George Will leaving Republican Party
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You've now moved the playing field to one about Trump, when this started with you being apparently overjoyed that Obama had "called out" China.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I see that you, like Darla, appear to have dick on your mind.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
cawacko
Well-known member
Actually this entire discussion has been about Trump. For some reason you seem to be rustled that I said the Obama Administration has gone to the WTO over China violations which is what Trump proposed in his speech yesterday.
This is an open discussion. Feel free to say why you support his trade policies and his speech yesterday if you do.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So in a thread about someone leaving a political party, where you bring up what Obama has and is doing and then say that Trump is doing the same thing means that this entire discussion was about Trump.
I find it amusing that first you try to applaud Obama for "calling out" China and then say that Trump is saying the same thing; but he'll cost the US jobs.
I'm sure that there are several NFL teams that would appreciate your goalpost moving ability.
cawacko
Well-known member
So in a thread about someone leaving a political party, where you bring up what Obama has and is doing and then say that Trump is doing the same thing means that this entire discussion was about Trump.
I find it amusing that first you try to applaud Obama for "calling out" China and then say that Trump is saying the same thing; but he'll cost the US jobs.
I'm sure that there are several NFL teams that would appreciate your goalpost moving ability.
LOL, you are obsessed with this "calling out" thing aren't you? I would written out "The Obama Administration filed complaint against China with the WTO..." is I would have known it so rustled you.
Either you can't, or choose not to, see the big picture of Trump's trade plan from his speech. I'm guessing you didn't read it or watch based on your response and not understanding where going to the WTO comes in. And you refuse to say why you support it as opposed to Romney's.
But if this back and forth is what you would prefer rather state your own beliefs then be my guest.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I found your street terminology amusing and you're the one that decided to become defensive over it and then try to bury it under an attempt to make this about Trump.
It's still amusing that you promoted Obama's policy; but want to condemn Trump for, in you own words, of doing the same thing.
It's been fun watching you attempt to back pedal and juggle, at the same time, from your original comment, in this discussion.
I'm sure if you send a PM really quick, that you can get Rune and/or Darla to give you your props.
cawacko
Well-known member
I found your street terminology amusing and you're the one that decided to become defensive over it and then try to bury it under an attempt to make this about Trump.
It's still amusing that you promoted Obama's policy; but want to condemn Trump for, in you own words, of doing the same thing.
It's been fun watching you attempt to back pedal and juggle, at the same time, from your original comment, in this discussion.
I'm sure if you send a PM really quick, that you can get Rune and/or Darla to give you your props.
I see you have no desire to actually share your beliefs or opinions on the trade issue. Fair enough. Have a good one Freedom.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
There's the cawacko we all know and love.
You make an off handed comment and then when "called out" on it, you go after the responder.
cawacko
Well-known member
For tskue, noted left wing site National Review on how Trump's trade policies are left-wing and he's proposing to do what Obama and others have done. (those have been bolded)
Trump on Trade
Donald Trump’s speech on trade was more of the same — which is to say, more of the same thing we’ve been hearing from Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama.
Trump promised to label China a “currency manipulator” and to impose duties on Chinese-made goods, as well as to bring World Trade Organization cases against the Chinese in response to unfair subsidies. The specter of Chinese currency manipulation was an obsession of the Obama administration for some time. What is meant by “currency manipulation” is a country’s using monetary policy to make its exports more attractive to foreign buyers. By that criterion, China is a currency manipulator, as is the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, and practically every significant economic power on earth. The Federal Reserve exists, in part, to do this, and it explicitly considers foreign-exchange rates and their impact on the U.S. economy in its calculations.
In reality, anxiety about Beijing’s artificial currency devaluation has subsided over the past year because Beijing has been pushing as hard as it can in the opposite direction, having spent half a trillion dollars since last August trying to prop up the renminbi rather than trying to drive it down. China has to buy imports, too, and like any other modern industrial economy, it relies on foreign-sourced materials and inputs for critical parts of its production, including exports. China, and the world, would be better off in the long term with a floating renminbi, but the markets have in fact done a reasonably good job disciplining Beijing in this matter.
NAFTA, the trade agreement Trump promises to gut, has in fact had a modest positive effect on U.S. employment and wages. Chinese currency policy — and Chinese trade policy at large — is a minor factor when it comes to what Trump says is his main interest, which is employment and wages in the United States. Study after study has shown that automation is a larger and more significant factor in factory employment than is the price of tea in China. That is why promises to bring back lost factory jobs are doomed to fail: Factory jobs have in the main been lost not because of foreign competition but because our factories have become more efficient and need fewer workers. The same thing happened with agriculture an age ago, and it will happen with other industries in the future.
NAFTA, the trade agreement Trump promises to gut, has in fact had a modest positive effect on U.S. employment and wages. Investment abroad by U.S. multinationals (“moving our jobs to Mexico!”) is associated with higher domestic employment by the same firms, as savings from gains in productivity are reinvested. The simplistic version that Trump relies on — that Americans lose out every time a widget is made in Mexico or China — is untrue, and relying on it to organize U.S. economic policy is destructive.
Trade imposes costs, but meaningful analysis has to count the benefits, too. Trump promised to appoint a national “trade prosecutor,” apparently ignorant of the fact that we have a team of them already. He promised to file WTO cases against China, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Obama administration, and its predecessors, do this all the time — there was a case being filed on the very day Trump was speaking, in fact, having to do with truck tires. The United States has been on both sides of those disputes — that is what the WTO is there for — e.g., Senator Marco Rubio’s beloved sugar barons and their endless war with their Brazilian competitors. Trump’s argument here is the same as it always is: We’ll do the same things we’ve been doing, but it will turn out differently, because Donald Trump is so smart, so good, so honest, etc.
Likewise, Trump promises to impose “buy American” rules on certain government projects, apparently unaware that such rules already are in place — and that they impose enormous costs on American companies, making them less competitive rather than more competitive.
Trump is determined to interrupt U.S trade relations around the world with his zero-sum thinking. If all Trump meant were the more aggressive use of existing trade-negotiation tools, that would be one thing, but he is determined to interrupt U.S trade relations around the world — not only with China — with his dream of enormous tariffs and his zero-sum thinking about trade, the economic equivalent of a pre-Copernican cosmology. The United States is a massive importer and a massive exporter. Trade sustains millions of American jobs, directly through employment in trade-oriented sectors and indirectly as lower consumer prices create opportunities elsewhere in the economy. Abusive trade practices undertaken by foreign governments are not a very significant factor in U.S. economic conditions, and, to the extent that they are a factor, we already have a reasonably good system in place for addressing them — one created by the very international trade pacts that Trump and others abominate and propose to gut. The United States has been well served by open trade policies and would do well to expand them rather than to retreat from them.
Trump — like Clinton and Sanders and many others — is appealing to ignorance and anxiety, using trade to provide himself with the one thing every politician really needs: an enemy. But when it comes to our underperforming economy, the enemy isn’t in Beijing or Mexico City, but in Washington, where an endless army of regulators and tax collectors treat the U.S. economy like a pet on a leash. Trump and other anti-traders propose giving them more power and putting businesses and entrepreneurs on a shorter leash.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ina-mexico-world-trade-organization-ignorance
Trump on Trade
Donald Trump’s speech on trade was more of the same — which is to say, more of the same thing we’ve been hearing from Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama.
Trump promised to label China a “currency manipulator” and to impose duties on Chinese-made goods, as well as to bring World Trade Organization cases against the Chinese in response to unfair subsidies. The specter of Chinese currency manipulation was an obsession of the Obama administration for some time. What is meant by “currency manipulation” is a country’s using monetary policy to make its exports more attractive to foreign buyers. By that criterion, China is a currency manipulator, as is the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, and practically every significant economic power on earth. The Federal Reserve exists, in part, to do this, and it explicitly considers foreign-exchange rates and their impact on the U.S. economy in its calculations.
In reality, anxiety about Beijing’s artificial currency devaluation has subsided over the past year because Beijing has been pushing as hard as it can in the opposite direction, having spent half a trillion dollars since last August trying to prop up the renminbi rather than trying to drive it down. China has to buy imports, too, and like any other modern industrial economy, it relies on foreign-sourced materials and inputs for critical parts of its production, including exports. China, and the world, would be better off in the long term with a floating renminbi, but the markets have in fact done a reasonably good job disciplining Beijing in this matter.
NAFTA, the trade agreement Trump promises to gut, has in fact had a modest positive effect on U.S. employment and wages. Chinese currency policy — and Chinese trade policy at large — is a minor factor when it comes to what Trump says is his main interest, which is employment and wages in the United States. Study after study has shown that automation is a larger and more significant factor in factory employment than is the price of tea in China. That is why promises to bring back lost factory jobs are doomed to fail: Factory jobs have in the main been lost not because of foreign competition but because our factories have become more efficient and need fewer workers. The same thing happened with agriculture an age ago, and it will happen with other industries in the future.
NAFTA, the trade agreement Trump promises to gut, has in fact had a modest positive effect on U.S. employment and wages. Investment abroad by U.S. multinationals (“moving our jobs to Mexico!”) is associated with higher domestic employment by the same firms, as savings from gains in productivity are reinvested. The simplistic version that Trump relies on — that Americans lose out every time a widget is made in Mexico or China — is untrue, and relying on it to organize U.S. economic policy is destructive.
Trade imposes costs, but meaningful analysis has to count the benefits, too. Trump promised to appoint a national “trade prosecutor,” apparently ignorant of the fact that we have a team of them already. He promised to file WTO cases against China, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Obama administration, and its predecessors, do this all the time — there was a case being filed on the very day Trump was speaking, in fact, having to do with truck tires. The United States has been on both sides of those disputes — that is what the WTO is there for — e.g., Senator Marco Rubio’s beloved sugar barons and their endless war with their Brazilian competitors. Trump’s argument here is the same as it always is: We’ll do the same things we’ve been doing, but it will turn out differently, because Donald Trump is so smart, so good, so honest, etc.
Likewise, Trump promises to impose “buy American” rules on certain government projects, apparently unaware that such rules already are in place — and that they impose enormous costs on American companies, making them less competitive rather than more competitive.
Trump is determined to interrupt U.S trade relations around the world with his zero-sum thinking. If all Trump meant were the more aggressive use of existing trade-negotiation tools, that would be one thing, but he is determined to interrupt U.S trade relations around the world — not only with China — with his dream of enormous tariffs and his zero-sum thinking about trade, the economic equivalent of a pre-Copernican cosmology. The United States is a massive importer and a massive exporter. Trade sustains millions of American jobs, directly through employment in trade-oriented sectors and indirectly as lower consumer prices create opportunities elsewhere in the economy. Abusive trade practices undertaken by foreign governments are not a very significant factor in U.S. economic conditions, and, to the extent that they are a factor, we already have a reasonably good system in place for addressing them — one created by the very international trade pacts that Trump and others abominate and propose to gut. The United States has been well served by open trade policies and would do well to expand them rather than to retreat from them.
Trump — like Clinton and Sanders and many others — is appealing to ignorance and anxiety, using trade to provide himself with the one thing every politician really needs: an enemy. But when it comes to our underperforming economy, the enemy isn’t in Beijing or Mexico City, but in Washington, where an endless army of regulators and tax collectors treat the U.S. economy like a pet on a leash. Trump and other anti-traders propose giving them more power and putting businesses and entrepreneurs on a shorter leash.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ina-mexico-world-trade-organization-ignorance
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
These things happen. Perhaps you'll make better election projections this year...
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
National review is globalist propaganda.
Here's how it works with globalism; the left calls opposition to it "right wing extremism", while the right calls opposition to it "left Wing extremism".
The real extremists are the "reasonable moderate middle". The rinos and the dinos.
Meanwhile the populists are divided equally in the two party system, and think they don't have anything in common.
Here's how it works with globalism; the left calls opposition to it "right wing extremism", while the right calls opposition to it "left Wing extremism".
The real extremists are the "reasonable moderate middle". The rinos and the dinos.
Meanwhile the populists are divided equally in the two party system, and think they don't have anything in common.
philly rabbit
Verified User
Do you prefer Hillary Clinton in the white house instead of Trump? Would you answer this for me? If you give an honest answer, then it's pointless trying to change your mind.
I just explained to you in a previous post why bringing back 100% automated factories is beneficial. If your going to ignore my posts I will ignore yours too.
This is it and what cawacko fails to understand. The "economists" and the "business leaders" are always going to say its profitable for everybody to have slave labor wages from other countries and to outsource jobs. It is up to us to decide whether we are better off with their worldview or not. They try to convince us that what is in their best interests is good for everyone.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Yup. For proof, see who's lost money on Brexit: the banks and super rich.
cawacko
Well-known member
I've answered this dozens of times. Neither. I don't want either democrat in the White House. I hope the republicans find a way to nominate someone else. If not I will hope a third party conservative runs. If not I will hope enough people support Gary Johnson.
The question you are asking me is equivalent to would you rather see your family member drown to death or be suffocated to death. There is no way to answer it.