msommer
Footballguy
Good thing the Dow Jones doesn't react to foriegn stimulus......Hang Seng Index down 1000(3.3%).
Good thing the Dow Jones doesn't react to foriegn stimulus......Hang Seng Index down 1000(3.3%).
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.If there were Bernie fans here that weren’t opposed to TPP they sure didn’t speak up. It was a main criticism of Hillary.
They have the excuse....Minority Democrats and Obama. What else do they need?I understand how economics work and am capable of learning from history. I realize that sounds like wizardry to a Trump supporter, but it is really not that hard.
You can wait and watch the jobs destroyed and economic damage and be surprised though. You'd better start working on your excuses for why it isn't Trump's fault right now though.
As we learned when it was rising, the president controls it. And only the president.Good thing the Dow Jones doesn't react to foriegn stimulus......
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?I understand what you think will happen. Only time will tell at this pointHere are what the likely outcomes will be:
US export volumes will fall
US import prices will rise
Jobs in US manufacturing will be lost
Consumers will experience more inflation on goods
But there could be negotiations and that will constitute...success?
Already did.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?
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"?Already did.
Either through new beneficial trade terms being negotiated or something done about China stealing our intellectual property.
????? Success will be the new negotiations.
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.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.
Unfortunately Trump is likely to go further, cutting the nose to spite the faceGood 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.
You are probably right. His need for attention seems paramount.Unfortunately Trump is likely to go further, cutting the nose to spite the face
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.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.
It's sad that I respect other world leaders so much more than my own country's.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.
Weebs said he graduated from a top school. I'm curious which one.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"?
Oh come on. Maybe some remedial school that sat at the top of a mountain.Weebs said he graduated from a top school. I'm curious which one.
I approve haberdasher humor.maybe he meant a top hat school and that brohan is one hell of a milliner take that to the bank bromigos
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 brochachoI approve haberdasher humor.maybe he meant a top hat school and that brohan is one hell of a milliner take that to the bank bromigos
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.Yeah - Bernie understood the impacts of how we implemented free-trade - the advantage really flowed to the 1%, but he did not really understand how to effect the right change - investing the wealth generated from free trade into our workforce, and infrastructure, so that we could efficiently use all of our resources.
This would explain a lot, especially if that school still used mercurous nitrate to cure felt.maybe he meant a top hat school and that brohan is one hell of a milliner take that to the bank bromigos
His supporters will still love him!Sabertooth said:If Trumps economy takes a real ####....
Not sure you will ever get any actual "goalposts" for the "pro" side...that way he can keep moving them around.The Commish said: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"?
Hey, tim. Have we met?timschochet said:If there were Bernie fans here that weren’t opposed to TPP they sure didn’t speak up. It was a main criticism of Hillary.
I hope you’re right about this.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####
I don’t remember these sorts of nuanced arguments during the campaign, but I’ll take your word for it that you made them.Hey, tim. Have we met?
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.
Most of those threads were purged.I don’t remember these sorts of nuanced arguments during the campaign, but I’ll take your word for it that you made them.
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.
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.Trumps immediate goal here is to bait the democrats into bashing tariffs. Then he simply collects those quotes and weaponizes them as attacks during the 2018 midterms.
I'd just like confirmation that the below is what you consider "predictions" of the "pro" side of this whole thing;You guys want my social security and address as well?
Either through new beneficial trade terms being negotiated or something done about China stealing our intellectual property.
Outside of these pretty vague and useless "predictions" I don't see the comments you're claiming you made????? Success will be the new negotiations.
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.I don’t remember these sorts of nuanced arguments during the campaign, but I’ll take your word for it that you made them.
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.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.
O.k. That's got nothing to do with what I was talking about though.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.
Well, when you say:Sure. That's got nothing to do with what I was talking about though.
it sure sounds like it does. Care to clarify?the lack of protection for labor and the environment and the extension of already odious IP laws to more of the world
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.Well, when you say:
it sure sounds like it does. Care to clarify?
Trump University?Dedfin said:Weebs said he graduated from a top school. I'm curious which one.
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.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.
Seeing the words "sane" and "cogent in a post about RiversCo. I did nazi that comingI 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.
I was grading on a curve.Seeing the words "sane" and "cogent is a post about RiversCo. I did nazi that coming
Yeah, I did notice the inclusion of "most" but to acknowledge so would have spoiled the jokeI was grading on a curve.
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.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.
I disagree with the bolded. Those conditions and practices are in existence now, especially in the poorest countries.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.
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.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####
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.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.
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.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.