WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
More Mueller indictments  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
61st Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46304
Status: 
Offline
If you're still not getting it, read this from the Cato Institute, which is pretty much THE authority on conservative economic issues - you know the people Reagan quoted and Republicans loved up until 2 years ago.  The bolded part is the "conservative economics for fake conservative dummies" part.

Trump's Ignorant Trade War

"We're putting the trade war on hold," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced on Sunday. "It's about structural changes. It's about lowering tariffs. China has committed to lower tariffs on many things and made structural changes to protect our technology."

Alas, that didn't settle the issue. Several hours later, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer reaffirmed his belief that tariffs remained an important tool to "protect our technology." Finally, on Wednesday, the president tweeted that "Our Trade Deal with China is moving along nicely, but in the end we will probably have to use a different structure in that this will be too hard to get done and to verify results after completion."

I am not sure what Trump means by "a different structure." Nor am I sure what a new framework would require. And I'm certainly not sure there's any upside to trying to make sense of all these conflicting statements.

Did the Chinese commit to the reduction of their bilateral "trade surplus" with the U.S.? Maybe. Are they committing to lowering their tariffs on American cars? Probably. Will the Chinese agree to changes in rules on foreign investment and ownership in China? Sounds like it. Will they stick to their commitments? Maybe, maybe not.

Yet one thing is sure: To the extent that China reduces its tariffs on some U.S. products and, in turn, America holds back on imposing tariffs on Chinese products, American and Chinese consumers will be the true winners of these negotiations. But not in the way many people think.

Reduced American tariffs on imports from China are great for the American people. Some Chinese exporters will also gain, but the bulk of the benefits will be reaped by consumers in the U.S. The same goes for China: The gains from reducing their tariffs on American exports will accrue overwhelmingly to Chinese consumers.

Let's suppose that the only way to truly satisfy the Trump administration's protectionists, and hence to put a permanent end to the threat of a trade war, is for China to increase purchases of U.S. goods by an annual $200 billion in order to zero out the trade deficit. This is not a far-fetched assumption, since it was the reason administration officials gave last week after the original announcement of the US-China detente.

That means they'll probably be disappointed. The Chinese government can make all the promises it wants about lowering its tariffs on American products, thus increasing demands for US goods. But those promises do not come close to assuring a reduction of the bilateral trade deficit, despite the fact that a reduction of Chinese tariffs would certainly increase Chinese purchases of U.S. goods.

Bilateral trade imbalances are meaningless because trade is global, not bilateral. That's why it's called globalization.

Suppose that there are only three countries: the U.S., China, and France. In 2018, Americans buy $1 billion of steel from the Chinese; the Chinese buy $1 billion of wine from France; and the French buy $1 billion of lumber from America. Each country's current account would be balanced—that is, it exports the same amount that it imports. But each country will still have a bilateral trade deficit with another country.

Now suppose that in 2019 China reduces some tariffs it has against exports from America. The Chinese then, in 2019, buy $500 million of lumber from America. From where, we must ask, did China get this $500 million? After all, dollars don't fall from the sky, and Chinese people have to acquire them one way or another before they can spend them.

One possibility is that China has increased the amount of steel it sold to Americans that year to $1.5 billion. In that case, the Chinese would spend $500 million on American lumber and (we may assume) the remaining $1 billion of its export earnings, as in 2018, on wine from France. The French, as in 2018, spend $1 billion buying American lumber.

In the above hypothetical example, America's bilateral trade deficit with China would remain in 2019 the same as it was in 2018—$1 billion—even though the Chinese bought more American exports.

Each country continues to have an overall current account that is technically "balanced." We Americans in 2019 do export more lumber, but we also import more steel. The additional jobs created in the U.S. by the reduction of Chinese tariffs are offset by additional jobs destroyed: More Americans work in the lumber industry and fewer in the steel industry.

Things could play out many different ways if the Chinese were in fact going to buy more U.S. exports. We can find many scenarios in which America's trade deficit with China falls on paper. Indeed, it's even possible to describe realistic scenarios in which America's trade deficit with China rises.

But it doesn't matter. Bilateral trade deficits don't have any
economic relevance. The world is made of more than two countries, so it would be shocking, rather than normal, if each pair of countries has "balanced" trade. (If you still aren't convinced, you may want to read this superb piece by Bob Higgs.) It is also almost impossible to determine the particular factors that cause a bilateral trade deficit to change directions.

One last thought. While Trump and his protectionist acolytes spend a great deal of time talking about the trade deficit with China as evidence that some great corrective measures are needed, I wonder why he is silent about the many countries with which we have a trade surplus.

Does he think they should demand that we sell less to them in the name of their trade deficit with us? Does he think the U.S.'s "unfair behavior" is the result of this trade surplus in our favor? Or is this just more evidence that the president is making policy based on ignorance, ideology, and a refusal to reckon with facts?

Last edited on Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:18 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
62nd Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 974
Status: 
Offline
So now you're going to tell me that true conservatives are against tariffs? A couple hours ago you were mocking conservatards for being on board the tariff train out of blind loyalty to one man. Which is it?

As for the Cato Institute, are they actually arguing that running a deficit of $10 with a country that manipulates its currency and pumps up certain industries because it enriches the very people in power is the same as running a deficit of $1 with another country because free market conditions dictate the terms of trade?



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
63rd Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46304
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: So now you're going to tell me that true conservatives are against tariffs? A couple hours ago you were mocking conservatards for being on board the tariff train out of blind loyalty to one man. Which is it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  I've always said that true conservatives are against tariffs, and Trump supporters are only on board with them because Trump is (although you can certainly argue that Trump voters aren't conservatives nor do they have the mental capacity to have had a prior opinion on economic issues other than to blame Mexicans for taking their jerbs - but certainly many long-time Republican politicians and semi-bright pundits have switched sides on this issue).  I'm not sure where the confusion is there.  My argument has been the same for 3 or 4 years, ever since Trump started saying that Bernie Sanders was right on tariffs before the primaries.

Last edited on Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:29 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
64th Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 974
Status: 
Offline
I see you added more to your quote, but I'm afraid I'm still not convinced. If all things were equal then maybe the Cato people would have a point, but the example they came up with is horribly simplistic and has no application in the real world. First and foremost, it assumes the Chinese turn around and spend in the international market every dollar that they rake in from Americans, which is simply not the case. They sit on it and use it to fund their massive military buildup, a buildup that will continue to threaten American interests for a long time. France isn't going to threaten us or our allies militarily but China is. Any idea what the cost of a war with China would be? Any idea what the cost would be if they shut down shipping lanes in the Far East? We're funding their ability to do so. So why should we look at things from the globalist POV when there's far more urgency in bringing one country, China, to heel?

Ever seen the part in Back To School where the pompous professor outlines the cost associated with running a business only to have a real businessman, Rodney Dangerfield, point out all the costs that he's left out? The dirty costs like bribes, kickbacks, and Mafia payouts. The Cato Institute paints a benign picture of trade but that's not exactly how the real world operates. There's far more to consider than sterile balance sheets.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
65th Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 974
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: KGB wrote: So now you're going to tell me that true conservatives are against tariffs? A couple hours ago you were mocking conservatards for being on board the tariff train out of blind loyalty to one man. Which is it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  I've always said that true conservatives are against tariffs, and Trump supporters are only on board with them because Trump is (although you can certainly argue that Trump voters aren't conservatives nor do they have the mental capacity to have had a prior opinion on economic issues other than to blame Mexicans for taking their jerbs - but certainly many long-time Republican politicians and semi-bright pundits have switched sides on this issue).  I'm not sure where the confusion is there.  My argument has been the same for 3 or 4 years, ever since Trump started saying that Bernie Sanders was right on tariffs before the primaries.
 
And I've asked you to stop generalizing -- because it undermines your point -- and tell me who these people are that did an about-face.  Bueller?  Bueller?  Most Trump supporters loath the idea of tariffs and would much rather rely on market economics and free trade.  But then I also loathe the idea of getting a filling, however, I'd prefer to take a stab at fixing the pain in my tooth. 
 
You really don't know anyone who supports the idea of Donald Trump, do you?



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2018 07:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
66th Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46304
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: I see you added more to your quote, but I'm afraid I'm still not convinced. If all things were equal then maybe the Cato people would have a point, but the example they came up with is horribly simplistic and has no application in the real world. First and foremost, it assumes the Chinese turn around and spend in the international market every dollar that they rake in from Americans, which is simply not the case. They sit on it and use it to fund their massive military buildup, a buildup that will continue to threaten American interests for a long time. France isn't going to threaten us or our allies militarily but China is. Any idea what the cost of a war with China would be? Any idea what the cost would be if they shut down shipping lanes in the Far East? We're funding their ability to do so. So why should we look at things from the globalist POV when there's far more urgency in bringing one country, China, to heel?

I didn't really add more to the quote, cut & paste just never works here the first time around and I always have to do it in pieces or edit it to make it readable.  What's there now is the full article.  

And what you're saying is that Cato is wrong, Bob Higgs of The Independent Review is wrong, all of the most respected minds in conservative economics for decades are wrong.  But you hate tariffs but you're spending your entire day doing mental gymnastics over why we need them.  But they're bad.  But they're good this time.  But no one is flip-flopping on tariffs.  But everyone still hates them while defending them.  But the free market needs to be allowed to work.  But the free market won't work this time.  Because tariffs are bad but they're good.  OK then.  And you want individual names as if the mounds of Facebook comments on Fox News and the Senate votes themselves aren't proof enough.  Like this right here from Bob Corker: 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/12/sen-bob-corker-angrily-confronts-gop-refusing-allow-vote-tariffs/695943002/

“I can’t believe it!” said Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I would bet that 95 percent of the people on this (Republican) side of the aisle support intellectually this amendment – I would bet higher than 95 percent – and a lot of them would vote for it if it came to a vote.”

“But no, no, no!” Corker continued. “Gosh, ‘we might poke the bear’ is the language I’ve been hearing in the hallways …. ‘The president might get upset with us as United States senators if we vote on the Corker amendment, so we’re going to do everything we can to block it.’”

This is Bob Corker who scored 80% on American Conseravtive Union's 2017 ratings of Congressmen.

Last edited on Thu Jul 26th, 2018 08:03 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2018 12:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
67th Post
DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
I know that we headed into a different direction, but last night and today are further proof that he's fucked.

I know, I know..."nothing will happen", "this proves nothing".

Nixon's supporters didn't see it before it was too late either, and this is just as bad, if not worse.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2018 01:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
68th Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46304
Status: 
Offline
DaNkinator wrote: I know that we headed into a different direction, but last night and today are further proof that he's fucked.

I know, I know..."nothing will happen", "this proves nothing".

Nixon's supporters didn't see it before it was too late either, and this is just as bad, if not worse.

It is worse but I really don't know how anything can happen.  It's not just his supporters, you need actual Republicans with spines to tell him to leave or they'll remove him, and although more have flipped on him than at any point in modern times, it's still not nearly enough. The Democrats are also pussies and aren't pushing for him to be out nearly as much as their bases want them to.  They always fold and ask to be beaten again like an abused wife. 

Last edited on Fri Jul 27th, 2018 01:35 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2018 03:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
69th Post
DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: DaNkinator wrote: I know that we headed into a different direction, but last night and today are further proof that he's fucked.

I know, I know..."nothing will happen", "this proves nothing".

Nixon's supporters didn't see it before it was too late either, and this is just as bad, if not worse.

It is worse but I really don't know how anything can happen.  It's not just his supporters, you need actual Republicans with spines to tell him to leave or they'll remove him, and although more have flipped on him than at any point in modern times, it's still not nearly enough. The Democrats are also pussies and aren't pushing for him to be out nearly as much as their bases want them to.  They always fold and ask to be beaten again like an abused wife.  Dems on House Intel and Senate Judiciary have demanded subpoenas to see who Don Jr called after the meeting. GOP on both panels rejected the demands.
I'll bet Mueller knows.

Last edited on Fri Jul 27th, 2018 03:40 pm by DaNkinator

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2018 02:55 pm
  PM Quote Reply
70th Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46304
Status: 
Offline
Trump has now started a war with those famous libtards, the Koch Brothers:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/31/trump-slams-koch-brothers-for-snubbing-gop-senate-candidate/

President Trump slammed the conservative Koch brothers Tuesday, calling the megadonors “a total joke in real Republican circles” a day after their political network said it would not help the GOP candidate in North Dakota’s Senate race.

“The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade,” Trump tweeted early Tuesday.

“I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made them richer.”

Calling their network “highly overrated,” he added: “I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the American Worker – a puppet for no one.

“Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!” he wrote.

On Monday, Tim Phillips, president of the Kochs’ political arm, Americans for Prosperity, announced at a donor summit in Colorado that the network would not back Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) in his bid to unseat the Democratic incumbent, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp.

“He’s not leading on the issues this country needs leadership most right now,” Phillips said of Cramer, specifically citing spending and trade. “If Cramer doesn’t step up to lead, that makes it hard to support him.”

The group has warned that the GOP is not doing enough to contain government spending. The Koch brothers did not endorse Trump in the 2016 election.

The decision sends a strong message to Republican officials nationwide that there may be real consequences for those unwilling to oppose the spending explosion and protectionist trade policies embraced by the Trump administration in recent weeks.

And little more than three months before the midterm elections, it leaves a marquee Republican Senate campaign without the assistance of one of the conservative movement’s most powerful allies as their party fights to maintain control of Congress.

“For those who stand in the way, we don’t pull any punches, regardless of party,” Phillips told hundreds of donors while outlining their midterm election strategy on the final day of the three-day private Rocky Mountain retreat.

Americans for Prosperity still plans to focus its resources on helping GOP Senate candidates in Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin.

It remains unclear how hard the group will work to defeat vulnerable Senate Democrats in West Virginia, Missouri and Montana.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2018 02:59 pm
  PM Quote Reply
71st Post
gwlee7



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 5247
Status: 
Offline
Shit’s about to get real.  Trump doesn’t need to piss off people who actually are rich.  



____________________
I just think it's amazing that Trump is really on Twitter all day, personally writing this shit. He's about 3 beers away from joining S&W and getting into a flame war with Ports.----srossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2018 03:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
72nd Post
DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
Hilarious to watch Batshit crazy Guilliani out here stating that "Collusion isn't a crime" and then Trump parroting it is just the type of moving the goal posts and gaslighting that the KGB's of the world eat up like sugar cubes...even when they're too dense to get that it's just a term to describe all of the crimes that Trump and his campaign is being accused of.

Election Fraud
Wire Fraud
Bribery
Bank Fraud
Computer Crimes/Theft
Computer Crimes/Espionage
Extortion
Obstruction of Justice
Witness Tampering
Perjury
Making False Statements
Conspiracy (the big one in regards to collusion)
FARA
RICO
Money Laundering
Tax Evasion

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2018 04:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
73rd Post
gwlee7



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 5247
Status: 
Offline
DaNkinator wrote: Hilarious to watch Batshit crazy Guilliani out here stating that "Collusion isn't a crime" and then Trump parroting it is just the type of moving the goal posts and gaslighting that the KGB's of the world eat up like sugar cubes...even when they're too dense to get that it's just a term to describe all of the crimes that Trump and his campaign is being accused of.

Election Fraud
Wire Fraud
Bribery
Bank Fraud
Computer Crimes/Theft
Computer Crimes/Espionage
Extortion
Obstruction of Justice
Witness Tampering
Perjury
Making False Statements
Conspiracy (the big one in regards to collusion)
FARA
RICO
Money Laundering
Tax Evasion

BUT EMAILS!!! 



____________________
I just think it's amazing that Trump is really on Twitter all day, personally writing this shit. He's about 3 beers away from joining S&W and getting into a flame war with Ports.----srossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2018 04:48 pm
  PM Quote Reply
74th Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46304
Status: 
Offline
gwlee7 wrote: DaNkinator wrote: Hilarious to watch Batshit crazy Guilliani out here stating that "Collusion isn't a crime" and then Trump parroting it is just the type of moving the goal posts and gaslighting that the KGB's of the world eat up like sugar cubes...even when they're too dense to get that it's just a term to describe all of the crimes that Trump and his campaign is being accused of.

Election Fraud
Wire Fraud
Bribery
Bank Fraud
Computer Crimes/Theft
Computer Crimes/Espionage
Extortion
Obstruction of Justice
Witness Tampering
Perjury
Making False Statements
Conspiracy (the big one in regards to collusion)
FARA
RICO
Money Laundering
Tax Evasion

BUT EMAILS!!! 

The e-mails were a legitimate issue, but about 5 people on the Trump side got exposed for the same thing...



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2018 05:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
75th Post
Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6457
Status: 
Offline
Trunp doesn't like the fact that Jews are more successful than him financially

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 06:12 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > More Mueller indictments Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems