Walmart warning us about China


#122

Whenever someone brings up the topic of Ford, as in Henry Ford, I cringe. I doubt if many people (“JoeSixPack” in Bobjam’s lingo!) know about Henry Ford outside of his business with cars. He was an evil man. He was introduced to a paper called “The International Jew” back in the 1920’s which was distributed throughout the Detroit metropolitan area. This publication was specifically written in order to fester hatred toward the Jews. This appealed to Ford’s hatred and blood lust of the Jews. He was a rabid anti-Semite. “If fans wish to know the trouble with American baseball they have it in three words—too much Jew.” (May 22, 1920) In a letter written in 1924, Heinrich Himmler described Ford as “one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters” He was admired by Hitler himself. This man is no one to admire, like his female sentimentalist, ol’ Maggie Sanger.


#123

Still a couple years left before Ford stops making all of its cars except the Mustang, but the days of the Fiesta, Focus and Fusion are numbered. Thank God the Mustang is continuing. It’s the only thing Ford does that really matters… :smiley: The only thing almost anyone does below $60,000 that really matters!


#124

Pickups ARE “cars” these days, AS, in case you haven’t noticed. LOTS of families use their pickup truck precisely as they would use their car…especially those with “king” cabs and comfortable back seats. I wish I had a quarter for every pickup I saw picking up arriving passengers at the airport tonight.


#125

Yes, he did talk about it during re-election. I said he started out by following that philosophy and then mostly stopped doing so. Obama was every bit as pro-American labor and manufacturing as Trump - but for less than the first year. Then he got bogged down with Obamacare and stopped paying much attention to it. He never really got back to it until he started running for re-election.

I do actually think he had some plans to return to it, but then Democrats failed to re-take the House, and I think he just decided that the Third Way was his best option. Little did he realize that Republican voters just don’t like extensive regulations and bureaucracy. They like actually free trade - not one sided trade where we hemorrhage jobs. Trump has proved that.

I’m the one person here who always said that Obama had some potential to be a good president. But he never lived up to it, because he was weak and never really fought for anything. I’d say Trump and Obama shared at least 30% of the same economic platform. But they each pursued it in different ways, and Trump didn’t just up and quit the minute he was met with any resistance.

P.S. Though I think it was a different thread, lookie who just came out as the #1 most competitive economy in the world for the first time in a decade?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-worlds-most-competitive-economy-for-first-time-in-a-decade-1539727213

If only AS were president, that #1 would be a #1+!


#126

Obama was an evil, corrupt individual who would NEVER have been anything LIKE a “great president.” What did he get done?
1 - He made school lunches inedible.
2 - He made healthcare unaffordable.
3 - He made ISIS possible.
4 - He saved Iran from economic collapse.
5 - He doubled the national debt.


#127

And he passed tariffs. No Cwolf, you’re not getting around this. He not only spoke of but committed protectionist BS beyond 2009, and it cost us.

Uh, from the article:

recovery remains vulnerable to a range of risks and potential shocks,” the authors warned. They cite a brewing trade war between the U.S. and China as a possible hindrance to growth that could potentially derail the recovery and deter investment. The U.S. has levied tariffs on a total of $250 billion of Chinese goods and China has retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. exports as the two nations spar over trade imbalances and other issues.

Tariffs, aren’t helping. They hurt us. Our success is due to lower taxes, and dispelling regulations. In the report, they frequently admonish nations for using them, and rank accordingly. So thanks for offering Cwolf.

Something else you might want to read, which comes from the report directly:

This “4IR” is the distillation and the continuation of a framework created by Alvin Toffler to examine how the economy is changing, and it’s something you should look into.

You keep trying to tell me that jobs are going away permanently, but he, and the people who wrote this report, say otherwise.


#128

That about sums it up, Dave. About the only good thing I have to say about him is that he managed NOT to give Guantanamo back to Castro and I know that he really, really wanted to.


#129

Yes, he increased duties on steel when he came into office from 10% to 16% - which I supported. That didn’t harm us at all.

Obama’s main economic fault was environmental regulations, and Dodd Frank - not too much emphasis on domestic manufacturing.

I don’t know if you’re just this poorly educated on it, or if you’re being deliberately disingenuous at this point. Obama made a strong push for development in US manufacturing for less than the first year, and from that point forward, he didn’t really do much. All talk of renegotiating NAFTA for instance disappeared from 2009 until late 2011 when he was in re-election mode. Then he once again largely dropped it when he failed to re-take the House.
On domestic manufacturing, he ran on it
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/25/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-blueprint-support-us-manufacturing-jobs-dis
But never bothered to actually DO it

Most of the things Trump is doing, from steel tariffs, to re-negotiating NAFTA, even lowering the corporate tax rate and making it flatter were ALL things Obama spoke of




https://money.cnn.com/2009/12/30/news/economy/China_trade/

But he didn’t DO them

Obama spoke about a lot of fixable problems - as Trump is proving. But he never really tried most of them. He said he’d do them, and then pretty much operated trade the way you would have which is to just let domestic manufacturing die, and open up the borders for unfettered migration from the dirt world.

Obama was pretty much running thins as you would in his last 2 years in office. TPP, open borders, etc.

He talked about economic patriotism for a few years. But then he took a major turn towards Koch industries vision of a global economy without borders with about 2 years left in office


Obama and Trump spoke about a lot of the same problems and offered up many of the same solutions. The difference was in their actions. Where Obama suggested it and then just gave up, Trump has made it happen.


#130

Nope:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-front-runs-trump-on-china-1463677249

Daniel Pearson of the Cato Institute conservatively estimates that American companies using steel produce $990 billion in value added, more than 16 times the output of the U.S. steel industry, and also employ 16 times more workers. If tariffs on Chinese imports raise the U.S. price of steel, these companies’ costs will be higher than foreign competitors’, hurting their ability to grow and provide more jobs for Americans.

No different than when Bush did it. Long term consequences; you can’t avoid them. That’s why protectionism fails. It isolates one thing, and fails to acknowledge how things are actually interdependent.

No… you apparently skimmed my post:

Missed this, didn’t you? He also did it to solar panels. In 2012.

And his steel tariffs, were in 2014. Resulting in 2016 being one of our lowest years of steel imports since… well, when Bush did it.


#131

Which I also supported. And you countered with some globalists at Cato saying “Muh Laissez Faire” with zero actual impact explained, just idle speculation. Saying the output is 16x more valuable than the input has no actual meaning. And if you raise the cost of the input by 25% - what is the impact on the value of the output? Because in a normal system, raising the value of inputs, raises the value of outputs.

I was speaking of the duties Obama increased when he entered office, not the 500% tariff he implemented to try and get the TPP passed.

You really do just have absolutely zero knowledge of the history of tariffs that isn’t selectively curated for you by Heritage/Cato/Koch do you?

Tariffs have commonly been employed by U.S. Presidents - even the most conservative ones. Let’s take a look at Calvin Cooledge, the most conservative president of the 20th century who cut federal spending in HALF during his time in office

Protectionism doesn’t work! Look at that idiotic Marxist Calvin Coolidge and his crazy “Cut taxes and domestic regulations while increasing tariffs to bolster American manufacturing”. What kind of moron would attempt such a thing?

What is Trump tying to pull, be some sort of cross between Andrew Jackson and Calvin Coolidge?

Trump should lend his ear to Cato and Heritage like Mitt Romney did. We all know how much better this country would be under president Romney than Trump.


#132

:vb-sarcasm-sign:


#133

You said he had done nothing on tariffs after the 1st year of his entering office.

You got that wrong Cwolf.

No, you cannot talk your way out of it, I don’t even understand why you’re trying to do that. He did levy tariffs after 2009, and after his first term. It was a debacle each time.

Thomas Sowell, Smoot-Hawley tariffs. A 1,000 economist outright called what it was going to do, and they were right. It made the Great Depression what it was, which otherwise would have been little different than the Depression of 1920.

But it isn’t a mystery why they didn’t work. Tariffs don’t promote value creation which is what economies run on. Rather, they obstruct value creation, just like all taxes do.

Trying to insist violence enacted on the economy helps it, is never going to past muster. Taxes are something you tolerate for the sake of the Government’s existence, that’s it. More taxes just creates more distortion, with each form of taxation distorting it in different ways.

Yup, it doesn’t work:

In September 1926, economic statistics were released by farmers’ groups that argued that protection had failed to resolve the agricultural depression. The figures blamed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff for increases in the costs of farm equipment. For example, the average harness set that sold for $46 in 1918 sold for $75 in 1926. At the same time the fourteen inch plow doubled in cost $14 to $28, mowing machines went from $45 to $95, and farm wagons increased in price from $85 to $150. Meanwhile, the purchasing price of the farmers’ dollar decreased from $1.12 in 1918 to 60.3 cents in 1926. Though it is arguable how much the Fordney-McCumber tariff hurt the farmer, it did not raise farm prices, as its proponents said it would.

Smoot-Hawley was the final nail in the coffin. Mercantilism of the last century had proven itself disastrous, just like Keynesianism would by the stagflation of the 1970s.

Economic ideas & policies prove themselves by their attributable effects; not by what politicians say about it.


#134

Oh, missed this:

It lost us 200,000 jobs, in just one year.

Yes, that happened.


#135

So did you actually read the source(as if I even have to ask that)?

Oh look at that, complete BS that didn’t even look at actual job losses, but overall unemployment numbers during a recession and “estimates” of job growth that totally would have resulted in more steel jobs if not for the tariffs.

So they say that instead of 240,000 jobs being lost during the recession, it would have been only 190,000 with the aide of their crystal ball.

This is why you’re such a ridiculous poster. Literally anything published in an academic paper, your eyes just glaze over and you say “Yep. looks legit to me!”

AS’s next topic - how dog parks spread rape culture :grin:


#136

Dude, there’s no source from you on Fordney-McCumber Tariffs haveing a positive effect.

You presumed I didn’t know the history of it, and only quoted Coolidge about it.

Yet you got it wrong, along with Obama implementing tariffs post 2009, and you didn’t take ownership of either of these things.

Quit throwing stones, in a Glass house Cwolf.

Half your arguments are posturing, and half of them are you taking shortcuts.

What am I supposed to validate here?

Nope, we can see the real life impact they “predicted” here, through stories like this:

"Jagemann employs 300 people in Wisconsin and 100 in Tennessee. Workers at his company take raw steel and fashion it into the parts used in cars, refrigerators and other household products. But he says after Bush’s tariffs on steel, big companies purchased more finished parts from overseas instead of U.S. companies.

“These decisions are put in place for years. If they decide to build transmissions in Mexico or buy products overseas, then these decisions are decades long and really impact our economy,” Hardt said. He didn’t lay off employees in 2002, but he says it held him back from expanding since his profits were way down as steel costs rose and he wasn’t able to pass them along to the companies buying his products.

Cwolf? You have offered no proof here that tariffs helped us in 2002. It cost us $400,000 per steel job “saved”, just to undercut steel-consuming businesses, who lost opportunities hand over fist to competitors overseas because of this policy.

This is holding up one part of the economy in isolation, at the expense of the rest.

It’s a failure to think holistically.


#137

I’d post a story about how the steel industry is declining now, but no one except you would believe it. I’m sure any economic troubles will just get blamed on the Fed now since Trump’s criticizing it and everyone will jump on the End the Fed bandwagon they once hated.

Ah, whatever, here it is:

Nucor, one of the largest steel manufacturers based in the U.S., has seen its stock value fall by more than 16 percent since August 1, economist Mark Perry points out. That decline has wiped out more than $3.5 billion from the company’s market value, and Nucor executives told investors last week to brace for more bad news in the coming months. Meanwhile, the stock price for AK Steel Holding Corporation, an Ohio-based steelmaker, has fallen by 26 percent since August. The company’s stock is now sitting near its lowest price since May 2016.


#138

That’s because I’m using English like a neurotypical person and not someone with Aspergers.

Obama’s unique and strong USA-first policy was in the first year. I never said “AND HE NEVER DID ONE SINGLE THING EVER AGAIN” which is how you interpreted it. Again, saying it was a priority and then he stopped pursuing it, is a statement of degree.

It’s like saying “He used to be a heavy drinker and then he stopped” would to any normal person mean “He stopped drinking excessively”. Not “AND HE NEVER TOUCHED ANOTHER DROP OF ALCOHOL AGAIN”. Every president does something on behalf of the American labor force and business. Obama was doing an exceptional amount of pro-America work - but only for one year. Then he basically went back to average - what you would expect from President McCain, Romney, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Carter, etc.

You absolutely suck at interpreting information. But it runs a lot deeper than misunderstanding data. It comes from misunderstanding common usage of English. You seem to be one of those people who thinks the word “few” means “exactly three”.

I’ve broken your data down point by point before. You proceed to ignore it, and go Google something else.

In the entire time I have been here, I have never once seen you say “I don’t know” about any topic. Because even if your current level of knowledge is exactly zero, you just head off for a twenty minute trip to Google U where you graduate as instant expert.

You are not a persuadable person. You are a devoted zealot. I have no reason to try to convince you of anything, because regardless of proof, you just double down. Most famously with RET over the industrial trucking issue.


#139

Nearly every country outside of the U.S. has a stagnant economy right now. That will of course deflate demand for steel.

I always thought the Fed was fundamentally useful. It was probably my single biggest problem with Ron Paul. Trump doesn’t seem to understand how the Fed works, which isn’t a huge surprise considering it’s a complicated organization.


#140

:rofl:

So much this.


#141

Sorry, I don’t have that man. Yes, I have been looked at for it.

On the other hand, what seems likely is that you have temperament that’s feeding what you say.

Did you catch where Peterson said that people with high disgust sensitivity, work as accountants?
Between this and your parking lot story, it just adds up way too well here.

Come again?

"Only fully for the first year and only in his first term at all."

"In essence, Obama started out with some decent ideas, but never really got around to implementing them. "

If you didn’t mean this, then your objection to my saying ““economic patriotism” was Obama’s standpoint”, doesn’t follow.

Which is it Cwolf? If you didn’t mean this, what were you objecting to?

Yes, because the word “only” has soo~ many connotations.

Not for this.

Yeah, I know. It didn’t matter here. You weren’t in a position to carry this argument, and I knew that right from the start. Still, I was waiting for you to lay something out, but you did nothing.

Your knowledge of history as it applies to this issue just seems to be a regurgitation of grade school, and you have no justification for tariffs being implemented beyond a negotiation tactic.

It appears to me that Protectionism is a simple idea you let yourself fall under the allure of, as it seemed solve an issue that mattered to you. Along with being controversial, and upsetting to academic types, which it can feel good to undercut. But here, those academics had a point.

Economics are systems that promote value creation, and work from the ground up. “Distributed cognitive systems” (to quote Peterson) that take large problems apart, and pull a greater whole together, bit by bit.

We know jobs aren’t the central aim of this process, nor is building anything. We know this, as economic bubbles accomplish both of those feats but fail anyway, as they don’t create value.

Value being at the center of what the economy does was never going to change, thus, where was your argument going to go? Where could it possibly go? There’s a very long and storied list of countries who try this policy and fail, and simply to suggest tariffs as a positive policy objective, means ignoring all of them.

I don’t see it Cwolf. After several attempts of my prying you for it, it seems you don’t have a way to escape the result we know tariffs bring. Half-hearted attempts at quoting politicians don’t do that.

Nor does trying to make the discussion about me, in some final act of disgust. Based on something I probably have done to you at some point (sorry for whatever that was), just not where you accused me of it just now.