Sinn Fein

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sinn Fein last won the day on July 10

Sinn Fein had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19,177 Excellent

About Sinn Fein

  • Rank
  • Birthday July 24

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    A Future to Believe In

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team

Recent Profile Visitors

13,603 profile views
  1. Any updates?
  2. And, I am more concerned that he treats others like they are a sub-contractor who will be stiffed at some point.
  3. Autos is a very interesting case study - I am not sure how much we actually import right now v. foreign manufacturers who build plants here. Another aspect to watch is how the EU plays this - they were very quietly willing to accept reduced tariffs on American cars, if the US would reduce tariffs on the US import truck market. US consumer demand for cars is way down (Ford is eliminating all but two cars from its entire line-up) - while demand for trucks* is way up. Trucks are much more profitable for manufacturers - thus the EU wanting to gain better access. *really this is just a huge spike in crossover vehicles, which get classed as trucks and not cars.
  4. China does not really steal - anymore. They legally require companies who want to do business to turn over certain IT. But every company has the option to say no, and manufacture somewhere else. Businesses who go forward have decided it is financially worthwhile to lose the IT protection in exchange for lower manufacturing costs.
  5. I don't think that necessarily follows - depending on price elasticity. The reduced demand for foreign product is predicated on price increases - we don't know if the demand will increase for American products - which are still at a higher price point. It could be that the overall demand for a given product drops - thus no increase in American products.
  6. Right - so now imagine that Amazon can replace 500,000 workers with 50,000 workers and automated warehouses...
  7. So maybe I was not clear - you said that capitalism follows the cheapest labor - and my response was that assumes the current goods and services are all that exist (or can exist) - i.e. if nothing changes, then yes, capitalism will drive money overseas for manufacturing. My point is - capitalism should also push for the innovation of new goods and services that can be produced in the US, and provided world-wide - thus reducing the trade-deficit from the supply side. Right now, Trump is attacking the trade deficits on the demand side - reducing demand for foreign products by increasing the price. I think a good capitalist should be thinking more about the supply side.
  8. I posted an article in here a while back - where a warehouse in China, processes 200,000 orders a day, and has 4 employees - all of whom support robotics/automation.
  9. eh? I am not following this train of thought. I did not say anything about "support" or "primary" - and I am not even sure where you are going with that.
  10. Ok - at least this is something to work with. A couple of thoughts off the top of my head - you say: "The meeting was a complete flop." How do we know this? That strikes me as a one-sided version of what happened. Second, lets take this at face value - Russia wanted to talk to Trump about the Magnitsky Act. Why would Russia want to talk to Trump about that in June 2016? Lets even assume that Russia presumed Trump would be the GOP nominee (though I am not sure that was entirely clear at that point - I thought there was still talk of a contested convention, but I could be mis-remembering). Even if you assume that - Trump, at that time, was widely considered to be a huge underdog to Clinton. So, why would Russia want to sit down and talk about sanctions with Trump? Certainly, one possibility that comes to mind is that Russia wanted to know where Trump stood* - and more importantly, would it be in Russia's interest if Trump became president? If it was in Russia's interest, how far would they go to push that agenda? Another possibility is that Russia wanted to remind Trump what they expected from him, should he be elected. And, why reach out to Trump to discuss sanctions, and not the Clinton team? If this was simply about covering all bases, you would have expected Russian emissaries to reach out to Team Clinton to discuss adoptions - no? Russia must have wanted to accomplish something by meeting with Trump in June 2016 - it strikes me as odd, that any country would reach out that early to a candidate - just in case they won. So, why do you think Russia reached out? *I think this does beg the question that if this is true - what were all the other Russian contacts about - specifically the Mayflower meeting, and any other suggestion that Trump has been under Oligarch control for years.
  11. But, this assumes that the current goods and services are all there are. Capitalism, in theory, should reward people/businesses who are creating high-demand goods and services. So, we can't compete manufacturing widgets - a good capitalist says: "What can we produce efficiently, that the world demands?" Because, if we can't figure that out - we are in a lot of long-term trouble. Eventually, the trade deficit will reverse - but we better hope its because we are exporting more products/services, and not that other countries are importing less into the US.
  12. How are we defining "spy" here? By even the strictest of definitions, she represented Russian state interests. And, Magnitsky is not a case - he has been dead since 2009. So, following your logic to the most likely conclusion - the attorney represented Russia - as she and others apparently represented to Trump - and she was here to talk about what it might take for Trump to lift the sanctions imposed as a result of Magnitsky's imprisonment and death. That - is very much what Putin wanted, and has been after for some time.
  13. I disagree - he might have been a crybaby - but his public persona was very much school yard bully. I think a lot of people legitimately liked that persona, and wanted that persona in the White House.
  14. Well, there's that. But, is that really truth? That's not Trump's truth, so I am not sure we can really trust it.