CDZ I can't stand this anti-trade bullshit

[Treeshepherd]

Tariffs are worthless. Read some history.

Mexico doesn't seem to think tariffs are worthless. Their import duties on our goods average 16%. Alcohol products are significantly more than that. A $30 bottle of Jack Daniels has an extra $27 of duties piled on, almost doubling the price.

 

[alpine]

The tech sector has benefitted from globalism, but only because it's taken a while for other countries to catch up and develop their own industries.

China allows us to sell cars in China, but only if we build them there. They don't allow their citizens to invest in our stock market, but happily allow us to invest in theirs. The free trade is completely one sided

But thats how it works...
And how it worked all throughout history...

You have to have the technological edge to survive as a dominant economic power house, and provide prosperity to your people as a result, like US did for the last 100 years before it was not sustainable anymore.

As you said, the main problem is that the technology gap between US and other countries closing.

So what to do in this case?

You either go to the direction of protectionism...
Or you step the gas pedal and try your best to advance your tech even further...

The Technology gap is not closing and that's why India is shitting in it's pants over Trump's victory.
If we didn't use Indian Business Visas we would be years ahead of where we are but Apple using the best rather the cheapest is why they are kicking every other tech company to the curb.

Remember; the ceo of google is an Indian guy who is pushing the ai tech like never before... and US has the absolute edge there, from self driving cars to self flying fighter/bomber jets.

 

[Indeependent]

The tech sector has benefitted from globalism, but only because it's taken a while for other countries to catch up and develop their own industries.

China allows us to sell cars in China, but only if we build them there. They don't allow their citizens to invest in our stock market, but happily allow us to invest in theirs. The free trade is completely one sided

But thats how it works...
And how it worked all throughout history...

You have to have the technological edge to survive as a dominant economic power house, and provide prosperity to your people as a result, like US did for the last 100 years before it was not sustainable anymore.

As you said, the main problem is that the technology gap between US and other countries closing.

So what to do in this case?

You either go to the direction of protectionism...
Or you step the gas pedal and try your best to advance your tech even further...

The Technology gap is not closing and that's why India is shitting in it's pants over Trump's victory.
If we didn't use Indian Business Visas we would be years ahead of where we are but Apple using the best rather the cheapest is why they are kicking every other tech company to the curb.

Remember; the ceo of google is an Indian guy who is pushing the ai tech like never before... and US has the absolute edge there, from self driving cars to self flying fighter/bomber jets.

The CEO of Google has ZERO to do with the success of their SINGLE success story...the Search Engine.
And by the way, the CEO DOESN'T write code.

 

[alpine]

The tech sector has benefitted from globalism, but only because it's taken a while for other countries to catch up and develop their own industries.

China allows us to sell cars in China, but only if we build them there. They don't allow their citizens to invest in our stock market, but happily allow us to invest in theirs. The free trade is completely one sided

But thats how it works...
And how it worked all throughout history...

You have to have the technological edge to survive as a dominant economic power house, and provide prosperity to your people as a result, like US did for the last 100 years before it was not sustainable anymore.

As you said, the main problem is that the technology gap between US and other countries closing.

So what to do in this case?

You either go to the direction of protectionism...
Or you step the gas pedal and try your best to advance your tech even further...

The Technology gap is not closing and that's why India is shitting in it's pants over Trump's victory.
If we didn't use Indian Business Visas we would be years ahead of where we are but Apple using the best rather the cheapest is why they are kicking every other tech company to the curb.

Remember; the ceo of google is an Indian guy who is pushing the ai tech like never before... and US has the absolute edge there, from self driving cars to self flying fighter/bomber jets.

The CEO of Google has ZERO to do with the success of their SINGLE success story...the Search Engine.
And by the way, the CEO DOESN'T write code.

He used to.
He was a good software developer.
And Google is successful in many areas, like artificial intelligence ...

 

[Treeshepherd]

Remember; the ceo of google is an Indian guy who is pushing the ai tech like never before... and US has the absolute edge there, from self driving cars to self flying fighter/bomber jets.

More specifically, California has a technological edge on the rest of the world. Since you mentioned Google, it's worth noting that they're heavily invested in robotics.
I recently went on a tour of engineering schools with my daughter who was shopping for a place to go to college. They all wanted to show off their robots.

That's the real elephant in the room. Jobs are being taken over by automation.

 

[alpine]

Remember; the ceo of google is an Indian guy who is pushing the ai tech like never before... and US has the absolute edge there, from self driving cars to self flying fighter/bomber jets.

More specifically, California has a technological edge on the rest of the world. Since you mentioned Google, it's worth noting that they're heavily invested in robotics.
I recently went on a tour of engineering schools with my daughter who was shopping for a place to go to college. They all wanted to show off their robots.

That's the real elephant in the room. Jobs are being taken over by automation.

They will be, and nobody can stop that.

For our children, there is no other option than being skilful individuals to survive in tomorrows world ...

 

[Treeshepherd]

They will be, and nobody can stop that.

The future of 3D printing is interesting. Make your own plumbing parts, door knobs, phone cases, Christmas ornaments, American flag lapel pins, tweezers and Tupperware in your own garage. That would be one step beyond domestic production... a makers revolution.

 

[Onyx]

1. Tariffs are a a revenue source which doesn't come out of American pockets. Essentially they're a tax on foreigners. Tariffs would be politically benign if it weren't for the fact that we get our news from multi-national corporations which would campaign against them.

Tariffs do come out of American pockets. It is like the sales tax. You raise the cost of selling their product, their profit margin lowers, so therefore they raise the prices. Every time in history that tariffs have been raised, prices have went up for consumers.

Not to mention all the lost jobs, slowed growth, and decreased presence of multi-national companies would end up costing your revenue base more in the end.

2. Tariffs can be a bargaining chip. Like hey, we slapped a tariff on you but we'll remove it if you remove your tariffs on us.

Or they could just slap another tariff back. Trade wars rarely turn out well, just like real war.

 

[Indeependent]

1. Tariffs are a a revenue source which doesn't come out of American pockets. Essentially they're a tax on foreigners. Tariffs would be politically benign if it weren't for the fact that we get our news from multi-national corporations which would campaign against them.

Tariffs do come out of American pockets. It is like the sales tax. You raise the cost of selling their product, their profit margin lowers, so therefore they raise the prices. Every time in history that tariffs have been raised, prices have went up for consumers.

Not to mention all the lost jobs, slowed growth, and decreased presence of multi-national companies would end up costing your revenue base more in the end.

2. Tariffs can be a bargaining chip. Like hey, we slapped a tariff on you but we'll remove it if you remove your tariffs on us.

Or they could just slap another tariff back. Trade wars rarely turn out well, just like real war.

I see you haven't been keeping up...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/goldman-sachs-ceo-blankfein-talks-at-dealbook-conference-on-long-term-investing.html

 

[Treeshepherd]

1. Tariffs are a a revenue source which doesn't come out of American pockets. Essentially they're a tax on foreigners. Tariffs would be politically benign if it weren't for the fact that we get our news from multi-national corporations which would campaign against them.

Tariffs do come out of American pockets. It is like the sales tax. You raise the cost of selling their product, their profit margin lowers, so therefore they raise the prices. Every time in history that tariffs have been raised, prices have went up for consumers.

Not to mention all the lost jobs, slowed growth, and decreased presence of multi-national companies would end up costing your revenue base more in the end.

2. Tariffs can be a bargaining chip. Like hey, we slapped a tariff on you but we'll remove it if you remove your tariffs on us.

Or they could just slap another tariff back. Trade wars rarely turn out well, just like real war.

I get what you're saying. My GMO fillet of salmon raised on antibiotics and dogfood in a filthy Chinese fish pond will go up in price. Doesn't really effect me. I'm a localvore. The hope is that a more balanced playing field would result in higher American wages to compensate for higher prices on imports. The whole argument is moot, just an academic exercise, since robotics are going to replace workforces everywhere.

But I don't subscribe to the argument that protectionism is fundamentally flawed. Every model has a shelf life and is bound to fail eventually, including globalism. And looking at the current scorecard ($366 billion trade deficit w/ China) I'm convinced that globalism has led to a net loss of US jobs.

Point to a specific example in history where protectionism failed and I guarantee that it I can explain it with greater nuance than the sacred idea that free trade is always better.

 

[Onyx]

The hope is that a more balanced playing field would result in higher American wages to compensate for higher prices on imports. The whole argument is moot, just an academic exercise, since robotics are going to replace workforces everywhere.

That is junk economics.

The price of imports does not correlate to the wages of workers. More likely, companies would lower wages to compensate for their decreasing profit margin. I mean, come on, you know that is bullshit....

And looking at the current scorecard ($366 billion trade deficit w/ China) I'm convinced that globalism has led to a net loss of US jobs.

Then you are out of tune with reality. The majority of American jobs are not simple structured and low paying agrarian and manufacturing positions (many manufacturers rely on foreign trade too).

Point to a specific example in history where protectionism failed and I guarantee that it I can explain it with greater nuance than the sacred idea that free trade is always better.

It failed every time. By precedent, you should be pointing to where it succeeded.

I am not denying that there is major nuance to every recession that protectionist policies preceded. That does not change the reality that protectionism (socialism) fails every time. Every argument behind protectionism is based on fallacies.

Less trade has never created more money or jobs. That is an example of just one of the many fallacies behind the junk economics that is protectionism

 

[Indeependent]

The hope is that a more balanced playing field would result in higher American wages to compensate for higher prices on imports. The whole argument is moot, just an academic exercise, since robotics are going to replace workforces everywhere.

That is junk economics.

The price of imports does not correlate to the wages of workers. More likely, companies would lower wages to compensate for their decreasing profit margin. I mean, come on, you know that is bullshit....

And looking at the current scorecard ($366 billion trade deficit w/ China) I'm convinced that globalism has led to a net loss of US jobs.

Then you are out of tune with reality. The majority of American jobs are not simple structured and low paying agrarian and manufacturing positions (many manufacturers rely on foreign trade too).

Point to a specific example in history where protectionism failed and I guarantee that it I can explain it with greater nuance than the sacred idea that free trade is always better.

It failed every time. By precedent, you should be pointing to where it succeeded.

I am not denying that there is major nuance to every recession that protectionist policies preceded. That does not change the reality that protectionism (socialism) fails every time. Every argument behind protectionism is based on fallacies.

Less trade has never created more money or jobs. That is an example of just one of the many fallacies behind the junk economics that is protectionism

The price of imports includes the 20+ homes that the Directors, CEOs and Investors own.
And please don't even try telling me that they NEED 20+ homes.

 

[Onyx]

The price of imports includes the 20+ homes that the Directors, CEOs and Investors own.
And please don't even try telling me that they NEED 20+ homes.

 

[Indeependent]

The price of imports includes the 20+ homes that the Directors, CEOs and Investors own.
And please don't even try telling me that they NEED 20+ homes.

It's fact...and you never seem to be able to deal with facts.
Like the fact that you're a criminal.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The price of imports does not correlate to the wages of workers

First of all, there is no free trade. China subsidises their steel industry and dumps underpriced product on the world market.
Germany has been somewhat immune to that since they also subsidise their steel industry and as a result they still produce their own steel. Subsidies are different from tariffs, and I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, but that's an example off the top of my head where protectionism has preserved jobs.

Humor me and give me a historic example of where protectionism failed. I'll qualify the argument with a bit of context.

 

[Onyx]

First of all, there is no free trade.

Not with socialists like you dictating the flow.

China subsidises their steel industry and dumps underpriced product on the world market.

So? Clearly it is not underpriced if they are making a profit.

Subsidies are different from tariffs

Then why are you talking about them?

Humor me and give me a historic example of where protectionism failed. I'll qualify the argument with a bit of context.

In US history?

Leading up to the Great Depression. I do not care about what else led to the Great Depression, since high tariffs did contribute.

 

[Indeependent]

First of all, there is no free trade.

Not with socialists like you dictating the flow.

China subsidises their steel industry and dumps underpriced product on the world market.

So? Clearly it is not underpriced if they are making a profit.

Subsidies are different from tariffs

Then why are you talking about them?

Humor me and give me a historic example of where protectionism failed. I'll qualify the argument with a bit of context.

In US history?

Leading up to the Great Depression. I do not care about what else led to the Great Depression, since high tariffs did contribute.

The typical Onyx logical argument..."You're against Slave Labor? You're stupid!"

 

[Onyx]

The typical Onyx logical argument..."You're against Slave Labor? You're stupid!"

 

[Indeependent]

The typical Onyx logical argument..."You're against Slave Labor? You're stupid!"

And from YOU?
NO DEBATE.

 

[Onyx]

And from YOU?
NO DEBATE.