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


#162

That is hilarious, the Trump economy is a failure and the Obama economy was swinging up everywhere!

Food stamp recipients were certainly “swinging up”

Those who had dropped out of the work force was certainly “swinging up”

The numbers of those who could no longer afford to buy a home was certainly “swinging up”

Those receiving government health care was certainly “swinging up”

Your embrace of Protectionism for everyone who trades with us netted a lot of “swinging up” ; too bad it was in all the areas that spell disaster for everyone except the democrat party.


#163

Only for China, in the United States your philosophy is “The whole world is free to sell to us but our businesses cannot sell to the world”.

So I guess your philosophy would be “prohibited market capitalism”.


#164

When have I EVER relied on the quotes of anyone to establish my opinion on economics or any other topic for that matter?

It is YOU and AS who seek credibility by quoting others and you ALWAYS do it when you face opposition that you cannot respond to.

My views are my own, I didn’t borrow them from anyone and I defend them with my own arguments and experience; I do often agree with others on these topics but my opinions are not planted by the last or best voice I heard or read.

That is why you do not respond with substance, the ones you let do your thinking for you have never addressed the things I say; which means you cannot address the things I say.


#165

He called it one though.

He said Trump’s Trade war is a disaster. Not will be, is. Present tense.

Yes he did. Rush asked him, point blank, what if what Trump was doing was a negotiation tool.

Sowell didn’t care, to him, you don’t control the consequences of a trade war. It runs away from you, whatever your intentions for starting it were.

This dance isn’t even clever RET. Sowell wasn’t talking to a hypothetical, he was talking, and asked point blank, on what Trump was doing.


#166

I don’t care what hyperbole Sowell used, there is no trade war.

Sowells point on the negotiation question was that it would not matter regarding the economic concerns, he is right as economics does not care about motives; if economics was the ONLY concern he would be correct but there are far more important matters being resolved which will pay MUCH larger economic rewards and security rewards in the long run in exchange for the short term bump (which we can and are absorbing easily) that we will hit playing hardball.

Sowell is flat out wrong in saying that ANYTHING happening on the economic front under Trump “is” a disaster, Trumps results rival the best economic periods in our history. He can certainly argue that there COULD be a disaster on the horizon (he would be wrong on that as well) but anyone with a calculator knows that calling these last 2 years a “disaster” is evidence of profound ignorance or an alterior agenda; and Sowell is not profoundly ignorant.

We have already seen success with Canada, Mexico and Japan using our consumption as a motivator; China is stronger so they are still resisting but they will fall in line as well because WE HOLD ALL OF THE CARDS.

That is Sowells mistake (and all academics really), even when their philosophy is sound they have no metric to understand the dynamics; that is why they thought the Soviets were as strong as us and that is why they think China is a legitimate rival as well.

You are not a Superpower if your economy is dependent upon another nation’s consumption, they MUST have our consumption but we would do just fine without their production; China knows this and Trump knows this.

Sowell may know it as well but I would not be a bit surprised to find out that Sowell has an inflated view of China’s power and capacity; academics rarely get that right because they contemplate things instead of doing things.


#167

Growth RW. Growth. No we did NOT have the fastest growing developed economy in 2015. We weren’t even in the top 10 with sub 2% averages.

The rest of the developed world is stagnant or in recession right now. China is set for it’s slowest growth in over 20 years.


#168

Thank you for admitting you disagree with him.

Yet he’s speaking to the political; as he said, trade wars set off secondary effects, which you don’t control.

Effects which lead to actual wars. Starting with flash points in countries seemingly unrelated to us, but effected by what we’re doing.

e.g. 2ndary sanctions cut off resources in a country, forcing the gov’t to seize it from a neighbor.

Or the faltering in the Chinese economy leads to a death spiral for the mega-project in Pakistan, resulting in the return of war fervor between them and India.

Ergo, trade delays the continuation of history, brought about by geopolitics. Destructive incentives that countries only ignore so long as trade makes doing that worthwhile. The cessation of trade results in the continuation of history, of countries once again becoming tribal, and acting on those incentives.


#169

Which might be relevant if it were the United States who was trying to game China, but it is China who is blocking the United States from having equal access to their markets as they have to ours; Trumps tarrifs do not even come close to equalizing these 2 consumption markets.

You act like the current policy has no consequences but leveraging them to trade as freely with us as we do with them would make the sky fall; ridiculous.

China wants to keep their advantage to avoid competing with United States businesses; if they choose to continue with that model it will cost them access to our consumption market; they hold all the cards and non of the leverage so they could end this today.


#170

2016 was not like 2010. The little economic trend lines were going upward in 2016. Tax cuts were nice and no doubt spurred some economic activity. Tax increases on Americans (i.e. tariffs) have the same effect as raising taxes on Americans, likely a drag on our economy. Too much of it, and we erase the gains from the income tax cuts. It isn’t quite as simple as you’d like to believe – that Messiah Trump has saved us all.

No one should charge tariffs.

Taxing yourself in response to tariffs elsewhere is stupid.

And next up: Tariffs on Scotch Whiskey, French cheese and Italian pasta. And the laughable legal justification for all of these tariffs is national security. It’s getting absurd.

I really don’t, not with you. That’s why I don’t bother linking the threats of tariffs against Vietnam or on Scotch, cheese and pasta.

There is a reason to quote economists and experts, but I absolutely do not expect you to ever bother respecting the research of scientists of any kind – not even “conservative” or free market economists because you already know everything you could possibly need to know. For that reason, I cannot even really take you seriously any more; and I used to take you more seriously than almost anyone. Where you have gone as an alleged capitalist is beyond absurd.

You choose to ignore facts, because you do your own thinking. Any facts that contradict your opinion are obviously false. It makes it impossible to have a discussion with you. I don’t know why I’m bothering here. I have been ignoring your posts deliberately, but no, I get caught up in it. There is no value remaining in it.

My views are my own. They’re based on facts. Sometimes they’re based on insights I did not have until someone else said them. You have been responsible for this yourself. I use information I learn from other folks because I literally do not know things. I am not omniscient. As for you, you’re fooling yourself if you think you haven’t done and aren’t doing exactly the same. Your guide for now however appears to be Donald Trump and his secret shifting objectives.

I also find your ongoing attempts not to kick Sowell to the curb hilarious. Glad to see you finally did. That’s honest.

Here is an example of where you ignore facts. There is in fact a trade war. Unless President Trump wasn’t referring to his tariffs when he said “trade wars are good and easy to win.” This is why discussing anything with you is absurd and pointless.

Oh, yeah, growth: Prices going up. Inflation. Yay, us. Woohoo. I have more money to pay more for the same things I already buy. I’ve never understood the political obsession with “growth.” I’m more interested in the underlying cause of growth, which is almost never going to be a political manipulation of the economy when it comes to real growth instead of relative growth. It’s why socialism sucks in reality and on paper. When the underlying cause is technological improvements, then growth matters and means something.

China was set for slow growth and failure no matter what because it’s not a free market, and its leaders ignorantly believe they know best how to manage economics and trade.


#171

The “threats”, I remember when you attributed rising prices to other tarrifs that had not been levied yet; I also remember you not responding when I asked why the universal inflation was on par with your examples so why blame tarrifs that had not been levied instead of the obvious explanation of rising energy costs across the board.

The evidence is everywhere, Trump wants concessions that will open up foreign markets to our producers and he wants those who benefit from trading with us to stop encouraging our enemies and facilitating behaviors like storming our borders.

Most nations have agreed to these perfectly reasonable demands and as a result those tarrifs did not get levied.

But the facts don’t support your narrative that Trump is a Protectionist trying to prop up our economy by walling off our competition so you ignore the facts.

Tarrifs are a great tool when you are the largest consumer nation in the world, just because you don’t consider equal access to all of the markets that trade with us a part of “free trade” doesn’t make it so; that is why we are booming now and why your pop tart Protectionism arguments don’t fit the facts and are not materializing in the economy.

Trump is not a Messiah, but he is much smarter on market economics and using leverage than any “economist” as evidenced by their near universal inability to even understand what he is doing.

In 10 years or so someone will write a book about it and give it a name, then the eggheads will start talking about it like they came up with it themselves.

Free Market means buying and selling, if your competitors get to sell to twice the market that you get access to there is no Free Trade happening and they haven’t “beaten” their competitors at anything; you buy (and sell) the fairytale that the United States can’t compete in a multitude of markets to justify the destruction of so many of our industries but if you truly believed that you would not fear and hate Trumps efforts to gain access to those markets.

I think you know good and well that we can compete and win in any industry as long as we are not prohibited from accessing massive portions of the market.


#172

Would you please support your claims. Or are you the direct source of the information? Which nations have agreed to “perfectly reasonable demands”? What agreements do we have? What markets have opened up? How many have closed? Why do you support the creation of more welfare rat farmers (you know, the soybean farmers on the take for billions of dollars in direct support now)?

Incorrect.

However, metal prices, for example, have increased, including American metal prices – as predicted based on sound economic principles, which have often been studied by the eggheads you consistently dismiss. And prices in the stores are clearly rising. I’m sure in your mind that’s all about the terrible state governments you and I live with and that raising the price of foreign goods magically doesn’t actually raise prices at the checkstand, but you would be wrong to ignore the simple logic of it.

For prices not to go up, you have to reject this basic principal: Cost of good increases, price of good must increase to cover it.

But whatever, how about a source or two about the success of the president’s tariffs?


#173

It doesn’t matter how you assign blame. China didn’t start out as a developed country other countries needed access to; it started out as a developing country other countries only had partial access to, and gradually built relationships with.

With the U.S., you’re cutting off access all at once, when everyone already has a relationship with us.

And again, secondary effects.

The tariffs are not constrained to China; secondary tariffs are very real, and very much apart of what we’re doing. Countries are having to pick sides; this raises tensions, and suspicions.

If you’re inserting that into places that were already a powder keg, like India and Pakistan, you’re setting off a war.

Which presumes you have full control of the consequences.

By definition, you don’t.

Which equally presumes the Chinese don’t think they can outlast Trump.

President Xi is President for life.

It’s not an advantage though; if it were, Brazil wouldn’t have stagnated trying the same thing.

China is making cheap goods artificially more expensive, and hurting their ability to import superior technology and practices.

If they continue this path along with their Debt, and their demographics, they’re heading straight for a Japanese recession.

I say let them fall victim to it. It’ll undermine the regime, and in a way they can’t blame us or Japan for.


#174

BS
Bush 41 took up the torch to grant China most favored nation trade status when they were an enemy to the United States and mired in poverty, his argument was that we had had no success curbing their atrocious human rights violations or improving our relations by trying to put pressure on them with the UN and economically; Bush believed openly trading with China would create new incentives for China to moderate its harsh ways and desire a peaceful relationship with democratic nations.

The critics of this idea had 2 good points;

Granting this position to China without human rights concessions from China will be the equivalent of approving of their barbaric ways.

Embracing the Bush proposal which allowed China to exclude other nations from their markets (a privilege never granted before in a most favored nation status) would violate the free trade principles that the member nations were embracing and cause new strife in place of the current strife.

The first argument was answered this way “we have nothing to lose, they are murdering their own children due to their one child policy inspired by starvation, this cannot be worse”; a good argument that I embraced.

The second argument was answered this way “We want this to net a fast improvement to the economy in China so they will quickly see the benefits of a friendly relationship with the United States and other Democratic nations, this idea bore great fruit after WW2 with Germany and Japan. We much prefer that lasting reconciliation to the Cold War approach which took decades to bear fruit. China is not in a position to buy much right now anyway so giving them this advantage will cost us little; we can alter these details later after relations have solidified and we are all interdependent”; also a good argument that I embraced at the time.

China then began prospering at a rate never before seen in human history, they were lifting millions out of poverty and the predicted interdependence became a reality.

But the part where they accepted competition into their markets never materialized, and they began stealing product designs from other nations and selling the “clones” for a fraction of the cost (software as well shortly thereafter). They also began using their resources to undermine other markets, as communists they controlled all production so the entire economy operated as one giant diversified machine.

There was no “slow building of relationships with multiple countries”, there was a near overnight boom with every prosperous nation on the planet.

Trump is the first President and world leader to finally say ENOUGH, it is time that China reciprocate and open the now 2nd largest consumer economy in the world to outside competition and put a definitive stop to their intellectual theft and copyright infringments; every other world leader has been bought off for decades on these issues but Trump is not a Google baby or for sale. That means he watched ALL of this happen like I did and he saw the aggregated effects as they came to fruition; he has it exactly right regardless of the short term strife that fixing it will create.


#175

And it worked.

People within China have more rights, and more ability to strengthen and educate themselves than ever.

Comparing China now to China +30 years ago, is like comparing Zimbabwe to Pinochet’s Chile.

It still needs improvement, but it has gotten better.

What’s more, the Chinese regime knows it’s vulnerable. That’s why President Xi is consolidating power and putting his image everywhere; he’s buttoning down the hatches, preparing for a storm.

He’s re-writing party Doctrine to reflect his own ideas, he’s steadily removing the old guard who executed the Tienanmen Square massacre and the Falun Gong persecution.

There’s a 400 million middle class in China who can think for themselves. China’s Great Firewall means nothing when VPNs are ubiquitous.

The CCP can’t control the narrative within China; so it’s trying appeasement tactics. Anti-corruption campaigns, rebuilding or restoring Chinese monuments (that the CCP originally ruined or soiled), dedicated pipelines that “share the wealth”, etc.

But it can’t appease everyone, and it can’t promise growth forever.

With that in Mind, Xi may in fact be planning a coup; something to abandon communist identity entirely to embrace something more nationalistic. Something more directly inspired by his own ideas.

It did, because China set up free trade zones where you don’t pay duties or taxes:

Shenzhen couldn’t be the worlds hub for circuit board manufacturing if it operated any other way. Foriegn companies regularly set up branch offices there.

Protectionism does go on in other parts of the country, but things also got more free. Piece meal, bits at a time.

Every developing country does this. We did it, the Japanese did it, the SE Asian countries surrounding China do it.

Seems par the course to me. Something that comes about when countries industrialize for the first time.


#176

You will justify any level of horror or criminal behavior as long as the ones committing the atrocity are Leftists and you will condemn without cause the actions of anyone who attempts to thwart the evil that Leftists commit.

This is why your Party will lose in 2020, your hate America agenda plays well in your echo chambers but it is offensive to the average American.

China is a nation led by criminal communists, the joy that provides you as you minimize and justify their crimes inspires disgust in most people without a hate America agenda.


#177

Meanwhile, other nations across the globe are cutting their own deals and tariffs among each other, and tea is on the table for the United States.


#178

I support tolerating their despotism while we trade, because it worked on the Soviet Union, who we traded with in the 80’s, and it worked to bring them down.

Yes RET, I’m for tactics that work. I’ make no apologies for that, why should I? It gets us to the collapse of the CCP quicker.

The Panama papers shows I’ve estimated the CCP, and their vulnerability, correctly.

You’re like a liberal trying to make me feel guilty about sweat shops. Sorry, it’s not going to work, because everyone has had them. It’s a necessary step to a better outcome.

Trump’s policy created a chamber of cronies:

And raised prices for average Americans.

There’s nothing good about how he’s handled this, he created a corridor, whether he intended it or not, that encourages corruption.

And this is the outcome of “trade wars”, Trump isn’t negotiating for a freer market, he’s negotiating for more sweetheart deals. More horse trading, just like we got with the USMCA.

That isn’t American. That’s statist. That’s love of bureaucracy and command economy.


#179

What “brought them down” was President Reagan’s SDI initiative. They finally realized that there was no possible way they could continue to compete with the U.S. defensively and economically and they collapsed.


#180

Nonsense, of course.


#181

No it isn’t; Wal Mart stopped carrying the decaf instant tea that I used to drink a few years ago…