Trump's trade war with China

[Harpy Eagle]

I noted what should happen. Companies move what were once good paying jobs overseas. Those who had those jobs have to then rely on public assistance programs. To pay for those we should raise capital gains taxes on overseas profits.

How about instead of living off of public assistance programs for the rest of their lives while pinning for the good old days, we take that money and retrain these people with the skills needed to fill the million plus open jobs?

Does that not seem a better solution?

Your way has no end to it, it is a forever sort of thing.

 

[pknopp]

I noted what should happen. Companies move what were once good paying jobs overseas. Those who had those jobs have to then rely on public assistance programs. To pay for those we should raise capital gains taxes on overseas profits.

How about instead of living off of public assistance programs for the rest of their lives while pinning for the good old days, we take that money and retrain these people with the skills needed to fill the million plus open jobs?

You continue to fail at noting what these jobs are. I support training people but it has to be paid for.

Does that not seem a better solution?

Your way has no end to it, it is a forever sort of thing.

I didn't create it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You continue to fail at noting what these jobs are. I support training people but it has to be paid for.

 

[pknopp]

You continue to fail at noting what these jobs are. I support training people but it has to be paid for.

View attachment 279235

No link

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You continue to fail at noting what these jobs are. I support training people but it has to be paid for.

View attachment 279235

No link

sigh...

10 industries that need more workers

 

[pknopp]

You continue to fail at noting what these jobs are. I support training people but it has to be paid for.

View attachment 279235

No link

sigh...

10 industries that need more workers

Anecdotal stories are not indications of the bigger picture but I'll add to that after.

I am 57. I am retiring from my current job between tomorrow and next July (probably the first of the year). It pays well but I simply no longer want to do it. I can afford to "retire, retire" but I'm not really wanting to completely retire. A part time job would be great. The pay is not the #1 consideration but I'm not working at Burger King for $9.00 an hour.

I've looked on Monster (and Indeed) for a few months now. Sure, there are a small number of medical jobs available (a small number) and there are CDL class A jobs available but you have to be willing to be away from home a lot.

Monster also has a monetary interest in stating there are jobs available. There aren't millions of well paid jobs.

 

[Correll]

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

No policy can serve every single individual. Someone always gets left behind, that is the nature of life.

you live in a fantasy world in which every single person can be saved by government actions, and that is just not going to happen.

it is difficult to have a discussion with someone so divorced from reality.

Nope. Wanting to include the interests of the American workers, into the cost benefit analysis of trade policy,


in no way translates to "serve every single individual".



That was, quite simply, a dishonest mischaracterization of my position.


I want to have a serious and honest debate about whether our status quo trade policy has been good for America as a whole, and as individuals,


while you seem to want to avoid that.




What you should be saying at this point, is why you dont' care about the American worker,


OR, explaining why the benefits to America at large, is worth letting the American worker lose out.




Mischaracterizing my position, is the type of thing someone does, when they don't think they can support their position, honestly.

 

[Correll]

That is where we disagree.


And I do not "blame" China. THeir government's job is to serve the interests of their people, as individuals and as a group.


And they have been doing so, with an aggressive trade policy.



YOur point about the business's being at fault is, to a great extent, true.


But businesses, do not set the rules, of the market place. Government trade policy does.


You got some business, run by a wonder person who is a proud American, and insists on paying his American workers, a reasonable American wage,


and you let his asshole competitors, move their production to Chinese manufacturers, who pay their people one tenth of the American wages,


And you are creating an environment that encourages asshole behavior.

Then make trade policy address all countries. We are not doing that. I also disagree with taxing the people.

1. What do you mean, "address all countries"?

We are only addressing China. The problems we are discussing are not only caused by American businesses in China. Moving production to Thailand fixes nothing.

2. If we dont' tax the people, it becomes too easy for them to demand ever higher spending. That is already killing US.

I am speaking about this issue. I am calling for taxes. Higher capital gains taxes on overseas profits, not tariffs.

1. Trump has addressed trade with other countries. THe media is not spending time on them. And let's not pretend that our problem is only with Third WOrld nations. The EU and Japan and South Korea, all have sizable trade surpluses with US too.

Yeah? What has he done?

2. OK. I am not gainsaying your point on taxes on overseas profits. That could be helpful. But just saying, if taxes are too low on people, that encourages those people to look at government services as "Free".

Not the topic.

1. Renegotiated some treaties. NOt sure of hte details. I care more about results, and we don't have many of those yet.


2. Just saying.

 

[Brain357]

You seem to want government managed trade. That isn’t capitalism. Much more socialism. Do you believe in markets?

Pretending that the choices are trade without any government trade policy, or "government managed trade", is something an anarchist would do.


A very dishonest anarchist.


Meanwhile in the real world, this thread is about Trade Policy. And no serious person would be pretending that the idea of trade policy is not legitimate in a capitalist system.



So, why you playing such a dishonest game?

Dishonest? I think you just don’t like the game. I think the best trade policy is free trade. It’s determined by the traders, not the government. You seem to think big gov is better at determining trade. I disagree.

Allowing our trading "partners" to practice trade policy designed to benefit their people by ******* ours, is not "Free Trade",

it is being the world's ***** on trade.

Our trade policy has been benefitting us too, or we wouldn’t be trading. Nobody is forced to trade.

It has been benefiting SOME of us, the shareholders and the ceos, while the workers lose their jobs, or have their wages suppressed for generations.

AND, then as communities flounder, EVERYONE, suffers.


Even the short sighted and selfish shareholders and ceos, who don't realize the connection between their actions and the decline of the nation as a whole.

Those are the same people who aren't paying their workers now. What does that have to do with trade? We have lots of jobs. Your issue seems to be getting better pay for workers, not trade.

 

[Brain357]

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

And you just pretended that we have not addressed the way macro economic numbers can hide large scale problems.


If you really believed that your position was correct, ie good for America,


you would not employ such dishonest tactics.



You want this policy, even though you know that it is NOT good for America.

Lots of wealth and low unemployment isn't good for America? You aren't making sense.

 

[Brain357]

Die is a bit extreme, but it is in their long term interest to change and adapt.

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

That is the same thing the economists said back in the 70s.


And then those jobs never showed up.


And if they did, people like you gave them to cheaper immigrants. Or outsourced them.

We have plenty of jobs. If you are unhappy with wages trade is not the issue. Get rid of non compete agreements, get rid of wage collusion, get rid of our near monopolies, drop right to work, strengthen unions... these are all internal things holding wages down. Any jobs you bring back will be held down by these same things. Look at trumps failure in steel. Layoffs and huge stock drop.

The jobs I refer to are the ones that were promised by the Free Traders.

They were supposed to be, two parts,


A. new higher paying jobs, in new fields developed by the dynamic and growing economy,

and


B, once American companies learned to be more productive, the lost jobs were supposed to come BACK.



That did not happen, as we have repeatedly covered. Your dishonest pretense we have not, is very revealing.

We have plenty of jobs. I've given you all the reasons they don't pay as much as they should. Wage collusion, non competes, drop in union memberships, right to work laws...

 

[Correll]

Pretending that the choices are trade without any government trade policy, or "government managed trade", is something an anarchist would do.


A very dishonest anarchist.


Meanwhile in the real world, this thread is about Trade Policy. And no serious person would be pretending that the idea of trade policy is not legitimate in a capitalist system.



So, why you playing such a dishonest game?

Dishonest? I think you just don’t like the game. I think the best trade policy is free trade. It’s determined by the traders, not the government. You seem to think big gov is better at determining trade. I disagree.

Allowing our trading "partners" to practice trade policy designed to benefit their people by ******* ours, is not "Free Trade",

it is being the world's ***** on trade.

Our trade policy has been benefitting us too, or we wouldn’t be trading. Nobody is forced to trade.

It has been benefiting SOME of us, the shareholders and the ceos, while the workers lose their jobs, or have their wages suppressed for generations.

AND, then as communities flounder, EVERYONE, suffers.


Even the short sighted and selfish shareholders and ceos, who don't realize the connection between their actions and the decline of the nation as a whole.

Those are the same people who aren't paying their workers now. What does that have to do with trade? We have lots of jobs. Your issue seems to be getting better pay for workers, not trade.

Trade generates jobs. Increased demand, raises price, ie wages.

 

[Correll]

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

And you just pretended that we have not addressed the way macro economic numbers can hide large scale problems.


If you really believed that your position was correct, ie good for America,


you would not employ such dishonest tactics.



You want this policy, even though you know that it is NOT good for America.

Lots of wealth and low unemployment isn't good for America? You aren't making sense.

Yep. As we discussed dozens of times. YOur pretense that that point has not been addressed, is you being a liar.

 

[Brain357]

I don't have a side of the aisle.

I like that we have established that we have the same goal, ie the best interests of the American people, both as a group and individually.


Not everyone is on that page. But we are. Let's keep that in mind.

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

I always wonder what is your philosophy and principles in life........ That is If you have any.
Adapt or die is the most basic survival in life.....

If I did not adapt I could be out of business by now.

If my engineers did not upgrade and adapt they could be sitting next or replaced by an indian engineers by now.

Blackberry cellphone did not adapt to new technology. I think they are out of business.

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

And you clearly don't know what those policies should be. Trump did what you think you want with steel. What happened? Steel is laying off workers and US steel stock is down 80%. How is that good for America?

 

[Brain357]

Dishonest? I think you just don’t like the game. I think the best trade policy is free trade. It’s determined by the traders, not the government. You seem to think big gov is better at determining trade. I disagree.

Allowing our trading "partners" to practice trade policy designed to benefit their people by ******* ours, is not "Free Trade",

it is being the world's ***** on trade.

Our trade policy has been benefitting us too, or we wouldn’t be trading. Nobody is forced to trade.

It has been benefiting SOME of us, the shareholders and the ceos, while the workers lose their jobs, or have their wages suppressed for generations.

AND, then as communities flounder, EVERYONE, suffers.


Even the short sighted and selfish shareholders and ceos, who don't realize the connection between their actions and the decline of the nation as a whole.

Those are the same people who aren't paying their workers now. What does that have to do with trade? We have lots of jobs. Your issue seems to be getting better pay for workers, not trade.

Trade generates jobs. Increased demand, raises price, ie wages.

We have super low unemployment. Nothing should increase wages faster than that, but they are barely increasing. They are barely increasing for all the reasons I have covered. Internal problems.

 

[Brain357]

He cares about long term interests.

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

And you just pretended that we have not addressed the way macro economic numbers can hide large scale problems.


If you really believed that your position was correct, ie good for America,


you would not employ such dishonest tactics.



You want this policy, even though you know that it is NOT good for America.

Lots of wealth and low unemployment isn't good for America? You aren't making sense.

Yep. As we discussed dozens of times. YOur pretense that that point has not been addressed, is you being a liar.

I've lied about nothing, but we know you are losing when all you can do is claim liar. It is good we have tons of wealth and low unemployment, that is a fact.

 

[Correll]

Accepting a $9.00 and hour job to replace the $20 an hour job that went overseas so that someone that never created anything can get a better return is not in the countries best interest.

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

That is the same thing the economists said back in the 70s.


And then those jobs never showed up.


And if they did, people like you gave them to cheaper immigrants. Or outsourced them.

We have plenty of jobs. If you are unhappy with wages trade is not the issue. Get rid of non compete agreements, get rid of wage collusion, get rid of our near monopolies, drop right to work, strengthen unions... these are all internal things holding wages down. Any jobs you bring back will be held down by these same things. Look at trumps failure in steel. Layoffs and huge stock drop.

The jobs I refer to are the ones that were promised by the Free Traders.

They were supposed to be, two parts,


A. new higher paying jobs, in new fields developed by the dynamic and growing economy,

and


B, once American companies learned to be more productive, the lost jobs were supposed to come BACK.



That did not happen, as we have repeatedly covered. Your dishonest pretense we have not, is very revealing.

We have plenty of jobs. I've given you all the reasons they don't pay as much as they should. Wage collusion, non competes, drop in union memberships, right to work laws...

We were specifically talking about the jobs promised by the Free Traders, back in the 70s.


I made a point about them, and the process that was supposed to happen.


Would you like to address that point, or run away from it like a little girl?



You are engaged in circular arguing, which is just a form of stonewalling, a tactic to use, when you know you have lost the debate.

 

[Brain357]

Getting a job that is more productive is. There is no long term success in propping up a business that can't compete.

That is the same thing the economists said back in the 70s.


And then those jobs never showed up.


And if they did, people like you gave them to cheaper immigrants. Or outsourced them.

We have plenty of jobs. If you are unhappy with wages trade is not the issue. Get rid of non compete agreements, get rid of wage collusion, get rid of our near monopolies, drop right to work, strengthen unions... these are all internal things holding wages down. Any jobs you bring back will be held down by these same things. Look at trumps failure in steel. Layoffs and huge stock drop.

The jobs I refer to are the ones that were promised by the Free Traders.

They were supposed to be, two parts,


A. new higher paying jobs, in new fields developed by the dynamic and growing economy,

and


B, once American companies learned to be more productive, the lost jobs were supposed to come BACK.



That did not happen, as we have repeatedly covered. Your dishonest pretense we have not, is very revealing.

We have plenty of jobs. I've given you all the reasons they don't pay as much as they should. Wage collusion, non competes, drop in union memberships, right to work laws...

We were specifically talking about the jobs promised by the Free Traders, back in the 70s.


I made a point about them, and the process that was supposed to happen.


Would you like to address that point, or run away from it like a little girl?



You are engaged in circular arguing, which is just a form of stonewalling, a tactic to use, when you know you have lost the debate.

I've addressed it many times. We have really low unemployment, that jobs are here. But our government has done everything against the worker in recent years and that is why they do not pay well. What are you not getting? The jobs are here, the wages are not due to stupid government policy.

 

[Correll]

I like that we have established that we have the same goal, ie the best interests of the American people, both as a group and individually.


Not everyone is on that page. But we are. Let's keep that in mind.

Just wondering, do you think that I am on that page?

Your "adapt or die" comment shows that you, at best,, do not care about the interests of at least some Americans.

I always wonder what is your philosophy and principles in life........ That is If you have any.
Adapt or die is the most basic survival in life.....

If I did not adapt I could be out of business by now.

If my engineers did not upgrade and adapt they could be sitting next or replaced by an indian engineers by now.

Blackberry cellphone did not adapt to new technology. I think they are out of business.

I am a Patriot and a nationalist American.


I want American policy designed with to serve American interests, both as a whole and as individuals.


Saying "adapt or die" as a response to someone pointing out that a large number of Americans are being harmed by an policy,


shows that the person saying it, does not want to include the interests of those particular Americans in the cost benefit analysis of the policy.


We can have a very harsh Darwinian policy, where strong prosper and the weak perish.


IF WE WANT.


I don't want that. I think it is a bad idea.


You and your spouting platitudes like "Adapt or Die", is a DISHONEST way to make your argument, in this debate.

And you clearly don't know what those policies should be. Trump did what you think you want with steel. What happened? Steel is laying off workers and US steel stock is down 80%. How is that good for America?

I was making a point about my belief that any consideration of policy for America should be considered as a cost benefit analysis, with the interests of ALL Americans seriously considered.


And that Golf, (and you) seem to be motivated to dismiss significant portions of the population from that analysis, but you won't say why. (as noted by the line, "adapt or die")


You felt a need to jump in and reply. But nothing in your post addressed the point of my post. You are just trying to deflect fom that point, to an earlier point, that we have covered already.


You seem to be actively working to any further in depth discussion of this issue. As though you realize that you have lost the argument, and now need to try to bury the thread in evasive bullshit.

 

[Correll]

It has been 50 years. We are already well into "long term".

The two of you, for some reason, don't want to consider the interests of the American working class, in the cost benefit analysis of our trade policy.

And we are doing well. Lots of wealth and really low unemployment.

And you just pretended that we have not addressed the way macro economic numbers can hide large scale problems.


If you really believed that your position was correct, ie good for America,


you would not employ such dishonest tactics.



You want this policy, even though you know that it is NOT good for America.

Lots of wealth and low unemployment isn't good for America? You aren't making sense.

Yep. As we discussed dozens of times. YOur pretense that that point has not been addressed, is you being a liar.

I've lied about nothing, but we know you are losing when all you can do is claim liar. It is good we have tons of wealth and low unemployment, that is a fact.

Which I admitted as a positive days ago, in the beginning of the thread.


Unless you immediately claim to be so elderly that you have memory issues, I am standing by my "lying" accusation.