Trump Ignorant

[Correll]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

 

[eddiew]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

 

[Correll]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

 

[eddiew]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

 

[Correll]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama is a retard.

-------------------------------- I'd say that mrobama is an enemy of America that has had a plan that he has been working on his entire 8 years .

No, he's a lazy do nothing who went on the public dole because he didn't want to work a real job. People give that idiot WAY more credit than he's earned, trust me the guy is a lazy asshole slacker.

Blues You calling Obama lazy is nutz He's worked harder visited more countries made more friends gave the world more confidence ,than any republican president in my memory and I've been around a few years

LMAO go ahead post his list of accomplishments before going on the public dole

Well one thing for sure he DIDN"T get hundreds of millions left to him by his dad and if he put all that money in an index fund he'd be richer now than he is BTW his daddy had to co sign for everything the vile loud mouth did

LOL neither did Trump so your lying. I get it you have to lie, when faced with an argument they can't win liberals lie through their teeth.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

For anyone to suggest Trump is similar to Reagan is doing a great injustice to Reagan.
Plus they do not know what they are talking about.
Trump is about as low class as you can get while Reagan was high class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

 

[eddiew]

You call them morons but you're willing to spend hundreds of billions defending them.

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

Not at all happy with that Correl ,,,but blame Dems? Blame Obama?? is just partisan BS imo

 

[Correll]

Europe was worried about Reagan too.

They are morons.

For anyone to suggest Trump is similar to Reagan is doing a great injustice to Reagan.
Plus they do not know what they are talking about.
Trump is about as low class as you can get while Reagan was high class.

The only similarity implied by my comparison is that both were disliked by the European Street.


This is true.


It is also true that their dislike of Reagan shows that they are morons.


Thus their judgement is not authoritative.

 

[whitehall]

There was a time when debate about political issues ended at the shore line but Obama has no respect for the Constitution or tradition or common sense. It's disrespectful to air America's political laundry in a foreign country but Barry Hussein acts like a foreigner even when he is home. All the democrat party has left is a lame duck president who is always on a world apology tour.

 

[Correll]

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

 

[Correll]

I'm not, not any more.

It's the Political Class who haven't noticed that the Cold War ended.

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

Not at all happy with that Correl ,,,but blame Dems? Blame Obama?? is just partisan BS imo

The economic and immigration polices that have led to that, have been the consensus of BOTH parties leadership for quite some time.

Donald Trump is going to be the First Presidential Candidate to be for a change of those issues since, I don't know when.

Before Nixon, at least.


I haven't mentioned Dems or Obama.

 

[ElmerMudd]

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

The US can control what they do about free trade but they cannot control what the rest of the world does.
As we put tariffs on so will other nations on our goods into their countries. We do not want to lose more business than we gain.
Foreign countries will continue to use the cheaper labor available in the world. Will the US products be competitively priced as a result.
Eliminating trade agreements without true thought of how they will ultimately effect the US could cause more problems for the US economy than help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.

Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.

 

[Correll]

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

The US can control what they do about free trade but they cannot control what the rest of the world does.
As we put tariffs on so will other nations on our goods into their countries. We do not want to lose more business than we gain.
Foreign countries will continue to use the cheaper labor available in the world. Will the US products be competitively priced as a result.
Eliminating trade agreements without true thought of how they will ultimately effect the US could cause more problems for the US economy than help.

As the world's largest single market, we have tremendous leverage on the actions of other nations that want to trade with US, which is nearly all of them.

We ARE losing more than we gain. That's why we have had so much wage stagnation over the last 50 years.

Cheap labor is no good if the market nations are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and start slapping tariffs on exports made with cheap labor.

We have been negotiating and signing trade agreements without any true thought of how they will ultimately effect that US.

And they have been causing more problems than help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In his efforts to capitalize on voter discontent, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has cranked up his anti-trade rhetoric to appeal to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas.

Among other things, Trump has proposed imposing a steep tariff on products made in China and Mexico.

Unfortunately, there are many more things wrong with tariffs than there are right. To begin with it isn't exactly obvious if imposing tariffs on China and Mexico would bring jobs to the US. Rather, companies seeking these manufacturing cost advantages are like to just move production to one of the many other low-cost countries in the developing world.

Whatever the case, such a protectionist trade policy would cause the cost of production to go up, which means the prices for finished goods would most likely go up for consumers. In other words, no one really wins with tariffs.

"The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover," wrote Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow. "Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a moderized plaform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the US and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?"

In a note to clients on Friday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Michael Hartnett considered economic and financial market scenarios under the regimes of the presidential candidates. Like Moore and Kudlow, Hartnett reflected on the Smoot-Hawley act.

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

I voted for Perot twice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

The US can control what they do about free trade but they cannot control what the rest of the world does.
As we put tariffs on so will other nations on our goods into their countries. We do not want to lose more business than we gain.
Foreign countries will continue to use the cheaper labor available in the world. Will the US products be competitively priced as a result.
Eliminating trade agreements without true thought of how they will ultimately effect the US could cause more problems for the US economy than help.

As the world's largest single market, we have tremendous leverage on the actions of other nations that want to trade with US, which is nearly all of them.

We ARE losing more than we gain. That's why we have had so much wage stagnation over the last 50 years.

Cheap labor is no good if the market nations are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and start slapping tariffs on exports made with cheap labor.

We have been negotiating and signing trade agreements without any true thought of how they will ultimately effect that US.

And they have been causing more problems than help.

The GOP platform plank on trade, 2012:

On Free Trade: Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority

International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.

We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.

 

[eddiew]

There was a time when debate about political issues ended at the shore line but Obama has no respect for the Constitution or tradition or common sense. It's disrespectful to air America's political laundry in a foreign country but Barry Hussein acts like a foreigner even when he is home. All the democrat party has left is a lame duck president who is always on a world apology tour.

Instead of the world looking up to America republicans have gotten us the opposite affect The world looks down upon us Repub liars and misfits are the cause

 

[Correll]

It isn't exactly obvious that imposing tariffs on China and Mexico WON'T bring jobs back to the US either.

Sure SOME companies might just try to play the same game working out of the some other shit hole.

BUT.

1. How many of the exports are made by Chinese companies that might not have that option?

2. Relocation takes time, while domestic manufactures are already benefiting.

3. There is a risk that the new nation, if they play the same predatory trade games, will just get tariffs slapped on them too. Then the costs of moving was lost to no gain.

4. Shitty Third World Countries have risk associated with them. New ones will have new risks and problems.

5. Those governments, once they see how Trump dealt with CHina, might not WANT to be the "new China".

Off the top of my head. Might add more later.

“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”

It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.

Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).

–

You already made that point, and I already responded to it.

Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?

Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?

The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.

The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.


Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.


If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.


I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.

Can you adapt?

First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.

Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.

From on the issues.

Hillary Clinton on Free Trade


From 2014


"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.

Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."


From oct 2015


"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.

CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."



Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.

What could it be?

Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".

You trust her change of heart?