Brazil To Kentucky: How Tariffs Could Affect The Coal Industry

[Correll]

1. Mmm, considering that the status quo is US giving them hundreds of billions of dollars a year, I think we can win, or at least lose less.


2. We don't need that. That doesn't help US. It is hurting US, a lot.


3. I think not. I think that that would be good for the US to let the dollar plummet, like it should to a normal level. It would encourage domestic consumption and exports and discourage imports.

All I can say is that I am damn glad you are not in charge of anything more important than the door at WalMart.

I showed you the respect of responding to your post seriously and honestly and clearly.


I made three points in response to your post.


You choose to NOT respond to any of them, and instead respond with the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Ridicule.


That was you admitting that you could not refute any of my points, thus they stand as the last word on this subject, until some lib stupid enough to think he has an answer to them, comes along to try to do what you knew you could not do,


ie challenge my points in any way.


Here they are again, as the Last Word.



1. Mmm, considering that the status quo is US giving them hundreds of billions of dollars a year, I think we can win, or at least lose less.


2. We don't need that. That doesn't help US. It is hurting US, a lot.


3. I think not. I think that that would be good for the US to let the dollar plummet, like it should to a normal level. It would encourage domestic consumption and exports and discourage imports.



Also, screw you, jerk.

Ahhh...did I hurt your little feelings?

1. We do not GIVE anyone hundreds of billions of dollars a year, we trade our money for their goods. No different than when you go to your local grocery store.

2. You are wrong...How Important is the Petrodollar to US Economic Stability?

3. Here's 7 Economic Consequences of a Dollar Collapse

1. Not really. I just have a policy of not letting lefty fucktards be asses while I am civil to them.

2. Bad analogy. My point stands. The trade at risk is far more beneficial to THEM, than it is to US, that puts THEM at risk more than US and gives up leverage.

3. Sorry, you got a point to make, make it. I would love to see the dollar fall A LOT. I would love to see US goods fall in price in Europe and Asia and Canada. You want to make a side bet how fast those governments would react to a serous trade deficit with the US?

1. Glad to know you do not let your fellow leftys be asses.

2. It is a perfect analogy, and your point is still wrong. It waill be easier for the rest of the world to replace us than for us to replace the rest of the world.

3. The fact that you would love to see a crashed economy and limited choices in goods to buy does not make it a good policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

All I can say is that I am damn glad you are not in charge of anything more important than the door at WalMart.

I showed you the respect of responding to your post seriously and honestly and clearly.


I made three points in response to your post.


You choose to NOT respond to any of them, and instead respond with the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Ridicule.


That was you admitting that you could not refute any of my points, thus they stand as the last word on this subject, until some lib stupid enough to think he has an answer to them, comes along to try to do what you knew you could not do,


ie challenge my points in any way.


Here they are again, as the Last Word.



1. Mmm, considering that the status quo is US giving them hundreds of billions of dollars a year, I think we can win, or at least lose less.


2. We don't need that. That doesn't help US. It is hurting US, a lot.


3. I think not. I think that that would be good for the US to let the dollar plummet, like it should to a normal level. It would encourage domestic consumption and exports and discourage imports.



Also, screw you, jerk.

Ahhh...did I hurt your little feelings?

1. We do not GIVE anyone hundreds of billions of dollars a year, we trade our money for their goods. No different than when you go to your local grocery store.

2. You are wrong...How Important is the Petrodollar to US Economic Stability?

3. Here's 7 Economic Consequences of a Dollar Collapse

1. Not really. I just have a policy of not letting lefty fucktards be asses while I am civil to them.

2. Bad analogy. My point stands. The trade at risk is far more beneficial to THEM, than it is to US, that puts THEM at risk more than US and gives up leverage.

3. Sorry, you got a point to make, make it. I would love to see the dollar fall A LOT. I would love to see US goods fall in price in Europe and Asia and Canada. You want to make a side bet how fast those governments would react to a serous trade deficit with the US?

1. Glad to know you do not let your fellow leftys be asses.

2. It is a perfect analogy, and your point is still wrong. It waill be easier for the rest of the world to replace us than for us to replace the rest of the world.

3. The fact that you would love to see a crashed economy and limited choices in goods to buy does not make it a good policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Correll]

I showed you the respect of responding to your post seriously and honestly and clearly.


I made three points in response to your post.


You choose to NOT respond to any of them, and instead respond with the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Ridicule.


That was you admitting that you could not refute any of my points, thus they stand as the last word on this subject, until some lib stupid enough to think he has an answer to them, comes along to try to do what you knew you could not do,


ie challenge my points in any way.


Here they are again, as the Last Word.



1. Mmm, considering that the status quo is US giving them hundreds of billions of dollars a year, I think we can win, or at least lose less.


2. We don't need that. That doesn't help US. It is hurting US, a lot.


3. I think not. I think that that would be good for the US to let the dollar plummet, like it should to a normal level. It would encourage domestic consumption and exports and discourage imports.



Also, screw you, jerk.

Ahhh...did I hurt your little feelings?

1. We do not GIVE anyone hundreds of billions of dollars a year, we trade our money for their goods. No different than when you go to your local grocery store.

2. You are wrong...How Important is the Petrodollar to US Economic Stability?

3. Here's 7 Economic Consequences of a Dollar Collapse

1. Not really. I just have a policy of not letting lefty fucktards be asses while I am civil to them.

2. Bad analogy. My point stands. The trade at risk is far more beneficial to THEM, than it is to US, that puts THEM at risk more than US and gives up leverage.

3. Sorry, you got a point to make, make it. I would love to see the dollar fall A LOT. I would love to see US goods fall in price in Europe and Asia and Canada. You want to make a side bet how fast those governments would react to a serous trade deficit with the US?

1. Glad to know you do not let your fellow leftys be asses.

2. It is a perfect analogy, and your point is still wrong. It waill be easier for the rest of the world to replace us than for us to replace the rest of the world.

3. The fact that you would love to see a crashed economy and limited choices in goods to buy does not make it a good policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

 

[CowboyTed]

In 2016, the United States exported 60.27 million short tons of coal to at least 42 countries. The following list shows the top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, export amount (million short tons), and share of total U.S. coal exports in 2016:

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2016:

1. Australia: US$28.3 billion (38.3% of global coal exports)
2. Indonesia: $12.9 billion (17.4%)
3. Russia: $8.9 billion (12%)
4. United States: $4.4 billion (6%)
5. Colombia: $4.4 billion (5.9%)

The Netherlands—10.16—17%
Brazil—6.94—12%
India—5.53—9%
Canada—5.01—8%
Japan—4.56—8%
Total—32.19—53%

Simply Netherlands will order there coal from Australia...

For Netherlands alone that is $750m taken out of Coal Country, I think that the EU will do. It hurts Trump

 

[Correll]

In 2016, the United States exported 60.27 million short tons of coal to at least 42 countries. The following list shows the top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, export amount (million short tons), and share of total U.S. coal exports in 2016:

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2016:

1. Australia: US$28.3 billion (38.3% of global coal exports)
2. Indonesia: $12.9 billion (17.4%)
3. Russia: $8.9 billion (12%)
4. United States: $4.4 billion (6%)
5. Colombia: $4.4 billion (5.9%)

The Netherlands—10.16—17%
Brazil—6.94—12%
India—5.53—9%
Canada—5.01—8%
Japan—4.56—8%
Total—32.19—53%

Simply Netherlands will order there coal from Australia...

For Netherlands alone that is $750m taken out of Coal Country, I think that the EU will do. It hurts Trump

Why would they? I thought Trade deficits didn't matter.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ahhh...did I hurt your little feelings?

1. We do not GIVE anyone hundreds of billions of dollars a year, we trade our money for their goods. No different than when you go to your local grocery store.

2. You are wrong...How Important is the Petrodollar to US Economic Stability?

3. Here's 7 Economic Consequences of a Dollar Collapse

1. Not really. I just have a policy of not letting lefty fucktards be asses while I am civil to them.

2. Bad analogy. My point stands. The trade at risk is far more beneficial to THEM, than it is to US, that puts THEM at risk more than US and gives up leverage.

3. Sorry, you got a point to make, make it. I would love to see the dollar fall A LOT. I would love to see US goods fall in price in Europe and Asia and Canada. You want to make a side bet how fast those governments would react to a serous trade deficit with the US?

1. Glad to know you do not let your fellow leftys be asses.

2. It is a perfect analogy, and your point is still wrong. It waill be easier for the rest of the world to replace us than for us to replace the rest of the world.

3. The fact that you would love to see a crashed economy and limited choices in goods to buy does not make it a good policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

1. Based upon your view of the government's role in the economy it is not even close.

2. This is where you are sadly mistaken. The rest of the world will be happy to do business with each other and let the US shrivel up.

3. Economies are constantly changing and there are always sectors that get left behind and people can either adapt or suffer, but you cannot set policy based on the past, you have to always be looking forward.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In 2016, the United States exported 60.27 million short tons of coal to at least 42 countries. The following list shows the top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, export amount (million short tons), and share of total U.S. coal exports in 2016:

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2016:

1. Australia: US$28.3 billion (38.3% of global coal exports)
2. Indonesia: $12.9 billion (17.4%)
3. Russia: $8.9 billion (12%)
4. United States: $4.4 billion (6%)
5. Colombia: $4.4 billion (5.9%)

The Netherlands—10.16—17%
Brazil—6.94—12%
India—5.53—9%
Canada—5.01—8%
Japan—4.56—8%
Total—32.19—53%

Simply Netherlands will order there coal from Australia...

For Netherlands alone that is $750m taken out of Coal Country, I think that the EU will do. It hurts Trump

Why would they? I thought Trade deficits didn't matter.

They would do that because if our current POTUS has his way, trade agreements with the US will not be worth the paper they were printed on.

When trade deals with the US are only good until the next election we will find it increasingly difficult to find trading partners.

 

[Correll]

1. Not really. I just have a policy of not letting lefty fucktards be asses while I am civil to them.

2. Bad analogy. My point stands. The trade at risk is far more beneficial to THEM, than it is to US, that puts THEM at risk more than US and gives up leverage.

3. Sorry, you got a point to make, make it. I would love to see the dollar fall A LOT. I would love to see US goods fall in price in Europe and Asia and Canada. You want to make a side bet how fast those governments would react to a serous trade deficit with the US?

1. Glad to know you do not let your fellow leftys be asses.

2. It is a perfect analogy, and your point is still wrong. It waill be easier for the rest of the world to replace us than for us to replace the rest of the world.

3. The fact that you would love to see a crashed economy and limited choices in goods to buy does not make it a good policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

1. Based upon your view of the government's role in the economy it is not even close.

2. This is where you are sadly mistaken. The rest of the world will be happy to do business with each other and let the US shrivel up.

3. Economies are constantly changing and there are always sectors that get left behind and people can either adapt or suffer, but you cannot set policy based on the past, you have to always be looking forward.

1. My view that Trade Policy is a government function is hardly liberal. What point are you trying to make here?

2. NO, the rest of the world wants trade surpluses. THey can't get that from each other, not like they have gotten used to from US.

3. These sectors got left behind because we let other nations take advantage of US.

 

[my2¢]

With the vast majority of American manufacturing jobs being reliant on consuming steel rather than making steel I haven't been optimistic about the tariffs. In fact it is complete opposite than how I felt about the lowering of business taxes 3 months ago. But it'll be easy to tell how things work out by watching the employment numbers in manufacturing in the coming months.

 

[Correll]

In 2016, the United States exported 60.27 million short tons of coal to at least 42 countries. The following list shows the top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, export amount (million short tons), and share of total U.S. coal exports in 2016:

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2016:

1. Australia: US$28.3 billion (38.3% of global coal exports)
2. Indonesia: $12.9 billion (17.4%)
3. Russia: $8.9 billion (12%)
4. United States: $4.4 billion (6%)
5. Colombia: $4.4 billion (5.9%)

The Netherlands—10.16—17%
Brazil—6.94—12%
India—5.53—9%
Canada—5.01—8%
Japan—4.56—8%
Total—32.19—53%

Simply Netherlands will order there coal from Australia...

For Netherlands alone that is $750m taken out of Coal Country, I think that the EU will do. It hurts Trump

Why would they? I thought Trade deficits didn't matter.

They would do that because if our current POTUS has his way, trade agreements with the US will not be worth the paper they were printed on.

When trade deals with the US are only good until the next election we will find it increasingly difficult to find trading partners.

So, your position is that it isn't the balance of trade that is the issue, it's continuity of contract?


That's not very convincing.


And why do you assume that the next president will reverse Trump?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In 2016, the United States exported 60.27 million short tons of coal to at least 42 countries. The following list shows the top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, export amount (million short tons), and share of total U.S. coal exports in 2016:

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2016:

1. Australia: US$28.3 billion (38.3% of global coal exports)
2. Indonesia: $12.9 billion (17.4%)
3. Russia: $8.9 billion (12%)
4. United States: $4.4 billion (6%)
5. Colombia: $4.4 billion (5.9%)

The Netherlands—10.16—17%
Brazil—6.94—12%
India—5.53—9%
Canada—5.01—8%
Japan—4.56—8%
Total—32.19—53%

Simply Netherlands will order there coal from Australia...

For Netherlands alone that is $750m taken out of Coal Country, I think that the EU will do. It hurts Trump

Why would they? I thought Trade deficits didn't matter.

They would do that because if our current POTUS has his way, trade agreements with the US will not be worth the paper they were printed on.

When trade deals with the US are only good until the next election we will find it increasingly difficult to find trading partners.

So, your position is that it isn't the balance of trade that is the issue, it's continuity of contract?


That's not very convincing.


And why do you assume that the next president will reverse Trump?

What I assume is not the issue, it is what other countries assume.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Glad to know you do not let your fellow leftys be asses.

2. It is a perfect analogy, and your point is still wrong. It waill be easier for the rest of the world to replace us than for us to replace the rest of the world.

3. The fact that you would love to see a crashed economy and limited choices in goods to buy does not make it a good policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

1. Based upon your view of the government's role in the economy it is not even close.

2. This is where you are sadly mistaken. The rest of the world will be happy to do business with each other and let the US shrivel up.

3. Economies are constantly changing and there are always sectors that get left behind and people can either adapt or suffer, but you cannot set policy based on the past, you have to always be looking forward.

1. My view that Trade Policy is a government function is hardly liberal. What point are you trying to make here?

2. NO, the rest of the world wants trade surpluses. THey can't get that from each other, not like they have gotten used to from US.

3. These sectors got left behind because we let other nations take advantage of US.

1. Yes, it is very liberal to want the Govt to control the choices we have as far as what to buy.

2. No, the rest of the world wants trade deals that are beneficial to both sides, only partisans get wrapped up around deficits and surpluses.

3. Once again...we are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..it is hard to take serious the charge that we have been so mistreated by the rest of the world.

 

[Correll]

In 2016, the United States exported 60.27 million short tons of coal to at least 42 countries. The following list shows the top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, export amount (million short tons), and share of total U.S. coal exports in 2016:

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2016:

1. Australia: US$28.3 billion (38.3% of global coal exports)
2. Indonesia: $12.9 billion (17.4%)
3. Russia: $8.9 billion (12%)
4. United States: $4.4 billion (6%)
5. Colombia: $4.4 billion (5.9%)

The Netherlands—10.16—17%
Brazil—6.94—12%
India—5.53—9%
Canada—5.01—8%
Japan—4.56—8%
Total—32.19—53%

Simply Netherlands will order there coal from Australia...

For Netherlands alone that is $750m taken out of Coal Country, I think that the EU will do. It hurts Trump

Why would they? I thought Trade deficits didn't matter.

They would do that because if our current POTUS has his way, trade agreements with the US will not be worth the paper they were printed on.

When trade deals with the US are only good until the next election we will find it increasingly difficult to find trading partners.

So, your position is that it isn't the balance of trade that is the issue, it's continuity of contract?


That's not very convincing.


And why do you assume that the next president will reverse Trump?

What I assume is not the issue, it is what other countries assume.

We had our current trade position for a long time now, at least since the early 70s.


That's nearly 50 years. Hardly calling for language like "not be worth the paper they were printed on."

 

[Correll]

1. You are the one that responded to a civil post with name calling.

2. No, it won't. Huge economies run by fools happy to let them run up huge trade deficits year after year? THey won't be able to find one of those anywhere. And we were run the risk of NOT being fucked as much.

3. We already have the economic and social and human cost of decades of massive trade deficits. What we do not have is the correcting response of a massively falling dollar that would make it easier for US to decrease imports and increase exports.

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

1. Based upon your view of the government's role in the economy it is not even close.

2. This is where you are sadly mistaken. The rest of the world will be happy to do business with each other and let the US shrivel up.

3. Economies are constantly changing and there are always sectors that get left behind and people can either adapt or suffer, but you cannot set policy based on the past, you have to always be looking forward.

1. My view that Trade Policy is a government function is hardly liberal. What point are you trying to make here?

2. NO, the rest of the world wants trade surpluses. THey can't get that from each other, not like they have gotten used to from US.

3. These sectors got left behind because we let other nations take advantage of US.

1. Yes, it is very liberal to want the Govt to control the choices we have as far as what to buy.

2. No, the rest of the world wants trade deals that are beneficial to both sides, only partisans get wrapped up around deficits and surpluses.

3. Once again...we are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..it is hard to take serious the charge that we have been so mistreated by the rest of the world.

1. Your pretense that Trade Policy is not a core government function is noted and dismissed.

2. IF they were not wrapped up in deficits and surpluses, they would not be concerned about Trump's actions.

3. The economic stress is so great that White Life expectancy is actually DECLINING. That is some serious mistreatment from the rest of the world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not only is coal not coming back , it will further shrink more

More winning trumpsters?


Last week, Brazil reminded U.S. officials that it’s the biggest buyer of American met coal – about $1 billion worth last year – in a statement expressing concerns over the tariffs.


Latin America’s largest economy imported nearly 5.2 million tons of U.S. met coal through September of last year – about 1.3 million more than the next highest consumer, Japan, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also said it would not rule out retaliating against proposed tariffs. Similarly, a European Union trade leader has threatened to impose tariffs on U.S.-made products like steel, cars, orange juice and Kentucky bourbon.


Brazil To Kentucky: How Tariffs Could Affect The Coal Industry

Oh, so you Stalinists suddenly are opposed to tariffs...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. True I did, but you are further left than I am so...

2. Trade deficits seems to confuse you.

3. We are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..and people whine about how unfairly we treated. Just rings a bit hollow


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

1. Based upon your view of the government's role in the economy it is not even close.

2. This is where you are sadly mistaken. The rest of the world will be happy to do business with each other and let the US shrivel up.

3. Economies are constantly changing and there are always sectors that get left behind and people can either adapt or suffer, but you cannot set policy based on the past, you have to always be looking forward.

1. My view that Trade Policy is a government function is hardly liberal. What point are you trying to make here?

2. NO, the rest of the world wants trade surpluses. THey can't get that from each other, not like they have gotten used to from US.

3. These sectors got left behind because we let other nations take advantage of US.

1. Yes, it is very liberal to want the Govt to control the choices we have as far as what to buy.

2. No, the rest of the world wants trade deals that are beneficial to both sides, only partisans get wrapped up around deficits and surpluses.

3. Once again...we are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..it is hard to take serious the charge that we have been so mistreated by the rest of the world.

1. Your pretense that Trade Policy is not a core government function is noted and dismissed.

2. IF they were not wrapped up in deficits and surpluses, they would not be concerned about Trump's actions.

3. The economic stress is so great that White Life expectancy is actually DECLINING. That is some serious mistreatment from the rest of the world.

1. That the government has authority over trade policy is not a matter of left and right, we all know they do. What is a matter of left and right is how much interference with free trade we are willing to accept. That is what makes you further left than myself.

2. Or it could be that the tariffs no longer make the trade mutually beneficial. Deficits and surpluses are campaign fodder, nothing more.

3. Please provide some evidence that it is economics stress that is causing white expectancy to decline and also explain why non-whites do not have this same stress.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Not only is coal not coming back , it will further shrink more

More winning trumpsters?


Last week, Brazil reminded U.S. officials that it’s the biggest buyer of American met coal – about $1 billion worth last year – in a statement expressing concerns over the tariffs.


Latin America’s largest economy imported nearly 5.2 million tons of U.S. met coal through September of last year – about 1.3 million more than the next highest consumer, Japan, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also said it would not rule out retaliating against proposed tariffs. Similarly, a European Union trade leader has threatened to impose tariffs on U.S.-made products like steel, cars, orange juice and Kentucky bourbon.


Brazil To Kentucky: How Tariffs Could Affect The Coal Industry

Notice how the Left Wingers are OK with American's having to pay tariffs to other countries.
It's like the Democrats hate our country.
We should never elect people who hate your country.

 

[Correll]

1. Unlikely.

2. Nope. My point stands. The rest of the world, won't find a chump like US, to replace US.

3. Wage stagnation is real. Macro economic numbers hide vast oceans of suffering.

1. Based upon your view of the government's role in the economy it is not even close.

2. This is where you are sadly mistaken. The rest of the world will be happy to do business with each other and let the US shrivel up.

3. Economies are constantly changing and there are always sectors that get left behind and people can either adapt or suffer, but you cannot set policy based on the past, you have to always be looking forward.

1. My view that Trade Policy is a government function is hardly liberal. What point are you trying to make here?

2. NO, the rest of the world wants trade surpluses. THey can't get that from each other, not like they have gotten used to from US.

3. These sectors got left behind because we let other nations take advantage of US.

1. Yes, it is very liberal to want the Govt to control the choices we have as far as what to buy.

2. No, the rest of the world wants trade deals that are beneficial to both sides, only partisans get wrapped up around deficits and surpluses.

3. Once again...we are in the midst of the 3rd longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country with no end in sight..it is hard to take serious the charge that we have been so mistreated by the rest of the world.

1. Your pretense that Trade Policy is not a core government function is noted and dismissed.

2. IF they were not wrapped up in deficits and surpluses, they would not be concerned about Trump's actions.

3. The economic stress is so great that White Life expectancy is actually DECLINING. That is some serious mistreatment from the rest of the world.

1. That the government has authority over trade policy is not a matter of left and right, we all know they do. What is a matter of left and right is how much interference with free trade we are willing to accept. That is what makes you further left than myself.

2. Or it could be that the tariffs no longer make the trade mutually beneficial. Deficits and surpluses are campaign fodder, nothing more.

3. Please provide some evidence that it is economics stress that is causing white expectancy to decline and also explain why non-whites do not have this same stress.

1. It is a government policy choice to let foreign competition fuck our industrial heartland. It will be a goverment policy choice to reverse that.

2. Why should a tariff paid by the American consumers be a matter of concern for them?

3. From that right wing rag, NPR. The Forces Driving Middle-Aged White People's 'Deaths Of Despair'


"In 2015, when researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton discovered that death rates had been rising dramatically since 1999 among middle-aged white Americans, they weren't sure why people were dying younger, reversing decades of longer life expectancy.

Now the husband-and-wife economists say they have a better understanding of what's causing these "deaths of despair" by suicide, drugs and alcohol.


In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half percent each year from 1999 to 2013.

But whites with college degrees haven't suffered the same lack of economic opportunity and haven't seen the same loss of life expectancy. The study was published Thursday in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity."


"Anne Case: These deaths of despair have been accompanied by reduced labor force participation, reduced marriage rates, increases in reports of poor health and poor mental health. So we are beginning to thread a story in that it's possible that [the trend is] consistent with the labor market collapsing for people with less than a college degree. In turn, those people are being less able to form stable marriages, and in turn that has effects on the kind of economic and social supports that people need in order to thrive."

 

[whitehall]

The issue has already been posted. Liberals must be freaking brain dead if they think the argument is meaningful. Didn't hypocrite left wingers applaud when Hillary vowed to shut down the coal industry? If Brazil is a big importer of coal what do you think they will say when the U.S. imposes a tariff? Didn't Mueller's investigators teach lefties that there are foreign agents trying to disrupt the U.S. government on a 24/7-365 basis? It's always the crying angry paranoid left that seems to rely on the opinions of foreign agents to undermine the Trump administration. Maybe lefties do it on purpose or maybe they are so angry and incoherent that they fall for foreign propaganda or maybe they are hopeless hypocrite anti-Americans.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. It is a government policy choice to let foreign competition fuck our industrial heartland. It will be a goverment policy choice to reverse that.

2. Why should a tariff paid by the American consumers be a matter of concern for them?

3. From that right wing rag, NPR. The Forces Driving Middle-Aged White People's 'Deaths Of Despair'


"In 2015, when researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton discovered that death rates had been rising dramatically since 1999 among middle-aged white Americans, they weren't sure why people were dying younger, reversing decades of longer life expectancy.

Now the husband-and-wife economists say they have a better understanding of what's causing these "deaths of despair" by suicide, drugs and alcohol.


In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half percent each year from 1999 to 2013.

But whites with college degrees haven't suffered the same lack of economic opportunity and haven't seen the same loss of life expectancy. The study was published Thursday in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity."


"Anne Case: These deaths of despair have been accompanied by reduced labor force participation, reduced marriage rates, increases in reports of poor health and poor mental health. So we are beginning to thread a story in that it's possible that [the trend is] consistent with the labor market collapsing for people with less than a college degree. In turn, those people are being less able to form stable marriages, and in turn that has effects on the kind of economic and social supports that people need in order to thrive."

1. Over dramatic much?

2. I am sure our grain farmers will not need to ask that question soon, they will be living it.

3. So, uneducated white people are too lazy to do something to better themselves and choose to kill themselves. Seems like Darwin was right.

7 years ago my wife and were facing some of those same pressures, deep in debt and not much in the way of prospects after getting out of the Corps. So we did something about it, since that time I went from "some college" to a Masters degree and my wife started and completed Nursing school and is now an RN. We are now basically debt free and making more than 4 times what we were 7 years ago as a family.