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


#122

Oh noes, the real world intrudes upon your college textbook.


#123

Thomas Sowell never wrote a textbook. He just writes the hard facts.

Again he offers analysis, real world examples. I’ve never seen you do that.

You start and end with a platitude, presuming that’s how the world works, but you never tested it. Prove me wrong.


#124

And his parties propaganda machine :wink:


#125

…Thomas Sowell is a propaganda machine?

On a Rush Limbaugh periodical no less? :joy:

As Sowell says, emotions don’t trump facts.

China doesn’t “win” by levying tariffs on us. Anyone whose paid attention to China itself would know that.


#126

Nothing good about tariffs; not even for the country implementing them. That’s the real world.

China hurt itself by putting tariffs on us; the ones treated “unfairly”, were its own consumers.


#127

Don’tcha know, globalist shill, Democrat and socialist. Oh, and scumsucker who wants to fill America with Central Americans to get Democrats elected. Oh, yeah, and he’s an egghead with no practical knowledge of anything. Probably can’t even tie his own shoelaces, stupid liberal.

Obviously. He’s just like George Will, a traitor to conservatism and a Democrat Socialist. Also an egghead with no practical knowledge of anything.

Man, you gotta get on board with taxing the snot our of yourself for constantly mutating objectives and secret easy-to-win timelines, or you’re a socialist liberal Democrat. Come on, AS. Get with the program. Stop listening to eggheads.


#128

In all fairness to AS, this remark was directed at me as I like much of Zeihan’s ANALYSIS. His his personal politics nor so much. He voted for Hillary and is a greenie and a globalist but doesn’t let this taint his work. He will even acknowledge the validity of some of Trump’s actions.

:vb-wavey:


#129

Lacking is of course a single example from Sowell where he says using tarrifs as a tool to manipulate leaders who are hostile toward us while dependent on our consumption market is a bad strategy ; which is exactly how Trump is using tarrifs.

But to the economic illiterate a tariff is proof of Protectionism regardless of how many times Trump cheerfully withdraws the idea when the nation ceases their hostile activity.

Evidence and facts play no part in the coffee shop economic experts argument, that is why Trump does not waste any time trying to explain it to them; sound market economics work whether the economic illiterates understand why or not.


#130

What really bothers me about the “economic illiterates” (nice phrase, RET) is that their rhetoric and scare tactics encourages Xi and others to hold out as long as possible, hoping he caves to pressure or is not re-elected.


#131

Q: What about the view by President Trump that other countries are ripping us off by running trade surpluses?

TS:

It’s pathetic. The very phrase “trade surpluses” gives half a story. There are countries that supply mainly goods, physical goods, and there are other things like services that other countries provide, and the United States gets a lot of money from providing services. To talk about one part of the trading and ignore the other part fails to understand that money is money no matter whether it’s from goods or services.

When you set off a trade war, like any other war, you have no idea how that’s going to end. You’re going to be blindsided by all kinds of consequences. You do not make America great again by raising the price to Americans, which is what a tariff does.


#132

Called dibs years ago, and he used it wrong.

At best he means politically illiterate. Economically, the harm tariffs cause doesn’t change. And it causes harm to the country that enacts them, just as Sowell states.

And he’s pointing out the trade deficit is a boon to us. Because it is.

There’s nothing wrong with us having a trade surplus in capital; your economy and its people gets to do more things that way.

The only reason I can see for you calling it bad, is due to mentally linking it to the fiscal deficit, which is not related.


#133

You (and Dr. Sowell, for that matter) fail to understand that trade surpluses result in the JOBS leaving the country. China’s behavior resulted in MASSIVE unemployment and underemployment in the U.S. as companies opened their manufacturing facilities in China where labor was markedly cheaper. The same can be said about Mexico and even Canada, for that matter. What good is it to import a bunch of cheap stuff from China when the loss of incomes in the U.S. make even the cheaper stuff out of reach?


#134

Nope; jobs grow. Tariffs destroy them. Sowell’s an economist Dave, he watches the numbers on this.

It’s been his argument for 40 years that the numbers don’t add up.

Because, the industries which consume the resource you’re protecting lose more workers than the industry you’re levying those tariffs for.

"It has been estimated that the [Bush] steel tariffs produced $ 240 million in additional profits to the steel companies and saved 5,000 jobs in the steel industry. At the same time, those American industries that manufacture products made from this artificially more expensive steel lost an estimated $ 600 million in profits and 26,000 jobs as a result of the steel tariffs.

In other words, both American industry and American workers as a whole were worse off, on net balance, as a result of the import restrictions on steel. Similarly, a study of restrictions on the importation of sugar into the United States indicated that, while it saved jobs in the sugar industry, it cost three times as many jobs in the confection industry, because of the high cost of the sugar used in making confections. Some American firms relocated to Canada and Mexico because sugar costs were lower in both these countries."

Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition (pp. 515-516). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

No industry works in isolation; it’s all interconnected.


#135

BS. On one hand you claim that steel tariffs “saved 5,000 jobs” and in the same breath claiming they “COST 26,000 jobs.” You can’t have it both ways. They either “save” jobs or they “cost” jobs.


#136

Yes you can, they “saved” 5,000 in the steel industry, but destroyed 26,000 in the industries that use steel.

You robbed Peter to pay Paul. That’s what happens.

By making imports more expensive, you hurt the industry, and the people working in it, who relied on those imports.


#137

There is not one piece of defensible evidence to show that the steel tarrifs saved a single job or cost a single job; government and private morons use ludicrous metrics to make claims like this all the time as food for the intellectually bankrupt.

We went from 30 percent effective unemployment to effectively full employment in 2 years under Trump; if I was an economic illiterate (or just someone with no integrity) I guess I could credit his tarrifs but they had NOTHING to do with that and were not levied for that reason.

Correlation equals causation is the crutch of deceivers and ignoramus’s.


#138

Why don’t you repost this topic switch after you admit that you attempted to use Sowell as a proponent of your opinion while knowing full well that Sowell was discussing a completely different topic?

Just kidding, I know your misdirection was designed specifically to AVOID admitting you were caught… Again… Trying to use respected economists to advocate for your Leftist’s views.


#139

Despite very reliable Bejing Biden’s claims, this is demonstrably untrue

We have the strongest economy of any developed economy right now


#140

There’s no switch here; He said this last year, about what Trump was doing to China. He thinks Trump is playing with fire, and that it will run out of his control.

Anyone can pick that out. The “why” here doesn’t matter RET, he thinks the means themselves are toxic.


#141
  1. This was about the Bush tariffs, just so were clear.

  2. We can, because auto parts manufactures overshored, looking for cheaper steel. It’s part to why Mexico became #4 in the world in auto manufacturing.

Sowell also pointed that out.

It was the reason; Trump thinks he’s saving jobs and explicitly says as much, but we agree that they aren’t related.