2
2
0
But I thought the tariffs weren't bad. What the hell?
ar-BBMbYZ1
Posted from msn.com
International Trade
Economy
Jobs
Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Tariff wars are easy to win...if you are the top 1% you get lots of return on your money. Not the top 1%, then not so much. Steel workers are claiming how much their jobs have been saved. Those who rely on the steel, not so much. They are going to lose their jobs due to the high increase in price.
But hey, enjoy those lost jobs because everyone will be poor if the President is impeached. Yeah, right, whatever.
But hey, enjoy those lost jobs because everyone will be poor if the President is impeached. Yeah, right, whatever.
(3)
(0)
Maj John Bell
You neglect the fact that in a free market capitalist system, we will always improvise adapt and overcome. China is far more dependent on our open market the we are on their exported goods. There is nothing China sells us that someone else in the world cannot make. The last thing China wants is for this trade war to last. Competitors will have time to grow in their absence. That means more competition and in the long run lower cost for American consumers.
Additionally, a good part of what used to be the western part of the former Warsaw pact free from soviet domination, is dying to do business with us. They have growing economies and untapped manufacturing capacity. The majority of the new dairy equipment I buy is made in Bulgaria or Romania, from US, or European Steel (far superior to the absolute crap steel, aluminium, and iron the Chinese and Pakistanis sell us).
Additionally, a good part of what used to be the western part of the former Warsaw pact free from soviet domination, is dying to do business with us. They have growing economies and untapped manufacturing capacity. The majority of the new dairy equipment I buy is made in Bulgaria or Romania, from US, or European Steel (far superior to the absolute crap steel, aluminium, and iron the Chinese and Pakistanis sell us).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
"O'Shaughnessy was lobbying Mulvaney to fight for certain tariff exemptions that would help Element in 2016, months before the presidential election." So this company was concerned about the tariffs... way back in 2016, when Secretary Clinton was the assumed President elect.
"Since becoming budget director in February 2017, Mulvaney has either been reluctant or unable to intervene on behalf of parochial interests, even those he championed as a member of Congress." Isn't that something remarkable? a political appointee who puts national interests ahead of party politics and parochial issues.
A part that is too expensive to buy overseas, that goes into TV's. I guess either some TV's were designed to not need the part, but element can't redesign; or perhaps no TV's will be made or shipped to the US. Seems like an opportunity for some wealthy entrepreneur to put some of the unused U.S. manufacturing capacity and skilled manufacturing labor to work.
I guess that's why it is called a trade WAR. I don't remember anyone saying there wouldn't be casualties.
"Since becoming budget director in February 2017, Mulvaney has either been reluctant or unable to intervene on behalf of parochial interests, even those he championed as a member of Congress." Isn't that something remarkable? a political appointee who puts national interests ahead of party politics and parochial issues.
A part that is too expensive to buy overseas, that goes into TV's. I guess either some TV's were designed to not need the part, but element can't redesign; or perhaps no TV's will be made or shipped to the US. Seems like an opportunity for some wealthy entrepreneur to put some of the unused U.S. manufacturing capacity and skilled manufacturing labor to work.
I guess that's why it is called a trade WAR. I don't remember anyone saying there wouldn't be casualties.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
What is the purpose of increased tariffs in this case, other than political disapproval? Is it to try to convince U.S.A. industries to manufacture products domestically, and also create jobs? Shipping raw materials and components out, and manufactured goods in, can be more costly - but its good for globalism. But look where globalism has us - between a rock and a hard place politically, economically, and militarily. Maybe its time for some isolationism.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Globalism isn't nothing but 21st century imperialism founded on technological trade practices and financial markets. How did globalism via capitalism lead to a hard place politically, economically and militarily? It's called crony capitalism when greed took over and shipped all those jobs overseas for cheap labor, cheap materials, and quick profits. Globalism didn't cause our problems; the greed of capitalists and their shady politicians that shaped laws in their favor at the expense of working Americans and Made in America manufacturing.
As we withdraw our political and economic influence globally, we only hand over all that influence to our rivals. Not an option in the world of cyberspace, international trade alliances, and national security alliances.
As we withdraw our political and economic influence globally, we only hand over all that influence to our rivals. Not an option in the world of cyberspace, international trade alliances, and national security alliances.
(2)
(0)
SGT Mary G.
O.K. MAJ James Woods, I agree that is how we got there. But I think you described how U.S.A. participates in globalism (in ways other than military/peace corps/usaid etc.). But how do we solve the problem of "greed . . . all those jobs overseas for cheap labor, cheap materials, and quick profits." when it would benefit we, the people domestically to stop doing that?
I am not suggesting withdrawing political and economic influence globally . . . but instead for our nation to not be as politically and economically influenced globally as it currently is. And to succeed at doing that it would benefit our nation to be more low-key and not want to be recognized as being so overpoweringly influential politically and economically.
George Washington's Farewell Address continues to come to mind. Good advice is offered throughout.
This version <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf> is prefaced with this comment: "He believed that the stability of the Republic was threatened by the forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation’s domestic affairs. He urged Americans to subordinate sectional jealousies to common national interests."
I am not suggesting withdrawing political and economic influence globally . . . but instead for our nation to not be as politically and economically influenced globally as it currently is. And to succeed at doing that it would benefit our nation to be more low-key and not want to be recognized as being so overpoweringly influential politically and economically.
George Washington's Farewell Address continues to come to mind. Good advice is offered throughout.
This version <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf> is prefaced with this comment: "He believed that the stability of the Republic was threatened by the forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation’s domestic affairs. He urged Americans to subordinate sectional jealousies to common national interests."
US Government Printing Office
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
It's definitely not broadsided tariffs with no true strategy. Hurt your rivals and your allies in a game of "who will blink first" isn't the answer. Try targeting the domestic culprits responsible for these bad trade practices; especially, if your goal is to get them to return to the domestic front.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google