Trump's steel tariff


…Yes it does, it’s a reactor, that uses Liquefied natural gas.


A “reactor”? Do you mean a GENERATOR, or maybe a HEATER or FURNACE? What’s in use today is a gas-fired steam turbine. It’s not a “reactor” and it works EXACTLY like a coal-fired steam turbine in the generation of electricity.


No, I mean reactors.

Just like in nuclear reactors.

In this case, it’s because the liquid has to be transformed back into a gas for the process to work.


Gas-fired power generators are not “reactors.” They require a “reaction” on a nuclear level. That’s NOT what happens in a gas-fired power generator. What happens in one of those is that gas, coal or even gasoline, kerosene or another combustible is burned to heat water to steam, which is then used to turn a turbine, generating electricity. There’s no nuclear reaction involved thus no “reactor” required.

Yes, I KNOW that some of the same things happen IN a nuclear powered plant. A nuclear pile heats water into steam which turns a turbine, etc. If a gas/coal or even gasoline-powered generator runs amok, you can simply turn it off. You CAN’T throw a switch and turn off a nuclear reactor.


Yes they are:

Again, it’s because you have to convert the liquid back into gas. If they were being powered just by gas, you’d probably be right.

You can for Fusion reactors, that’s apart of the appeal. It’s quite easy to switch off if it’s misbehaving.


Those aren’t REACTORS in the conventional sense, AS. Quit trying to obfuscate to try and make your point. Two things are absolutely necessary to generate electricity in a gas or coal-fired generation plant. Something that will BURN and water that can be converted into steam BY the application of heat from whatever is burning.


Dave, they calls these things LNG reactors. My use is accurate, you just didn’t know that, because you didn’t realize that a phase change was involved, a phase change set off partly by a chemical reaction, hence reactor.

It isn’t Dave, you just didn’t know.


And Trump delivers as always


That’s not how the trade imbalance works Dude. Buying more from us simply means American consumers will use the money they get, to go buy more products over there, keeping the imbalance more or less the same.

The drivers of trade imbalance were not addressed here, and God willing, they never will be:

It’s all in accordance to cyclical behavior by consumers – not a “deal”.

But you know what the best method is to see foreigners invest in our Country? Import; we pay for our exports with dollars, and there’s very few places foreigners can go to spend/invest those dollar besides the U.S.

Even if they say go invest those dollars in a highly dollarized economy like Japan, the Japanese will turn right around and invest the dollars here. And this creates Jobs, and capital for us.


BS. I’ve been in the oil and gas business fairly intimately for the last 40+ years and I’ve NEVER heard of a gas or coal-fired power generation system referred to as a “reactor.”


Because they weren’t using LNG, and they weren’t making a phase-change.


BS. You haven’t the LEAST IDEA what “they” were using when I was in that industry.


It wasn’t LNG; the cryotech we’re using to make the transport of that affordable was invented in about the last 15 years.

Its growth, was right on top of horizontal drilling & fracking in 2008.


Are you really ignorant enough to think that I died around 2008?


I have no idea when you retired. What I do know, is that you aren’t familiar with the acronym LNG, which indicates a few things.


I know what LNG means. What I didn’t know was where you got the crazy idea that an LNG-fired power generator was a REACTOR.


Right there in the first paragraph, your objective achieved (theoretically), decreasing the trade deficit – not strategic materials – just the trade deficit, which is the silliest thing to worry about since the sky falling.

The capitalist president will manage trade"to meet the growing consumption needs of the Chinese people and the need for high-quality economic development, China will significantly increase purchases of United States goods and services. This will help support growth and employment in the United States."

Thank God for the capitalist president’s brilliant central planning economic management skills.

So is the Chinese government going to buy American stuff? What Americans are going to produce whatever stuff it is at a price the Chinese will be able to afford it?

There was consensus on the need to create favorable conditions to increase trade in these areas.
Favorable conditions? Like what? Better wages for Chinese?

Both sides agreed to encourage two-way investment and to strive to create a fair, level playing field for competition.
Again, the capitalist fixing capitalism. Just amazing.

This press release is concerning not exciting. The only way this may turn out all right is if, as RET seems to think, the president is actually running a long con on his followers, economically illiterate populists, in order to achieve some actual economic improvement. Far be it from me to deduce what that goal is. Seems to me, the president is just trying to reduce the trade deficit, something that’s been a consistent goal in his interviews since the late 1970s.

And it’s an utterly pointless goal.


What CHINA “needs” more than anything else, is the means to FEED their BILLION-PLUS population. They can’t do that out of their own resources. WE could feed the Chinese out of our figurative agricultural pocket-change.


There seems to be some confusion about the trade deficit, 2 things can be equally true.

  1. A trade deficit that exists naturally due to the differing consumption capacities and production capacities of different nations is meaningless; no different than the trade deficit between myself and the grocery store.

  2. A trade deficit that is the result of one nation blocking the commodities of another that is the superior supplier is damaging to both nations economies.

China closes markets that we can beat them in domestically and subsidizes markets abroad to win in markets that they are inefficient in.

You can not support free trade while simultaneously opposing the effort strip these markets from their central management influences.

Unless you just hate Trump, in that case I guess it is understandable.


RET, even if China’s measures weren’t there, the only result is that Americans would turn right around with the money they get selling things to China, to buy more things from China or other economies.

The deficit is due to cyclical consumer spending, which is happening at different rates in each country. It’s not due to trade policy.

In China (and India) people are saving at a higher rates than we are, partly due to the fact that there’s so few women, that men are trying to gather enough money to buy a house.

That act of saving impacts the trade balance.