Trump's trade war with China

[Harpy Eagle]

There is no evidence of this other than a book with his name on it that he did not write.

The only thing he has negotiated so far is the new USMCA and it was just a few minor tweaks that Mexico loved so much they have already ratified it.

Everything else he has failed at or is "still trying".

And yet, Congress has yet to ratify the USMCA, if I'm not mistaken.

There's your problem.

Isn’t trump negotiating to make that happen?

No, the Democrats in the HoOuse are steadfastly refusing to even talk about it. They are only concerned with three things right now: Impeach Trump, climate change, and gun control, and to hell with everything else.

Most incompetent and ineffective House we've ever had.

Best thing that can happen to the country, nothing gets passed.

So you're saying the the USMCA is a bad deal? Canada, Mexico, and American soybean farmers are in favor of it.

USMCA: Update on the status and importance of USMCA and the TPA process | American Soybean Association

No, I am saying it is basically the same as NAFTA. Soybean farmers loved NAFTA also.

 

[JGalt]

And yet, Congress has yet to ratify the USMCA, if I'm not mistaken.

There's your problem.

Isn’t trump negotiating to make that happen?

No, the Democrats in the HoOuse are steadfastly refusing to even talk about it. They are only concerned with three things right now: Impeach Trump, climate change, and gun control, and to hell with everything else.

Most incompetent and ineffective House we've ever had.

Best thing that can happen to the country, nothing gets passed.

So you're saying the the USMCA is a bad deal? Canada, Mexico, and American soybean farmers are in favor of it.

USMCA: Update on the status and importance of USMCA and the TPA process | American Soybean Association

No, I am saying it is basically the same as NAFTA. Soybean farmers loved NAFTA also.

Geez, mang. Read it for yourself.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Isn’t trump negotiating to make that happen?

No, the Democrats in the HoOuse are steadfastly refusing to even talk about it. They are only concerned with three things right now: Impeach Trump, climate change, and gun control, and to hell with everything else.

Most incompetent and ineffective House we've ever had.

Best thing that can happen to the country, nothing gets passed.

So you're saying the the USMCA is a bad deal? Canada, Mexico, and American soybean farmers are in favor of it.

USMCA: Update on the status and importance of USMCA and the TPA process | American Soybean Association

No, I am saying it is basically the same as NAFTA. Soybean farmers loved NAFTA also.

Geez, mang. Read it for yourself.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Kind of cute, you say read it yourself and then send me to a news site about it. Too bad it is behind a paywall.

I have read it myself. It is nothing but a few minor tweaks.

One if the bigger changes is the opening of the Canadian dairy market...until you it is only 3.56% more open!

 

[Brain357]

There is no evidence of this other than a book with his name on it that he did not write.

The only thing he has negotiated so far is the new USMCA and it was just a few minor tweaks that Mexico loved so much they have already ratified it.

Everything else he has failed at or is "still trying".

And yet, Congress has yet to ratify the USMCA, if I'm not mistaken.

There's your problem.

Isn’t trump negotiating to make that happen?

No, the Democrats in the HoOuse are steadfastly refusing to even talk about it. They are only concerned with three things right now: Impeach Trump, climate change, and gun control, and to hell with everything else.

Most incompetent and ineffective House we've ever had.

So trump lost another negotiation?

It's pretty hard to negotiate with crazy people. They keep chewing on the papers and pens.

Seems hard for trump to negotiate with anyone.

 

[JGalt]

No, the Democrats in the HoOuse are steadfastly refusing to even talk about it. They are only concerned with three things right now: Impeach Trump, climate change, and gun control, and to hell with everything else.

Most incompetent and ineffective House we've ever had.

Best thing that can happen to the country, nothing gets passed.

So you're saying the the USMCA is a bad deal? Canada, Mexico, and American soybean farmers are in favor of it.

USMCA: Update on the status and importance of USMCA and the TPA process | American Soybean Association

No, I am saying it is basically the same as NAFTA. Soybean farmers loved NAFTA also.

Geez, mang. Read it for yourself.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Kind of cute, you say read it yourself and then send me to a news site about it. Too bad it is behind a paywall.

I have read it myself. It is nothing but a few minor tweaks.

One if the bigger changes is the opening of the Canadian dairy market...until you it is only 3.56% more open!

What "pay site"? Here:

"Cars:

The new deal increases the portion of a car that needs to be produced in North America to 75 percent to avoid tariffs. It also requires at least 40 percent of that come from factories where the average wage is $16/hour.

The current Nafta, which came into force in 1994, requires that 62.5 percent of cars produced in the trade zone be made in North America. There's no minimum-wage requirement.

Dairy:

U.S. dairy farmers will be allowed to sell more milk to Canada.

Dairy wasn't part of the original deal under NAFTA. The U.S. has long complained that Canada's system of domestic quotas protects its dairy farmers from foreign competition.

Disputes:

The new deal severely restricts chapter 11 between the U.S. and Mexico, while eliminating it between the U.S. and Canada. Chapter 19 and 20 both survived, virtually intact.

Nafta has three kinds of dispute settlement systems. Chapter 11 provides a mechanism for solving disputes between companies and Nafta governments. Chapter 19 allows for cross-border mediation when Nafta partners clash over dumping or subsidy cases. Chapter 20 governs disputes between states.

Currency:

The new deal includes a new currency chapter that commits the three countries to maintain market-determined exchange rates and refrain from competitive devaluations of their currencies. The pledge won't have much effect on policymaking in the three nations, all of which have free-floating exchange rates. But it could serve as a template for future trade deals, giving the U.S. leverage over countries such as China.

The current Nafta doesn't include a currency chapter. Automakers and some lawmakers have been calling for one as a way to shield against currency manipulation.

Sunset Clause:

The U.S. had demanded a sunset clause that would kill Nafta after five years unless the countries agreed to extend it. In the end, the countries settled on a 16-year term for the deal, with a review to identify and fix problems and a chance of a deal extension after six years.

There is no automatic sunset clause under the current Nafta. But any of the three partners can withdraw from the agreement on six months' notice.

Source: Data compiled by Bloomberg

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

wheres that chart and the 25% more i was supposed to pay for a new toy ?
MADE IN VIETNAM

 

[JGalt]

No, the Democrats in the HoOuse are steadfastly refusing to even talk about it. They are only concerned with three things right now: Impeach Trump, climate change, and gun control, and to hell with everything else.

Most incompetent and ineffective House we've ever had.

Best thing that can happen to the country, nothing gets passed.

So you're saying the the USMCA is a bad deal? Canada, Mexico, and American soybean farmers are in favor of it.

USMCA: Update on the status and importance of USMCA and the TPA process | American Soybean Association

No, I am saying it is basically the same as NAFTA. Soybean farmers loved NAFTA also.

Geez, mang. Read it for yourself.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Kind of cute, you say read it yourself and then send me to a news site about it. Too bad it is behind a paywall.

I have read it myself. It is nothing but a few minor tweaks.

One if the bigger changes is the opening of the Canadian dairy market...until you it is only 3.56% more open!

So if it's "nothing but a few minor tweaks", what's the holdup with the House? They're still arguing over whether Mexico will get better labor and environmental standards.

 

[Correll]

Because only SOME of US benefit from having their cheap labor make the products for US. Plenty of US are fucked by that.


Why is this so confusing for you?

The majority have benefited, the ones that have not, have not mostly because they refuse to change with the times.

"The majority"?


At best that metric might be true, in the most limited sense of some macro economic numbers, such as over all per capita increase.


More likely, is that the benefit has gone primarily to a small number of rich large shareholders, while the "majority" get minor, if any, wage growth, while dealing with the negative impacts to the community at large, from a large portion of the population being fucked for generations.


Oh, and your blaming them for the fucking, that is just you looking for a reason to dismiss their interests, not seriously include them in the cost benefit analysis.

Adapt or die out, that is the way of the world. Sorry you find it so unfair, but life is not fair.

"DIE OUT"?!


I get it now.


One question, the person(s) you think of, when you say, "die out", could you describe how you see them, in your minds eye as you typed that?

 

[Correll]

It does when that huge pile of wealth is not distributed evenly, and there are millions of rich people with plenty of disposable income.


And really, it doesn't matter why. If they cannot or will not engage is mutually beneficial trade, then there is no change of US benefiting,even FAIRLY, let alone WINNING, they why the fuck are we even engaging?

Do I need to note this again? Business wants the cheap labor.

That is why business supports the policy.


Why do you? Why do the rest of US go along with what is obviously not working out for US?

Sub 4% unemployment....

122 months straight economic expansion...a record for this nation

110 plus straight months of positive job growth...a record for this nation


yet you pretend we as a nation are doing terribly.

And now you are pretending that you are unaware of the point of macro economic numbers hiding serious economic and social costs.


I've honestly admitted the good macro economic numbers from my first post in this thread.


Yet here you are, pretending that I did not.



ONce again, you seem to be purposefully being misleading.

There is always a small group that is affected negatively when progress occurs, it is the nature of change.

Changes is not always progress. Sometimes change negatively effects large groups.


To decide whether a change is progress, we need a serious and honest cost benefit analysis, discussing the cost and benefits to our society as a whole.


Do you agree with that statement?

 

[Correll]

Yet they are the world's second largest economy, with plenty of money in there, to buy our products, if they want.


Why are you making excuses for them, dishonest excuses at that?

1.5 billion people with $6.00 doesn't buy much.

It does when that huge pile of wealth is not distributed evenly, and there are millions of rich people with plenty of disposable income.


And really, it doesn't matter why. If they cannot or will not engage is mutually beneficial trade, then there is no change of US benefiting,even FAIRLY, let alone WINNING, they why the fuck are we even engaging?

Do I need to note this again? Business wants the cheap labor.

That is why business supports the policy.


Why do you? Why do the rest of US go along with what is obviously not working out for US?

Business wants cheap labor Correl. That’s the reality in life no matter what and where you go.
You can twist however you want that’s the reality.
Like I mentioned to you repeatedly. You can ask Trumpy why he makes his products overseas. That’s a fact.

Not working out for us? Like what? We have a booming economy. And you are ruining that without even knowing it.

There is no rule that says that business gets what it wants all the time.


Our society is a democratic republic. The people get to vote for people who's job is to represent their interests, not the interests of businesses.


Do you agree with those two statements?

 

[Correll]

THat makes no sense. We have been fostering their growth massively for decades with ever larger trade surpluses.

The bulk of that goes to US corporations but you know that.

If mutually beneficial trade is off the table, because they are unable, or unwilling to do it, then we should not even be fucking around with them.


SHUT IT DOWN.

Tell that to the corporations, not me.

1. I don't know that. I don't believe it to be true.

2. Corporations do not set trade policy, the government does. THey can certainly have influence, but if we want to change it, the government is who we have to change. Like we republicans did with Trump.

No you didn't.

The Free Traders and the corporations and the rich (to the extent they are a group), all were strongly against Trump.

No they aren't. He's protecting them. How many hiring illegals have been arrested?

1. Yes, they were. You can go back and read the many articles discussing it. They did not see Trump or Trump's treatment of them, as you see it.


2. I see that you are focused on employers as the crux of the illegal immigrant problem.I respect that as a valid position. But don't let it blind you to what else is going on. The corporations and the Free Traders, and the "Rich" were against Trump strongly and they lost.

 

[pknopp]

The bulk of that goes to US corporations but you know that.


Tell that to the corporations, not me.

1. I don't know that. I don't believe it to be true.

2. Corporations do not set trade policy, the government does. THey can certainly have influence, but if we want to change it, the government is who we have to change. Like we republicans did with Trump.

No you didn't.

The Free Traders and the corporations and the rich (to the extent they are a group), all were strongly against Trump.

No they aren't. He's protecting them. How many hiring illegals have been arrested?

1. Yes, they were. You can go back and read the many articles discussing it. They did not see Trump or Trump's treatment of them, as you see it.


2. I see that you are focused on employers as the crux of the illegal immigrant problem.I respect that as a valid position. But don't let it blind you to what else is going on. The corporations and the Free Traders, and the "Rich" were against Trump strongly and they lost.

They have won. Trump is and has always been one of them.

 

[Correll]

It does when that huge pile of wealth is not distributed evenly, and there are millions of rich people with plenty of disposable income.


And really, it doesn't matter why. If they cannot or will not engage is mutually beneficial trade, then there is no change of US benefiting,even FAIRLY, let alone WINNING, they why the fuck are we even engaging?

Do I need to note this again? Business wants the cheap labor.

That is why business supports the policy.


Why do you? Why do the rest of US go along with what is obviously not working out for US?

Nothing I can do. When someone wants to actually address the issue, I'll listen to them.

Are you? Are you really listening to Trump? Or are you letting the MSM tell you how Evul he is, and to NOT listen to him?

What good does it do to listen to him? I don't care what he has to say as what he says and what he does is not the same thing.

Me and you, are to a surprising extent, on the same page. We both want what is best for this country and it's citizens, as a group and individually.


We want to consider policy, by a cost benefit analysis, to see how to get there.


IF, by some magic, the two of us where sent to another world, where there was a President, with an odd and off putting style, who was focused on addressing the issues of trade and immigration, AS YOU SEE THEM, (,ie focusing on the corporations and employers), instead of trade policy and deportations,



even though I might think that is not the best way to go about it, I would pay attention to see what results he was getting,


AND not listen to his enemies in the media, who told me to not bother, because he was "nearly the anti-Christ" or "racist", or whatever.


There is after all, more than one way to skin a cat.


Trump might not be going at this from the best angle. But he might get some results. It would be a shame if that was lost in the noise.


That is what good it does.

 

[Correll]

There is a lot of money in China now. They are not all rice farmers.

Wealth per capita in China does not even make the top 35 in the world.

China is under the word average in wealth per person.

It is getting better just like Japan did, but it takes time with that many people.

Yet they are the world's second largest economy, with plenty of money in there, to buy our products, if they want.


Why are you making excuses for them, dishonest excuses at that?

They did buy lots of food, before trump...

I want to deal with the fact that you made a misleading excuse for them fucking US.


Why would you do that?

You don't come close to making sense. They have been selling us all their resources for next to nothing. We should thank them. They even get to keep all the pollution.

Golfing gator has made the point that those who have lost out in this "progress" need to "adapt or die"


Would you say you share that view?

 

[Correll]

1. I don't know that. I don't believe it to be true.

2. Corporations do not set trade policy, the government does. THey can certainly have influence, but if we want to change it, the government is who we have to change. Like we republicans did with Trump.

No you didn't.

The Free Traders and the corporations and the rich (to the extent they are a group), all were strongly against Trump.

No they aren't. He's protecting them. How many hiring illegals have been arrested?

1. Yes, they were. You can go back and read the many articles discussing it. They did not see Trump or Trump's treatment of them, as you see it.


2. I see that you are focused on employers as the crux of the illegal immigrant problem.I respect that as a valid position. But don't let it blind you to what else is going on. The corporations and the Free Traders, and the "Rich" were against Trump strongly and they lost.

They have won. Trump is and has always been one of them.

The "rich" to the extent that they are a cohesive group, were opposed to him and they lost.


That is an historical fact.


He might not be going after them, as you think should happen, but his policies on trade and immigration are NOT what they want.


That is my analysis on their opposition, (not quite an historical fact per the first one, but pretty strong).

 

[pknopp]

Do I need to note this again? Business wants the cheap labor.

That is why business supports the policy.


Why do you? Why do the rest of US go along with what is obviously not working out for US?

Nothing I can do. When someone wants to actually address the issue, I'll listen to them.

Are you? Are you really listening to Trump? Or are you letting the MSM tell you how Evul he is, and to NOT listen to him?

What good does it do to listen to him? I don't care what he has to say as what he says and what he does is not the same thing.

Me and you, are to a surprising extent, on the same page. We both want what is best for this country and it's citizens, as a group and individually.


We want to consider policy, by a cost benefit analysis, to see how to get there.


IF, by some magic, the two of us where sent to another world, where there was a President, with an odd and off putting style, who was focused on addressing the issues of trade and immigration, AS YOU SEE THEM, (,ie focusing on the corporations and employers), instead of trade policy and deportations,



even though I might think that is not the best way to go about it, I would pay attention to see what results he was getting,


AND not listen to his enemies in the media, who told me to not bother, because he was "nearly the anti-Christ" or "racist", or whatever.


There is after all, more than one way to skin a cat.


Trump might not be going at this from the best angle. But he might get some results. It would be a shame if that was lost in the noise.


That is what good it does.

No. We have done it Trump's way for decades. I'm not interested.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"DIE OUT"?!


I get it now.


One question, the person(s) you think of, when you say, "die out", could you describe how you see them, in your minds eye as you typed that?

I know, I am just a big meanie! Well, life is not fair.

Things change, people need to adapt. You might notice we no longer have many blacksmiths, buggy whip makers, telephone operators, elevator operators and more around. Those were all once fine, upstanding jobs that you found in every town, now they no longer are.

Should we have designed our polices at the time to save those jobs to help those poor people that were no longer able to do those jobs? Would we be better of if there were still blacksmiths in every town?

There is a thread on this forum about the unions trying to get the law changed so that a store can only have two self-check lanes. Do you agree with this? Should the government do these sorts of things to save the jobs of the cashiers?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Changes is not always progress. Sometimes change negatively effects large groups.


To decide whether a change is progress, we need a serious and honest cost benefit analysis, discussing the cost and benefits to our society as a whole.


Do you agree with that statement?

I sure do. Keep in mind that a CBA needs to have facts, figures and stats. Not stories, not opinions.

 

[Brain357]

Wealth per capita in China does not even make the top 35 in the world.

China is under the word average in wealth per person.

It is getting better just like Japan did, but it takes time with that many people.

Yet they are the world's second largest economy, with plenty of money in there, to buy our products, if they want.


Why are you making excuses for them, dishonest excuses at that?

They did buy lots of food, before trump...

I want to deal with the fact that you made a misleading excuse for them fucking US.


Why would you do that?

You don't come close to making sense. They have been selling us all their resources for next to nothing. We should thank them. They even get to keep all the pollution.

Golfing gator has made the point that those who have lost out in this "progress" need to "adapt or die"


Would you say you share that view?

Certainly to a degree. If you are making a product that can be made much cheaper and at the same quality somewhere else you are in the wrong business.

 

[pknopp]

"DIE OUT"?!


I get it now.


One question, the person(s) you think of, when you say, "die out", could you describe how you see them, in your minds eye as you typed that?

I know, I am just a big meanie! Well, life is not fair.

Things change, people need to adapt. You might notice we no longer have many blacksmiths, buggy whip makers, telephone operators, elevator operators and more around. Those were all once fine, upstanding jobs that you found in every town, now they no longer are.

Should we have designed our polices at the time to save those jobs to help those poor people that were no longer able to do those jobs? Would we be better of if there were still blacksmiths in every town?

There is a thread on this forum about the unions trying to get the law changed so that a store can only have two self-check lanes. Do you agree with this? Should the government do these sorts of things to save the jobs of the cashiers?

As long as we are going to have near zero or negative interest rates even, then yes.

That or a basic wage.