Trump's trade war with China

[FA_Q2]

1. No other nation has the ability to give China such a trade policy, nor is any other nation that stupid. Xi obviously wants to maintain that surplus, regardless of whether he increases trade with other nations, or whatever long term diplomatic plans he has.

Not that stupid? They already are. China is in active negotiations to strengthen the ties they have within Asia. That you do not see this occuring right now says volumes about why you take your position on this.

2. I don't think they would.

And that would be based on.... nothing at all.

But you are likely correct as Trump's ability to negotiate anything on the world stage is quickly becoming a joke. At this point Trump is unlikely to be able to negotiate himself out of a paper bag if he had unlimited resources to do so.

 

[Thinker101]

How stupid is Trump?

"We don't even know what's coming at us. All we know is it's possibly the biggest. I have -- I'm not sure that I've ever even heard of a Category 5. I knew it existed. And I've seen some Category 4's -- you don't even see them that much,"

There have been four Cat 5 hurricanes since Trump took office, Irma, Maria, Michael, and Dorian.

Trump then turned to his Twitter feed.



Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump


In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

7:51 AM - Sep 1, 2019

Everyone else in the country knew Trump missed by 300 miles. We all know Dorian is turning north as it heads for Florida.
Y
To avoid panic in Alabama, the National Weather Service told the people of Alabama what they already knew. Trump was wrong again.

The next day Trump doubled down on his gaffe. "I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true," Trump tweeted.

"They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some 'hurt.' Always good to be prepared!" Trump added.

The entire country knew Dorian would not "hurt" Alabama, but not Trump.

Geez, Trump is an idiot. Can he be impeached for being stupid?

Yep, but if Alabama had been affected you loons would have been whining for weeks. I'm all for this thread spending it's remaining life in the Rubber Room for being so fricken stupid.

 

[Correll]

Your point being trump policy can continue to fail and he has your complete support,

I dont' consider the longest economic expansion in history, to be a failure.

You must give Obama a lot of credit since most if it is his.

There's the irony. Now I don't give Obama credit for the economy Trump inherited, but deficits were declining and tax receipts gaining, and he did have at least some control over that. BUT EVEN TRUMP said he had to take on Jina while the economy was strong enough to sustain the growth killing aspect of tariffs. He didn't put enough pain on Jina to get it done in time though, and probably he screwed himself in bitching about Nato and in general being pissy to Europe instead of pushing their similar complaints on China to get a "coalition."

But by his own estimation, he was using the strong economy because Americans wouldn't feel the pain.

Sounds reasonable.


After all, if you have an absurd trade imbalance, it should be addressed at some point. Right?

Should it? They are sending us real resources and in return getting paper. Many economists will tell you that isn't a problem.

Yeah, those economists should go into the working class bars in the rust belt and explain that to the people there.


Those people could then explain to those "economists" how those "pieces of paper" are what is called "units of a medium of exchange" and how important those can be for the health of a community and the well being of it's members.


AND, being multitaskers, those people would be able to give those explanations at the same time as they stomped those pointed headed "economists" to fucking death.

 

[Correll]

I dont' consider the longest economic expansion in history, to be a failure.

You must give Obama a lot of credit since most if it is his.

There's the irony. Now I don't give Obama credit for the economy Trump inherited, but deficits were declining and tax receipts gaining, and he did have at least some control over that. BUT EVEN TRUMP said he had to take on Jina while the economy was strong enough to sustain the growth killing aspect of tariffs. He didn't put enough pain on Jina to get it done in time though, and probably he screwed himself in bitching about Nato and in general being pissy to Europe instead of pushing their similar complaints on China to get a "coalition."

But by his own estimation, he was using the strong economy because Americans wouldn't feel the pain.

Nobody wins a trade war. Both sides suffer.

Funny, that Xi doesn't seem to know that.

How do you mean? Both sides seem to be losing.

Exactly. So why is he fighting? Just let Trump and America have the little pieces of paper. It's not big deal, right?

 

[Correll]

1. No other nation has the ability to give China such a trade policy, nor is any other nation that stupid. Xi obviously wants to maintain that surplus, regardless of whether he increases trade with other nations, or whatever long term diplomatic plans he has.

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason. They are able to produce items cheaper than most other nations as we all take advantage of that. It is no different than why you go to the grocery store to buy your food instead of raising and growing all of your own. Others can do it cheaper than you could yourself and you take advantage of that.

China has an almost 2/1 trade imbalance with the world, they export far more than they import. The only industrialized nation that has a surplus with them is Japan, and that has much to do with their discrepancy in population.

China is actively working to expand its customer base, pumping money and resources into Africa, the final emerging market. While they do that, we pull back within our own borders and attack everyone that is not the US. China is happy for us to do this, as they fill the void we leave behind.

The worst thing that could happen to the US is for the world to find out they do not need us as much as they thought they did, and Trump is doing everything he can to show them they do not need us.

So, like I said, no other nation will be able to fill that void for them.

Do they need it filled? Do they really need our paper?

Their actions show that they seem to think so.

 

[Correll]

So, are you dropping your previous claim, that the expansion, possibly ending at JUST OVER TEN FUCKING YEARS, is proof of a policy failing?

No. His policy has not brought the growth he claimed and we are actually slowing.

Got it. You are citing the US longest lasting economic expansion ever, at over TEN FUCKING YEARS, as proof of a trade policy failure.


Bold move, citing a massive success as evidence of failure.


You lose.

The trade policy in place prior to Trump is what brought us the economic expansion of TEN FUCKING YEARS, Yet all your Trump worshipers say we have to change because the trade policies were to terrible.

My concern is about the underlying trend in wages and jobs for the American workers, more than the current expansion.


Expansions come and go, but for the last 50 years, wages have lagged, especially at the lower end, and that needs addressed.

Wages always lag, they only go up quickly when there is a shortage of workers,as we have now. That will not last,Trump's trade war may end it sooner.

It used to work better.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. No other nation has the ability to give China such a trade policy, nor is any other nation that stupid. Xi obviously wants to maintain that surplus, regardless of whether he increases trade with other nations, or whatever long term diplomatic plans he has.

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason. They are able to produce items cheaper than most other nations as we all take advantage of that. It is no different than why you go to the grocery store to buy your food instead of raising and growing all of your own. Others can do it cheaper than you could yourself and you take advantage of that.

China has an almost 2/1 trade imbalance with the world, they export far more than they import. The only industrialized nation that has a surplus with them is Japan, and that has much to do with their discrepancy in population.

China is actively working to expand its customer base, pumping money and resources into Africa, the final emerging market. While they do that, we pull back within our own borders and attack everyone that is not the US. China is happy for us to do this, as they fill the void we leave behind.

The worst thing that could happen to the US is for the world to find out they do not need us as much as they thought they did, and Trump is doing everything he can to show them they do not need us.

So, like I said, no other nation will be able to fill that void for them.

Do they need it filled? Do they really need our paper?

Their actions show that they seem to think so.

They do? Is that why that have caved to Trump?

 

[Correll]

So, are you dropping your previous claim, that the expansion, possibly ending at JUST OVER TEN FUCKING YEARS, is proof of a policy failing?

No. His policy has not brought the growth he claimed and we are actually slowing.

Got it. You are citing the US longest lasting economic expansion ever, at over TEN FUCKING YEARS, as proof of a trade policy failure.


Bold move, citing a massive success as evidence of failure.


You lose.

The trade policy in place prior to Trump is what brought us the economic expansion of TEN FUCKING YEARS, Yet all your Trump worshipers say we have to change because the trade policies were to terrible.

My concern is about the underlying trend in wages and jobs for the American workers, more than the current expansion.


Expansions come and go, but for the last 50 years, wages have lagged, especially at the lower end, and that needs addressed.

I think that problem isn't trade, it is more to do with the decline in Unions. Manufacturing jobs paid well because of unions, not because manufacturing is such a hard or skilled job. The service industry needs unions.

Maybe.

But on the other hand, manufacturing actually creates value, that can be sold for money, even to other places, bringing money back into the community.


That seems more like a job that could support higher level of wages than a service job that just moves around money that is already there.


We are seeing certain lib cities and states insist on higher wages for service jobs. We will be getting to see how that works out soon enough.


Also, the correlation between "Free Trade" and wags stagnating, seems pretty strong, historically speaking.

 

[Correll]

Short term pain to deal with a long term injury.

What does China have to give up in order for you to consider the pain worthwhile?

Jobs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Short term pain to deal with a long term injury.

What does China have to give up in order for you to consider the pain worthwhile?

Jobs.

You are going to be so sadly disappointed

 

[Correll]

No. His policy has not brought the growth he claimed and we are actually slowing.

Got it. You are citing the US longest lasting economic expansion ever, at over TEN FUCKING YEARS, as proof of a trade policy failure.


Bold move, citing a massive success as evidence of failure.


You lose.

The trade policy in place prior to Trump is what brought us the economic expansion of TEN FUCKING YEARS, Yet all your Trump worshipers say we have to change because the trade policies were to terrible.

My concern is about the underlying trend in wages and jobs for the American workers, more than the current expansion.


Expansions come and go, but for the last 50 years, wages have lagged, especially at the lower end, and that needs addressed.

I think that problem isn't trade, it is more to do with the decline in Unions. Manufacturing jobs paid well because of unions, not because manufacturing is such a hard or skilled job. The service industry needs unions.

Unions were at least partially responsible for so many jobs leaving the country, they priced themselves out of being competitive.

Yet, when manufacturing moved to non union plants, and wages fell, we still werent' competitive for some reason.


AND, it seems that places like Germany, manage have high wages and still manage to be "competitive".

 

[Correll]

Got it. You are citing the US longest lasting economic expansion ever, at over TEN FUCKING YEARS, as proof of a trade policy failure.


Bold move, citing a massive success as evidence of failure.


You lose.

The trade policy in place prior to Trump is what brought us the economic expansion of TEN FUCKING YEARS, Yet all your Trump worshipers say we have to change because the trade policies were to terrible.

My concern is about the underlying trend in wages and jobs for the American workers, more than the current expansion.


Expansions come and go, but for the last 50 years, wages have lagged, especially at the lower end, and that needs addressed.

I think that problem isn't trade, it is more to do with the decline in Unions. Manufacturing jobs paid well because of unions, not because manufacturing is such a hard or skilled job. The service industry needs unions.

Unions were at least partially responsible for so many jobs leaving the country, they priced themselves out of being competitive.

That was helped by Republicans who demonized them and made it much more acceptable to buy products not made in the USA. I will agree they often went too far, but not having them is much worse than them going too far.

I don't recall events going that way. I think you are imputing a cause and effect that did not really happen.

 

[Correll]

I'm more concerned about long term underlying trends.


But your point is a valid concern.


I'm glad you dropped your silly idea of citing success as proof of failure.


I think we should drastically curtail our military commitments so we can massively cut our military spending.

Cutting military spending won’t help us out of recession,

Correct. I was agreeing with your point about spending a lot during an expansion, what to do when the cycle turns and you are in a recession.

If we had reduced commitments/spending over the LAST 10 years of growth, then we would have lower spending now, that could be increased then.

Yes if we had good leadership that would have happened. Trump chose not to. Obama was clearly not good for the debt, but Trump increased his deficits during a strong economy. He's probably spending to cover up the damage done by his trade war.

Agreed. Both Trump and Obama. And before that. All of them.


Since the end of the Cold War, we have been just coasting, sticking with massive and expensive commitments, that were made to stop World Communism, but now serve no purpose.


Both Bill Clinton and GHWBush, imo, deserve the lion's share of that blame.

You have lost me there. GHW Bush was a pretty forgettable president. Clinton decreased deficits and ended with a surplus. Now the younger Bush increased deficits and entered us in 2 wars so that's the most to blame.

Sorry, I meant Bill Clinton and GWBush.

Clinton deadlocked with a republican congress ended with lower deficits and a PROJECTED surplus.

HE also presided over NATO expansion, one of the worst ideas ever.

GWBush continued in the same path, without a hint of noticing that the Cold War was over.

 

[Correll]

1. No other nation has the ability to give China such a trade policy, nor is any other nation that stupid. Xi obviously wants to maintain that surplus, regardless of whether he increases trade with other nations, or whatever long term diplomatic plans he has.

Not that stupid? They already are. China is in active negotiations to strengthen the ties they have within Asia. That you do not see this occuring right now says volumes about why you take your position on this.

2. I don't think they would.

And that would be based on.... nothing at all.

But you are likely correct as Trump's ability to negotiate anything on the world stage is quickly becoming a joke. At this point Trump is unlikely to be able to negotiate himself out of a paper bag if he had unlimited resources to do so.

1. Those nations will not give China 200 billion a year.

2. People offended that Trump wants to do his job, and you take their side?

 

[easyt65]

Democrats and snowflakes want the nation to surrender to China....

 

[Correll]

1. No other nation has the ability to give China such a trade policy, nor is any other nation that stupid. Xi obviously wants to maintain that surplus, regardless of whether he increases trade with other nations, or whatever long term diplomatic plans he has.

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason. They are able to produce items cheaper than most other nations as we all take advantage of that. It is no different than why you go to the grocery store to buy your food instead of raising and growing all of your own. Others can do it cheaper than you could yourself and you take advantage of that.

China has an almost 2/1 trade imbalance with the world, they export far more than they import. The only industrialized nation that has a surplus with them is Japan, and that has much to do with their discrepancy in population.

China is actively working to expand its customer base, pumping money and resources into Africa, the final emerging market. While they do that, we pull back within our own borders and attack everyone that is not the US. China is happy for us to do this, as they fill the void we leave behind.

The worst thing that could happen to the US is for the world to find out they do not need us as much as they thought they did, and Trump is doing everything he can to show them they do not need us.

So, like I said, no other nation will be able to fill that void for them.

Do they need it filled? Do they really need our paper?

Their actions show that they seem to think so.

They do? Is that why that have caved to Trump?

No, it is why they are fighting him, instead of just giving him what he wants.

 

[Correll]

Short term pain to deal with a long term injury.

What does China have to give up in order for you to consider the pain worthwhile?

Jobs.

You are going to be so sadly disappointed

Possibly.

If we don't benefit from this trade, why should we do it at all?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Short term pain to deal with a long term injury.

What does China have to give up in order for you to consider the pain worthwhile?

Jobs.

You are going to be so sadly disappointed

Possibly.

If we don't benefit from this trade, why should we do it at all?

We do benefit from this trade, that is why we are 10 years into economic expansion.

 

[easyt65]

Possibly. If we don't benefit from this trade, why should we do it at all?

China has been waging this war on the United States for decades, stealing our Intellectual Property, robbing, cheating us, using the money to build up their military....but you say if there is no 'win' for the American people it is not worth fighting the Chinese in this Economic WAR, suggesting it is better to surrender and keep the status quo.



This type of thinking is proof that many people just don't get 'it' - what is really going on, what is at stake.

Diane Feinstein and her husband sold out this country to the Chinese decades ago for hundreds of millions of dollars....Democrats are trying to convince as many Americans as possible that they should just surrender / sell out to the Chinese as well except only for the benefit of getting cheap sh!t.

Defending this country, winning this war & protecting our freedoms, to them / snowflakes, is not worth the horrendous torture of having to pay a little more things.



.

 

[cnm]

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason.

In contrast, New Zealand sold more to China than it bought in return, resulting in the biggest trade surplus of any trading partner at $5.1 billion.
New Zealand trade in the red with EU, in the black with China | Stats NZ​