Jump to content

Trump's Trade War

F250

By F250
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Lurch said:

You think this is the totality of how the market will react?

No.  I think that there will be some blustering, some market reaction, some more blustering, more market reaction and then we sit down carve something out that lets Trump and China save face without meaningfully impacting the status quo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ted Lange
Ted Lange

Now let’s imagine a world where China decides to dump several hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign to elect a democrat.  And that Democrat openly screams for Beijing’s support.  And uses in

Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

Looks like Elkhart County went for Trump 64-32 over Hillary in 2016, so fuck 'em.  Enjoy the tariffs you voted for! 

Chooky
Chooky

Apparently China didn't heed the stark example of what happens to those in a battle of financial wit between Donald Trump and Dennis Rodman. Ask Clint Black or Gene Simmons what happens. Go ahead and

udaydanceparty

udaydanceparty 33

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No.  I think that there will be some blustering, some market reaction, some more blustering, more market reaction and then we sit down carve something out that lets Trump and China save face without meaningfully impacting the status quo. 

So basically what he did with North Korea? 

I guess that's possible.  I don't think the stock market really cares about this though.. It's up 1% today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


Why would the Dow or any other given diverse index move strongly in either direction on this situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that the sectors that are impacted by China's move are taking losses, which should be expected.  The broader index movements would reflect fears of continued escalation and a tit for tat or global expansion that would engulf broad segments of the market. The market appears to think that China's response was proportionate and does not reflect escalation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7552

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No.  I think that there will be some blustering, some market reaction, some more blustering, more market reaction and then we sit down carve something out that lets Trump and China save face without meaningfully impacting the status quo. 

Is there a deal that lets both Trump and China save face that they would agree to? I'm not sure there is without external mediation. Putin to the rescue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28777

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Pods said:

Is there a deal that lets both Trump and China save face that they would agree to? I'm not sure there is without external mediation. Putin to the rescue?

I get the feeling we are relying on China to be the grown up in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105143

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I think you're right.  But they have a long game, and patience.

Bingo.  And the Chinese long game makes even our CONCEPT of a long game look shortsighted.  When Trump is playing his impulsive BS game....the differential ratio is too large for conventional mathematics to capture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted

They’re laughing and popping champagne.  They’ve wanted to start something like this but are a lot more concerned about optics today vs yesteryear.  

Now they get to have their cake and eat it too as dipshit dotard did the dirty work for them.  

Fart of the deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12462

Posted
Posted

As markets plummeted Monday, White House aide Peter Navarro insisted that fears of a trade war and President Donald Trump's attacks on Amazon were all wrong.

"Everybody needs to relax," Navarro told CNBC. Trump's trade policy is "good for the market," he insisted, adding: "I teach that stuff. I mean, let's remember – if anybody knows what goes wrong with these models, it's the guy who knows how to teach them."

Anybody who thinks academics know WTF they are talking about needs to sit in with the Trump gang. 300 years ago Adam Smith wrote a book that some economists have read but apparently not Peter Navarro.  If we get any more help from Navarro Venezuela will look like Disney World. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

It would be nice to get analysis which is a few notches more sophisticated than "Trump is smart" or "Trump is stupid".  I'd like to know what trade deal would be smarter and what worse.

My laymen idea is to get concessions on high value goods we produce and they don't (e.g. stuff with high intellectual property content or high tech) and grant concessions on products in industries every country has but China produces best value (e.g. steel).  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted
I think that the sectors that are impacted by China's move are taking losses, which should be expected.  The broader index movements would reflect fears of continued escalation and a tit for tat or global expansion that would engulf broad segments of the market. The market appears to think that China's response was proportionate and does not reflect escalation.  

That feels like a huge stretch (insert mom joke). There’s no real reason to believe that they would or should, IMO, unless they do or don’t.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted
It would be nice to get analysis which is a few notches more sophisticated than "Trump is smart" or "Trump is stupid".  I'd like to know what trade deal would be smarter and what worse.
My laymen idea is to get concessions on high value goods we produce and they don't (e.g. stuff with high intellectual property content or high tech) and grant concessions on products in industries every country has but China produces best value (e.g. steel).  

Et tu, Tahoe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Washpark

Washpark 176

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

It would be nice to get analysis which is a few notches more sophisticated than "Trump is smart" or "Trump is stupid".  I'd like to know what trade deal would be smarter and what worse.

My laymen idea is to get concessions on high value goods we produce and they don't (e.g. stuff with high intellectual property content or high tech) and grant concessions on products in industries every country has but China produces best value (e.g. steel).  

Completely wrong premise.  The issue is that trump is blowing up frameworks and agreements that businesses rely on to make longterm decisions. It makes sense to reevaluate these agreements and renegotiate them but epically dumb to blow them up without a plan forward. 

Edited by Washpark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Washpark said:

Completely wrong premise.  The issue is that trump isn’t blowing up frameworks and agreements that businesses rely on to make longterm decisions. It makes sense Tom reevaluate these agreements and renegotiate them but epically dumb to blow them up without a plan forward. 

Is that directed to me, or are you just using my quote to elaborate to others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 39933

Posted
Posted
It would be nice to get analysis which is a few notches more sophisticated than "Trump is smart" or "Trump is stupid".  I'd like to know what trade deal would be smarter and what worse.
My laymen idea is to get concessions on high value goods we produce and they don't (e.g. stuff with high intellectual property content or high tech) and grant concessions on products in industries every country has but China produces best value (e.g. steel).  

Keep sucking that orange cock donut man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Washpark

Washpark 176

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Is that directed to me, or are you just using my quote to elaborate to others?

Edited to fix ipad fuck ups. 

Trump is wrecking havoc and what are better agreements isn’t the debate. There is broad consesus that the agreements are broken but tumps approach makes the situation worse. 

Edited by Washpark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted
And me, what?

I just hate to see Republicans turn against free trade and open markets. It’s bad enough that your multi-decade campaign to defund primary research and public education worked has well enough to squander our competitive in so many sectors, now you are pulling away from the major things that maintain American market leadership. 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted
You must have a third grade reading level.  My position on trade is the polar opposite of Trump's.  I advocate LOWER tariffs on steel.  He just raised them.

Yet your opinion describes a centrally managed concept of trade as a bilateral relationship between nation states rather than the free flow of goods, services and money between people and businesses across national borders.

 

I think you’ve spent way to much time in the rent seeking of the Oil and Gas biz, my man. The rest of the economy suffers from that kind of protectionism.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

My comment is not about Trump.  I have other comments (all critical) about his trade policies.

 

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:


I just hate to see Republicans turn against free trade and open markets. It’s bad enough that your multi-decade campaign to defund primary research and public education worked has well enough to destroy our competitive advantage, now you are pulling out of the major thing that maintains American leadership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the general spectrum I am a free trader.  But there is no such thing as free trade.  We have trade deals.  I was asking what a good deal looks like, per experts.  My concept of a good deal is very different from Trump's, as I laid out.  What is your concept of a good deal?  Would you try to cut a deal to, say, buy men's shirts or blue jeans and sell aircraft?  Would you try to cut a deal for better protection against pirating movies in exchange for lower tariffs on steel?  I would.  Even if you're a free trader you have to get a deal to fight counterfeiting our movies.  What's the motive of the Chinese government to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yet your opinion describes a centrally managed concept of trade as a bilateral relationship between nation states rather than the free flow of goods, services and money between people and businesses across national borders.

 

I think you’ve spent way to much time in the rent seeking of the Oil and Gas biz, my man. The rest of the economy suffers from that kind of protectionism.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's reality.  Everybody has tariffs.  We have worked to get freeER trade but free trade is not possible.  I'm advocating freeER trade.  I'm not in dreamland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted

No, Tahoe, you’re describing bilateralism and you are emphatically not free trade, even though you may think you are. Fundamentally you agree with the president on how trade should work, you just don’t like the specifics of his trade policies. What you don’t seem to understand is that you’re just quibbling with details.

 

It is axiomatic that bilateralism is inherently a restraint of trade and in many ways Americas leadership, the explosion of growth enabled by trade and the durable peace in the world following WWII are the result of the shift from bilateralism to multilateralism.

 

And no, what you are describing is emphatically and thankfully is not the reality of today’s world. Things you likely take for granted, like payments clearing for example, don’t work in that world. What you describe is a regressive fantasy that will, if implemented in earnest, destroy one of the greatest achievements in the history of the human race: commerce as an instrument of peace and cooperation between nations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted

That’s the wrong question and posits a world that no longer exists.

An answerable version of the question is “what are your trade objectives and what strategy accomplishes them?” And even though a deal or deals may be an instrument of those, there is no answer to that question that is fully or even substantially answered by a “deal with China”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted
I'd start by not dumping the TPP in its entirety, which will now effectively allow China full reign over most trade in the Pacific unfettered by American influence.

And would have protected our regional interests in the even of a trade war with China.

 

Hillary Clinton’s cynical abandonment of TPP was disqualifying and shameful because it legitimized the economic flat-eartherism of Trump, Sanders not to mention quack-fringe jerkoffs like Lou Dobbs and Peter Navarro.

 

So it’s embarrassing that not only are smart people like Tahoe slipping into that kind of thinking, he doesn’t even seem to understand the paradigm difference between something like TPP and bilateral “deals”.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11305

Posted
Posted

My biggest problem with the whole thing is the continued abdication of power from the spineless congress, to the president. 

The president (any president, not just Trump) shouldn't be imposing tariffs.  It's not within the scope of his constitutional powers...that's congress' job. 

No wonder we're speeding toward an autocracy.  Congress just sits on it's fucking thumbs putting up bills to insure the post offices have Trump/Pence photos in the lobby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

bozo,

I'm trying to address trade objectives, not Trump and not the nature of trading.  I'm trying to get people to say what they would do instead of what they wouldn't do.  I've failed.  You don't seem to want to present an affirmative position on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26462

Posted
Posted
bozo,

I'm trying to address trade objectives, not Trump and not the nature of trading.  I'm trying to get people to say what they would do instead of what they wouldn't do.  I've failed.  You don't seem to want to present an affirmative position on anything.

That’s because desired outcomes of trade and what we do to achieve them are separate questions. Based on your initial post I cannot glean any coherent objectives. Perhaps we should start there.

 

My objectives are the maintenance of this international peace and prosperity through trade between nations and the use of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which enables us to gain leverage unique to our position.

 

Bilateralism doesn’t accomplish that. Open markets and free trade can when combined with robust domestic policy that promotes innovation, immigration of the best of the world, and education does. Multilateral trade agreements can be the instruments of opening markets. The GOP is turning against all of that.

 

What’s your objective?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
berlinerbaer

berlinerbaer 678

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

It would be nice to get analysis which is a few notches more sophisticated than "Trump is smart" or "Trump is stupid".  I'd like to know what trade deal would be smarter and what worse.

My laymen idea is to get concessions on high value goods we produce and they don't (e.g. stuff with high intellectual property content or high tech) and grant concessions on products in industries every country has but China produces best value (e.g. steel).  

Your idea is for Trump to do Silicon Valley a favor while extending a middle finger to the Rust Belt, or basically to flush his electoral strategy down the toilet. He isn't that stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29677

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Your idea is for Trump to do Silicon Valley a favor while extending a middle finger to the Rust Belt, or basically to flush his electoral strategy down the toilet. He isn't that stupid.

His policies and positions fucking over Amazon and Midwestern soybean farmers might say otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s because desired outcomes of trade and what we do to achieve them are separate questions. Based on your initial post I cannot glean any coherent objectives. Perhaps we should start there.

 

My objectives are the maintenance of this international peace and prosperity through trade between nations and the use of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which enables us to gain leverage unique to our position.

 

Bilateralism doesn’t accomplish that. Open markets and free trade can when combined with robust domestic policy that promotes innovation, immigration of the best of the world, and education does. Multilateral trade agreements can be the instruments of opening markets. The GOP is turning against all of that.

 

What’s your objective?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Tahoe suffers from the same thing Trump does. They believe a "deal" needs to have a winner and a loser. That means if China is winning, we must be losing. It never crosses their mind that a deal can be mutually beneficial. Trump doesn't feel like he won when he pays his construction contractors the agreed upon amount when they finish a project. Owning the building they made isn't enough to "win". He only wins by stiffing them.  That mode of "dealing" doesn't work with nation states.  Trump thinks we're Darth Vader and China is Lando, and we can name the deal and change it at will, and China will have to accept it no matter how bad it is for them. In actuality, we're Han and they're Lando.  We have to give to get. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...