Reply With Quote
I coulda, but it wouldn't be true.Wow, 8 responses. Winehole versus Winehole
Coulda just said it's different now cuz Trump.
I had very few positive comments about Obama on this board, my trend of posting about DJT is similar.
Welp....
I coulda, but it wouldn't be true.Wow, 8 responses. Winehole versus Winehole
Coulda just said it's different now cuz Trump.
I had very few positive comments about Obama on this board, my trend of posting about DJT is similar.
American politics is a fecal duality -- that much has remained the same.
Whether you grab the stick on either end, or in the middle, you touch .
you had no substantive responses. your initial thrust was pure puffery.Wow, 8 responses.
weak stuff, SnakeBoy
So edgy.
sit on a fork and spin, edgelord
Neither have you. Let's see Obama's tariff was good, Trump's are bad, DE-industrialization and globalization has not been all roses for regular americans (I agree), and Trump insults. That's not very substantive.
Maybe you could reveal your wonderful industrial policy. Democrat's and most of the GOP might listen to you since they don't have one.
Of course, it's ok if you say you don't know (I don't) and just return to jeering from the sideline.
Since you want my take on Trump's tariffs so bad...We'll see what happens, he could easily overplay his hand here but his hand would be stronger if both parties weren't dominated by the Cato Ins ute view of international trade.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 06-07-2018 at 09:09 PM.
Misrepresents what I said. I said Obama's rubber tariff might be a good start. It wasn't. It was mainly symbolic.
Fair enough. If we can get to the point where we can say there might be national interests that supersede free trade orthodoxy, that's an ok start. Settling on what those interests are and how they might be effectively furthered is hard enough in practice and well nigh impossible on a discussion board, but that doesn't mean the conversation isn't worth having.
Agenda setting isn't nothing. Defining what problems policy is supposed to solve isn't a solution to anything, but it is an initial step in that direction. Criticizing critics because they don't have solutions ready at hand is air-headed.
I don't have one, but that doesn't mean that I, just like you, can't criticize the political establishment for not having one. I think it would be a good idea for the US to have some concept of how to foster real productivity instead of gross GDP, and durable livelihoods for Americans rather than just a welter of cheaply produced consumer goods managed by an extractive finance sector. That isn't prosperity.
I'll readily admit that just because I think strategic industrial policy would be a good idea, doesn't mean that I have the answer. I never claimed I did.
I don't know, and nothing wrong with jeering from the sidelines. That's mostly what we do here.Of course, it's ok if you say you don't know (I don't) and just return to jeering from the sideline.
I agree that there's no telling how things will turn out. I also agree that Trump might have a better chance at changing the status quo if both parties weren't doctrinally stuck on free trade.Since you want my take on Trump's tariffs so bad...We'll see what happens, he could easily overplay his hand here but his hand would be stronger if both parties weren't dominated by the Cato Ins ute view of international trade.
In my opinion it's overly generous to credit Trump with a strategy here. For all the world it looks like he's improvising.
Take my opinion and $1.59 and it'll buy you a Big Gulp. Opinions are cheap, but they are the currency of this realm -- that and jeering from the sidelines.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-07-2018 at 11:50 PM.
On that I agree completely. I think Trump is trying to do just that. We'll see what happens, I hope he succeeds. If he does it will be up to others to turn those results into a coherent policy, coherency isn't his cup of tea. If he doesn't succeed things will go back to exactly how they have been with a new POTUS, no matter what party they belong to, and that will be that.
Well that makes a little hypocritical to criticize my fly by comments then, don't you think. You aren't exactly known for your expansive posts over the years either. That's fine by me.
I think RandomGuy has been the only regular poster who thinks if he googles hard enough he can win the internet.
What makes you think he is trying to do that?
Not at all. Believe it or not, I've missed the conversation. Sometimes it's disappointing to get nothing but snark when you know someone has something to say.
When I started here in 2008, I caught a lot of grief for wordy posting; I've adjusted.You aren't exactly known for your expansive posts over the years either. That's fine by me.
I'm not sure how to answer that. I don't see how you can think his intentions are not to create "durable livelihoods for Americans rather than just a welter of cheaply produced consumer goods managed by an extractive finance sector". Then again I can't see how people hear Laurel instead of Yanny.
well, for starters, what is Trump doing to rein in the financial sector?
I can see the tariffs as a symbolic gesture toward Americans left behind by de-industrialization and global free trade, but what are these tariffs doing to help them, particularly if the targets reciprocate?
Given cheap natural gas, they're not going to bring the coal industry back; nor will they bring back the steel belt, absent massive modernization recapitalization of an industry that produces a product for which there is a global glut for the foreseeable future.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-08-2018 at 12:04 AM.
Why does it need to be reigned in? Does it have to be either or? It seems to me reigning in the financial sector absent any other major changes to our economy is about the most destructive thing one could do right now.
I can't claim to know what Trump really believes but I don't think anyone expects those industries to return to the post WWII glory years including Trump. I just don't see taking some action to help those people dependent on them now as a bad thing. Better than the still unfulfilled promises to replace them with something else of the last 2-3 decades. I'm not overly sympathetic to the "but we might pay a little more so screw those people" argument.
All of our trading partners are less able to withstand a trade war than we are. So Trump using tariffs to get concessions from them doesn't seem unreasonable to me as long as he doesn't overplay his hand. He could easily do that or he could immediately back down and give up as Bush and Obama did.
Like I said, we'll see what happens. Absent any realistic alternatives from anyone else that's the best take I got.
Even the White House’s Own Internal Economic Analysis Reportedly Found Trump’s Tariffs Will Hurt the U.S. Economy
So what’s Trump’s endgame?
You would hope the economic benefits would be sufficiently staggering such that there would be enough left over to help repair the bridges the U.S. is torching as it looks to penny pinch its way into an uncertain global future without any clear and coherent vision of a global economic system much different from the one that currently exists.
The internal study conducted by the White House Council of Economic Advisers counters the administration’s sunny projections and aligns more closely with what economists outside the White House have warned.
“In a March survey of an expert panel of academic economists assembled by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business,
no economist agreed with the statement,
‘Imposing new U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum will improve Americans’ welfare,’”
“This week, the World Bank said in its Global Economic Prospects Report that if tariff threats led to trade wars, the consequences could be “devastating.” It pointed to intensifying protectionism around the world as a risk to economic growth.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-economy.html
As with pardons and the Muslim bans, Trash has discovered, is still discovering the powers of the Exec.
Like a kid playing with a dangerous machine ("don't ever push that button!"),
if he discovers (or is told by his sycophants) that he has a power,
esp a power beyond the (immediate) reach of the other branches,
then he's gratuitously going to use it,
and damn the disastrous consequences (which he will lie about as being The Best Eva)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-10-2018 at 06:03 AM.
Wall Street Journal Demands GOP 'Rein' Trump In on Trade Before He Ruins the Country
'Mr. Trump Might Rage on Twitter, but Congress Needs to Send Him a Message That His Protectionism Isn’t Cost-Free'
According to the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal,
Republicans must band together and
strip President Donald Trump of some of his trade powers before he does irreparable damage to the U.S. economy.
the board blamed Democratsfor the laws that have allowed the President to impose tariffs
“Republicans have complained for years that the executive has encroached on the powers of the legislature,
but the GOP hasn’t done much to stop the invasion.
“Mr. Trump might rage on Twitter, but Congress needs to send him a message that his protectionism isn’t cost-free,”
they concluded.
“Otherwise he might believe he can get away with blowing up Nafta,
imposing a 25% tariff on imported cars, or
shutting down trade with China.
Mr. Corker’s effort is a test of the Republican Congress’s political will and its sincerity on the economic benefits of free trade.”
https://www.alternet.org/wall-street-journal-demands-gop-rein-trump-trade-he-ruins-country
Repugs won't do to restrain Trash.
Workers in Baytown Plant Send Postcards to Trump Asking for Stop to Steel Tariff
Workers at a Southeast Texas steel pipe plant have flooded the White House with 4,500 postcards asking President Trump to cool it already with the tariffs.
Workers at Baytown's Borusan Mannesmann plant and their families sent postcards asking Trump to grant the company a waiver to the 25 percent steel tariffs he announced in March.
The factory imports the steel pipes it works with from Turkey, where its parent company is headquartered.
Borusan Mannesmann already employs 264 people in Baytown and is
mulling another factory onsite, which would allow it to hire even more.
But the tariffs — which would add a reported $25-30 million in annual production costs — put the expansion in jeopardy.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...top-to-tariffs
Why Canadian milk infuriates Donald Trump
"Canadian farmers point out that despite the tariffs that protect them,
imports make up 10% of the country’s dairy consumption.
By contrast, the US restricts dairy imports to 3% of domestic consumption.
“That just screams hypocrisy to me,” Muirhead said.
“I don’t understand how they can get away with these positions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/jun/09/milk-canada-us-trade-war
I'M CONTENT TO BE AN ECHO OF TRUMP. MAGA!
Canada protects its dairy producers.
All six major parties support the policy and 75% of Canadians support even greater protections.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/co...a-us-trade-warto supporters, the uniquely prosperous, protected Canadian dairy industry stands as a model alternative to the increasingly disruptive and unpopular dynamic of unrestricted free trade in all things.
Supply management enjoys strong government support in no small part because the policy obviates the need to subsidize farmers directly in the manner of the US and the EU – the two greatest culprits behind the current world dairy glut.
“The system works so incredibly well,” said Bruce Muirhead, associate vice-president and professor of history at the University of Waterloo. “And the big thing about supply management is that it doesn’t cost the government a cent. Consumers pay the full cost of production.”
Domestic critics have called supply management a grotesque distortion of free-market principles, complaining that the comparatively high price of Canadian milk sacrifices the interests of consumers in favour of producers and victimizes the poor. But no consumer or social policy group has taken up the cause, and all six parties currently represented in the House of Commons unanimously support supply management.
As do Canadian consumers: an Ipsos poll this year by the Dairy Farmers of Canada reported that 75% of Canadians support even greater government efforts to defend the industry in the face of current US demands.
Canada is protecting itself against a global glut of dairy products. Canadians support the policy, are even willing to pay higher prices.
if AMLO wins in Mexico, it could be another kick to the breadbasket:
http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/elecc...a-de-maiz-a-eu
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
