Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Joe Bryant

Economics - Tariffs Question - Trump - Why?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Tim I think you are on it with this. While the dramatics in here are over the last 24 hours this is a long game but may be too late as they’ve been able to run unchecked for a long time. 

If you think I’m “on it” then you agree with me how disastrous it was to walk away from TPP and Paris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And- if you think I’m “on it” then you realize I didn’t write that stuff about California merely for selfish reasons. It’s the key to the USA’s future. Rather than try to protect industries in the middle states we should favor industries on the west coast, because that’s where the pacific Rim trade is going to be. Trump is looking backwards. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If you think I’m “on it” then you agree with me how disastrous it was to walk away from TPP and Paris. 

I guess I was putting a nice spin on we partially agree....I tried. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If you think I’m “on it” then you agree with me how disastrous it was to walk away from TPP and Paris. 

I agree on Paris, but TPP? No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

I agree on Paris, but TPP? No thanks.

I’m aware of your objections. But the key was not to walk away, to keep negotiating. Once trade started we could have renegotiated over and over to get better terms for our workers. Now we have nothing. 

Paris was even worse. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that international trade  in the future is going to be largely dependent on the decisions reached in the climate change meetings. Now those meetings are being held without our input. Brilliant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

No answer?

That horse had been beaten to death.....the trend was down the 2 years before Obama left and current numbers are significantly better. Just because you and a handful of guys try to spread different numbers online doesn’t change that from reality. But thanks for stalker quoting me on it for the 100th time. :lmao:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

That horse had been beaten to death.....the trend was down the 2 years before Obama left and current numbers are significantly better. Just because you and a handful of guys try to spread different numbers online doesn’t change that from reality. But thanks for stalker quoting me on it for the 100th time. :lmao:

What was Trump's target GDP?  3%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Daulton said:

What was Trump's target GDP?  3%?

What’s your target for amount of time to spend complaining about it? Move on, the horse is dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Move on, the horse is dead. 

"Move on" = euphemism for "yes it's another Trump failure but I don't want to talk about it"

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

What’s your target for amount of time to spend complaining about it? Move on, the horse is dead. 

I don't understand.  Trump literally said that less than 3% gdp growth was embarrassing.  He he hasn't hit 3% yet so what's your reponse?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

"Move on" = euphemism for "yes it's another Trump failure but I don't want to talk about it"

Move on = There are the same 10 people that spend all day online echoing the same false info....nothing accomplished by trying to volley w the same obsessed posters (but interesting to see you try to respond to real numbers at times).  

 

Your dedication is impressive though......get your wives something nice boys. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Move on = There are the same 10 people that spend all day online echoing the same false info....nothing accomplished by trying to volley w the same obsessed posters (but interesting to see you try to respond to real numbers at times).  

 

Your dedication is impressive though......get your wives something nice boys. :lmao:

What false info?  You called facts opinions earlier now you are claiming people (10 at that) are posting false information  and you’ve some nothing to disprove any of it.

And then more personal comments to distract from it...try refuting these posts you claim are so false instead of worry about people’s family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

What false info?  You called facts opinions earlier now you are claiming people (10 at that) are posting false information  and you’ve some nothing to disprove any of it.

And then more personal comments to distract from it...try refuting these posts you claim are so false instead of worry about people’s family.

You don’t seem like a happy guy.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m aware of your objections. But the key was not to walk away, to keep negotiating. Once trade started we could have renegotiated over and over to get better terms for our workers. Now we have nothing. 

Paris was even worse. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that international trade  in the future is going to be largely dependent on the decisions reached in the climate change meetings. Now those meetings are being held without our input. Brilliant. 

We wouldn't have renegotiated TPP. It would have been too late. Already sold out. Corporations were never ever going to give those powers back. One of the few things Trump has done I agree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NCCommish said:

We wouldn't have renegotiated TPP. It would have been too late. Already sold out. Corporations were never ever going to give those powers back. One of the few things Trump has done I agree with. 

Agreed. Even if it was for his elementary bar of"Obama bad"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 10:44 AM, Joe Bryant said:

Please let's do our best to keep the responses non trolling here. Let's focus on understanding and less on snark. And yes, I know it's Political Forum on a Friday... :unsure: 

But work with me.

Is it fair to say:

  • Trump is a guy who puts "winning" on a pedestal?
  • For better or for worse, Trump will do almost anything to "win" and gain approval from his supporters?
  • "Winning" for Trump is seen as a Strong Economy.
  • Trump is a "scoreboard" kind of guy.
  • The Stock Market is seen as one of Trump's scoreboards for the economy.

So bottom line, Trump is highly incentivized for the stock market to do well. Is that fair to say?

I'm no economist, but it seems like most people agree Tariffs are bad for the stock market. This isn't a republican or democratic point. This is a practical point. "Stocks dip on fear of tariffs" seems common.

With that said, why is Trump so strongly in favor of tariffs?

Just my opinion but looks like Trump does not want to see China overtake the US to become #1.  Both sides want to get the upper hand by saying that they can outlast their opponent to get more concessions.  If you disagree with his tactics then the follow up questions are: what other leverage does the US have, and do you think the US should fight to remain top dog.

Edited by bradyfan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bradyfan said:

Just my opinion but looks like Trump does not want to see China overtake the US to become #1.  Both sides want to get the upper hand by saying that they can outlast their opponent to get more concessions.  If you disagree with his tactics then the follow up questions are: what other leverage does the US have, and do you think the US should fight to remain top dog.

The US could have committed to being the leader in the next big thing, renewable energy and all that entails. Whoever wins that race is the leader for some time to come. Winning there could've assured another American century.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NCCommish said:

The US could have committed to being the leader in the next big thing, renewable energy and all that entails. Whoever wins that race is the leader for some time to come. Winning there could've assured another American century.

Like what happened with the Internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, NCCommish said:

This is ridiculous. Of course their annual GDP growth is going to slow as their economy matures.

Also cherrypicking

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bradyfan said:

Just my opinion but looks like Trump does not want to see China overtake the US to become #1.  Both sides want to get the upper hand by saying that they can outlast their opponent to get more concessions.  If you disagree with his tactics then the follow up questions are: what other leverage does the US have, and do you think the US should fight to remain top dog.

I'd rather Trump invest in long-term growth strategies for the US, than play chicken with the economy.

 

If China moves ahead of the US - then that is strong motivation to work harder, not try to tear down two global economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I'd rather Trump invest in long-term growth strategies for the US, than play chicken with the economy.

Trump negotiating fair trade with our largest competitor is exactly the type of activity that the President should be doing to protect our long term growth.

 

The left are opposed to it either because A) they don't understand it or B) because Trump is doing it, so it must be wrong or it is politically disadvantageous to support him

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I'd rather Trump invest in long-term growth strategies for the US, than play chicken with the economy.

 

If China moves ahead of the US - then that is strong motivation to work harder, not try to tear down two global economies.

Trump and some of the other industrial nations see “Made in China 2025” as a threat.  Link

China came up with that plan in 2015.  What is the US policy response ?

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Trump negotiating fair trade with our largest competitor is exactly the type of activity that the President should be doing to protect our long term growth.

 

The left are opposed to it either because A) they don't understand it or B) because Trump is doing it, so it must be wrong or it is politically disadvantageous to support him

Trump is not the person we want negotiating this deal.  As evidenced by the way the first two years have gone.

 

I don't have a problem if Trump wants to play hard-ball.  But Trump has no plan here - so he bounces from one strategy to another until he ultimately declares that he won - when everyone who understands the situation, knows that he lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

I don't have a problem if Trump wants to play hard-ball.  But Trump has no plan here - so he bounces from one strategy to another until he ultimately declares that he won - when everyone who understands the situation, knows that he lost.

Let's see how this plays out...at this point you could be wrong or right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bradyfan said:

Trump and some of the other industrial nations see “Made in China 2025” as a threat.  Link

China came up with that plan in 2015.  What is the US policy response ?

How about Made in America 2030?

 

The answer to China is not in China.  The answer must be found in the US.  This is why emerging technologies in energy should have been at the forefront of any Trump economic plan - nothing to do with clean air, and everything to do with rejuvenating the economy with a long-term fix. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TripItUp said:

Let's see how this plays out...at this point you could be wrong or right.

I have seen enough from Trump to know - he has no plan.  He goes by intuition - and lets just say, his business intuition is not very reassuring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I have seen enough from Trump to know - he has no plan.  He goes by intuition - and lets just say, his business intuition is not very reassuring.

Would this issue even be addressed with Obama in office?

We already know the answer because he ignored it for two terms.  At least Trump is playing ball.  That's a win for the Republicans according to everything I've read and heard from non-liberal outlets.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Would this issue even be addressed with Obama in office?

We already know the answer because he ignored it for two terms.  At least Trump is playing ball.  That's a win for the Republicans according to everything I've read and heard from non-liberal outlets.

Every President should have a plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I have seen enough from Trump to know - he has no plan.  He goes by intuition - and lets just say, his business intuition is not very reassuring.

Some CEOs are more tactical, some more strategic, and you are lucky if they are both.

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I have seen enough from Trump to know - he has no plan.  He goes by intuition - and lets just say, his business intuition is not very reassuring.

At least he is trying.  Obama just put his head in the sand for eight years, and let China steal all of our technology and move way to many of our jobs to China.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Would this issue even be addressed with Obama in office?

We already know the answer because he ignored it for two terms.  At least Trump is playing ball.  That's a win for the Republicans according to everything I've read and heard from non-liberal outlets.

Winning concessions in a trade war is a short term solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Trump negotiating fair trade with our largest competitor is exactly the type of activity that the President should be doing to protect our long term growth.

 

The left are opposed to it either because A) they don't understand it or B) because Trump is doing it, so it must be wrong or it is politically disadvantageous to support him

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gopher State said:

At least he is trying.  Obama just put his head in the sand for eight years, and let China steal all of our technology and move way to many of our jobs to China.

The tax laws that made moving manufacturing offshore attractive were not enacted under Obama. By the way the GOP made no effort to change them when they held both the House and Senate. Or when they held everything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

The tax laws that made moving manufacturing offshore attractive were not enacted under Obama. By the way the GOP made no effort to change them when they held both the House and Senate. Or when they held everything.

I will give Obama some credit.  He did give everyone a hint that they should acquire new skills and learn how to be robots.  In fact, my company is already replacing workers with AI.

Edited by bradyfan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know much about the trade deals.   Seems like it would behoove China to make a little better deal and keep heavy trading going and growing.  Without a doubt they have bent the USA over the last 40 year.  Would using a little lube going forward be asking to much?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Let's see how this plays out...at this point you could be wrong or right.

What's your definition of a win for Trump? Elimination of technology transfers? Something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Da Guru said:

I do not know much about the trade deals.   Seems like it would behoove China to make a little better deal and keep heavy trading going and growing.  Without a doubt they have bent the USA over the last 40 year.  Would using a little lube going forward be asking to much?

If we look at the political climate in the two countries, can either or both give up something and come out a winner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

I do not know much about the trade deals.   Seems like it would behoove China to make a little better deal and keep heavy trading going and growing.  Without a doubt they have bent the USA over the last 40 year.  Would using a little lube going forward be asking to much?

And we shipped all our inflation to them. I know people think I am anti-trade,  I'm not. I understand that we gain from it. But certainly the technology transfer and refusal to protect copyright is a major issue. However the tech transfer is about this kind of thing. They dont want to be over a barrel making stuff but not gaining tech so they can be more independent in these areas. The whole thing is way more nuanced than just slapping tariffs on and saying now we got them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

What's your definition of a win for Trump? Elimination of technology transfers? Something else?

Who has better technology now, in 5 years, in 10 years?

Does it mean the same thing if you’re not the leader, and are there other players in the game?

Link Link

 

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

What's your definition of a win for Trump? Elimination of technology transfers? Something else?

That's a good question...I think the non-left media would perceive any leverage gained as a win, but for the left to concede a win he'd probably need much more.

 

ETA:  regardless of outcome, the left will not concede a win here...they'll probably think of a way to attempt to take credit.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bradyfan said:

If we look at the political climate in the two countries, can either or both give up something and come out a winner?

Per CNBC and most other financial news outlets last week...China is getting rocked.  China really has no choice and it appears Trump has played a good hand of poker here.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

What's your definition of a win for Trump? Elimination of technology transfers? Something else?

Like Mexico. Any deal at all will be pushed as a win no matter what it is or isn’t or even if it’s never actually approved or implemented.

If Trump claims it’s a win...they will do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Per CNBC and most other financial news outlets last week...China is getting rocked.  China really has no choice and it appears Trump has played a good hand of poker here.

At what cost?  Do you think farmers and those who are getting rocked here by his trade wars think he has been playing a good hand?

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

I'd rather Trump invest in long-term growth strategies for the US, than play chicken with the economy.

 

If China moves ahead of the US - then that is strong motivation to work harder, not try to tear down two global economies.

China having a larger economy is inevitable given they have over 4x the population of the US.  They are already larger in terms of purchasing power parity.  Trump is fighting a losing battle with outdated weaponry (tariffs).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of simplistic analysis in this thread. The ripples from this are going to spread world wide. There will be winners and losers globally who are not directly involved. For example Taiwan may be a winner if this brings manufacturing back to the island that went to the mainland.  China may offshore to other southeast Asian countries. They will certainly try to increase their trade relationships in Africa something they were already doing. They will also increase R&D spending. The US meanwhile will see markets it needs out of reach and face heightened cocompetition in those places I mentioned. We could see a general global slowdown that in some places will be very bad. It's more complex than so and so is getting rocked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NCCommish said:

A lot of simplistic analysis in this thread.

Very :goodposting:

Simplistic and nationalist.  The GOP has gone from taking cues from actual economists (albeit right wing ones) to Lou Dobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

That's a good question...I think the non-left media would perceive any leverage gained as a win, but for the left to concede a win he'd probably need much more.

 

ETA:  regardless of outcome, the left will not concede a win here...they'll probably think of a way to attempt to take credit.

Will you concede, that the right wing media and base, will regard any deal Trump makes, even a terrible deal, as completely awesome. Also in a few years, if it proves to be terrible, what are the chances the far right will blame it on the left anyway?

You didn't answer my question so I'll rephrase, what do you consider enough leverage gained,  for a worthwhile deal?  

My own standard for a good trade deal is something that increases exports and imports by both countries  between each other. My reasoning is primarily based on the idea if that 2 parties are making lots of money off of each other, it's a lot less likely they end up going to war. It doesn't hurt that 200 years of economics study going back to John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo and Adam Smith claim  that it's a positive outcome even without taking into account the reduced possibility of war.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.