The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    My concern is that the heat would get turned up very high, and I fear that the base is falling in line. Keep in mind that Democrats think Cocaine Mitch stole a seat on the Court.

    There's a good chance that Democrat who opposed it would get primaried hard. I'm sure there would some who would take a stand an oppose it, but I have a hard time believing that as many as 15 Democrats would oppose it. I also pretty much assume that the filibuster would be set aside for this.
     
  2. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Slate always does play fast and loose with the word "sensible."
     
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Seems like we are finally rounding up these people

     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The Unemployment rates fell to 3.6%
    We now have the lowest unemployment rate since December 1969 and the lowest peacetime unemployment rate in 70 years
     
  5. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    Added 263,000 jobs. CNN Headline "Surprisingly"
     
  6. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Ok JF
    Who you gonna believe? The unbiased righteous Democrats or your lyin eyes?
     
  7. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

  8. LongestHorn

    LongestHorn 500+ Posts

  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    The projection with this one is strong.
     
  10. LongestHorn

    LongestHorn 500+ Posts

  11. militaryhorn

    militaryhorn Cocky & Relaxed Like Dionysus

    Kind of a bargain compared to 40 million in student loan forgiveness.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    I thought infrastructure was a bi-partisan issue?
     
  13. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    How Trump Thinks Tariffs Work (And How They Actually Work)

    Writer is wrong. How can chinese suppliers not lower their price? If the Chinese don’t have to lower their prices, how come they didn’t raise their price 25% before the tariff? Typical brain dead TDS. If I found out I could raise the price by 25% without effect, I would be damn upset. Also, if the American consumer was paying for this, why is China mad? Why would they care? The price was set for a reason pre-tariff (the importer had alternate suppliers). I guess if ALL the suppliers were Chinese, then there are no alternate suppliers of similar price. But if true, wouldn’t the Chinese have increased their price to what the market could bear?
     
  14. VYFan

    VYFan 2,500+ Posts

    Yes, economics.
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Of course, Annie Lowrey is Ezra Klein's wife, so that should tell you something about her politics. Generally, I'm a free trader, and it is weird seeing a bunch of liberal Democrats suddenly being opposed to economic protectionism. For decades, they were mostly supportive of tariffs, because unions back them. It would be like a bunch of Republicans suddenly criticizing tax cuts after favoring them for 40 years.

    And of course, Lowrey's analysis is wildly superficial, because it has no meaningful explanation or discussion of what our trade relationship looked like before Trump imposed tariffs. Did China impose tariffs on US goods or some other barriers to foreign competition? Maybe it did or didn't, but by reading Lowrey's article (and virtually every mainstream media publication's articles), we have no idea. That means we have no idea of the context in which the tariffs were imposed and have no idea who started this "trade war." It's just assumed that Trump is the aggressor in a pretty much unprovoked move. It's like talking about the bombing of Hiroshima without saying anything about Pearl Harbor or that a state of war existed. We just nuked them for shits and giggles.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    China imposed Anti-dumping duties on US ethanol-amine producers one year before the trade war. The rate? 97% for all US companies except Dow at 76%.

    I negotiated 5 licenses with Chinese companies in the last 9 years. 4 of them were successful, and 1 failed (we walked away). The Chinese state-owned companies are bullies. Those who have never met mainland Chinese may be surprised to know that they lie through their teeth. Even the Taiwanese say the same about their brethren across the straight. It’s all about leverage. China accustomed to having the leverage. They resent it when you have leverage and use it against them (well the poor negotiators do). The good negotiators look past it and still seek win-win. Nothing has surprised me regarding these trade negotiations. Eventually the Chinese will realize they have little leverage and give in. It will happen at the last minute.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not surprised. They are rough to do business with. Frankly, I'm receptive to the argument that the tariffs aren't the best option even it China is misbehaving. However, to accept that, I need a real analysis, not baldly partisan garbage, and if the focus doesn't even consider China's trade practices, it is nothing more than partisan garbage.
     
  18. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Kyle Bass on China/yuan

     
  19. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    If tariffs are not the best option what is? How would you level the trade field so it is not slanting heavily against USA?
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Traditional economic conservatives would argue a few things. First, they wouldn't consider the trade deficit to be a big problem. They would view it as simply a sign that the nation's people have more disposable income than they capacity to produce.

    Second, they would argue that tariffs only promote economic inefficiency by protecting industries that aren't competing as they should be. We'd be better off by getting rid of tariffs and forcing our businesses to compete.

    Third, to reduce the trade deficit, we should focus on boosting exports rather than cutting imports. They'd further argue that if we want to help our businesses compete, we should do so by improving our business climate by cutting taxes and regulations.

    20 years ago, this is what Republicans argued, and Democrats basically said what Trump is saying. Personally, I lean on the libertarian side but not absolutely. There is a time and a place for tariffs and other forms of protective policies on a case by case basis - to protect strategically important industries and to punish particularly bad apples. However, if a country is willing to trade with us on a free basis, we should reciprocate.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019 at 1:04 AM
  21. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    "They'd further that if we want to help our businesses compete, we should do so by improving our business climate by cutting taxes and regulations"
    Well Trump did both, maybe as much as he could and the results have been positive.
    He also called on companies to make more here.
     
  22. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    Tariffs are a tax that US citizens pay. We are "punishing" China by taxing US citizens. That doesn't sound like it will work. It actually hurts US businesses by increasing RM costs. For example Aluminum. Tariffs on foreign Aluminum will help the US Aluminum producers. However it hurts every company who makes products out of Aluminum and then it hurts consumers.

    The only way this doesn't hurt consumers and the only way China will start to play more fairly is if there are redundant supply chains for the products that will be most affected. If we could get Aluminum at the same or very similar cost from Thailand that we got from China, then a tariff on China hurts them but not the US. Well, it actually will hurt most still because Thailand and other producing countries would have to produce the amount of supply that the US previously bought from China. That would take time.

    I actually would be for cutting off trade with China and heavily investing in other SE and Central Asian countries to replace the Chinese supply. There will be issues with cost, supply, and quality for years but long term there would be a good solution. But that would be an actual, thought out plan that protects US consumers and builds allies around the world, while isolating China politically and economically.

    If only we had a President that could play 4D chess.
     
  23. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    If US was buying aluminum from China and Britain was buying from Thailand, then US buying from Thailand (due to US tariffs on China), which displaces Britain to buy from China, then nothing much changed expect additional shipping cost.
     
  24. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    I was giving a hypothetical. The point is that the real solution is competition among suppliers geographically not increasing taxes on US consumers.

    It hurts the lower and middle classes worst anyway.
     
  25. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    Despite tax cuts, federal revenue is 2% higher than last year. How many Dems here want to apologize for saying tax cuts don’t work?


    Opinion | Tax Revenue Keeps Rising
     
  26. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    The Senate passed the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank again with only 16 Republicans voting No.

    That makes 84 votes in the US Senate for State control of capital, i.e. Socialism.
     
  28. LongestHorn

    LongestHorn 500+ Posts

  29. Monahorns

    Monahorns 1,000+ Posts

    Tariffs aren't capitalism. They are mercantilism or cartelism. The "help" referred to in the meme is the same thing as the "hurt", taxes.
     
  30. TxnByBirth

    TxnByBirth 1,000+ Posts

    I seem to remember something else monumental happening in December of 1969...

    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page