Why did trump take a big dump on free market capitalism?

[schmidlap]

Conservative commentator Mona Charen recently opined regarding Tump’s disastrous simple-minded China policy:

Trump focused exclusively on one figure, the trade deficit. He wailed that the trade deficit with China amounted to "rape" and promised that under his "America First" leadership, we would "fight for America's blue-collar workers." Economists nearly unanimously consider the trade deficit to be a useless statistic for many reasons, including: 1) a trade deficit reflects the fact that Americans have lots of money to spend; 2) it fails to consider that when China sells us goods and we pay in dollars, those dollars come back to us in the form of capital investment; 3) it's super complicated to figure out bilateral balances of trade because so much trade in the 21st century involves multiple countries; and 4) trade deficits are associated with economic growth, not decline...​

​

​

​

Under his leadership, the U.S. trade deficit was the largest in a decade -- a failure, by Trump's lights...​

​

As part of his strategy to get this supposedly history-making deal, Trump had imposed tariffs (taxes) on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion in American products, particularly targeting farmers. Trump incessantly claimed that China was paying those tariffs, but as a new report for the Peterson Institute for International Economics underlines, that was untrue. Trump's import taxes were paid entirely by American businesses and consumers. This brought the Treasury $66 billion, almost exactly the amount Trump paid out to U.S. farmers to compensate them for lost exports... ​

​

Trump said the Chinese government would remove its tariffs. They didn't. Trump said they would buy $200 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods. They purchased only a little more than half of that, which did not equal U.S. exports to China from before the trade war...​

​

The questions for those serious thinkers who maintain that Trump put us on the right track vis-a-vis China is: Which parts do you suggest we continue: The high taxes? The failure to secure more exports? The alienation of allies? The farm subsidies? Or the moral abdication?​

​

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/18/the_verdict_is_in_trump_wasnt_right_about_china_147210.html

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[surada]

Conservative commentator Mona Charen recently opined regarding Tump’s disastrous simple-minded China policy:

Trump focused exclusively on one figure, the trade deficit. He wailed that the trade deficit with China amounted to "rape" and promised that under his "America First" leadership, we would "fight for America's blue-collar workers." Economists nearly unanimously consider the trade deficit to be a useless statistic for many reasons, including: 1) a trade deficit reflects the fact that Americans have lots of money to spend; 2) it fails to consider that when China sells us goods and we pay in dollars, those dollars come back to us in the form of capital investment; 3) it's super complicated to figure out bilateral balances of trade because so much trade in the 21st century involves multiple countries; and 4) trade deficits are associated with economic growth, not decline...​

​

View attachment 603028​

​

Under his leadership, the U.S. trade deficit was the largest in a decade -- a failure, by Trump's lights...​

​

As part of his strategy to get this supposedly history-making deal, Trump had imposed tariffs (taxes) on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion in American products, particularly targeting farmers. Trump incessantly claimed that China was paying those tariffs, but as a new report for the Peterson Institute for International Economics underlines, that was untrue. Trump's import taxes were paid entirely by American businesses and consumers. This brought the Treasury $66 billion, almost exactly the amount Trump paid out to U.S. farmers to compensate them for lost exports... ​

​

Trump said the Chinese government would remove its tariffs. They didn't. Trump said they would buy $200 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods. They purchased only a little more than half of that, which did not equal U.S. exports to China from before the trade war...​

​

The questions for those serious thinkers who maintain that Trump put us on the right track vis-a-vis China is: Which parts do you suggest we continue: The high taxes? The failure to secure more exports? The alienation of allies? The farm subsidies? Or the moral abdication?​

​

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/18/the_verdict_is_in_trump_wasnt_right_about_china_147210.html

​

​

​

​

​

​

Because Trump is intractable in his stupidity. He has been all his life.

 

[pknopp]

Trump was, despite his claims pretty lazy outside of pushing himself. To get a new deal with China it would have taken a lot of work and that was something that would have ate into his Twitter time.

He walked away.

This article is also a far bigger example of a big picture thing. It shows how Conservatives are intent on bringing Trump down.

 

[schmidlap]

Because Trump is intractable in his stupidity. He has been all his life.

It is not his wide-ranging stupidity that is the problem.

It is his utter ignorance of it:

Everything Trump says he knows "more about than ...​

 

[westwall]

Anti Trump screed No. 9,904,897.

Living rent free in Chinese stooge land heads nationwide.

 

[pknopp]

Anti Trump screed No. 9,904,897.

Living rent free in Chinese stooge land heads nationwide.

What do you think about his new trade deal with China?

 

[schmidlap]

Living rent free in Chinese stooge land heads nationwide.

If you are incapable of refuting Mona Charen's explication of Trump's China policy, so be it.

 

[mak2]

Anti Trump screed No. 9,904,897.

Living rent free in Chinese stooge land heads nationwide.

And he is in complete an total control of the Republican party. A President that did not win the popular vote, failed to be reelected, lost the house and senate, failed his attempt to overthrow the government, was impeached twice, and on and on...why not take a dump on the free market? the shit show will continue I am afraid.

 

[Hellokitty]

If you are incapable of refuting Mona Charen's explication of Trump's China policy, so be it.

Was she one of the economists telling us TRUMP's aluminum as steel tariffs would lead of a can of soup costing $15?

 

[mak2]

Was she one of the economists telling us TRUMP's aluminum as steel tariffs would lead of a can of soup costing $15?

At least we finally found out why Trump thought toilets should have a 5 gallon flush.

 

[pknopp]

Was she one of the economists telling us TRUMP's aluminum as steel tariffs would lead of a can of soup costing $15?

Tariffs Are Never a Good Idea. Those on Aluminum Are Especially Bad.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Conservative commentator Mona Charen recently opined regarding Tump’s disastrous simple-minded China policy:

Trump focused exclusively on one figure, the trade deficit. He wailed that the trade deficit with China amounted to "rape" and promised that under his "America First" leadership, we would "fight for America's blue-collar workers." Economists nearly unanimously consider the trade deficit to be a useless statistic for many reasons, including: 1) a trade deficit reflects the fact that Americans have lots of money to spend; 2) it fails to consider that when China sells us goods and we pay in dollars, those dollars come back to us in the form of capital investment; 3) it's super complicated to figure out bilateral balances of trade because so much trade in the 21st century involves multiple countries; and 4) trade deficits are associated with economic growth, not decline...​

​

​

View attachment 603028​

​

Under his leadership, the U.S. trade deficit was the largest in a decade -- a failure, by Trump's lights...​

​

As part of his strategy to get this supposedly history-making deal, Trump had imposed tariffs (taxes) on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion in American products, particularly targeting farmers. Trump incessantly claimed that China was paying those tariffs, but as a new report for the Peterson Institute for International Economics underlines, that was untrue. Trump's import taxes were paid entirely by American businesses and consumers. This brought the Treasury $66 billion, almost exactly the amount Trump paid out to U.S. farmers to compensate them for lost exports... ​

​

Trump said the Chinese government would remove its tariffs. They didn't. Trump said they would buy $200 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods. They purchased only a little more than half of that, which did not equal U.S. exports to China from before the trade war...​

​

The questions for those serious thinkers who maintain that Trump put us on the right track vis-a-vis China is: Which parts do you suggest we continue: The high taxes? The failure to secure more exports? The alienation of allies? The farm subsidies? Or the moral abdication?​

​

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/18/the_verdict_is_in_trump_wasnt_right_about_china_147210.html

​

​

​

​

​

​

1) CHINA IS OUR ENEMY...they mean to destroy us. Trading with them makes them money that they then use to abuse others including America. Curtailing TRading means that they were less able to cause damage to everyone. Trump is far far smarter than you.

2) China engages in unfair business practices---again not trading with them is the correct choice to encourage them not to be crooks.

 

[schmidlap]

Was she one of the economists telling us TRUMP's aluminum as steel tariffs would lead of a can of soup costing $15?

Since I am unaware of your economists whom you claim told him that, I can't comment on your attempt at diversion.

Trump steel tariffs raised prices, shriveled up demand

Trump's Trade Deal With China Was an Abject Failure​

 

[schmidlap]

1) CHINA IS OUR ENEMY...they mean to destroy us. Trading with them makes them money that they then use to abuse others including America. Curtailing TRading means that they were less able to cause damage to everyone. Trump is far far smarter than you.

2) China engages in unfair business practices---again not trading with them is the correct choice to encourage them not to be crooks.

As Charen's analysis accurately notes, Trump foolishly obsessed over the trade deficit. Economists nearly unanimously consider the trade deficit to be a useless statistic for many reasons.

Trump's Trade Deal With China Was an Abject Failure


POLITICS ISN'T THE WEIRD WORSHIP OF ONE DUDE.​

 

[Donald H]

Trump at least provided the opportunity to demonstrate that America would have to play fair with China. China is too big and powerful in the right places t allow itself to be tampered with.

But it's still likely possible for Biden to repair the damage done by Trump and to start a policy of mutual cooperation.

Xi Jin Ping understands too that cooperation is the best for all countries concerned.
Sadly, America is again testing the waters on attempting to destroy Russia's economy in the same old way.

 

[pknopp]

Trump at least provided the opportunity to demonstrate that America would have to play fair with China. China is too big and powerful in the right places t allow itself to be tampered with.

But it's still likely possible for Biden to repair the damage done by Trump and to start a policy of mutual cooperation.

Xi Jin Ping understands too that cooperation is the best for all countries concerned.
Sadly, America is again testing the waters on attempting to destroy Russia's economy in the same old way.

We have this weird notion that the only way we can thrive is if other countries do not.

 

[schmidlap]

1) CHINA IS OUR ENEMY...they mean to destroy us. Trading with them makes them money that they then use to abuse others including America. Curtailing TRading means that they were less able to cause damage to everyone. Trump is far far smarter than you.

2) China engages in unfair business practices---again not trading with them is the correct choice to encourage them not to be crooks.

You underscore why Trump's narrow and obsessive fixation on trade deficits failed, echoing the point made by the conservative commentator.

As she astutely observed, "it's super complicated to figure out bilateral balances of trade because so much trade in the 21st century involves multiple countries." Simplistic nostrums fail.

Obviously, in confronting China, building and leading a coalition of democratic partners is far more intelligent an approach than unilaterally assuming the economic burden and inflicting it upon on U.S. agriculture - then having to prop up impacted American farmers with enormous federal subsidies. Trump's failed tariffs reduced U.S. agricultural exports to China by close to $14.4 billion per year.

 

[Oddball]

Conservative Neocon Bushbot commentator Mona Charen....

Fixed.

 

[surada]

It is not his wide-ranging stupidity that is the problem.

It is his utter ignorance of it:

Everything Trump says he knows "more about than ...​

I have never seen anything like it. He could fuck up a free lunch. This is why he was sent away in the 7th grade to that second rate military school. He's never been teachable. He already knows everything.

 

[Oddball]

We have this weird notion that the only way we can thrive is if other countries do not.

Who the fuck is "we" Corky?