Trump says he has his pick of the top ten people in any discipline

[Faun]

LOL

It’s adorable how much you think your opinion of my veracity matters.

Regardless, it was someone else who said they read that in one of Cohn’s emails who provided that ascription. And zero repudiation from Cohn leads me to believe he did in fact, say it.

You should speak truth and be honest. Your meme is an uncorroborated allegation. So, if he didn't deny it, then it must be true?

You yourself said he said it. Why shouldn’t I believe you?

Where did I claim that Cohn made the statement in your meme?

Actually, you didn’t, I was merely using you to demonstrate for folks reading this how people challenge false ascriptions to them. Just like you challenged me to prove you didn’t say what I falsely ascribed to you, Cohn would have done the same had the quote attributed to him not been accurate.

Thanks for the assist.

Oh, and you should learn what a meme is. What I posted was a quote, not a meme.

Ok. So you're a serial liar. It's time to ignore you too. So long, liar.

Ciao.

Oh, by the way, I told no lies. I quoted Cohn who did not deny saying it; and I used you like a condom to demonstrate how people do reject false ascriptions.

And your cowardice will gleefully be rewarded as I refute your bullshit while you’ve rendered yourself helpless to defend yourself. What kind of idiot does that to themselves, huh?

 

[OldLady]

I wonder whether Cohn will be replaced by any of the individuals who are widely (among folks who are plugged into economics) acknowledged as being among the top economists alive today.

• Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc
  
• That ranking
  
• 20 Most Influential Living Economists
  
• Top 100 Most Influential Economists 2017

I'm not holding my breath that any of them becomes his national economic advisor.

Trump is full of shit. His first choice for the Chief Scientist of the USDA was not even a Scientist, let alone one of the top 10

He did well with Cohn, according to a lot of folks who ought to know. But now that he's got his tax cuts, he'll hire anyone who can count to 100 without taking off his socks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Definitely a problematic situation.

Economists (depending on how that is defined) are very valuable as long as they stay in their lane - analysis and forecasting. But the moment they become ideological they become worthless, if not worse. Whether it's people like Reich or Krugman on the Left or Kudlow or Moore on the Right, getting an ideologue means you're putting a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of someone who simply isn't thinking clearly.

Greenspan being the most blazing example.
.

For the most part, economists aren't ideologues. They perform research and publish their findings. Those findings happen to support the predefined ideology of one or another political persuasion, and the economist who published his/her findings gets tagged by ideologues as being in this or that ideological camp. Given their druthers, economists would discard normative economic notions and stick to and implement policy based almost purely on the findings of positive economics.

Consider, for example, the latest economic "hot button" issue, Trump's 10% and 25 tariffs. As goes that, economists look at it and immediately recognize that classical economics has shown that tariffs generally are deleterious to the well being of the polities that implement them [1]; however, they acknowledge too that there is the such a thing as an optimal tariff. Recognizing those two things, the question economists ask is whether the magnitude and provisional structure of Trump's tariff and the existential nature of the environment in which it'll be extant make it an "optimal tariff." [2]

• Roots of Optimal Tariff Theory
• Optimal Tariffs - Theory and Practice
  
• Optimal Tariffs: The Evidence
• Large and Small Country Optimal Tariffs Under Uncertain Terms of Trade
• The structure of optimal tariff rates in a large country with market power
  
• Fair, Optimal or Detrimental? Environmental vs. Strategic Use of Border Carbon Adjustment

That said, anyone having an economic background worthy of even pretending to be an economist will, upon asking that question, know immediately that 10% and 25% tariffs on imported raw materials (Who the hell would f*ck their economy by taxing at 10% and 25% infrastructurally essential raw materials rather than discretionary finished goods? Donald Trump, obviously.) isn't at all going to qualify as optimal.

To illustrate just how glaringly un-optimal are Trump's tariffs, think of this. Ecologists have found that, in nature, fires, though they are destructive, are essential to the health of the environments in which thy occur. Implementing Trump's tariff is tantamount to one's thinking that if fire is good for the natural habitat, it must be in the same ways good for their home and in turn setting one's home ablaze.



Notes:

1. The net decrement in well being is, of course, not universal throughout the tariff-implementing economy. There are specific winners and losers -- the winners being the owners of the largest firms benefited by the tariff and the losers being everyone else, and the economy as a whole. It's plausible (but hardly probable) too that a tariff, if it's an optimal one, can generate a net increase in government revenue, however, to do so, it must produce more tariff revenue than the decrease in income tax revenue resulting from the sales decline the tariff effects.
   
   The ultimate impact of a tariff -- optimal or not -- within the nation that implements it is to redistribute income/resources so that the "winners" experience resource increases -- mostly, but not exclusively, money -- from the "losers." The magnitude of Trump's tariffs make them the closest thing to a mandated "buy American" law that he can lawfully implement and that economics novices, which is most folks, won't construe as a mandate and means of income redistribution from "average consumers" to well heeled owners of steel companies. (It's important to note that U.S.-owned firms both import and export steel.)
2. Terms-of-trade argument (the optimal tariff theory) states that a country with market power can gain national welfare when it imposes a tariff for foreign exports and thereby generates well being at the expense of foreign trade partners. This argument has been long-term applied as an assumption in many theoretical trade models. Feenstra showed that the theoretical optimal tariff is equal to the inverse foreign export supply elasticity which implies if we can get the value of inverse export elasticity for each good then we can set up the optimal tariff to maximized our national welfare.
   
   It's important to note that while Itagaki proposes that there might be a model whereby optimal tariff theory can apply to economically small countries (within the sector(s) the tariff will affect), the reality of the math (let me know if you want the formulas; or read the book linked in the preceding paragraph) indicates that it's highly improbable that such a tariff can be implemented.
   
   History gives us plenty of examples of un-optimal tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (SH) of the 1930s is a fine example of tariff impacts at the upper margin, though Bush II's and Obama's are more recent tariffs that were dramatically smaller in quantitative and qualitative magnitude and that yet did more harm than good.
   
   The goal of SH was to protect the American working opportunities and agriculture. But the high SH duties caused a “trade war” situation at that time. Followed by the imposition of SH, Canada, Great Britain, and other European countries imposed trade barriers to U.S. products. "Real world trade contracted about 14 percentages” from 1929 to 1932 due to “deflation-deduced discretionary tariff changes, nontariff barriers and income.” As for the effect on U.S. national market, “it alone accounts for about 7 percent of decrease in U.S. import and the higher effect tariff accounts for about 22 percent of the observed 40 percent decline in the volume of U.S. import in two years after Smoot-Hawley’s imposition”

 

[iceberg]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

I think the turnover is a welcome change, it ensures that people don't get too comfy unless they are really committed to America. Also Trump doesn't get too reliant on advisers.

That is one of the most amazing spin jobs I have seen in a while on here.

Think you could find one company that would agree with your view on turnover?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

Hey you are lying what a liar LOL...

 

[shockedcanadian]

Definitely a problematic situation.

Economists (depending on how that is defined) are very valuable as long as they stay in their lane - analysis and forecasting. But the moment they become ideological they become worthless, if not worse. Whether it's people like Reich or Krugman on the Left or Kudlow or Moore on the Right, getting an ideologue means you're putting a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of someone who simply isn't thinking clearly.

Greenspan being the most blazing example.
.

For the most part, economists aren't ideologues. They perform research and publish their findings. Those findings happen to support the predefined ideology of one or another political persuasion, and the economist who published his/her findings gets tagged by ideologues as being in this or that ideological camp. Given their druthers, economists would discard normative economic notions and stick to and implement policy based almost purely on the findings of positive economics.

Consider, for example, the latest economic "hot button" issue, Trump's 10% and 25 tariffs. As goes that, economists look at it and immediately recognize that classical economics has shown that tariffs generally are deleterious to the well being of the polities that implement them [1]; however, they acknowledge too that there is the such a thing as an optimal tariff. Recognizing those two things, the question economists ask is whether the magnitude and provisional structure of Trump's tariff and the existential nature of the environment in which it'll be extant make it an "optimal tariff." [2]

• Roots of Optimal Tariff Theory
• Optimal Tariffs - Theory and Practice
  
• Optimal Tariffs: The Evidence
• Large and Small Country Optimal Tariffs Under Uncertain Terms of Trade
• The structure of optimal tariff rates in a large country with market power
  
• Fair, Optimal or Detrimental? Environmental vs. Strategic Use of Border Carbon Adjustment

That said, anyone having an economic background worthy of even pretending to be an economist will, upon asking that question, know immediately that 10% and 25% tariffs on imported raw materials (Who the hell would f*ck their economy by taxing at 10% and 25% infrastructurally essential raw materials rather than discretionary finished goods? Donald Trump, obviously.) isn't at all going to qualify as optimal.

To illustrate just how glaringly un-optimal are Trump's tariffs, think of this. Ecologists have found that, in nature, fires, though they are destructive, are essential to the health of the environments in which thy occur. Implementing Trump's tariff is tantamount to one's thinking that if fire is good for the natural habitat, it must be in the same ways good for their home and in turn setting one's home ablaze.



Notes:

1. The net decrement in well being is, of course, not universal throughout the tariff-implementing economy. There are specific winners and losers -- the winners being the owners of the largest firms benefited by the tariff and the losers being everyone else, and the economy as a whole. It's plausible (but hardly probable) too that a tariff, if it's an optimal one, can generate a net increase in government revenue, however, to do so, it must produce more tariff revenue than the decrease in income tax revenue resulting from the sales decline the tariff effects.
   
   The ultimate impact of a tariff -- optimal or not -- within the nation that implements it is to redistribute income/resources so that the "winners" experience resource increases -- mostly, but not exclusively, money -- from the "losers." The magnitude of Trump's tariffs make them the closest thing to a mandated "buy American" law that he can lawfully implement and that economics novices, which is most folks, won't construe as a mandate and means of income redistribution from "average consumers" to well heeled owners of steel companies. (It's important to note that U.S.-owned firms both import and export steel.)
2. Terms-of-trade argument (the optimal tariff theory) states that a country with market power can gain national welfare when it imposes a tariff for foreign exports and thereby generates well being at the expense of foreign trade partners. This argument has been long-term applied as an assumption in many theoretical trade models. Feenstra showed that the theoretical optimal tariff is equal to the inverse foreign export supply elasticity which implies if we can get the value of inverse export elasticity for each good then we can set up the optimal tariff to maximized our national welfare.
   
   It's important to note that while Itagaki proposes that there might be a model whereby optimal tariff theory can apply to economically small countries (within the sector(s) the tariff will affect), the reality of the math (let me know if you want the formulas; or read the book linked in the preceding paragraph) indicates that it's highly improbable that such a tariff can be implemented.
   
   History gives us plenty of examples of un-optimal tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (SH) of the 1930s is a fine example of tariff impacts at the upper margin, though Bush II's and Obama's are more recent tariffs that were dramatically smaller in quantitative and qualitative magnitude and that yet did more harm than good.
   
   The goal of SH was to protect the American working opportunities and agriculture. But the high SH duties caused a “trade war” situation at that time. Followed by the imposition of SH, Canada, Great Britain, and other European countries imposed trade barriers to U.S. products. "Real world trade contracted about 14 percentages” from 1929 to 1932 due to “deflation-deduced discretionary tariff changes, nontariff barriers and income.” As for the effect on U.S. national market, “it alone accounts for about 7 percent of decrease in U.S. import and the higher effect tariff accounts for about 22 percent of the observed 40 percent decline in the volume of U.S. import in two years after Smoot-Hawley’s imposition”

50+% Of steel is produced by China, they either ship it directly or via trans shipping, for which you get to pay a higher price through another country. They are dumping everywhere. This tariff hits them and their enablers.

Most importantly any manufacturing growth in the U.S is going to consider U.S steel, AND, America needs it's own steel for National Security.

Also, other nations are going to heed the message, "stop putting tariffs and barriers on our shyte while we treat you so kindly"! The E.U in particular, but Canada also has barriers on top of interference in these businesses. Enough already. America has had enough. Maybe you dont understand why Trump won, people are angry with the status quo and Americas place in the world.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I am pretty dang certain that no adult film star prostitute would be suing her ...like Stormy is suing Orange pervert

 

[Faun]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

That’s quite the overactive imagination you’ve got there.

 

[iceberg]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

i'm more or less trump neutral. i like some of what he does, i hate all the shit he stirs up. but maybe the shit has to get stirred so we can get it out of our system and get back to being 1 country.

with trump i *do* believe he's doing this for his ego to be sure, but he's got america in his sights to put back to the way he saw it before. that in itself is a challenge because we've changed and morphed and there simply is no going back. education is too damn expensive and all we do is leave the next generation a pile of shit due to our inaction and infighting with debt that will drive the world bankrupt. but again, i do like a lot of what he is doing cause i'm older and while i know things must change, the first is we need to cut the shit out and work together to make needed changes. trump won't get us there but maybe he's the counter to obama we need so both sides can go THERE and move on with some form of pyrrhic victory behind them.

hillary would just be a bag of shit that would sell out the country for a bag of cash to be named later.

either way, these debates over guns are going to always going to go on. people that take stands like dicks and wal mart saying they won't sell those items, great. i don't think MORE people will shop there because of that but i do believe LESS will and move on. and if i can buy it on amazon or online and have an AR shipped to me in overnight and for $25 and 15 minutes, who cares. i'd do that anyway before paying retail store prices. so not sure what those companies are actually winning except placating people's own emotional state of mind.

 

[iceberg]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

but then we get back to the mindset of if you like NAFTA or not. if not, you'd hate hillary for continuing what they feel is a stupid policy. if you do, then you love what trump is doing cause it never should have been done.

either way it's not a moment of pride for our country, these times.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I wonder whether Cohn will be replaced by any of the individuals who are widely (among folks who are plugged into economics) acknowledged as being among the top economists alive today.

• Economist Rankings | IDEAS/RePEc
  
• That ranking
  
• 20 Most Influential Living Economists
  
• Top 100 Most Influential Economists 2017

I'm not holding my breath that any of them becomes his national economic advisor.

Trump is full of shit. His first choice for the Chief Scientist of the USDA was not even a Scientist, let alone one of the top 10

He did well with Cohn, according to a lot of folks who ought to know. But now that he's got his tax cuts, he'll hire anyone who can count to 100 without taking off his socks.

He did well with Cohn, according to a lot of folks who ought to know.

Cohn is a financier more so than being an economist; however, he's got the same fundamental economics background as do any business degree holders. For the very basic matters of the economics of taxation and tariffs, that's, in most instances, enough to have a good high level sense of whether a given economic policy is, in light of very obvious national and global status elements, at least directionally cogent and coherent. By the same token, financiers' understanding of the nuances of economics are necessarily limited to and biased by their own professional realm's concerns. The concerns of any given sector rarely are congruent with the well being and best interest of the nation as a whole.

That said, Cohen spent the early years of his career working in the steel industry and later in commodities. That particular career path positioned him to be particularly savvy about the practical merits and lack thereof with regard to Trump's tariffs. So without regard to whether he's got deep theory and practice savvy on any other aspects of economics and economic policy, he's got plenty as go tariffs on steel and aluminum.

 

[iceberg]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

 

[K9Buck]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

 

[iceberg]

Definitely a problematic situation.

Economists (depending on how that is defined) are very valuable as long as they stay in their lane - analysis and forecasting. But the moment they become ideological they become worthless, if not worse. Whether it's people like Reich or Krugman on the Left or Kudlow or Moore on the Right, getting an ideologue means you're putting a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of someone who simply isn't thinking clearly.

Greenspan being the most blazing example.
.

For the most part, economists aren't ideologues. They perform research and publish their findings. Those findings happen to support the predefined ideology of one or another political persuasion, and the economist who published his/her findings gets tagged by ideologues as being in this or that ideological camp. Given their druthers, economists would discard normative economic notions and stick to and implement policy based almost purely on the findings of positive economics.

Consider, for example, the latest economic "hot button" issue, Trump's 10% and 25 tariffs. As goes that, economists look at it and immediately recognize that classical economics has shown that tariffs generally are deleterious to the well being of the polities that implement them [1]; however, they acknowledge too that there is the such a thing as an optimal tariff. Recognizing those two things, the question economists ask is whether the magnitude and provisional structure of Trump's tariff and the existential nature of the environment in which it'll be extant make it an "optimal tariff." [2]

• Roots of Optimal Tariff Theory
• Optimal Tariffs - Theory and Practice
  
• Optimal Tariffs: The Evidence
• Large and Small Country Optimal Tariffs Under Uncertain Terms of Trade
• The structure of optimal tariff rates in a large country with market power
  
• Fair, Optimal or Detrimental? Environmental vs. Strategic Use of Border Carbon Adjustment

That said, anyone having an economic background worthy of even pretending to be an economist will, upon asking that question, know immediately that 10% and 25% tariffs on imported raw materials (Who the hell would f*ck their economy by taxing at 10% and 25% infrastructurally essential raw materials rather than discretionary finished goods? Donald Trump, obviously.) isn't at all going to qualify as optimal.

To illustrate just how glaringly un-optimal are Trump's tariffs, think of this. Ecologists have found that, in nature, fires, though they are destructive, are essential to the health of the environments in which thy occur. Implementing Trump's tariff is tantamount to one's thinking that if fire is good for the natural habitat, it must be in the same ways good for their home and in turn setting one's home ablaze.



Notes:

1. The net decrement in well being is, of course, not universal throughout the tariff-implementing economy. There are specific winners and losers -- the winners being the owners of the largest firms benefited by the tariff and the losers being everyone else, and the economy as a whole. It's plausible (but hardly probable) too that a tariff, if it's an optimal one, can generate a net increase in government revenue, however, to do so, it must produce more tariff revenue than the decrease in income tax revenue resulting from the sales decline the tariff effects.
   
   The ultimate impact of a tariff -- optimal or not -- within the nation that implements it is to redistribute income/resources so that the "winners" experience resource increases -- mostly, but not exclusively, money -- from the "losers." The magnitude of Trump's tariffs make them the closest thing to a mandated "buy American" law that he can lawfully implement and that economics novices, which is most folks, won't construe as a mandate and means of income redistribution from "average consumers" to well heeled owners of steel companies. (It's important to note that U.S.-owned firms both import and export steel.)
2. Terms-of-trade argument (the optimal tariff theory) states that a country with market power can gain national welfare when it imposes a tariff for foreign exports and thereby generates well being at the expense of foreign trade partners. This argument has been long-term applied as an assumption in many theoretical trade models. Feenstra showed that the theoretical optimal tariff is equal to the inverse foreign export supply elasticity which implies if we can get the value of inverse export elasticity for each good then we can set up the optimal tariff to maximized our national welfare.
   
   It's important to note that while Itagaki proposes that there might be a model whereby optimal tariff theory can apply to economically small countries (within the sector(s) the tariff will affect), the reality of the math (let me know if you want the formulas; or read the book linked in the preceding paragraph) indicates that it's highly improbable that such a tariff can be implemented.
   
   History gives us plenty of examples of un-optimal tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (SH) of the 1930s is a fine example of tariff impacts at the upper margin, though Bush II's and Obama's are more recent tariffs that were dramatically smaller in quantitative and qualitative magnitude and that yet did more harm than good.
   
   The goal of SH was to protect the American working opportunities and agriculture. But the high SH duties caused a “trade war” situation at that time. Followed by the imposition of SH, Canada, Great Britain, and other European countries imposed trade barriers to U.S. products. "Real world trade contracted about 14 percentages” from 1929 to 1932 due to “deflation-deduced discretionary tariff changes, nontariff barriers and income.” As for the effect on U.S. national market, “it alone accounts for about 7 percent of decrease in U.S. import and the higher effect tariff accounts for about 22 percent of the observed 40 percent decline in the volume of U.S. import in two years after Smoot-Hawley’s imposition”

50+% Of steel is produced by China, they either ship it directly or via trans shipping, for which you get to pay a higher price through another country. They are dumping everywhere. This tariff hits them and their enablers.

Most importantly any manufacturing growth in the U.S is going to consider U.S steel, AND, America needs it's own steel for National Security.

Also, other nations are going to heed the message, "stop putting tariffs and barriers on our shyte while we treat you so kindly"! The E.U in particular, but Canada also has barriers on top of interference in these businesses. Enough already. America has had enough. Maybe you dont understand why Trump won, people are angry with the status quo and Americas place in the world.

morning sir.

always appreciate your views and take on things.

 

[iceberg]

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

trick question. he didn't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I wish Trump's picks were as good as Trump's mouth. I voted for orange man (was there really any choice? LOL) and I'm disappointed in all of the turnover in his administration, although I'd be delighted to see Jeff Sessions out of office.

it's been a turnstyle hasn't it?

some are likely due to him.
some are likely due to just not wanting all the headaches and hate that comes with him
some likely just moved on as normal

but he's going through them like he's still on tv and that makes it difficult to bring in good people if they think they could be "next". YUGE disappointment in his turnover ratio for sure.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

Oh god no, I did not vote for or support Hillary. Many people looked at the two and choose what they thought was the "lesser of two evils", I looked at them and saw different but equal evils.

So, I voted as I had since 1996, for a third party.

 

[K9Buck]

Just imagine how much worse it would be if Hillary had won. It's chilling to imagine.

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

trick question. he didn't.

He didn't have to.

 

[iceberg]

I am not sure what would have been worse had she won. The biggest difference would be who the SCOTUS justice was. Spending would still be going up like it is under Trump, the debt would still be getting bigger like it is under Trump. I am not sure she would have started a trade war with Canada.

I'm sure Hillary appreciates your continued support. If only she had had a few more like you in the swing states.

where did he say he supported her?

I don't know. Where?

trick question. he didn't.

He didn't have to.

it would be better wouldn't it, than go assuming things. i speak from, or try to, a central view a lot w/o my bias when i can. granted some people make that very difficult due to past burns and hate, but i still try.

when i do that i get labeled a lot of things along the way because people are quick pigeonhole people vs. understand them. one is simple. the other takes up to a lifetime, at times.

taking openly about someone without ending the sentence or thought in THE GOD DAMN BITCH doesn't mean he or anyone supports said person, now does it?