+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 86
Latest: movieman
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112779
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: China US Tariffs  (Read 228 times)

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: China US Tariffs
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2018, 11:00:51 am »
I find it funny that the man negotiating our "trade deals" still believes in mercantilism.
I borderline couldn't believe it when he started talking about how our different trade deficits (with China specifically, if memory serves) were an issue. You literally learn about comparative advantages and why trade deficits don't really matter in Econ 101...

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: China US Tariffs
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2018, 02:13:20 pm »
I find it funny that the man negotiating our "trade deals" still believes in mercantilism.
I borderline couldn't believe it when he started talking about how our different trade deficits (with China specifically, if memory serves) were an issue. You literally learn about comparative advantages and why trade deficits don't really matter in Econ 101...

From the way Trump talks about trade, you'd think he was sailing around the East Indies searching for cardamom, gold, and fine silk. He says stuff like "I'll get us a better deal on beef" as if the government is trading beef to Canada. All he gets to do is join agreements and sign tariffs, and I don't think he understands that even to this day.
Like Like x 1 View List

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1865
Re: China US Tariffs
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2018, 02:51:34 pm »
So, what does Dylan think about the most recent tariffs that have now hit EU and Canada/Mexico as well, with immediate retaliation from the latter?

Well these tariffs haven't gone into effect yet.  They do on July 1.  There is a G7 summit this weekend.  I think, much like North Korea, this is pure posturing/negotiation tactic aimed at getting the best deal possible.  I will withhold judgment until the dust clears from the G7 summit and we see where we are at the end of the month.  Initially I was against it.  But I'm giving him a little leash given how well our economy is doing and how his tactics with the North Korea deal have worked thus far.  THIS is why I voted for him - because of his overall business/deal-making acumen compared to the other options.  We will see how this strategy plays out.
If forcing Trudeau into imposing retaliatory tariffs and alienating some of our closest allies qualify as examples of Trump's "business acumen" I'm really not sure what that's worth. This dude seriously just refused to sign the G7 statement and flamed Trudeau for imposing tariffs that would hurt American workers. I mean, what the fuck?

And I'll have to say that so far, Trump's deal-making acumen has been more than uneven. I'll give him some credit for negotiations with China - he did get them to lower some tariffs (even if his opponents will say that's window dressing) and just extracted a billion dollars from ZTE's coffers straight into the US Treasury, as well as officially embedded US spies (sorry, "compliance officers") there for a decade. No matter your political game-playing, I can assure you many Chinese took it as a notable loss.

Everything else, though... Did his deal-making acumen help him get the healthcare plan he wanted (or Ryan and McConnell told him he should want)? Is it getting him much of anything on NAFTA? He said he would want to renegotiate Paris, but was told to up sticks. On the other hand, he immediately left TPP (good), but then had to tarnish it by saying a year later he would want to rejoin it, obviously to no avail... Anything else I missed?

His statement on turning G-7 back into G-8 was also funny. I'll leave those who keep screaming "collusion", "Trump is directed from Kremlin" etc. to make sense of Lavrov's response, which politely affirmed we do not need it, because G-20 and Shanghai Cooperation Society are far more useful to our interests. That's not really a bluff either - I recall reading frustration with G-8 in our newspapers more than a decade ago, with quite a few statements from various pundits here on how for us it's a useless photo op, and G-20 is where things get done.

"Anything else I missed?"

Um - North Korea?  Not saying anything is a done deal, but this is as close as we've been to denuclearizing North Korea in decades.  Regardless, he struck a deal to get 3 American hostages released while giving up NOTHING in the process.  Pretty good deal-making there.

Also, pulling out of the Iran deal was a good move - that was a HORRIBLE deal.  If Trump did a deal exactly like that, people (including me) would lose their collective minds. 

He worked a deal to get his tax cut bill passed - and it had an immediate positive effect on the economy (along with rolling back regulations that were suffocating businesses). 

He also FINALLY moved our US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  Why is this significant?  Because every president for the last 20 years has promised to do this.  And none of them ever did because they feared political backlash.  He not only got the deal done, he did it without spending a lot of money or wasting a lot of time.


Now, I'm not happy with him running down Trudeau (although Merkel can kind of go fuck herself).  I think this tactic worked with Kim Jong Un, though I was reticent to believe it would at first.  However, I think you take a different approach with allies, and this could backfire.  I also don't like him meddling in the whole national anthem issue.  I have my own personal beliefs on it, but I don't think it's something the government needs to be sticking its fat nose in - it's really none of their business.  But, from an overall deal-making perspective, I think he's doing a pretty good job in totality - especially when compared to our last 2 Presidents.

The comment of inviting the Russians to the table turning G7 to G8, to me, was simply him trolling Mueller and the liberals.  I think he realizes at this point, regardless of whether he did or not, that they are not going to find any collusion or wrongdoing with respect to HIM and Russia.  I think this was him baiting the MSM into another scattershot tirade, which strangely enough hasn't happened yet.

1) As you have acknowledged, nothing concrete has happened yet between him and KJU (as opposed to KJU and Moon). While none of us would like it to happen, he could just leave Singapore the same way he just left G-7. Again, I maintain the main reason negotiations began is that the weapons program has already built up to its logical end point, so now KJU uses them to get sanctions lifted, knowing that failed negotiations still leave him secure from any intervention.

Also, it's comparatively common for his country to imprison some visitors (usually various Bible-thumpers desperate to make a name for themselves) and release them a few months later. I remember that happened some 4-5 times under Obama's second term. (Though one was an Australian from my former state, so I don't blame Americans for possibly not paying attention.)

2) A thing people in US may not necessarily understand is that Iran is a relatively large country of 80 million people - that's 4 times more than Iraq or DPRK, more than UK's or France's, and more than half of our population. Besides oil, it has a range of other resources and such and so can maintain a decent domestic industry. In short, it'll always be a relatively powerful country (I didn't even mention the religious/sociocultural "Shia Crescent" thing), and it'll never agree to the kind of the deal many of you would have liked.

What happens now that you've quit the deal remains unclear, and is mainly contingent on the ability of relevant departments to enforce sanctions against European companies for dealing with Iran, vs. the European countries' ability to shield the companies from the same, and willingness to do so. Right now, it seems like G-7 summit pissed them off to the point they may as well have struck a blood oath with Iran.

Whatever the case, though, I do hope IRI does not restart the nuclear program again There's definitely a temptation on their side , especially since Rouhani handed over loads of their enriched uranium in exchange for rather little. (On the other hand, he's apparently not that different from, say, Paul Ryan when it comes to domestic economics, while his anti-deal opponent at the last election likes using oil to fund welfare programs comparable to basic income, so it's a more complicated issue then one would think.) Still, I think it would be a waste for them. If it were up to me, I would have simply rendered the issue moot by placing our nukes in Iran. Israel is lucky Putin wouldn't do that, as he likes them a lot more than I do (and that he still seems to hope sanctions would get lifted soon.)

3) Is it "his" tax cut bill, or Ryan/McConnell's tax cut bill now? Looking from the outside in, I can't quite keep up. Regardless, doesn't every president pass at least one major piece of legislation during their first year? Obama had the stimulus in his first year, which was far more substantial than this tax reform by most measures. That he passed something like this in his first year (while failing a more major move) shows he has at best the same negotiating ability as any other president, and certainly not the exceptional one he's claimed before the election.

Again, the main issue everyone has with his move is the debt it adds, and that it's likely not proportionate with the benefit. I am not sure if mentioned it before, but in Australia, I actually happened to have read a book by W.'s first Treasury secretary (or economics advisor, etc. - one of those positions) - I think his name was McAllen. He quit early in 2002 after his attempts to limit Bush's original tax cuts by adding snapbacks to them if economic indicators went wrong didn't pass Congress. He stated the deficits from the cuts would lead to the new financial crisis, and we know he was proven right. (He's also said he saw preparations to invade Iraq were being made by Rumsfield, Cheney, etc. from the first days of the presidency, and was shocked when nearly the first thing discussed after 9/11 was how to attack Iraq, but that's a different matter.)

3,5) Can you name the specific regulations that suffocated businesses? It's an easy, catch-all claim, and it irks me people never then take the effort to go into specifics with it.

4) Look, how hard can it really be to move a building? He announced the move eight months after taking office, and it was actually carried out what, six months later? I don't see anything particularly notable about these timeframes. Yes, he's made that decision in the first place, and we argued about its merits earlier. However, the conversation was about the deal-making ability, and not just the things he's done, remember? In fact, a particular point of the criticism was that he did not actually get anything from the Israelis in return for doing so. Like I said before, he could have at least gotten something like getting them to sign the Convention against Chemical Weapons (especially since that would have put Syria strikes on firmer moral footing.)


Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1865
Re: China US Tariffs
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2018, 06:07:14 pm »
I remember I once argued with a conservative Swiss guy on Quora who gave Trump for a really large range of things, including the claim that Saudis only permitted women to drive and opened (a) movie theater after Trump personally told them to, because it happened after he visited them. (One would think he wouldn't miss the opportunity to tweet about such a humanitarian achievement if that was the case, but what do I know...)

For the sake of posterity, I've found him again. You can find my month-old comment arguing with him under one of the answers to this question of his.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: China US Tariffs
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2018, 10:19:24 am »
So, what does Dylan think about the most recent tariffs that have now hit EU and Canada/Mexico as well, with immediate retaliation from the latter?

Well these tariffs haven't gone into effect yet.  They do on July 1.  There is a G7 summit this weekend.  I think, much like North Korea, this is pure posturing/negotiation tactic aimed at getting the best deal possible.  I will withhold judgment until the dust clears from the G7 summit and we see where we are at the end of the month.  Initially I was against it.  But I'm giving him a little leash given how well our economy is doing and how his tactics with the North Korea deal have worked thus far.  THIS is why I voted for him - because of his overall business/deal-making acumen compared to the other options.  We will see how this strategy plays out.
If forcing Trudeau into imposing retaliatory tariffs and alienating some of our closest allies qualify as examples of Trump's "business acumen" I'm really not sure what that's worth. This dude seriously just refused to sign the G7 statement and flamed Trudeau for imposing tariffs that would hurt American workers. I mean, what the fuck?

And I'll have to say that so far, Trump's deal-making acumen has been more than uneven. I'll give him some credit for negotiations with China - he did get them to lower some tariffs (even if his opponents will say that's window dressing) and just extracted a billion dollars from ZTE's coffers straight into the US Treasury, as well as officially embedded US spies (sorry, "compliance officers") there for a decade. No matter your political game-playing, I can assure you many Chinese took it as a notable loss.

Everything else, though... Did his deal-making acumen help him get the healthcare plan he wanted (or Ryan and McConnell told him he should want)? Is it getting him much of anything on NAFTA? He said he would want to renegotiate Paris, but was told to up sticks. On the other hand, he immediately left TPP (good), but then had to tarnish it by saying a year later he would want to rejoin it, obviously to no avail... Anything else I missed?

His statement on turning G-7 back into G-8 was also funny. I'll leave those who keep screaming "collusion", "Trump is directed from Kremlin" etc. to make sense of Lavrov's response, which politely affirmed we do not need it, because G-20 and Shanghai Cooperation Society are far more useful to our interests. That's not really a bluff either - I recall reading frustration with G-8 in our newspapers more than a decade ago, with quite a few statements from various pundits here on how for us it's a useless photo op, and G-20 is where things get done.

"Anything else I missed?"

Um - North Korea?  Not saying anything is a done deal, but this is as close as we've been to denuclearizing North Korea in decades.  Regardless, he struck a deal to get 3 American hostages released while giving up NOTHING in the process.  Pretty good deal-making there.

Also, pulling out of the Iran deal was a good move - that was a HORRIBLE deal.  If Trump did a deal exactly like that, people (including me) would lose their collective minds. 

He worked a deal to get his tax cut bill passed - and it had an immediate positive effect on the economy (along with rolling back regulations that were suffocating businesses). 

He also FINALLY moved our US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  Why is this significant?  Because every president for the last 20 years has promised to do this.  And none of them ever did because they feared political backlash.  He not only got the deal done, he did it without spending a lot of money or wasting a lot of time.


Now, I'm not happy with him running down Trudeau (although Merkel can kind of go fuck herself).  I think this tactic worked with Kim Jong Un, though I was reticent to believe it would at first.  However, I think you take a different approach with allies, and this could backfire.  I also don't like him meddling in the whole national anthem issue.  I have my own personal beliefs on it, but I don't think it's something the government needs to be sticking its fat nose in - it's really none of their business.  But, from an overall deal-making perspective, I think he's doing a pretty good job in totality - especially when compared to our last 2 Presidents.

The comment of inviting the Russians to the table turning G7 to G8, to me, was simply him trolling Mueller and the liberals.  I think he realizes at this point, regardless of whether he did or not, that they are not going to find any collusion or wrongdoing with respect to HIM and Russia.  I think this was him baiting the MSM into another scattershot tirade, which strangely enough hasn't happened yet.

1) As you have acknowledged, nothing concrete has happened yet between him and KJU (as opposed to KJU and Moon). While none of us would like it to happen, he could just leave Singapore the same way he just left G-7. Again, I maintain the main reason negotiations began is that the weapons program has already built up to its logical end point, so now KJU uses them to get sanctions lifted, knowing that failed negotiations still leave him secure from any intervention.

Also, it's comparatively common for his country to imprison some visitors (usually various Bible-thumpers desperate to make a name for themselves) and release them a few months later. I remember that happened some 4-5 times under Obama's second term. (Though one was an Australian from my former state, so I don't blame Americans for possibly not paying attention.)

2) A thing people in US may not necessarily understand is that Iran is a relatively large country of 80 million people - that's 4 times more than Iraq or DPRK, more than UK's or France's, and more than half of our population. Besides oil, it has a range of other resources and such and so can maintain a decent domestic industry. In short, it'll always be a relatively powerful country (I didn't even mention the religious/sociocultural "Shia Crescent" thing), and it'll never agree to the kind of the deal many of you would have liked.

What happens now that you've quit the deal remains unclear, and is mainly contingent on the ability of relevant departments to enforce sanctions against European companies for dealing with Iran, vs. the European countries' ability to shield the companies from the same, and willingness to do so. Right now, it seems like G-7 summit pissed them off to the point they may as well have struck a blood oath with Iran.

Whatever the case, though, I do hope IRI does not restart the nuclear program again There's definitely a temptation on their side , especially since Rouhani handed over loads of their enriched uranium in exchange for rather little. (On the other hand, he's apparently not that different from, say, Paul Ryan when it comes to domestic economics, while his anti-deal opponent at the last election likes using oil to fund welfare programs comparable to basic income, so it's a more complicated issue then one would think.) Still, I think it would be a waste for them. If it were up to me, I would have simply rendered the issue moot by placing our nukes in Iran. Israel is lucky Putin wouldn't do that, as he likes them a lot more than I do (and that he still seems to hope sanctions would get lifted soon.)

3) Is it "his" tax cut bill, or Ryan/McConnell's tax cut bill now? Looking from the outside in, I can't quite keep up. Regardless, doesn't every president pass at least one major piece of legislation during their first year? Obama had the stimulus in his first year, which was far more substantial than this tax reform by most measures. That he passed something like this in his first year (while failing a more major move) shows he has at best the same negotiating ability as any other president, and certainly not the exceptional one he's claimed before the election.

Again, the main issue everyone has with his move is the debt it adds, and that it's likely not proportionate with the benefit. I am not sure if mentioned it before, but in Australia, I actually happened to have read a book by W.'s first Treasury secretary (or economics advisor, etc. - one of those positions) - I think his name was McAllen. He quit early in 2002 after his attempts to limit Bush's original tax cuts by adding snapbacks to them if economic indicators went wrong didn't pass Congress. He stated the deficits from the cuts would lead to the new financial crisis, and we know he was proven right. (He's also said he saw preparations to invade Iraq were being made by Rumsfield, Cheney, etc. from the first days of the presidency, and was shocked when nearly the first thing discussed after 9/11 was how to attack Iraq, but that's a different matter.)

3,5) Can you name the specific regulations that suffocated businesses? It's an easy, catch-all claim, and it irks me people never then take the effort to go into specifics with it.

4) Look, how hard can it really be to move a building? He announced the move eight months after taking office, and it was actually carried out what, six months later? I don't see anything particularly notable about these timeframes. Yes, he's made that decision in the first place, and we argued about its merits earlier. However, the conversation was about the deal-making ability, and not just the things he's done, remember? In fact, a particular point of the criticism was that he did not actually get anything from the Israelis in return for doing so. Like I said before, he could have at least gotten something like getting them to sign the Convention against Chemical Weapons (especially since that would have put Syria strikes on firmer moral footing.)



1 - One of those hostages had been there for 3 years.  Another for over a year.  Regardless, getting hostages released without giving anything up is a win, no matter how you slice it.  By comparison, Obama traded 5 Taliban leaders for 1 military deserters.  Granted, that wasn't North Korea.  But, again, to get something for nothing is always a good thing, especially when we've set a precedent of accomplishing the exact opposite.

2 - I don't know what happens with Iran either now.  What I DO know is that we were giving them a shitload of money for essentially nothing since they weren't living up to their end of the contract.  So, at the very least, we at least save money.  I'll take that over giving money for nothing - that would be the opposite of "getting something for nothing" like we did with the hostages.

3 - He was the one pushing for a tax cut bill.  It mirrors what he promised on the campaign trail.  Of course it was written by Congress because that's how we do things here.  It wasn't an Executive Order.  So, yes, Ryan and McConnell (and others) constructed it - but it was at the behest of the President.  If it failed, it would be on his ass (and rightfully so).  Since it has helped boost the economy by providing businesses - both small and large - some relief, he gets the credit for it.  Same with a head coach of a team, or CEO of a company - the buck stops with them.

3.5 - I'm not big on writing walls of text.  Here's one that had an immediate impact though:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/
After the bump from this EO, the National Federation of Independent Business said this...
[In an unusually blunt assessment, the NFIB calls the jump a "relief rally" because business "did not get another four years of costly federal regulations which increased the hold of government on the private sector. The Congressional Record is nearly empty compared to years of record new and changed regulations posted for the past eight years."]
He's signed a ton of other deregulatory EOs that you can look into if you'd like, but I just don't have the time or patience to go through them all and post/explain.

4 - How hard is it to move a building?  I don't know - why don't you ask Clinton, Bush, and Obama.  ALL of them PROMISED this move on the campaign trail - and NONE of them did it.  So, Trump was able to get done something that the previous 3 Presidents either couldn't or wouldn't.  And, why would we "get anything" from the Israelies?  It is OUR Embassy.  And that was my point for the last 20 years - we should be able to move OUR Embassy to the city of OUR choosing as long as the host nation was okay with it. 

 

+- Hot Threads

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
October 14, 2018, 05:26:22 pm

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by JohnBot
October 12, 2018, 01:29:07 am

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 29, 2018, 09:36:30 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Jim Raynor Remastered
September 29, 2018, 03:34:00 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Tut
September 07, 2018, 04:43:28 pm

Favorite videogame cutscenes by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 02:55:25 pm

The US Supreme Court Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 04, 2018, 03:02:07 pm