The First 100 days

His speech today was the strongest by any US president at the UN ever.

We will always have international trade. Do you know why? Because the US is still the largest consumer market in the world. It is encumbant upon rvery manufacturer int he world to be in this market. We have always had this leverage to use ibn negotiations but failed to use it, until Trump.

He doesn't seek isolationism and it is either naive or poorly thought through rhetoric to believe he does. All he wants is the same rules to apply to everyone. This is the core feature of fairness. For example, if we put a 0-10% tariff on SoKo imported autos but they put a 40% tariff on US cars into SoKo, how is this fair? Why did we ever allow this in the first place? It boggles the mind that you would oppose the idea of fairness in trade.

ps -- if you respond and I dont replay again, its because I am sometimes being blocked from logging in. Seems to be a common happening on the internet these days.

 

Your dismissal is concerning. EU is a bigger market than the US and that 10% tariff isn't paid by China. It is paid by you and me. We all get hurt by the tariffs until China is willing to renegotiate, if that day ever comes.

 

Perot was ridiculed unmercifully for this back in the day
But does anything today still think he was wrong?

 

I hope this is true and I think it is. I am just not sure tariffs are the best way to help the US citizen. If the tariffs force China, etc. to renegotiate for freer trade it could all be worth it. However, that depends on how long the tariffs continue and how much freer trade becomes as a result. That equation could be very, very costly for US citizens. Won't know until it happens. So there should be real cause for concern.

 

Mexico will tell you that NAFTA has hurt them and benefitted the US. So it is unclear to me that Perot was correct. Working in industry and manufacturing for 20 years, I am not sure NAFTA has hurt the US economy like some say.

 

You are right:"He doesn't seek isolationism and it is either naive or poorly thought through rhetoric to believe he does."
BUT you know every media outlet that hates Trump and every Dem will call him an isolationist .

 

Perot was certainly correct on his main point, which was the job loss. This is not in dispute

 

Nobody wants a trade war. Not Trump, not anyone. But how else can you force a move by China? Trump is correct that they have been taking advantage of us for several decades. And, just for the record, I do not blame Nixon for this. He was correct to open up to China. It is what they occurred subsequent to Nixon that f'd us.

Further, while it is true that a trade war with China will have cost to the people of the US, I do not think this has been hidden from anyone. In fact, recent polling suggests American workers and consumers are aware of this possibility but willing to bear the costs if it means getting the system fixed.

One thing that you appear to discount or look past is the question of -- if a knock-down-drag-out trade war between China and the US were to occur, which side could hold out the longest? I say there is no question it is the US economy. Why? One of the main reasons is that we both produce and consume here. We can re-supply ourselves. China is not there yet. Much of their economy is wobbly if not outright fake.

So I say China would blink first. Why so confident? Again, it takes some understanding of what is going on there. Here is my view. The primary fear of the people who run China is civil unrest. How would that happen? The way it usually happens - people lose work and go hungry. This is the start for most revolutions. The one thing that keeps the ruling class of China awake at night is the idea that they could lose their power and privilege (perhaps even more than that). A billion+ hungry humans could make that happen pretty quick. It is a leverage that we have always had over them in trade (and all areas for that matter) but never used. But Trump sees it.

Why have we never used our leverage with China? You ask good questions. Because our politicians have always turned over huge chunks of international trade deals to their biggest donors. Both parties have historically done this. For Obama, it was Silicon Valley. And just look what that got us. Bill Clinton was even worse (satellite technology for campaign donations). We have been mind-numbingly stupid with regard to the Chinese. I say it is unfair to expect Trump to fix all that in 4 years, but at least he is making a real attempt instead of Obama's fake tough talk with nothing behind it.

 

John Bolton --

“The Iran deal was in fact the worst diplomatic debacle in American history.”​

 

Joe, I think we will have to agree to disagree on NAFTA. Overall it can't hurt that much when unemployment is <4% today and could get even better with continued business relief from the government. I am sure there are aspects that could be better. I have no problem with it being renegotiated to make it better to that point.

I agree with what you said about China. I agree that the US has much leverage over them. I am just not as confident in the outcome. You're prediction is totally reasonable but it is hard to predict the future. You correctly identify China's problem though. They are subsidizing manufacturing in order to artificially reduce unemployment for exactly the reasons you state. Bad economy in China will lead to the Chinese people resisting and maybe even revolting. At least that is what I have heard. So they are in a catch 22. At some point for many reasons they will have to play fairer in order to have sustainable prosperity. But what happens until that time. I can't be certain.

 

I support consumption taxes to pay for a bigger Navy.

 

Come on Mona. Restaurant jobs and part-time retail (the Obama special) be not manufacturing jobs

 

With regard to China, I am not even suggesting we should attempt an unfair advantage over them, just give us all something fair and reasonable and let us all move on. Together.
I dont think Apple has ever had the #1 selling fone in China. Why? It's usually ~40% higher than the Chinese version.

 

What does his remark have to do with trade? Equitable trade means equitable to us, not giving away everything just so other nations will like us.

 

Not wrong, but still annoying. I almost voted for him.

 

And it’s not even close

Short term you are right. Long term it’s the best way to go for America. It has to be done sooner or later and we may never have a president that’s willing to stand up for the unfair trade. Meaning in all reality that we will never get the chance to make it right again.

 

4th
My point was Dems are going to leap on that remark and call him an isolationist ignoring all his efforts go get fair trade deals.
Even now they decry his efforts to get better deals for American companies

 

Trump isn't an isolationist but he is a protectionist. He campaigned on that and is now implementing that. It sounds like many of you are confident it will all work out well. I am cautiously hoping that China and EU will see it is better to open up trade than not, but they should already know that and still haven't changed. Both those entities have been stacking the deck against us for years now.

 

Yes Mona they have screwed us over fr years. It was not assault. We agree to it.
So now ay be Trump can we some changes. No doubt there will e some adversely affected short term.
Is there any other way? I do not know.

 

I believe it means we won't hope or assume those unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will in fact rule the world equitably. We can't take the chance. Why should we?

 

To me the biggest political problem is the one-world sanctimony. I am willing to say that it will never happen. When we see the emotional battles going on over race and culture it is clear to me that we will always have an uneasy peace between nations and between cultures. The tribal nature of humans is too deeply ingrained into the emotional consciousness. When we see US Latino's angrily defending the rights of Latino's in other countries then that is all the proof that I need that they will never give up their CULTURAL sovereignty. Their culture transcends borders. Is that they would cede patriotism as long as they can move at will together withing their own cultural way of life as migrants do in order to make a better life for themselves?

I can't envision the US ever raising it's borders (or any other country) in favor of a one-world matrix. It is so far-fetched to me that it is ridiculous to even bring it up; but that takes me back to the sanctimony. The one-world socialists pretend it is an achievable vision and they are being prevented from this humanistic approach to caring for us all by people like Donald Trump. And by doing so they put pressure on for us acquiesce to treaties such as the Paris Agreement (which I believe was so-named specifically to circumvent the US constitutional requirement that Congress ratify treaties). I read through the agreement and it appeared to be merely a payday for those same unaccountable and unelected UN bureaucrats ("experts") along with corrupt politicians from the developing nations. In other words, it was a wealth transfer scheme with very little chance of achieving the goals of climate change. But even greater than the wealth transfer is that it provided the opportunity for the socialists to cast blame upon their political opponents with the sanctimonious outcry that "They are the one's who don't care if you die."

 

Our worthless politicians have been happy to make us bend over and take it all that time too.

 

This seems to be the consensus view out there

yay Obama

 

I am still going to nitpick (sorry).
He is not a protectionist by philosophy but rather a protectionist only to the extent that he has to be. Tariffs are merely a pragmatic tool in the toolbox. He would prefer that the entire free world have no tariffs. That is his actual philosophy. He even brought this up with the Euros and they just sat there slack-jaw with no response as if it had never occurred to them (which it probably had not). His implementation of tariffs, by my view at least, is solely to force the other side into dropping theirs. Once they do, ours retract or disappear altogether. We have already seen this playbook unfold.

 

Extreme globalists would do this, and countries in which globalists have total control have done this at least to a point. For example, I'm driving into Austria today. I won't have to show a passport or even talk to a border or customs control officer. There will be no record of my visit. Effectively there is no border. If people who have similar priorities take power in the US they will do something comparable.

 

Mr D
is all of Europe like that? Isn't that part of the EU? I do not know

 

It is a part of the EU agreement. Schengen?
But they don't police the EU border well either. That is the subterfuge. Hey trust us you don't need to police your national border we the EU will do that for you. But once they get the agreement from members states, they open up the gate and wave everyone in.

 

They've done a little better recently, but you're basically correct.

 

That's the so-called Schengen Area and covers most of the EU. However, some countries are in the EU and not in Schengen (like Ireland and the UK), and some are in Schengen but not the EU (like Norway and Switzerland).