US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Optimus]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. We will never take those steps because in the real world that's not how free trade deals work. They ALWAYS screw the middle class and promote the interests of corporations. Like conservatives with trickle down economics liberals have this illusion that "if we do it right" free trade deals might work for the middle class. They don't, end of story.

You're not good at this.

It's funny how every time I compare liberals to conservatives I receive these passive-aggressive one liners that contain zero arguments. If you don't want to be compared to them start acting less like them.

You just made a 1:1 idealogical comparison between trickle down economics, an exclusive conservative view, and...free trade, something liberals and conservative economists and politicians have supported. You're making a lazy comparison that doesn't make sense.

I notice this a lot from Bernie bros (most of whom know nothing about politics or policy I might add), who seem to think that only he is a liberal. Kinda like that white guy who discovers rap music and wants to tell everyone how nobody has ever rapped like Eminem before.

I made a comparison between conservatives ignoring real world data about trickle down economics and insisting that an idealized version of that shit might work and liberals ignoring real world data about free trade deals and insisting that an idealized version of that shit might work. My point was clear, how you managed to miss it I have absolutely no idea.

[Great Rumbler]

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

[zomgee]

Spicer was right!

(Image removed from quote.)

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Going to play find the snipers.

There are some really funny close ups in this thing.

[I'm a Puppy!]

First of all, leftist economists, actual leftist economists not liberals who are actually rightwingers, don't support free trade deals because historically they always end up being used to promote the interests of the ruling class.

The system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen that I vote in favor of free trade.

Yeah, another thing Marx was wrong about. He seriously overestimated the proletariat's ability/desire to rise up.

[Optimus]

Marx being overly optimistic about humanity in general was his biggest flaw imo.

[Nola]

Free trade over protectionism is like the one thing economists agree on.

Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'

Which economists? Libertarians economists? Liberal economists? Socialist economists? Neocon economists? Economics is a pseudoscience, every economist only agrees with economists of his own ideology and since it's obvious that the higher US private educational system promotes neocons and liberals that why most of them agree on it.

In terms of which ones agree on the principles of comparative advantage? All of them really.

I am sympathetic to an extent to your underlying criticism though. Free trade is not really free trade as we often practice it. China still operates a very mercantilist economy in many sectors. Then again so do we. However, what Trump has hinted at is even worse. Assuming he doesn't pivot. At least if I am understanding his tax right. My hot take is it will hinder American competitiveness with no real advantage without raising import tariffs, which if done would trigger trade wars.

US manufacturing is up. Re-shoring has been an ongoing trend and businesses have been in a bit of re-thinking on the profitability of international expansion. But there are just some hard truths people don't want to face like automation. Which accelerated during the recession. And no matter how punitive your tariffs or taxes are, it is not going to stop that.

You want to make major gains to grow the middle class? Fix fucking healthcare properly and invest in the already high demand healthcare sector where 13 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are. Where the outrageous rise in insurance costs have factored in stagnating wages. Invest in re-education and trade schools. Invest in infrastructure directly, build out the green energy sector.

First of all, leftist economists, actual leftist economists not liberals who are actually rightwingers, don't support free trade deals because historically they always end up being used to promote the interests of the ruling class.

China already has in place huge tariffs for American products they don't need to import and compete with theirs. American competitiveness btw doesn't matter much and economic numbers don't means shit, Wall Street continued to thrive during Obama's presidency while the middle class was dying. Americans need to learn that these numbers hardly mean much for the middle class these are stats that show how the top 1% is doing and, naturally, are being used by government and media to show how the country is doing. Automation btw is already making these numbers even more pointless.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence but the middle class will continue to get screwed even with those policies in effect if there are destructive trade deals like NAFTA and TPP.

The problem I am having is you sort of lay out all these assertions, in this case none I really disagree with, but then you make this leap without substantiation that the problem is derived solely(or at least primarily) from free trade agreements, and that protectionism is the cure. Or at least an acceptable response. That is where I diverge.


Because first off, I absolutely in no way think just triggering a trade war and enacting huge tariffs on imports will be beneficial to this country, especially with no shift on anything else to offset or deal with that disruption in everything from the prices paid by consumers, to breakdowns in supply chains, to a likely push toward further automation and labor efficiency, and of course job losses.

I do think a wiser, less mercantilist populist could do some good in places like China. But I think it is something that requires more scalpel then sledge hammer. But the catch is that would likely be codified in some sort of trade deal...A concept which has become toxified as of late. Not without some good reason. Though also I think somewhat misplaced.

[VomKriege]

Wow, the Reuters wire is getting crazy crowded with Trump news...

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15725D?il=0

Trump White House lowers expectations for quick embassy move in Israel

"We are at the very beginning stages of even discussing this subject," Spicer wrote in an email on Sunday. "There's no decisions," he then told reporters on Monday. (...) Israeli officials said the issue was barely discussed on the 30-minute call, and diplomats said their understanding was that it was being pushed down the agenda, at least for now. "Sounds more like walking it backwards," one Israeli official said in a text message after Spicer's statement.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1572JL?il=0

Trump makes early move on restricting abortions around the world

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday reinstated a global gag rule that bans U.S.-funded groups around the world from discussing abortion, a move that was widely expected but nonetheless dismayed women's rights advocates.

Two out of several.

[Nola]

Moving the Israeli embassy is near the top of the list of stupid ideas from a person that has 10 stupid ideas for everyone 1 dumb one.

[Optimus]

Free trade over protectionism is like the one thing economists agree on.

Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'

Which economists? Libertarians economists? Liberal economists? Socialist economists? Neocon economists? Economics is a pseudoscience, every economist only agrees with economists of his own ideology and since it's obvious that the higher US private educational system promotes neocons and liberals that why most of them agree on it.

In terms of which ones agree on the principles of comparative advantage? All of them really.

I am sympathetic to an extent to your underlying criticism though. Free trade is not really free trade as we often practice it. China still operates a very mercantilist economy in many sectors. Then again so do we. However, what Trump has hinted at is even worse. Assuming he doesn't pivot. At least if I am understanding his tax right. My hot take is it will hinder American competitiveness with no real advantage without raising import tariffs, which if done would trigger trade wars.

US manufacturing is up. Re-shoring has been an ongoing trend and businesses have been in a bit of re-thinking on the profitability of international expansion. But there are just some hard truths people don't want to face like automation. Which accelerated during the recession. And no matter how punitive your tariffs or taxes are, it is not going to stop that.

You want to make major gains to grow the middle class? Fix fucking healthcare properly and invest in the already high demand healthcare sector where 13 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are. Where the outrageous rise in insurance costs have factored in stagnating wages. Invest in re-education and trade schools. Invest in infrastructure directly, build out the green energy sector.

First of all, leftist economists, actual leftist economists not liberals who are actually rightwingers, don't support free trade deals because historically they always end up being used to promote the interests of the ruling class.

China already has in place huge tariffs for American products they don't need to import and compete with theirs. American competitiveness btw doesn't matter much and economic numbers don't means shit, Wall Street continued to thrive during Obama's presidency while the middle class was dying. Americans need to learn that these numbers hardly mean much for the middle class these are stats that show how the top 1% is doing and, naturally, are being used by government and media to show how the country is doing. Automation btw is already making these numbers even more pointless.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence but the middle class will continue to get screwed even with those policies in effect if there are destructive trade deals like NAFTA and TPP.

The problem I am having is you sort of lay out all these assertions, in this case none I really disagree with, but then you make this leap without substantiation that the problem is derived solely(or at least primarily) from free trade agreements, and that protectionism is the cure. Or at least an acceptable response. That is where I diverge.


Because first off, I absolutely in no way think just triggering a trade war and enacting huge tariffs on imports will be beneficial to this country, especially with no shift on anything else to offset or deal with that disruption in everything from the prices paid by consumers, to breakdowns in supply chains, to a likely push toward further automation and labor efficiency, and of course job losses.

I do think a wiser, less mercantilist populist could do some good in places like China. But I think it is something that requires more scalpel then sledge hammer. But the catch is that would likely be codified in some sort of trade deal...A concept which has become toxified as of late. Not without some good reason. Though also I think somewhat misplaced.

I actually don't advocate for strict protectionism, I don't have the data and I'm not sure heavy tariffs are the solution. What I do know is that free trade deals are cancer because I have read a shitload of evidence against them, that's it. Being against free trade deals doesn't mean advocating for strict protectionism or trade wars, there's always a middle ground where trade is encouraged but to the benefit of the middle class and I agree, that would require more of a scalpel than a hammer.

[Phoenix Dark]

Moving the Israeli embassy is near the top of the list of stupid ideas from a person that has 10 stupid ideas for everyone 1 dumb one.

Start the Third Intifada brehs

[Samson Manhug]

It's low key been started but it is what Netanyahu and maybe Bannon wants so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Raist]

Spicer was right!

(Image removed from quote.)

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

[benjipwns]

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

W. is the only one looking straight at the camera.

He knows.

HE KNOWS.

[Mandark]

and lol at broad-strokes calling it a pseudoscience; take an econometrics course and actually perform some regressions then get back to me

"Actually perform some regressions" motherfucker all you gotta do is plug the dataset into Stata or R or whatever and let it spit out results for you. Acting like you're posting this from an abacus while wearing your labcoat. C'mon.

[benjipwns]

You need to read about the difference between internationalism and globalization, the left doesn't oppose a united worldwide community it opposes globalization. No fucking way in hell Marx would be in favor of free trade agreements. "Free trade" btw doesn't necessarily mean no tariffs, free trade at Marx's time meant a very different thing.

See here's part of that difference in tone thing that The Bore just doesn't do and now you make me have to go and write a post like this. That the respected posters will take issue with. Thankfully, I have no self-respect.

First of all, the Marx quotes were obviously half-joking because you said "actual leftist economist" and how can you not go straight to Karl for that?

Free trade at Marx's time actually was far more simple than we're making it and did mean no tariffs/prioritization like Imperial Preference and that was it. Marx, Engels and the US and UK governments all argued that breaking the UK's protectionist and favoring policy for trade within the Empire would greatly benefit the United States' relative position, which is why it was deliberately broken during World War II.

I'm the last one to support the details of free trade agreements as being free trade since you know, free trade doesn't need thousands of pages of policy attached to it. The fact is there's really no leg to stand on in opposition to free trade (as understood by all those brainwashed corporate neocon economists) except for nationalist class-propping up ones like you're making when you keep throwing out the presumably American "middle class" as if they're some special class that should be immune from natural forces because they got their first or got their last or whatever.

If you're an actual leftist, not a liberal who's really a "right-winger" than you shouldn't be opposed to wealth distribution.

Since definitions and estimations aren't perfect I'll be choosing a single one, Pew estimates ~125 million are in the American "middle class." If we take $10,000 from 100 million Americans that means 5 billion of our other former humans on Earth could get a maximum $200 in a straight distribution.

That's why I asked about national borders. And your response, like above, is that what you mean by "protectionism" isn't "protectionism" as commonly understood but some other unknown thing that still halts trade across countries but allows for high living standards everywhere but only for the middle class within each nation. Something that's never occurred anywhere under protectionist systems.

To wrap back around to Marx, the reason he argued in favor of free trade is that it would break the entrenched classes hiding behind state protectionism. As those were considered synonymous with the nation-state, there could be no worker uprising as it would be quashed as acting against the nation not the exploiting class. (Which it did!)

His problem was of course that he believed that voices that represented natural forces spoke to and through him, but he wasn't about to throw out everything known about the benefits of free trade over protection even at that time when he formulated his materialist theory, you can't get to capitalism until you break away from mercantilism. And you can't get to socialism without capitalism.

[Optimus]

Spicer was right!

(Image removed from quote.)

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

The pic the media used to compare to Obama's inauguration was from earlier in the day. Once again the media blatantly lied and made Trump look like the good guy to Trump supporters or you know, people with Trump supporter friends on facebook.

[Mandark]

natural forces

Objection, your honor.

[benjipwns]

Overruled. And the next time you appear in my court, you will look lawyerly. And I mean you comb your hair, and wear a suit and tie. And that suit had better be made out of some sort of... cloth.

[benjipwns]

[benjipwns]

[Optimus]

You need to read about the difference between internationalism and globalization, the left doesn't oppose a united worldwide community it opposes globalization. No fucking way in hell Marx would be in favor of free trade agreements. "Free trade" btw doesn't necessarily mean no tariffs, free trade at Marx's time meant a very different thing.

See here's part of that difference in tone thing that The Bore just doesn't do and now you make me have to go and write a post like this. That the respected posters will take issue with. Thankfully, I have no self-respect.

First of all, the Marx quotes were obviously half-joking because you said "actual leftist economist" and how can you not go straight to Karl for that?

Free trade at Marx's time actually was far more simple than we're making it and did mean no tariffs/prioritization like Imperial Preference and that was it. Marx, Engels and the US and UK governments all argued that breaking the UK's protectionist and favoring policy for trade within the Empire would greatly benefit the United States' relative position, which is why it was deliberately broken during World War II.

I'm the last one to support the details of free trade agreements as being free trade since you know, free trade doesn't need thousands of pages of policy attached to it. The fact is there's really no leg to stand on in opposition to free trade (as understood by all those brainwashed corporate neocon economists) except for nationalist class-propping up ones like you're making when you keep throwing out the presumably American "middle class" as if they're some special class that should be immune from natural forces because they got their first or got their last or whatever.

If you're an actual leftist, not a liberal who's really a "right-winger" than you shouldn't be opposed to wealth distribution.

Since definitions and estimations aren't perfect I'll be choosing a single one, Pew estimates ~125 million are in the American "middle class." If we take $10,000 from 100 million Americans that means 5 billion of our other former humans on Earth could get a maximum $200 in a straight distribution.

That's why I asked about national borders. And your response, like above, is that what you mean by "protectionism" isn't "protectionism" as commonly understood but some other unknown thing that still halts trade across countries but allows for high living standards everywhere but only for the middle class within each nation. Something that's never occurred anywhere under protectionist systems.

To wrap back around to Marx, the reason he argued in favor of free trade is that it would break the entrenched classes hiding behind state protectionism. As those were considered synonymous with the nation-state, there could be no worker uprising as it would be quashed as acting against the nation not the exploiting class. (Which it did!)

His problem was of course that he believed that voices that represented natural forces spoke to and through him, but he wasn't about to throw out everything known about the benefits of free trade over protection even at that time when he formulated his materialist theory, you can't get to capitalism until you break away from mercantilism. And you can't get to socialism without capitalism.

Marx in the speech you quoted mentions all the problems I did with free trade, he just favored it because of his (false) hope that the proletariat would rise thanks to it. And yes things were much different back then, when they were talking about protectionism they were talking about the very strict style of protectionism that he was discussing in that speech (corn-something in 1815, too lazy too google the speech again) which was very strict and aside from tariffs and fixed prices also had other restrictions.

The American middle class isn't the only class getting screwed by this, early in the discussion I also mentioned how the Mexican middle class is also getting screwed because corporations want to keep wages low and restrict labor rights in these countries. I explained something similar in my post about the EU and how the heavy industrial nations obliterated the competition of weaker ones, destroyed small businesses and then used the poor(er) population of these nations as cheap workforce.

It's not free trade deals that helped China create a huge middle class, it was just trade because they already had a huge cheap and poor workforce. The only reason China became China is because they didn't sign any free trade deals and had the luxury to (relatively) protect their economy, companies and its workforce from multinational corporations while still working with them but not for them.

[Samson Manhug]

Spicer was right!

(Image removed from quote.)

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

The pic the media used to compare to Obama's inauguration was from earlier in the day. Once again the media blatantly lied and made Trump look like the good guy to Trump supporters or you know, people with Trump supporter friends on facebook.

One image was Trump's inauguration on Friday, taken by Jackson just as Trump took the oath of office, Jackson said.

https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/crowd-controversy-the-making-of-an-inauguration-day-photo

A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S. President Donald Trump at 12:01pm (L) on January 20, 2017 and President Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, in Washington, DC, U.S. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (L), Stelios Varias

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-media-idUSKBN15600I

[Great Rumbler]

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

The pic the media used to compare to Obama's inauguration was from earlier in the day. Once again the media blatantly lied and made Trump look like the good guy to Trump supporters or you know, people with Trump supporter friends on facebook.

Nah, you can definitely tell, even in the CNN gigapixel image with it's lower angle, that there are empty spaces out on the mall.

[Syph]

and lol at broad-strokes calling it a pseudoscience; take an econometrics course and actually perform some regressions then get back to me

"Actually perform some regressions" motherfucker all you gotta do is plug the dataset into Stata or R or whatever and let it spit out results for you. Acting like you're posting this from an abacus while wearing your labcoat. C'mon.

nah the intent was so portray that it can be mathy and not just "i believe the market will..."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

labcoat not required

[close]

[benjipwns]

Marx in the speech you quoted mentions all the problems I did with free trade, he just favored it because of his (false) hope that the proletariat would rise thanks to it. And yes things were much different back then, when they were talking about protectionism they were talking about the very strict style of protectionism that he was discussing in that speech (corn-something in 1815, too lazy too google the speech again) which was very strict and aside from tariffs and fixed prices also had other restrictions.

The American middle class isn't the only class getting screwed by this, early in the discussion I also mentioned how the Mexican middle class is also getting screwed because corporations want to keep wages low and restrict labor rights in these countries. I explained something similar in my post about the EU and how the heavy industrial nations obliterated the competition of weaker ones, destroyed small businesses and then used the poor(er) population of these nations as cheap workforce.

It's not free trade deals that helped China create a huge middle class, it was just trade because they already had a huge cheap and poor workforce. The only reason China became China is because they didn't sign any free trade deals and had the luxury to (relatively) protect their economy, companies and its workforce from multinational corporations while still working with them but not for them.

China has like 35 "free trade" deals either in negotiation or already agreed to.

China has not in anyway "protected" their economy and workforce as you seem to imply. It's a single-party state, they don't stamp out competition out of the goodness of their hearts.

There is no Chinese or Mexican "middle class" that is comparable to the American "middle class." The "Chinese middle class" makes ~$12,000 a year. Only 2% of the population qualifies to even pay taxes. Even a "small business" is a matter of an entirely different relative scale.

So what exactly are you proposing if not price controls, tariffs and embargo/sanctions? Which is exactly the very kind of protectionism that was being practiced by the governments of Marx's time and that disintegrated over the course of the 20th Century when you seem to think everything went to hell because the world got wealthier. Because I can't for the life of me think of what obstruction to global trade alternative you have in mind.

[Raist]

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

W. is the only one looking straight at the camera.

He knows.

HE KNOWS.

Funny you mention that, I was jut having some fun.

[Optimus]

Marx in the speech you quoted mentions all the problems I did with free trade, he just favored it because of his (false) hope that the proletariat would rise thanks to it. And yes things were much different back then, when they were talking about protectionism they were talking about the very strict style of protectionism that he was discussing in that speech (corn-something in 1815, too lazy too google the speech again) which was very strict and aside from tariffs and fixed prices also had other restrictions.

The American middle class isn't the only class getting screwed by this, early in the discussion I also mentioned how the Mexican middle class is also getting screwed because corporations want to keep wages low and restrict labor rights in these countries. I explained something similar in my post about the EU and how the heavy industrial nations obliterated the competition of weaker ones, destroyed small businesses and then used the poor(er) population of these nations as cheap workforce.

It's not free trade deals that helped China create a huge middle class, it was just trade because they already had a huge cheap and poor workforce. The only reason China became China is because they didn't sign any free trade deals and had the luxury to (relatively) protect their economy, companies and its workforce from multinational corporations while still working with them but not for them.

China has like 35 "free trade" deals either in negotiation or already agreed to.

China has not in anyway "protected" their economy and workforce as you seem to imply. It's a single-party state, they don't stamp out competition out of the goodness of their hearts.

There is no Chinese or Mexican "middle class" that is comparable to the American "middle class." The "Chinese middle class" makes ~$12,000 a year. Only 2% of the population qualifies to even pay taxes. Even a "small business" is a matter of an entirely different relative scale.

So what exactly are you proposing if not price controls, tariffs and embargo/sanctions? Which is exactly the very kind of protectionism that was being practiced by the governments of Marx's time and that disintegrated over the course of the 20th Century when you seem to think everything went to hell because the world got wealthier. Because I can't for the life of me think of what obstruction to global trade alternative you have in mind.

I used the term "relatively" because I knew you were gonna write that. They did relatively protect their economy, companies, even workers compared to what free trade deals would have done to them. And of course now they're powerful they want free trade deals to exploit other nations, afterall the regime is capitalist.

I am against free trade trade agreements and for strategic tariffs that protect American workers but don't necessarily discourage trade. There's always a middle ground between neoliberal globalization and strict protectionism you know. Like I said to Nola I agree that we need a scalpel not a hammer and btw that goes both ways since free trade deals are also a hammer.

[Optimus]

So huh, is it me or that comparison pic was a whole lot of noise for nothing. Because if you look at that CNN gigapixel thing, it suddenly looks a whole lot more comparable.

The pic the media used to compare to Obama's inauguration was from earlier in the day. Once again the media blatantly lied and made Trump look like the good guy to Trump supporters or you know, people with Trump supporter friends on facebook.

Nah, you can definitely tell, even in the CNN gigapixel image with it's lower angle, that there are empty spaces out on the mall.

It's definitely not the same as the pics they were showing. Yes, of course, it wasn't as big as Obama's and there were some gaps but the photos they used are in no way representative of the crowd during the inauguration. I've seen pics that were pointing at certain buildings and tents to prove that the photos they used were misleading, and they are.

[Syph]

US sent $221 million to Palestinians in Obama's last hours

bye felicia

[benjipwns]

I used the term "relatively" because I knew you were gonna write that. They did relatively protect their economy, companies, even workers compared to what free trade deals would have done to them.

What would "free trade deals" (whatever that means) have done to them? Led to half the population being rural workers who make less than $2000 a year? And another third being migrant workers? Led to 99+% of the population living below the U.S. poverty line? Led to a nation overly dependent on a single trade partner?

for strategic tariffs that protect American workers but don't necessarily discourage trade

How exactly are you supposed to construct a tariff that doesn't discourage trade?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Plus why are you trying to protect the wealthy who have exploited the poor from having their wealth redistributed? Sounds like neocon economics to me.

[close]

[Mandark]

US sent $221 million to Palestinians in Obama's last hours

bye felicia

It's funds already approved by Congress and is like ~6% of what the US gives Israel annually, but people are going to scream about it.

Of course people flipped out over the f'n Iran nuclear deal too, so whaddyagonnado.

[Optimus]

I used the term "relatively" because I knew you were gonna write that. They did relatively protect their economy, companies, even workers compared to what free trade deals would have done to them.

What would "free trade deals" (whatever that means) have done to them? Led to half the population being rural workers who make less than $2000 a year? And another third being migrant workers? Led to 99+% of the population living below the U.S. poverty line? Led to a nation overly dependent on a single trade partner?

I explained that. Competition, small businesses are obliterated and bought by bigger corporations of wealthier nations, ruling class of wealthier nations pushing for even worse labor laws and wages, countries partly lose control of their economy blah blah blah. Relatively they're better off.

How exactly are you supposed to construct a tariff that doesn't discourage trade?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Plus why are you trying to protect the wealthy who have exploited the poor from having their wealth redistributed? Sounds like neocon economics to me.

[close]

You don't, the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process. Also, how am I trying to protect the wealthy from having their wealth redistributed? I don't get the joke.

[benjipwns]

Congress had initially approved the Palestinian funding in budget years 2015 and 2016, but at least two GOP lawmakers — Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are generally respected by the executive branch but are not legally binding after funds have been allocated.

whoops

[benjipwns]

I explained that. Competition, small businesses are obliterated and bought by bigger corporations of wealthier nations, ruling class of wealthier nations pushing for even worse labor laws and wages, countries partly lose control of their economy blah blah blah. Relatively they're better off.

And China avoided this by only signing 14 trade agreements and not because it's a bureaucratic kleptocrat economy where 99% of the population is still impoverished and you can't get ahead without ties to The Party?

You don't, the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process.

Can you like come with some kind of hypothetical example? I'll completely grant you the notion that it could work. I'm just not being able to picture this whole tariffs that don't block trade and enrich the middle class/small business over entrenched corporations thing or how it would be structured.

Also, how am I trying to protect the wealthy from having their wealth redistributed? I don't get the joke.

Americans are the wealthy. We benefit greatly from "exploiting" the labor of the rest of the globe. That's the joke.

[seagrams hotsauce]

It's definitely not the same as the pics they were showing. Yes, of course, it wasn't as big as Obama's and there were some gaps but the photos they used are in no way representative of the crowd during the inauguration. I've seen pics that were pointing at certain buildings and tents to prove that the photos they used were misleading, and they are.

[Optimus]

I explained that. Competition, small businesses are obliterated and bought by bigger corporations of wealthier nations, ruling class of wealthier nations pushing for even worse labor laws and wages, countries partly lose control of their economy blah blah blah. Relatively they're better off.

And China avoided this by only signing 14 trade agreements and not because it's a bureaucratic kleptocrat economy where 99% of the population is still impoverished and you can't get ahead without ties to The Party?

They signed these deals because now they're powerful they can now bully other nations and exploit them. It's also a kleptocrat economy, I know, that doesn't refute my point.

Can you like come with some kind of hypothetical example? I'll completely grant you the notion that it could work. I'm just not being able to picture this whole tariffs that don't block trade and enrich the middle class/small business over entrenched corporations thing or how it would be structured.

Hypothetical example? There have been a shitload of economies that had rational tariffs and still traded with other nations just fine. The free trade agreement shit is a recent trend and part of globalization that is ruining the middle class.

Americans are the wealthy. We benefit greatly from "exploiting" the labor of the rest of the globe. That's the joke.

Corporations are wealthy and benefit from "redistributing" the wealth of both middle class Americans and Mexicans. Again, both the more and less developed nations' middle class are getting screwed by free trade agreements. The US has banana republic levels of inequality btw, our middle class isn't far off from second world countries nowadays.

[benjipwns]

Yes, can you come up with a hypothetical or even real example of one of these "rational" tariffs that didn't block trade and benefit entrenched economic interests. Hell, forget the whole last part if you want.

This is separate but an alternative factual point I want to touch back on:

our middle class isn't far off from second world countries nowadays.

The United States is light years away from "second world" countries let alone the other 5 some billion people in the world:


71% of the globe is low income or poor, making less than $10 a day. 88% of the United States, including everyone who is at or above the HHS poverty line, is in the upper-middle or high income standard.

If you make $32,400 a year you're in the top 1% in global income. Your total assets only have to crack $700,000 including your house and investments and other stuff you don't actually have immediate cash out access to in order to be in the top 1% of global wealth.

[Klelk]

3 days in office and the TPP is dead in the water. Remember TPP, the thing Obama and Clinton were all for but liberals were against? The thing Trump said he would stop if he got in office. 3 days. Can someone give me another example of a president delivering on a campaign promise as quick as this? Oh I forgot...Obama promised to close guantanamo

[Optimus]

Yes, can you come up with a hypothetical or even real example of one of these "rational" tariffs that didn't block trade and benefit entrenched economic interests. Hell, forget the whole last part if you want.

This is separate but an alternative factual point I want to touch back on:

our middle class isn't far off from second world countries nowadays.

The United States is light years away from "second world" countries let alone the other 5 some billion people in the world:
(Image removed from quote.)

71% of the globe is low income or poor, making less than $10 a day. 88% of the United States, including everyone who is at or above the HHS poverty line, is in the upper-middle or high income standard.

If you make $32,400 a year you're in the top 1% in global income. Your total assets only have to crack $700,000 including your house and investments and other stuff you don't actually have immediate cash out access to in order to be in the top 1% of global wealth.

I don't know how to put it more simply, you can still have tariffs and healthy trade. Things aren't black and white so that only with free trade agreements you can have good trade. I'm not gonna repeat this point, it's getting tiring.

As for the rest you do have a point, I said second world not third world as in developed countries that are relatively poor, something like eastern Europe for example but it still hyperbole... probably. Because while their salaries don't reach US levels they also don't have ridiculous health care costs or don't pay for college the rest of their lives.

[VomKriege]

You're maybe joking but TPP never was really alive in the US at that point (signed but not implemented by US legislature or something along those lines), wasn't it ?

[Optimus]

You're maybe joking but TPP never was really alive in the US at that point (signed but not implemented by US legislature or something along those lines), wasn't it ?

Didn't Obama only abandon TPP when Trump was elected? I remember reading it a few days after the election.

[D3RANG3D]

TPP wasn't ratified by the senate.

[FStop7]

Why is Tucker Carlson's only facial expression that of a slightly confused dog?

[benjipwns]

I don't know how to put it more simply, you can still have tariffs and healthy trade.

And I don't know how to put it more simply. Can you come up with the historical or hypothetical example where protectionism would be reasonably expected to achieve all your goals while not constraining trade?

probably. Because while their salaries don't reach US levels they also don't have ridiculous health care costs or don't pay for college the rest of their lives.

Not overtly maybe.

You're maybe joking but TPP never was really alive in the US at that point (signed but not implemented by US legislature or something along those lines), wasn't it ?

Obama signed it in February 2016, the Senate never ratified it.

The U.S. not ratifying it kills it because of the provisions about % of GDP that the ratifying nations have to make up. Making vehement neo-Nazi's Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich and Noam Chomsky probably happy.

[Optimus]

I don't know how to put it more simply, you can still have tariffs and healthy trade.

And I don't know how to put it more simply. Can you come up with the historical or hypothetical example where protectionism would be reasonably expected to achieve all your goals while not constraining trade?

I can't believe that's what you were saying all along. Not constraining trade AT ALL? Are you talking in absolutes? No there can't. Trade isn't a fucking holy cow and certainly isn't the only priority in a country, in fact the biggest priority in a country should be the welfare of the majority. Why is it so important to not restrict trade at all when the negatives outweigh the positives? Moreover I already replied to that kind of question in this post:

How exactly are you supposed to construct a tariff that doesn't discourage trade?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Plus why are you trying to protect the wealthy who have exploited the poor from having their wealth redistributed? Sounds like neocon economics to me.

[close]

You don't, the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process. Also, how am I trying to protect the wealthy from having their wealth redistributed? I don't get the joke.

[benjipwns]

in fact the biggest priority in a country should be the welfare of the majority

I'd have to disagree there. Minorities are as important.

Why is it so important to not restrict trade at all when the negatives outweigh the positives?

But they don't? This is kinda that whole everyone agrees thing, trade is superior to autarky because of comparative advantage.

Moreover I already replied to that kind of question in this post:

You don't, the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process.

This isn't replying to it by providing an example, it's simply stating that something is so.

[Optimus]

in fact the biggest priority in a country should be the welfare of the majority

I'd have to disagree there. Minorities are as important.

Why is it so important to not restrict trade at all when the negatives outweigh the positives?

But they don't? This is kinda that whole everyone agrees thing, trade is superior to autarky because of comparative advantage.

Moreover I already replied to that kind of question in this post:

You don't, the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process.

This isn't replying to it by providing an example, it's simply stating that something is so.

You refuse to accept that free trade deals have negatives even though they have a shitload and treat trade like a fucking religion that should remain pure and unspoiled while at the same time the ultimate priority of humanity. This discussion is pointless, I'm done.

[etiolate]

benji i have a stephen crowder video for you 



warning: blurred out tits and bad drag

[benjipwns]

So even though I already expressed my lamentations about "free trade" agreements and are simply asking for a plausible hypothetical or historical example in which the restriction of trade did everything you're claiming (and multiple times at that) it should that translates into my religious worship of what should be the sole priority of humankind? Am I getting that right?

Man, you really do have to look out for those university educated neoliberal stooges. I didn't know I was one.

[Optimus]

So even though I already expressed my lamentations about "free trade" agreements and are simply asking for a plausible hypothetical or historical example in which the restriction of trade did everything you're claiming (and multiple times at that) it should that translates into my religious worship of what should be the sole priority of humankind? Am I getting that right?

Man, you really do have to look out for those university educated neoliberal stooges. I didn't know I was one.

Then why are you even asking me for examples of completely unobstructed trade in countries where tariffs are in place? If that's not your goal then are you just arguing for argument's sake? Why did you just disagree with this post:

Why is it so important to not restrict trade at all when the negatives outweigh the positives?

But they don't? This is kinda that whole everyone agrees thing, trade is superior to autarky because of comparative advantage.

Aren't you just saying here that absolutely no restrictions in trade is the superior solution while disagreeing with the statement that in completely unrestricted trade (aka free trade agreements) the negatives outweigh the positives?

[benjipwns]

"Protectionism" is basically rules that don't allow corporations to exploit the situation we're in whether we like it or not.

"Free trade" btw doesn't necessarily mean no tariffs, free trade at Marx's time meant a very different thing.

Being against free trade deals doesn't mean advocating for strict protectionism or trade wars, there's always a middle ground where trade is encouraged but to the benefit of the middle class

And yes things were much different back then, when they were talking about protectionism they were talking about the very strict style of protectionism that he was discussing in that speech (corn-something in 1815, too lazy too google the speech again) which was very strict and aside from tariffs and fixed prices also had other restrictions.

I am against free trade trade agreements and for strategic tariffs that protect American workers but don't necessarily discourage trade.

the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process

I'm just looking for some kind of examples, either historically or hypothetically, of this "middle ground" where "strategic" tariffs that don't discourage trade but promote trade but only for the middle class exist.

[CatsCatsCats]

I don't know how anyone can be antiglobalization -- it's the only way we beat the aliens

[Optimus]

"Protectionism" is basically rules that don't allow corporations to exploit the situation we're in whether we like it or not.

"Free trade" btw doesn't necessarily mean no tariffs, free trade at Marx's time meant a very different thing.

Being against free trade deals doesn't mean advocating for strict protectionism or trade wars, there's always a middle ground where trade is encouraged but to the benefit of the middle class

And yes things were much different back then, when they were talking about protectionism they were talking about the very strict style of protectionism that he was discussing in that speech (corn-something in 1815, too lazy too google the speech again) which was very strict and aside from tariffs and fixed prices also had other restrictions.

I am against free trade trade agreements and for strategic tariffs that protect American workers but don't necessarily discourage trade.

the point is that if the tariffs make sense you can still have flourishing trade without allowing corporations to ruin the middle class in the process

I'm just looking for some kind of examples, either historically or hypothetically, of this "middle ground" where "strategic" tariffs that don't discourage trade but promote trade but only for the middle class exist.

Are you trolling me or something? Not only you avoided to reply to my previous post asking how you're not advocating for free trade agreements when you just disagreed with me about that very point but you also ask a question I already replied to multiple times now saying that tariffs do somehow restrict trade but trade can still flourish under them. This has been going on since the previous page, what exactly don't you understand? We've already established you're arguing for argument's sake can we please also establish that this goddamn question has been answered? Jesus Christ dude.

[Atramental]

I don't know how anyone can be antiglobalization -- it's the only way we beat the aliens

>implying that the globalists aren't already aliens

[Optimus]

benji i have a stephen crowder video for you 



warning: blurred out tits and bad drag

SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! WE ARE SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! BUZZWORDS!

Goddamnit, these people are dumb. If they focused on the only human's rights issue US women face today which is abortion they might have achieved something, but no, they're just there to whine about Trump, spout gender studies buzzwords and wear... pussy hats? What a fucking circus.

[thisismyusername]

If you make $32,400 a year you're in the top 1% in global income. Your total assets only have to crack $700,000 including your house and investments and other stuff you don't actually have immediate cash out access to in order to be in the top 1% of global wealth.

If this is true: Jesus that's sad.

[TakingBackSunday]

benji i have a stephen crowder video for you 



warning: blurred out tits and bad drag

SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! WE ARE SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! BUZZWORDS!

Goddamnit, these people are dumb. If they focused on the only human's rights issue US women face today which is abortion they might have achieved something, but no, they're just there to whine about Trump, spout gender studies buzzwords and wear... pussy hats? What a fucking circus.

You're a fucking asshole.

[Joe Molotov]

If you make $32,400 a year you're in the top 1% in global income. Your total assets only have to crack $700,000 including your house and investments and other stuff you don't actually have immediate cash out access to in order to be in the top 1% of global wealth.

If this is true: Jesus that's sad.

[Optimus]

benji i have a stephen crowder video for you 



warning: blurred out tits and bad drag

SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! WE ARE SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! BUZZWORDS!

Goddamnit, these people are dumb. If they focused on the only human's rights issue US women face today which is abortion they might have achieved something, but no, they're just there to whine about Trump, spout gender studies buzzwords and wear... pussy hats? What a fucking circus.

You're a fucking asshole.

An asshole that speaks the truth though.

[Phoenix Dark]

benji i have a stephen crowder video for you 



warning: blurred out tits and bad drag

SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! WE ARE SHOUTING BUZZWORDS! BUZZWORDS!

Goddamnit, these people are dumb. If they focused on the only human's rights issue US women face today which is abortion they might have achieved something, but no, they're just there to whine about Trump, spout gender studies buzzwords and wear... pussy hats? What a fucking circus.

special fellow logic

First off even a march solely on abortion (lol) wouldn't "achieve" change, with a republican president and congress. Seems like the march was on a variety of issues (pay gap, rape, sexual assault, trans rights, etc etc etc) and a large, mass organizing achievement that could pay dividends in the future. Or not.

White dudes telling minorities what they should and shouldn't be protesting