Trump's trade war with China

[Correll]

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

Actually, it shows the opposite. Wanting people to adapt and not just wait for the government to save them is looking out for their best interest. Call it though love!

Saying that they can "die" is not looking out for their interests. It is dismissing them.

Die is a bit extreme, but it is in their long term interest to change and adapt.

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

 

[Correll]

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

Actually, it shows the opposite. Wanting people to adapt and not just wait for the government to save them is looking out for their best interest. Call it though love!

Saying that they can "die" is not looking out for their interests. It is dismissing them.

Die is a bit extreme, but it is in their long term interest to change and adapt.

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

That is the same thing the economists said back in the 70s.


And then those jobs never showed up.


And if they did, people like you gave them to cheaper immigrants. Or outsourced them.

 

[Correll]

Saying that they can "die" is not looking out for their interests. It is dismissing them.

Die is a bit extreme, but it is in their long term interest to change and adapt.

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

They can compete. "Shareholders" simply are not satisfied with their returns. It always has to be more, more, more.

Capitalists will always look for the most profit.

Not always. No one is a pure anything. There is no reason for American capitalists to "forget" that they are Americans, except that they are fucking assholes.

 

[pknopp]

Actually, it shows the opposite. Wanting people to adapt and not just wait for the government to save them is looking out for their best interest. Call it though love!

Saying that they can "die" is not looking out for their interests. It is dismissing them.

Die is a bit extreme, but it is in their long term interest to change and adapt.

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

That is the same thing the economists said back in the 70s.


And then those jobs never showed up.


And if they did, people like you gave them to cheaper immigrants. Or outsourced them.

As I've pointed out many times, getting a job that is more productive can work for the individual, not for millions.

 

[pknopp]

Are you not a capitalist?

Yes, but why do you ask?

You seem to want government managed trade. That isn’t capitalism. Much more socialism. Do you believe in markets?

Pretending that the choices are trade without any government trade policy, or "government managed trade", is something an anarchist would do.


A very dishonest anarchist.


Meanwhile in the real world, this thread is about Trade Policy. And no serious person would be pretending that the idea of trade policy is not legitimate in a capitalist system.



So, why you playing such a dishonest game?

Dishonest? I think you just don’t like the game. I think the best trade policy is free trade. It’s determined by the traders, not the government. You seem to think big gov is better at determining trade. I disagree.

Allowing our trading "partners" to practice trade policy designed to benefit their people by fucking ours, is not "Free Trade",

it is being the world's bitch on trade.

This is not China's fault. They twisted no one's arms to get them to move production there. This is where we do not agree. The solution is not in addressing the country, the solution is addressing the businesses that went there.

 

[Brain357]

Are you not a capitalist?

Yes, but why do you ask?

You seem to want government managed trade. That isn’t capitalism. Much more socialism. Do you believe in markets?

Pretending that the choices are trade without any government trade policy, or "government managed trade", is something an anarchist would do.


A very dishonest anarchist.


Meanwhile in the real world, this thread is about Trade Policy. And no serious person would be pretending that the idea of trade policy is not legitimate in a capitalist system.



So, why you playing such a dishonest game?

Dishonest? I think you just don’t like the game. I think the best trade policy is free trade. It’s determined by the traders, not the government. You seem to think big gov is better at determining trade. I disagree.

Allowing our trading "partners" to practice trade policy designed to benefit their people by fucking ours, is not "Free Trade",

it is being the world's bitch on trade.

Our trade policy has been benefitting us too, or we wouldn’t be trading. Nobody is forced to trade.

 

[Brain357]

I don't have a side of the aisle.

I like that we have established that we have the same goal, ie the best interests of the American people, both as a group and individually.


Not everyone is on that page. But we are. Let's keep that in mind.

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

 

[pknopp]

I like that we have established that we have the same goal, ie the best interests of the American people, both as a group and individually.


Not everyone is on that page. But we are. Let's keep that in mind.

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

Lot's of wealth at the top and lot's of part time jobs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I like that we have established that we have the same goal, ie the best interests of the American people, both as a group and individually.


Not everyone is on that page. But we are. Let's keep that in mind.

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

But some people had to find new jobs, and that is just not fair

 

[Brain357]

Actually, it shows the opposite. Wanting people to adapt and not just wait for the government to save them is looking out for their best interest. Call it though love!

Saying that they can "die" is not looking out for their interests. It is dismissing them.

Die is a bit extreme, but it is in their long term interest to change and adapt.

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

That is the same thing the economists said back in the 70s.


And then those jobs never showed up.


And if they did, people like you gave them to cheaper immigrants. Or outsourced them.

We have plenty of jobs. If you are unhappy with wages trade is not the issue. Get rid of non compete agreements, get rid of wage collusion, get rid of our near monopolies, drop right to work, strengthen unions... these are all internal things holding wages down. Any jobs you bring back will be held down by these same things. Look at trumps failure in steel. Layoffs and huge stock drop.

 

[pknopp]

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

But some people had to find new jobs, and that is just not fair

Having to find a $9 and hour job to replace your $20 an hour job because "shareholders" want more money is not right.

 

[Brain357]

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

Lot's of wealth at the top and lot's of part time jobs.

Agreed. We also have lots of non competes. Lots of businesses with near monopoly. We have wage collusion. Right to work for less. Decline in unions. Trade isn’t the issue.

 

[Brain357]

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

But some people had to find new jobs, and that is just not fair

Having to find a $9 and hour job to replace your $20 an hour job because "shareholders" want more money is not right.

We need pro worker policies. We have years of the opposite. Look at the huge Corp tax handout. That did nothing for workers.

 

[pknopp]

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

Lot's of wealth at the top and lot's of part time jobs.

Agreed. We also have lots of non competes. Lots of businesses with near monopoly. We have wage collusion. Right to work for less. Decline in unions. Trade isn’t the issue.

No trade itself but the reason for so much coming from overseas and the reasons why is a problem.

 

[pknopp]

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

But some people had to find new jobs, and that is just not fair

Having to find a $9 and hour job to replace your $20 an hour job because "shareholders" want more money is not right.

We need pro worker policies. We have years of the opposite. Look at the huge Corp tax handout. That did nothing for workers.

Addressing the companies that off-shore is pro-worker.

 

[Brain357]

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

Lot's of wealth at the top and lot's of part time jobs.

Agreed. We also have lots of non competes. Lots of businesses with near monopoly. We have wage collusion. Right to work for less. Decline in unions. Trade isn’t the issue.

No trade itself but the reason for so much coming from overseas and the reasons why is a problem.

But we have plenty of jobs. So who cares lots come from overseas?

 

[Brain357]

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

But some people had to find new jobs, and that is just not fair

Having to find a $9 and hour job to replace your $20 an hour job because "shareholders" want more money is not right.

We need pro worker policies. We have years of the opposite. Look at the huge Corp tax handout. That did nothing for workers.

Addressing the companies that off-shore is pro-worker.

What was done and how did it help workers?

 

[pknopp]

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

Lot's of wealth at the top and lot's of part time jobs.

Agreed. We also have lots of non competes. Lots of businesses with near monopoly. We have wage collusion. Right to work for less. Decline in unions. Trade isn’t the issue.

No trade itself but the reason for so much coming from overseas and the reasons why is a problem.

But we have plenty of jobs. So who cares lots come from overseas?

We have plenty of low paying part time jobs.

 

[pknopp]

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

But some people had to find new jobs, and that is just not fair

Having to find a $9 and hour job to replace your $20 an hour job because "shareholders" want more money is not right.

We need pro worker policies. We have years of the opposite. Look at the huge Corp tax handout. That did nothing for workers.

Addressing the companies that off-shore is pro-worker.

What was done and how did it help workers?

Nothing has been done. That's my complaint.

 

[Brain357]

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

Lot's of wealth at the top and lot's of part time jobs.

Agreed. We also have lots of non competes. Lots of businesses with near monopoly. We have wage collusion. Right to work for less. Decline in unions. Trade isn’t the issue.

No trade itself but the reason for so much coming from overseas and the reasons why is a problem.

But we have plenty of jobs. So who cares lots come from overseas?

We have plenty of low paying part time jobs.

That isn’t chinas fault. Internal issue.