If Trump wins

PeppermillRenoThis.

His personality and tactics will absolutely rub some the wrong way but omg this is the most moderate Republican any of us will live to see and he isn't owned by the lobbyists it's a joke that so many people won't acknowledge this. If u are a Democrat u should think he's the best republican candidate since Lincoln or T Roosevelt if u don't ur a moron.

He isn't owned by the lobbyist, neither is Bernie...

But that's besides the point, Trump not being owned by anyone is like if the Koch brothers ran for president and claimed they're not taking political donations.

And Trump being moderate? Trumps pushing everyone else to the right, like Bernie is pushing Hilary to the left. And no Trump is not the best candidate, besides resembling a 1920's/30's Hitler, Trump has also flip flopped on every major issue. He has a truth percentage of 7% true and mostly true, the rest are lies or spins on the truth. His tax plan is so shit and economists have pretty much said it will be terrible for everyone. (add 24.5 trillion to the debt). Let's also remember he has no political experience, he said he'd learn foreign policy while "on the job". The bloke is a pussy that can't even take a question from Meaghan Kelly. He's being ridiculed by world leaders both left and right. His plans are unrealistic and Mexico won't pay for the wall. He's egotistical and doesn't listen to anyone. An important trait to have if you're president is to able to listen to people especially your own staff.

Trump is not fascist one bit, he's by the definition of the word a fascist. But hey fascism worked great for Germany and Italy, why not give it another go? Nothing like believing in a system that has killed millions and led to some of the worst dictatorships in recent history.

Watch Trump become president and watch America turn into a shithole. If Trump becomes president I won't even care. In fact I'll have a lovely time watching all you Trump sheep swallow your own words and realise how wrong you were about Trump. You regret electing Bush, just wait til you elect Trump.

.MASSHOLE.Here, read the article linked inside. https://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb12-9.pdf

It saved 1,200 jobs. Yippie. We, the consumers, spent about $1b for 1,200 jobs. Not really a great trade off is it? What I am about to present is EXACTLY what I said would happen with a trade war. Let us begin.

First: "The cost per job manufacturing saved (a maximum of 1,200 jobs by our calculations) was at least $900,000 in that year. Only a very small fraction of this bloated figure reached the pockets of tire
workers. Instead, most of the money landed in the coffers of tire companies, mainly abroad but also at home."

Want to know what China first did in return?. They raised tariffs on chicken imports. "The Chinese tariffs reduced exports by $1 billion as US poultry firms experienced a 90 percent collapse in their exports of chicken parts to China."

Now, remember that I also said the American consumer would deal with higher prices. Here we go:

"Chinese-made unit values increased from $30.79 to $38.92 per car tire between 2009Q3 and 2011Q3—representing a 26 percent increase in the post-tariff era...Over the safeguard period, Chinese-made light truck tire unit values increased from $52.73 to $61.48 between 2009Q3 and 2011Q3—representing
a 17 percent increase during the post-tariff era. The average unit value of US light truck tire imports from AOC increased from $76.20 to $89.64 between 2009Q3 and 2011Q3—an 18 percent increase during the post-tariff era...Multiplying 3.26 percent by the approximate value of US-made tire sales during the post-tariff period ($18.1 billion in 2010), we conclude that the larger post-tariff spread cost American consumers $590 million on an annualized basis.


And HERE WE GO! THE KICKER

"The tire safeguards extracted an estimated $1,112 million annually from US consumers; at the same time, the safeguards put $48 million in the pockets of otherwise unemployed tire workers. The net effect was to reduce consumer spending on other retail goods by about $1,064 million, indicating that the safeguard tariffs probably cost around 3,731 jobs in the retail sector."


GOD PROTECTIONIST POLICIES WORK SO FUCKING WELL.

Christ. Read a real piece, not something from a Criminal Law writer.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myths-of-chinas-currency-manipulation-1452296887

Oh yes, how could I forget the open-borders, globalist nonsense, the WSJ?

This is the same bullshit that believes an economy can survive on only consumption, with no investment.

Even if a US tire costs more than a Chinese tire, it contributes to a greater degree to the economy, because it fuels investment in the US production and keeps the money circulating in the US economy, rather than going overseas.

For example,

Say a Chinese tire costs $40, and a US tire costs $50. Sure, you'll be better off as a consumer with the $40 tire. That being said, most of that $40 dollars is going abroad and into the Chinese economy. So you save $10, but you've taken $40 out of the domestic economy. All of this would be fine, if the Chinese were doing the same on a similar scale (perhaps with a different product), so the balance of trade would be relatively even, but they're not, not even close.

In comparison, spending $50 on the US tire may cost you more as a consumer, but that money remains circulating in the US economy. That extra $10 goes to decent wages for blue-collar workers, to domestic firm investment in domestic manufacturing, and other beneficial results. The US economy also gains the $40 that would have otherwise gone overseas.

The Chinese have been ripping us off on trade for decades now. They have created massive trade surpluses with us, dumping their mostly poorly produced products on our shores, and extracting money out of our economy to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We just haven't noticed yet, because they turn around and use those hundreds of billions to buy our debt (and collect interest on it!), in a sense injecting the money they are stealing through trade back into our economy (on loan).

Ain't life grand for the Chinese trade cheats?

Of course, the corporatists at the WSJ are all for it, since dirt-cheap labor and products benefits various multi-national corporations, who rely on our sham consumer economy.

But those minimum wage retail jobs will definitely make up for the loss of decent union jobs, jobs that made the US the greatest country in the world.

KravtZfood in the white house, o

Granite_StateYou seem to be drinking the Trump coolaid. I dont want a reactionary, insecure man as President. That is a recipe for disaster.

Furthermore, he is not a great business man as everyone is led to believe. Aside from 4 bankrupted businesses he's had countless failures that lost him money. Huck adressed this point in the last page.

At least Bernie genuinely cares about the American people. I dont support all his policies and many dont even affect me (college, higher minimum wage) but he stands for something great. He plans to not let the richest control this country (they do) and continue to beat and batter the middle class (that hands down supports our economy).

And I hate Hillary, she is worse than Trump. But what about Kasich? Cruz? They seem far more grounded than Trump. Even Carson would have been decent if he didnt go full retard.

In the end youre supporting a man who doesnt have a clue what hes doing and thats scary.

Ps, I kinda like Trump, hes a funny guy and hes against PC which I fully stand behind. I just think he would ruin this country as President.

If Trump simply invested his money, he would have more money now than he currently does. While no one has a crystal ball, his business ventures have not resulted in the most profitable end that could have been created. He's not a great businessman, just a risk taker with deep enough pockets that let him rebound from one failure to start another.

Anyway, what strikes me as both obvious and yet completely mysterious is that people support him based on absolutely nothing. "Let's make America great again" or "I will put us back on top" or "I'm gonna fix this, trust me". Ok, great but how? He has not offered one single proposal about how he will achieve this. These are completely empty promises that I fully understand uneducated rednecks rallying behind because the message is simple, emotional, and appeals to their nationalistic tendencies but how can educated, reasonable people get behind him, specifically? He isn't saying anything substantive, just reactionary emotional appeals to people's fears and half-baked opinions.

For me, personally, his one redeeming quality (compared to his Republican counterparts) is that at least he is not a religious zealot who wants to view everything through the scope of the Bible. The other Republicans are such religious lunatics that they will destroy America from a different angle, set back women's rights, voter's rights, and truly believe the fanatical view that God is actually on America's side. And because they are actually well trained lawyers/politicians, they possess way more ability to manipulate the political process in their favor. They will get regressive things done way more cleverly and subtly than Trump ever could. And this is just as scary, to me, as having a powerful, emotional child running this country.

CampeadorOh yes, how could I forget the open-borders, globalist nonsense, the WSJ?

This is the same bullshit that believes an economy can survive on only consumption, with no investment.

Even if a US tire costs more than a Chinese tire, it contributes to a greater degree to the economy, because it fuels investment in the US production and keeps the money circulating in the US economy, rather than going overseas.

For example,

Say a Chinese tire costs $40, and a US tire costs $50. Sure, you'll be better off as a consumer with the $40 tire. That being said, most of that $40 dollars is going abroad and into the Chinese economy. So you save $10, but you've taken $40 out of the domestic economy. All of this would be fine, if the Chinese were doing the same on a similar scale (perhaps with a different product), so the balance of trade would be relatively even, but they're not, not even close.

In comparison, spending $50 on the US tire may cost you more as a consumer, but that money remains circulating in the US economy. That extra $10 goes to decent wages for blue-collar workers, to domestic firm investment in domestic manufacturing, and other beneficial results. The US economy also gains the $40 that would have otherwise gone overseas.

The Chinese have been ripping us off on trade for decades now. They have created massive trade surpluses with us, dumping their mostly poorly produced products on our shores, and extracting money out of our economy to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We just haven't noticed yet, because they turn around and use those hundreds of billions to buy our debt (and collect interest on it!), in a sense injecting the money they are stealing through trade back into our economy (on loan).

Ain't life grand for the Chinese trade cheats?

Of course, the corporatists at the WSJ are all for it, since dirt-cheap labor and products benefits various multi-national corporations, who rely on our sham consumer economy.

But those minimum wage retail jobs will definitely make up for the loss of decent union jobs, jobs that made the US the greatest country in the world.

WAIT. You literally did not read what I wrote. That is unreal but not shocking.

It talked A. Where the domestic revenues went (not domestically) B. the net job loss, C. the absolute abuse the chicken industry got as retaliation, and D. THE REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION ELSEWHERE!

IT WAS A NET FUCKING LOSS IN EVERY ASPECT.

It will the same story with every other industry that Trump or Sanders tries to protect or reinvigorate through tariffs and protectionist policies. We are not a manufacturing country like we once were. We cannot compete with those low-income, efficient countries. The only manufacturing jobs we could attempt to protect would be high-end machinery and luxury goods, much like Germany. However, after seeing America's affinity to purchasing AND produce on the cheap (looking at you Chevrolet and FCA), something tells me the industries would not see a net benefit.

But fine, ignore the statistics and continue on with your uninformed view. I am waiting for an academic source from you, but that may be too much to ask.

Oh and that guy who wrote the Op-Ed piece for the WSJ? Rather smart dude, so check it out.

http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/matthew-slaughter/about-professor-slaughter


As for your currency war idea, I am still waiting on statistics on how it affects the US. So far, it looks like its not a currency war with the Americans, but rather their Asian neighbors:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/global-currency-war-sparked-by-china/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-one-argument-why-china-will-lose-its-currency-war-2016-01-28
http://www.afr.com/markets/currencies/china-is-the-frontline-in-the-new-currency-wars-20160114-gm6bzj

And if you have followed the news at all, you would know China has faced a huge contraction in their economy recently. They too will soon be an importer rather than an exporter, or least more of a consumer of their own goods.

You really have no idea how markets or economics work.

.MASSHOLE.WAIT. You literally did not read what I wrote. That is unreal but not shocking.

It talked A. Where the domestic revenues went (not domestically) B. the net job loss, C. the absolute abuse the chicken industry got as retaliation, and D. THE REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION ELSEWHERE!

IT WAS A NET FUCKING LOSS IN EVERY ASPECT.

There is no need to type in caps, especially when you're simply regurgitating information that is wrong. All of your assumptions are wrong, and are based off of you taking verbatim what you read, because you lack the ability to critically analyze and question information yourself, you simply rely on the conclusions of other who you think are sufficiently intelligent, so you seem a little less clueless.

I think I've seen you post that you're getting a degree in Economics, if that's the case, you're due some tuition refunds. To assume that protection policies for the US tire industry cost however many number of retail jobs, is just bullshit.

As proof, the lower gas prices Americans are paying now has not led to any great rise in retail purchasing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/business/energy-environment/this-time-cheaper-oil-does-little-for-the-us-economy.html

Therefore, those numbers for the supposed increase in retail jobs, after the loss of the 1,200 decent tire factory jobs, is based purely on fanciful speculation. Not to mention, over the long run, Chinese dumping would cost far more than 1,200 tire factory jobs. Not all of those jobs will be replaced with minimum-wage retail jobs just because Americans are buying cheaper tires from China.

Also, the point about how the money did not go to domestic firms is a flat-out lie, and just further shows that you will accept verbatim whatever you read.

The majority of new tire sales and replacement tire sales across the board went to US firms like Goodyear, Bridgestone, BFGoodrich, and Firestone among others.

Here's a breakdown of money spent domestically (and in Canada) just on new tire sales that went to US firms:

1st Bridgestone America: $8.1 billion
2nd Goodyear Tire: $7.2 billion
5th Cooper Tire: $2.2 billion

3rd and 4th place belong to European firms (Michelin & Continental) that have factories in the US where they produce the majority of the tires they sell in the US market.

How many domestic factories do Chinese firms have? Zero. And you're crying that across the whole tire market, consumers paid $1 billion more (both for new tires and replacement tires), even though that $1 billion in savings would have started the ball rolling towards significant, catastrophic drops to domestic firm revenue, and would cost an untold number of good working-class jobs.

Thanks to new additional tariffs on Chinese tire dumping efforts (35%+), Chinese tire imports to the US have fallen dramatically. China has been systemically trying to wipe out the manufacturing of it's wealthier trading partners, and has been largely successful thanks to free trade absolutists like yourself.

Here's a real breakdown of tire data:

http://www.moderntiredealer.com/uploads/stats/facts-section16.pdf

Another interesting point in the data;

- Even with the Federal Excise Tax included, new Chinese truck tires were
selling for less than the cost to retread a tire. Retreaders were asking for their
own tariff treatment.
Overall, the average cost of a new truck tire dropped nearly 7%, from $381.50
to $355.55.
According to David Shaw, CEO and head of research for Tire Industry Research,
China has the capacity to produce 150 million truck and bus tires annually.
“There is capacity in China to make every single truck tire that the world
needs,” he says. -

This is further evidence of Chinese dumping efforts, and these efforts need to be countered forcefully.

I want to thank you though, this discussion has led me to learn a great deal more about the tire industry than I previously knew.

.MASSHOLE.But fine, ignore the statistics and continue on with your uninformed view. I am waiting for an academic source from you, but that may be too much to ask.

Oh and that guy who wrote the Op-Ed piece for the WSJ? Rather smart dude, so check it out.

http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/matthew-slaughter/about-professor-slaughter


.

Oh yes, you were looking for an academic source to guide your thinking.

Here's one:

Paul Craig Roberts, Economist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Reagan Administration

[URL]http://economyincrisis.org/content/how-economy-was-lost-doomed-myths-free-trade[/URL]

- Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid. And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm. Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council. -


Matthew Slaughter, an esteemed member of the advisory committee of that thoroughly corrupt institution, the Import-Export bank, is the perfect example of a free trade shill that benefits off of crony capitalist corruption, the kind of academic propagandist that Roberts talks about. The Import-Export bank is one of the key drivers of corrupt corporate welfare in the US (I'll let you look this up on your own).

.MASSHOLE.Oh and that guy who wrote the Op-Ed piece for the WSJ? Rather smart dude, so check it out.

http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/matthew-slaughter/about-professor-slaughter

I'm not sure why the previous post was all hyperlinked, hopefully this fixes it.


Oh yes, you were looking for an academic source to guide your thinking.

Here's one:

Paul Craig Roberts, Economist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Reagan Administration

http://economyincrisis.org/content/how-economy-was-lost-doomed-myths-free-trade

- Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid. And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm. Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council. -


Matthew Slaughter, an esteemed member of the advisory committee of that thoroughly corrupt institution, the Import-Export bank, is the perfect example of a free trade shill that benefits off of crony capitalist corruption, the kind of academic propagandist that Roberts talks about. The Import-Export bank is one of the key drivers of corrupt corporate welfare in the US (I'll let you look this up on your own).

CampeadorThere is no need to type in caps, especially when you're simply regurgitating information that is wrong. All of your assumptions are wrong, and are based off of you taking verbatim what you read, because you lack the ability to critically analyze and question information yourself, you simply rely on the conclusions of other who you think are sufficiently intelligent, so you seem a little less clueless.

I think I've seen you post that you're getting a degree in Economics, if that's the case, you're due some tuition refunds. To assume that protection policies for the US tire industry cost however many number of retail jobs, is just bullshit.

As proof, the lower gas prices Americans are paying now has not led to any great rise in retail purchasing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/business/energy-environment/this-time-cheaper-oil-does-little-for-the-us-economy.html

Therefore, those numbers for the supposed increase in retail jobs, after the loss of the 1,200 decent tire factory jobs, is based purely on fanciful speculation. Not to mention, over the long run, Chinese dumping would cost far more than 1,200 tire factory jobs. Not all of those jobs will be replaced with minimum-wage retail jobs just because Americans are buying cheaper tires from China.

Also, the point about how the money did not go to domestic firms is a flat-out lie, and just further shows that you will accept verbatim whatever you read.

The majority of new tire sales and replacement tire sales across the board went to US firms like Goodyear, Bridgestone, BFGoodrich, and Firestone among others.

Here's a breakdown of money spent domestically (and in Canada) just on new tire sales that went to US firms:

1st Bridgestone America: $8.1 billion
2nd Goodyear Tire: $7.2 billion
5th Cooper Tire: $2.2 billion

3rd and 4th place belong to European firms (Michelin & Continental) that have factories in the US where they produce the majority of the tires they sell in the US market.

How many domestic factories do Chinese firms have? Zero. And you're crying that across the whole tire market, consumers paid $1 billion more (both for new tires and replacement tires), even though that $1 billion in savings would have started the ball rolling towards significant, catastrophic drops to domestic firm revenue, and would cost an untold number of good working-class jobs.

Thanks to new additional tariffs on Chinese tire dumping efforts (35%+), Chinese tire imports to the US have fallen dramatically. China has been systemically trying to wipe out the manufacturing of it's wealthier trading partners, and has been largely successful thanks to free trade absolutists like yourself.

Here's a real breakdown of tire data:

http://www.moderntiredealer.com/uploads/stats/facts-section16.pdf

Another interesting point in the data;

- Even with the Federal Excise Tax included, new Chinese truck tires were
selling for less than the cost to retread a tire. Retreaders were asking for their
own tariff treatment.
Overall, the average cost of a new truck tire dropped nearly 7%, from $381.50
to $355.55.
According to David Shaw, CEO and head of research for Tire Industry Research,
China has the capacity to produce 150 million truck and bus tires annually.
“There is capacity in China to make every single truck tire that the world
needs,” he says. -

This is further evidence of Chinese dumping efforts, and these efforts need to be countered forcefully.

I want to thank you though, this discussion has led me to learn a great deal more about the tire industry than I previously knew.

Ah, the ad-hominem attacks finally arrived. I graduated in fact and now work in a hedge fund a year out. So, I didn't do too poorly did I?

All my assumptions? The BLS statistics from that are wrong? The math is wrong? I guess you should write those guys a strongly worded letter telling them a no-name keyboard economist is smarter than PhDs!!

Shit man, I hoped you would be able to follow along, they do walk you through it. It is all rather basic economic figures and assumptions. Increase in prices results in lost spending power and capabilities, lost spending power hurts other sectors of the economy due to lost disposable income. Not too difficult to understand.

Please, prove to me that those US-based tire companies reinvested their profits back into the US and the consumer.


Oil is so vastly different than tires it is like comparing apples to a god damn sea cucumber.

I can't follow your logic anymore. It is so backwards, so agenda-driven it is impossible. $1b in savings to US consumers would be catastrophic to tire manufactures? Low cost tires are a bad thing? Man, I can't follow that at all. You're making so many assumptions about spending patterns that defy logic.

You seem to have neglected my statement about the chicken industry getting hurt. Man, I guess poor chicken farmers don't matter.

.MASSHOLE.Ah, the ad-hominem attacks finally arrived. I graduated in fact and now work in a hedge fund a year out. So, I didn't do too poorly did I?

All my assumptions? The BLS statistics from that are wrong? The math is wrong? I guess you should write those guys a strongly worded letter telling them a no-name keyboard economist is smarter than PhDs!!

Shit man, I hoped you would be able to follow along, they do walk you through it. It is all rather basic economic figures and assumptions. Increase in prices results in lost spending power and capabilities, lost spending power hurts other sectors of the economy due to lost disposable income. Not too difficult to understand.

Please, prove to me that those US-based tire companies reinvested their profits back into the US and the consumer.


Oil is so vastly different than tires it is like comparing apples to a god damn sea cucumber.

I can't follow your logic anymore. It is so backwards, so agenda-driven it is impossible. $1b in savings to US consumers would be catastrophic to tire manufactures? Low cost tires are a bad thing? Man, I can't follow that at all. You're making so many assumptions about spending patterns that defy logic.

You seem to have neglected my statement about the chicken industry getting hurt. Man, I guess poor chicken farmers don't matter.

Look I've said it before, I rarely throw out personal insults unless they're thrown at me first, so don't be such a wimp. What's the old adage? You can dish it out but you can't take it? I hope that hedge fund you work for doesn't lose too much money while you're there.

And of course you didn't even glimpse through the actual tire industry statistics at all, but isn't that what you accused me of not doing with your bogus study?

1. Don't try and hide behind the PhDs of others to conceal your own complete lack of understanding.

"Please, prove to me that those US-based tire companies reinvested their profits back into the US and the consumer"

For one, firms don't invest in consumers, they invest in capital and labor.

For someone who harps on the basics, you've got a tenuous grasp at best. Those immaculate PhDs, that you so highly regard, are pushing a flawed neo-Keynesian theory of Economics, that economies are driven primarily by consumption rather than production, a flawed theory that you seem to be 100% tied to. Also, its not just a question of profit. A firm can be operating at zero profit and still be contributing to the domestic economy, through wages and other expenditures.

Now you're asking me to prove that money spent with domestic firms, that use domestic capital and employ a domestic labor force, actually kept the money in the domestic economy?

Did I understand your request correctly? If so, let me know.


2. "Oil is so vastly different than tires it is like comparing apples to a god damn sea cucumber."

You're just arguing through your mouth and your ass at the same time now. Given this argument that you've made:

"Increase in prices results in lost spending power and capabilities, lost spending power hurts other sectors of the economy due to lost disposable income. Not too difficult to understand."

So, according to your same argument, decreased prices should lead to increased spending power and "capabilities" (whatever that is meant to mean). This would increase disposable income, and thus, this increased disposable income would, without a doubt, be spent elsewhere.

Shouldn't this general rule apply regardless of the product being purchased? Or is this rule exclusive to tire purchases? Short answer, it isn't. The same rule should apply across the board. Seems like the only one finding this "too difficult to understand" is you.

That being said, my gasoline example provides a perfect comparison point. Both are expenditures that are made to operate automobiles. Your assumption that paying less for one automobile expenditure (tires) will lead to a increase in spending elsewhere, meanwhile, paying less for gasoline (another automobile expenditure) should theoretically have the same effect.

Inconveniently for you, the real economic data does not back your assumptions. Lower gas prices have not lead to any notable increase in consumption elsewhere, as I have proven. Now, explain why the effect of lower tire prices would be any different. Try to use a real argument this time.


Now, since I've asked you to answer my questions, I'll answer yours:

1. "$1b in savings to US consumers would be catastrophic to tire manufactures?"

Yes, absolutely. You are not taking into account all the hidden costs associated with that $1 billion in savings to the consumer. You're again propelled by the fallacy that consumption, rather than production, drives an economy.

So I'll share the number with you again, with a focus again only on new tires (which are only one section of the market) and the top three domestic tires producers:

1st Bridgestone America: $8.1 billion
2nd Goodyear Tire: $7.2 billion
5th Cooper Tire: $2.2 billion

Given those numbers, how much less revenue would those companies take in, having to compete against Chinese dumping efforts?

If it led to even a $1 billion loss in revenue for producers, and a $1 billion gain for consumers, the net benefit would be zero. Now, the likelihood is that the loss to domestic producers would be greater than $1 billion.

Hypothetically, if the loss in producer revenue from just those three firms were even $2 billion, that would mean a true net loss to the economy overall, because the $2 billion in revenue lost by producers is greater than the $1 billion gained by consumers. Or do you disagree?

So yes, low cost tires from China are bad for the domestic economy.

CampeadorLook I've said it before, I rarely throw out personal insults unless they're thrown at me first, so don't be such a wimp. What's the old adage? You can dish it out but you can't take it? I hope that hedge fund you work for doesn't lose too much money while you're there.

And of course you didn't even glimpse through the actual tire industry statistics at all, but isn't that what you accused me of not doing with your bogus study?

1. Don't try and hide behind the PhDs of others to conceal your own complete lack of understanding.

"Please, prove to me that those US-based tire companies reinvested their profits back into the US and the consumer"

For one, firms don't invest in consumers, they invest in capital and labor.

For someone who harps on the basics, you've got a tenuous grasp at best. Those immaculate PhDs, that you so highly regard, are pushing a flawed neo-Keynesian theory of Economics, that economies are driven primarily by consumption rather than production, a flawed theory that you seem to be 100% tied to. Also, its not just a question of profit. A firm can be operating at zero profit and still be contributing to the domestic economy, through wages and other expenditures.

Now you're asking me to prove that money spent with domestic firms, that use domestic capital and employ a domestic labor force, actually kept the money in the domestic economy?

Did I understand your request correctly? If so, let me know.


2. "Oil is so vastly different than tires it is like comparing apples to a god damn sea cucumber."

You're just arguing through your mouth and your ass at the same time now. Given this argument that you've made:

"Increase in prices results in lost spending power and capabilities, lost spending power hurts other sectors of the economy due to lost disposable income. Not too difficult to understand."

So, according to your same argument, decreased prices should lead to increased spending power and "capabilities" (whatever that is meant to mean). This would increase disposable income, and thus, this increased disposable income would, without a doubt, be spent elsewhere.

Shouldn't this general rule apply regardless of the product being purchased? Or is this rule exclusive to tire purchases? Short answer, it isn't. The same rule should apply across the board. Seems like the only one finding this "too difficult to understand" is you.

That being said, my gasoline example provides a perfect comparison point. Both are expenditures that are made to operate automobiles. Your assumption that paying less for one automobile expenditure (tires) will lead to a increase in spending elsewhere, meanwhile, paying less for gasoline (another automobile expenditure) should theoretically have the same effect.

Inconveniently for you, the real economic data does not back your assumptions. Lower gas prices have not lead to any notable increase in consumption elsewhere, as I have proven. Now, explain why the effect of lower tire prices would be any different. Try to use a real argument this time.


Now, since I've asked you to answer my questions, I'll answer yours:

1. "$1b in savings to US consumers would be catastrophic to tire manufactures?"

Yes, absolutely. You are not taking into account all the hidden costs associated with that $1 billion in savings to the consumer. You're again propelled by the fallacy that consumption, rather than production, drives an economy.

So I'll share the number with you again, with a focus again only on new tires (which are only one section of the market) and the top three domestic tires producers:

1st Bridgestone America: $8.1 billion
2nd Goodyear Tire: $7.2 billion
5th Cooper Tire: $2.2 billion

Given those numbers, how much less revenue would those companies take in, having to compete against Chinese dumping efforts?

If it led to even a $1 billion loss in revenue for producers, and a $1 billion gain for consumers, the net benefit would be zero. Now, the likelihood is that the loss to domestic producers would be greater than $1 billion.

Hypothetically, if the loss in producer revenue from just those three firms were even $2 billion, that would mean a true net loss to the economy overall, because the $2 billion in revenue lost by producers is greater than the $1 billion gained by consumers. Or do you disagree?

So yes, low cost tires from China are bad for the domestic economy.

1. Investing in capital and labor=investing in the US and the consumers. But please, show to me that they wouldn't keep those profits for their CEOs and return the rest to shareholders vs. reinvesting in the company by improving manufacturing facilities, hiring new workers, and keep business in the US. Ironically, some of those companies from your tire article have facilities in Mexico and Canada. Who says they are not moving the capital to those countries and reinvesting there?

2. Oil is such a vastly different industry than tires you cannot compare the two. Oil prices and oil futures are directly tied to so many different aspects of the global economy, tires are not.

Let me break down to you why you are not seeing a rise in consumption with falling oil prices. Lets start with a Macro approach first then move to micro

Macro: Oil companies are built of debt. Lots of debt. As these oil price continually fall profits are falling across the board. Some of these companies will have debt that is due and will not be able to pay it, while others have already reached this point. So, combining the two, you have a huge decrease in exports due to closure and lowered prices, which in turn means less money in the economy. Let us not forget how interconnected the oil industry is to other industries as well. These companies are now spending less on construction, transportation, health insurance, food, etc. So unlike the tire industry, which frankly is not a giant trillion dollar industry, the oil industry is interconnected to many other industries.

Micro: Failing companies means less workers and lower wages (The oil and gas industry announced 204,000 layoffs during the past 12 months according to Continental Resources, with a net loss of 114,000). Moody's estimates that 1 job in the oil industry is roughly 3.5 in other industries. Now, lose all of these jobs and you are going to see a MASSIVE decrease in consumption as not only are there layoffs and lowered wages in the oil industry, but there are lowered wages and job losses in any other industry that deals with them.

So here is the breakdown why tires=/=oil.

Happy? I'd prefer not to have to teach you everything.

Here is the mathematical breakdown of why tire industry is different.

Ah, yes, it can't be that consumption and production drive the economy. It can't be that it is more beneficial for the US to have consumed more in this situation.

Your tire numbers do not tell us how many tires were produced in America, Canada, or Mexico. Till then, your argument is incomplete and factually incorrect.

And NO NO NO you cannot use the net argument!! The reason is that the consumers are spending their money in different places and on different items than the producers are cutting. You are assuming they won't purchase other domestic products, that they may not use it for other domestic services, or reinvest it in other domestic arenas. That is where your argument falls on its head, again.

They're not bad.

But please, you're forgetting the CHICKEN INDUSTRY! I am waiting for you to address that

I'm hoping to transfer to the University of Amsterdam either way. Education is one of many things in this country that is absolutely fucked.

Campeador

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china

For your enjoyment I will take out a few key pieces.

"Since March, 2010, when manufacturing employment in the U.S. hit a trough of 11.45 million jobs, nearly a million new factory positions have been created, most of them in the Southern states, particularly North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Better still, the jobs are typically good ones: across that same five-year period, average hourly manufacturing wages have increased over ten per cent, to more than twenty dollars. On the whole, U.S. manufacturing, as measured by the Purchasing Managers' Index, has steadily expanded."

"Meanwhile, according to Quanton Data, which tracks global job postings by industry, open manufacturing positions in China have been dropping consistently since 2012, down nearly six per cent in that time. In January, the country's Ministry of Commerce reported that factory activity has contracted for six months, falling to a three-year low. In addition, foreign direct investment in Chinese manufacturing was flat for all of 2015, while China's balance of trade with the U.S. barely budged, despite the strong dollar. Moreover, China's exports tumbled in February by twenty-five per cent, after falling eleven per cent in January."

"The practice received its most public boost in 2012, when General Electric announced plans to invest a billion dollars in an appliance plant in Louisville, Kentucky, reshoring four thousand jobs that had been in China and Mexico, and adding, over time, nearly twenty thousand factory positions at the plant's regional suppliers. Walmart has also helped to stoke demand for U.S. manufacturing, thanks to an initiative, launched in 2013, to purchase an additional two hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of American-made goods by 2023, which it hopes will create as many as three hundred thousand new jobs."

"According to data provided to me by the Reshoring Initiative, a nonprofit trade organization, in the past five years, about a hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have returned to the U.S. from overseas, sixty per cent of them from China. If you fold in new U.S. plant openings by companies headquartered elsewhere (that is, foreign direct investment in manufacturing), the number jumps to two hundred and fifty thousand. An additional fifty thousand jobs were saved when companies that had planned to go offshore changed their minds."

You were saying free trade is bad and protectionist policies are good? This is free trade like it is meant to work. Freedom that allows both capital and labor to move across countries and borders. Read the rest of the article, you may learn something.

doesn't matter who the dems put up, the republicans won't win. The republicans pulled a herbert hoover with bush.

vailsux.comdoesn't matter who the dems put up, the republicans won't win. The republicans pulled a herbert hoover with bush.

the latest polls suggest both Benrie and Hilary win over Trump, Bernie by a larger percentage. But thanks to the electoral college, even his Trump won the popular vote he could still lose the presidency by electoral college votes like Al Gore in 2000

onenerdykid

i love this.

onenerdykid

this is fucking gold! Im dying right now.

1. Trump can't win. Do the math.

He's going to need to win all of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia to even have a chance... he could win all three, and still lose easily.

If he does win those three, he's going to have to steal a blue state from Hillary or Bernie - which I just can't see happening. Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire.. there's just no way. Colorado is firmly out of his range, and New Mexico wouldn't swing red for Trump in any case. Unless something goes firmly wrong, and the majority of the people in this nation go full-hitler youth, there's just no possible way he wins.

2. I'm already moving to New Zealand in about 6 weeks on a renewable 12 month work visa. In the case Trump gets elected, I'm filing for political asylum.

onenerdykid

This is my new favourite gif

DingoSean1. Trump can't win. Do the math.

Extreme Conservatives are a dying race. Their people will not make it much longer.

THEPROPHETExtreme Conservatives are a dying race. Their people will not make it much longer.

They are literally dying...

Either by accidental gunshot, old age, skin cancer due to their melanin deficiency, fireworks accident, or one of the many obesity related forms of death...

DingoSeanThey are literally dying...

Either by accidental gunshot, old age, skin cancer due to their melanin deficiency, fireworks accident, or one of the many obesity related forms of death...

I wish this were a joke

.MASSHOLE.1. Investing in capital and labor=investing in the US and the consumers. But please, show to me that they wouldn't keep those profits for their CEOs and return the rest to shareholders vs. reinvesting in the company by improving manufacturing facilities, hiring new workers, and keep business in the US. Ironically, some of those companies from your tire article have facilities in Mexico and Canada. Who says they are not moving the capital to those countries and reinvesting there?

2. Oil is such a vastly different industry than tires you cannot compare the two. Oil prices and oil futures are directly tied to so many different aspects of the global economy, tires are not.

Let me break down to you why you are not seeing a rise in consumption with falling oil prices. Lets start with a Macro approach first then move to micro

Macro: Oil companies are built of debt. Lots of debt. As these oil price continually fall profits are falling across the board. Some of these companies will have debt that is due and will not be able to pay it, while others have already reached this point. So, combining the two, you have a huge decrease in exports due to closure and lowered prices, which in turn means less money in the economy. Let us not forget how interconnected the oil industry is to other industries as well. These companies are now spending less on construction, transportation, health insurance, food, etc. So unlike the tire industry, which frankly is not a giant trillion dollar industry, the oil industry is interconnected to many other industries.

Micro: Failing companies means less workers and lower wages (The oil and gas industry announced 204,000 layoffs during the past 12 months according to Continental Resources, with a net loss of 114,000). Moody's estimates that 1 job in the oil industry is roughly 3.5 in other industries. Now, lose all of these jobs and you are going to see a MASSIVE decrease in consumption as not only are there layoffs and lowered wages in the oil industry, but there are lowered wages and job losses in any other industry that deals with them.

So here is the breakdown why tires=/=oil.

Happy? I'd prefer not to have to teach you everything.

Here is the mathematical breakdown of why tire industry is different.

Ah, yes, it can't be that consumption and production drive the economy. It can't be that it is more beneficial for the US to have consumed more in this situation.

Your tire numbers do not tell us how many tires were produced in America, Canada, or Mexico. Till then, your argument is incomplete and factually incorrect.

And NO NO NO you cannot use the net argument!! The reason is that the consumers are spending their money in different places and on different items than the producers are cutting. You are assuming they won't purchase other domestic products, that they may not use it for other domestic services, or reinvest it in other domestic arenas. That is where your argument falls on its head, again.

They're not bad.

But please, you're forgetting the CHICKEN INDUSTRY! I am waiting for you to address that

For someone who pretends to know so much, you sure are clueless and chock-full of contradictions.

1. Let me spell this out for you, investment into capital and labor are not "investments into the consumer". Investment and consumption are two separate functions, stop trying to salvage yourself. Furthermore, the CEO compensation is not significant as it relates to the overall revenue and profits that these companies generate, leave your Sandernista arguments at home. The vast majority of production is located in the US (you can look through the report yourself, I don't have the time or the patience to copy and paste everything for you).

2. Let me get this straight, cheaper Chinese tires and laid off US tired workers make us better off, but cheaper gasoline and laid off oil workers makes us worse off? Seems like quite a contradiction. But I appreciate your haphazard attempt to explain how 114,000 lost jobs in the oil sector leads to a decrease in consumption across the board for a nation of over 320 million people, even if we were to use Moody's 3.5 metric (which is dubious since it does not state which industries).

Your arguments just never add up. The amount people are saving in cheaper gas eclipses exponentially the amount of lost income to oil workers. Even someone without an Economics background could figure this out without much difficulty.

3. And lastly, the chicken industry you're so worried about. Well, you didn't provide any evidence of jobs (and the types of jobs) being lost as a result. Perhaps chicken feet were a product that China allowed lower tariffs on, and they raised them as a warning shot to the US, making them fall more in line with other tariffs they already place on US goods. It's China's pathetic attempt to pretend like they have any leverage in trade negotiations, the reality is they have none. Tariffs hurt them far more than they hurt us, and they know this. It's just US politicians are too corrupt and stupid to have trade deals that allow US workers to compete on a level playing field.


So again, why not answer this straightforward question since you are keen to defend "free trade".

a. Why do you find it acceptable for China to place high tariffs on US goods, while the US is expected to have no tariffs (or almost no tariffs) on Chinese goods?

b. How is a $360+ billion-a-year trade deficit somehow a desirable outcome?

c. Why are you content to let China manipulate their currency to increase their trade surplus?

d. Why is it acceptable for China to subsidize almost all their domestic production in order to block out the vast majority of imports?

e. Why is it unacceptable, in your view, for the US to act on abuses of trade by China?

Try to answer clearly and concisely, without relying on copy-and-pasted opinions from someone else. And please, post in your own reply and not in bold within a quoted post.

So using your numbers, let's make some calculations:

Let's assume that oil workers are making $100,000 (average rig pay) for simplicity's sake:

Loss of 114,000 jobs at $100,000 = $11,400,000,000 in lost income.

Gain of $750 for roughly 134 million US households = $100,500,000,000 in savings.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/01/news/economy/cheap-gas-750-savings-america/

So, a gain of $100.5 billion, offset an 11.4 billion in lost income to oil workers, still produces a net gain of $89.5 billion.

This roughly $89.5 billion in potential increased consumption has not boosted consumption significantly. And yet you still operate under the premise that a $1 billion in savings on tires by consumers will automatically lead to a $1 billion increase in consumption (hence your assumptions on lost retail jobs and the like).

Unlike the oil industry, potential losses of jobs in US tire manufacturing are not the result of normal fluctuations in price (as with oil), but rather due to Chinese dumping efforts meant to undermine the US manufacturing industry. These dumping efforts can and should be countered.

CampeadorLet's assume that oil workers are making $100,000 (average rig pay) for simplicity's sake:

Loss of 114,000 jobs at $100,000 = $11,400,000,000 in lost income.

Gain of $750 for roughly 134 million US households = $100,500,000,000 in savings.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/01/news/economy/cheap-gas-750-savings-america/

So, a gain of $100.5 billion, offset an 11.4 billion in lost income to oil workers, still produces a net gain of $89.5 billion.

Pardon, $89.1 billion. Again, these are very rough estimates, but illustrate that the gains far outweigh the losses. Not to mention, the revenue is not being diverted to Chinese firms at the expense of US firms (as with tires), but it's rather an across the board loss in revenue for all firms.

Campeador

You know what, no matter how much math I bring in, you cannot grasp the broader concept that free trade is a good thing and protectionist policies are not.

Find me economic literature saying otherwise. Trump may be a business man, but when he using cheaper and more specialized labor for his own profits, the proof is in the pudding.

Until then, experts tend to fall in line with my view.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

.MASSHOLE.You know what, no matter how much math I bring in, you cannot grasp the broader concept that free trade is a good thing and protectionist policies are not.

Find me economic literature saying otherwise. Trump may be a business man, but when he using cheaper and more specialized labor for his own profits, the proof is in the pudding.

Until then, experts tend to fall in line with my view.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

Again, let the so-called experts speak for you, since you cannot seem to find any of your own opinions or conclusions. Not to mention, you only included one expert from what is essentially a blog.

As far as free trade, I already have, but here's more as it relates to China:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-18/after-doubting-economists-find-china-killing-u-s-factory-jobs

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906

Now answer the questions I asked you previously with your own words.


Trump licenses his name to companies, he does not control where they manufacture. I'll tend to agree that he shouldn't license his name to companies that plan to produce goods in China, but again it is not him making the executive decision to manufacture in China.

In terms of foreign workers, Trump has never forced a domestic worker to train a foreign replacement, he simply uses temporary guest workers to fill seasonal positions, the same way ski resorts do. The fact remains that he employs thousands of US workers, and temporary guest workers make up only a small fraction of the people he employs.

CampeadorAgain, let the so-called experts speak for you, since you cannot seem to find any of your own opinions or conclusions. Not to mention, you only included one expert from what is essentially a blog.

As far as free trade, I already have, but here's more as it relates to China:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-18/after-doubting-economists-find-china-killing-u-s-factory-jobs

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906

Now answer the questions I asked you previously with your own words.


Trump licenses his name to companies, he does not control where they manufacture. I'll tend to agree that he shouldn't license his name to companies that plan to produce goods in China, but again it is not him making the executive decision to manufacture in China.

In terms of foreign workers, Trump has never forced a domestic worker to train a foreign replacement, he simply uses temporary guest workers to fill seasonal positions, the same way ski resorts do. The fact remains that he employs thousands of US workers, and temporary guest workers make up only a small fraction of the people he employs.

I won't claim to know more than the experts, they have PhDs in Economics, I have a BA. They sure as hell are smarter than I am and will do a better job of backing it up. I have no problem admitting that nor do I have the time to put in anywhere near the same amount of research and analysis as them. I would rather let a real PhD back my points up than try to be an armchair one.

But as I said, if you doubt that the consensus of economists are for free trade, prove me otherwise. I have yet to see any sort of evidence supporting that claim.

And I am unsure which publication was from a "blog". Most came from MSM or journals.

But you should notice I have never once said free trade does not have "losers". There are always going to be losers in free trade agreements. There is no zero-sum outcome in economics. But to blame China for all these issues is wrong. Let me take that a nice quote from your BB article (which comes from the NBER paper you cited).

"Trade explains about a fifth of the manufacturing job loss since 2000," said Robert Lawrence, a Harvard economist and a veteran of the academic and Washington trade debate.

"The rest," Lawrence said, "is the result of slow growth in consumer spending on manufactured goods and productivity gains" from automation, citing the traditional explanation for what's causing the decline in U.S. factory employment.


And as I have stated before, we are never going to return to a manufacturing country.

You want to raise tariffs? Fine, engage in a trade war and hurt the middle and lower class.

Whoops. Sorry, not zero outcome, win-win solutions. You will always find a loser, even if the greater population benefits.

Fair enough, but you're not making your case any stronger by ignoring these questions. I'm actually interested in what you have to say, so I'll post them again:

a. Why do you find it acceptable for China to place high tariffs on US goods, while the US is expected to have no tariffs (or almost no tariffs) on Chinese goods?

b. How is a $360+ billion-a-year trade deficit a desirable outcome?

c. Why are you content to let China manipulate their currency to increase their trade surplus?

d. Why is it acceptable for China to subsidize almost all their domestic production in order to block out the vast majority of imports?

e. Why is it unacceptable, in your view, for the US to act on abuses of trade by China?


And as far as many of these experts, I've been inclined to the opinion of Paul Craig Roberts on them:

"Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid. And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm. Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council."

I mean the previous example you gave of the free trade economist who sits on the council for the Import-Export Bank painted this picture clear as day.

CampeadorFair enough, but you're not making your case any stronger by ignoring these questions. I'm actually interested in what you have to say, so I'll post them again:

a. Why do you find it acceptable for China to place high tariffs on US goods, while the US is expected to have no tariffs (or almost no tariffs) on Chinese goods?

b. How is a $360+ billion-a-year trade deficit a desirable outcome?

c. Why are you content to let China manipulate their currency to increase their trade surplus?

d. Why is it acceptable for China to subsidize almost all their domestic production in order to block out the vast majority of imports?

e. Why is it unacceptable, in your view, for the US to act on abuses of trade by China?


And as far as many of these experts, I've been inclined to the opinion of Paul Craig Roberts on them:

"Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid. And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm. Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council."

I mean the previous example you gave of the free trade economist who sits on the council for the Import-Export Bank painted this picture clear as day.

1. I don't, but engaging in or threatening a trade war is frankly not the answer.

2. Overly simplified description of a complex situation. I will not pretend to have an expert understanding of it. http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-deficit-myths-1433804035 http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-policy-analysis/americas-maligned-misunderstood-trade-deficit

Yes, I know the Cato publication is outdated in terms of figures but the principles still remain the same.

3. Engaging in a currency war is again, not feasible nor a good idea.

4. It isn't but it is their choice.

5. Because engaging in any sort of economic "war" will bring more harm to the consumer than good and frankly is bad foreign policy. I do not think you seem to grasp that is what I am getting at.

As I said, find me a broad swath of economists who can decry fair trade. I am waiting. One is not a consensus (especially one seems like a conspiracy nut). The consensus lies on my side.

CampeadorFair enough, but you're not making your case any stronger by ignoring these questions. I'm actually interested in what you have to say, so I'll post them again:

a. Why do you find it acceptable for China to place high tariffs on US goods, while the US is expected to have no tariffs (or almost no tariffs) on Chinese goods?

b. How is a $360+ billion-a-year trade deficit a desirable outcome?

c. Why are you content to let China manipulate their currency to increase their trade surplus?

d. Why is it acceptable for China to subsidize almost all their domestic production in order to block out the vast majority of imports?

e. Why is it unacceptable, in your view, for the US to act on abuses of trade by China?


And as far as many of these experts, I've been inclined to the opinion of Paul Craig Roberts on them:

"Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid. And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm. Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council."

I mean the previous example you gave of the free trade economist who sits on the council for the Import-Export Bank painted this picture clear as day.

A. That's a problem for China and their people. In the future the Chinese will realize that their prices are higher than normal and demand removal of tariffs. Chinas about 50 years behind with regards to free trade.

B. Some countries have trade deficits, some countries have trade surpluses. America makes all the ideas and innovation, China creates the product. It's how globalisation works and everyone is better off. Cheaper products, more advanced products.

C. Because China is a sovereign state, they can do whatever the fuck they want. It's not a smart idea to subsidize companies. But keep in mind, during the GFC the US spent 700 billion to help failing banks. You could have easily let the banks fail and spent that 700 billion on creating new technology or capital to help failing businesses become more competitive to the overseas market. But instead Washington decides to help their friends on wall street. Maybe that has something to do with the millions they give to politicians?

D. Currency manipulation was standard practice up until 1971. China is however slowly (very slowly) de-regulating their currency. But China is a sovereign state, they can do whatever the fuck they want. In due time the public will realize that their products cost more.

E. Abuses of trade? You know you don't have to trade with China if you don't want to right? The US could stop all trade with China. But then your products and economy would stall to a halt. Your economy thrives on Chinas trade. You could not survive without China. That's why the US doesn't do anything about it.

Dear NewSchoolers,

Here in Glorious DPRK, we are very concerned with the potential of crazy, orange, pumpkin man Donald Trump becoming president . I believe myself to be better president for USA than imbecile inferior hair man Donald Trump. Here in Glorious North Korea, we believe Donald Trump a major threat to world peace.

In upcoming election, please vote either for me or Comrade Bernie Sanders.

Every day, you Americans wish for equal wages, socialized education, housing, and medical care, like we have in Glorious Best Korea. Comrade Bernie and I will smash United States pig dog imperialist oppressor Donald Trump. Give thank.


Yours,
Kim Jong-Un
Supreme Leader, DPRK



#feelingbern #berningsensation #bernthecaptitalists

onenerdykidIf Drumpf simply invested his money, he would have more money now than he currently does. While no one has a crystal ball, his business ventures have not resulted in the most profitable end that could have been created. He's not a great businessman, just a risk taker with deep enough pockets that let him rebound from one failure to start another.

Anyway, what strikes me as both obvious and yet completely mysterious is that people support him based on absolutely nothing. "Let's make America great again" or "I will put us back on top" or "I'm gonna fix this, trust me". Ok, great but how? He has not offered one single proposal about how he will achieve this. These are completely empty promises that I fully understand uneducated rednecks rallying behind because the message is simple, emotional, and appeals to their nationalistic tendencies but how can educated, reasonable people get behind him, specifically? He isn't saying anything substantive, just reactionary emotional appeals to people's fears and half-baked opinions.

For me, personally, his one redeeming quality (compared to his Republican counterparts) is that at least he is not a religious zealot who wants to view everything through the scope of the Bible. The other Republicans are such religious lunatics that they will destroy America from a different angle, set back women's rights, voter's rights, and truly believe the fanatical view that God is actually on America's side. And because they are actually well trained lawyers/politicians, they possess way more ability to manipulate the political process in their favor. They will get regressive things done way more cleverly and subtly than Drumpf ever could. And this is just as scary, to me, as having a powerful, emotional child running this country.

You make the best political posts on all of ns, dont stop

Like listening to Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/820684/Donald-Trump-vows-to-ban-Muslims-entering-US

CampeadorLike listening to Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/820684/Donald-Trump-vows-to-ban-Muslims-entering-US

That exactly what ISIS wants, to turn western society against the Muslim religion. You are a smart guy, that's obvious, but you are also really fucking ignorant sometimes.

THEPROPHETThat exactly what ISIS wants, to turn western society against the Muslim religion. You are a smart guy, that's obvious, but you are also really fucking ignorant sometimes.

This is a nonsense narrative. Islam is antithetical to Western civilization, it has nothing to do with ISIS.

The best way to hit back at Muslims is with overwhelming force, and to show these cowards that terror cuts both ways.

Europeans should strike fear into any Muslims who follow the faith in any significant way. But Europeans haven't been able to strike fear into anyone since the Second World War, they've become sissified pussies. The fact that European men cannot even protect their women and children against the muslim "horde of evil" is proof enough.

Here's an interesting case study on how to effectively deal with muslim terrorists:

"The KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately.

Soon thereafter, the surviving three hostages were dropped off by the Soviet embassy "from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough" and never again was a Soviet (diplomat or otherwise) kidnapped in Lebanon. As Benny Morris put it: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk. And this is the language the Hezbollah understand." Not only Hezbollah, but ISIS and every other Muslim terror group."


Islam is an evil religion, the only concept muslims understand is power.

Pardon, I forgot the link:

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/how-to-deal-with-hostage-takers-soviet-lessons/

CampeadorThis is a nonsense narrative. Islam is antithetical to Western civilization, it has nothing to do with ISIS.

The best way to hit back at Muslims is with overwhelming force, and to show these cowards that terror cuts both ways.

Europeans should strike fear into any Muslims who follow the faith in any significant way. But Europeans haven't been able to strike fear into anyone since the Second World War, they've become sissified pussies. The fact that European men cannot even protect their women and children against the muslim "horde of evil" is proof enough.

Here's an interesting case study on how to effectively deal with muslim terrorists:

"The KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately.

Soon thereafter, the surviving three hostages were dropped off by the Soviet embassy "from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough" and never again was a Soviet (diplomat or otherwise) kidnapped in Lebanon. As Benny Morris put it: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk. And this is the language the Hezbollah understand." Not only Hezbollah, but ISIS and every other Muslim terror group."


Islam is an evil religion, the only concept muslims understand is power.

p.s. Yur a nut job

*MASSHOLE*https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/11218817_1096068020486251_8666440610422713932_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=1f179a2da019c8ff75e516523e1f8f2d&oe=578C5515

p.s. Yur a nut job

Bullshit, those psychopaths have just been quarantined like a disease under their own dictators and resisted with overwhelming force by Europeans in the past.

And they happen to typically hate themselves and each other more than us (hence all their wars with each other), until we started importing these fuckers under the delusion that they would "change" when exposed to liberal western values.

Islam in an evil political ideology.

CampeadorThis is a nonsense narrative. Islam is antithetical to Western civilization, it has nothing to do with ISIS.

The best way to hit back at Muslims is with overwhelming force, and to show these cowards that terror cuts both ways.

Europeans should strike fear into any Muslims who follow the faith in any significant way. But Europeans haven't been able to strike fear into anyone since the Second World War, they've become sissified pussies. The fact that European men cannot even protect their women and children against the muslim "horde of evil" is proof enough.

Here's an interesting case study on how to effectively deal with muslim terrorists:

"The KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately.

Soon thereafter, the surviving three hostages were dropped off by the Soviet embassy "from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough" and never again was a Soviet (diplomat or otherwise) kidnapped in Lebanon. As Benny Morris put it: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk. And this is the language the Hezbollah understand." Not only Hezbollah, but ISIS and every other Muslim terror group."


Islam is an evil religion, the only concept muslims understand is power.

Good troll, good troll

CampeadorThis is a nonsense narrative. Islam is antithetical to Western civilization, it has nothing to do with ISIS.

The best way to hit back at Muslims is with overwhelming force, and to show these cowards that terror cuts both ways.

Europeans should strike fear into any Muslims who follow the faith in any significant way. But Europeans haven't been able to strike fear into anyone since the Second World War, they've become sissified pussies. The fact that European men cannot even protect their women and children against the muslim "horde of evil" is proof enough.

Here's an interesting case study on how to effectively deal with muslim terrorists:

"The KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately.

Soon thereafter, the surviving three hostages were dropped off by the Soviet embassy "from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough" and never again was a Soviet (diplomat or otherwise) kidnapped in Lebanon. As Benny Morris put it: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk. And this is the language the Hezbollah understand." Not only Hezbollah, but ISIS and every other Muslim terror group."


Islam is an evil religion, the only concept muslims understand is power.

Agreed, on all counts. It's such a shame how the great have fallen. Such striking parallels to the fall of Rome, but the wars are now fought in the minds of the people.

CampeadorThis is a nonsense narrative. Islam is antithetical to Western civilization, it has nothing to do with ISIS.

The best way to hit back at Muslims is with overwhelming force, and to show these cowards that terror cuts both ways.

Europeans should strike fear into any Muslims who follow the faith in any significant way. But Europeans haven't been able to strike fear into anyone since the Second World War, they've become sissified pussies. The fact that European men cannot even protect their women and children against the muslim "horde of evil" is proof enough.

Here's an interesting case study on how to effectively deal with muslim terrorists:

"The KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately.

Soon thereafter, the surviving three hostages were dropped off by the Soviet embassy "from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough" and never again was a Soviet (diplomat or otherwise) kidnapped in Lebanon. As Benny Morris put it: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk. And this is the language the Hezbollah understand." Not only Hezbollah, but ISIS and every other Muslim terror group."


Islam is an evil religion, the only concept muslims understand is power.

God I hope this is a troll

foolmetwiceGod I hope this is a troll

You may want to ask Siri for the way to the nearest safe space.

onenerdykidhow can educated, reasonable people get behind him, specifically?

They don't. Coming from the right myself, at least I don't think they don't. We just have that many uneducated rednecks.

Crispy.They don't. Coming from the right myself, at least I don't think they don't. We just have that many uneducated rednecks.

Except Trump typically wins every demographic, including those with 4-year degrees. And all those southern rednecks in places like Massachusetts and New Hampshire certainly like him as well.

You're probably all bummed out you didn't get the chance to vote for Jeb!

Dinner party Republicans, go ahead and leave.

CampeadorExcept Trump typically wins every demographic, including those with 4-year degrees. And all those southern rednecks in places like Massachusetts and New Hampshire certainly like him as well.

You're probably all bummed out you didn't get the chance to vote for Jeb!

Dinner party Republicans, go ahead and leave.

He's going to get annihilated in the general though... So that wouldn't matter. He couldn't carry Ohio or Iowa in the primaries... he's going to need both to win, and he doesn't beat either democrat in those states. Better prepare for either America's Iron Lady, or America's "Pepe".

J.D.Gotta say, I don't really get the Hitler comparisons, or the Mussolini comparisons, or George Wallace... we already know exactly who Trump is like.

The Republican Party is essentially voting for President Biff Tannen.

Holy shit hahahaha

CampeadorExcept Trump typically wins every demographic, including those with 4-year degrees. And all those southern rednecks in places like Massachusetts and New Hampshire certainly like him as well.

You're probably all bummed out you didn't get the chance to vote for Jeb!

Dinner party Republicans, go ahead and leave.

No man I disliked Jeb more than I do Trump. Trump is so tempermental and has very little political experience. I think he could do okay if he has a super good cabinet but the likeliehood that happens is low. He's so irrational that it's only a matter of time before he seriously pisses another country off and boom WW3.