posted by SportsAndLadySaid is so pathetic. Guy can’t just leave this site he has to come back with different usernames lol it’s like posting on the OC is one of the more important things in his life. Yikes..
To most it is just a message board for the lulz. For said, it is life.
I missed it. How do we know it’s said?
posted by friendfromlowryI missed it. How do we know it’s said?
It’s pretty obvious
posted by HOF on coattailsare
lazy error on my part, thinking about "our" ass getting kicked too much. My apologies to the group.
posted by HOF on coattailsThe USA has been trading at a deficit since 1975. High tariffs do not reduce trade deficit. For instance, America’s trade deficit narrowed dramatically during the Great Recession. Donald's tariffs will make the deficit larger after other countries impose reciprocal tariffs.
Apparently to Donald fans, every other President since '75 and their economists has been ignorant about growth, savings and investment rates.
The deficit narrowed during the repression because of the dramatic pullback by the American consumer = less imports.
posted by friendfromlowryI missed it. How do we know it’s said?
Proven on the old site, but we all know said will be unhinged at some point.
U.S.-manufactured goods exports totaled $1.32 trillion in 2017, up 4.66 percent from 2016. That was much better than the declines of 6.20 percent and 4.04 percent in 2015 and 2016, respectively. This reflects export growth to the top-five markets for U.S.-manufactured goods in 2017: Canada (up 4.51 percent), Mexico (up 5.65 percent), China (up 10.43 percent), Japan (up 1.97 percent) and Germany (up 7.59 percent).
posted by SportsAndLadyIt’s pretty obvious
Yeah I see it now.
posted by SportsAndLadySaid is so pathetic. Guy can’t just leave this site he has to come back with different usernames lol it’s like posting on the OC is one of the more important things in his life. Yikes..
lets let it go for awhile......its entertaining
313,000 new jobs in Feb.; over 31,000 new manufacturing jobs --- solid!
Now on to getting NK to roll over completely.
Quick fire:
Numbers today are great.
Tariffs: Dumb, dumb, dumb, but hey, let's see how this works. It is a nice test case for macro econ policy.
North Korea: Interesting....I'm cautious....but North Korea has wanted to meet a sitting U.S. President for 30 years. So, now, we just agreed to that. Seems like it validates everything North Korea has done the last 30 years...But whatever. The devil is in the details...every single North Korean agreement has been broken before...so maybe this will work. Might as well give it a shot.
"unemployment unchanged as more people entered the workforce"
Which kind of proves what many more astute observers had been saying for years - the labor participation rate was a much better indicator than the unemployment %.
posted by ptown_trojans_1
North Korea: Interesting....I'm cautious....but North Korea has wanted to meet a sitting U.S. President for 30 years. So, now, we just agreed to that. Seems like it validates everything North Korea has done the last 30 years...But whatever. The devil is in the details...every single North Korean agreement has been broken before...so maybe this will work. Might as well give it a shot.
Agree with you here. And I think Trump played a role in this - one of many factors. N. Korea is not to be trusted though. Hopefully it bears fruit. Ultimately, only the Kims leaving power is going to mark final victory.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Quick fire:
Numbers today are great.
Tariffs: Dumb, dumb, dumb, but hey, let's see how this works. It is a nice test case for macro econ policy.
North Korea: Interesting....I'm cautious....but North Korea has wanted to meet a sitting U.S. President for 30 years. So, now, we just agreed to that. Seems like it validates everything North Korea has done the last 30 years...But whatever. The devil is in the details...every single North Korean agreement has been broken before...so maybe this will work. Might as well give it a shot.
link?
posted by Spocklink?
A macro economics textbook and 60 plus years of U.S. trade policy....
I'll just quote George Will:
"Protectionism is a scythe that slices through core conservative principles, including opposition to government industrial policy, and to government picking winners and losers, and to crony capitalism elevated to an ethic (“A few Americans first”). Big, bossy government does not get bigger or bossier than when it embraces protectionism — government dictating what goods Americans can choose, and in what quantities, and at what prices. "
posted by gut"unemployment unchanged as more people entered the workforce"
Which kind of proves what many more astute observers had been saying for years - the labor participation rate was a much better indicator than the unemployment %.
Agree
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieAgree with you here. And I think Trump played a role in this - one of many factors. N. Korea is not to be trusted though. Hopefully it bears fruit. Ultimately, only the Kims leaving power is going to mark final victory.
Agree
posted by ptown_trojans_1A macro economics textbook and 60 plus years of U.S. trade policy....
I'll just quote George Will:
"Protectionism is a scythe that slices through core conservative principles, including opposition to government industrial policy, and to government picking winners and losers, and to crony capitalism elevated to an ethic (“A few Americans first”). Big, bossy government does not get bigger or bossier than when it embraces protectionism — government dictating what goods Americans can choose, and in what quantities, and at what prices. "
George Will can kiss my ass.
posted by QuakerOatsGeorge Will can kiss my ass.
Compelling argument.
posted by QuakerOats
George Will can kiss my ass.
I seriosuly did LOL when I read that.
posted by justincredibleCompelling argument.
Ok; how about his intrepretation of what is occurring is erroneous. Seeking fair trade should be the goal, and sometimes you have to play hardball to achieve it; phony George knows this, but his embedded status quo elitism has definitely gotten the better of him over the last few years.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Quick fire:
Numbers today are great.
Tariffs: Dumb, dumb, dumb, but hey, let's see how this works. It is a nice test case for macro econ policy.
North Korea: Interesting....I'm cautious....but North Korea has wanted to meet a sitting U.S. President for 30 years. So, now, we just agreed to that. Seems like it validates everything North Korea has done the last 30 years...But whatever. The devil is in the details...every single North Korean agreement has been broken before...so maybe this will work. Might as well give it a shot.
Change North Korea to Iran and Trump to Obama and your last paragraph is 100% the same, but you were all for the Obama/Iran meeting/deal.
If by that you mean changing the approach to U.S. policy, then sure.
That's why I am open for this, but am cautious.
But, for Iran, the IAEA was brought in the process quite early. I highly doubt Trump knows who the hell the IAEA is. Also, the fact no one else in the U.S. foreign policy realm knew about this is a problem. Kinda hard to bring in the right people when they have no idea what the hell is going on. But, hey, let's see where this goes.
If this ends with a verified IAEA agreement like the Iran deal, then alrighty.
posted by QuakerOatsOk; how about his intrepretation of what is occurring is erroneous. Seeking fair trade should be the goal, and sometimes you have to play hardball to achieve it; phony George knows this, but his embedded status quo elitism has definitely gotten the better of him over the last few years.
"Fair trade?" "Hardball?"
What do you consider fair trade? Apparently, you don't believe it's something that free market capitalism can supply, instead leaning on government intervention.
And here I thought you believed government intervention was a bad idea and not the solution to problems that arise.
So, government seizure of weighted percentages from international trade is a meritorious proposal for achieving "fair trade," but government seizure of weighted percentages from income brackets is not a meritorious proposal for ensuring people pay their "fair share."
Tariffs are anti-free market and restrictive to businesses by manipulating the natural order of supply and demand (in this case, of materials).
I'm honestly not sure Trump could do anything at this point that you wouldn't support ...
... except switch parties.
posted by QuakerOats...fair trade should be the goal...
Holy crap, QO has become a 90's Democrat