RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:12:45 PM)

You moron -- I just told you that.

AND that your article is about currency manipulation, not business climate and cheap labor.

From http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-28/why-factory-jobs-are-shrinking-everywhere:

"Manufacturing employment is falling almost everywhere, including in China. The phenomenon is driven by technology, and there’s reason to think developing countries are going to follow a different path to wealth than the U.S. did—one that involves a lot more jobs in the services sector. Pretty much every economy around the world has a low or declining share of manufacturing jobs."




Sanity -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:21:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You moron



[:D] Feel defensive much

IN PART due to currency manipulation, which I posted that




Musicmystery -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:25:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You moron



[:D] Feel defensive much

IN PART due to currency manipulation, which I posted that



Nope -- just making a factual observation.

And I add as evidence that currency manipulation isn't creating the business climate or the cheap labor -- it's affecting the balance of trade.




Sanity -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:25:40 PM)


This was your claim:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Jobs aren't going to China


Just admit you were wrong, there is no shame in making an occasional mistake



Musicmystery -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:28:59 PM)

The point, moron, is that China is losing manufacturing jobs at an even faster rate than the US.

And for the same reason -- technology.

Now, you can whine about China forever, and even impose sanctions, but those jobs aren't coming back, not because China has them, but because they no longer exist -- anywhere.

"The decline in manufacturing jobs isn’t confined to the (now) rich world. According to the Groningen Growth and Development Center, manufacturing jobs in Brazil climbed as a proportion of total employment from 12 percent in 1950 to 16 percent in 1986. Since then it’s slid to around 13 percent. In India, manufacturing accounted for 10 percent of employment in 1960, rising to 13 percent in 2002 before the level began to fall. China’s manufacturing employment share peaked at around 15 percent in the mid-1990s and has generally remained below that level since. As a proportion of output, manufacturing accounted for 40 percent of Chinese GDP in 1980 compared with 32 percent now."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-28/why-factory-jobs-are-shrinking-everywhere





Sanity -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:32:03 PM)


I have proven you wrong, in your defense you resort to name calling...

I suppose I shouldnt look down on you if you need such crutches to get you through your day



Musicmystery -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 6:33:29 PM)

I forgot you aren't able to read.

Go forth in ignorant fury, then. Good luck storming Beijing.

[image]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AjUmULa0R-8/hqdefault.jpg[/image]



Sanity -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/12/2014 8:23:27 PM)


Editing your post after I reply and then claiming I cant read is a new low on your part



DesideriScuri -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 3:12:32 AM)

FR,

My local drive home radio host put it out that this is going to be a material decrease in the amount of CO2 we emit, but a reduction in growth of the amount China emits. Put another way, the change in our CO2 emitting will be negative and China's will be "less positive." If that's true, and it doesn't look like it is from the article in the OP, that's a shitty deal for the US.



Musicmystery -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 3:42:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Editing your post after I reply and then claiming I cant read is a new low on your part

Naw...you could have actually read that part of the article before instead of steaming off half baked.




Lucylastic -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 4:08:54 AM)

Funny but you edited your post before he responded.

9:31:14 PM was your edit
9:32:03 PM was his post
so he is lying again



DomKen -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 6:39:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Do you ever tell the truth?

That question is entirely rhetorical, I have learned that you do not

[image]http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/electricprices.gif[/image]

And look at the trends

Currently Obama is doing his best to choke off Americas affordable energy, while China is massively expanding theirs



Can't you fucking read a graph? That graph shows the same thing my post did you idiot.



JeffBC -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 7:34:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
My local drive home radio host put it out that this is going to be a material decrease in the amount of CO2 we emit, but a reduction in growth of the amount China emits. Put another way, the change in our CO2 emitting will be negative and China's will be "less positive." If that's true, and it doesn't look like it is from the article in the OP, that's a shitty deal for the US.

Well, it'd be a "shitty deal" except for the fact that if you believe in science then we should have been doing this with or without any deal with China.



Lucylastic -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 7:56:39 AM)

For those who dont consider left wing sites lie completely



http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/solar-nuclear-clean-coal-obama-china-climate-deal





DesideriScuri -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 3:14:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
My local drive home radio host put it out that this is going to be a material decrease in the amount of CO2 we emit, but a reduction in growth of the amount China emits. Put another way, the change in our CO2 emitting will be negative and China's will be "less positive." If that's true, and it doesn't look like it is from the article in the OP, that's a shitty deal for the US.

Well, it'd be a "shitty deal" except for the fact that if you believe in science then we should have been doing this with or without any deal with China.


If we're "making a deal" with China to increase the goals for carbon emission reduction (we were already working on a 17% decrease by 2025), then, yes, it's a shitty deal. We were already working on reducing our emissions. I think our emissions have already been going down.

And, the whole thing being a "shitty deal" is reliant on China only having to reduce it's increases, rather than actually cutting emissions, which hasn't been completely refuted or supported yet.



mnottertail -> RE: The Sucker-In-Chief strikes a deal... (11/13/2014 3:38:52 PM)

China's emissions will peak in 2030 after which they will go down as they continue to fix their problems, and retrofit their stuff.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875