Economics - Tariffs Question - Trump - Why?

[timschochet 24,527]

8 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

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. 

[Slapdash 14,417]

9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

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.

[Slapdash 14,417]

2 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

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

Just read this.  He really doesn't understand how anything works, does he?

[NCCommish 7,488]

15 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

They can't respond because they don't know. But they keep arguing how great it would've been. 

[NCCommish 7,488]

By the way I'll reiterate I dont know either that's a problem.

[2Squirrels1Nut 807]

2 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Just read this.  He really doesn't understand how anything works, does he?

Narrator: He doesn't.

[The Commish 9,966]

5 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

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.

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.  

[Slapdash 14,417]

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.  

I can't wait to have real policy discussions again too. 

[NCCommish 7,488]

14 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I can't wait to have real policy discussions again too. 

As pertains to the TPP the next time will be the first time we have an informed policy debate.

[Ramblin Wreck 11,507]

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

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

That's a goodbpoint made an avid proofreader.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

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 807]

4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

Solid point as they seemed to be protectionists prior to Trump. 

[Slapdash 14,417]

56 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

As pertains to the TPP the next time will be the first time we have an informed policy debate.

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 7,488]

4 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

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.

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 7,539]

5 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.

The long game there is that if production (labour) costs go up in e.g. Vietnam it reduces the incentive to outsource the jobs in the first place.

Whether that will bring on a wave of automation is anyone's guess at this point

[msommer 7,539]

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

Bernie too?

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

14 minutes ago, msommer said:

Bernie too?

No, but he's not really a Democrat.

[NCCommish 7,488]

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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.

[Sinn Fein 29,573]

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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.

[tommyGunZ 3,437]

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

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.

There are plenty of white papers if you’re truly interested in independent, objective analysis by economists.  I remember reading the CRS report a couple of years ago and one chart stood out to me:  all 12 countries entering the agreement would have higher GDP by 2030(?) as a result of the deal, in addition to all of the geo-political advantages.  

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

48 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

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.

 

46 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

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.

I think the "fair trade" and "level playing field" stuff is euphemistic hogwash -- an excuse for protectionism by another name.

I agree that the gains from trade should be distributed more widely. Lower prices for consumers should not be downplayed: they're an important part of why free trade is good. At the same time, free trade does exert downward pressure on wages for unskilled (and sometimes skilled) domestic workers in some industries, and that shouldn't be ignored, either. I think the best solution would be a universal basic income funded by a graduated income tax. Until that's politically feasible, there are other ways to widen the gains from trade -- tax-funded expansion of the EITC, government-funded health insurance, etc. But restraining trade is not a good solution at all.

I've mentioned before that automation and international trade are basically the same issue. Trade is literally a form of technology. If we load a few tons of wheat into a giant black box, wait a while, and then open the door and retrieve automobiles out of it, it makes no difference whether the alchemy occurred by technologically advanced re-atomization machines or sailboats traveling between here and Japan. It's the same result either way.

In both cases -- technology or trade -- some domestic workers will be displaced. It's hard to be a telephone operator these days, and it will be hard to be a truck driver in a decade or so. But that doesn't mean that technology or trade are bad or should be restrained. We should automate truck-driving as soon as it becomes more efficient than human truck-driving labor. And we should buy trinkets made in Taiwan if the opportunity costs of manufacturing there are lower than here.

We should deal with the displacement of labor in any number of ways -- but refusing to take advantage of labor-saving technology or free trade is NOT one of those ways.

[tommyGunZ 3,437]

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

Sadly, the Sanders wing of liberals aren’t in favor of free trade either, which is just especially frustrating because at the present time, Republicans have ceded the high ground on this sound economic policy, and I have a sinking feeling my side is going to blow it and not take advantage.  

[timschochet 24,527]

4 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Sadly, the Sanders wing of liberals aren’t in favor of free trade either, which is just especially frustrating because at the present time, Republicans have ceded the high ground on this sound economic policy, and I have a sinking feeling my side is going to blow it and not take advantage.  

Biden’s a free trader. He will take advantage if he’s the nominee. 

ETA and he’s the perfect one to do it because even though he’s a free trader he understands the concerns of people in Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

[Sinn Fein 29,573]

19 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

We should deal with the displacement of labor in any number of ways -- but refusing to take advantage of labor-saving technology or free trade is NOT one of those ways.

Who said that?

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Who said that?

I did. It's right there in the quote attributed to me.

But more seriously: the Trump and Bernie wings of their respective parties are saying it. 

[NCCommish 7,488]

40 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I did. It's right there in the quote attributed to me.

But more seriously: the Trump and Bernie wings of their respective parties are saying it. 

When there is real free trade then we can talk. There isn't. In fact what so infuriating is the US is so open while others aren't. We are the 2 bit whore in a western saloon and everybody else is the church lady.

Tell me how is is it American carmakers that fare weil in other markets can't make a dent in Japan? Because the Japanese government protects its automakers in numerous ways. I mean given the regulations on land use it's very hard to even set up a dealership. And that's just one example of how this works and why there isn't really free trade. Really we run huge trade deficits with China because their markets are open we just suck? There's some hogwash for you. 

So again you want to talk free trade great, get back to me when it exists.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

2 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

When there is real free trade then we can talk. There isn't. In fact what so infuriating is the US is so open while others aren't. We are the 2 bit whore in a western saloon and everybody else is the church lady.

Tell me how is is it American carmakers that fare weil in other markets can't make a dent in Japan? Because the Japanese government protects its automakers in numerous ways. I mean given the regulations on land use it's very hard to even set up a dealership. And that's just one example of how this works and why there isn't really free trade. Really we run huge trade deficits with China because their markets are open we just suck? There's some hogwash for you. 

So again you want to talk free trade great, get back to me when it exists.

The reason free trade doesn't exist is because of tariffs and other barriers. Erecting more barriers doesn't make trade more free. It does exactly the opposite.

The stupid thing about trade barriers is that they hurt both sides. When Japan restricts trade, it hurts us and them. When we restrict trade in return, it hurts us and them again. We can't do a whole lot about the first part, but we can and should avoid the second part. Trump says that trade wars are easy to win. In fact, they are impossible to win because there are no winners, only losers. The only way to win is not to play. Just because Japan is stupid, that doesn't mean that we should also be stupid.

We run huge trade deficits with other countries (including China) because of an accounting artifact that counts money flowing back and forth for the purchase of goods, but not money flowing back and forth for investments. The Chinese buy more American bonds (and stocks and real estate, etc.) than the other way around, so we have a trade deficit. It's a completely separate issue from free trade.

[The Commish 9,966]

1 hour ago, tommyGunZ said:

There are plenty of white papers if you’re truly interested in independent, objective analysis by economists.  I remember reading the CRS report a couple of years ago and one chart stood out to me:  all 12 countries entering the agreement would have higher GDP by 2030(?) as a result of the deal, in addition to all of the geo-political advantages.  

Of course I am...it's all I've ever asked for.  Any "analysis" I read at the time had a ton of assumptions baked into them and I find it incredibly difficult that isn't the case here, especially when framing things in terms of GDP.  First question was "higher" than when?  All the discussions I read at the time were based on guesses of what was in the deal.  If you have papers based on actual terms of the deal I'm up for reading them even if it is a moot point now.  I can't imagine this is the case given the hundreds of factors that go into GDP....predicting it's future is virtually impossible even if you know all the legislation at hand, which we didn't at the time.

[NCCommish 7,488]

22 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The reason free trade doesn't exist is because of tariffs and other barriers. Erecting more barriers doesn't make trade more free. It does exactly the opposite.

The stupid thing about trade barriers is that they hurt both sides. When Japan restricts trade, it hurts us and them. When we restrict trade in return, it hurts us and them again. We can't do a whole lot about the first part, but we can and should avoid the second part. Trump says that trade wars are easy to win. In fact, they are impossible to win because there are no winners, only losers. The only way to win is not to play. Just because Japan is stupid, that doesn't mean that we should also be stupid.

We run huge trade deficits with other countries (including China) because of an accounting artifact that counts money flowing back and forth for the purchase of goods, but not money flowing back and forth for investments. The Chinese buy more American bonds (and stocks and real estate, etc.) than the other way around, so we have a trade deficit. It's a completely separate issue from free trade.

And they buy American debt basically to loan us the money to buy from them while they artificially keep their own currency undervalued to maintain that trade deficit. Now the benefit to us, at least in the foreseeable future, is we export our inflation and they can't really afford to dump our dollars or debt as it would seriously affect their economy.

But you know what? That really isn't helping the American worker who despite all the talk of how "free trade" is so peachy he still sees a decline in his financial security, stagnant wages and the prospect that his kids will be a lost generation economically. Something isn't working unless you think ever more new income flowing into ever fewer hands is a good thing. I don't. And that seems to be what todays "free trade" does best. 

[timschochet 24,527]

47 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

When there is real free trade then we can talk. There isn't. In fact what so infuriating is the US is so open while others aren't. We are the 2 bit whore in a western saloon and everybody else is the church lady.

Tell me how is is it American carmakers that fare weil in other markets can't make a dent in Japan? Because the Japanese government protects its automakers in numerous ways. I mean given the regulations on land use it's very hard to even set up a dealership. And that's just one example of how this works and why there isn't really free trade. Really we run huge trade deficits with China because their markets are open we just suck? There's some hogwash for you. 

So again you want to talk free trade great, get back to me when it exists.

Come on NC. We've subsidized and protected certain of our industries for decades. This pretense that we're these wide open people while everyone else doesn't play fair is sheer fantasy.

[NCCommish 7,488]

16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Come on NC. We've subsidized and protected certain of our industries for decades. This pretense that we're these wide open people while everyone else doesn't play fair is sheer fantasy.

We are far more open than any of our trading partners. Oh and by the way thanks for affirming there is no such thing as free trade and even we dont really practice it. Nice to have you onboard. 

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

17 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

We are far more open than any of our trading partners. Oh and by the way thanks for affirming there is no such thing as free trade and even we dont really practice it. Nice to have you onboard. 

Nobody's saying that trade barriers don't exist. We're saying that they're bad and we should try to reduce them rather than add to them.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

41 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

That really isn't helping the American worker who despite all the talk of how "free trade" is so peachy he still sees a decline in his financial security, stagnant wages and the prospect that his kids will be a lost generation economically.

As with self-driving trucks, it won't help all workers. It will help some and hurt others while helping the economy overall. International trade generally hurts American upholsterers and generally helps Hollywood actors. I agree that we should be doing more to use the winners' gains to help soften the blow to the losers. Adding more barriers to the overall benefits is not the right way to do that, IMO.

[NCCommish 7,488]

23 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

As with self-driving trucks, it won't help all workers. It will help some and hurt others while helping the economy overall. International trade generally hurts American upholsterers and generally helps Hollywood actors. I agree that we should be doing more to use the winners' gains to help soften the blow to the losers. Adding more barriers to the overall benefits is not the right way to do that, IMO.

Somehow I'm suddenly tariff guy. I've said tariffs if used should be extremely targeted and much thought should be given to the unintentional consequences they can cause. What I'm talking about is trade agreements that actually result in fairer trade. One way that could happen is for their to be a mechanism that provides for worker retraining and maybe even relocation. That has a mechanism that makes sure the gains are more widespread so that we mitigate the continued growth of the wealth divide in this country.  But we aren't doing that. Instead for example Boeing is building a factory in China where they are required to transfer technology to Chinese supply chain entities that will eventually replace good paying high tech jobs here. Because if they dont they will lose out to Airbus who gave in years ago. Some folks will win and we'll do nothing to mitigate the losses of many others. Generational losses in some cases. That doesn't seem like trade that is good  for this country to me. 

[TripItUp 2,703]

54 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

As with self-driving trucks, it won't help all workers. It will help some and hurt others while helping the economy overall. International trade generally hurts American upholsterers and generally helps Hollywood actors. I agree that we should be doing more to use the winners' gains to help soften the blow to the losers. Adding more barriers to the overall benefits is not the right way to do that, IMO.

[zDragon 23]

On 5/10/2019 at 10:04 AM, Dickies said:

I hear Trump say this often, and now you.  Care to explain what this means? 

I suspect you don't really know how tariffs work in the context of this post.

Can you explain to me how they work? Your comment makes me think you understand them. I have not looked at them but below is what I've heard was done.  Explain why it is good or bad.

My understanding is that we have been using a 3% rate for incoming Chinese products.  While in return  they are using a rate of 10% on goods imported into the USA.  And that the change trump made was to raise the 3% to 10%.  This seems to make since to me why would we give up that difference and advantage in breaking into markets?

 

[msommer 7,539]

12 hours ago, NCCommish said:

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.

Bernie likes tariffs

[msommer 7,539]

10 hours ago, NCCommish said:

When there is real free trade then we can talk. There isn't. In fact what so infuriating is the US is so open while others aren't. We are the 2 bit whore in a western saloon and everybody else is the church lady.

Tell me how is is it American carmakers that fare weil in other markets can't make a dent in Japan? Because the Japanese government protects its automakers in numerous ways. I mean given the regulations on land use it's very hard to even set up a dealership. And that's just one example of how this works and why there isn't really free trade. Really we run huge trade deficits with China because their markets are open we just suck? There's some hogwash for you. 

So again you want to talk free trade great, get back to me when it exists.

American car makers with the exception of Tesla are terrible at maki g cars that appeal outside of the US

[NCCommish 7,488]

9 hours ago, msommer said:

American car makers with the exception of Tesla are terrible at maki g cars that appeal outside of the US

Really? The number one seller in the UK for example is the Ford Fiesta. Has been for a while IIRC. And Ford occupies several of the top ten slots there.  

Doing a little further research Ford is the number 3 brand overall in sales in Europe.

Edited May 14 by NCCommish

[whoknew 6,664]

20 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The reason free trade doesn't exist is because of tariffs and other barriers. Erecting more barriers doesn't make trade more free. It does exactly the opposite.

The stupid thing about trade barriers is that they hurt both sides. When Japan restricts trade, it hurts us and them. When we restrict trade in return, it hurts us and them again. We can't do a whole lot about the first part, but we can and should avoid the second part. Trump says that trade wars are easy to win. In fact, they are impossible to win because there are no winners, only losers. The only way to win is not to play. Just because Japan is stupid, that doesn't mean that we should also be stupid.

We run huge trade deficits with other countries (including China) because of an accounting artifact that counts money flowing back and forth for the purchase of goods, but not money flowing back and forth for investments. The Chinese buy more American bonds (and stocks and real estate, etc.) than the other way around, so we have a trade deficit. It's a completely separate issue from free trade.

Strange game...how about a nice game of chess?

[msommer 7,539]

13 hours ago, NCCommish said:

Really? The number one seller in the UK for example is the Ford Fiesta. Has been for a while IIRC. And Ford occupies several of the top ten slots there.  

Doing a little further research Ford is the number 3 brand overall in sales in Europe.

Ford designs cars in Europe, GB.

Such as small subcompacts, like the Fiesta, which don't suit American's penchant for SUVs

[NCCommish 7,488]

3 hours ago, msommer said:

Ford designs cars in Europe, GB.

Such as small subcompacts, like the Fiesta, which don't suit American's penchant for SUVs

My point was if they can be successful in Europe building and selling cars then it seems odd that American car makers can't make a dent in Japan unless there's more to it than the cars themselves.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,871]

5 hours ago, NCCommish said:

My point was if they can be successful in Europe building and selling cars then it seems odd that American car makers can't make a dent in Japan unless there's more to it than the cars themselves.

Wouldn’t Japan importing cars be like the U.S. importing wheat? That doesn’t seem like comparative advantage.

[NCCommish 7,488]

21 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Wouldn’t Japan importing cars be like the U.S. importing wheat? That doesn’t seem like comparative advantage.

We sell cars in Germany. They make cars. 

[msommer 7,539]

7 hours ago, NCCommish said:

My point was if they can be successful in Europe building and selling cars then it seems odd that American car makers can't make a dent in Japan unless there's more to it than the cars themselves.

GM sold Opel/Vauxhall. Chrysler is owned by Fiat. So it seems only Ford has any presence in Europe of the big American companies. South American markets are largely dominated by European, Korean and Japanese cars (some Chinese West of the Andes). Africa is filled with Japanese, Chinese and European cars. Asia with Asian brands. American car manufacturers ate withdrawing from the world - perhaps because of their love for gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks.

Edited May 15 by msommer

[msommer 7,539]

1 hour ago, NCCommish said:

We sell cars in Germany. They make cars. 

Ford only - and not the American designed ones in any number

[jonessed 3,044]

The China trade issue should have been solved with the TPP, but ironically, both Hillary and Trump campaigned against it.  I’m not a fan of tariffs.  Something needs to be done about the IP theft, monetary deflation, and government subsidies though.  It should have been dealt with long ago.

I don’t think the current situation will work out in our favor, but it’s possible.  Only time will tell.

[Ruffrodys05 1,554]

On 5/13/2019 at 8:21 AM, 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?

Both. The answer is both.

[Da Guru 5,148]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 12:03 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

Some dems have been on TV saying it is about time someone stood up to China..hope this does not help Trump in long run.

[2Squirrels1Nut 807]

10 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

Some dems have been on TV saying it is about time someone stood up to China..hope this does not help Trump in long run.

Link?