US States that voted for Trump face factory closures due to Trump's trade war

[spanky4ever]

your latest post do not make any sense @Horsemen (could be you and Dolan have some secret intern humor going on )

[Jam]

Hillary Clinton uses email!

[Dolan]

you know your credibility goes down like 40% when you add pepe to any post, no matter how correct or accurate your assessment is

You know your credibility goes down by 80% when you dismiss a post based on the most trifling reasons, without tackling its arguments.

adding edge to things for the sake of being edgy is ridiculous. it's just being a 4chan wannabe and while those guys can be incredibly hilarious, they (and trump fanboys) have no real credibility. it's just confirmation bias. not neutral assessments.

I don't even know where to start. You know Pepe existed way way before it was even a meme. Some say he was even depicted in Ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs and murals.



Fast-forward a few millennia later, some obscure cartoonist revives interest in this forgotten figure (he basically plagiarised Ancient Egyptians) and then once it got spread on social media as a cartoon, everyone started posting it, as a way of signalling that they're "in with the kewl kids".

[spoiler=Look at this][/spoiler]
November 2014.

[spoiler=Pathetic]Nicki Minaj Instagram Post, December 2014
[/spoiler]

Then comes this 70-year old fgt and tries to play it cool with the kids again
[spoiler=...][/spoiler]

And then the media gets all paroxysmic about it and draws its conclusion: oh my fkn god, ancient Egyptians were a bunch of nazis.
Yep, gregarious logic works like that, that's why you should always embrace it and follow it.

And who has to lose from this? Culture. Instead of showing due diligence and taking the legal steps to include pepe in our cultural heritage at Unesco, we're relegating our cultural figures to the clandestine corners of the internet.

We never learn, we just never learn.

[Amsel_]

what this means, is that China will be focusing on other trading partners, like Africa, Russia,Eu, etc. But the real change is that they are focusing on their own consumers, to have more buying power, and that is good for the Chinese poor ppl. And bad for USA who have surged on cheep Chinese goods. The Chinese "only" relying on export is not sustainable in the long run anyway.
Think Trump bit himself in his devil tail here.
Btw, would you say that USA are not stealing from other countries?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Trump and the USA are the ones trying to rely on their own consumers and producers here right?

Im only saying; so are China. Who will win, you think?

and @Dolan you are very wrong! the manufacturing jobs are coming back to USA if they can compet with China, or other low paying countries. Guess what that means? The pay check in USA are getting smaller and smaller. Could be good news for you though, living in a country where the wages are very low, But for ordinary USA citizens it is really bad news.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.

The repatriation of manufacturing jobs wouldn't lower U.S. wages. Outsourcing those jobs did lower the operating costs for U.S. companies; though, so there may be a concern about rising prices once those jobs are forced back via tariff. There's a balance to be had. Sort of like how a tax can be fairly harmless and just take some money from the dividends a company would normally distribute to shareholders, or a tax can cause serious harm to a company and force them to close shop or raise prices. Tariffs need to be used carefully, so that more jobs are brought back, but companies are able to operate efficiently. The current wage for a car assemblyman is $16 an hour, or 33k per year. Those are jobs worth fighting for.

[Dolan]

Trump is the only major Western leader standing up to Chinese unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. This is a good thing.
But some factory workers voted for him because they thought he would increase factory jobs. Well, look what's happening now.

They are aware of this and they took a calculated risk. And they decided whatever potential economic losses would come out of such a decision are worth a longer-term strategic weakening of China.

and @Dolan you are very wrong! the manufacturing jobs are coming back to USA if they can compet with China, or other low paying countries. Guess what that means? The pay check in USA are getting smaller and smaller. Could be good news for you though, living in a country where the wages are very low, But for ordinary USA citizens it is really bad news.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.

Do you have any data to support this statement or is it just something your heard somewhere?

[Gendarme]

I know which one it is!

[fightinfrenchman]

They are aware of this and they took a calculated risk. And they decided whatever potential economic losses would come out of such a decision are worth a longer-term strategic weakening of China.

Lol yeah I bet that's exactly what happened

[Dolan]

Well, yeah, that's maybe also one of the reasons why Trump went on a spending spree with the Federal budget. Even though this policy is at odds with the Fed's tightening policy. Which is why you see Trump criticising the Fed. His economic policy goals are incompatible with the Fed's own objectives of gradually increasing interest rates, so that they can start restructuring that huge balance sheet they accumulated in order to support the US economy after the crisis.

Considering the Federal govt's ballooning deficit, Trump's tax cuts are very risky, or to put it in more euphemistic terms, it's not prudent policy. You don't both spend more and cut more taxes, while the Fed is increasing its reference interest rate. Something's gonna crack at some point.

[fightinfrenchman]

Well, yeah, that's maybe also one of the reasons why Trump went on a spending spree with the Federal budget. Even though this policy is at odds with the Fed's tightening policy. Which is why you see Trump criticising the Fed.

Yeah I'm sure his reasons for criticizing the Fed are totally legitimate and based on policy.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/809738/t ... ause-short

[Dolan]

I think whoever would have been appointed at the Fed, they would have followed the same line of policy. They just have to, given the current constraints.

Trump will continue to rant and fume about it, because he needs a scapegoat for whatever is not working right in the US economy.

[Gendarme]

Taking bets on how long Dolan will last.

[fightinfrenchman]

Taking bets on how long Dolan will last.

Based on current moderation policies I would say a few years

[fightinfrenchman]

Well, yeah, that's maybe also one of the reasons why Trump went on a spending spree with the Federal budget. Even though this policy is at odds with the Fed's tightening policy. Which is why you see Trump criticising the Fed.

Yeah I'm sure his reasons for criticizing the Fed are totally legitimate and based on policy.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/809738/t ... ause-short

Somebody please link me to this post whenever I even consider engaging with idiots on this topic again

[Dolan]

That link doesn't prove anything, it's all based on hearsay. "Reportedly", "X told his aides that...", "our sources tell us" etc etc, it's just typical media "hooks" to bait people into reading their stories.

Who will come out to ask them for any tangible proof that what they claim has actually been discussed? Which aide would actually come forward and confirm what they've heard? Nobody, ever, at least not until they leave their job and maybe not even then.

The media can claim lots of things based on hearsay, sometimes even based on sources.

For example, Bloomberg a few weeks ago ran this story about Chinese chips planted into Apple's and Amazon's servers. Both companies strongly denied the allegations and asked Bloomberg to publish their proofs. And Bloomberg hasn't published any evidence to back up their claims yet. Pretty common occurrence in the media. Sometimes your sources are simply unreliable.

[Gendarme]

Hey, it's not fake news! Only partisan sensationalism!

[Dolan]

It might be true, it might be false, it might be true but exaggerated, it might be like a casual remark that was thrown in a casual discussion. And even if someone said that, it doesn't mean that that was the main reason why they made a decision. There are lots of situations in which people say one thing, then decide another.

I wouldn't make too much of a big deal out of that.

[Dolan]

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is doing a complete u-turn on immigration:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ump-brexit

She now supports curbing migration.

[Gendarme]

Reminds me of when she was against homosexual marriage. A versatile young lady that Hillary!

[Gendarme]

[n0el]

These tariffs imposed by Trump didn't have much to do with economic concerns. In fact, they're willing to pay USA businesses that were affected by tariffs (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-trade-wa ... ut-1040309) to compensate for their losses. What this means is that the US government thinks this policy is worth losing some money if it hurts China more. Asymmetrical damages.

It's not just the economy, it's also about the fact that China is stealing intellectual property from US businesses. They are copying products made in China by US corporations and they are stealing trade secrets from start-ups in which the Chinese government has invested, indirectly, via investment funds.

You need to go deeper to understand why this is happening.


I think Trump is doing the right thing here, but with a caveat. He shouldn't have extended this policy to other trading partners, like Canada, the EU, etc. In the end, the US actually will not be affected that much, because the trade-to-GDP ratio in the US is like 13.4% (http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDB ... ountry=US&). Which means the US is less dependent on trade than other countries (China's trade-to-GDP ratio stands at about 19.1%, so its revenue is a lot more dependent on trading than USA's revenue).

But, again, since economic concerns were not uppermost in making such a decision, these are considered acceptable costs for bigger and more strategic, long-term goals.

Trump is the only major Western leader standing up to Chinese unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. This is a good thing.

But some factory workers voted for him because they thought he would increase factory jobs. Well, look what's happening now.

Look what he’s doing now? Brining production back to America Specifically on highly tarriffed goods. This will/is leading to more good factory middle class jobs, while punching the Chinese right where it hurts as well as addressing the IP issues

Where?

[n0el]

Show hidden quotes

what this means, is that China will be focusing on other trading partners, like Africa, Russia,Eu, etc. But the real change is that they are focusing on their own consumers, to have more buying power, and that is good for the Chinese poor ppl. And bad for USA who have surged on cheep Chinese goods. The Chinese "only" relying on export is not sustainable in the long run anyway.
Think Trump bit himself in his devil tail here.
Btw, would you say that USA are not stealing from other countries?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Trump and the USA are the ones trying to rely on their own consumers and producers here right?

Im only saying; so are China. Who will win, you think?

and @Dolan you are very wrong! the manufacturing jobs are coming back to USA if they can compet with China, or other low paying countries. Guess what that means? The pay check in USA are getting smaller and smaller. Could be good news for you though, living in a country where the wages are very low, But for ordinary USA citizens it is really bad news.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.

The repatriation of manufacturing jobs wouldn't lower U.S. wages. Outsourcing those jobs did lower the operating costs for U.S. companies; though, so there may be a concern about rising prices once those jobs are forced back via tariff. There's a balance to be had. Sort of like how a tax can be fairly harmless and just take some money from the dividends a company would normally distribute to shareholders, or a tax can cause serious harm to a company and force them to close shop or raise prices. Tariffs need to be used carefully, so that more jobs are brought back, but companies are able to operate efficiently. The current wage for a car assemblyman is $16 an hour, or 33k per year. Those are jobs worth fighting for.

We should fight for jobs that put most families into poverty?

[Amsel_]

The repatriation of manufacturing jobs wouldn't lower U.S. wages. Outsourcing those jobs did lower the operating costs for U.S. companies; though, so there may be a concern about rising prices once those jobs are forced back via tariff. There's a balance to be had. Sort of like how a tax can be fairly harmless and just take some money from the dividends a company would normally distribute to shareholders, or a tax can cause serious harm to a company and force them to close shop or raise prices. Tariffs need to be used carefully, so that more jobs are brought back, but companies are able to operate efficiently. The current wage for a car assemblyman is $16 an hour, or 33k per year. Those are jobs worth fighting for.

We should fight for jobs that put most families into poverty?

Don't be stuck up. There are millions of people who would love to earn that much straight out of high school. 33k might not sound like a lot, but it escapes the wage-slavery of most retail jobs. 33k can be straight up good if you also have a wife who works.

[deleted_user]

I make 68 and can't wait to kill myself

[deleted_user]

Debbt free, babbbyyy

[Horsemen]

I make 68 and can't wait to kill myself

I make $110k fgt.