Politics

[Saul]

Trump's comments on McCain's military service are disgraceful. Anyone with decency will admit that.

I may have disagreed with McCain's views on many issues, but I respected him as a man of principle. I do not think now is the time to attack his memory. He chose to make his final statements his beliefs on the country and the president. Agree or disagree, he spoke his mind.

I hope that politics will have a return to civility where we look for what we have in common and not what we have in difference. As long as we do not work towards compromise and solutions that benefit the American people, this country will continue to deteriorate.

 

[Brent in Az]

Donald Trumps comments on McCains military service were out of line. Trump should have used a different platform to go after McCain. On the other side of the coin, nobody is pulling any punches when it comes to the insults against Trump and his family. The only thing Donald Trump has done to any of these people, is win an election, and help bring back prosperity. They hate him for it.

Donald Trump is being attacked daily, by the swamp. I don't blame Trump for being chippy against his critics.

 

[Foxi]

Donald Trumps comments on McCains military service were out of line. Trump should have used a different platform to go after McCain. On the other side of the coin, nobody is pulling any punches when it comes to the insults against Trump and his family. The only thing Donald Trump has done to any of these people, is win an election, and help bring back prosperity. They hate him for it.

Donald Trump is being attacked daily, by the swamp. I don't blame Trump for being chippy against his critics.

And he brought back 300 billions USD in seven month.
You don't read (almost) nothing in European newspapers about that.That's true.
But he's dealing it out pretty damn hard and that's where ricochets come back.
I'm not always happy about him, I say that honestly, but I appreciate how much he defends American interests.
Whether he is always right is not easy to answer, but I wish Angela Merkel had at least 20% of him.
That would do it.
Foxi

 

[sgt_zim]

And he brought back 300 billions USD in seven month.
You don't read (almost) nothing in European newspapers about that.That's true.
But he's dealing it out pretty damn hard and that's where ricochets come back.
I'm not always happy about him, I say that honestly, but I appreciate how much he defends American interests.
Whether he is always right is not easy to answer, but I wish Angela Merkel had at least 20% of him.
That would do it.
Foxi

I'm not always happy about him, either. I didn't vote for him (sure as heck didn't vote for HRC, either). I support him when he's right, and criticize him when he is wrong.

I think the guy honestly wants what's best for the US., but that's not an excuse for standing in quicksand on philosophical issues where he is profoundly wrong (as he is on tariffs).

 

[Royal27]

I'm not always happy about him, either. I didn't vote for him (sure as heck didn't vote for HRC, either). I support him when he's right, and criticize him when he is wrong.

I think the guy honestly wants what's best for the US., but that's not an excuse for standing in quicksand on philosophical issues where he is profoundly wrong (as he is on tariffs).

Agree that he wants what's best. And that he's not always right. And that even when he's right he's often far blunter than any "normal" politician. I think actually having a spine is part of the cause of that.

Don't agree with you on the tariffs (and I'm assuming you don't think he should have used them at all, so forgive me if I'm wrong). I think his use of tariffs is profoundly right. Trump believes in free trade, and is using tariffs masterfully to get to that end. Mexico now being the most obvious example of it, but you can include South Korea, Japan, and Australia along with a few others. Those countries saw the tea leaves properly. And even the EU is at the table because of the tariffs and threat of more. This is economic war, whether anyone likes to admit it or not. The smart countries are now suing for peace. The not so smart countries will be hurt badly by their own doing, not by Trumps.

Heck, even China is just hoping to wait Trump out. I don't think Xi really thinks he can win the war. He's just hoping Trump gets creamed in the mid terms or loses in 2020, or that somehow he can use his North Korean puppet to get what he wants. Trump gets Xi though and has a plan 30 years in the making. Xi just may have underestimated the resolve here, and his own economies weakness and lack of breadth.

It's going to be an interesting fall on many levels for sure!

 

[WAB]

You raise a good point on tariffs. Philosophically I believe in free trade and oppose tariffs. I believe that free trade will create the greatest wealth for society. However, you may be right in that Trump appears to be using tariffs to force other nations to the table and move us closer to fair if not free trade.

 

[sgt_zim]

You raise a good point on tariffs. Philosophically I believe in free trade and oppose tariffs. I believe that free trade will create the greatest wealth for society. However, you may be right in that Trump appears to be using tariffs to force other nations to the table and move us closer to fair if not free trade.

I don't *believe* that unfettered trade will bring prosperity, I *know* it will.

Free trade is enshrined within our constitution. Politically, at least until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, this republic was comprised of 48 sovereign States who ceded a handful of powers to the federal government. As Madison put it, the federal government's powers were few and defined, while the powers of the several States were indefinite. One thing imposed at the federal level upon the several States was free trade via Article I Section 9. This republic didn't become the wealthiest in world history by accident. Of all the things which led to our prosperity, this may be the most important one.

It should also be noted that Singapore and Hong Kong were both absolute backwaters in 1945. They both have had (and still have) free trade policies in place for decades, unilateral free trade in some cases. Tariffs are a burden to the citizens of the nations where the tariffs are imposed. If no tariff is in place on the importation of, for example, consumer electronics, and a nice TV costs me $1000, it stands to reason that a 25% tariff on that TV is going to bump the price up to $1250. The seller of that TV doesn't take the lump, I do.

If the tariff is raised high enough that the seller cannot make money in this market (because no consumer is willing to pay the inflated price), then he is hurt, but so am I because my choice in purchasing consumer electronics has been restricted. Worse, the tariff permits domestic producers of those goods to raise the prices on their products to just below the level where foreign entities are at break-even. Most people will pay more money for better quality. Tariffs ultimately force consumers to pay more money for lower quality.

About 20 years ago, I was doing some IT work in Amsterdam and I needed to buy a print server (this was in the days before printers had built-in ethernet/wireless capabilities). At that time, Amsterdam was the technology capital of Europe. It took 3 or 4 days to get that single-port print server delivered. As I recall, it cost about 100 USD. Meanwhile back in Houston, if I had need of a print server, I could have gone to the nearest electronics store and picked up a 3-port print server for 50 USD, give or take a little.

American manufacturers were harmed but little by high tariffs in Europe. European consumers, OTOH, were harmed greatly by them.

 

[Red Leg]

I don't *believe* that unfettered trade will bring prosperity, I *know* it will.

Free trade is enshrined within our constitution. Politically, at least until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, this republic was comprised of 48 sovereign States who ceded a handful of powers to the federal government. As Madison put it, the federal government's powers were few and defined, while the powers of the several States were indefinite. One thing imposed at the federal level upon the several States was free trade via Article I Section 9. This republic didn't become the wealthiest in world history by accident. Of all the things which led to our prosperity, this may be the most important one.

It should also be noted that Singapore and Hong Kong were both absolute backwaters in 1945. They both have had (and still have) free trade policies in place for decades, unilateral free trade in some cases. Tariffs are a burden to the citizens of the nations where the tariffs are imposed. If no tariff is in place on the importation of, for example, consumer electronics, and a nice TV costs me $1000, it stands to reason that a 25% tariff on that TV is going to bump the price up to $1250. The seller of that TV doesn't take the lump, I do.

If the tariff is raised high enough that the seller cannot make money in this market (because no consumer is willing to pay the inflated price), then he is hurt, but so am I because my choice in purchasing consumer electronics has been restricted. Worse, the tariff permits domestic producers of those goods to raise the prices on their products to just below the level where foreign entities are at break-even. Most people will pay more money for better quality. Tariffs ultimately force consumers to pay more money for lower quality.

About 20 years ago, I was doing some IT work in Amsterdam and I needed to buy a print server (this was in the days before printers had built-in ethernet/wireless capabilities). At that time, Amsterdam was the technology capital of Europe. It took 3 or 4 days to get that single-port print server delivered. As I recall, it cost about 100 USD. Meanwhile back in Houston, if I had need of a print server, I could have gone to the nearest electronics store and picked up a 3-port print server for 50 USD, give or take a little.

American manufacturers were harmed but little by high tariffs in Europe. European consumers, OTOH, were harmed greatly by them.

I could hardly disagree with you more. European and Asian tariffs/taxes were put in place in the aftermath of World War II with out blessing to help protect their fragile, recovering economies. They were implemented to protect Europe and Japan's recovering industrial base from our economic power. We were an economic and industrial colossus after the war, and any damage to our own export capacity was deemed minor to the mischief being created by the Soviets in attempting to undermine the new and recovering capitalist democracies. Along with the Marshal Plan, a very wise decision at the time. Therefore, the trade relationships have not been "fair" or "free" for seventy years. Unfortunately, over time, that imbalance became the status quo and was accepted as "free trade." Successive conservative presidencies never addressed the issue because they could rarely bring themselves to oppose the status quo on any issue. Liberal presidents had other agendas. Over seven decades, Western Europe and Japan recovered - with a vengeance. Yet, we did nothing to dial back the protections put in place all those years ago. Our industrial capacity, starved for competitive international markets has dramatically withered or been displaced abroad. I think it is indeed long past time to remove protectionist barriers on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific so we truly can have a "free trade" international market.

The Chinese relationship is more complicated. There, our primary challenge is protection of intellectual property. We have a far more dynamic and diversified economy than the Chinese and are not weighted down by plodding central planning (at least until Sanders wins). Since emerging from the Maoist chaos, China has used tariffs, taxes, and particularly investment demands (joint venture requirements) to hamstring our every effort to penetrate their consumer market.

If Trump is successful in readdressing these imbalances, your TV will likely be less than a grand, largely made in the US, and you will be able to afford two of them.

 

[WAB]

I don't *believe* that unfettered trade will bring prosperity, I *know* it will.

Free trade is enshrined within our constitution. Politically, at least until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, this republic was comprised of 48 sovereign States who ceded a handful of powers to the federal government. As Madison put it, the federal government's powers were few and defined, while the powers of the several States were indefinite. One thing imposed at the federal level upon the several States was free trade via Article I Section 9. This republic didn't become the wealthiest in world history by accident. Of all the things which led to our prosperity, this may be the most important one.

It should also be noted that Singapore and Hong Kong were both absolute backwaters in 1945. They both have had (and still have) free trade policies in place for decades, unilateral free trade in some cases. Tariffs are a burden to the citizens of the nations where the tariffs are imposed. If no tariff is in place on the importation of, for example, consumer electronics, and a nice TV costs me $1000, it stands to reason that a 25% tariff on that TV is going to bump the price up to $1250. The seller of that TV doesn't take the lump, I do.

If the tariff is raised high enough that the seller cannot make money in this market (because no consumer is willing to pay the inflated price), then he is hurt, but so am I because my choice in purchasing consumer electronics has been restricted. Worse, the tariff permits domestic producers of those goods to raise the prices on their products to just below the level where foreign entities are at break-even. Most people will pay more money for better quality. Tariffs ultimately force consumers to pay more money for lower quality.

About 20 years ago, I was doing some IT work in Amsterdam and I needed to buy a print server (this was in the days before printers had built-in ethernet/wireless capabilities). At that time, Amsterdam was the technology capital of Europe. It took 3 or 4 days to get that single-port print server delivered. As I recall, it cost about 100 USD. Meanwhile back in Houston, if I had need of a print server, I could have gone to the nearest electronics store and picked up a 3-port print server for 50 USD, give or take a little.

American manufacturers were harmed but little by high tariffs in Europe. European consumers, OTOH, were harmed greatly by them.

I agree, this is a good study in Austrian (free market) economics. Hayek and Von Mises must be smiling.

 

[sgt_zim]

As Hayek once quipped, if socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialist.

 

[Hogpatrol]

News report: New NAFTA agreement with Canada could be in the works. I'm not always in agreement with Trump but at least he's got the balls to come out and say what's been happening with our trading partners, i.e. we've been getting screwed so long, we're supposed to think that it's ok.

 

[sgt_zim]

I could hardly disagree with you more. European and Asian tariffs/taxes were put in place in the aftermath of World War II with out blessing to help protect their fragile, recovering economies. They were implemented to protect Europe and Japan's recovering industrial base from our economic power. We were an economic and industrial colossus after the war, and any damage to our own export capacity was deemed minor to the mischief being created by the Soviets in attempting to undermine the new and recovering capitalist democracies. Along with the Marshal Plan, a very wise decision at the time. Therefore, the trade relationships have not been "fair" or "free" for seventy years. Unfortunately, over time, that imbalance became the status quo and was accepted as "free trade." Successive conservative presidencies never addressed the issue because they could rarely bring themselves to oppose the status quo on any issue. Liberal presidents had other agendas. Over seven decades, Western Europe and Japan recovered - with a vengeance. Yet, we did nothing to dial back the protections put in place all those years ago. Our industrial capacity, starved for competitive international markets has dramatically withered or been displaced abroad. I think it is indeed long past time to remove protectionist barriers on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific so we truly can have a "free trade" international market.

The Chinese relationship is more complicated. There, our primary challenge is protection of intellectual property. We have a far more dynamic and diversified economy than the Chinese and are not weighted down by plodding central planning (at least until Sanders wins). Since emerging from the Maoist chaos, China has used tariffs, taxes, and particularly investment demands (joint venture requirements) to hamstring our every effort to penetrate their consumer market.

If Trump is successful in readdressing these imbalances, your TV will likely be less than a grand, largely made in the US, and you will be able to afford two of them.

Disagree with what, precisely?

Do you disagree that Smoot-Hawley was one of the key driving forces of the Great Depression?

Do you disagree that it is the consumers in the country where tariffs are imposed that ultimately pay those tariffs?

Asia and Europe have recovered, but they're hamstrung by Keynesian/Mercantilist protectionist trade policies. I am loathe to use GDP as a measure of economic vitality, but it serves a purpose here: the GDP of all of Europe is ~70% higher than the US. But Europe has a bit more than twice the population of the US. If they were doing so well, Europe's aggregate GDP should be more than twice (or there should at least be parity) what ours is. In spite of proclamations by talking heads on the lobotomy box and politicians, a typical European has a lower quality of life than a typical American. They are worse off than we are because of higher taxes and higher tariffs. This isn't even arguable.

Singapore and Hong Kong were as decimated by WWII as any of the other Asian countries. Worse, they're both basically sterilized rocks sitting in the ocean, with few natural resources of their own. And yet look at them today after decades of low/no tariffs (low/no tariffs aren't the only thing driving their success, but it's a significant contributing factor).

While the US economy grew tremendously after WWII, do not overlook the important point that even in spite of the Great Depression, the US was an economic juggernaut relative to the rest of the world. After Midway, Japan was done for because they lacked the economic resources to rebuild 3 aircraft carriers - true they had battle ships and cruisers, but no way to protect them if they got out of range of shore-based air support. Japan's defeat at that point was a fait accompli, it was only a question of when the end would come.

Between 1941 and December of 1945, the United States launched 28 or 29 aircraft carriers. Free trade between the states was a significant driver of that (and almost non-existent taxes, but that's another discussion). I don't mention the aircraft carriers as a "yay we had lots of cool toys and they didn't," I say it to underscore the point that only an economic powerhouse like the US had the resources and infrastructure to do it, resources and infrastructure that existed well before the economic boom of the 1950s.

Even if Russia had not been involved in WWII, the economic might of the United States would have eventually overwhelmed the NAZIs. We could afford to replace our war-fighting equipment, and they could not.

 

[mdwest]

Do you disagree that Smoot-Hawley was one of the key driving forces of the Great Depression?

I cant speak for @Red Leg , but a lot of economists disagree that Smoot-Hawley was a key driving force of the Great Depression..

https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-...GhlFK8mYSHna3hOn2TNMXUNdaROmxbY4aAqHWEALw_wcB

https://www.cato.org/blog/smoot-hawley-tariff-great-depression


I'm not an economist.. and cant commit anything to the argument that SH was a minor player or a major one for that matter..

Im generally a "let the free market reign" kinda guy.. and as a rule dont care for tariffs.. and personally dont like the idea of SH at all...

That said.. determining whether SH was the key driving force is something guys with PhD's in economics cant seem to agree on.. so I seriously doubt its something that we're going to find a solution to on a hunting forum focused on Africa..

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Regarding tariffs, it would seem at least some Germans get what Trump is saying:

"A leading German think tank says Donald Trump is right that tariffs between the United States and Europe are asymmetrical, but urges negotiations to lower import taxes across the board."

https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/trump-may-point-eu-tariffs-ifo-says-899083

 

[WAB]

At the end of the day you have to decide if you believe that individuals acting in their own self interest create more value, or if some type of central control creates greater value. The former is an underlying belief of free market thinkers and Austrian economists. The latter is a key underlying belief of Socialism, Communism, etc. sorry to be so direct but it’s really that black and white. If you are interested find and read a short treatise called ‘The Law’ by Frederic Bastiat. Written in 1850, it is as relevant today as it was then.

 

[wesheltonj]

The Great Depression was the result of the failure of the Federal Reserve to pump liquidity into the banks, not tariffs. The USA did not "come out" the depression from FDR socialist programs, but from the defense spending of WW2.

Its past time for the USA to end the Marshall Plan for Europe. Europe for the most part has rebuilt it's time they pay their share for Defense (which we have said is the full 2%) and get rid of the tariffs and have real free trade. The USA is still the largest consumer market of the world, no country and it's citizens is going to miss selling it's product in the USA and Trump knows it, but no one likes change. Lots of money is spend on K street to prevent change.

 

[mdwest]

Lots of money is spend on K street to prevent change.

Your lips to Gods ears.

Heaven knows I have spent more money on K street in the past 12 months than I ever wanted to (not trying to prevent change.. but on other matters).... And when I lived in DC I spent far more time dealing with K street issues that I was ever comfortable with.. Lawyers are going to be the death of me one way or another lol...

 

[wesheltonj]

Your lips to Gods ears.

Heaven knows I have spent more money on K street in the past 12 months than I ever wanted to (not trying to prevent change.. but on other matters).... And when I lived in DC I spent far more time dealing with K street issues that I was ever comfortable with.. Lawyers are going to be the death of me one way or another lol...

And my brethren will still be taking your money after your death probating your Will.

 

[sgt_zim]

The Great Depression was the result of the failure of the Federal Reserve to pump liquidity into the banks, not tariffs. The USA did not "come out" the depression from FDR socialist programs, but from the defense spending of WW2.

Its past time for the USA to end the Marshall Plan for Europe. Europe for the most part has rebuilt it's time they pay their share for Defense (which we have said is the full 2%) and get rid of the tariffs and have real free trade. The USA is still the largest consumer market of the world, no country and it's citizens is going to miss selling it's product in the USA and Trump knows it, but no one likes change. Lots of money is spend on K street to prevent change.

That's only partially true. As soon as war-time spending ended, we were back in the depression, which didn't end until 1948 when Truman finally woke up.

 

[sgt_zim]

At the end of the day you have to decide if you believe that individuals acting in their own self interest create more value, or if some type of central control creates greater value. The former is an underlying belief of free market thinkers and Austrian economists. The latter is a key underlying belief of Socialism, Communism, etc. sorry to be so direct but it’s really that black and white. If you are interested find and read a short treatise called ‘The Law’ by Frederic Bastiat. Written in 1850, it is as relevant today as it was then.

There are 3 primers on economics and free markets I always recommend to people who are interested in learning, and Bastiat is one of those 3.

Henry Hazlitt is the 2nd, and the 3rd is John Pugsley's "The Alpha Strategy."

I gave those books to all of my kids to help correct the muddled "thinking" they got from school.