Brexit on the brink

[Bleipriester]

I don´t think so. Too many countries that the US is excluding already.

Um, we have the most open market in the world, and are CONSTANTLY paying a massively heavy price because of it.


We SHOULD be dialing that shit WAY down, very soon, at least that is what TRump ran on.


BUT, not to isolationism but to actual Mutually Beneficial Trade.


If the UK is able to do that, we can certainly work it out.

The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. It only means that the US imports more then it exports. And this is mostly about cars and consumer goods. Trump is an idiot when he wants to "enforce" a better trade balance. What he can do is to sanction US companies that source out and that is what he promised beside reviewing the big trade agreements. If those agreements ain´t beneficiary for the US, why did the US agree in the first place?

1. It is absurd to claim that the trade deficits are not bad for the US.

2. If trade deficits are not bad, then why fight reversing them? If it is not bad, than give US the trade surpluses, and it won't make any difference, right?


3. THe reasons for our mistakes in agreeing to those bad trade deals are varied. They include, Ideological Free Traders, and the desire to bolster the economy of shaky allies during the Cold War.


4. What ever the reasons, the deals were always sold as helping US export more, to benefit our economy and workers. And they never have. The deals have failed, the policy has failed. Time to change.

1,2:
If the society can afford more than it produces, this cannot be bad. The actual problem is that when the US industry falls apart, a main pillar of the economy falls apart. And this can have several causes: Outsourcing, technological backlog, dumping prices. Here´s where the government must take action and it needs allies. Blackmailing allies is not good for a solution.

3,4:
The US tried to take over other markets and it didn´t work out as well as hoped. Now you cry. You want new deals that exclusively benefit the US? Ask the man in the moon.

1. Thank you for admitting that a "main pillar of our economy" has fallen apart. Do you admit that this has caused great suffering to our people.


2. Our "allies" are the ones benefiting at our expense. THey will not willingly give up the benefit they receive from this trade imbalance.


3. "Take over" is overstating the case. We were looking for Mutually Beneficial Trade. Instead, OUR market has been taken over.


4. And dismissing my complaints as "crying" is not much of an answer, it is just you being a dick. There is a problem and I want to fix it.

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

 

[Correll]

Um, we have the most open market in the world, and are CONSTANTLY paying a massively heavy price because of it.


We SHOULD be dialing that shit WAY down, very soon, at least that is what TRump ran on.


BUT, not to isolationism but to actual Mutually Beneficial Trade.


If the UK is able to do that, we can certainly work it out.

The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. It only means that the US imports more then it exports. And this is mostly about cars and consumer goods. Trump is an idiot when he wants to "enforce" a better trade balance. What he can do is to sanction US companies that source out and that is what he promised beside reviewing the big trade agreements. If those agreements ain´t beneficiary for the US, why did the US agree in the first place?

1. It is absurd to claim that the trade deficits are not bad for the US.

2. If trade deficits are not bad, then why fight reversing them? If it is not bad, than give US the trade surpluses, and it won't make any difference, right?


3. THe reasons for our mistakes in agreeing to those bad trade deals are varied. They include, Ideological Free Traders, and the desire to bolster the economy of shaky allies during the Cold War.


4. What ever the reasons, the deals were always sold as helping US export more, to benefit our economy and workers. And they never have. The deals have failed, the policy has failed. Time to change.

1,2:
If the society can afford more than it produces, this cannot be bad. The actual problem is that when the US industry falls apart, a main pillar of the economy falls apart. And this can have several causes: Outsourcing, technological backlog, dumping prices. Here´s where the government must take action and it needs allies. Blackmailing allies is not good for a solution.

3,4:
The US tried to take over other markets and it didn´t work out as well as hoped. Now you cry. You want new deals that exclusively benefit the US? Ask the man in the moon.

1. Thank you for admitting that a "main pillar of our economy" has fallen apart. Do you admit that this has caused great suffering to our people.


2. Our "allies" are the ones benefiting at our expense. THey will not willingly give up the benefit they receive from this trade imbalance.


3. "Take over" is overstating the case. We were looking for Mutually Beneficial Trade. Instead, OUR market has been taken over.


4. And dismissing my complaints as "crying" is not much of an answer, it is just you being a dick. There is a problem and I want to fix it.

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

 

[Bleipriester]

The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. It only means that the US imports more then it exports. And this is mostly about cars and consumer goods. Trump is an idiot when he wants to "enforce" a better trade balance. What he can do is to sanction US companies that source out and that is what he promised beside reviewing the big trade agreements. If those agreements ain´t beneficiary for the US, why did the US agree in the first place?

1. It is absurd to claim that the trade deficits are not bad for the US.

2. If trade deficits are not bad, then why fight reversing them? If it is not bad, than give US the trade surpluses, and it won't make any difference, right?


3. THe reasons for our mistakes in agreeing to those bad trade deals are varied. They include, Ideological Free Traders, and the desire to bolster the economy of shaky allies during the Cold War.


4. What ever the reasons, the deals were always sold as helping US export more, to benefit our economy and workers. And they never have. The deals have failed, the policy has failed. Time to change.

1,2:
If the society can afford more than it produces, this cannot be bad. The actual problem is that when the US industry falls apart, a main pillar of the economy falls apart. And this can have several causes: Outsourcing, technological backlog, dumping prices. Here´s where the government must take action and it needs allies. Blackmailing allies is not good for a solution.

3,4:
The US tried to take over other markets and it didn´t work out as well as hoped. Now you cry. You want new deals that exclusively benefit the US? Ask the man in the moon.

1. Thank you for admitting that a "main pillar of our economy" has fallen apart. Do you admit that this has caused great suffering to our people.


2. Our "allies" are the ones benefiting at our expense. THey will not willingly give up the benefit they receive from this trade imbalance.


3. "Take over" is overstating the case. We were looking for Mutually Beneficial Trade. Instead, OUR market has been taken over.


4. And dismissing my complaints as "crying" is not much of an answer, it is just you being a dick. There is a problem and I want to fix it.

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

 

[Correll]

1. It is absurd to claim that the trade deficits are not bad for the US.

2. If trade deficits are not bad, then why fight reversing them? If it is not bad, than give US the trade surpluses, and it won't make any difference, right?


3. THe reasons for our mistakes in agreeing to those bad trade deals are varied. They include, Ideological Free Traders, and the desire to bolster the economy of shaky allies during the Cold War.


4. What ever the reasons, the deals were always sold as helping US export more, to benefit our economy and workers. And they never have. The deals have failed, the policy has failed. Time to change.

1,2:
If the society can afford more than it produces, this cannot be bad. The actual problem is that when the US industry falls apart, a main pillar of the economy falls apart. And this can have several causes: Outsourcing, technological backlog, dumping prices. Here´s where the government must take action and it needs allies. Blackmailing allies is not good for a solution.

3,4:
The US tried to take over other markets and it didn´t work out as well as hoped. Now you cry. You want new deals that exclusively benefit the US? Ask the man in the moon.

1. Thank you for admitting that a "main pillar of our economy" has fallen apart. Do you admit that this has caused great suffering to our people.


2. Our "allies" are the ones benefiting at our expense. THey will not willingly give up the benefit they receive from this trade imbalance.


3. "Take over" is overstating the case. We were looking for Mutually Beneficial Trade. Instead, OUR market has been taken over.


4. And dismissing my complaints as "crying" is not much of an answer, it is just you being a dick. There is a problem and I want to fix it.

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

 

[Bleipriester]

1,2:
If the society can afford more than it produces, this cannot be bad. The actual problem is that when the US industry falls apart, a main pillar of the economy falls apart. And this can have several causes: Outsourcing, technological backlog, dumping prices. Here´s where the government must take action and it needs allies. Blackmailing allies is not good for a solution.

3,4:
The US tried to take over other markets and it didn´t work out as well as hoped. Now you cry. You want new deals that exclusively benefit the US? Ask the man in the moon.

1. Thank you for admitting that a "main pillar of our economy" has fallen apart. Do you admit that this has caused great suffering to our people.


2. Our "allies" are the ones benefiting at our expense. THey will not willingly give up the benefit they receive from this trade imbalance.


3. "Take over" is overstating the case. We were looking for Mutually Beneficial Trade. Instead, OUR market has been taken over.


4. And dismissing my complaints as "crying" is not much of an answer, it is just you being a dick. There is a problem and I want to fix it.

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

 

[Correll]

1. Thank you for admitting that a "main pillar of our economy" has fallen apart. Do you admit that this has caused great suffering to our people.


2. Our "allies" are the ones benefiting at our expense. THey will not willingly give up the benefit they receive from this trade imbalance.


3. "Take over" is overstating the case. We were looking for Mutually Beneficial Trade. Instead, OUR market has been taken over.


4. And dismissing my complaints as "crying" is not much of an answer, it is just you being a dick. There is a problem and I want to fix it.

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

 

[Bleipriester]

1. I didn´t say it fell apart. But it is damaged. The people do not suffer because of this as long as they have jobs. But we can see what happens based on Detroit when a main pillar falls apart. It means suffering, indeed.

2. There is no trade imbalance. US companies are free to make business in Europe.

3. I remember Wal Mart declaring war on German super markets like an invader, stressing they have so much money they will take over the country in a price war. It didn´t work out. The German market is already partitioned. But Wal Mart didn´t cry, they just withdrew.

4. Business is not kindergarten. You can lose. You want a precondition that you win? Ask the man in the moon. We have our own problems here. Our companies have done so much shit, they will be wiped off by Chinese competition.

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem. The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing. The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies. They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies. With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China. You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

 

[Correll]

1. Detroit, the Rust Belt, ect. YOur denial that the Trade Deficit is bad for US, is refuted.

2. There is obviously a Trade Imbalance. THe reasons are not important. We need to fix it now.


3. Every trade deal I heard announced, it was always sold as being good for US, in a Mutually Beneficial way. Instead, our markets have been taken over.

4. I want Trade Deals that are Mutually Beneficial. That you feel a need to spin that as "kindergarten" is because you know you cannot defend your position honestly.

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem.

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.

The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing.

I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?

The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies.

I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.

They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies.

The how, is not really relevant to our response.

With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China.

That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.

You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

 

[Bleipriester]

1. This has other causes. Car companies move to Mexico and people prefer foreign cars. Don´t blame others. Make better cars, make them domestically, support your companies.

2. Offer more interesting goods. Big American SUV? Not everyone can afford it.

3,4. Don´t play victim. Reshape the economy.

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem.

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.

The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing.

I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?

The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies.

I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.

They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies.

The how, is not really relevant to our response.

With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China.

That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.

You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

We have no aggressive policy (sometimes we should). Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I don´t think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he should wall in himself.

 

[Correll]

1. The causes are a different matter. POint one was dealing with your initial denial there was a problem. That has been refuted.

2. 3. 4. This is not about US not doing a good job. This is about their predatory trade policy.


Presented ONE example. Where they got caught. How much is hidden?




Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market...”


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem.

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.

The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing.

I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?

The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies.

I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.

They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies.

The how, is not really relevant to our response.

With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China.

That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.

You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

We have no aggressive policy. Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he wall in himself.

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

 

[Bleipriester]

1. I never denied there is a problem.

2,3,4. The EU consists of little more than subsidies. Very little. The US predatory trade policy, on the other hand, is based in threats and theft of intellectual property to aid their own fallow industry. Doing so, the US prefers "allies" as targets. You play victim again but look at your government, the criminal regime.

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem.

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.

The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing.

I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?

The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies.

I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.

They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies.

The how, is not really relevant to our response.

With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China.

That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.

You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

We have no aggressive policy. Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he wall in himself.

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

 

[Correll]

1. Your words from post 37.

"The US deficit is actually not malicious for the US. "

SO, what every you meant by that then, we are now in agreement, of the obvious fact that the Trade Deficit is bad for the US. Good.

Except. YOu didn't agree with that did you? You denied, denying it.

Will you plainly state that the Trade Deficit is a problem for the US?


2. You admit that the EU employees subsidies. THank you.


3. YOur link contains not even a single accusation of the US doing what you claim. It is based on a single example of a memo DISCUSSING doing what you claim IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE.


4. So, the EU is using subsidies, to protect and nurture it's economy at the expense of ours, while we talk about what we might do about it.


We are the World's Bitch on Trade, and our people are being fucked, badly. It is WAY past time to stop doing that.


Trump is barely getting started on this, and needs to do far more, before he can claim to have fulfilled this promise.

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem.

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.

The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing.

I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?

The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies.

I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.

They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies.

The how, is not really relevant to our response.

With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China.

That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.

You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

We have no aggressive policy. Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he wall in himself.

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

 

[Toro]

Watching people say that trade deficits are inherently bad is like watching people argue that the world is flat or the moon is made of green cheese.

The ignorance is astonishing.

 

[Bleipriester]

I already explained it, if you don´t get it, that´s not my problem.

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.

The article states that the US is doing what they claim they are not doing.

I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?

The EU is using subsidies at the expense of everybody except the companies.

I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.

They are paying almost no taxes and get even subsidies.

The how, is not really relevant to our response.

With tax laws, the EU countries underbid themselves but in the end the companies go over east Europe to China.

That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.

You, see we have the same problems and could cooperate but you have nothing but idiotic accusations. Why ain´t you gonna bomb us? Would be honest at least.

My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

We have no aggressive policy. Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he wall in himself.

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

1. European leaders have yet to discover sovereignty. Everybody can see that.

2. Think then. Russia is now evil because the US tells us so. Maybe, there will be a shift soon.

3. Holding a mirror to your silly point.

4. We have the refugees because of your government´s war on Syria. And mad immigration policies are not equal to the US´ bloody foreign policies.

5. You were talking about that.

 

[Correll]

Watching people say that trade deficits are inherently bad is like watching people argue that the world is flat or the moon is made of green cheese.

The ignorance is astonishing.

Watching someone rate posts, where an argument is presented seriously point by point as "Funny" and then "replY to" with a post that is nothing but completely unsupported assertion,


is what is funny.


FUNNY SAD.

 

[Correll]

I'm disagreeing with you. Claiming that I do not understand, is just rhetorical bullshit. Save it for the tourists.


I read your article in full. THe only evidence the writer produced, was a memo discussing doing that in the future.

I once discussed having sex with Sarah Michelle Geller.

Do you want to guess, how much actual sex took place?



I agree. They have a trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economies.


The how, is not really relevant to our response.


That their policy is not fully or always effective, raises the question, WHY THE FUCK is China in the WTO?

They cheat. ALL THE TIME. They need to be outcast from the international community, and trade.


My accusation is that the EU, has an aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy, at the expense of ours.


You have agreed, with my primary accusations.


Their trade policy is a provocation, but I do not think that WAR is called for.


Trade policy where we refuse to be their bitch, is the proper response. IMO.



And to be fair, I do not claim that ONLY the EU has aggressive trade policy designed to protect and nurture their economy.


I think nearly all nations, do.


Because that is the JOB, one of them anyways, of national governments.

We have no aggressive policy. Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he wall in himself.

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

1. European leaders have yet to discover sovereignty. Everybody can see that.

2. Think then. Russia is now evil because the US tells us so. Maybe, there will be a shift soon.

3. Holding a mirror to your silly point.

4. We have the refugees because of your government´s war on Syria. And mad immigration policies are not equal to the US´ bloody foreign policies.

5. You were talking about that.

1. What do you want from your leaders that you are not getting?


2. I do not recall the US having to strong arm the Europeans to take an anti-Russia stance. Did any of you try to stop NATO expansion?

3. For it to be a mirror, you need US government officials, bragging about how we will destory Europeans industries to benefit US industries, with evidence it was actually done. Like a massive US trade surplus. Good luck with that.


4. YOu have had high levels of muslim immigration for generations. That was your choice. A very foolish one.


4b Sure. Because if not for the US, muslims wouldn't kill each other.....

 

[Bleipriester]

We have no aggressive policy. Anything like that is blacklisted here as "evil protectionism".
And I think that any subsidies to Airbus have anything to do with protectionism. Subsidies are normally given to companies creating a new factory. You are just whining and crying about being the victim when it isn´t true, thus creating unnecessary tensions. You make our idiots imposing sanctions on Russia like suicides. The latest victim is a company called SHW. I think the US just wants to harm everybody and I support getting rid of any US-dependencies, throwing their threatening fags out of our country and reduce relationship to a minimum until the US starts being a serious partner. Trump is a persona non grata here and he wall in himself.

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

1. European leaders have yet to discover sovereignty. Everybody can see that.

2. Think then. Russia is now evil because the US tells us so. Maybe, there will be a shift soon.

3. Holding a mirror to your silly point.

4. We have the refugees because of your government´s war on Syria. And mad immigration policies are not equal to the US´ bloody foreign policies.

5. You were talking about that.

1. What do you want from your leaders that you are not getting?


2. I do not recall the US having to strong arm the Europeans to take an anti-Russia stance. Did any of you try to stop NATO expansion?

3. For it to be a mirror, you need US government officials, bragging about how we will destory Europeans industries to benefit US industries, with evidence it was actually done. Like a massive US trade surplus. Good luck with that.


4. YOu have had high levels of muslim immigration for generations. That was your choice. A very foolish one.


4b Sure. Because if not for the US, muslims wouldn't kill each other.....

1. Serious politics with out interests in the focus.

2. Then you missed something.

3. No, I don´t. It is evident. Uncle Sam makes the EU and Russia weakening each other.

4. It was not my choice. I want a reasonable immigration policy.

4b. What does that mean?

 

[Correll]

1. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

2. Your partisan filler, the crap like "whining" and "crying" is just you trying to distract from the weakness of your position. And you being a dick. Knock it off.


3. I agree the Russian sanctions are a bad idea. But I see to recall the Europeans being pretty supportive of the push for a new Cold War. Anyone over their take a stand against NATO expansion, back in the day?

Say, you prepared to fight the big one over Estonia?


4. Trump is the exact answer to the suicidal weakness of the US and the West, and we need him and a thousand more like him, if we are to have any chance.

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

1. European leaders have yet to discover sovereignty. Everybody can see that.

2. Think then. Russia is now evil because the US tells us so. Maybe, there will be a shift soon.

3. Holding a mirror to your silly point.

4. We have the refugees because of your government´s war on Syria. And mad immigration policies are not equal to the US´ bloody foreign policies.

5. You were talking about that.

1. What do you want from your leaders that you are not getting?


2. I do not recall the US having to strong arm the Europeans to take an anti-Russia stance. Did any of you try to stop NATO expansion?

3. For it to be a mirror, you need US government officials, bragging about how we will destory Europeans industries to benefit US industries, with evidence it was actually done. Like a massive US trade surplus. Good luck with that.


4. YOu have had high levels of muslim immigration for generations. That was your choice. A very foolish one.


4b Sure. Because if not for the US, muslims wouldn't kill each other.....

1. Serious politics with out interests in the focus.

2. Then you missed something.

3. No, I don´t. It is evident. Uncle Sam makes the EU and Russia weakening each other.

4. It was not my choice. I want a reasonable immigration policy.

4b. What does that mean?

1. I don't know. Getting the US to fit the bill for your defense, while you spend your money on social programs AND fuck US on trade. Those seem to be very serious policies benefiting your interests very much.

2. YOu want to support that?


3. The US is weakening itself confronting Russia, which is on the other side of the world from US. Europe is the one that gains from expanding what is considered "Europe".


4. So, do I. I wish you luck getting it. Note I am not blaming the idiocy of our leaders on you.


4b. Ridiculing the idea that the US is responsible for making Muslims kill each other.

 

[Bleipriester]

They are puppets that follow Uncle Sam´s lead. Russia was even considered to join the EU before, Russia rejected.

"Boeing has continually protested over launch aid in the form of credits to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks."
Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia

We don´t need the many wars the US is fighting. We are not interested. When it is about to restore the West, it is domestic work.

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

1. European leaders have yet to discover sovereignty. Everybody can see that.

2. Think then. Russia is now evil because the US tells us so. Maybe, there will be a shift soon.

3. Holding a mirror to your silly point.

4. We have the refugees because of your government´s war on Syria. And mad immigration policies are not equal to the US´ bloody foreign policies.

5. You were talking about that.

1. What do you want from your leaders that you are not getting?


2. I do not recall the US having to strong arm the Europeans to take an anti-Russia stance. Did any of you try to stop NATO expansion?

3. For it to be a mirror, you need US government officials, bragging about how we will destory Europeans industries to benefit US industries, with evidence it was actually done. Like a massive US trade surplus. Good luck with that.


4. YOu have had high levels of muslim immigration for generations. That was your choice. A very foolish one.


4b Sure. Because if not for the US, muslims wouldn't kill each other.....

1. Serious politics with out interests in the focus.

2. Then you missed something.

3. No, I don´t. It is evident. Uncle Sam makes the EU and Russia weakening each other.

4. It was not my choice. I want a reasonable immigration policy.

4b. What does that mean?

1. I don't know. Getting the US to fit the bill for your defense, while you spend your money on social programs AND fuck US on trade. Those seem to be very serious policies benefiting your interests very much.

2. YOu want to support that?


3. The US is weakening itself confronting Russia, which is on the other side of the world from US. Europe is the one that gains from expanding what is considered "Europe".


4. So, do I. I wish you luck getting it. Note I am not blaming the idiocy of our leaders on you.


4b. Ridiculing the idea that the US is responsible for making Muslims kill each other.

1. What defense? Nato is quite offensive. Europe had good relationship with Libya for example. Then the US came and made European countries destroy the country. We should spend no cent on this and protect our partners from such aggressions. The US has been busy to create a belt of countries controlled by Islamist terrorists around Europe and our puppets even helped to do that plus welcoming them here in Europe.

2. I misunderstood. And by the way: We actually don´t need US arms, we could make our own. And you cannot lure sheep calling get me with arms.

3. We do not profit from an expanding EU. We have opened our borders for the organized crime from the east. Our police reports say the most crimes are committed by criminals from the east who just come to Germany to commit their crimes. And Ukraine is not going to join the EU or NATO anytime soon. Also, the new members get billions that we have to pay for. With that money, they sponge up our companies with low and even non-tax offers.

4. I fear all the current opposition to the US is to protect their open borders idiocy, be it economical or about immigration.

4b. People go to war. The permanent US interventions are a danger for the earth. The Islamist terrorist networks are US made.

 

[Correll]

1. Who are " Uncle Sam puppets"? Airbus? The EU? Considering that the EU has a large trade surplus with US, I don't see how they are anyone there are our puppets.

2. There was a period were there were high hopes that Russia would become completely part of the West, after the end of the Cold War. I'm not sure what point you think you made by citing that.

3. Yeah. The quotes from the Airbus european leaders were provided as an example of the mindset of the EU when it comes to trade. They have aggressive trade policies while we are the World's Bitch on Trade. I'm not sure what point you think you were making by citing Airbus's claims.


4. The wars are a separate issue. Have fun living with large Mulsim populations. There is no way that will blow up in your face. I'm not sure what point you were making with that comment.


5. The West is showing no signs of being "restored".

1. European leaders have yet to discover sovereignty. Everybody can see that.

2. Think then. Russia is now evil because the US tells us so. Maybe, there will be a shift soon.

3. Holding a mirror to your silly point.

4. We have the refugees because of your government´s war on Syria. And mad immigration policies are not equal to the US´ bloody foreign policies.

5. You were talking about that.

1. What do you want from your leaders that you are not getting?


2. I do not recall the US having to strong arm the Europeans to take an anti-Russia stance. Did any of you try to stop NATO expansion?

3. For it to be a mirror, you need US government officials, bragging about how we will destory Europeans industries to benefit US industries, with evidence it was actually done. Like a massive US trade surplus. Good luck with that.


4. YOu have had high levels of muslim immigration for generations. That was your choice. A very foolish one.


4b Sure. Because if not for the US, muslims wouldn't kill each other.....

1. Serious politics with out interests in the focus.

2. Then you missed something.

3. No, I don´t. It is evident. Uncle Sam makes the EU and Russia weakening each other.

4. It was not my choice. I want a reasonable immigration policy.

4b. What does that mean?

1. I don't know. Getting the US to fit the bill for your defense, while you spend your money on social programs AND fuck US on trade. Those seem to be very serious policies benefiting your interests very much.

2. YOu want to support that?


3. The US is weakening itself confronting Russia, which is on the other side of the world from US. Europe is the one that gains from expanding what is considered "Europe".


4. So, do I. I wish you luck getting it. Note I am not blaming the idiocy of our leaders on you.


4b. Ridiculing the idea that the US is responsible for making Muslims kill each other.

1. What defense? Nato is quite offensive. Europe had good relationship with Libya for example. Then the US came and made European countries destroy the country. We should spend no cent on this and protect our partners from such aggressions. The US has been busy to create a belt of countries controlled by Islamist terrorists around Europe and our puppets even helped to do that plus welcoming them here in Europe.

2. I misunderstood. And by the way: We actually don´t need US arms, we could make our own. And you cannot lure sheep calling get me with arms.

3. We do not profit from an expanding EU. We have opened our borders for the organized crime from the east. Our police reports say the most crimes are committed by criminals from the east who just come to Germany to commit their crimes. And Ukraine is not going to join the EU or NATO anytime soon. Also, the new members get billions that we have to pay for. With that money, they sponge up our companies with low and even non-tax offers.

4. I fear all the current opposition to the US is to protect their open borders idiocy, be it economical or about immigration.

4b. People go to war. The permanent US interventions are a danger for the earth. The Islamist terrorist networks are US made.

1. During the Cold War, is was defense. And you guys still depend on open sea lanes. Who does that?

1b I'll give you Libya. That was fucking stupid of US on many levels.


2. So, tell US to leave. NATO is a huge part of our defense spending. YOu don't need US, we don't need to spend money keeping the capability to defend you. Win Win.

3. I should have said, the EU LEADERSHIP, benefits, or believes they do. They want it. They think obviously think that bigger is better and gives them more weight in world affairs.

4. "The opposition to the US" ? Are you saying that all the Anti-Americans are all Open Border people? Well, that is shitty for you. And Europe. You should support the closed border people. Pro anti US positions can change with time. THose muslims will never leave and out breed you.


5. Sorry. The Muslim World has been a fucked up problem for the West dating way back before the US existed. YOu can't pin this on US.