Sure, you never attempted to draft Sowell into supporting your baseless position; just like you never attempted to say Friedman agreed with your Party that importing Welfare rats is good for the economy. [/sarcasm]
Thank you for illustrating my point about these ridiculous claims gleaned from selective events predetermined to “prove” an unsubstantiated position that hangs on correlation equaling causation.
Because Sowell is saying what Trump is doing is a mistake.
No one else is going to watch this, and say he thinks “negotiation” suddenly makes it okay.
He is saying, the means are toxic, it will runaway from you.
Q: Thoughts on the Trump trade war?
TS: Oh my gosh, an utter disaster.
Rush: Speaking of your role as an economist, you have recently warned that tariffs could be catastrophic. … The Chi-Coms import gobs and gobs of soybeans. What are your concerns about this? You think this is a negotiating ploy? Is he serious about it?
Sowell: “Whether he’s serious or not, once you’ve started a trade war, like starting a military war, it’s out of your hands… There’s likely to be a whole lot of collateral damage that is totally out of proportion to the problem you think you’re solving.”
Yet Sowell said it. And the businesses in question were asked.
So next Vietnam?
Anyone who wants a job (except those whose skills are worth less than minimum wage or is a drug addict) can have a job if he or she wants one. We have so many unfilled jobs. Employers have a hard time filling the jobs we have available. So what if they’re not in factories producing cheap trinkets or low-grade steel.
Again, who’s losing income? Not Americans.
Sowell is finally rejected by a conservative on this site in favor of the Trump analysis. It’s just a matter of time before RET sends Sowell to the bottom of his list along with George Will. The only thing protecting Friedman from this fate is that he was never able to speak directly to Trump’s trade wars. But any economic literate who understands Friedman knows exactly what Friedman would have thought.
Yet Trump makes that argument all the time.
I imagine you’ve all seen the incredible job growth — 312,000 jobs — which took everybody by surprise. … This is a great number. I think it has a lot to do with the factories and with the companies that are moving back into the United States, who have left, and now they’re coming back to us instead of being in other countries.
They were doing very poorly when I took office, and now they’re doing very well. Our steel industry was dying, and now it’s very vibrant.
I suppose he’s not referencing jobs in steel. Maybe he’s just arguing that the people in steel are getting richer by charging Americans more? Anyhow, spin Trump how you like, but he’s always talked about bringing back jobs and companies that moved overseas for inexpensive labor and using tariffs to do it.
We had the strongest economy before we went to war with the people who were “beating” us. What’s your point?
Actually untrue. We were in the midst of the WORST recovery from a recession since WW II when President Trump was elected. The stock market STARTED its meteoric climb on the very DAY after his election in 2016. Consumer confidence? Same thing.
I’m not up on all this, but I have to wonder if those jobs are as high-paying as those that would result from balanced (more or less) trade.
As Sowell says, high paying jobs comes from generating value. You don’t generate more value through protectionism, you just create make work.
The balance of trade is also a function of your savings rate; the average Chinese is saving while the average American is spending.
MORE nonsense, of course. The “average” Chinese is buying those luxury items the communists will allow them to buy before the right to own them is once again prohibited.
Well, we have an incredible number of jobs available in a variety of trades that pay median household income on a single salary in my state. And I don’t think my state is economically healthy.
Chinese Saving rate:
The Chinese are saving because of their demographic problem. Men have to compete for wives.
So Dave, how about you do the research before you make a comment?
You knew nothing about this, and you made no effort to inform yourself.
Yet talking off the cuff did nothing for you here, you were just wrong.
I’m through arguing with morons, AS. Have a miserable day.
You spoke out of ignorance, and insulted me when I was right.
Learn some humility for Pete’s sake. It’s not like I haven’t also talked off the cuff, but you always do it, and you always follow it up with either an insult or a dismissal.
And it’s bullcrap Dave. There’s no justifying your doing that, it’s simply poor character on your part.
How exactly is comparing a military solution to a trade solution relevant?
You have no idea what Trump is even doing as evidenced by your comparison; this can be nothing but blindness caused by Trump derangement syndrome because I know you have the capacity to tell the difference between using our power as a consumer nation and using our power as a military superpower in foreign affairs.
As a result of Trumps economic policies (which you condemn) this is true yet you use the evidence that you are wrong as evidence that the Trump approach is a failure?
That is pretty bold or pretty blind, we are just over 2 years past an effective 30 percent unemployment rate and the highest number of Americans in history on food stamps; your philosophy or understanding of your philosophy is clearly wrong.
Here is a hint, it is not your philosophy.
Not today, wages are up today; but before Trump came along and started doing all the stuff that you condemn we were a Welfare State like AS dreams of.
You just keep using the positive Trump results to condemn Trumps actions, why not use the results of the previous ideas that you so prefer to try and condemn Trumps approach?
Just kidding, we all know why.
Sowell is absolutely right, he is just talking on a different subject; George Will is a Leftist, deep state Republican so your attempt to equate the 2 speaks far more to your comprehension skills than it does to anything I have written.
Friedman required no “saving” except from Liberal deceivers like AS who try to claim that he supported the Pelosi economic ideas by attributing blatantly false positions to him.
Only to you and those who cannot interpret his actions.
We had massive unemployment, the lowest worker participation rate in our history, the highest percentage of citizens on public assistance in our history and the fastest growing number of “Disability Retirements” since that program existed as a result of the “Jobless Obama Recovery”.
The turn around that we have have experienced in just over 2 years should be cause enough for you to at least make an effort to see what Trump is doing instead of just making assumptions based on his twitter length sound bites designed to sound appealing to the economic illiterates and defy the media the opportunity to bury him in minutia as he tries to “explain” what he is doing.
You confuse an effective political strategy that is designed to emasculate the strategies of the Left that have crippled Conservatives for decades with an embrace of some economic theory that has been labeled and defined by economists who get to write whole books and curriculum’s to communicate to audiences who commit to learning it before they are ever exposed to it.
CEO’s are tasked with implementing their agenda, not convincing people as to the superiority of their vision; that is why companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft are darlings of the Left if you listen to what they say but embrace none of that crap in the way they operate their companies.
CEO comments that are made for public consumption are designed to have a predetermined effect on the minds that they are talking to, CEO actions are designed to get the results that they are looking for; that is why Trump is winning and by association the American people are winning as well.
He said the trade war is a disaster, and when asked by Rush Limbaugh, he said it doesn’t matter if Trump is intending this as a negotiation tactic.
It will take on a life of its own, and runaway from his ability to control what happens.
Ergo, if you’re saying Sowell is right, then you’re also saying Trump is wrong.
He supported illegal immigration as he saw them as the closest thing we had to pre-1914 immigration.
Nothing about that has changed; illegals still take less benefits than legals or citizens, and still work more.
You say I deceive, but you can’t name a single thing I said that was untrue. You just dance around the issue, throwing out epithets, but can’t quote a single claim I made. Because if you did, you’d expose that’s it’s you whose playing a game here.
RW sees it as well as I do. Your run-around of Sowell has removed all doubt.
That was a bridge too far. You should have been honest, and just stated you disagreed with him.
Okay, cool the personal insults. I’m not saying “please,” because both of you know better.
Oh, guess you missed it. Trump’s now threatened tariffs against Vietnam.
You put way too much stock in the actions of a single president. It was already swinging upward everywhere.
My philosophy is literally free market capitalism.
Prices are up too.
Friedman would stand where Sowell does today, in flat out disagreement with your protectionism.
In his own words.
Will you credit him when the economy turns again in its ongoing boom-bust cycle?
So not the truth? Don’t say what you mean and don’t do what you say then?
You’ve got to ditch Sowell, RET. He is just as stupid as AS and me. HIs viewpoint is indefensible from your perspective. You’re running out of economists though so you can rely on a billionaire who has been preaching protectionism for 40 years, even while he benefited from the freer trade that he despised.
WHAT “personal insult?” I didn’t call AS a moron. I merely said I was finished trying to argue with one.
Come on Pappadave, play nice-nice or y’all get to wear the get along shirt together.
There is no “Trade War” and Sowell was ONLY addressing what he believes the economic consequences of Protectionism would be; he NEVER commented on effectiveness of using our consumption power as a tool to bend the will of leaders who oppose us.
Show me the analysis from Sowell that shows the cold war was cheaper than a trade approach to deal with the soviet union, or that war and sanctions are better for our economy than short term tariffs.
You can’t because you are trying once again to take an economists opinion on one subject and apply it to another that you cannot defend of your own volition.
Trumps results speak for themselves, your desire to continue protectionism for every country that trades with the USA is no different than your desire to import millions of Welfare rats; you want America dependent on the government teet so they will vote for your despicable Party.