Jump to content

Trump's Trade War

F250

By F250
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

In fairness, this occurs on the other side as well.  Plenty of Dem policies do little to raise many out of poverty but some of the poor cling to the Dems because they see Dems as their only lifeline.  

Truth.  And I've said and thought this for a long time.

But man, in the past few years, we have actually seen a real, stark contrast.

Dems promise they'll help the little guy.....then string him along, being largely indifferent to his needs, but continuing to offer hope that SOMEDAY, they'll really deliver.

The GOP promises they'll help the little guy....then proceed to affirmatively and royally fuck him over, all while insisting that "no, really, this is helping you."

In each case, the little guy is a sucker, buying something because he desperately WANTS it to be true -- that hasn't changed, and won't ever change.  But I've come to see a moral difference between the person who tells the old couple he'll invest their money for them to make a fortune to convince them to go with him as their adviser...and just invests it in safe stuff, takes his commission, and is done (failing to deliver on his promise), and the person who tells the old couple the same thing....and then sucks money out of their account.  The first guy is an over-promiser.  The second guy is a fucking con-man and thief.

But, the second guy is white, so....yeah.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Royalfan5 said:

It’s not that hard for a journalist to find people to say what they want them to say. 

cherry picking quotes and people for quotes is nothing new and is certainly a both sides deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Royalfan5

Royalfan5 2348

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Since this is your space, what are you thoughts on non-Chinese ag markets. Not only soy beans but any other products that are farmers are losing Chinese demand. Will there be enough demand from the rest of the world to replace the Chinese? If so, how long do you think that will take to normalize? 

There should plenty of demand overall, the biggest issue is that the investment in logistics has been built in direction of China so, the shipping to new markets will make suboptimal use of our capacity and unless it looks like a permanent deal the cash won’t be spent to reorient it. The issue on corn is the same except replace China with Mexico. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Royalfan5 said:

There should plenty of demand overall, the biggest issue is that the investment in logistics has been built in direction of China so, the shipping to new markets will make suboptimal use of our capacity and unless it looks like a permanent deal the cash won’t be spent to reorient it. The issue on corn is the same except replace China with Mexico. 

So how long would the Chinese tarrifs have to be in place in order for a material amount of capital to be invested into reorienting infrastructure?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Royalfan5

Royalfan5 2348

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

So how long would the Chinese tarrifs have to be in place in order for a material amount of capital to be invested into reorienting infrastructure?   

A while, a lot of this stuff is pretty new, and a lot can still serve Japan and Korea etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Royalfan5 said:

A while, a lot of this stuff is pretty new, and a lot can still serve Japan and Korea etc

Where could you sell more if there were fewer barriers to entry in the particular places of the world that might have restrictions of the various forms?(tarriffs, fees per bushel, seasonality restrictions, you name the fubar rules to protect the locals from international behemoth grain producers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5921

Posted
Posted
In fairness, this occurs on the other side as well.  Plenty of Dem policies do little to raise many out of poverty but some of the poor cling to the Dems because they see Dems as their only lifeline.  

 

Examples where GOP policies would be more favorable to the poor? (Preferably ones where the rich getting richer and deciding to spend more isn’t a prerequisite)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28679

Posted
  • Author
Posted
38 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

Examples where GOP policies would be more favorable to the poor? (Preferably ones where the rich getting richer and deciding to spend more isn’t a prerequisite)

This thread is an example. Supposedly Trump's trade war is going to lift the Rust Belt out of poverty and restore it back to the glory days of a bygone era of manufacturing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13410

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

Examples where GOP policies would be more favorable to the poor? (Preferably ones where the rich getting richer and deciding to spend more isn’t a prerequisite)

Favorable is objective.  Some of the right would say that giving the poor as little as possible (zero?) is the only method to get them to pull themselves up by the boot straps.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5921

Posted
Posted
Favorable is objective.  Some of the right would say that giving the poor as little as possible (zero?) is the only method to get them to pull themselves up by the boot straps.    

 

Are you saying that?

 

You “both sides”-ed the issue. I’d like to understand YOUR view of how Ds have done this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5921

Posted
Posted
No.   However I don't believe that keeping someone in a perpetual state of assistance, is good for them.  I wish we would provide more incentives to get people off assistance.    


So Ds try too hard to help the poor and in doing so fail to make their lives more miserable which is the real trick to solving poverty. That’s your position?

And it is here that both sides are at fault for having a subset of society that votes for them in detriment to their own self interest?

That’s one hell of a take, sir.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13410

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 


So Ds try too hard to help the poor and in doing so fail to make their lives more miserable which is the real trick to solving poverty. That’s your position?

And it is here that both sides are at fault for having a subset of society that votes for them in detriment to their own self interest?

That’s one hell of a take, sir.

 

Are you being serious?  I make a simple comment and you take 5 steps beyond what I said.   Don't waste your time replying as I won't reply to any more of your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 


So Ds try too hard to help the poor and in doing so fail to make their lives more miserable which is the real trick to solving poverty. That’s your position?

And it is here that both sides are at fault for having a subset of society that votes for them in detriment to their own self interest?

That’s one hell of a take, sir.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Are you being serious?  I make a simple comment and you take 5 steps beyond what I said.   Don't waste your time replying as I won't reply to any more of your comments.

I'm with Eddie on this.  Your take was a straw man.  Particularly this: "and in doing so fail to make their lives more miserable which is the real trick to solving poverty."

That's not what he said.  He said that "we would provide more incentives to get people off assistance."  Incentives can be both negative and positive.  And the concept has been discussed at length for years, by numerous folks.  And certain measures have been tried, with some more successful than others.

The concept that generous public assistance has unintended negative consequences isn't even really controversial, even among most left-leaning folks.  The devil is, of course, in the details.

But you just created a straw man and misrepresented his position, which is bullshit.  and you got called on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5921

Posted
Posted

But, seriously, since you like his initial comment, what are positions that Rs take that favor the poor more than the Ds position on the same topic? I honestly can think of none, so I don’t follow the both sides comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Lurch said:

But, seriously, since you like his initial comment, what are positions that Rs take that favor the poor more than the Ds position on the same topic? I honestly can think of none, so I don’t follow the both sides comment

Generally speaking, an approach that small businesses should be less regulated and not burdened with significant taxes -- many poor to lower middle class folks start their own businesses and earn significant portions of their income from them, so creating more opportunity there can favor the lower end folks.

Again, of course, the devil is in the details, and the GOP has been REALLY good at actually implementing such measures....that help the upper end of the spectrum...and shitty at doing so in a way that's genuinely targeted to the lower end, but you asked about positions, not execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5921

Posted
Posted
Generally speaking, an approach that small businesses should be less regulated and not burdened with significant taxes -- many poor to lower middle class folks start their own businesses and earn significant portions of their income from them, so creating more opportunity there can favor the lower end folks.

Again, of course, the devil is in the details, and the GOP has been REALLY good at actually implementing such measures....that help the upper end of the spectrum...and shitty at doing so in a way that's genuinely targeted to the lower end, but you asked about positions, not execution.

 

You’re telling me a poor person starts a business (or chooses not to because of regulation and tax burden) and then remains poor because of regulation and taxes? Specifically, regulations and taxation levels deemed necessary by Ds but unnecessary by Rs is the difference?

 

You may be right, but I’m having a hard time seeing it. It sounds highly suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 


You’re telling me a poor person starts a business and then remains poor because of regulation and taxes? That regulations and taxation levels deemed necessary by Ds but unnecessary by Rs is the difference?

You may be right, but I’m having a hard time seeing it. It sounds highly suspect.

 

Not necessarily.

Try cutting through the red tape of the permitting process in Austin, a highly-regulated liberal-minded city.

Then do the same thing in a less-regulated, more conservative city.

It's harder for Maria to open a taco trailer or small storefront in Dem city than it is in Repub city.  Not impossible, but harder, and more expensive.  Which can be a deterrent to Maria even going forward with her business at all.

Again, it doesn't always work out that way, but we're talking about a situation that is incrementally better or worse, and any increment has positive or negative effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89407

Posted
Posted

Is this going to affect the price of Mexican Coca-Colas?  Or the toys I buy my kids

Sure, I'm curious if my cousins in agriculture north of the Red River will still be as keen on Trump a year from now, but I want to know if my one bad habit is going to cost more, and/or birthdays/holidays for my kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Is this going to affect the price of Mexican Coca-Colas?  Or the toys I buy my kids

Sure, I'm curious if my cousins in agriculture north of the Red River will still be as keen on Trump a year from now, but I want to know if my one bad habit is going to cost more, and/or birthdays/holidays for my kids.

I'm failing to see how Mexican Coke is a bad habit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28679

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here are some excerpts showcasing MAGA.

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday estimated the total price tag could hit $39 billion if Trump compensated the losses across all industries. It would take $7.6 billion to help car and automobile parts manufacturers alone, the Chamber said, calling it a “slippery slope” for Trump to determine who gets help and who doesn’t. ...

 

“The global steel costs have risen substantially, and in particular in the U.S., they have reached unexplainable levels,” said Whirlpool chief executive Marc Bitzer when the company reported disappointing earnings. Trump put tariffs on foreign washing machines in January thinking it would boost the fortunes of companies like Whirlpool, but the steel tariffs have canceled out the benefits. ...

 

"We appreciate the administration lowering the temperature with the E.U., but . . . I don’t have a solution yet for my bourbon industry,” said Rep. Garland “Andy” Barr (R-Ky.) who met with some of Trump’s top economic advisers last week to share his concerns about the tariffs other countries have put on Kentucky bourbon.

“I also stressed that there are a lot more jobs at Toyota Motor Manufacturing in Kentucky that are negatively impacted by these steel tariffs than there are at the aluminum smelters and the steel production facilities in Kentucky,” Barr said last week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13410

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's cool, the Trump supporters say they'll go bankrupt to support him if necessary, so let them feel the pain. 

As much as they say they don't want handouts, I guarantee that 99.9% of them will quietly take a handout, internally justifying it as their reward for helping to fight the Chinese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14501

Posted
Posted
On 7/31/2018 at 2:11 PM, F250 said:

Here are some excerpts showcasing MAGA.

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday estimated the total price tag could hit $39 billion if Trump compensated the losses across all industries. It would take $7.6 billion to help car and automobile parts manufacturers alone, the Chamber said, calling it a “slippery slope” for Trump to determine who gets help and who doesn’t. ...

 

“The global steel costs have risen substantially, and in particular in the U.S., they have reached unexplainable levels,” said Whirlpool chief executive Marc Bitzer when the company reported disappointing earnings. Trump put tariffs on foreign washing machines in January thinking it would boost the fortunes of companies like Whirlpool, but the steel tariffs have canceled out the benefits. ...

 

"We appreciate the administration lowering the temperature with the E.U., but . . . I don’t have a solution yet for my bourbon industry,” said Rep. Garland “Andy” Barr (R-Ky.) who met with some of Trump’s top economic advisers last week to share his concerns about the tariffs other countries have put on Kentucky bourbon.

“I also stressed that there are a lot more jobs at Toyota Motor Manufacturing in Kentucky that are negatively impacted by these steel tariffs than there are at the aluminum smelters and the steel production facilities in Kentucky,” Barr said last week.

 

It's absolutely brilliant what the Chinese did in surgically slapping tariffs on things specifically made in GOP or swing districts.  Kentucky as a state got screwed hard, thanks to Senator Turtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
On 7/30/2018 at 6:07 PM, Brisketexan said:

Not necessarily.

Try cutting through the red tape of the permitting process in Austin, a highly-regulated liberal-minded city.

Then do the same thing in a less-regulated, more conservative city.

It's harder for Maria to open a taco trailer or small storefront in Dem city than it is in Repub city.  Not impossible, but harder, and more expensive.  Which can be a deterrent to Maria even going forward with her business at all.

Again, it doesn't always work out that way, but we're talking about a situation that is incrementally better or worse, and any increment has positive or negative effects.

What repub city are you using for this theory?  There isnt one. There are small towns, but Maria's taco stand doesnt work there because there are no customers. The problem for Maria is that Juana and Alejandra already opened their taco stands and complied with all appropriate regulations.  And while Maria may find that the only way to break into an already saturated taco market is to bypass regulations, that isnt fair to Juana or Alejandra.  If Maria's tacos are really better than theirs, she should be able to play fair and still win. If they arent better, she should find a different niche that isnt oversaturated yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26215

Posted
Posted

A South Carolina television maker says it's laying off 126 workers because of President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from China.

Element TV Company said in a letter to state employment officials Monday that workers will be let go Oct. 5, leaving a skeleton crew of eight employees to watch the Fairfield County plant in hopes it can reopen in three to six months.

Element says the tariffs are hitting key components it uses to assemble its U.S.-made televisions. The Trump administration imposed a 25 percent import tax that included Chinese components for TVs in July.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/chinese-tariffs-lead-to-126-jobs-lost-at-south-carolina-tv-plant.html

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...