Trump's trade war with China

[Correll]

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.

It has been benefiting SOME of us, the shareholders and the ceos, while the workers lose their jobs, or have their wages suppressed for generations.

AND, then as communities flounder, EVERYONE, suffers.


Even the short sighted and selfish shareholders and ceos, who don't realize the connection between their actions and the decline of the nation as a whole.

 

[Correll]

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.

And you just pretended that we have not addressed the way macro economic numbers can hide large scale problems.


If you really believed that your position was correct, ie good for America,


you would not employ such dishonest tactics.



You want this policy, even though you know that it is NOT good for America.

 

[Manonthestreet]

China blinks in trade war as pork prices spiral out of control

 

[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.

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.

The jobs I refer to are the ones that were promised by the Free Traders.

They were supposed to be, two parts,


A. new higher paying jobs, in new fields developed by the dynamic and growing economy,

and


B, once American companies learned to be more productive, the lost jobs were supposed to come BACK.



That did not happen, as we have repeatedly covered. Your dishonest pretense we have not, is very revealing.

 

[pknopp]

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.

That is where we disagree.


And I do not "blame" China. THeir government's job is to serve the interests of their people, as individuals and as a group.


And they have been doing so, with an aggressive trade policy.



YOur point about the business's being at fault is, to a great extent, true.


But businesses, do not set the rules, of the market place. Government trade policy does.


You got some business, run by a wonder person who is a proud American, and insists on paying his American workers, a reasonable American wage,


and you let his asshole competitors, move their production to Chinese manufacturers, who pay their people one tenth of the American wages,


And you are creating an environment that encourages asshole behavior.

Then make trade policy address all countries. We are not doing that. I also disagree with taxing the people.

 

[pknopp]

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.

The jobs I refer to are the ones that were promised by the Free Traders.

They were supposed to be, two parts,


A. new higher paying jobs, in new fields developed by the dynamic and growing economy,

and


B, once American companies learned to be more productive, the lost jobs were supposed to come BACK.



That did not happen, as we have repeatedly covered. Your dishonest pretense we have not, is very revealing.

"Free traders" overall do not even believe in free trade.

 

[Correll]

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.

He can't, or won't give up the focus on macro economic numbers,


even though history has shown that good macro economic numbers can hide large and serious problems.



Golfgator and him, don't want to do that. THey don't want to include the interests of the American worker, in the cost benefit analysis of trade policy.

 

[Correll]

Well, if you on your side of the aisle, ever manage to nominate a candidate against the wishes of your corporate approved leadership, and he/she addresses these issues, AS YOU SEE FIT, ie (focusing on corporations and employers)


know that I will listen and I will be interested.

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.

I always wonder what is your philosophy and principles in life........ That is If you have any.
Adapt or die is the most basic survival in life.....

If I did not adapt I could be out of business by now.

If my engineers did not upgrade and adapt they could be sitting next or replaced by an indian engineers by now.

Blackberry cellphone did not adapt to new technology. I think they are out of business.

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

 

[Correll]

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.

That is where we disagree.


And I do not "blame" China. THeir government's job is to serve the interests of their people, as individuals and as a group.


And they have been doing so, with an aggressive trade policy.



YOur point about the business's being at fault is, to a great extent, true.


But businesses, do not set the rules, of the market place. Government trade policy does.


You got some business, run by a wonder person who is a proud American, and insists on paying his American workers, a reasonable American wage,


and you let his asshole competitors, move their production to Chinese manufacturers, who pay their people one tenth of the American wages,


And you are creating an environment that encourages asshole behavior.

Then make trade policy address all countries. We are not doing that. I also disagree with taxing the people.

1. What do you mean, "address all countries"?

2. If we dont' tax the people, it becomes too easy for them to demand ever higher spending. That is already killing US.

 

[pknopp]

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.

That is where we disagree.


And I do not "blame" China. THeir government's job is to serve the interests of their people, as individuals and as a group.


And they have been doing so, with an aggressive trade policy.



YOur point about the business's being at fault is, to a great extent, true.


But businesses, do not set the rules, of the market place. Government trade policy does.


You got some business, run by a wonder person who is a proud American, and insists on paying his American workers, a reasonable American wage,


and you let his asshole competitors, move their production to Chinese manufacturers, who pay their people one tenth of the American wages,


And you are creating an environment that encourages asshole behavior.

Then make trade policy address all countries. We are not doing that. I also disagree with taxing the people.

1. What do you mean, "address all countries"?

We are only addressing China. The problems we are discussing are not only caused by American businesses in China. Moving production to Thailand fixes nothing.

2. If we dont' tax the people, it becomes too easy for them to demand ever higher spending. That is already killing US.

I am speaking about this issue. I am calling for taxes. Higher capital gains taxes on overseas profits, not tariffs.

 

[Correll]

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.

That is where we disagree.


And I do not "blame" China. THeir government's job is to serve the interests of their people, as individuals and as a group.


And they have been doing so, with an aggressive trade policy.



YOur point about the business's being at fault is, to a great extent, true.


But businesses, do not set the rules, of the market place. Government trade policy does.


You got some business, run by a wonder person who is a proud American, and insists on paying his American workers, a reasonable American wage,


and you let his asshole competitors, move their production to Chinese manufacturers, who pay their people one tenth of the American wages,


And you are creating an environment that encourages asshole behavior.

Then make trade policy address all countries. We are not doing that. I also disagree with taxing the people.

1. What do you mean, "address all countries"?

We are only addressing China. The problems we are discussing are not only caused by American businesses in China. Moving production to Thailand fixes nothing.

2. If we dont' tax the people, it becomes too easy for them to demand ever higher spending. That is already killing US.

I am speaking about this issue. I am calling for taxes. Higher capital gains taxes on overseas profits, not tariffs.

1. Trump has addressed trade with other countries. THe media is not spending time on them. And let's not pretend that our problem is only with Third WOrld nations. The EU and Japan and South Korea, all have sizable trade surpluses with US too.


2. OK. I am not gainsaying your point on taxes on overseas profits. That could be helpful. But just saying, if taxes are too low on people, that encourages those people to look at government services as "Free".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

No policy can serve every single individual. Someone always gets left behind, that is the nature of life.

you live in a fantasy world in which every single person can be saved by government actions, and that is just not going to happen.

it is difficult to have a discussion with someone so divorced from reality.

 

[pknopp]

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.

That is where we disagree.


And I do not "blame" China. THeir government's job is to serve the interests of their people, as individuals and as a group.


And they have been doing so, with an aggressive trade policy.



YOur point about the business's being at fault is, to a great extent, true.


But businesses, do not set the rules, of the market place. Government trade policy does.


You got some business, run by a wonder person who is a proud American, and insists on paying his American workers, a reasonable American wage,


and you let his asshole competitors, move their production to Chinese manufacturers, who pay their people one tenth of the American wages,


And you are creating an environment that encourages asshole behavior.

Then make trade policy address all countries. We are not doing that. I also disagree with taxing the people.

1. What do you mean, "address all countries"?

We are only addressing China. The problems we are discussing are not only caused by American businesses in China. Moving production to Thailand fixes nothing.

2. If we dont' tax the people, it becomes too easy for them to demand ever higher spending. That is already killing US.

I am speaking about this issue. I am calling for taxes. Higher capital gains taxes on overseas profits, not tariffs.

1. Trump has addressed trade with other countries. THe media is not spending time on them. And let's not pretend that our problem is only with Third WOrld nations. The EU and Japan and South Korea, all have sizable trade surpluses with US too.

Yeah? What has he done?

2. OK. I am not gainsaying your point on taxes on overseas profits. That could be helpful. But just saying, if taxes are too low on people, that encourages those people to look at government services as "Free".

Not the topic.

 

[pknopp]

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

No policy can serve every single individual. Someone always gets left behind, that is the nature of life.

It's one thing to leave "someone" behind. Quite another to leave tens of thousands or millions behind.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

No policy can serve every single individual. Someone always gets left behind, that is the nature of life.

It's one thing to leave "someone" behind. Quite another to leave tens of thousands or millions behind.

Once again, we have millions of open jobs with nobody to fill them. Most of the open jobs are in industries that pay just as well if not better than manufacturing and are far less likely to be automated or shipped overseas.

Eventually people have to take responsibility for their own circumstances and quit waiting for the government to swoop in and save them.

 

[pknopp]

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

No policy can serve every single individual. Someone always gets left behind, that is the nature of life.

It's one thing to leave "someone" behind. Quite another to leave tens of thousands or millions behind.

Once again, we have millions of open jobs with nobody to fill them. Most of the open jobs are in industries that pay just as well if not better than manufacturing and are far less likely to be automated or shipped overseas.

Simply saying something is happening does not mean it's happening.

Eventually people have to take responsibility for their own circumstances and quit waiting for the government to swoop in and save them.

Generalities are meaningless also. A few can create good paying jobs for themselves. Tens of thousands can not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Generalities are meaningless also. A few can create good paying jobs for themselves. Tens of thousands can not.

Once again, there are a million jobs open, most of them are good paying jobs. They do not need to be created, they are already there. They are there, just waiting for someone to take advantage of them.

 

[pknopp]

Generalities are meaningless also. A few can create good paying jobs for themselves. Tens of thousands can not.

Once again, there are a million jobs open, most of them are good paying jobs. They do not need to be created, they are already there. They are there, just waiting for someone to take advantage of them.

Meaningless and not true.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Generalities are meaningless also. A few can create good paying jobs for themselves. Tens of thousands can not.

Once again, there are a million jobs open, most of them are good paying jobs. They do not need to be created, they are already there. They are there, just waiting for someone to take advantage of them.

Meaningless and not true.

It is true. They are there, many companies cannot find enough workers to fill their spots.

So, what do you think should happen?

Should the Fed govt make it so expensive to import anything at all that all those "lost" jobs come back?

Should the Fed govt penalize companies for using automation so that all that all those "lost" jobs come back?

Should the Fed govt make unions mandatory so that at all that all those "lost" jobs come back?

 

[pknopp]

Generalities are meaningless also. A few can create good paying jobs for themselves. Tens of thousands can not.

Once again, there are a million jobs open, most of them are good paying jobs. They do not need to be created, they are already there. They are there, just waiting for someone to take advantage of them.

Meaningless and not true.

It is true. They are there, many companies cannot find enough workers to fill their spots.

So, what do you think should happen?

Should the Fed govt make it so expensive to import anything at all that all those "lost" jobs come back?

Should the Fed govt penalize companies for using automation so that all that all those "lost" jobs come back?

Should the Fed govt make unions mandatory so that at all that all those "lost" jobs come back?

I noted what should happen. Companies move what were once good paying jobs overseas. Those who had those jobs have to then rely on public assistance programs. To pay for those we should raise capital gains taxes on overseas profits.