Washing machines/dryers prices up 17% under Trump (thank you, tariffs)

[jc456]

i'd invest in something different. Mine is doing about 5% right now.

Of course it is...you are just like the guy that claimed his 401k did not go up a single dollar the whole time Obama was in office.

nope, made a bunch. The stock market doesn't care the president. you all think it does, it doesn't. but I digress. BTW, I made 2% in 2008 and 2009. didn't lose anything. you should invest in what I do.

You are correct the markets do not care who the president is, but they do care what he does.

The DJI is down, the S&P is basically stagnant and the NASDAQ has done ok since the beginning of the year.

Trump's first year in office they did very well, then he started a trade war and they all slowed down

no they don't. that's pure bullshit. if the GDP is 4% that is based on the economy not the president saying anything.

The GDP is not 4%. The president threatening tariffs on products always brings the market down, the markets like actual free trade, not your socialist version of trade.

Since the day that Trump made his first tweet about tariffs...

The NASDAQ is up 3.2%, as opposed to being up more than 30% the previous year.
The S&P is down 3.2%, as opposed to being up more than 19% the previous year.
The DJI is down 7.12% as opposed to being up more than 25% the previous year.

it did no such things. two weeks ago the fed raised the interest rate. until then there was no issue with the tariff shit. just saying, I have history to support my facts.

 

[jc456]

You have spent the last several months explaining why Trump’s existence is a disaster for the American economy.

I have? Really? Could you link to a few of those post then?

I do recall saying that since Trump decided to start making decisions and not just golf and hold pep rallies that things have slowed greatly, which is a fact.

Most likely I have been warning you of what is to come if he keeps up his trade war, which is really only getting started.

you know the feds raised the interest rates twice now right? dude, do you actually know anything? I'm just saying your facts are never facts. But I know, trump, trump, trump, trump.

Yes, I do know that and I know that interest rate hikes do not really bother the market all that much, in fact they push up the financial sector stocks.

well sure they do. it changes the investments. now lie about it. why change?

Here, educate yourself.

How Do Interest Rates Affect the Stock Market?

doesn't say much. The fact is credit card bills will go up, all credit will, more money will be needed and people will sell stock to get more money rather than go to a bank for a loan. you can spin however many ways to wednesday and it isn't changing the facts on the interest rate increase.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it is...you are just like the guy that claimed his 401k did not go up a single dollar the whole time Obama was in office.

nope, made a bunch. The stock market doesn't care the president. you all think it does, it doesn't. but I digress. BTW, I made 2% in 2008 and 2009. didn't lose anything. you should invest in what I do.

You are correct the markets do not care who the president is, but they do care what he does.

The DJI is down, the S&P is basically stagnant and the NASDAQ has done ok since the beginning of the year.

Trump's first year in office they did very well, then he started a trade war and they all slowed down

no they don't. that's pure bullshit. if the GDP is 4% that is based on the economy not the president saying anything.

The GDP is not 4%. The president threatening tariffs on products always brings the market down, the markets like actual free trade, not your socialist version of trade.

Since the day that Trump made his first tweet about tariffs...

The NASDAQ is up 3.2%, as opposed to being up more than 30% the previous year.
The S&P is down 3.2%, as opposed to being up more than 19% the previous year.
The DJI is down 7.12% as opposed to being up more than 25% the previous year.

it did no such things. two weeks ago the fed raised the interest rate. until then there was no issue with the tariff shit. just saying, I have history to support my facts.

And I have actual numbers to support my facts.

Trump's first salvo on tariffs happened on Jan 22 of this year.

On that date the DJI was at 26,214 today it closed at 24,215, a loss of 7.12%
On that date the NASDAQ was at 6931, today it closed at 7057, a gain of 3.2%
On that date the S&P was at 2835, today it closed at 2720, a loss of 3.2%

When are you going to learn, I am never wrong about facts and numbers.

 

[Correll]

What's your answer? Do we give up on the very idea of improving things for the working poor and Middle Class?

No, but you don't do something we know doesn't work. Bush just tried steel tariffs, we lost jobs. If you care about the middle class you should wonder how this happened:
CEOs make $15.6 million on average—here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours
According to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, the average CEO pay is 271 times the nearly $58,000 annual average pay of the typical American worker.

Although the 271:1 ratio is high, it's still not as high as in previous years. In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker's salary.

And how about that war on Unions? Have you noticed with their decline, so goes the middle class?
Middle-Class Decline Mirrors The Fall Of Unions In One Chart | HuffPost

Unions, taxes and regulations are what chased jobs out of the country in the first place. Left to unions, they would chase out the rest.

You and I own widget factories. We are competitors. You sell more widgets than I do, so I want to hire a CEO that will change all that. The CEO wanted you to pay him 5 mil a year, but you refused and gave the money to your labor. I decide to pay that CEO the five mil, and in a couple of years, I get 50% of your customers because of his skill, connections, and experience.

That's how it works in business. Not just business, but in sports and entertainment as well. You are paid by your past performances, and the highest bidder gets your services.

I think you are underestimating the impact of large institutions owning large amounts of stock and not being involved in providing needed oversight of management.


Plenty of incompetent CEO out there, who get paid, just because the Board are a bunch of inbred fools.

It's contract work. If you ever picked up any Crane's business papers, you would see sections of CEO's who get new jobs all the time. The only reason one gets a new job is because something happened to the last one--usually something not very good.

Some CEO's do fail, but if they have a five year contract, what is the company supposed to do about it?

It's just like if a famous actress makes a bad movie. Her last parts drew millions into the movie theaters, but this one was a flop. She still gets her 10 million (or whatever agreed on) for doing the movie. Same holds true of a star pitcher, a famous country or rock band, or even a quarterback.

If she continues to make bad movies, the price of her services go down--way down.

My wife works for one of the major medical facilities in NYS.
There is a multitude of foolishness at the top.
But they bill, bill, bill and everything's cool.
But you hit it on the head in many respects.

My wife works for a major medical facility also.


The incompetence at the top, is breathtaking. Accountability? Not so much.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, but you don't do something we know doesn't work. Bush just tried steel tariffs, we lost jobs. If you care about the middle class you should wonder how this happened:
CEOs make $15.6 million on average—here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours
According to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, the average CEO pay is 271 times the nearly $58,000 annual average pay of the typical American worker.

Although the 271:1 ratio is high, it's still not as high as in previous years. In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker's salary.

And how about that war on Unions? Have you noticed with their decline, so goes the middle class?
Middle-Class Decline Mirrors The Fall Of Unions In One Chart | HuffPost

Unions, taxes and regulations are what chased jobs out of the country in the first place. Left to unions, they would chase out the rest.

You and I own widget factories. We are competitors. You sell more widgets than I do, so I want to hire a CEO that will change all that. The CEO wanted you to pay him 5 mil a year, but you refused and gave the money to your labor. I decide to pay that CEO the five mil, and in a couple of years, I get 50% of your customers because of his skill, connections, and experience.

That's how it works in business. Not just business, but in sports and entertainment as well. You are paid by your past performances, and the highest bidder gets your services.

I think you are underestimating the impact of large institutions owning large amounts of stock and not being involved in providing needed oversight of management.


Plenty of incompetent CEO out there, who get paid, just because the Board are a bunch of inbred fools.

It's contract work. If you ever picked up any Crane's business papers, you would see sections of CEO's who get new jobs all the time. The only reason one gets a new job is because something happened to the last one--usually something not very good.

Some CEO's do fail, but if they have a five year contract, what is the company supposed to do about it?

It's just like if a famous actress makes a bad movie. Her last parts drew millions into the movie theaters, but this one was a flop. She still gets her 10 million (or whatever agreed on) for doing the movie. Same holds true of a star pitcher, a famous country or rock band, or even a quarterback.

If she continues to make bad movies, the price of her services go down--way down.

My wife works for one of the major medical facilities in NYS.
There is a multitude of foolishness at the top.
But they bill, bill, bill and everything's cool.
But you hit it on the head in many respects.

My wife works for a major medical facility also.


The incompetence at the top, is breathtaking. Accountability? Not so much.

My wife works at a small medical facility and their incompetence at the top is mind blowing.

They built a new campus and it was designed like Disney World, in that the "customers" were never supposed to see the employers except in the rooms themselves. They have hidden hallways for the staff to use and to get to a room 30 feet away might take 2 minutes unless there is a code and they get to ignore the rules for a minute. Walk in the front door and all you see is some little old lady at the information desk.

It was the most incompetent design I have ever seen. People like to see the staff, empty hallways make people worry in a hospital.

 

[Indeependent]

The lazy person invests in stocks and walks away.
Try straddling options.
But then your stock broker would actually have to use his brain.

 

[Correll]

It's contract work. If you ever picked up any Crane's business papers, you would see sections of CEO's who get new jobs all the time. The only reason one gets a new job is because something happened to the last one--usually something not very good.

Some CEO's do fail, but if they have a five year contract, what is the company supposed to do about it?

It's just like if a famous actress makes a bad movie. Her last parts drew millions into the movie theaters, but this one was a flop. She still gets her 10 million (or whatever agreed on) for doing the movie. Same holds true of a star pitcher, a famous country or rock band, or even a quarterback.

If she continues to make bad movies, the price of her services go down--way down.

I have not seen such accountability.


I've seen fools pass the buck and other fools nod their heads like brain damaged parrots.

The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.

If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.

What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.

For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.

Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.

Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.

So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.

You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.

Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.

They must be doing something right.

I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.


These people are ******* assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.


When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.


They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.

 

[Correll]

No, but you don't do something we know doesn't work. Bush just tried steel tariffs, we lost jobs. If you care about the middle class you should wonder how this happened:
CEOs make $15.6 million on average—here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours
According to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, the average CEO pay is 271 times the nearly $58,000 annual average pay of the typical American worker.

Although the 271:1 ratio is high, it's still not as high as in previous years. In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker's salary.

And how about that war on Unions? Have you noticed with their decline, so goes the middle class?
Middle-Class Decline Mirrors The Fall Of Unions In One Chart | HuffPost

Unions, taxes and regulations are what chased jobs out of the country in the first place. Left to unions, they would chase out the rest.

You and I own widget factories. We are competitors. You sell more widgets than I do, so I want to hire a CEO that will change all that. The CEO wanted you to pay him 5 mil a year, but you refused and gave the money to your labor. I decide to pay that CEO the five mil, and in a couple of years, I get 50% of your customers because of his skill, connections, and experience.

That's how it works in business. Not just business, but in sports and entertainment as well. You are paid by your past performances, and the highest bidder gets your services.

I think you are underestimating the impact of large institutions owning large amounts of stock and not being involved in providing needed oversight of management.


Plenty of incompetent CEO out there, who get paid, just because the Board are a bunch of inbred fools.

It's contract work. If you ever picked up any Crane's business papers, you would see sections of CEO's who get new jobs all the time. The only reason one gets a new job is because something happened to the last one--usually something not very good.

Some CEO's do fail, but if they have a five year contract, what is the company supposed to do about it?

It's just like if a famous actress makes a bad movie. Her last parts drew millions into the movie theaters, but this one was a flop. She still gets her 10 million (or whatever agreed on) for doing the movie. Same holds true of a star pitcher, a famous country or rock band, or even a quarterback.

If she continues to make bad movies, the price of her services go down--way down.

I have not seen such accountability.


I've seen fools pass the buck and other fools nod their heads like brain damaged parrots.

Then you would probably have to look into it more deeply. All they may tell you is a company lost X while the CEO got paid X. I'm sure it's much more complicated than that.

If a CEO is consistently losing money for the company, the investors will drop their stock and go elsewhere. The company would then spiral downhill until it's demise. No company would allow that to happen. Sure, they may have a bad year or two, but whatever the problem is, they will not let it continue, even if the problem is the CEO.

I don't want to discuss details that might enable the vile piece of shit social justice warriors on this site, to identify my wife, or where she works.

 

[Indeependent]

I have not seen such accountability.


I've seen fools pass the buck and other fools nod their heads like brain damaged parrots.

The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.

If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.

What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.

For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.

Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.

Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.

So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.

You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.

Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.

They must be doing something right.

I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.


These people are ******* assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.


When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.


They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.

And based upon Alan Greenspan's post 2008 Housing Crash suggestion, some Life Insurance companies are now encouraging people to take out loans against the face value of the contract.
It's ******* sick.

 

[Correll]

Yes, they take the money we give them and then they create business with them. Then they reap the profits.

If they did not have that cash in the first place then the money would have stayed in the US and used for American investment and the profits would have stayed in the US.

You are richer if you own the business than if you work for the person that owns the business and that is why that rational about foreign investment fails under scrutiny. That is what is wrong with the argument that everything is OK because the foreign entities are buying up America with the money we gave them in unfair trade deals. We may get the crumbs but they get the big bucks.

We should be doing that to other countries not having other countries do that to us. We got a tremendous amount of wealth accumulated in the US because we did that after WWII. Now that wealth is being siphoned off because of unfair trade deals.

That is what Trump is smart enough to understand and what he is trying to fix..

Let me summarize the data for you,

Arguably, Asia makes washers that are unfairly priced because of closed markets and worker abuse. However, trump has fucked you bigly if you're buying a car or truck, and for no reason other than you are buying his tv shit.

Let me lay it out to you.

China subsidizes their industries giving them an unfair cost advantage. China steals our technology so they don't have development cost in their pricing structure. China puts high barriers on our products so their industries don't have to compete.

Because of those things Chinese goods are cheaper than they should be causing a big one way flow of American dollars into their country. Dollars that are a demand on our wealth.

That is what Trump is trying to fix.

You and all other Americans will be much better off in the long run if Trump is successful in establishing fair trade than you would be for the temporary lower price for the washing machine.

Go take a course in Economics.

About 40 years ago we decided that we wanted to do business with China where businesses were 95% owned by the state. Today it's 30%.

When we talk about Chinese subsidies keep in mind, they are still are communist country. Any businesses owned by the government are going to be subsidize and neither Trump or anyone else is going to change that.

The Chinese have been steadily reducing exporter subsides for years. In 2016 China agreed to eliminate most of the remaining subsides.

Keep in mind that the US subsidizes farmers to the tune of 20 billion a year and energy companies by 74 billion, and who knows how much through defense contracts.

Yes, China steals trade secrets from the US as does a dozen other countries and the US does the same thing. However, the largest theft of trade secrets in China is not really theft. It's Chinese businesses requiring partners to share those secrets.

However, all of the above is incidental to the main problem or benefit in trading with China, labor costs. They are incredibly low compared to the US. This is due to a huge population of low to semiskilled workers and a mostly free labor market. There is not a lot the Chinese government can do about that, nor should they.

The US can not compete with China in any labor intensive industry so we have to either reduce our labor cost in those industries or compete in other industries where we have the advantage which there are many.

Except that China is moving into those higher end industries, AND other first world nations are subsidizing their industries too.

So, if we try to have "free trade" or "competition" with any of them, we are just choosing to allow ourselves to be fucked.


Either we change the rules of the game, or we are fools for playing it.

A free trade agreement with China would not benefit the US and China would be unlikely to agree to it anyway.

Trump's tariff war with China is a comically inept misfire if the true purpose is get China to change it's ways. It would make a nice one act play titled “How to lose a trade war with China in one easy step.”

The tariffs don’t really affect China, from which we import only about 3 percent of our steel and aluminum. Meanwhile, they send the message that the US government is lurching toward protectionism under the pretense of national security.

Trumps had the right idea when he said, "America first does not mean America alone,” We can win the battle, but not alone. We need the EU, Canada, Mexico, and the TPP countries. Forming multilateral free trade agreements with these countries, we can not only survive against China, we can win.

Sure China would agree. THey would just cheat. And why not? Our political class would never hold them accountable. Most of them pretend to think that Trade Deficits don't matter.


Yes, Trump has dropped the ball with China. He was distracted by their puppet in North Korea, and held off on our number one trade enemy, by threats to the safety of millions of innocent people.

That is how the Red ******* Chinese roll.


Tariffs on Steel from China, is obviously just a warning shot. INdeed, the message of possible protectionism was successfully sent.



And now he needs to follow up on it, or it will have been wasted.

 

[Picaro]

Just a reminder that most appliances are being sold at every major retailer at deep discounts, there is a glut of them, so sniveling about tariffs on them is more than just slightly stupid.

Now back to your regular derailings.

 

[Picaro]

Let me summarize the data for you,

Arguably, Asia makes washers that are unfairly priced because of closed markets and worker abuse. However, trump has fucked you bigly if you're buying a car or truck, and for no reason other than you are buying his tv shit.

Let me lay it out to you.

China subsidizes their industries giving them an unfair cost advantage. China steals our technology so they don't have development cost in their pricing structure. China puts high barriers on our products so their industries don't have to compete.

Because of those things Chinese goods are cheaper than they should be causing a big one way flow of American dollars into their country. Dollars that are a demand on our wealth.

That is what Trump is trying to fix.

You and all other Americans will be much better off in the long run if Trump is successful in establishing fair trade than you would be for the temporary lower price for the washing machine.

Go take a course in Economics.

About 40 years ago we decided that we wanted to do business with China where businesses were 95% owned by the state. Today it's 30%.

When we talk about Chinese subsidies keep in mind, they are still are communist country. Any businesses owned by the government are going to be subsidize and neither Trump or anyone else is going to change that.

The Chinese have been steadily reducing exporter subsides for years. In 2016 China agreed to eliminate most of the remaining subsides.

Keep in mind that the US subsidizes farmers to the tune of 20 billion a year and energy companies by 74 billion, and who knows how much through defense contracts.

Yes, China steals trade secrets from the US as does a dozen other countries and the US does the same thing. However, the largest theft of trade secrets in China is not really theft. It's Chinese businesses requiring partners to share those secrets.

However, all of the above is incidental to the main problem or benefit in trading with China, labor costs. They are incredibly low compared to the US. This is due to a huge population of low to semiskilled workers and a mostly free labor market. There is not a lot the Chinese government can do about that, nor should they.

The US can not compete with China in any labor intensive industry so we have to either reduce our labor cost in those industries or compete in other industries where we have the advantage which there are many.

Except that China is moving into those higher end industries, AND other first world nations are subsidizing their industries too.

So, if we try to have "free trade" or "competition" with any of them, we are just choosing to allow ourselves to be fucked.


Either we change the rules of the game, or we are fools for playing it.

A free trade agreement with China would not benefit the US and China would be unlikely to agree to it anyway.

Trump's tariff war with China is a comically inept misfire if the true purpose is get China to change it's ways. It would make a nice one act play titled “How to lose a trade war with China in one easy step.”

The tariffs don’t really affect China, from which we import only about 3 percent of our steel and aluminum. Meanwhile, they send the message that the US government is lurching toward protectionism under the pretense of national security.

Trumps had the right idea when he said, "America first does not mean America alone,” We can win the battle, but not alone. We need the EU, Canada, Mexico, and the TPP countries. Forming multilateral free trade agreements with these countries, we can not only survive against China, we can win.

Sure China would agree. THey would just cheat. And why not? Our political class would never hold them accountable. Most of them pretend to think that Trade Deficits don't matter.


Yes, Trump has dropped the ball with China. He was distracted by their puppet in North Korea, and held off on our number one trade enemy, by threats to the safety of millions of innocent people.

That is how the Red ******* Chinese roll.


Tariffs on Steel from China, is obviously just a warning shot. INdeed, the message of possible protectionism was successfully sent.



And now he needs to follow up on it, or it will have been wasted.

I don;t give a crap about which country dominates the Star Wars Toy manufacturing biz or whatever, I do care about the U.S.'s capabilities to build its own military gear, from carriers to boots. That is why we exist today as a country, having that capability kept us under local rule for over 170 years or so, and now we no longer have that means, and that sucks. Whatever it takes to turn that around, is what it takes; don't care about the 'ideological purity' fictions or any of that rubbish for the mentally lazy, it's a primary necessity that will never go away.

 

[Flopper]

And there will be less free trade with more and more and more tariffs.

well the other countries can lift theirs and we'd lift ours when they did. Then we're back fair trading again. It is simple. Why are other countries unwilling to agree? So you don't think a tariff is tough on them? hmmmm

Protective tariffs on imports from a country are often needed to protect an industry vital to a nation. When there is no way to make that industry competitive, then tariffs are necessary. However, when countries begin protecting industries that really don't need protection then the tariffs stifle needed completion. Trade negotiators attempt to eliminate these tariffs.

Punitive tariffs such as Trump is applying to China have a goal of correcting perceive unfair practices of the government and usually cover many industries. Unlike simple tariffs to protect an industry, they imply misdeeds on the part of government which often ends in trade wars, military confrontations, and economic damage to both economies.

Negotiations are never as simple as you drop your tariffs and I'll drop mine.

They have way more tariffs than we do.

So?
I expect Trump will announce a tremendous victory, just in time for the mid terms. Trump can't push China too hard; without China's sanctions on North Korea, NK US negotiation would likely collapse.
China is NK's largest trading partner which accounts for 82% of it's trade. US sanctions are nothing compared to China.

You’re under the delusion that China can feed it’s population.

China can meet the demands of its growing population without importing grain from elsewhere. In fact, for the past 60 years, China has, with just 7–8% of the globe's agricultural land, fed about 22% of the world's population. It is not a matter of whether China can feed itself. it is a matter of whether the Chinese people will choose to do so.
China needs no foreign help to feed itself : Nature News

 

[Correll]

Let me lay it out to you.

China subsidizes their industries giving them an unfair cost advantage. China steals our technology so they don't have development cost in their pricing structure. China puts high barriers on our products so their industries don't have to compete.

Because of those things Chinese goods are cheaper than they should be causing a big one way flow of American dollars into their country. Dollars that are a demand on our wealth.

That is what Trump is trying to fix.

You and all other Americans will be much better off in the long run if Trump is successful in establishing fair trade than you would be for the temporary lower price for the washing machine.

Go take a course in Economics.

About 40 years ago we decided that we wanted to do business with China where businesses were 95% owned by the state. Today it's 30%.

When we talk about Chinese subsidies keep in mind, they are still are communist country. Any businesses owned by the government are going to be subsidize and neither Trump or anyone else is going to change that.

The Chinese have been steadily reducing exporter subsides for years. In 2016 China agreed to eliminate most of the remaining subsides.

Keep in mind that the US subsidizes farmers to the tune of 20 billion a year and energy companies by 74 billion, and who knows how much through defense contracts.

Yes, China steals trade secrets from the US as does a dozen other countries and the US does the same thing. However, the largest theft of trade secrets in China is not really theft. It's Chinese businesses requiring partners to share those secrets.

However, all of the above is incidental to the main problem or benefit in trading with China, labor costs. They are incredibly low compared to the US. This is due to a huge population of low to semiskilled workers and a mostly free labor market. There is not a lot the Chinese government can do about that, nor should they.

The US can not compete with China in any labor intensive industry so we have to either reduce our labor cost in those industries or compete in other industries where we have the advantage which there are many.

Except that China is moving into those higher end industries, AND other first world nations are subsidizing their industries too.

So, if we try to have "free trade" or "competition" with any of them, we are just choosing to allow ourselves to be fucked.


Either we change the rules of the game, or we are fools for playing it.

A free trade agreement with China would not benefit the US and China would be unlikely to agree to it anyway.

Trump's tariff war with China is a comically inept misfire if the true purpose is get China to change it's ways. It would make a nice one act play titled “How to lose a trade war with China in one easy step.”

The tariffs don’t really affect China, from which we import only about 3 percent of our steel and aluminum. Meanwhile, they send the message that the US government is lurching toward protectionism under the pretense of national security.

Trumps had the right idea when he said, "America first does not mean America alone,” We can win the battle, but not alone. We need the EU, Canada, Mexico, and the TPP countries. Forming multilateral free trade agreements with these countries, we can not only survive against China, we can win.

Sure China would agree. THey would just cheat. And why not? Our political class would never hold them accountable. Most of them pretend to think that Trade Deficits don't matter.


Yes, Trump has dropped the ball with China. He was distracted by their puppet in North Korea, and held off on our number one trade enemy, by threats to the safety of millions of innocent people.

That is how the Red ******* Chinese roll.


Tariffs on Steel from China, is obviously just a warning shot. INdeed, the message of possible protectionism was successfully sent.



And now he needs to follow up on it, or it will have been wasted.

I don;t give a crap about which country dominates the Star Wars Toy manufacturing biz or whatever, I do care about the U.S.'s capabilities to build its own military gear, from carriers to boots. That is why we exist today as a country, having that capability kept us under local rule for over 170 years or so, and now we no longer have that means, and that sucks. Whatever it takes to turn that around, is what it takes; don't care about the 'ideological purity' fictions or any of that rubbish for the mentally lazy, it's a primary necessity that will never go away.

I sure as hell am not intimidated when some lefty tries that stupid "ideological purity fiction" (good term for it,btw).


Yes, military gear is very important. It is utterly indefensible that that has been compromised. No pun intended.


But I want ALL THE JOBS. Or at least a fair shot at them.

 

[Flopper]

I have not seen such accountability.


I've seen fools pass the buck and other fools nod their heads like brain damaged parrots.

The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.

If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.

What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.

For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.

Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.

Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.

So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.

You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.

Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.

They must be doing something right.

I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.


These people are ******* assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.


When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.


They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.

No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.

 

[Indeependent]

well the other countries can lift theirs and we'd lift ours when they did. Then we're back fair trading again. It is simple. Why are other countries unwilling to agree? So you don't think a tariff is tough on them? hmmmm

Protective tariffs on imports from a country are often needed to protect an industry vital to a nation. When there is no way to make that industry competitive, then tariffs are necessary. However, when countries begin protecting industries that really don't need protection then the tariffs stifle needed completion. Trade negotiators attempt to eliminate these tariffs.

Punitive tariffs such as Trump is applying to China have a goal of correcting perceive unfair practices of the government and usually cover many industries. Unlike simple tariffs to protect an industry, they imply misdeeds on the part of government which often ends in trade wars, military confrontations, and economic damage to both economies.

Negotiations are never as simple as you drop your tariffs and I'll drop mine.

They have way more tariffs than we do.

So?
I expect Trump will announce a tremendous victory, just in time for the mid terms. Trump can't push China too hard; without China's sanctions on North Korea, NK US negotiation would likely collapse.
China is NK's largest trading partner which accounts for 82% of it's trade. US sanctions are nothing compared to China.

You’re under the delusion that China can feed it’s population.

China can meet the demands of its growing population without importing grain from elsewhere. In fact, for the past 60 years, China has, with just 7–8% of the globe's agricultural land, fed about 22% of the world's population. It is not a matter of whether China can feed itself. it is a matter of whether the Chinese people will choose to do so.
China needs no foreign help to feed itself : Nature News

No they can't.
Over the last decade the despots there have been machine gunning starving rioters.
Shanghai is the wealthy city there; everybody lives in poverty.
BTW, what the **** is Nature News?

 

[Indeependent]

The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.

If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.

What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.

For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.

Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.

Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.

So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.

You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.

Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.

They must be doing something right.

I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.


These people are ******* assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.


When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.


They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.

No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.

Sarbanes/Oxley...the Lenders are responsible.
Legislation passed under GW after the DOT COM crash that has never been exercised.

 

[Flopper]

Protective tariffs on imports from a country are often needed to protect an industry vital to a nation. When there is no way to make that industry competitive, then tariffs are necessary. However, when countries begin protecting industries that really don't need protection then the tariffs stifle needed completion. Trade negotiators attempt to eliminate these tariffs.

Punitive tariffs such as Trump is applying to China have a goal of correcting perceive unfair practices of the government and usually cover many industries. Unlike simple tariffs to protect an industry, they imply misdeeds on the part of government which often ends in trade wars, military confrontations, and economic damage to both economies.

Negotiations are never as simple as you drop your tariffs and I'll drop mine.

They have way more tariffs than we do.

So?
I expect Trump will announce a tremendous victory, just in time for the mid terms. Trump can't push China too hard; without China's sanctions on North Korea, NK US negotiation would likely collapse.
China is NK's largest trading partner which accounts for 82% of it's trade. US sanctions are nothing compared to China.

You’re under the delusion that China can feed it’s population.

China can meet the demands of its growing population without importing grain from elsewhere. In fact, for the past 60 years, China has, with just 7–8% of the globe's agricultural land, fed about 22% of the world's population. It is not a matter of whether China can feed itself. it is a matter of whether the Chinese people will choose to do so.
China needs no foreign help to feed itself : Nature News

No they can't.
Over the last decade the despots there have been machine gunning starving rioters.
Shanghai is the wealthy city there; everybody lives in poverty.
BTW, what the **** is Nature News?

Nature News is a publication of Nature Research founded in 1869 with offices 12 countries. They publish mostly papers that have appeared in various scientific journals.

The idea that China can not feed itself goes back to mid 20th century. There hasn't been a famine in China since 1959-61. As of 2011, China was both the world's largest producer and consumer of agricultural products. China certainly has enough arable land and water to feed its projected population of 1.48 billion in 2025. China does not claim that it will, in fact, feed itself because China finds it economically more attractive to import a certain amount of (food) grain, instead of growing it.

 

[Indeependent]

They have way more tariffs than we do.

So?
I expect Trump will announce a tremendous victory, just in time for the mid terms. Trump can't push China too hard; without China's sanctions on North Korea, NK US negotiation would likely collapse.
China is NK's largest trading partner which accounts for 82% of it's trade. US sanctions are nothing compared to China.

You’re under the delusion that China can feed it’s population.

China can meet the demands of its growing population without importing grain from elsewhere. In fact, for the past 60 years, China has, with just 7–8% of the globe's agricultural land, fed about 22% of the world's population. It is not a matter of whether China can feed itself. it is a matter of whether the Chinese people will choose to do so.
China needs no foreign help to feed itself : Nature News

No they can't.
Over the last decade the despots there have been machine gunning starving rioters.
Shanghai is the wealthy city there; everybody lives in poverty.
BTW, what the **** is Nature News?

Nature News is a publication of Nature Research founded in 1869 with offices 12 countries. They publish mostly papers that have appeared in various scientific journals.

The idea that China can not feed itself goes back to mid 20th century. There hasn't been a famine in China since 1959-61. As of 2011, China was both the world's largest producer and consumer of agricultural products. China certainly has enough arable land and water to feed its projected population of 1.48 billion in 2025. China does not claim that it will, in fact, feed itself because China finds it economically more attractive to import a certain amount of (food) grain, instead of growing it.

Actually, I have inquired about their land mass many times from people who go there.
Most of their land is not arable for growing food.
They can'r feed their population.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.

If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.

What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.

For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.

Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.

Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.

So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.

You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.

Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.

They must be doing something right.

I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.


These people are ******* assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.


When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.


They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.

And based upon Alan Greenspan's post 2008 Housing Crash suggestion, some Life Insurance companies are now encouraging people to take out loans against the face value of the contract.
It's ******* sick.

That has been going on for years. During the Clinton era, my father exercised the borrowing clause of his life insurance policy. He borrowed money from the policy at 2%, invested it into the market, and got a 11% return. He easily paid back the money he borrowed and came out with a nice profit.

He originally purchased the policy back in the early 60's, and that clause was in there even back then.