And he either fundamentally misunderstands tariffs or - what is more likely - he knows that Rube Nation doesn't understand them, so it doesn't matter what he says about them.
Protectionism is bad. Full stop.
Demonizing other countries and blaming them for our problems is even worse. The Chinese have not caused our manufacturing base to shrink, for example.
Populists on the right blame all our problems on foreigners (just as populists on the left blame the rich).
I'm kidding. Your "Protectionism is bad. Full stop." statement made me think "Socialism is bad. Full stop." And it made me think that there was an implied "in the long term" after each statement. When implementing socialism or protecitionism, there are often benefits in the short term, like the short term high of a drug. The question is, are either good for the country long term? And, even if using protectionism (or morphine) is bad when used long term, can it be used short term to achieve a short term goal?
Obviously, you and I disagree on the answers. Just thought it might provide some insight into what each side may think.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
argument for it to force an unfair trading partner to the table. There are better ways to do it in my view. One way is to do some type of TPP agreement with their competitors on the pacific rim. Another is to bring the NAFTA nation’s and the EU against them as a group. All have the same interests in curbing what they are doing. Orange bet on China folding fast. I don’t think so. We shall see.
Trump's statement about trade wars being easy to win (which I assume he said...sounds like him)? Or the one that prompted Lehigh's first post (which hasn't been linked).
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
I am using "latching onto a soundbite" to describe the strategy of repeating (sometimes for years) a single statement by a politician that turned out to be incorrect. Thus, the "Trade wars are easy to win" being repeated over and over is latching onto a soundbite.
By contrast, the original post in this thread was a discussion of a tweet that happened yesterday. Trump put it out there for our consumption, and I was commenting on it in real time. That isn't latching onto a soundbite, it is reacting to a current statement.
I only see them when someone posts them here. So, if someone criticizes a tweet, and doesn't link it, I usually don't know what they are talking about.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
Politicians are at best mere weather vanes. Their modus operandi is simply to get elected and stay in power at all costs. They really have no independent self-motivated psychological drive. Their very thought processes merely reflect the collective unconscious of the electorate at that particular point in time. The country has always run itself.
He really could care less what anyone thinks of him......on that i will agree with all the libs on this board
He has no filter, he's an egotistical maniac...a narcissist....and a pompous prick
That being said he is highly goal oriented, goal driven, and is at least trying to fulfill all of his campaign promises, more so than any of his recent predecessors democrat and republican alike
And he has been great for the economy at a time when we are nearing retirement......so keep it up....
however, soooooo the many benefit to a much smaller extent when it’s bullish. When it goes down though they suffer the most as they don’t have the cushion of the rich.
Since the US is fortunate to be one of the world’s few consumer economies unlike China and Germany, export economies, we might avoid this recession. But the Fed is going to have to cut rates to weaken the dollar.
Doesn't that usually presume investors taking out of equities and putting into bonds?
If money is pouring into the US to buy bonds, that would certainly drive the price of bonds higher (and thus lowering yields), but that is money leaving the European bond market, not the US equity market So why is money leaving the stock market?
Suppose there is X in US bonds, Y in US equities, and Z in European bonds.
Now, suppose there becomes a better yield in US bonds, so the Z money goes into US bonds. U.S. bond prices go up (and thus yields go down) because of demand, of course.
Why does the Y money also go into bonds?
Bonds up, stocks down is a nice simple rule of thumb, buy why does it apply in this case, when a bunch of new money comes into the game?
All of the above are in a recession or soon will be. Most are offering bonds with negative interest rates. You buy a German Bund at -0.64 a record low. So that means for every 100 Euro note you lose 0.36 points. So money is flowing into the US with our 10 year rate at 1.6 causes a rising dollar and compounds the issue. Rates need to be cut to weaken the dollar.
I primarily listen to business channels and I hear
20 different diagnoses and 20 different prognostications for our economic future every single day. I have concluded that we are blind about the economy... and most of the important issues of our lives.
"This Trade War is about the future of our country. It is not going to won without pain. Today is part of the pain. I ask your support to struggle through these kinds of days for the long term good of the United States, to change the crippling unfair trade practices that have left the towns and boroughs in the middle of our country suffering."
That would be one way that would not immediate point the finger at a scapegoat.
Japan and China are also failing. With their rates already trading at negative yields they will pump money into their economies. That will put more pressure on a rising dollar.
I think that was the reason the Fed tried to normalize. The world did not cooperate.
Is there any chance the Trade War is contributing to the world-wide recession. I suspect it is, but maybe only subtly. China is hurting. When China sneezes, Europe gets a cold?