Wow — Trump just literally sent a message to the whole world

[NZ Poke]

Think any of these leaders will doubt Trump’s sincerity?! Ha ha

It’s a great way to get ahold of immigration too. We have plenty of economic leverage.




Meanwhile — manufacturing confidence just reached an all time high, and wages are rising.

The following public figures promised permanent recession if we elect Trump:


— Mitt Romney

— Mark Cuban

— Paul Krugman

— Barack Obama

 

[Ponca Dan]

Think any of these leaders will doubt Trump’s sincerity?! Ha ha

It’s a great way to get ahold of immigration too. We have plenty of economic leverage.

View embedded media

Meanwhile — manufacturing confidence just reached an all time high, and wages are rising.

The following public figures promised permanent recession if we elect Trump:


— Mitt Romney

— Mark Cuban

— Paul Krugman

— Barack Obama

A counter argument about a trade war that is just starting:

http://www.aei.org/publication/back...tariffs-are-harming-us-companies-and-workers/

 

[Headhunter]

Trade wars will raise prices for the short term but the world needs the income from the USA more than we need them so they will fold.

 

[CBradSmith]

Probable buying opportunity over the next weeks in affected stocks.

 

[DrunkenViking]

A counter argument about a trade war that is just starting:

http://www.aei.org/publication/back...tariffs-are-harming-us-companies-and-workers/

You should be backing his call for actual free trade

What do you want?

To keep getting cucked in order to avoid a “potential” trade war?

 

[Ponca Dan]

You should be backing his call for actual free trade

What do you want?

To keep getting cucked in order to avoid a “potential” trade war?

He doesn’t call for free trade. He calls for fair trade. Do you know the difference?

A country that practices free trade wouldn’t have any tariffs no matter what other countries might do, because it would understand that free trade enriches them regardless.

Mike Shedlock explains:

https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/

 

[Ponca Dan]

Trade wars will raise prices for the short term but the world needs the income from the USA more than we need them so they will fold.

How would you expect that to work? How would the rest of the world “fold?”

 

[Ponca Dan]

You should be backing his call for actual free trade

What do you want?

To keep getting cucked in order to avoid a “potential” trade war?

One other thing: please explain how you, DrunkenViking, are getting cucked. How have you been adversely affected personally?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Trade wars will raise prices for the short term but the world needs the income from the USA more than we need them so they will fold.

They may need us more than we need them, but that doesn’t change the fact that we need them. Trade wars do not have winners and losers. They only have losers. If Trump gets us into a major trade war guess who are the losers. That’s right: you and I.

 

[NZ Poke]

They may need us more than we need them, but that doesn’t change the fact that we need them. Trade wars do not have winners and losers. They only have losers. If Trump gets us into a major trade war guess who are the losers. That’s right: you and I.

What’s message would you have for the president of the National Association of Manufacturers?


Below is his statement from Friday — do you find it odd he expressed so much optimism on the eve of a “trade war?”

 

[Ponca Dan]

What’s message would you have for the president of the National Association of Manufacturers?


Below is his statement from Friday — do you find it odd he expressed so much optimism on the eve of a “trade war?”

No, I don’t find it the least bit odd. He represents an organization dedicated to the mercantilist protection of existing industries. His organization is comprised of crony capitalist industries that rely on government “protection” to survive against competition. It would be more surprising if he was against government subsidies and protective tariffs.

It’s amazing to me how successful the protectionists have marketed their policies and manipulated the public into thinking it is acting in our behalf. Protectionism is not - and has never been - about saving jobs or protecting the consumer. It has always been about protecting struggling companies that buy politicians’ votes in exchange for harming the competition.

This is not about Trump! Trump is simply the buffoon they have persuaded to carry their water. My argument is against the policy. The policy lifts up companies that deserve to fold. And in exchange the politician, in this case Trump, is promised the union vote in the rust belt.

I have been in the market for another cargo van for my company. The sticker price on a new van is now about $1,000 more than it was when I started looking a few months ago. What do you suppose drove up the price? If there is an all out trade war what do you think will happen to the prices we will pay for countless products we use?

 

[DrunkenViking]

He doesn’t call for free trade. He calls for fair trade. Do you know the difference?

A country that practices free trade wouldn’t have any tariffs no matter what other countries might do, because it would understand that free trade enriches them regardless.

Mike Sherlock explains;

https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/

That’s bullshit

Trade deficits matter

Since 2000 over 5 million manufacturing jobs lost

You know where else trade deficits matter?

Financing, the US has to finance its deficits pound for pound

Why is it that many of our largest corporations are now foreign owned?

What kind of leverage would that give someone like say, China if they could own tons of American assets?

One other thing: please explain how you, DrunkenViking, are getting cucked. How have you been adversely affected personally?

Tell me, how are these massive deficits good for my children?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Anyone who is negatively spinning Trump trying to renegotiate better trade deals for America has an agenda. And it isn't a pro-American one.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Anyone who is negatively spinning Trump trying to renegotiate better trade deals for America has an agenda. And it isn't a pro-American one.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Disparage the motives of anyone who disagrees with a policy. Free market economists are obviously anti-American.

 

[Ponca Dan]

That’s bullshit

Trade deficits matter

Since 2000 over 5 million manufacturing jobs lost

You know where else trade deficits matter?

Financing, the US has to finance its deficits pound for pound

Why is it that many of our largest corporations are now foreign owned?

What kind of leverage would that give someone like say, China if they could own tons of American assets?



Tell me, how are these massive deficits good for my children?

Saying “trade deficits matter” does not advance your argument. How many of those manufacturing job losses can be traced to trade deficits, and how many to things like automation?

If we called it a product surplus would you say it matters?

Explain how the US as an entity finances the trade deficit? The people who buy the foreign products finance the trade.

Explain what the trade deficit is. Where’s the deficit? A US company exchanges x amount of dollars for an equal x amount of goods. The account balances to zero. A foreign company exchanges y amount of their currency for an equal y amount of goods. The account balances to zero. Where’s the deficit?

I beg of you to read the Shedlock link. Go to the article discussing why we should not have any tariffs. He’s not a partisan. He explains in simple terms why the mercantilist/protectionist argument is flawed. Try it. You will hear a side of the argument you probably have never heard before.

Oh, I almost forgot. I don’t see the so called trade deficit harming your children. Please show me how they will.

 

[Ponca Dan]

OMG, I just discovered that Mark Perry is on with Mark Levin right now!

 

[DrunkenViking]

Saying “trade deficits matter” does not advance your argument. How many of those manufacturing job losses can be traced to trade deficits, and how many to things like automation?

If we called it a product surplus would you say it matters?

Explain how the US as an entity finances the trade deficit? The people who buy the foreign products finance the trade.

Explain what the trade deficit is. Where’s the deficit? A US company exchanges x amount of dollars for an equal x amount of goods. The account balances to zero. A foreign company exchanges y amount of their currency for an equal y amount of goods. The account balances to zero. Where’s the deficit?

I beg of you to read the Shedlock link. Go to the article discussing why we should not have any tariffs. He’s not a partisan. He explains in simple terms why the mercantilist/protectionist argument is flawed. Try it. You will hear a side of the argument you probably have never heard before.

Oh, I almost forgot. I don’t see the so called trade deficit harming your children. Please show me how they will.

National debt is good. Got it

 

[Headhunter]

Trade wars will raise prices for the short term but the world needs the income from the USA more than we need them so they will fold.

How would you expect that to work? How would the rest of the world “fold?”

They will abandon tariffs and subsidies that negatively affect commerce in USA.

You can scream your goofy anti tariff retoric all you want but if the only thing that mattered was getting the cheapest price on everything then we might as well all learn Chinese or Spanish cause this country is done.

 

[Ponca Dan]

National debt is good. Got it

You are confusing the national debt, which is caused by our government spending more than it takes in, and thus having to borrow from foreign entities, with the so called trade deficit, which is the mutual exchange (trade) between private parties, and which, from an accounting point of view, balance to zero. You are being hoodwinked into surrendering some of your liberty, your economic liberty, by a shell game played by mercantilist interests.

 

[Ponca Dan]

They will abandon tariffs and subsidies that negatively affect commerce in USA.

You can scream your goofy anti tariff retoric all you want but if the only thing that mattered was getting the cheapest price on everything then we might as well all learn Chinese or Spanish cause this country is done.

If you could set your emotions aside for one minute, read the arguments put forth by the goofy anti-tariff, free market proponents, you might discover they are not quite so goofy as you want to believe.

I understand that of all the participants on this board you are the most fully emotionally invested in DJT, and you view any criticism thrown his way as a threat that must be rebuked. And anyone who criticizes him must be his enemy (and, therefore, your enemy, too). In this instance you are mistaken. DJT is not our saviour, he does not ride a white horse, he is not a diety. He’s a flawed human being like the rest of us, subject to mistakes like the rest of us. He is displaying a huge misunderstanding of economics and international trade with his trade war. No one is being anti-American or wanting to bring America down here. Precisely the opposite! We (I) are trying to open some eyes to the potential danger he is leading us into, and trying, as civily and politely as possible, to persuade you to see the economic danger his protectionism poses.

 

[Headhunter]

Free markets are good. The problem is no such thing really exists.

Protecting our own self interests, even if it costs additional money, is just part of existing in the world.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Free markets are good. The problem is no such thing really exists.

Protecting our own self interests, even if it costs additional money, is just part of existing in the world.

HH, that is empty rhetoric. Protectionism does not protect your self interest unless you are the crony capitalist owner of a protected company. Any reasoned, calm, unemotional, deliberate analysis of the situation will tell you that. The protectionists are playing on your emotions, and are counting on you never taking off the blinders to see the truth.

Look at it like this: you go to the shoe store and buy a new pair of shoes. You give the clerk $300 and he hands you the shoes. By the protectionist logic you have been suckered into a trade deficit with the shoe store. Do you feel like a sucker, or were you willing to exchange the dough for the shoes? Don’t you think you have been enriched by the transaction? But there was no deficit. The store got $300 and you got $300 worth of merchandise, which you obviously preferred over the money or you would not have participated in the transaction. But by protectionist logic you are on the negative side of a trade deficit, and the only logical remedy is to force the store to spend money with you. Does that sound the least bit logical to you?

When an American company buys merchandise from a foreign seller the scenario is exactly the same as you and the shoe store. There is zero deficit. And the American public is not on the hook to pay the foreign company for the American company’s purchase. There is absolutely no need for the government to involve itself in the transaction. But it does involve itself because that’s what governments do: grab power away from the individual at every opportunity. In a democracy first it has to trick us into ceding power. But at some point it feels strong enough that it no longer feels the need for trickery. It just bludgeons the populace. Did you not feel the lash under Obama?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Disparage the motives of anyone who disagrees with a policy. Free market economists are obviously anti-American.

I am and think I'm correct.

If you have a problem with Trump's attempts to negotiate more favorable trade deals then you have an ulterior motive in your attempt to spin that motive in a negative light.

Free market economists are fine - in a theoretical vacuum. But when they say Trump is in the wrong to renegotiate trade deals with other countries that are now more favorable towards America - yeah, they are wrong.

 

[wyomingosualum]

HH, that is empty rhetoric. Protectionism does not protect your self interest unless you are the crony capitalist owner of a protected company. Any reasoned, calm, unemotional, deliberate analysis of the situation will tell you that. The protectionists are playing on your emotions, and are counting on you never taking off the blinders to see the truth.

Look at it like this: you go to the shoe store and buy a new pair of shoes. You give the clerk $300 and he hands you the shoes. By the protectionist logic you have been suckered into a trade deficit with the shoe store. Do you feel like a sucker, or were you willing to exchange the dough for the shoes? Don’t you think you have been enriched by the transaction? But there was no deficit. The store got $300 and you got $300 worth of merchandise, which you obviously preferred over the money or you would not have participated in the transaction. But by protectionist logic you are on the negative side of a trade deficit, and the only logical remedy is to force the store to spend money with you. Does that sound the least bit logical to you?

When an American company buys merchandise from a foreign seller the scenario is exactly the same as you and the shoe store. There is zero deficit. And the American public is not on the hook to pay the foreign company for the American company’s purchase. There is absolutely no need for the government to involve itself in the transaction. But it does involve itself because that’s what governments do: grab power away from the individual at every opportunity. In a democracy first it has to trick us into ceding power. But at some point it feels strong enough that it no longer feels the need for trickery. It just bludgeons the populace. Did you not feel the lash under Obama?

Good discussion. You explain your position well.

Now that the shoe transaction has occurred, the buyer can do only one thing with the shoes. He wears them. No further economic benefit will be derived.

The seller, who is in a foreign country, now has the cash, which will be spent in the foreign country on multiple transactions time after time until that money leaves the country.

It seems to me that the longer we can keep the cash in our own country, the better off we are economically because the more worn and torn a dollar bill is, the more people have been satisfied with its use. How does your school of thought address this issue?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I am and think I'm correct.

If you have a problem with Trump's attempts to negotiate more favorable trade deals then you have an ulterior motive in your attempt to spin that motive in a negative light.

Free market economists are fine - in a theoretical vacuum. But when they say Trump is in the wrong to renegotiate trade deals with other countries that are now more favorable towards America - yeah, they are wrong.

Comments like this do nothing to advance the discussion. If you think it is appropriate for our government to negotiate trade deals with other governments, including prohibiting free exchange between willing participants just because they are on opposite sides of a border, please explain the correctness. When you claim, without evidence, that free market economists are anti-American and mean America harm, it is incumbent on you to show why. Right now you are behaving like a six year old that holds his breath until he turns red, closes his eyes, covers his ears and shouts "I can't hear you!"


I have tried in my own amateurish feeble way to explain the free market argument. I have tried to allay each fear that has been thrown my way. I have not hidden from any legitimate counter argument to mine. It would be nice if you could do the same, and explain your position beyond "because Trump is doing it."

 

[Rdcldad]

If you could set your emotions aside for one minute

this looks to be your go to

when you need a leg up

 

[Ponca Dan]

Good discussion. You explain your position well.

Now that the shoe transaction has occurred, the buyer can do only one thing with the shoes. He wears them. No further economic benefit will be derived.

The seller, who is in a foreign country, now has the cash, which will be spent in the foreign country on multiple transactions time after time until that money leaves the country.

It seems to me that the longer we can keep the cash in our own country, the better off we are economically because the more worn and torn a dollar bill is, the more people have been satisfied with its use. How does your school of thought address this issue?

Not at all. The buyer of the shoes has many options. He can wear them, or he can sell them to someone else (that's what Macy's does. It buys shoes from a manufacturer, and sells them to a consumer. There is no reason the consumer can't do the same thing.), or he could give them away to a person in need, or he could store them away for use at a later date.

You are concerning yourself too much with the cash side of the equation. Cash is not wealth. It's the merchandise that is the source of wealth. Picture yourself on a desert island, stranded, no one knows where you are, you have no idea when you'll be rescued. Would you rather have a million dollars in cash, or a million dollars worth of canned goods, shoes, clothing, tools to build a shelter? It's the merchandise that makes you wealthy, not the cash.

So what if the foreigner spends the money he got from the transaction? Good for him! He'll stay in business and want to make more shoes to sell to me and other consumers. It enriches us all.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I wonder if this is the same AEI that was the "intellectual command post" for regime change in Iraq?

That was a costly screwup.

Also, (Iraq war architect) Bill Kristol told the AEI that "white working class should be replaced by immigrants" back in 2017.

The crowd and host laughed (see below) -- I wonder if the AEI later released a statement distancing themselves from Bill Kristol? Apparently 20 veterans commit sucide per day -- they don't need "replacement," they need help.

View embedded media

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I have said.

 

[Ponca Dan]

this looks to be your go to

when you need a leg up

No, it's my go to when my arguments are not countered intellectually, but with emotional venom and name calling.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Not at all. The buyer of the shoes has many options. He can wear them, or he can sell them to someone else (that's what Macy's does. It buys shoes from a manufacturer, and sells them to a consumer. There is no reason the consumer can't do the same thing.), or he could give them away to a person in need, or he could store them away for use at a later date.

You are concerning yourself too much with the cash side of the equation. Cash is not wealth. It's the merchandise that is the source of wealth. Picture yourself on a desert island, stranded, no one knows where you are, you have no idea when you'll be rescued. Would you rather have a million dollars in cash, or a million dollars worth of canned goods, shoes, clothing, tools to build a shelter? It's the merchandise that makes you wealthy, not the cash.

So what if the foreigner spends the money he got from the transaction? Good for him! He'll stay in business and want to make more shoes to sell to me and other consumers. It enriches us all.

You haven’t won me over, but you did answer my question. So thanks.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I’ll try again to post a link from a free market economist trying to explain the error of protectionism thought. Maybe someone will actually read this one.

https://force4good.me/2018/06/17/who-competes-with-who/

 

[Ponca Dan]

Wow! Forbes sides with the anti-Americans! Who knew? What’s this world coming to?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuart...that-new-tariffs-not-immigrants-costing-jobs/

 

[Ponca Dan]

What’s message would you have for the president of the National Association of Manufacturers?


Below is his statement from Friday — do you find it odd he expressed so much optimism on the eve of a “trade war?”

I actually just now got around to reading your whole quote rather than just the part you highlighted. Interesting that he doesn’t mention tariffs or protectionism as the source of his optimism, but rather the tax reform. In that regard I couldn’t agree with him more.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Comments like this do nothing to advance the discussion. If you think it is appropriate for our government to negotiate trade deals with other governments, including prohibiting free exchange between willing participants just because they are on opposite sides of a border, please explain the correctness. When you claim, without evidence, that free market economists are anti-American and mean America harm, it is incumbent on you to show why. Right now you are behaving like a six year old that holds his breath until he turns red, closes his eyes, covers his ears and shouts "I can't hear you!"


I have tried in my own amateurish feeble way to explain the free market argument. I have tried to allay each fear that has been thrown my way. I have not hidden from any legitimate counter argument to mine. It would be nice if you could do the same, and explain your position beyond "because Trump is doing it."

And you continue to miss the point. Is it purposeful?

You can be subscribe to the ideology of totally free markets. That's totally fine. I think it is a utopia that will never exist in reality. But you continue to preach about the wonders of Utopia and we'll continue to live in reality. But that ideology isn't in itself un-American.

Where you go off the rails is when you characterize Trump's attempts to renegotiate the existing trade deals with other countries to be more favorable to America as anything but positive for America. Yes, I think when you say those things - you are being anti-American.

 

[Ponca Dan]

And you continue to miss the point. Is it purposeful?

You can be subscribe to the ideology of totally free markets. That's totally fine. I think it is a utopia that will never exist in reality. But you continue to preach about the wonders of Utopia and we'll continue to live in reality. But that ideology isn't in itself un-American.

Where you go off the rails is when you characterize Trump's attempts to renegotiate the existing trade deals with other countries to be more favorable to America as anything but positive for America. Yes, I think when you say those things - you are being anti-American.

When I or others see a policy being promoted as being potentially harmful we are not going to be intimidated into silence by those who idolize the politician promoting the policy.

I’m not sure what point you are making that you think I am missing. The only point you are making is Trump is negotiating for a better deal for America and anyone who disagrees, who thinks he is making a mistake, is somehow being anti-American.

I keep asking you to present your case for government intervention. I ask you to present evidence of a trade deficit and show how it is negatively affecting our economy.

I have presented my case, have posted numerous links (which you stubbornly refuse to read), have shown examples of the negative consequences of tariffs and protectionism, have laid out my argument, and have asked you to do the same.

In response you have called me an ideologue, unAmerican. Not once have you presented why you agree with the mercantilism and protectionist policies proposed and practiced by the Trump administration, beyond advocating for it since Trump is doing it. It makes me wonder if you are capable of proving you have given any thought to what you say, or if you are so eaten up with Trump adoration that is all you need.

You do not seem to understand what international trade is. You seem to think “America” is trading with “Germany,” and that is a false understanding. America, the country, is not trading with Germany, the country. A private company from America is trading with a private company from Germany. They are mutually cooperating as a buyer and a seller. Both sides believe they are profiting from the exchange. Otherwise they wouldn’t conclude the trade. Government does not need to interfere in the trade. There need be no negotiating between the 2 governments. They neither one need to be involved.

But somehow you agree with the protectionists that American “interests” have been harmed. You have been duped into thinking you have been damaged, yet you refuse to show where or how the damage has been done.

Make your case. Calling me or free market advocates names like “ideologues” and “utopian” does not suffice.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Yet again you miss the point.

You continue to live in your ideology driven Utopia. The rest of us will continue living in the real world.

I'm out.

 

[Ponca Dan]

A

Yet again you miss the point.

You continue to live in your ideology driven Utopia. The rest of us will continue living in the real world.

I'm out.

Again you don’t make a point. I wish you would. I wonder if you can.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Again you don’t make a point. I wish you would. I wonder if you can.

Okay, let me try this Socratic method style...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement. 'The president of the United States should attempt to negotiate the most favorable trade deals possible with foreign governments?'

If you disagree with that statement, then you are either an unyielding ideology; or, anti-American. That's my point.

Now... you can disagree with the tactics taken in the negotiations. That's fine. But the strategy of looking out for American interests by a sitting American president is exactly what the president should be doing. If you disagree with that strategy or that role - then we really don't have anything more to discuss.

So far you've condemned even the notion that we seek more favorable trade agreements. If you still don't get it. Then I'm done.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

A



Again you don’t make a point. I wish you would. I wonder if you can.

Taking free trade with all countries off the table for the minute, is it more American (for Americans) to have more favorable trade deals or less favorable trade deals (than they are today)?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Taking free trade with all countries off the table for the minute, is it more American (for Americans) to have more favorable trade deals or less favorable trade deals (than they are today)?

The most favorable "trade deals" would be no government imposed trade deals at all. I refer you to the Mike Shedlock link posted toward the beginning of this thread. In it he explains the superiority of free trade over government interference, even if one side has free trade and the other side has harsh tariffs. Even then the country with no tariffs has a huge advantage, and he explains why.