out -- Good job, guys!


#101

I’m… not following. The process as I understand it is you get the hour interview establishing credible fear, then you wait for the hearing.

The fear is that those in the “credible fear” process are simply skipping the latter, yet, most who pass that interview, do show up for their hearing.

Especially if they’re a more vulnerable case who used to get priority, say, a Mother and child.

Okay,

  1. Most people attempting to apply for asylum show up for their hearing.

  2. Most migrants altogether show up for their hearing. Both are true.

The report I just gave you is from 2017, I admit that’s not ideal, but it’s the latest one they have.


#102

Not everyone who claims to be seeking asylum gets passed on to CIS for the interview. (Thats according to your own source)They are being pre-screened by (I presume) ICE, or perhaps local Leo’s when circumstances warrant. The report I read claimed that 80 % of the asylum seekers ICE interacts with do not qualify for asylum, are applying fraudulently, and are subject to immediate deportation. Whether that number is the correct one or not (Again, lies, d***** lies and statistics ) there is A number of asylum seekers that are automatically disqualified, for criminal history or what have you. Those people never get to the interview stage, so no hearing. There are untold numbers illegals who have avoided all contact with authorities. No interview for them, either, also, no hearing. And how many of those are released by local authorities in “sanctuary” jurisdictions or on the orders of some leftist judge?

That may or may not be true of those who go though official channels (cherry pick stories about whatever statistics you like, I’ll bet I can do the same), but it ignores the ones who don’t. How many millions is that?

It seems to me you are stretching “90 % of immigrants who began the process in accordance with the rules tend to continue in accordance with the rules,” to say “90% of all immigrants tend to act in accordance with the rules,”. That is demonstrably not true, literally mathematically impossible. The moment you add one more immigrant who never began the process in accordance with the rules, that percentage is falling. And there are millions.


#103

Eh, China now holds so much of the worlds debt, they pretty much are solid in their position. The moment countries start to default on that debt, while it’ll hurt China, other countries will see the defaulting country economy fail and not want to do business with them. It’s actually nuts how much China holds of the worlds debt. Plus they own resources like the vast majority of the worlds rare earth metals which the global economy depends on.


#104

China’s economy is totally dependent on their ability to import materials and energy and export to the world market utilizing the global world order that has been facilitated by the United States since the beginning of the Cold War. It wasn’t about OUR trade, it was about security in recruiting allies against the Soviets and also keeping the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. NEWS FLASH: It’s over. Russia is a 3rd world nation that happens to have nukes, WE don’t need the oil; Europe and Asia definitely do.

The U.S. is in no danger of default. China’s direct investment in the U.S. skyrocketed in 2016 and 2017. It has somewhat tapered down due to government crackdowns and public executions of wealthy powerful Chinese for “corruption”. It’s capital flight, Chinese millionaires and billionaires want to get their money out while they can. Central Bank lending has skyrocketed in recent years to anyone who can employ people, regardless of profitability. Their published GDP figures are generally considered to be fiction.

The Rare Earth scenarios are largely globalist elite propaganda.:

https://www.investopedia.com/why-contrarians-say-china-s-rare-earth-trump-card-may-backfire-4690070](https://www.investopedia.com/why-contrarians-say-china-s-rare-earth-trump-card-may-backfire-4690070

https://www.barrons.com/articles/trade-china-rare-earth-elements-defense-lockheed-martin-51559239106](https://www.barrons.com/articles/trade-china-rare-earth-elements-defense-lockheed-martin-51559239106

Finally, as a percent of GDP, the United States is the least involved country in international trade in the world except for Sudan and Yemen. About half of that is with Canada and Mexico.
China ain’t winning any trade war with us. A large factor in their failure to capitulate is their hope that Trump’s political problems will derail him or maybe they get to deal with Biden or one of the other morons if they can stall long enough.


#105

No, but we do need other inputs that nations like China have. I’m sure you’re not unaware of this. There are rare earth minerals which we have 0 supply of, which Mongolia, China, Russia, and others have in abundance.

Boiling it down to energy just seems like intentionally trying to simplify a non-simple supply issue.

Sure, you mean China is itself replaceable as a source. This doesn’t mean you can cut off our need for external sources. Trade is still how we need to source these materials; that doesn’t change.

The thing about China that’s hard to replace is scale of production. We can gradually move much of this to other developing countries (which is already happening due to rising wages in China), but not all at once.

China also has the master hub for prototyping and producing circuits; Shenzhen, a niche no other city in the world compares to.

Lopping off access to them is not the same as lopping off access to Silicone Valley, but it’ll still be quite a loss.
A loss other countries who industries compete with ours, won’t bear.

This frames the issue poorly.

The question is whether the leadership in China, or the U.S., is more vulnerable to an economic shake up.
Which population is more sensitive, and more likely to complain.

The Chinese oligarchy derives more of their legitimacy from economic performance, but blow back can still take years to coalesce in a non-free state.


#106

Just been reading about this. We apparently do have this supply. It’s just producing nothing atm… It’s not being mined, and Trump is proposing to get it going again. Of course, as a free market denialist, Trump is wrong on this too.


#107

How on EARTH do you classify President Trump as a “free market denialist?” He is very MUCH a fan of the “free market,” only he believes it should be a FAIR free market.


#108

He’s only using the tariffs as a means to an end. He’s openly stated that he will gladly remove the tariffs if the other nations remove theirs that they place on our goods.

I’m in full agreement with this. I don’t care if it’s not free market enough for libertarians. It’s the right way to approach an unfair trade practice.


#109

Republic Mike Pence, who supported every free trade agreement until running for VP: “The free market has been sorting it out and America’s been losing.”

Trump: “Every time, every time.”

That is a literal denial of free markets by the vice president and the president.

They’re free market denialists. They believe that they, politicians and bureaucrats, know better than we do in our seemingly chaotic market choices. They’re wrong, just like every socialist has been and is wrong, for the same reasons.

Trump tells us he is going to bring back jobs to an economy where anyone willing to work can find a job. Why? Because he thinks spending money for goods and not receiving the same dollar value in goods actually means something – that we lost! Never mind that literally everyone on a micro or macro level ultimately has a trade deficit with many others.

But they cheat, they subsidize, the “tax our goods,” they require technology to trade in their nation, he says. And his and your answer is literally anti-market taxation. Unfortunately, that view is backward. The real win American. The Chinese citizens literally subsidize our consumption. They lose. Not us. Is this a problem really? No. Anyone in the United States can have a job right now if he or she wants it. If we “bring back” jobs, then someone else has to quit doing something else in order to do that job.

Technology? Are we to presume that private property is actually public and ours to direct? That’s not capitalism. That’s not free market.

Trade itself? Are we to presume that your or my purchasing choices are really public? That I must have your permission and you mine before being allowed to trade with a Chinese citizen? That’s not capitalism. That’s not free market.

We are not nations that trade. We are people that trade. But national governments interfere with those trades. That’s not capitalism. That’s not free market. A “temporary” solution that transfers American citizens’ dollars to the national treasury to “fight” this is not free market capitalism.

And “fair markets,” really? That’s every bit of the entirety socialist argument against capitalism. Meanwhile capitalism has lifted nearly the entire world out of poverty in the past 250 years.

Donald Trump denies all of this. He denies the power of individual freedom in trade in favor of some undefined collectives goal like a “better deal” or “national security.” Good luck pinning him down on the objective. I’ve never seen so many moving goalposts as Trump on tariffs.

Either free market capitalism is good or it’s not. We have to live it if we think it is regardless of others doing the wrong thing. We know from the study of the real-world effects of free trade that even when one side is engaged in idiotic protectionism, the other side still benefits (despite the distortions). Donald Trump’s old-school Democrat tax-and-spend fiscal policies are harming U.S. citizens.

So naturally, the response will be how can you label Donald Trump an “old-school tax-and-spend Democrat”? He gave us a tax cut. And then he took it away at the register with his tariffs. Then he increased and has continued to increase the nation’s budget deficit (which actually is a problem – as opposed to the trade deficit). And he had a Republican congress for two years.

Ronald Reagan of 1980, despite his own flaws, would be appalled at the behavior of the Republican Party. Same for Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. But I guess times change.


#110

No they aren’t RWNJ. They are free marketers who also believe the free markets should BE both free and FAIR.


#111

It’s not Free Market enough for Thomas Sowell, whose not a Libertarian, and has been pointing out why tariffs are wrong for over 40 years.

You’re offering a platitude, Sowell’s doing cost-benefit analysis. Which actually gets it right, DN?

Judging by feeling, or by the functional, tabulated result?


#112

It’s merely acknowledging the reality that trade (particularly international) is subject to considerations that are not purely economic. You can pretend that politics don’t matter if you want to, but you will be consistently disappointed in how the real world works. Whether it ought to work the way it does is pretty much irrelevant. Political reality always falls well short of any idealized political theory.


#113

So who determines “fair”? The whimsy of the majority of the electorate in contravention to the very Constitutional concept of private property rights?

Listen to your own words and compare.

SANDERS: I do not believe in unfettered free trade. I believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families, not just large multinational corporations.

The Democrat Party’s Platform on trade, which is no doubt freer trade than the current crop of candidates for president prefer: We will make it a priority to knock down barriers to free, fair and balanced trade so other nation’s markets are as open as our own.

Socialist Party Platform: Encourage fair trade over free trade and stop America’s participation in NAFTA, CAFTA, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, WORLD BANK, IMF, etc.

Except that over and over again, the president has for 40 years gone on about the economic issues. It is only punctuated with “national security” as needed in order to justify his unilateral imposition of tariffs, yet another area where Congress has clearly transferred its own power to the president.


#115

It is not free trade when a nation that we do extensive trade with slaps a tariff on our manufactured goods that prices them out of competition of their own goods.

This is why you do not see American manufactured goods in Japan, China, and many other nations. You see Japanese cars, with the extremely wealthy sometimes deviating from that.

We already have the costs associated with union labor to contend with, so with the additional tariffs we cannot compete in those countries with a product of similar quality.

Here, the unions and the companies not moving to right to work states is what keeps handicapping American made.

Free trade exists only in a vacuum devoid of gov’t policies.


#116

And yet, we all have jobs paying an extraordinary amount of money relative to the other economies of the world. Anyone can find a job. So China distorts the economy a little at its own people’s expense. It does not harm us. We’ll produce the other things here and get their cheaper goods at the expense of Chinese citizens thanks to the Chinese government’s primitive economic ideology. Unfortunately, the current regime is just as ignorant as the Chinese government, and so he imposes a tax upon hi own people, increasing the price of things without any net gain in jobs – I say this because everyone who wants to work can work. We weren’t losing. We are now.

Except at the lowest end of the wage scale, but that’s our own fault for imposing ridiculous minimum wage laws.

And the we’re losing thing cracks me up. Those are the words of collectivists. Yet we use it all the time to refer to international trade, which like domestic transactions, is just deals between voluntary traders – not national governments.


#117

Except that our economy, including employment and wages, is BOOMING, despite these “unfair tariffs” you whine about. WE understand why they are imposed, even if you don’t RWNJ, and know that they are working as President Trump intended…and that they are TEMPORARY.


#118

We, the United States, set up the World Bank, IMF, Bretton Woods, NATO etc. in the aftermath of WWII. These together with he United States Navy created the first truly world wide free trade market. We paid for it economically with trade deficits and military costs. We didn’t do it without compensation, it solidified the free world alliance against Soviet expansion. Our compensation was in terms of our national security. We have continued on with this for 30 years after winning the Cold War. So what is our compensation now? Why should we tolerate unfair trade practices from the Chinese or the EU?

The Europeans have destroyed NATO. You can’t have a military alliance without a military. How many divisions can Angela Merkle put in the field? Why should we guarantee her sovereignty? On top of it all she has put made Germany a virtual hostage to Russian energy supply with NordStream.

Why is it in our national interest to keep the Straits of Hormuz open? A Saudi/Iranian war would destroy Europe and the Far East but wouldn’t affect us much at all; except California, let’s see how they would do without fossil fuels. Our control of international banking transfers and secondary sanctions can still bring Iran to their knees, if there would be anything left to defeat. We won’t do it since we want to keep China out of the Western Pacific and the South China Sea open together with South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines and VietNam.

I’ve seemed to wander somewhat from the OT but the point is this: THERE IS NO FREE TRADE WITHOUT US. WE DESERVE FAIR TRADE. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DEMANDING FAIR TRADE. He will use tariffs and sanctions to get it even though he has to fight a coalition of the Chinese, EU, partisan democrats, libertarians, MSM, corrupt Congressmen and Senators and butt-hurt ivory tower conservatives. God preserve Donald Trump.


#119

We had an effective unemployment rate of 30 percent under Obama’s “jobless recovery” where we embraced the “screw America and the horse she rode in on” Protectionism philosophy for every nation that we compete with.

Trump gets elected and starts demanding that our trade partners open up their markets or he tariff them out of ours, then he starts cutting the regulations that are really harming our businesses (as opposed to the leftist fairy tale of our higher wages) and magically our economy recovers, wages are up and we are at full employment.

But the China, Mexico, Canada and Middle East Protectionist crowd cannot stand what they are seeing! So now they cite the RESULTS of Trumps far superior understanding of Free Trade (that selling AND buying must be free both ways) as evidence that we need to return to the Obama economic plan!

Yes it is true that anyone who wants to work can get a job NOW.

But the moment we return to the Protectionist philosophy of locking American owned businesses out of all the world markets that compete with them here we will no longer be reaping these results.

Trump understands economics, those who believe in the Free Market and who KNOW that the United States can beat anyone in a non rigged game while prospering at every income level are not going to buy into the Leftist Protectionist schemes all dressed up as “free trade”; people know that this was just a planned wealth transfer designed to crush our faith in Capitalism.

Trump only has 6 more years, after that you can try to elect another leader who will cripple American business at home with regulations and sign new trade agreements that prevent American owned companies from competing abroad again; then the “good ol days” of record high unemployment and food stamps for all can return!

And if that happens don’t forget to blame your version of free market Capitalism for the misery.


#120

Oh noes, developing countries are protecting their cheap knick knacks.

Whatever is a developed country awash in capital and advanced work skills to do?

Compete on value instead of price? Naah, that’s too hard…

Developed countries should be able to get by on same old crap they’ve been making for 50-100 years, since when they were still industrializing, with no changes.

Those Dutch and Germans man, they’re just nerds who try too hard.


#121

Gee, what does Peter Zeihan think of the trade deficit…

https://zeihan.com/here-we-go/