Trump's trade war with China

[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.

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.

You seem to be lost. You seem to want the government running everything rather than markets. Are you sure you are not a socialist? Cause you seem much closer to socialist than capitalist.

 

[Correll]

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.

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

 

[Brain357]

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.

You claim I want policy that isn't good for America. Well with that policy we have lots of wealth and low unemployment. So that is good for America.

 

[Correll]

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.

You seem to be lost. You seem to want the government running everything rather than markets. Are you sure you are not a socialist? Cause you seem much closer to socialist than capitalist.

And again, instead of addressing my point, all you do is say "Socialist". Again.


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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

What jobs are you expecting to come back? They were not supposed to come back. We aren't ever supposed to have cheap labor. It created new jobs and we have tons of them. And they would pay well if we didn't have such stupid policies.

 

[Brain357]

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.

You seem to be lost. You seem to want the government running everything rather than markets. Are you sure you are not a socialist? Cause you seem much closer to socialist than capitalist.

And again, instead of addressing my point, all you do is say "Socialist". Again.


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.

Well socialism is control of the means of production. Sounds like you want government to make sure everyone is considered. Right? Markets don't do that, but they work much better.

 

[Correll]

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.

You claim I want policy that isn't good for America. Well with that policy we have lots of wealth and low unemployment. So that is good for America.

Yep. You demonstrate that with your evasive tactics. If you truly believed that your policy was for the good of America, you would be anxious to explain how much and why.


Constantly repeating "wealth and low unemployment" when you know damn well that it is more complicated than that, is you purposefully using the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a propaganda technique.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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 do not think that the interests of ALL Americans seriously considered, just the ones you claim are left behind by the trade war.

 

[Correll]

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.

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

What jobs are you expecting to come back? They were not supposed to come back. We aren't ever supposed to have cheap labor. It created new jobs and we have tons of them. And they would pay well if we didn't have such stupid policies.

i addressed which jobs I was referring to above. In the first sentence of my post.


You've made multiple posts without even reading the first sentence to which you were replying?


Jesus. You are doing nothing but spouting talking points.

 

[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.

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.

You seem to be lost. You seem to want the government running everything rather than markets. Are you sure you are not a socialist? Cause you seem much closer to socialist than capitalist.

And again, instead of addressing my point, all you do is say "Socialist". Again.


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.

Well socialism is control of the means of production. Sounds like you want government to make sure everyone is considered. Right? Markets don't do that, but they work much better.

And you are still replying while ignoring my point, so here it is again.



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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

Who said they would come back?

Plus, the reason they have not "come" back does not lie with China or our trade policy.

I do not know if you have seen the news, but GM is about to go on strike, mostly over more pay. Right now Temp workers make 15 bucks an hour and "senior" people make $33. You can start at GM at 15 and be making 33 in less than 10 years. All to preform a function on an assembly line that takes no skill.

As long as we are paying our people 33 bucks an hour to stand on an assembly line, no trade policy is going to make it cheaper to produce things here or make the things we produce cheap enough for the Chinese people to buy them.

 

[Correll]

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 do not think that the interests of ALL Americans seriously considered, just the ones you claim are left behind by the trade war.

ALL, should get considered. Maybe some extra weight to those left behind, since they have been on the losing end of policy for quite some time, but I'm not looking to leave anyone out of consideration.

 

[Correll]

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

Who said they would come back?

Plus, the reason they have not "come" back does not lie with China or our trade policy.

I do not know if you have seen the news, but GM is about to go on strike, mostly over more pay. Right now Temp workers make 15 bucks an hour and "senior" people make $33. You can start at GM at 15 and be making 33 in less than 10 years. All to preform a function on an assembly line that takes no skill.

As long as we are paying our people 33 bucks an hour to stand on an assembly line, no trade policy is going to make it cheaper to produce things here or make the things we produce cheap enough for the Chinese people to buy them.

1. The Free Traders, who pushed the status quo trade policy that you are supporting.

2. Except that the decline of union membership in manufacturing has not revitalized US trade balance as it was supposed to.

3. AND Germany, for one example, has nice high wages for it's manufacturing workers, and still have a nice trade surplus and lot of manufacturing jobs.


So, it's not unions.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

What jobs are you expecting to come back? They were not supposed to come back. We aren't ever supposed to have cheap labor. It created new jobs and we have tons of them. And they would pay well if we didn't have such stupid policies.

i addressed which jobs I was referring to above. In the first sentence of my post.


You've made multiple posts without even reading the first sentence to which you were replying?


Jesus. You are doing nothing but spouting talking points.

You are really dense. Nobody ever claimed manufacturing jobs were coming back, and we have lots of new jobs. The new jobs would pay well except we put lots of policy in place to keep that from happening. You are REALLY confused.

 

[Brain357]

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.

You claim I want policy that isn't good for America. Well with that policy we have lots of wealth and low unemployment. So that is good for America.

Yep. You demonstrate that with your evasive tactics. If you truly believed that your policy was for the good of America, you would be anxious to explain how much and why.


Constantly repeating "wealth and low unemployment" when you know damn well that it is more complicated than that, is you purposefully using the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a propaganda technique.

I'm not evading anything. Wealth and low unemployment is what we have plenty of. I've also explained why wages aren't what they should be.

You are pro trade wars. Well explain steel. We've tried steel tariffs many times with bad results every time. Currently US steel is laying off workers and their stock has dropped 80%. How is that good for America mr nationalist?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

Who said they would come back?

Plus, the reason they have not "come" back does not lie with China or our trade policy.

I do not know if you have seen the news, but GM is about to go on strike, mostly over more pay. Right now Temp workers make 15 bucks an hour and "senior" people make $33. You can start at GM at 15 and be making 33 in less than 10 years. All to preform a function on an assembly line that takes no skill.

As long as we are paying our people 33 bucks an hour to stand on an assembly line, no trade policy is going to make it cheaper to produce things here or make the things we produce cheap enough for the Chinese people to buy them.

With AI, labor costs make up much less of total costs than they used to and will make up even less year by year. However, if US auto exports were priced too high for the Chinese market, why has China maintained a 25% tariff on them?

 

[Correll]

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.

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

What jobs are you expecting to come back? They were not supposed to come back. We aren't ever supposed to have cheap labor. It created new jobs and we have tons of them. And they would pay well if we didn't have such stupid policies.

i addressed which jobs I was referring to above. In the first sentence of my post.


You've made multiple posts without even reading the first sentence to which you were replying?


Jesus. You are doing nothing but spouting talking points.

You are really dense. Nobody ever claimed manufacturing jobs were coming back, and we have lots of new jobs. The new jobs would pay well except we put lots of policy in place to keep that from happening. You are REALLY confused.

I know this will sound weird, but would it be cool if I spend the next 4 posts, pretending that you did not address my point, you know that way that you just did?


Just kidding. I'm not like that.


1. Yes, they did claim that.

2. The jobs that were eventually created by new fields, were given to cheap immigrant labor. So that did not work out the way it was supposed to even a little.

3. You keep citing other reasons that you consider to have the negative impact on jobs and wages that I cite. Yet, you dont' seem to realize that there being other additional reasons for things sucking, does not mean that my point about trade is not true.

 

[Brain357]

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.

You seem to be lost. You seem to want the government running everything rather than markets. Are you sure you are not a socialist? Cause you seem much closer to socialist than capitalist.

And again, instead of addressing my point, all you do is say "Socialist". Again.


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.

Well socialism is control of the means of production. Sounds like you want government to make sure everyone is considered. Right? Markets don't do that, but they work much better.

And you are still replying while ignoring my point, so here it is again.



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.

Yes you want government policy to save every bad business. Economies don't work like that. If you can't compete you lose, that is capitalism. Read what you just posted, you are not a capitalist.

 

[Correll]

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.

You claim I want policy that isn't good for America. Well with that policy we have lots of wealth and low unemployment. So that is good for America.

Yep. You demonstrate that with your evasive tactics. If you truly believed that your policy was for the good of America, you would be anxious to explain how much and why.


Constantly repeating "wealth and low unemployment" when you know damn well that it is more complicated than that, is you purposefully using the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a propaganda technique.

I'm not evading anything. Wealth and low unemployment is what we have plenty of. I've also explained why wages aren't what they should be.

You are pro trade wars. Well explain steel. We've tried steel tariffs many times with bad results every time. Currently US steel is laying off workers and their stock has dropped 80%. How is that good for America mr nationalist?

And there you go again, just spouting your simplistic talking point, that was already addressed many times.


Completely evasive of you.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Except that that does not address the fact that the jobs did not come back, the way they were promised by the Free Traders back in the 70s.


A cost benefit analysis of a policy, does not breakdown, "we have lots jobs, thus policy good".

What jobs are you expecting to come back? They were not supposed to come back. We aren't ever supposed to have cheap labor. It created new jobs and we have tons of them. And they would pay well if we didn't have such stupid policies.

i addressed which jobs I was referring to above. In the first sentence of my post.


You've made multiple posts without even reading the first sentence to which you were replying?


Jesus. You are doing nothing but spouting talking points.

You are really dense. Nobody ever claimed manufacturing jobs were coming back, and we have lots of new jobs. The new jobs would pay well except we put lots of policy in place to keep that from happening. You are REALLY confused.

I know this will sound weird, but would it be cool if I spend the next 4 posts, pretending that you did not address my point, you know that way that you just did?


Just kidding. I'm not like that.


1. Yes, they did claim that.

2. The jobs that were eventually created by new fields, were given to cheap immigrant labor. So that did not work out the way it was supposed to even a little.

3. You keep citing other reasons that you consider to have the negative impact on jobs and wages that I cite. Yet, you dont' seem to realize that there being other additional reasons for things sucking, does not mean that my point about trade is not true.

1. Prove it. I have never heard that from an economist.
2. We have cheap labor because of all the reasons I have covered over and over.
3. see 2.