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.
TRADE THREAD- President Trump signs Phase One of China agreement, China promises to double its purchases in 2020 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
AAABatteries
Footballguy
The main criticism of Hillary is she had no spine about the issue. She and her handlers wouldn’t commit to a position - something you lamented yourself. TPP was a mixed bag and Bernie and some of his supporters called out the parts they didn’t like (IP) but again, there’s plenty of folks who supported Bernie’s candidacy who are proponents of free trade. There’s not a candidate out there who’s policies lines up 100% with my thinking but at least he has the guts to stand for what he believes instead of reading the proverbial tea leaves to she which side she should be on to get the most votes. That was HRC in a nutshell and one of the reasons she lost.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
So RL provided the "con" side of what would potentially happen. Dare you put down in writing what you think will happen on the "pro" side?
Weebs210
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Being as generous as possible I found these two comments that sort of sniff at what I was asking. Are these what you're referring to when you say you "already did"?
timschochet
Footballguy
The consensus is that so far the Chinese response is mild, warning Trump to pull back:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/china-urges-u-s-away-from-brink-as-trump-picks-trade-weapons-idUSKBN1GY3E1
Hopefully this cautious response by China will stop the Dow from freaking out even further.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/china-urges-u-s-away-from-brink-as-trump-picks-trade-weapons-idUSKBN1GY3E1
Hopefully this cautious response by China will stop the Dow from freaking out even further.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Good for China. They must have some adults in the room. Not to praise them generally, but specifically, in this instance good for them for showing some mature restraint in the face of childish provocation.
msommer
Footballguy
Unfortunately Trump is likely to go further, cutting the nose to spite the face
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Agreed. Unfortunately this same restraint will cause Trump defenders to say “see this wasn’t so bad, you guys overreacted.” But I don’t care if less people are hurt.
It's sad that I respect other world leaders so much more than my own country's.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
SWC
Bromigo
you wanna know what brohan when i was typing that out i actually thought to myself ditkaless will get this one and bam you never let me down take that to the bank brochacho
The how is very important here. When the US does these deals it focuses on financial liberalization and IP protection in exchange for mutually reducing tariffs, all of which benefit the wealthy the most. It could focus on environmental and labor policy progress in these deals. That impact would not be as concentrated.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
dschuler
Footballguy
Why are so many people thinking these tariffs will stick? I would be shocked if he doesn’t come back in a month and say they negotiated something blah blah no more tariffs America got a good deal blah blah blah. Trump changes his mind like people change their clothes, and with Kudlow by his side these will likely die as well. Trump effectively killed the steel and aluminum tariffs yesterday, and their stock prices reflect the pre tariff announcement as well. So he bumbles around in a circle, effectively not tariffing anything at the end of the day and manipulating the market in the process.
Man, if you knew what Trump was going to say an hour before he said it you could be a billionaire by now playing options and the VIX. Honestly it’s bull####
Man, if you knew what Trump was going to say an hour before he said it you could be a billionaire by now playing options and the VIX. Honestly it’s bull####
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Hey, tim. Have we met?timschochet said:
To be clear, I have been advocating in favor of trade agreements with significantly more enforcement for years on this board, including during that campaign. I was and am opposed to yet another toothless enforcement set in a trade bill, but that's not opposition to TPP - that's pro-TPP with enforcement.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
Unfortunately, our society looks at and our government generally runs on separate silos, not recognising the interrelatedness of well, just about everything economic (which then ties into social issues like crime, education, health and wellness, equity etc)...
Our nation is facing a huge housing shortage. We are terribly behind in demand for single family and even more so multifamily housing options. That is exacerbated when you consider much of what is available is simply not attentive to the market (on the wrong markets and, more often than not, in the further off exurbs of larger markets - people would rather have less space as live close to employment and activity along with an urban/downtown core of one exists or move to a smaller community where get get more bang for the buck while again, not being 90 min from town).
This adds to the growing affordability issue.
Whats made this worse is how construction prices have grown at very high rates since the recession... and that was BEFORE tariffs.
Its hard to make projects pencil with today's economics for all but the really big institutional shops and even they have issues... add additional cost and I don't see how construction doesn't take a big hit.
Oh, and cost for infrastructure? Pah-lease.
Our nation is facing a huge housing shortage. We are terribly behind in demand for single family and even more so multifamily housing options. That is exacerbated when you consider much of what is available is simply not attentive to the market (on the wrong markets and, more often than not, in the further off exurbs of larger markets - people would rather have less space as live close to employment and activity along with an urban/downtown core of one exists or move to a smaller community where get get more bang for the buck while again, not being 90 min from town).
This adds to the growing affordability issue.
Whats made this worse is how construction prices have grown at very high rates since the recession... and that was BEFORE tariffs.
Its hard to make projects pencil with today's economics for all but the really big institutional shops and even they have issues... add additional cost and I don't see how construction doesn't take a big hit.
Oh, and cost for infrastructure? Pah-lease.
Riversco
Footballguy
All of this is happening because Connor Lamb won. Trump is now convinced he needs to shore up his support union voters so tariffs go up immediately. Not only does this charm the union vote, but democrats will voice opposition to it which will push even more union voters away from the democrats.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t remember these sorts of nuanced arguments during the campaign, but I’ll take your word for it that you made them.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Most of those threads were purged.
Here's an example, though.
To be fair, I also want us to be cautious not to lose our full manufacturing ability, which I repeatedly state as well, and have huge concerns about that in the face of financial disasters like 2008. But that's part of what enforcement is about - leveling the playing field between the U.S. and countries with little to no labor and environmental regulation to make sure we still have the ability to weather storms like that.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
I don't think this is true. It sounds a lot like a Scott Adams, "ZOMG! Trump is a 3-D chess Grand Master!", argument.
But it is easily the most sane and cogent thing you have posted in years, and therefore a welcome departure from your usual shtick.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'd just like confirmation that the below is what you consider "predictions" of the "pro" side of this whole thing;
Outside of these pretty vague and useless "predictions" I don't see the comments you're claiming you made
Gr00vus
Footballguy
You have a very bad or selective memory then. Several of us explained, in detail, exactly what we didn't like about the version of the TPP that was up for approval - the lack of protection for labor and the environment and the extension of already odious IP laws to more of the world. If those things were addressed satisfactorily most of us would have been fine with the TPP, but as it stood it was a bad deal. You may say a bad deal is better than no deal, and that I don't agree with. It needed to be revised/renegotiated. Please stop your erroneous generalizations about the resistance your views met on this - this selective memory act of yours is pretty much straight out of the Trump playbook.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
When the argument about things like the TPP shift to its bad for the people on the other side of the deal, I get confused, for several reasons.
But the biggest problem with it is that the global free trade era, which roughly coincides with the last 25 years or so, has seen more progress for the world's poorest people and countries of any 25 year period in modern history. Freer trade benefits the poorest people on Earth unambiguously.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Its all in the threads we had about this 3 years ago. The short of it is the TPP had a couple of sections addressing labor laws/protection which had zero concrete recommendations in them. Working conditions, health coverage, possibly minimum wage kind of things - all vaguely mentioned but nothing actionable defined. That's unacceptable. Those things needed to be addressed clearly. The segment addressing environmental concerns was even more vaguely (and uselessly) written. There needs to be some compromise in regard to avoiding offshoring abusive labor practices and environmental damage in these kinds of deals, there wasn't any in the version of the TPP under consideration at that time.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Parties to an agreement might logically object to such restrictions as a loss of sovereignty. I also wonder if blocking an agreement that is meant to be a bulwark against China, which is an egregious offender in all of those areas, doesn't qualify as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Much like Sinn Fein's concerns about free trade, which have little to do with trade itself, I suspect that this is another situation where the desire to lump in other issues is counter-productive.
The cynic in me says that Sanders' opposition is far more ideological than it is practical and that those specifics are a pretext to be against something that he is going to be against almost no matter what.
msommer
Footballguy
Seeing the words "sane" and "cogent in a post about RiversCo. I did nazi that coming
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
I was grading on a curve.Seeing the words "sane" and "cogent is a post about RiversCo. I did nazi that coming
msommer
Footballguy
Yeah, I did notice the inclusion of "most" but to acknowledge so would have spoiled the joke
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I'm not talking about Sanders's opposition. I'm talking about mine. And consideration of the environmental impact and the human impact of abusive labor conditions caused by the activities involved in producing items for trade are definitely necessary components of any trade agreement at this point. The issues are inseparable. If you don't address the conditions that allow China to be an egregious offender in all of those areas, you're encouraging your trade partners to engage in that same behavior and extend those egregious offenses to other countries. Free trade is necessary, but it does need to be tempered with consideration of the full impact of the trade. We've externalized the full cost of "doing business" when it comes to human and environmental impact for too long in this country, this version of the TPP would have exacerbated that.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
I disagree with the bolded. Those conditions and practices are in existence now, especially in the poorest countries.
Unfortunately, being environmentally responsible and having labor protections seems to be a "luxury good" at the macro level. Meaning most countries that are desperately poor can't afford to think that way. Generally as per capita incomes rise, attention paid to those issues does to.
Making it a precondition is risking putting the cart before the horse.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
So I guess as is so often on the case, the most charitable view on Trump in this matter is that he is an imbecile.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
We'll probably never agree on that. If you never address the issues, you never address the issues and the conditions and practices that exist now don't get corrected. Its time to stop perpetuating mistakes because that's the way we've always done it. Environmental responsibility and labor protections aren't luxury goods, we're already near tipping points in terms of environmental damage - people need to start adjusting to having to pay the full cost of the goods they use up front.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's not even "allowing" China to be an offender that most bothers me. It's creating an arena in which our companies have to offend to stay competitive.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Factoring in environmental and labor treatment costs in trade agreements in at least some small way seems like a no-brainer to me. The fact is, the true cost of goods is subsidized by legal systems that allow for massive exploitation of labor and the environment at the expense of human beings in this and subsequent generations. And we would by no means be the biggest winner in those sorts of agreements - the EU would have us beat by a (polluted) country mile.
Similar threads
