Trump's trade war with China

[Zorro!]

"If anyone had doubts that trade was the thing hanging over the market, today seals it," said Bill Stone, chief investment officer with Avalon Investment & Advisory.

Tariffs on popular consumer goods like clothing, shoes, computers, and cell phones cause higher prices. Even Trump admitted that yesterday. Higher prices cause inflation. Inflation causes less demand. Less demand causes unemployment. Tariffs cause recession, Econ 101.

When Americans suffer investment losses it causes permanent loss of principle, fourth grade math. Millions of Americans permanently lost more of their principle in investment accounts today.

As things stand now, the Dow has lost over 575 points, the Nasdaq over 200 points, and the S&P over 65 points. The reason: Stocks plunged on Wednesday, giving back Tuesday’s solid gains, after the U.S. bond market flashed a troubling signal about the U.S. economy, a recession warning.

There have been five such warnings of the 2-year and 10-year yields since 1978 and all were precursors to a recession.

Dow tanks 800 points in worst day of 2019 after bond market sends recession warning

Today, the Dow is at 25,690. On March 15, the Dow was 25,440. Because of Trump's trade war with China, the market has been treading water for five months. Stock Market News For Feb 15, 2019

I have been a student of current political history for over a half century, and I am a retired columnist. Never in my 50 years have I seen a U.S. President repeatedly harm our economy and cause investment losses. The current President is doing that very thing. The past three weeks prove it.

We are reminded that Trump was Putin's personal choice to become our President.

The Market's up almost 2,000 points since you posted this. I'm beginning to think you may have some real predictive power as a reverse indicator.

It's embarrassing just how completely the Left and the Government Class are sold and owned by China, cashing in personally on the Chinese plundering of The American Worker. How do you folks sleep at night?

ROBBING US BLIND: Building China’s Comac C919 airplane involved a lot of hacking, report says. Highly plausible, but the source is Crowdstrike, a company that seems mostly to exist to cover things up for Democrats.

 

[basquebromance]

even a blind squirrel sometimes finds the acorn.

Trump has gotten China right, but not much else

 

[Correll]

Except you were pretending to be unaware of any negative numbers, hence my posting of information to back up wage stagnation.


And then you, did not concede wage stagnation, but immediately moved on to your next line of attack.


Do you mind if I call you Wally from now on?

And again you are extremely confused. I’ve been giving you the real causes of wage stagnation. Stop lying already.

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

When you have brought up those facts, I addressed them each time. You are lying now, WIlly.

 

[Correll]

You keep pretending to not even know of wages stagnation, unless I drag you kicking and screaming to admit it, and even then you don't actually concede it, you just move on to your next line of attack.


Wally.

We all know it exists idiot. I’ve given you reasons for it. We don’t need to know there are issues, you need to tie it to trade. Now share some links.

Except that a couple of posts ago, you were pretending that good macro economic numbers were the whole of the story.


So, why were you lying?

You seem to be a dumbass. That is the story. You make shit up and can't back anything up. Sad.

No, I don't. You pretend to be a "Brain" and to be ready for serious debate, but then play silly and dishonest games.


Willy.

You are the dishonest one. After I give you reasons for stagnant wages you claim I said they don’t exist. You are lying in almost every post.

Correct. Each time the issue comes up, you go back to the beginning of your talking points, pretending that you have not been informed of the point of the counter argument, many times before.


Willy.

 

[Correll]

I have plenty. YOu are just a stonewallying troll.

You keep repeating yourself with no links or any info to back your claims.

I've done plenty of links, Willy.


And you remember them. You are just pretending that you don't, because you are a soulless troll.

And you continue to dodge. Sad.

You are using repeated demands for links, that you have seen before and are already familiar with, as a dodge.


As I addressed, with the above post.


Willy.

And again you have nothing.

What I don't have, is the need to play dishonest games, to make my point, Willy.

 

[Correll]

If manufacturing jobs are lost here, because they are either outsourced, or lost to foreign competition,


that reduces demand for labor here, and thus wages.


That is the law of supply and demand at work. We see that massive job loses to outsourcing and foreign competition, during the time frame we have seen long term wage stagnation.


We know that. You and other libs have, could demand links to demonstrate it, but that is just playing silly games. We both know that it true, so what are you confused about?

We have really low unemployment. Your theory is easily debunked.

And again, just as per my comic strip, Willy.


Wage stagnation, which you have again admitted to, once called on it, again,


is wage stagnation, DESPITE low unemployment.


This was all covered before. You know it. YOu are just being Willy, the circular debating troll.

And you don't even realize that you are willy? I keep giving you facts and you just keep dodging. And then it all comes back to it's China's fault, but you can't back it up with anything. Sad troll.

For me to be the "Willy" here, I would be demanding you supply links showing the good macro economic numbers, even though I already know all about them, and are familiar with them,


and then, when you post them, I would NOT concede the point, but just move on to my next attack,


and then is a page or two, demand the links again, '

all the while peppering the supposed debate with personal attacks and irrelevant assertions.


WIlly.

If you had any links you would post them rather than keep saying you have them, but refusing to post,

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

 

[Brain357]

You keep repeating yourself with no links or any info to back your claims.

I've done plenty of links, Willy.


And you remember them. You are just pretending that you don't, because you are a soulless troll.

And you continue to dodge. Sad.

You are using repeated demands for links, that you have seen before and are already familiar with, as a dodge.


As I addressed, with the above post.


Willy.

And again you have nothing.

What I don't have, is the need to play dishonest games, to make my point, Willy.

Yes Willy, you will repeat yourself over and over and never back anything up.

Meanwhile your steel tariffs led to layoffs. Good job,

 

[Brain357]

We have really low unemployment. Your theory is easily debunked.

And again, just as per my comic strip, Willy.


Wage stagnation, which you have again admitted to, once called on it, again,


is wage stagnation, DESPITE low unemployment.


This was all covered before. You know it. YOu are just being Willy, the circular debating troll.

And you don't even realize that you are willy? I keep giving you facts and you just keep dodging. And then it all comes back to it's China's fault, but you can't back it up with anything. Sad troll.

For me to be the "Willy" here, I would be demanding you supply links showing the good macro economic numbers, even though I already know all about them, and are familiar with them,


and then, when you post them, I would NOT concede the point, but just move on to my next attack,


and then is a page or two, demand the links again, '

all the while peppering the supposed debate with personal attacks and irrelevant assertions.


WIlly.

If you had any links you would post them rather than keep saying you have them, but refusing to post,

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

 

[Correll]

And again, just as per my comic strip, Willy.


Wage stagnation, which you have again admitted to, once called on it, again,


is wage stagnation, DESPITE low unemployment.


This was all covered before. You know it. YOu are just being Willy, the circular debating troll.

And you don't even realize that you are willy? I keep giving you facts and you just keep dodging. And then it all comes back to it's China's fault, but you can't back it up with anything. Sad troll.

For me to be the "Willy" here, I would be demanding you supply links showing the good macro economic numbers, even though I already know all about them, and are familiar with them,


and then, when you post them, I would NOT concede the point, but just move on to my next attack,


and then is a page or two, demand the links again, '

all the while peppering the supposed debate with personal attacks and irrelevant assertions.


WIlly.

If you had any links you would post them rather than keep saying you have them, but refusing to post,

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

 

[Brain357]

And you don't even realize that you are willy? I keep giving you facts and you just keep dodging. And then it all comes back to it's China's fault, but you can't back it up with anything. Sad troll.

For me to be the "Willy" here, I would be demanding you supply links showing the good macro economic numbers, even though I already know all about them, and are familiar with them,


and then, when you post them, I would NOT concede the point, but just move on to my next attack,


and then is a page or two, demand the links again, '

all the while peppering the supposed debate with personal attacks and irrelevant assertions.


WIlly.

If you had any links you would post them rather than keep saying you have them, but refusing to post,

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

 

[Correll]

For me to be the "Willy" here, I would be demanding you supply links showing the good macro economic numbers, even though I already know all about them, and are familiar with them,


and then, when you post them, I would NOT concede the point, but just move on to my next attack,


and then is a page or two, demand the links again, '

all the while peppering the supposed debate with personal attacks and irrelevant assertions.


WIlly.

If you had any links you would post them rather than keep saying you have them, but refusing to post,

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

 

[Brain357]

If you had any links you would post them rather than keep saying you have them, but refusing to post,

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

 

[Zorro!]

And again you are extremely confused. I’ve been giving you the real causes of wage stagnation. Stop lying already.

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

When you have brought up those facts, I addressed them each time. You are lying now, WIlly.

And again you are extremely confused. I’ve been giving you the real causes of wage stagnation. Stop lying already.

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

When you have brought up those facts, I addressed them each time. You are lying now, WIlly.

And again you are extremely confused. I’ve been giving you the real causes of wage stagnation. Stop lying already.

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

Actually:

 

[Brain357]

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

When you have brought up those facts, I addressed them each time. You are lying now, WIlly.

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

When you have brought up those facts, I addressed them each time. You are lying now, WIlly.

You gave me your counter views on the causes. And then, when the subject came up again, you pretended that the good macro economic numbers were the entirety of the story, and I have to drag you to admitting that there was hidden costs under those good macro economic numbers.


Not that you did admit it. YOu just moved immediately on to your next line of attack.

And next time this issue comes up, you will play the same game again, acting like good macro economic numbers mean the Free TRade policy has worked, until called on it, and then you will move on to the next part of your circular debating technique.


You are worse than Wally. He at least had the humanity to pretend to concede a point, while planning to come back to it again.


You just moved on to the next line of attack, without even that little hint of pretense of human civility.


Calling you Wally is unfair to Wally. I will call you Willy.

You are the one continually lying. I give you a bunch of reasons why we have wage stagnation and then you claim that means I said we don't have stagnation. Get off the crack.

No, I pointed to how you cited the good macro economic numbers as though that were the whole of the story, and then clearly denied that there were problems,


as "meaning" that you denied having hidden problems.



It is unreasonable of you to expect me to have a reasonable debate with you, while you are peppering your dialog, with utterly dishonest tactics like that.


Willy.

And you keep ignoring the facts and repeating yourself. Way to go Willy.

Still waiting for links supporting your claims. Steel still laying off people by the way. Typical result of tariffs.

Actually:

U.S. Steel plans to lay off hundreds of workers in Michigan

 

[Correll]

Once again you demonstrate you basic dishonesty.


YOu made a point, ie that I am the "Willy" here.


I addressed that seriously and honestly, pointing out what my behavior would be like if there were true, ie mirroring your actual behavior.


Instead of addressing my true point, you instead, ignore it, and return to an earlier point, not even giving me the "ok but" that Wally did, in the strip on the concept of circular argument.


That is why you are WORSE than a Wally, and instead are a Willy.

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,


he thinks the worsts is past US now?


Well, color me reassured.


NOT!



And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.


This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.


THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.

AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.

You going to defer to his authority now?


Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,


Willy.

 

[Brain357]

And you keep lying. I gave you all the reasons wages are stagnant and then you climbed I denied wages were stagnant. You don’t come close to making sense.

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,


he thinks the worsts is past US now?


Well, color me reassured.


NOT!



And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.


This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.


THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.

AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.

You going to defer to his authority now?


Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,


Willy.

He is not someone I ever reference, you lie again.

Again, he doesn't agree with you. He is not for tariffs. You lose again.

 

[Correll]

I cannot get you to be honest, in discussing your own behavior, which is documented right here in this thread, just above.


Discussing something actually complex, is obviously impossible.

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,


he thinks the worsts is past US now?


Well, color me reassured.


NOT!



And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.


This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.


THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.

AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.

You going to defer to his authority now?


Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,


Willy.

He is not someone I ever reference, you lie again.

Again, he doesn't agree with you. He is not for tariffs. You lose again.

1. I asked if he was one of those you referenced. And you call me a liar for asking a question. Once again, you are playing dishonest games.


2. My point was that he agrees on the problem and the connection to globalization. ONce again, you dodge my point, and just move on to your next attack. Willy.


3. This guy admits that he took 30 years to notice that the results were not what he expected. Why the fuck should we listen to him now?

 

[Brain357]

Yes you just babble and repeat yourself. I’ve given you facts and studies. I’ve posted movies with great economists telling you that you are wrong. Your steel tariffs are a huge failure. And you still just babble stupidly.

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,


he thinks the worsts is past US now?


Well, color me reassured.


NOT!



And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.


This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.


THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.

AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.

You going to defer to his authority now?


Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,


Willy.

He is not someone I ever reference, you lie again.

Again, he doesn't agree with you. He is not for tariffs. You lose again.

1. I asked if he was one of those you referenced. And you call me a liar for asking a question. Once again, you are playing dishonest games.


2. My point was that he agrees on the problem and the connection to globalization. ONce again, you dodge my point, and just move on to your next attack. Willy.


3. This guy admits that he took 30 years to notice that the results were not what he expected. Why the fuck should we listen to him now?

You brought him up, not me. Righties love growing inequality, this is your dream. He is stating it has been more disruptive than they expected. He would also tell you tariffs are disruptive, look at the steel layoffs.

 

[Correll]

Great economists like Paul Krugman. Was he one of the ones you cited specifically? Oh, it is telling that you are ignoring that information in your post, when I saw you posting in that other thread.

Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,


he thinks the worsts is past US now?


Well, color me reassured.


NOT!



And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.


This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.


THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.

AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.

You going to defer to his authority now?


Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,


Willy.

He is not someone I ever reference, you lie again.

Again, he doesn't agree with you. He is not for tariffs. You lose again.

1. I asked if he was one of those you referenced. And you call me a liar for asking a question. Once again, you are playing dishonest games.


2. My point was that he agrees on the problem and the connection to globalization. ONce again, you dodge my point, and just move on to your next attack. Willy.


3. This guy admits that he took 30 years to notice that the results were not what he expected. Why the fuck should we listen to him now?

You brought him up, not me. Righties love growing inequality, this is your dream. He is stating it has been more disruptive than they expected. He would also tell you tariffs are disruptive, look at the steel layoffs.

1. And you called me a liar for asking if he was one of the ones you referenced. Willy.

2. "more disrupted than expected"? Yeah, this is after decades and millions of lost jobs, and he is admitting that his advice was wrong, and resulted in untold pain and suffering. See past the spin.

3. Yes, he would. But why the fuck would we listen to this loser, who just admitted that his life work was a fuck up?

 

[Brain357]

The article is an interesting read, but he disagrees with you:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,


he thinks the worsts is past US now?


Well, color me reassured.


NOT!



And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.


This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.


THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.

AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.

You going to defer to his authority now?


Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,


Willy.

He is not someone I ever reference, you lie again.

Again, he doesn't agree with you. He is not for tariffs. You lose again.

1. I asked if he was one of those you referenced. And you call me a liar for asking a question. Once again, you are playing dishonest games.


2. My point was that he agrees on the problem and the connection to globalization. ONce again, you dodge my point, and just move on to your next attack. Willy.


3. This guy admits that he took 30 years to notice that the results were not what he expected. Why the fuck should we listen to him now?

You brought him up, not me. Righties love growing inequality, this is your dream. He is stating it has been more disruptive than they expected. He would also tell you tariffs are disruptive, look at the steel layoffs.

1. And you called me a liar for asking if he was one of the ones you referenced. Willy.

2. "more disrupted than expected"? Yeah, this is after decades and millions of lost jobs, and he is admitting that his advice was wrong, and resulted in untold pain and suffering. See past the spin.

3. Yes, he would. But why the fuck would we listen to this loser, who just admitted that his life work was a fuck up?

Well you brought him up when you thought he agreed with you. Why did YOU bring him up?