Trump's Trade War

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think Tahoe suffers from the same thing Trump does. 

Yeah, they're both fucking morons. 

[Biff Tannen 45688]

13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

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. 

If you had said this at the beginning of this thread I could have understood and not had to learn a lot of big words from Bozo.

[SKJ 1311]

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. 

Something I learned from years in the rackets: fair exchange ain't no robbery

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think Tahoe suffers from the same thing Trump does. They believe a "deal" needs to have a winner and a loser. ...

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Bozo_Casanova 26463]

You couldn't be more wrong.

You keep saying that, but your posts on this thread indicate “deal” oriented thinking about international trade.

So- as I asked you above, if he’s wrong explain why. What’s your strategic objective and how do you propose to achieve it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TahoeHorn 107]

Every country (or every major country and essentially every country) in the world has laws about how they treat goods bought from or sold to the US.  We have treaties with them to try to improve the favorability of these laws.  That's fact.  These treaties are a deal.  Whether we structure that deal by getting ten countries together or one is a detail.  It may be important from one perspective.  I'm more interested in what we want when we deal and what we are ready to give up when we start bargaining.

For instance is it important that they don't use child labor?  Or slave labor?  What about the environmental rules?  The list is long.

If you want me to negotiate the purchase of a car for you I not only want to know what you'd like but I want to get a sense of how important it is to you.  Is $1,000 for a sunroof too much or too little?  I know you'd like it if it's free, but it won't be.  You probably don't want it if it has to be custom made for $10,000.  But where are you in between?

When I hear about a deal like TPP people just say it's good or bad.  Even me.  I like the concept of TPP but I don't really know any details.  A trade negotiator  might say "We loved draft #57 but Japan hated it.  When didn't like draft $58.  Both the US and Japan liked #59, but Malaysia and Indonesia didn't. "  So what were they asking for and what were they giving away?  Don't give me some principles.  Everybody in the room understood that a trade deal was good.  But how fussy were we with, say, the child labor clause?  Too fussy or not fussy enough?  What would you have done differently?  Give me ANY specifics.  I would have put more emphasis on protecting our high value products and making them more competitive and less emphasis on protecting our uncompetitive low value industries, like steel, textiles, shoes, agriculture, and even autos.  If every country makes men's shirts I'm not interested in getting concessions; I'm giving concessions to the countries that don't make much else.  I want them to buy our products that only we make (e.g. social media, a specific movie).  Or only a few countries can make (e,g, satellites, microprocessors). 

Instead of commenting on my proposal, or Trump's, tell me what you'd have told opur trade negotiators to do differently when negotiating TPP or NAFTA.  Obviously whether you can get the other countries to do it is important so I want to hear about where you'd give to get what you want and why you think that would work.  For example if you'd like stronger child labor features what do you think would be a concession that would get that feature in the treaty?

[Bozo_Casanova 26463]

I answered your question and put a question to you. I’ll get to this latest set of questions when you explain what your strategic trade objectives are and how you propose to achieve them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I answered your question and put a question to you. I’ll get to this latest set of questions when you explain what your strategic trade objectives are and how you propose to achieve them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I thought I did.  I'll do it again.

My strategic objectives are to significantly raise the GDP.  I'd do that by selling high value stuff and buying low value.  Like an individual who has a high value product like brain surgery I'd try to maximize my brain surgery revenue.  I wouldn't use resources for mowing lawns and cleaning toilets.  I'd buy that.  And cars and food.  I'd buy it from places that would buy my brain surgery.  If the folks of Possum Hollow won't buy my brain surgery even though it's better, or want to set a low price I'll use my purchases as leverage to get them to change.  You can argue for free trade but you have to deal with the reality of places that buy somebody else's brain surgery because they buy their lawn services, or more likely, they protect their own inferior brain surgeon.

These aren't hard and fast rules.  There are many considerations to balance - fairness are the needs of people in this country who have low skills and find it hard to participate in high value industries are two biggies.  I'd like free trade.  But we don't let monopolies practice free trade.  We don't allow slave labor.  We have environmental considerations.   We don't let an uncompetitive GM fail. 

My perfect solution would be much more free but I'm not ready to allow slave labor or Chinese monopolies.  And if the EU is helping Airbus, (and it is) I'm not leaving Boeing to go against both the EU and Airbus.

I'm not interested in your principles.  I'm not interested in your critique of my thoughts.  I'm interested in your specific advice on any negotiation - what you'd ask for, what you'd give up to get it and why you think that deal would sell to the party in question whomever (one country or many) you choose.

Edited April 5, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[atomheartbevo 89674]

Are the price of Mexican cokes going to go up?  That's what I want to know.  I've heard things.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Are the price of Mexican cokes going to go up?  That's what I want to know.  I've heard things.

Just Chinese cokes, but you can make your own by peeing in an American coke. 

[atomheartbevo 89674]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Just Chinese cokes, but you can make your own by peeing in an American coke. 

I might as well drink one of the HFCS cokes then, because it'll still have the aftertaste.  Fuck that.

[Bozo_Casanova 26463]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

I thought I did.  I'll do it again.

My strategic objectives are to significantly raise the GDP.  I'd do that by selling high value stuff and buying low value.  Like an individual who has a high value product like brain surgery I'd try to maximize my brain surgery revenue.  I wouldn't use resources for mowing lawns and cleaning toilets.  I'd buy that.  And cars and food.  I'd buy it from places that would buy my brain surgery.  If the folks of Possum Hollow won't buy my brain surgery even though it's better, or want to set a low price I'll use my purchases as leverage to get them to change.  You can argue for free trade but you have to deal with the reality of places that buy somebody else's brain surgery because they buy their lawn services, or more likely, they protect their own inferior brain surgeon.

These aren't hard and fast rules.  There are many considerations to balance - fairness are the needs of people in this country who have low skills and find it hard to participate in high value industries are two biggies.  I'd like free trade.  But we don't let monopolies practice free trade.  We don't allow slave labor.  We have environmental considerations.   We don't let an uncompetitive GM fail. 

My perfect solution would be much more free but I'm not ready to allow slave labor or Chinese monopolies.  And if the EU is helping Airbus, (and it is) I'm not leaving Boeing to go against both the EU and Airbus.

I'm not interested in your principles.  I'm not interested in your critique of my thoughts.  I'm interested in your specific advice on any negotiation - what you'd ask for, what you'd give up to get it and why you think that deal would sell to the party in question whomever (one country or many) you choose.

Tahoe - respectfully, you may not be interested in a critique of your thoughts, and I'm well aware that nobody on this board is interested in reading an economics treatise, but your post illustrates and locates both the disconnect between the actual subject matter and what you think you are asking, and why your view is fundamentally the same as the president. 

First, I won't go through the theory involved here, but even though deficits can sometimes compress GDP through a negative balance of payments trade surpluses do not inherently grow GDP.  There are a lot of reasons for this, but in part because GDP is a measure of demand and the deficit itself can be a symptom of strong GDP growth. Additionally, since the Dollar is the world's reserve currency, deficits are among other things a distribution mechanism for US dollars (There are others). Maintaining the role of the dollar is not a principle. That's a crucial strategic objective that the trade approach of the administration places at risk, as would your policy above. I'm not saying trade deficits are "good" because they aren't. I'm saying that the connection you suggest isn't what you seem to think it is. 

Second, you are making an analogy between the national balance of trade and individual behavior. Those things are qualitatively different, not just on a different scale. Thus, you are thinking about the negotiation the same way the president does. And I assure you the Chinese and the European Union do not think in those terms and will clean our clocks if we do. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

You seem to refuse to give me your advice.  You only talk about what you wouldn't do.

[F250 28777]

What some of y'all fail to see is that Tahoe is a solutions guy. Now the solution might only make sense to a dog catcher in Flea Bottom Alabama but it is a solution.

Seriously Tahoe, I used to sympathize with you but your behavioral pattern indicates you are either a troll or mentally incapable of having a reasonable discussion.

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

+rep to Bozo and his Sisyphean effort explaining the economic realities of trade policy to Tahoe. 

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Second, you are making an analogy between the national balance of trade and individual behavior. Those things are qualitatively different, not just on a different scale. Thus, you are thinking about the negotiation the same way the president does. And I assure you the Chinese and the European Union do not think in those terms and will clean our clocks if we do. 

Pos rep, uh I mean pos emoticon.

Sort of like saying "My family has to live on a balanced budget, so the federal government should too." The analogy does not hold, because there are fundamental differences between a family budget and the federal budget that go far beyond the scale.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33871]

Edited April 5, 2018 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Bozo_Casanova 26463]

And incidentally, while the analogy tahoe is making is terrible, that kind of thinking doesn't make sense on a family level either, to wit: "I have this huge trade deficit with HEB and Twin Liquors. UNFAIR! How can I make a deal with HEB that will increase my income?"

Edited April 5, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[SubliminalHorn 6789]

CNN about to report that the traitor is about to throw out another $100 billion in tariffs on China. 

[F250 28777]

 

[F250 28777]

23 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

CNN about to report that the traitor is about to throw out another $100 billion in tariffs on China. 

This has a Dr. Evil level of ridiculousness to it.

[TornACL 7698]

This Manhattan real estate tycoon negotiation bullshit might work on condo developers, but I've yet to see any evidence that this slipshod approach gains us anything in the game of international trade. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

45 minutes ago, F250 said:

This has a Dr. Evil level of ridiculousness to it.

Yep.   He’s pulling us into the equivalent of a war when you keep sending in more troops because the other side is fighting back with more troops because you increased yours.   It doesn’t end until one side is fully destroyed or capitulates.   

[workswithseed 2109]

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

World War 1 trench warfare school of economics: just send more troops into the machine gun fire this time!  Eventually it will work!

Are you saying we should do like the British and make tanks? 

[TornACL 7698]

36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yep.   He’s pulling us into the equivalent of a war when you keep sending in more troops because the other side is fighting back with more troops because you increased yours.   It doesn’t end until one side is fully destroyed or capitulates.   

That sounds good for the global economy! 

[dutchmaster 0]

Art of the Deal

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Can we put an embargo on Russia while we’re at it? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

You have to give trump credit convincing people that he’s a good deal maker mainly by calling himself the best deal maker for the past 35 years.   There is zero evidence that he is.  And a fair amount of evidence he isn’t 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

For Tahoe (and Trump)

 

[kevwun 15789]

If he wants to make the moneyed interests start yanking on the chains of the reps and senators they've bought to do something about him, this is a good way to go about it.

[Brisketexan 105143]

12 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You have to give trump credit convincing people that he’s a good deal maker mainly by calling himself the best deal maker for the past 35 years.   There is zero evidence that he is.  And a fair amount of evidence he isn’t 

I like deal makers that haven't gone bankrupt six times.  Sad!

[bernorange 8362]

Quote

United States President Donald Trump’s declaration of tariff warfare against China has little to do with trade. It is about raw power, a struggle over which of the two sparring hegemons will dominate technology and run the world in the 21st century.

The pretence of cordial coexistence has all but ended in the Hobbesian era of Trumpism. The latest US national security strategy report for the first time names China as a strategic rival that seeks to “challenge American power, influence and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity”. It is the poisonous-diplomatic context that makes this week’s trade skirmish so dangerous.
...
Former US president Barack Obama had sought to draw China into the international system through the G20 and the International Monetary Fund, treating Beijing as co-equal in a global condominium. Trump’s war cabinet will have none of it.
...
China and the US are now on a collision course. Trump tweets that “trade wars are good, and easy to win”. He has threatened to match retaliatory sanctions with yet more sanctions in an escalation spiral. Chinese President Xi Jinping in turn cannot show weakness. He will respond with equal calibration at every stage, even as he tries to seize the high ground by taking the case to the World Trade Organisation.

A Wall Street crash is perhaps the only deterrent that Trump really fears as the mid-term elections approach and Democrats threaten to gain control of impeachment powers on Capitol Hill. China could — if it chose — trigger this with large sales of its $1.2 trillion holding of US Treasuries. Yet, it is a perilous game for China as well.

It is an open question who would be hurt most if the stand-off worsens. China’s hawks are clearly prone to hubris and delusions, unaware of just how fragile their system has become after pushing debt to 270 per cent of gross domestic product. The return on new credit has collapsed and officials at the central bank (PBOC) fear a “Minsky moment”. The catch-up growth model is exhausted. The middle income trap looms.
...
China is no longer a trade “sinner”. The US Treasury deems Germany to be a greater violator (via the euro). But that is not what this dispute is really about. The message that emanates from Bolton and Navarro is that China is an elemental threat to US strategic interests and must be checked before it is too late.

This is all too like the thinking of Sparta’s Archidamus in 430BC, or the thinking of Germany’s high command about Russia in 1914. To expect arguments of rational self-interest to prevail as this saga unfolds is to ignore history. We have moved beyond the realm of homo economicus.

http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/trump-s-power-struggle-with-china-isn-t-about-trade-1.2200486

AEP doesn't even mention the petroyuan, but I suspect it's part of the conversation behind closed doors in DC.

[Brisketexan 105143]

4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/trump-s-power-struggle-with-china-isn-t-about-trade-1.2200486

AEP doesn't even mention the petroyuan, but I suspect it's part of the conversation behind closed doors in DC.

We also have the ultimate short-game, instant gratification game-player engaging in a global game of chess against perhaps the ultimate long-game player.

Trump's going to strut around bragging about taking out 3-4 pawns - "did you see how hard they fell?  BAM!"  Meanwhile, China's setting up the board for checkmate years from now.  And they can and will suffer short term pain to get there.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We also have the ultimate short-game, instant gratification game-player engaging in a global game of chess against perhaps the ultimate long-game player.

Trump's going to strut around bragging about taking out 3-4 pawns - "did you see how hard they fell?  BAM!"  Meanwhile, China's setting up the board for checkmate years from now.  And they can and will suffer short term pain to get there.

Exactly. Remember how trump riled up his base about how evil TPP was and how it would take jobs away from Americans. Perhaps in a narrow sense he was right but tpp was a long term play to increase America’s presence versus China.  

So trump will save a few jobs (and I mean few) now but it increases the chance that the 21st century will ultimately belong to China. Thanks Donald. 

[Anastasis 23469]

30 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The message that emanates from Bolton and Navarro...

[staboner 4971]

i've been on 3 websites with Tahoehorn for the last what, 15 years? amazed he still gets any serious replies at all. he will obfuscate and get circular no matter what. no matter why. republican water boy. its what he does. he is one of the most worthless posters i have ever encountered

[staboner 4971]

we have a trickster playing global politics like its a card game. he is showing his hand over and over and overplaying all his cards. its remarkably dangerous. just hope that he does minimal damage and that our allies and trade partners are more mature than us, and once we come back asking for real business again - that they listen and understand - like fucking adults. Fondren's post is spot on. There is always good business to be had. 

[SubliminalHorn 6789]

Tahoe is worthless and I wish he got lost with his doughnuts while trying to find the new site

[Bozo_Casanova 26463]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Exactly. Remember how trump riled up his base about how evil TPP was and how it would take jobs away from Americans. Perhaps in a narrow sense he was right but tpp was a long term play to increase America’s presence versus China.  

So trump will save a few jobs (and I mean few) now but it increases the chance that the 21st century will ultimately belong to China. Thanks Donald. 

I mentioned this above, but I'll mention it again: there is no greater example of the cynicism of Hillary Clinton than her abandonment of TPP.  And that's saying something. 

[Brisketexan 105143]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I mentioned this above, but I'll mention it again: there is no greater example of the cynicism of Hillary Clinton than her abandonment of TPP.  And that's saying something. 

It was peak Hillary.  "My principles are whatever I think the voters want them to be at any given moment in time."  It was always my biggest criticism of her -- nobody knows what she actually believes, other than the fact that she really, REALLY believed that she should be president.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

Yes--we all agree Hillary was (and is) awful.  

But she isn't president.  Let's focus on the orangutan that is.

[LonghornJudas 1097]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

We also have the ultimate short-game, instant gratification game-player engaging in a global game of chess against perhaps the ultimate long-game player.

Trump's going to strut around bragging about taking out 3-4 pawns - "did you see how hard they fell?  BAM!"  Meanwhile, China's setting up the board for checkmate years from now.  And they can and will suffer short term pain to get there.

Right. The typical game theory example where one power (USA) has been playing a finite game and others (China, NK, Iran, Russia, Syria, etc.) are playing the infinite game. Now we're the ones getting exploited because we don't have someone who can clearly communication what the fuck we stand and what our policy is.

[F250 28777]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes--we all agree Hillary was (and is) awful.  

But she isn't president.  Let's focus on the orangutan that is.

The Hillary discussion speaks more to the political landscape that has been very anti-trade over the past few years. Elizabeth Warren who is getting 2020 hype was anti-TPP as well as Sanders. I don't think there has been a prominent politician that stood up to the current populist mood regarding trade since Obama. While Trump is blatantly exploiting the current political landscape no one else is really championing free trade and that is troubling.

Obama was the last adult in the room and this is coming from someone that wasn't an Obama fan.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

And I think you're going to see a serious change in that before 2020.  There is an article in the Washington Post today about the Koch brothers' increasing alarm at the direction of the GOP, and their increasing willingness to talk to Democrats.  They are radical free-traders, and I think you're going to see more and more money put into candidates who are willing forcefully to espouse that view.

[kevwun 15789]

That's why I don't understand why he hasn't retreated on this one yet.  One visit from Wayne Lapierre and he walked all the gun stuff he said after Parkland back.  He will create lots of powerful enemies with the trade nonsense, but he doesn't seem to care.  You start costing rich donors money and they will make phone calls about how to vote on impeachment.

Edited April 6, 2018 by kevwun

[FondrenRoad 4378]

16 hours ago, TornACL said:

This Manhattan real estate tycoon negotiation bullshit might work on condo developers, but I've yet to see any evidence that this slipshod approach gains us anything in the game of international trade. 

It doesn't even really work there. His MO is to make a mutually beneficial agreement, wait for the other side to complete its obligations, and then renege on his part of the agreement.  Its why he hasnt been able to use a legit lender in quite some time. I wouldnt do any work at all for him without full payment up front. 

Even Kusher's company isnt nearly so shitty. Hes probably the worst RE guy there is. Look at his Atlantic City casino operations and issues versus all the other developers there who weren't intentionally trying to fuck the state. 

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Bat Guano 359]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

We also have the ultimate short-game, instant gratification game-player engaging in a global game of chess against perhaps the ultimate long-game player.

Trump's going to strut around bragging about taking out 3-4 pawns - "did you see how hard they fell?  BAM!"  Meanwhile, China's setting up the board for checkmate years from now.  And they can and will suffer short term pain to get there.

 

1 hour ago, LonghornJudas said:

Right. The typical game theory example where one power (USA) has been playing a finite game and others (China, NK, Iran, Russia, Syria, etc.) are playing the infinite game. Now we're the ones getting exploited because we don't have someone who can clearly communication what the fuck we stand and what our policy is.

If we're talking game theory I think a better analogy would be to the game of go, which the Chinese play well. The goal is to control more of the board than your opponent, and often involves giving up small gains in one area to gain larger territory somewhere else. The more of the board you can control, the better; if you have a particularly inept and stupid opponent, you can get the whole thing.

Trump isn't even playing the same game; if I had to guess, it seems like Whack-a-Mole. He's setting us up for epic losses.

[Brisketexan 105143]

1 hour ago, Bat Guano said:

 

If we're talking game theory I think a better analogy would be to the game of go, which the Chinese play well. The goal is to control more of the board than your opponent, and often involves giving up small gains in one area to gain larger territory somewhere else. The more of the board you can control, the better; if you have a particularly inept and stupid opponent, you can get the whole thing.

Trump isn't even playing the same game; if I had to guess, it seems like Whack-a-Mole. He's setting us up for epic losses.

Go is indeed a better analogy.  And yes, he's not even playing the same game that everyone else is playing - he's just indulging in what feels good at the moment.

[Newy25 7668]

19 hours ago, TornACL said:

This Manhattan real estate tycoon negotiation bullshit might work on condo developers, but I've yet to see any evidence that this slipshod approach gains us anything in the game of international trade. 

This is where I am at.. The blustering and bullying people into submission tactic is not going to work against China of all people. They would literally allow a million people starve to death to not cede any ground to the USA. This was not a well thought out plan that will backfire and cause a lot of political damage. 

[Brisketexan 105143]

12 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

This is where I am at.. The blustering and bullying people into submission tactic is not going to work against China of all people. They would literally allow a million people starve to death to not cede any ground to the USA. This was not a well thought out plan that will backfire and cause a lot of political damage. 

Gee.  Skillset X doesn't translate to situation Y.  Who EVER woulda thunk that?

I mean, I'm positive the Vince Young's incredible ability to read a football defense would translate perfectly to the ability to negotiate a complex trade deal.  And a heart surgeon's ability to carefully slice the smallest of blood vessels would translate perfectly to the ability to carve up NFL defenses.  That's how this works, right?  If you're good at something in one situation, that means you're good at everything else, right?

Jesus.  We're the United Stupid States of America, and we get EXACTLY the government we deserve.