Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Economics - Tariffs Question - Trump - Why? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
GoBirds
Footballguy
Only from the regular complainers....I mean good posters.
These posts are allowed in this forum?
Who knows anymore. Talking about Obama's strategy when compared with Trump's economically ignorant transactional approach apparently isn't kosher to some folks
The Commish
Footballguy
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.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
China is building direct transportation to Europe for goods by rail as we sit on our asses.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
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.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
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.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
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
NCCommish
Footballguy
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.
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?
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
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.
James Daulton
Footballguy
It's some kind of 3D Jedi Mind Link chess that we who see the emperor has no clothes can't understand.
NCCommish
Footballguy
yak651
Footballguy
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!
NCCommish
Footballguy
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.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
I don't think China is going to cave to Trump's demands.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw
Footballguy
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.TripItUp said:
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!!!!)
Gopher State
Footballguy
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.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
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.NCCommish said:
NCCommish
Footballguy
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.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Better for business. Unfortunately these days that usually doesn't mean better for the people. It means better for a few.
The Commish
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
You got the gist of my response correct, though I think I was a little more explicit. In any case it’s too late now.
I think we knew a lot more than that and I remember reading some pretty in-depth takes. Not worth the effort to look it up though. It is dead and we are getting even worse policy now. I had similar concerns tho.
NCCommish
Footballguy
They can't respond because they don't know. But they keep arguing how great it would've been.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I remember it being a whole lot of speculation. Perhaps that was wrong, but there seemed to be confusion at every turn. I think the concept is just fine and what is needed to battle the likes of China. I don't see any reason not to start up conversations again once this administration is gone. Our sovereignty should never be on the table though....ever.
NCCommish
Footballguy
As pertains to the TPP the next time will be the first time we have an informed policy debate.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
This might go in the “good things Trump has done” thread, but it seems like, largely because of Trump, Democrats in general are coming around en masse to the benefits of free trade.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
I mean, entire sections of it were leaked and it was discussed a lot in places I read. The debate here was pretty superficial, but whatever.
NCCommish
Footballguy
I guess what I was saying is I'd like to see the real document not rely on leaks. Heck even the leaks I disliked, which I've harped on in here on more than one occasion, are we really sure that's what it says in full context? I don't know. I'd like to know. I'd like when a treaty is going to be signed in my name, I elected the people that are negotiating or are supposed to be in charge of the negotiations, so I'd like to see what they did in my name. But I'd like to see it in full because I could be wrong. Maybe it's better than I think. Maybe it's worse than I think. I'm just not big on completely trusting excerpts. Of course that's all we've had.
msommer
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
I think it's a misconception that Democrats or Bernie don't like trade. We like fairer trade and there are more than a few Republicans on that as well. That means meaningful rules that allow a level playing field. And we want to end tax laws that make offshoring attractive no matter how profitable the business is or productive its workers are.
But - nobody is really addressing the real issue - how to distribute the gains made from free trade. Passing on the majority of gains to the shareholder class is a huge mistake. Telling consumers that they win with a lower cost of consumable goods, compounds the huge mistake.
Similar threads
