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

Economics - Tariffs Question - Trump - Why?

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

They'd no question claim this as a win. That's where they're at as a party. Something to think about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Slapdash said:
44 minutes 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

It doesn't even rise to the measure of "analysis"

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


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

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?

I don't concede that.  IMO, the conservative media has been more fair than usual when covering the trade war.  Because of the short term market hit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

There is a lot more at stake here than just net exports/imports.

Share this post


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

I don't concede that.  IMO, the conservative media has been more fair than usual when covering the trade war.  Because of the short term market hit.

Of course you won't.

Still no answer to my question on what's required for a deal to be a good deal. 

Share this post


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

 

Still no answer to my question on what's required for a deal to be a good deal. 

 

I could say "anything better than what Obama did", since Obama and the Dems did absolutely nothing for 8 years.

 

I think a "win" will depend on a lot of factors...the negotiation could go one of several ways so it's difficult to say what a win is.   

Share this post


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

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).

 

This is not a personal issue for Trump because no President stays in office that long.  This a global issue.

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


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

There is a lot more at stake here than just net exports/imports.

Possibly, but exactly what are YOU talking about? What concessions do you want from the Chinese and what concessions are we giving the Chinese in exchange?

Share this post


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

 

I could say "anything better than what Obama did", since Obama and the Dems did absolutely nothing for 8 years.

I think a "win" will depend on a lot of factors...the negotiation could go one of several ways so it's difficult to say what a win is.   

:wall: Always know what outcome you want to achieve before you start negotiation.  It will guide you every step of the way.

Edited by bradyfan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

I could say "anything better than what Obama did", since Obama and the Dems did absolutely nothing for 8 years

The TPP's purpose was primarily to strengthen ties with China's regional competitors.  That isn't nothing.  Not even close.

But nothing would be an improvement over Trump

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is not a personal issue for Trump because no President stays in office that long.  This a global issue.

Not sure this has any relevance to my post

Share this post


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

Possibly, but exactly what are YOU talking about? What concessions do you want from the Chinese and what concessions are we giving the Chinese in exchange?

You should do your own homework...

 

We can make gains in any of the following ways:

- intellectual property theft prevention/reduction measures

- provisions to address ownership of American companies in China

- provisions to prohibit technology transfer requirements

- fair tariff ratios, when compared to end of Obama administration ratios

 

Lots of ways to win here...Democrats were buffoons for so long they actually set Trump up for success.  Whoops.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

The human body is pretty complex but close to 99% of it is made up of only 6 elements.  :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

The TPP's purpose was primarily to strengthen ties with China's regional competitors.  That isn't nothing.  Not even close.

But nothing would be an improvement over Trump

In terms of fair trade with China, it was pretty much nothing, nada, zilch.

Share this post


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

In terms of fair trade with China, it was pretty much nothing, nada, zilch.

If you are incapable of thinking strategically,  i can see why you'd respond to my post with this false claim again

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If you are incapable of thinking strategically,  i can see why you'd respond to my post with this false claim again

:rolleyes:

These posts are allowed in this forum?  

 

 

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:rolleyes:

These posts are allowed in this forum?  

 

 

Why wouldn’t it be? 

Share this post


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

:rolleyes:

These posts are allowed in this forum?  

 

 

Only from the regular complainers....I mean good posters. :lmao:

Share this post


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

Why wouldn’t it be? 

Who knows anymore.  Talking about Obama's strategy when compared with Trump's economically ignorant transactional approach apparently isn't kosher to some folks

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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. 

Yes, we need our own plan.  Looks like Trump’s negotiating team tried to stop (slow down) the Made in China 2025 plan and that is one of the things that the Chinese reneged on.  Link

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


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

I could say "anything better than what Obama did", since Obama and the Dems did absolutely nothing for 8 years.

Yep....this is reasonable.  So, this deal is going to have to do two things at minimum just to get things back to the way it was under Obama.

1.  It's going to have to close the trade deficit with China by almost $80 billion. Caveat:  That was the last number I saw last month.  It might have shrunk a bit more by now.  You'd have to verify that.  That gets you back to where it was in 2016...so out of the mess he's made worse.

2.  It's going to have to mend all those relationships farmers have lost after spending decades getting set up.  I'd bet my entire life savings, this isn't even on Trumpy's radar.

Doing those two things get us back to where it was.  THEN, he'd somehow have to make gains in those areas and get substantial concessions on top of that.  So yeah, say that....this is probably the lowest bar we can set and reasonably consider it "better" at this point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Yes, we need our own plan.  Looks like Trump’s negotiating team tried to stop (slow down) the Made in China 2025 plan and that is one of the things that the Chinese reneged on.  Link

China is building direct transportation to Europe for goods by rail as we sit on our asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 6:30 PM, 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. 

NCC, why do you think Obama was trying to screw middle and lower class America with TPP?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

NCC, why do you think Obama was trying to screw middle and lower class America with TPP?  

Instead of trying to deal for greater parity on labor and environmental footing, the US routinely negotiates for greater corporate protections (primarily financial and IP related).  However, the trading partners of the US are negotiating for lower tariffs on their goods being imported to our markets.  Which helps the middle and lower class.  In aggregate.

Share this post


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

Instead of trying to deal for greater parity on labor and environmental footing, the US routinely negotiates for greater corporate protections (primarily financial and IP related).  However, the trading partners of the US are negotiating for lower tariffs on their goods being imported to our markets.  Which helps the middle and lower class.  In aggregate.

Agreed.  It also benefits low skilled and lower class labor in foreign markets, which I assume NCC is also in favor of.  Anti-trade liberals who believe Obama was out to screw the very people he has spent his life fighting for boggle my mind.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Agreed.  It also benefits low skilled and lower class labor in foreign markets, which I assume NCC is also in favor of.  Anti-trade liberals who believe Obama was out to screw the very people he has spent his life fighting for boggle my mind.  

Tell me why the middle class didn't improve under Obama's 8 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TripItUp said:

In terms of fair trade with China, it was pretty much nothing, nada, zilch.

This is an unfortunate post on your part. Even principled opponents of TPP, like @NCCommish or @TheCommish would acknowledge that it would have had a significant impact on our trade with China. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

China is building direct transportation to Europe for goods by rail as we sit on our asses.

Not just Europe.  Pretty much everywhere but here,

“The Belt and Road Initiative is a development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in 152 countries and international organizations in Europe, Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Africa.”  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agreed.  It also benefits low skilled and lower class labor in foreign markets, which I assume NCC is also in favor of.  Anti-trade liberals who believe Obama was out to screw the very people he has spent his life fighting for boggle my mind.  

I understand the complaint, but ultimately find it lacking. Obama too often delegated actual policymaking and, as a result, wasn't fully able to affect the change he wanted. It is also hard to talk about the benefits of trade, which are broad, to the aggrieved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

NCC, why do you think Obama was trying to screw middle and lower class America with TPP?  

I think when people give you millions of dollars they expect and get something in return. Were there good parts to the TPP? Probably. But we know full well there were very bad parts. And when you treat a trade deal like the nuclear codes the reason ain't because it's all ponies and rainbows. Secrecy is to protect those who benefit at our expense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.apnews.com/b8b68b10a50d4b509c31b7e9428b0f11

Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” asked him, “It’s U.S. businesses and U.S. consumers who pay, correct?”

“Yes, I don’t disagree with that,” said Larry Kudlow, the head of the president’s National Economic Council.

Ok. I need to ask you Trump supporters a question.

a) Is  President Trump that stupid thinking China pays tariffs to our US treasury?

b) Is he just lying to you?

Edited by lazyike
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Agreed.  It also benefits low skilled and lower class labor in foreign markets, which I assume NCC is also in favor of.  Anti-trade liberals who believe Obama was out to screw the very people he has spent his life fighting for boggle my mind.  

Actually I prefer we benefit low skilled and lower class labor here first. Which this doesn't seem to have done. Why should I worry more about Vietnam than Ohio? Do I generally support a better life globally? Of course. But I also look around at home and see we need to worry about our own backyard a lot more than our neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lazyike said:

https://www.apnews.com/b8b68b10a50d4b509c31b7e9428b0f11

Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” asked him, “It’s U.S. businesses and U.S. consumers who pay, correct?”

“Yes, I don’t disagree with that,” said Larry Kudlow, the head of the president’s National Economic Council.

Ok. I need to ask you Trump supporters a question.

a) Is  President Trump that stupid thinking China pays tariffs to our US treasury?

b) Is he just lying to you?

It's some kind of 3D Jedi Mind Link chess that we who see the emperor has no clothes can't understand. 

Share this post


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

Nothing to worry about China is getting rocked remember?

Meanwhile the alpha businessman worlds greatest negotiator is begging the Chinese over Twitter. :lol: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Nothing to worry about China is getting rocked remember?

So rocked that we need to bailout our farmers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Skoo said:

So rocked that we need to bailout our farmers!

Yea welfare!  It's ok, we are going to use the $$ the Chinese are giving us for the tariffs President T is putting on, it won't cost the US taxpayers a thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yak651 said:

Yea welfare!  It's ok, we are going to use the $$ the Chinese are giving us for the tariffs President T is putting on, it won't cost the US taxpayers a thing!

Just like Mexico is sending us those monthly payments to build the wall.

Turns out you can fool some of the people all of the time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Meanwhile the alpha businessman worlds greatest negotiator is begging the Chinese over Twitter. :lol: 

Tweets read more like someone just trying to learn the English language. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 10:52 AM, Joe Bryant said:

I can see that. It's more of a "macho /  I can force your hand" thing?

But is any gain there worth "losing" on his "scoreboard" of the stock market?

At this point, probably. We're a year and a half from the election and there should still be good numbers he can quote. i.e. % gain in the market since he took office. Here's where stocks on Nov 8, 2016:   Dow: 18,332.74, S&P 500: 2,139.56, Nasdaq: 5,193.49
And, he may also be thinking he can force a coveted Fed rate cut this way as a consolation prize.

Closer to election, I don't think he'd take the chance. A strong economy/market is probably his best shot to get votes from non-base people.

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


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

In terms of fair trade with China, it was pretty much nothing, nada, zilch.

The President fundamentally believes that China cuts us a 25% check on all chinese imports. And that we just pop that bad boy in the general fund at the treasury. 

Or he lies to us and tells us thats what happens. 

Either way thats the guy we want to head into battle with?

 

We are borowwing money from China to pay Farmers for goods they can't sell to China. (NO SOCIALISMS!!!!) 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yak651 said:

Yea welfare!  It's ok, we are going to use the $$ the Chinese are giving us for the tariffs President T is putting on, it won't cost the US taxpayers a thing!

To me giving aid to farmers is no different then college grants to students, providing welfare payments to the poor, free lunches to middle/elementary students.  We have the cheapest food prices in the world, we can all afford to help our farmers in their time of need.

Share this post


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

To me giving aid to farmers is no different then college grants to students, providing welfare payments to the poor, free lunches to middle/elementary students.  We have the cheapest food prices in the world, we can all afford to help our farmers in their time of need.

Agreed but conservatives tend to view the programs you mention as socialism. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Actually I prefer we benefit low skilled and lower class labor here first. Which this doesn't seem to have done. Why should I worry more about Vietnam than Ohio? Do I generally support a better life globally? Of course. But I also look around at home and see we need to worry about our own backyard a lot more than our neighbors.

America first?  As Slapdash pointed out, in aggregate TPP was beneficial for lower and middle class folks.  

Share this post


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

I think when people give you millions of dollars they expect and get something in return. Were there good parts to the TPP? Probably. But we know full well there were very bad parts. And when you treat a trade deal like the nuclear codes the reason ain't because it's all ponies and rainbows. Secrecy is to protect those who benefit at our expense.

People give millions of dollars for lots of reasons NCC.  Often, it’s because the govt affairs team at a corporation/PAC analyze the candidates and decide the views of one are better for business than another.  It’s not nearly the quid pro quo relationship you’re implying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

America first?  As Slapdash pointed out, in aggregate TPP was beneficial for lower and middle class folks.  

Really? Was corporations suing communities over environmental rules going to be beneficial? How about forced arbitration?

None of us really know much about this agreement it's still super double secret so I can only go by the parts that leaked that showed it was more of the same corporate giveaway. Publish the whole thing.  I may be wrong. If they do and I am you know me I'll say so. But they won't and there is a reason for that. 

Share this post


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

People give millions of dollars for lots of reasons NCC.  Often, it’s because the govt affairs team at a corporation/PAC analyze the candidates and decide the views of one are better for business than another.  It’s not nearly the quid pro quo relationship you’re implying.  

Better for business. Unfortunately these days that usually doesn't mean better for the people. It means better for a few. 

Share this post


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

Really? Was corporations suing communities over environmental rules going to be beneficial? How about forced arbitration?

None of us really know much about this agreement it's still super double secret so I can only go by the parts that leaked that showed it was more of the same corporate giveaway. Publish the whole thing.  I may be wrong. If they do and I am you know me I'll say so. But they won't and there is a reason for that. 

This is the biggest thing to me.  We don't know about 90% of what's in it.  We DO know about some of the sovereignty issues.  I have asked for a list of the positive things we ACTUALLY know that would make up for those issues alone.  To date, no one has taken me up on that request.  The only response I got, and I think it was Tim (if not Tim, sorry, I apologize) was "oh, we'd just do what we wanted and the international court would have no real say over those sorts of things.  If they ruled against us we'd just ignore them" or some such.  That's the BEST response I got.  Hard pass for me.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1

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.