ADVERTISEMENT

Dan Griswold Explains The Contradiction In Trump’s Trade Policy

Would someone please explain (here’s looking at you, Harry). Trump and his coterie of protectionists insist the trade deficit causes job losses, high unemployment. The trade deficit is at record high. Yet unemployment is at record low. How is that possible?

Several on this board have climbed onto the Trump tariff train. You have echoed the mantra that the trade deficit is a bad thing, tariffs must be imposed in order to save jobs. The tariffs are just now going into effect. The trade deficit is huge. Unemployment barely exists. Tariffs not in effect. What job losses have there been for the tariffs save?
 
Whole bunch of meh if you ask me. Not even blips on the radar.
 
Whole bunch of meh if you ask me. Not even blips on the radar.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this comment.

The argument is the trade deficit is responsible for massive job losses in America, a problem that can only be resolved by imposing tariffs on certain imported goods. The tariffs will help balance out international trade and create jobs for more Americans. That sums up Trump’s argument on behalf of tariffs.

The tariffs have not yet been enacted. The trade deficit is at record highs. And yet the unemployment rate is under 4%. 4% unemployment is considered full employment.

Please explain how America is enjoying full employment in spite of a massive trade deficit in a time absent Trump’s tariffs.

Your response leaves one to believe you are not able to explain the disparity between Trump rhetoric/logic and reality when it comes to international trade.
 
What I'm saying is that what Trump has done and said hasn't been enough to even move the needle regarding anything you are talking about.
 
Please explain how America is enjoying full employment in spite of a massive trade deficit in a time absent Trump’s tariffs.

Your response leaves one to believe you are not able to explain the disparity between Trump rhetoric/logic and reality when it comes to international trade.

Anyone care to explain how dan is wrong about this?
 
Ostatedchi, JimmyBob and HighStickHarry, I bet when you were little boys you were great at dodge ball. You’re sure good at dodging the issue in this thread.

Let me try to explain it to you. The trade deficit has never been responsible for job losses, at least not in the way Trump has led you to believe. So called trade deficits are actually evidence that the economy is strong and is attractive to foreign investors. The so called trade deficit could just as easily be called a product surplus. In truth there is no deficit. Individuals and companies from America voluntarily exchange their dollars for foreign goods of an exactly even amount. Automation is what has cost jobs, not foreign trade. If Trump were being honest with us, if he truly cared about “saving jobs” he would be railing against automation, not wicked foreigners.

In the overall picture tariffs do not save jobs. They never have. They “save jobs” in one sector of the economy, and cause job losses in another sector, usually more jobs than they save. Did you see the estimate that the 25% tariffs that will be imposed on imported autos will cost 600,000 jobs downstream? Does that concern you?

Your adoration for DJT is just as deranged as is the hatred against him by the #resistance.

Trump, the businessman, is playing pure politics with his tariffs. He is trying to ensure the union vote in the rust belt. The fact tariffs are a detriment to the rest of the country is immaterial to him. He’s saying “let them (us: you and me) eat cake.” And you are lapping it up like sponges.

Give the man credit for turning around the economy with his tax reform and deregulation. He deserves credit for that. Bravo to Trump for tax reform and deregulation!

But he deserves an equal share of condemnation when he does or says something stupid, something that would be harmful to the country. You don’t seem to be capable of doing that. As Trump would say: “sad.”
 
Last edited:
Dan, you are the one that is the ideologue here. Not me. I'm quite capable of giving Trump the blame when it is deserved.

I just believe that anything he has done regarding tariffs just isn't a big enough deal to matter. You, on the other hand lose your mind at the mere mention of them. And go back and find me railing against trade deficits - please. I bet you don't.
 
Dan, you are the one that is the ideologue here. Not me. I'm quite capable of giving Trump the blame when it is deserved.

I just believe that anything he has done regarding tariffs just isn't a big enough deal to matter. You, on the other hand lose your mind at the mere mention of them. And go back and find me railing against trade deficits - please. I bet you don't.
In other words you still can’t/won’t explain how we have full employment in spite of a record trade deficit, and in spite of there being no excess tariffs imposed. I “lose my mind” when I see a politician toying with our well being, playing politics with our lives, saying something that is so obviously mistaken, and having his supporters defending him regardless. For some people he could shoot someone in the street and they would defend it. That drives me crazy.
 
I'm not defending crap. You find it important, I don't.

If and when something happens that truly effects the big picture, you'll see me wailing along with you.

So far nothing but background noise.
 
I'm not defending crap. You find it important, I don't.

If and when something happens that truly effects the big picture, you'll see me wailing along with you.

So far nothing but background noise.
You find it important enough to comment on it, but not important enough to explain it?
 
You find it important enough to comment on it, but not important enough to explain it?
I apologize for that catty remark. It does nothing to advance a conversation.

Let me put it this way: you can’t/won’t explain it because it is a contradiction. It’s inexplicable. Trump can’t claim credit for full employment while simultaneously saying tariffs are necessary to cure high unemployment. He wants to have it both ways and he can’t. His tax reform and deregulation were enough to reignite the economy. The threat of tariffs is unnecessary. The imposition of tariffs are nothing more than a transparent attempt to secure the union vote. That’s the only possible explanation. Do you agree with that much?
 
You find it important enough to comment on it, but not important enough to explain it?
Huh? I actually find it unimportant enough to let you know that I think your railing against Trump's horrible trade tariffs is misguided. Other than that, I don't care about them at all.

SO.. Enjoy arguing with someone else over a non-issue.
 
I apologize for that catty remark. It does nothing to advance a conversation.

Let me put it this way: you can’t/won’t explain it because it is a contradiction. It’s inexplicable. Trump can’t claim credit for full employment while simultaneously saying tariffs are necessary to cure high unemployment. He wants to have it both ways and he can’t. His tax reform and deregulation were enough to reignite the economy. The threat of tariffs is unnecessary. The imposition of tariffs are nothing more than a transparent attempt to secure the union vote. That’s the only possible explanation. Do you agree with that much?

Okay. Again, So what?

Oh my, a politician pandering for votes and highlighting their successes. Heaven forbid they are being a hypocrite while doing so.

What I've learned over the years is to not listen to what they say but watch what they do. Actually getting taxes lowered - yep. The threat of tariffs - meh. Even the short term, small scale institution of tariffs - meh.
 
Okay. Again, So what?

Oh my, a politician pandering for votes and highlighting their successes. Heaven forbid they are being a hypocrite while doing so.

What I've learned over the years is to not listen to what they say but watch what they do. Actually getting taxes lowered - yep. The threat of tariffs - meh. Even the short term, small scale institution of tariffs - meh.
So is that a yes, you do agree with that much?
 
He's just renegotiating deals with the biggest stack of chips at the table. The tariffs are just to move the game forward.

We have a model with how negotiations with China have gone. Use ZTE as an example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ostatedchi
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT