Trump's trade war with China

[Brain357]

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.

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

 

[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 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.

That is a nice strawman you made. I can see you are proud of it. It is all yours and I bear no responsibility for it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My last post stands.



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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

That is a nice strawman you made. I can see you are proud of it. It is all yours and I bear no responsibility for it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My last post stands.



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.

I'm glad you aren't claiming to be a capitalist in all that gibberish.

 

[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".

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.

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

 

[Correll]

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.

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

Link?

 

[Brain357]

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.

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

 

[Correll]

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.

That is a nice strawman you made. I can see you are proud of it. It is all yours and I bear no responsibility for it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My last post stands.



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.

I'm glad you aren't claiming to be a capitalist in all that gibberish.

My last post stands.



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.

 

[Correll]

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.

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

1. Sure it did. Couple of minutes in.

2. Cheap labor is another way of saying low paying jobs. That was never the goal. Not the stated goal at least.

3. See 2,

 

[Brain357]

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.

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

Link?

U.S. Steel warns layoffs will affect up to 307 workers in 'indefinite idling' of East Chicago Tin

 

[Correll]

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.

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

Link?

U.S. Steel warns layoffs will affect up to 307 workers in 'indefinite idling' of East Chicago Tin

'

Behind a pay wall.

 

[Brain357]

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.

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

1. Sure it did. Couple of minutes in.

2. Cheap labor is another way of saying low paying jobs. That was never the goal. Not the stated goal at least.

3. See 2,

1. No it didn't. Prove it.
2. See unemployment rate.

 

[Brain357]

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.

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

Link?

U.S. Steel warns layoffs will affect up to 307 workers in 'indefinite idling' of East Chicago Tin

'

Behind a pay wall.

Not for me. Do a search many to pick from.

 

[Correll]

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.

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

1. Sure it did. Couple of minutes in.

2. Cheap labor is another way of saying low paying jobs. That was never the goal. Not the stated goal at least.

3. See 2,

1. No it didn't. Prove it.
2. See unemployment rate.

1. Can't we just pretend I did, and then you change the subject again with your circular arguing? much easier for me that way.


2. cheap labor is still just another way of saying low paying jobs. That is not a win.

 

[Brain357]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/08/27/usst-a27.html

Pittsburgh-based US Steel Corporation (USS) announced Friday that it will lay off 150 workers when it idles its East Chicago Tin mill in East Chicago, Indiana, by mid-November. The mill currently employs 297 workers. Remaining employees are expected to be shifted to vacant positions at USS Gary Works in Gary, Indiana, and USS Midwest Plant in Portage, Indiana.

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker, also announced last week that it would lay off about 100 workers at its Weirton tin mill in West Virginia, “in order to maintain its position as a competitive and sustainable tin plate producer” according to company spokeswoman Mary Beth Holdford.

Great policy, how is this good for us?

 

[Brain357]

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.

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

1. Sure it did. Couple of minutes in.

2. Cheap labor is another way of saying low paying jobs. That was never the goal. Not the stated goal at least.

3. See 2,

1. No it didn't. Prove it.
2. See unemployment rate.

1. Can't we just pretend I did, and then you change the subject again with your circular arguing? much easier for me that way.


2. cheap labor is still just another way of saying low paying jobs. That is not a win.

1. You are making it up and hence can't prove it.
2. I've explained over and over why they are not high paying jobs. Our policy has been anti worker for a long time.

 

[Correll]

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


Completely evasive of you.

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

Link?

U.S. Steel warns layoffs will affect up to 307 workers in 'indefinite idling' of East Chicago Tin

'

Behind a pay wall.

Not for me. Do a search many to pick from.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist


Ok, what I am supposed to be seeing?

 

[Correll]

US Steel to lay off 150 workers in Indiana as Trump administration escalates trade war

Pittsburgh-based US Steel Corporation (USS) announced Friday that it will lay off 150 workers when it idles its East Chicago Tin mill in East Chicago, Indiana, by mid-November. The mill currently employs 297 workers. Remaining employees are expected to be shifted to vacant positions at USS Gary Works in Gary, Indiana, and USS Midwest Plant in Portage, Indiana.

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker, also announced last week that it would lay off about 100 workers at its Weirton tin mill in West Virginia, “in order to maintain its position as a competitive and sustainable tin plate producer” according to company spokeswoman Mary Beth Holdford.

Great policy, how is this good for us?

We are coming to the end of an economic cycle. Normal business cycle does not prove or disprove a trade policy.

 

[Correll]

1. One of you two posted a link to Milton Friedman in this thread. Go watch that if you want.

2. AND because trade and outsourcing reduce demand for labor.

3. See 2.

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

1. Sure it did. Couple of minutes in.

2. Cheap labor is another way of saying low paying jobs. That was never the goal. Not the stated goal at least.

3. See 2,

1. No it didn't. Prove it.
2. See unemployment rate.

1. Can't we just pretend I did, and then you change the subject again with your circular arguing? much easier for me that way.


2. cheap labor is still just another way of saying low paying jobs. That is not a win.

1. You are making it up and hence can't prove it.
2. I've explained over and over why they are not high paying jobs. Our policy has been anti worker for a long time.

1. NO. Change the subject with your circular arguing. It is what you would do next anyways. Let's just skip ONE step. COme on.


2. How can you tell which factors contribute and which do not?

 

[Brain357]

What about steel mr nationalist? We are following your policy on steel, how is it working out? Layoffs and 80% drop in stock. That's good for us? Please explain.

Link?

U.S. Steel warns layoffs will affect up to 307 workers in 'indefinite idling' of East Chicago Tin

'

Behind a pay wall.

Not for me. Do a search many to pick from.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist


Ok, what I am supposed to be seeing?

He did you policy for steel. He put tariffs on steel, they should be doing amazing. But what really happened? Oh yeah, layoffs. Bravo. How is that good for us?

 

[Brain357]

1. I've seen it and he does not claim the same jobs would ever come back.
2. See our unemployment rate.
3. See 2.

1. Sure it did. Couple of minutes in.

2. Cheap labor is another way of saying low paying jobs. That was never the goal. Not the stated goal at least.

3. See 2,

1. No it didn't. Prove it.
2. See unemployment rate.

1. Can't we just pretend I did, and then you change the subject again with your circular arguing? much easier for me that way.


2. cheap labor is still just another way of saying low paying jobs. That is not a win.

1. You are making it up and hence can't prove it.
2. I've explained over and over why they are not high paying jobs. Our policy has been anti worker for a long time.

1. NO. Change the subject with your circular arguing. It is what you would do next anyways. Let's just skip ONE step. COme on.


2. How can you tell which factors contribute and which do not?

1. So yes you made it up.
2. I can back up each of my factors with a study. And there is no downside to fixing most of them. Unlike trade where you can see the downside by what is happening with steel.