RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years

RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (Full Version)

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

Message

Nnanji -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 12:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: And the obvious benefit to negotiated fair trade is that everyone competes on a level playing field. No more lefty "the U.S. Is an empire that must transfer wealth". But this has been the tacit hue and cry under nutsucker forced free market communism. quote: Again with the socialist rant against a handful of businesses. Cap and trade carbon will hurt consumers more than anything and it's a goal of lefties. So why all of the sudden are there tears for consumers? in what way will it hurt consumers more than anything? How nice mental patient. You must be on your meds. Two complete sentences. Now, troll elsewhere with your leading questions. Make a comment if one of your voices is insistent. So, you are up from your moms basement and additionally, along with your day job, cockgargling, you also cockgargling the voices in your head. But as I expected, you cannot defend the fact that the nutsuckers who forced this free market communism down are throats are now going to save us from it. This will end as bad as your jobs bill, you know, the one that dumps ratpoison in the drinking water, and mercury in the air you bragged about, wilbur. And of course it will not hurt the consumer, really, to not buy at Wal-Mart. When did your so called free market communism do anything to pirates...you know, dump things down are throats? You're flattering me again mental patient. Saying to me the things we've been discussing about you and your voices. You may actually be close enough now to distinguish reality.

Nnanji -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 1:15:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The application of reasonable tariffs does not equate to starting a "trade war". There is no mutual benefit to be obtained from tariff-free trade with nations that have significantly lower costs of production. I've noticed that practically every single Trumpeter out there automatically skips past the whole negotiation stage straight into their fantasy of America getting everything it wants with no resistance from anyone. I guess it's pretty comforting to think that America will succeed because of pure awesomeness, but there's a reason this approach hasn't been tried, and it has nothing to do with weak leadership. The most obvious benefit to be obtained from tariff-free trade is cheaper goods, which benefits ALL consumers as opposed to SOME businesses (the few businesses that would be in direct competition with China). What you may also not realize is that Chinese consumers actually end up buying quite a few of the products they manufacture BACK from the US at much higher prices... so the Americans essentially get paid to ship these things back and forth. Tariffs will hurt consumers while providing minimal benefits to a handful of businesses... the poor will have it worst. Maybe China will buy this stuff back. http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/entry/the-china-built-bay-bridge-has-another-problem http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/10/1305808/-California-discovers-hidden-price-tag-of-outsourcing-Bay-Bridge-to-China

DesideriScuri -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 6:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji I notice all of the snowflake lefties forget that Trump said "fair" trade, which is something to negotiate. The fantasy seems to be that the left believes only they are the judges of "fair". So what's fair, exactly? What happens when your trading partner doesn't think it's 'fair' at all? Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 6:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? Isn't that exactly what the TPP did with 12 countries?? But Herr Drumpff is now saying it's unfair to the US. He's planning to scrap it and re-negotiate separate bilateral agreements in US's favour. Surely that's even less fair than the original TPP agreement that was agreed??

tamaka -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 7:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? Isn't that exactly what the TPP did with 12 countries?? But Herr Drumpff is now saying it's unfair to the US. He's planning to scrap it and re-negotiate separate bilateral agreements in US's favour. Surely that's even less fair than the original TPP agreement that was agreed?? Not if the US is getting screwed it isn't.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 7:16:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? Isn't that exactly what the TPP did with 12 countries?? But Herr Drumpff is now saying it's unfair to the US. He's planning to scrap it and re-negotiate separate bilateral agreements in US's favour. Surely that's even less fair than the original TPP agreement that was agreed?? Not if the US is getting screwed it isn't. But Herr Drumpff wants to screw everyone else in favour of the US, NO?? That is unfair - it's not a level playing field. I can't see many agreeing to what he is proposing. So the US will lose out in the end.

Marini -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 7:55:30 PM)
Thanks for starting this thread, and giving some of us something interesting to mull over. I am not sure what the answer is, but if it takes the blinders off, some of the willfully blind, that's a good thing. Interesting......

tamaka -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 8:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? Isn't that exactly what the TPP did with 12 countries?? But Herr Drumpff is now saying it's unfair to the US. He's planning to scrap it and re-negotiate separate bilateral agreements in US's favour. Surely that's even less fair than the original TPP agreement that was agreed?? Not if the US is getting screwed it isn't. But Herr Drumpff wants to screw everyone else in favour of the US, NO?? That is unfair - it's not a level playing field. I can't see many agreeing to what he is proposing. So the US will lose out in the end. It appears by the numbers, we have nothing to lose.

tamaka -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 8:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Thanks for starting this thread, and giving some of us something interesting to mull over. I am not sure what the answer is, but if it takes the blinders off, some of the willfully blind, that's a good thing. Interesting...... You're welcome. I'm just learning all of this stuff myself.

Marini -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 8:54:01 PM)
I used to come here and post endless threads on how rampant unbridled outsourcing, helped ruin this country. It takes me back a bit. Check out - outsourcing/ bye bye Miss American Pie- articles written by Norma Sherry, one view on what happened in the U.S. It was written in 2003, but great article on the greedy corporate bastards. I thought a lot of this started with Reagan, but looks like it started with Nixon in 1974, the Fast Track Bill, gives the President sole authority over trade negotiations. Again great topic

tamaka -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 9:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I used to come here and post endless threads on how rampant unbridled outsourcing, helped ruin this country. It takes me back a bit. Check out - outsourcing/ bye bye Miss American Pie- articles written by Norma Sherry, one view on what happened in the U.S. It was written in 2006, but great article on the greedy corporate bastards. I thought a lot of this started with Reagan, but looks like it started with Nixon in 1974, the Fast Track Bill, gives the President sole authority over trade negotiations. Ok thanks... i will. It is very interesting.

MrRodgers -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 10:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The application of reasonable tariffs does not equate to starting a "trade war". There is no mutual benefit to be obtained from tariff-free trade with nations that have significantly lower costs of production. I've noticed that practically every single Trumpeter out there automatically skips past the whole negotiation stage straight into their fantasy of America getting everything it wants with no resistance from anyone. I guess it's pretty comforting to think that America will succeed because of pure awesomeness, but there's a reason this approach hasn't been tried, and it has nothing to do with weak leadership. I notice all of the snowflake lefties forget that Trump said "fair" trade, which is something to negotiate. The fantasy seems to be that the left believes only they are the judges of "fair". quote: The most obvious benefit to be obtained from tariff-free trade is cheaper goods, which benefits ALL consumers as opposed to SOME businesses (the few businesses that would be in direct competition with China). What you may also not realize is that Chinese consumers actually end up buying quite a few of the products they manufacture BACK from the US at much higher prices... so the Americans essentially get paid to ship these things back and forth. And the obvious benefit to negotiated fair trade is that everyone competes on a level playing field. No more lefty "the U.S. Is an empire that must transfer wealth". quote: Tariffs will hurt consumers while providing minimal benefits to a handful of businesses... the poor will have it worst. Again with the socialist rant against a handful of businesses. Cap and trade carbon will hurt consumers more than anything and it's a goal of lefties. So why all of the sudden are there tears for consumers? http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-announces-trade-case-against-china-over-agriculture-products-1473783354 Fair trade is what's fair for [me] and my investors, fuck everybody and everything else. Vietnam is looking better everyday and more so than China for baseline manufacturing. No big middle class needed because no consumer society needed. We are talking a future large Asian gulag or slave farm. Oh, and the only reason there is any case being brought in agriculture, is because big Ag...carries the weight and they can't move the dirt to China. But if they could.....?

heavyblinker -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/21/2016 11:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? I'm pretty sure that in the case of NAFTA at least, agreements have already been reached and the decision to return to the negotiation table doesn't seem to be mutual. Trump's aggressive posturing is definitely putting people off and making everyone nervous. He's making a lot of wild proclamations and nobody knows how to take them... if the point is just to re-open negotiations to find mutually beneficial solutions, why doesn't he just say that? Why does he feel the need to make threats and act like a schoolyard bully? How is it 'fair' to threaten other countries with absurd tariffs that could plunge the world into a recession unless they comply to your demands? Even if they DO comply, it doesn't mean it's 'fair'... it just means they complied. The reason trade has become an issue is because Trump has convinced people that the US is generally getting screwed in trade deals while other countries/evil globalists are reaping benefits galore with no upside to regular people whatsoever... he did this to get votes, not because he actually understands the situation... fascists love nurturing persecution fantasies in their voter base. As Obama has demonstrated with the TPP, there are less aggressively confrontational ways to deal with China... and when Trump rips it up, it means they are free to negotiate an alternative deal that could be even less 'fair' (let's just come out and say 'advantageous') to the US. In fact, they've already responded to Trump with threats of their own, and the simple fact is they are in a good position to win a potential trade war and they know it.

thompsonx -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 12:34:24 AM)
ORIGINAL: tamaka Every dollar we spend on imports from China is used by them to purchase US debt. If your statement is true then how does china produce all that stuff for free? Is it some sort of "kungfu" magic?

Edwird -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 6:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji I notice all of the snowflake lefties forget that Trump said "fair" trade, which is something to negotiate. The fantasy seems to be that the left believes only they are the judges of "fair". So what's fair, exactly? What happens when your trading partner doesn't think it's 'fair' at all? Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. *If we negotiate* with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair?** You mean like the countries have been doing for some decades already? I think some people thinking this will be the first time any trade (icl. 'what's fair') negotiation will have ever happened explains a lot.

Edwird -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 7:15:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? Isn't that exactly what the TPP did with 12 countries?? But Herr Drumpff is now saying it's unfair to the US. He's planning to scrap it and re-negotiate separate bilateral agreements in US's favour. Surely that's even less fair than the original TPP agreement that was agreed?? Not if the US is getting screwed it isn't. We're getting screwed by our politicians and our education system more than we are getting screwed by imports. As already mentioned, other countries have to deal with the same thing, and they are not afforded the luxury of size to be able use 'trade war' tactics. Instead they attempt to improve the workforce by way of better targeted education and better understanding of what's needed thereby, and quicker to adapt. Most of those also have free or low cost tuition for higher education. They also have a generally more stable regulatory environment, less prone (but of course not completely immune) to having the largest companies and sectors bully/buy their way into bending regulation to their own way, the latter of which allows them to wreck the economy and ruin retirees in the course off causing mass layoffs. Or sending lots of free oil directly to the beaches of all the gulf states, or making water undrinkable in an increasing number of areas.

tamaka -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 8:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: tamaka Every dollar we spend on imports from China is used by them to purchase US debt. If your statement is true then how does china produce all that stuff for free? Is it some sort of "kungfu" magic? I should have said every dollar we spend on the surplus to China is used by them to purchase US debt.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 8:48:30 AM)
The USA is poverty..not something I can argue with and your national debt not bested by any nation on earth. Did i get this one correct - a worthless bankrupt nation? You have no bargaining power at all...formidable not

DesideriScuri -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 9:05:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. If we negotiate with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair? Isn't that exactly what the TPP did with 12 countries?? But Herr Drumpff is now saying it's unfair to the US. He's planning to scrap it and re-negotiate separate bilateral agreements in US's favour. Surely that's even less fair than the original TPP agreement that was agreed?? Well, that all depends. If you're asking if it was fair to the Administration that it was passed under, then, yes, it was deemed fair to the US. Now, Trump might have a different opinion on whether or not it's fair. I don't know if it was fair to the US or not. Obviously, to the outgoing Administration, it was, but it isn't, to the incoming Administration. What Trump can do about it, however, might be more debatable. As an aside, I saw a magazine put out by the UAW lying on the floor of my plant. We supply Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, etc. with parts that go directly into their vehicles, but the operators and maintenance workers aren't represented by the UAW, but by the Retail, Wholesale, & Department Store Union (don't ask, it's not worth it). Anyway, the magazine had as the front cover story, "Oppose the TPP." Are Unions now aligning themselves with the GOP?!?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Trade between the US and China over past 30 years (11/22/2016 9:11:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji I notice all of the snowflake lefties forget that Trump said "fair" trade, which is something to negotiate. The fantasy seems to be that the left believes only they are the judges of "fair". So what's fair, exactly? What happens when your trading partner doesn't think it's 'fair' at all? Um, what's fair to us, what's fair to them, and where we come together, would be part of that whole "negotiate" thing. *If we negotiate* with them, and come to an agreement, wouldn't that seem to at least imply the trading partner thinks it's fair?** You mean like the countries have been doing for some decades already? I think some people thinking this will be the first time any trade (icl. 'what's fair') negotiation will have ever happened explains a lot. I mean exactly that. The big difference is that what the President and the President-Elect see as "fair" obviously don't line up so much. What's truly funny, is when someone calls for things to be "more fair." It's either fair, or it's not. Nothing can be "more fair." If it can be "more" fair, then it's not actually, fair, meaning it can't be "more" of what it isn't already.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625