Trump's steel tariff


Uh, that also depends on their use case.

If they’re a family; they’ll be more productive with several cars.

If they’re someone who needs to commute efficiently, but also, every so often, has to move around heavy equipment or hardware, a large vehicle will also serve their purposes along with a small one for more gas-efficient commutes.

Anyhow, this doesn’t even come close to the refuting the point.

Consumption is not a waste, nor is it simply keeping current productivity going, if people are using it to make capital improvements.

The entire idea of savings, is about deferring consumption now, for superior consumption at a later date.

Consumption, just like GDP, has quality associated with it, and you can’t paint a broad brush saying it’s all the same, because it isn’t.

And when consumption comes to the issue of imports, most are in fact capital improvements. They make our economy better, in cost-efficient manner, which allows our economy to do more things.

Wrong; new vehicles tend to have less downtime than old ones, which makes your operation more efficient.

Frontier Airlines was running operational rings around their competitors in the early 00’s, because they replaced their whole fleet with a new crop of Airbuses, meaning their planes were spending less time on the ground, and more time in the air, making money, than the aircraft of Southwest or United.

At a basic consumer level; a new car can be a better choice than keeping an old one around, if repairing the old one will be less cost effective than just making the monthly payments on a new one.

There’s more predictably, as you can be more sure that things won’t break, and give you a cost you weren’t expecting. One less thing on your mind, one (or several) less distracting trips to the mechanic you’ll have to make.

And no, I’m certain you can poke holes in that, that isn’t the point. The point, is that capital acquisition tends to improve people and business’s circumstances. They’re sometimes wrong, but that doesn’t change the point.

Capital improvements, is a real thing, and it happens disproportionately through consumption.

This is what importation is.

Again, we have the list of our major imports. We’re importing capital; equipment, resources, vehicles, and making our economy better.

Imports, do not make us capital-poor, they make us better off, and better able to produce more things.

Hence why our production of vehicles is currently at 3x that of the 1980s, along with other durable goods.


Speaking for myself and not directly addressing the same issue, I’d like to see a situation where all trade with China was cut off until (unless; and I’m not holding my breath) they get their human rights act together.


Outside of singular demands stemming from singular events, it’s not a good strategy; as trading with them already encourages it to happen.

Both externally, and internally; as China develops its middle class, they start to pressure the CCP to shape up. Hence XI Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign, and the closing of prison-factories.


To be clear, yes.


I have been trying to decide if this is worth another try, so far whatever I write is given a canned response because apparently I am not communicating what is happening very well; the generic “Free Market versus Protectionism” responses are tiring and completely irrelevant to the Market strategies that are being employed.

Maybe this will help, I think everyone agrees that a Monopoly is a bad thing for any economy for most goods and services; please spare me the fallacy that only governments can create Monopolies so this does not become a rabbit trail to avoid what I am about to write.

Also I want say that my goal here is to describe what is happening and show that it is not a good thing for our economy, I am not presenting a solution for this issue; mainly because most “cures” for this will likely be worse than the disease. But I do believe there can be a solution once enough people comprehend the totality of what is going on and think it through; a mind like Gingrich maybe.

Here is the scenario that is played out domestically in an ever growing number of communities in America.

Town A has;
A Hardware Store
An Appliance Store
A Lamp and Electrical fixture Store
A Lumber Yard
A Landscaping Supply Store
A Paint Store
A Tool Store
A Window and Door Supply Store

All of these stores are owned and operated independently by people who live in this town, the town is not large enough to support multiple instances of these stores but competition is supplied by neighboring towns with similar stores.

Then a Home Depot is built in this town and this one new store provides direct competition for all of those previously mentioned individual stores, on the surface this seems like regular dog eat dog Capitalism that always brings about the best quality for the best price and the ensuing economic efficiency creates investment and growth; but that is not what happens. The reason is not because Capitalism has failed, the reason is because a popular strategy to establish a Monopoly legally has been figured out by some very smart corporations.

Home Depot knows that the 8 individual local store owners cannot pool their resources, they are individuals and they must operate as individual businesses; but Home Depot is all 8 stores in one so they can target their competition individually.

This does not happen all at once, the local competition is targeted one at a time; so the box store selects one (say the lumber yard) and they set the prices in their lumber section at cost minus 10 percent; the rest of the box store departments can easily carry the small loss being incurred by the lumber department for as long as it takes to put the local lumber yard out of business.

Once this succeeds the box store targets another of the local stores, their lumber department is returned to profitability and they employ the same strategy with their appliance department (cost minus 10 percent) until the local appliance store goes out of business.

The consumer is trained to accept the fallacy that these low prices are the result of a large corporations buying power and operational efficiency, they lament the loss of their local businesses but the belief in Capitalism coupled with the belief that they are getting a better deal seems like a forward thinking positive trade off that will reap greater dividends in the long run.

But that is not the case;
Large corporations cannot operate as efficiently as small businesses, the “break” that bulk purchasing provides is not sufficient to overcome the bureaucracy and waste inherent in a Corporate chain; the employee mandates alone would render the corporate chain impotent not to mention the legal fees, insurance costs and immense expense associated with trying to match the service of a competitor who owns and operates his own store. A store owner will stay open late to help out one of his own customers who got in a bind on a job, it builds goodwill and costs nothing but a late dinner; the corporation store must have a “policy” to do this and somebody gets overtime if it happens at all.

But the targeted strategy will enable the box store to clear its competition over time, there is no defense apart from unlimited wealth that a local store owner can employ to compete with cost minus 10 percent.

Once the competition goes under, the prices rise to a number that is profitable for the box stores department, the public sees this gradually and attributes it to inflation since they assume the big box store is always pricing at the best possible price; after all they BUY BULK!

The end result is higher prices and no competition, a legal monopoly since anyone can open up a store to compete with any of the box store departments if they want RIGHT?

Wrong and here is why.
While the public thinks this was just Capitalism at work the former lumber yard owner knows exactly what happened, so do the banks who fund new businesses. While this owner may very well be sitting at home thinking “Wow, I could do fine with the prices the box store is charging for lumber right now” he is not thinking “Maybe I should mortgage my house and open another lumber yard”. The reason he won’t is because he KNOWS that the box store can re-implement their cost minus 10 percent strategy any time they want, before he even got his doors open again he would be priced out of the Market and be looking at losing the home he mortgaged.

So the effective monopoly holds, and the town loses in two ways.
The first loss is directly economic, they are paying more than if there was direct competition for the goods and services offered by the box store.
The second loss is secondarily economic, the profits from 8 separate stores was kept local and invested in the community in a multitude of ways but the profits of the box store belong to the corporation that is most definitely NOT local; the wages they pay their employees is the only economic benefit that stays in that town.

There is no doubt that there was a strong benefit for the town during the period where the monopoly strategy was being executed but this only lasts until the competition is pushed out, the long term result is higher prices for that town than they would have if genuine competition existed in perpetuity.

Two individual lumber yards could not employ this strategy against each other, the one trying to push out the other would likely run out of money before his competitor folded, but a corporate store that houses 8 individual stores under one roof and one ownership can do this for as long as it takes; and that is what they do and why the last 15 years has seen a preponderance of these box type store models arise and dominate the Markets they serve.

I don’t have a solution for this system of establishing a legal monopoly and I know of no economic theory that even understands this relatively new approach, which is why the responses I get are always limited to “Well, they would just go out of business if their too cheap” or “Well, someone will open a competing store if their prices get too high”; the strategy prevents these checks and balances from being viable.

I wrote all that to say this, China is Home Depot and the United States is the 8 individual business owners; as a Communist nation China operates all of its sectors as one big enterprise that can target individual Markets with the profits of other Markets.

In this way they can “compete” in Markets that they could not possibly compete in head to head and the result is ultimate higher prices and expatriated money that only returns in ways that benefit China; sometimes these repatriated dollars benefit our economy but that is not the agenda of China so when it happens it is a coincidence. The job losses and degradation of our industrial sector has many consequences and none of them are positive; if we were losing these competitions due to head to head competition we would be all the stronger for it but losing when we are able to beat the competition if were not for the Communist control that the competition enjoys does not benefit us.

In the past I have tried to summarize this by saying that China subsidizes their Markets but that is misleading, a subsidy sounds like they are taxing their people and giving us the proceeds; nations with private sector ownership of their businesses who try this will fail miserably.

But China is Home Depot, they control it all and they decide how the profits will be spent just like Home Depot does; they can “Loss Lead” forever if they want to but the economic benefit of the lower prices we get is short lived; it only lasts until China has the Market share they want in a given sector.

Trump understands exactly what is happening because he has been in the building industry long enough to see these Markets come full circle, during the campaign I interpreted his rhetoric as ignorant and protectionist because he chose words and phrases that are commonly associated with those traditional, failed ideas. But his actions have so far convinced me that he knows exactly how these Markets are being manipulated and how we are losing battles that we would be winning if our politicians were smart enough to understand the long game that is being used against us.

I don’t know what his full strategy is to deal with this but targeted tariffs chosen carefully as to have as little effect on us as possible and make our trade partners nervous about what restrictions will be included in the Trump era Trade Deals seems like a good start to me. Easing regulations and taxes on our domestic sectors is another signal to me that Trump “gets it”, he is trying to make sure that any nation who beats us does so by actually competing with our best effort; that may in some cases mean higher prices but only because the higher price was collected before from unrelated sectors.

We don’t win when a monopolistic strategy is employed, it just makes it harder to spot where we are losing because the ones monopolizing are diversified beyond the average persons understanding.


It does however provide a break to regulatory costs, because regulation cost do not scale. Small businesses are at a disadvantage, whether we’re talking about legal costs, or even just the minimum wage:

Pricing trends overtime do not reflect this; there is no trend where Lumber prices, adjusted for inflation, have gone & stayed high, at least not until 2017.


I can think of two reasons for this; big box stores compete with themselves, so this isn’t a true monopoly we’re talking about. Second, it’s equally not just small businesses starting up the big box stores have to worry about.

They also have to worry about corporations in lateral industries seeing a gap, and looking to diversify into their market.

Maybe Wal Mart will try to get in on their act. Maybe Amazon will. Maybe a company that sells lumber to industrial clients will try going to the general consumer.

In which case, Home Depot or Lowes will be facing not a small-timer, but another corporation with pockets as deep as theirs.

Creating an opening like this, doesn’t work out, particularly if we’re talking about market-wide approaches.

And to connect this comparison to China vs the U.S, market wide is precisely the approach you’d have to be taking. And it doesn’t work there either, as there’s just as little evidence to suggest it was going on.

RET you cannot just pose what you feel is a rational-sounding theory, there also has to be evidence that it’s taking place. And there isn’t, on either count.

China wasn’t eroding our industrial base, they were <3% of our steel imports, 10th place. We get 6x that from Canada alone.

China is no where close to a monopoly, not for us, and not for this trade good.

Further, subsidization has a long history of accruing economic damage to the country that practices it. It is not a winning strategy; consult our ship building industry circa the 1850s, or the Brazilian computer industry today, or pick just about any industry in France.

Subidization just in-builds weakness.

We don’t win by answering stupidity on their part, with our own.

Subsidizing your industries to confer an artificial advantage, mean you will lose. You will kill your own impulse & ability to innovate.


Not that I think capitalism is at fault (any tool can be misused), but I’m still not seeing how pursuing a monopoly isn’t capitalism. As I understand it, capitalism is what happens in the absence of a system. Is there, then, some systemic (legal) unfair advantage that monopolists can use which the law prohibits to the others?


Bulk purchasing is not the only place where large companies can make up for the inherent weight of their bureaucracies (there’s another discussion that ought to be had here on another subject), all of the regulatory costs you mention fall on a per-employee basis. The first employee is vastly expensive compared to the millionth.

Certain regulatory burdens are incredibly hard on small businesses and less so on large businesses based on geography alone. In my state when a regulation affects a small business, it affects the entire business. When it affects Wal-Mart, it affects just a microscopic piece of that business. Our pending $13.50-$15 minimum wage will impact Main Street more than it will impact Wall Street.

This kind of thing makes me a loyal customer of small proprietorships.

All of these remain in my town and in neighboring towns with a Home Depot within 30 miles, and multiple Home Depots and Lowe’s within 50 miles. They all also continue to exist, many of them exactly the same shops that existed when I was a kid, in the small towns and the large cities that actually contain the Home Depots and Lowe’s. (Also, Lowe’s is a direct competitor with Home Depot – so it’s not monopolistic.)

.I reject the premise of your argument.

This is why I reject your premise. It’s been decades in the works, and we’re still waiting for this – long predicted by local Democrats and liberals protesting and legislate against the very existence of Wal-Mart and Home Depot (but strangely not Costco). Business continues in spite of Big Boxes.

China is not Home Depot even were I to accept your premise. The United States is not the eight individual businesses. I reject your conclusion.

China doesn’t have a monopoly and is not destroying our productive capacity with its “lower” prices. We still produce steal. Our steal industry is growing despite China’s “winning” economic management policies.

Where China is operating as a collectivist, communist, highly managed economy, it comes with negative consequences that will create economic turmoil and potentially catastrophe for the people of China. We know this to be true because communism has consistently ended in catastrophe – or never really taken off.

You are arguing that a centrally managed communist economy is superior to the alleged capitalism of the United States. I think you forget just how drastically high the cost of socialiism and communistm can be. If it were not, the Soviet Union would still be in business. Given similar resources, a real capitalist private sector will not be beaten in output ever by a communist regime and managed economy.



  1. Most regulatory expenses for retail stores are done within the State, not by the Feds and many do not apply to businesses with less than 25 or 50 employees.

  2. Regulations and bulk pricing are NOT enough to overcome the advantage of an owner managed small business.

  3. We are not “waiting to see this happen”, it has been a reality for many years.

  4. Lowes and Home Depot only compete in larger cities and while they do provide some competition for each other they both employ the same strategy and they both bring about the same result, a monopolistic shield against small business competition; they do not harm each other because both have the higher expense burdons of corporate ownership.

  5. Communism is not a “Superior model” if the goal is to provide the best quality at the best price with as much opportunity for the individual to improve his station, it is however a superior model for the perpetuation of the State at the expense of the individual.

  6. Seeking protection from competition is indeed inherently Capitalist, that is why laws are required to prevent these schemes so the benefits of Capitalism will endure for the populace; and why I say that “Anarchy is the philosophy of drunks and children”

  7. Citing a “growing” sector as proof that the consequences I have stated are “not happening” is like using a babies nutritional needs as a basis for saying an adult has a healthy intake of nutrition; an “increase” does not mean that the increase is in line with the additional requirements. If every family has one child there is an increase in children, but since people die faster than that you are still losing population.

Did I miss any of your points because you sure missed a lot of mine?


Okay I am off my phone so I can elaborate a little more on some of your objections.

When I say that China is a Communist Nation I am referring to the model that places the government in control of the productive sector, China does have some Fascist influences in their application of Communism but they most certainly are “Communist”.

When I say that China is Home Depot I am referring to how the Communist government of China relates to the world in trade, that is most definitely a Corporate Capitalist model; China’s “wins” are due entirely to their Capitalist interaction with the world, their people are not free to embrace Capitalism but that is irrelevant to the analysis; if you work for Home Depot you also are limited to what they choose to pay you and you are not free to operate and innovate independently while in their employ. Of course the people of China will suffer due to the profits being controlled by the government as opposed to being spread out to the citizens based on their individual effort.

I am also confused by your comment “II reject your premise”, I stated several premises in describing what is happening and I offered no solution.

One premise was that large corporations cannot compete with small, owner managed businesses. You went immediately to the regulation argument so I assume you know that it is large corporations that lobby the governments to get the regulations passed, the reason is because they want to hold back their primary competition threat which is small businesses. Why would they do that if they were able to beat small businesses with their bulk purchasing power and central management techniques?

Or maybe you don’t “reject” that premise?

Another premise I laid was that one store with 8 departments can pool their profits in such a way as to allow one of those departments to operate at a loss without the store as a whole suffering; but 8 individual small businesses cannot do this as they must operate as individuals; do you doubt this or is this another premise that you embrace as true?

Another premise that I laid was that it is entirely possible and sensible to use the advantage of pooling the profits of departments together to enable one department to operate at a loss with the goal of undermining the outside competition to that department. Are you saying that this tactic does not make sense and would never be utilized by a business which had this capacity or is this another premise that you don’t reject?

Another premise that I laid was that those who have been driven from business by such tactics will not enter back into business once the prices of their goods and services return to a profitable level because they know that the tactic which pushed them out could be employed again at any time. Do you think that these people would forget what happened and risk everything to charge back into business competing with the same entity or is this a premise that you accept?

Another premise that I laid was that these tactics are a model designed to monopolize large corporate stores over their primary competition (Small Businesses) who they cannot compete with profitably, I never said that they would not still be competing with other large corporate chains who share their same burdens. Is this a premise that you accept or do you reject this?

Another premise that I laid was that while this is an effective strategy it removes the broader benefits of Capitalism to bring the best products and services at the best price by nullifying the checks and balances of direct competition from the most efficient models in our economy. If you accepted the first premise that I just listed I don’t see how you could reject this one since the small businesses are targeted and removed but who knows, maybe you have a way of reconciling these premises that can reject one and embrace the other.

Those are all the premises that I laid and near as I can tell they all lead to the conclusion that I offered, if your objection is simply “The large corporations would never do that” in spite of having the ability to do exactly that then I guess we have different concepts of how viscous business competition really is, if an upper hand can be gained by utilizing a strategy against an opponent that you cannot beat head to head it will be employed. Or maybe that is a premise that you reject as well?


Together with vertical integration? It is. Big Box stores don’t just have lateral appeal, they also have multiple stages of production under one roof, they likely even have part ownership in, or even just outright subsidiaries that take care of their supply.

Which means they’re better coordinated, & are less vulnerable to market shocks.

Small producers can cover certain market niches better, which is what you’re likely alluding to here. Like how craft beer makers can dabble in flavors big beer producers can’t bother to waste resources on. But when it comes to broad market appeal, the big producers typically have the advantage, especially when it comes to price.

I’ve seen Wal Mart come in & beat out the general store my Alaskan town (Eagle River) used to have. It was because of price, and they didn’t raise them into perpetuity after they “won”, even though the cost of getting goods to Alaska due to the Jones Act would have provided ample excuse.

And again, if they have; why don’t prices for lumber reflect this?

And if all you’re talking about is some localized eddy in prices, where only a Lowes or Home depot exists, and they shut out the local businesses, then how does that example accurately compare to China vs U.S., where China is competing with a whole list of other countries we import from?

Countries, who we import far more of our steel through?

Yes, protection you seek from the Government. Which we should not offer. Indulging in such protection makes our markets more about social connections, then actual economic merit.

We should not be rewarding political entrepreneurship by our businesses.


One more point I want to address, you said that the “Liberals have been making these arguments for years”.

I would like to read or watch a youtube of ANY LIBERAL ANYWHERE that has made the argument and offered the analysis that I just offered.

I have heard many Leftist/Statists make the argument that they should “protect their town from corporate America” by refusing to issue permits to national chain stores but their motivation is always “preserving our quaint town” and “protecting our businesses from competition”; I have never heard one that recognized their small businesses as superior models who will be attacked by an inferior competitor.

In fact, if Liberals could comprehend what I am saying they would drop ALL objections to letting box stores go up; the Left want the individual eradicated and everyone under one well regulated roof and they do not care if the economy suffers to get there.

One more thought.
I am on record as being one of the only voices around here who supported Romney’s quote “Corporations are people too”, I have NEVER been opposed to incorporation and I am not now; I want competition and I respect the protection that incorporation provides its owners in this era of a wholly corrupt Judiciary.

But that does not mean that I am naive to the fact that ALL BUSINESSES are ALWAYS looking for legal ways to remove their competition, especially if their competition is a model that a corporation cannot compete with head on; my desire is to remove the tactics that limit competition from the most efficient models in any sector so Capitalism can achieve the results that it is capable of and always will produce.


You forget that since they answer 1st to Government demands, not market trends, they have a tendency to overproduce.

The Steel industry in China is ailing right now, because steel demand in Asia is slackening, they’ve produced millions of tons of steel that are just sitting around.

This isn’t because they had some “brilliant strategy” it’s because they messed up, and they’re trying to keep their industries from having to lay people off by selling the extra stock overseas.

The CCP only keeps its legitimacy right now with it’s people by continuing to grow the economy, and providing work. It has to do everything it can, to include subsidizing its products, to make sure it doesn’t get a riot of angry people on its hands.

Yes, but small business aren’t a threat because of price; you’re off the mark there.

They’re a threat because of how they can add value (service at odd times of day, or difficult points of the year), or cater to demands that large businesses can’t afford to dabble in (custom orders lets say), which can serve to justify their higher prices, and allow them to survive.

As to why a corporation would sell goods at under cost, I think you know RET, what a Loss leader is.

Ultimately, trying to suggest a big chain is just trying to put competitors of their low margin products under, is like suggesting a Casino is trying to put restaurants under because they have a cheap or free buffet.

Maybe a Casino at certain points is doing that, but most of the time, that isn’t the point.

And it’s precisely because it isn’t the point, that perhaps we see that lumber prices haven’t changed their range since the 1980s.

But you haven’t answered the threat of lateral industry rivals.

This is why Google, a Search Engine company, does things today you’d more akin to Microsoft.

Or why Amazon, an e-commerce business, is becoming a competitor to Fed Ex and UPS.

If companies are creating a comfortable price gap that a “new” rival could insert themselves into, we’d see it happen. Because it happens in other industries all the gosh darn time.


Sorry I confused your post with RWNJ and included a short response in one of my replies to him, this deserves a more indepth response.

Firstly you are correct, the desire to monopolize is a natural manifestation of Capitalism; once someone wins big they start looking for ways to keep others from challenging them.

Secondly, the model that the box stores and national chains have used to overcome the inherent advantages that their owner managed small business competitors have is entirely legal; they have broken no laws.

The point of my post was not to condemn Corporations large or small or intimate that they have employed illegal methods to obtain their success, my point is to try and describe how they are doing it and how their tactic results in nullifying the checks and balances that naturally exist in a Capitalist system.

As a nation we have always embraced Capitalism because of the benefits that are gleaned at every level of our economy, when we have seen those benefits threatened by creative schemes employed by large players we have acted to intercede with rules that will restore the competition and by extension the benefits.

Ma Bell was broken up for this reason, as a result the competition has made superior phones a fraction of the cost of a Ma Bell desk model and long distance charges have become almost non existent; the consumers and the economy win when direct competition is allowed to occur. Ma Bell was not breaking any laws either but their shear size enabled them to prevent any small operators from entering the market.

Microsoft hit a home run with how they Marketed Windows, their competition was trying to use proprietary hardware to protect their software but Microsoft rightly gambled that using existing hardware from other companies and focusing only on the software would enable them to nearly give away their Operating System and still make great profit; this superior marketing put the inferior Windows Operating System miles ahead of their competitors who had a better operating system.

That is how it goes, the best does not always win but the best businessman almost always wins.

But after Microsoft became a household name and on nearly every PC sold in stores this success enabled Microsoft to develop a strategy to remain on top and get an even broader share of the software market.

They tried to buy up other software programs that were recognized as the best industry standards, if the program owners did not want to sell then Microsoft would use its profits from Windows to push them out of business.
Word Perfect was far and away the best office suite available, it was on every business computer and was the gold standard, they refused to sell to Microsoft. So Microsoft cobbled together an inferior office suite (Microsoft Office) and pre installed a partially functional version with their operating system, the cost to buy the full version was next to nothing and easy to do from your computer. As a result the vast majority of PC’s ended up with that clunky Office Suite, most users did not even know there was anything better. Soon after it became necessary for compatibility reasons for everyone to get Microsoft Office and Word Perfect became an answer to a trivia question.

Microsoft got rid of Netscape the same way, and with an inferior product but they gave it away; soon the word got out that if Microsoft comes looking to buy you out you better sell or they will use their behemoth size to render your company worthless.

This was all legal but many concerns were raised that Microsoft’s size and wealth was monopolizing the computer software market and depriving consumers of viable competitive or superior alternatives; courts around the world heard these cases and some rules were passed designed to limit Microsoft’s ability to crush anyone who would not sell to them.

My point is not to land on one side or the other with Ma Bell or Microsoft or any other historical big player who became wealthy enough to push out the competition, my point is that when we have agreed that a practice has been developed that is removing the Market forces that insure good quality at the least possible price and that is limiting the opportunity for as many people who wish to throw their hat in the ring and compete to jump in; we have sought to prevent the practice via rules/laws.

Not all of these rules/laws have been good and some have created more opportunities to ice out competition but the idea that Capitalism is dynamic and as such will always lend itself to schemes that seek to limit competition has been mostly accepted (By everyone accept Anarchists anyway); so the effort to try and preserve the checks and balances has likewise been mostly accepted.

That said, I have no solution for this particular manifestation that would not make things worse once abused, and the solutions ALWAYS get abused just as people are ALWAYS looking for legal ways to beat those they cannot compete with.

I merely am trying to show how we are being deprived of some of the benefits of Capitalism and especially an ever growing number of individual opportunities as a result of the dominance of Corporate entities who were stuck at 25 percent of all businesses for decades due to their inability to compete with Small Businesses before they developed and employed this strategy.

If we are content with only having job opportunities instead of entrepreneur opportunities, if we are content with competition being only between the less efficient business models in our communities, if we are content with the political power that corporations have due to their shear size and wealth that is gleaned by not having to compete with more efficient models, if we are content with an ever growing percentage of wealth being consolidated among a handful of players who we all work for; then I guess the current trajectory should be left alone.

If on the other hand we want the most efficient business models to be able to thrive and keep open limitless opportunities and competition for our citizens? That will require first understanding what is happening and someone smarter than me to devise a check to it which restores the natural market forces without creating a new nest of snakes in the process.


That’s the rub, ain’t it?


Yep, I am hoping Trumps decades of experience watching these models come full circle and meditating on how this can be addressed will mean he has some ideas that can restore the good stuff without creating a new pile of dung. He clearly is more adept at business and economics than I gave him credit for in the campaign but this is a tricky matter and most will never even comprehend what is happening.

Hard to sell ideas to address problems that people have no understanding of, that is probably why he uses the pseudo protectionist rhetoric; it is stupid but most people think it sounds workable.


You should scrutinized Trumps’ resume more than this.

He made his name in real estate and financials services; not industries related to bringing products to market.

If he’s asking Apple the same clueless questions Obama did about why part of their production chain is in Asia, then he clearly has no experience in what the concerns for those sorts of operations are.

Trump, does not know enough to be making centralized decisions for our economy. To be clear, No one does.

To cite F.A. Hayek, knowledge in the economy is inherently dispersed; China doing “unfair” things, does not change that. China for their part, is paying for their mistakes in very gargantuan, mind boggling ways.

China, for anyone who pays attention, is a clear-cut example of why central planning doesn’t work.
Overproduction, valueless outputs, dozens of empty cities, and infrastructure in poor countries that will never pay for themselves.

Anyone who thinks China is on a winning strategy, has yet to actually look at China itself.


Microsoft, does not have a monopoly.

It did perhaps 15 years ago, but not anymore.

What happened to Microsoft, is a perfect example of how tenuous monopolies are, how markets pick them apart,

…and how lateral Competition can come into your market space & take business away.


Markets solved this problem. No government intercession required.


I could introduce you to them personally. I don’t know any videos. I don’t really look for them. This is my personal experience and reading opinion pages from around my state over the years. They always describe the process you just did as their justification for refusing those permits. When they get active and learn that’s not among criteria for permits, they stop making that argument in public and use Oregon’s ham-fisted land use planning laws to pursue the same goals-- and yes, these Birkenstock-wearing fools also love their “quaint little towns.” In Oregon land-use planning, that “quaintness” might actual be given some weight if cast in the right terms, so you’ll likely see a lot of discussion about the character of the area, for example.

Anyway, I won’t be here but a second today. Will get back to this when I have a little time.


As a whole I don’t. Which is why I’ve said for years that I’m not worried about China replacing us as global leaders. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t benefiting from trading with us, more than we are with them.
For the last 30 years, we’ve been getting one bad trade deal after another. Good for large multinational corporations. Bad for the American public on the whole. Trump is the first one working for Main Street instead of Wall Street. Which is why he’s actually getting something done. Not only is he rebalancing out lopsided trade with China, he’s getting more and more concessions on NAFTA by the day

And this is with everyone on both sides fighting him tooth and nail. I can only begin to imagine what Trump could get done if Congress cared more about their constituents than their campaign donors.