It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump G-7 bombshell-"We should at least consider no tariffs, no barriers, scrapping all of it"

page: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Globalization is the best way forward to a world of peace




posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Sublimecraft

So... you're in favor of other countries dumping cheap raw materials and products (steel, aluminum, etc, etc) here in the US and not buying our more high-priced goods? I"m not.

He has no idea how tariffs work.


With commodities fetching different prices in different regions, a country with a valuable currency and high cost of living like the US is going to lose in this exchange every time. That said, what we could do is let anything into the country with the caveat that X% of the labor in those goods provided to our market is produced domestically.

I don't care if a Japanese company like Hino sells automobiles provided they're employing Americans to build those automobiles. The same is true of any other product.

That said, there's a lot of fine tuning of everything that requires legislation specific to each sector which makes it inherently complex. It's not nearly as simple as Trump is suggesting.


So cases by case trade deals with individual countries would mostly likely be more beneficial to everyone? As opposed to large sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnerships that are largely imbalanced in favor of other countries?



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


This makes sense to me, if everyone are mates then why tax each other? - just sell your products in each others countries and let the GLOBAL markets dictate prices for imports and exports.


That is literally the definition of globalism. I thought Trump was against that.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This sounds a lot like a step toward globalism if you ask me. I thought that was a bad thing?


Globalism on its face value is an inevitable result of our collective evolution. The problem is that there is an insane death cult that runs the black markets of the world that has entrenched themselves in the upper echelons of power all throughout history.

They are known as blood line families and they have created the horrific reality the world finds itself in. The power centers have historically guided the minds of man through sophisticated psychological warfare.

The internet has had the affect of waking up the collective consciousness to what the death cult version of "globalism" is, war, poverty, environmental destruction, toxic food, toxic air, toxic water, toxic healthcare... etc on down the line.

The old power centers (DC, Vatican, London) are being systematically destroyed. This is necessary before any benevolent NWO will be able to take the stage.

The timeline shift has only begun, as we continue to move along Trump team will continue to take steps in the right direction. This panel of G7 puppets have no ground to stand on, they are squirming much like the guilty in DC.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil
So destabilizing to collapse the Country with the most nuclear weapons in the World (Russia) is a good idea?

Really?

It's a strange world when it's the Republicans peacemongering.

So much for that Coexist bumper sticker. ....


Were not building economic ties between the US and Russia. We're only opening our markets to them. There is no interdependence being created.


You are the one who said this:

Did you know that thanks to long term sanctions, Russia was set to financially collapse within the next two years?


Do you think that is a good thing to attempt?



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

someone like Macron for example, who chooses to appear at his victory speech playing the EU anthem instead of his own national anthem.


He actually did that?



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Exactly, and any deficit/loss of cash flow can be remedied by cutting government programs. The government must be continually shrank and kept at bay, and forced to adhere to the very limited powers given to it by the Constitution.

We must restore a Constitutional government. Not the one of today, which has usurped many powers never intended for it.

Burning it down and rebuilding is also a viable option. Which ever option puts government back in its place is OK by me.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: fatkid

Oh brother.

There will never be world peace. Even if we were one homogeneous species (which we're far from), you'd still have petty and pathetic bickering over non-issues (like feelings, worthless fiat currency, etc)

You'd also still have lazy and worthless sociopathic gang bangers/criminal scum who want what you've got, but don't want to work or pay for it.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: c2oden
What do you think is wrong with the Constitution?
How would you change it?


This isn't really the thread to discuss these issues. I'll answer briefly, I've answered all of these ideas before in great depth, but this isn't the time or place for it as I don't want to go further off topic here.

What's wrong with the Constitution:
1. The balance of power is focused on limiting branches of government. It is incapable of addressing a balance of power between parties.
2. Executive functions are too poorly defined.
3. The Bill of Rights should not exist. It has only created an excuse as to what rights people don't have because they're not enumerated.
4. The House of Representatives is an unsustainable body, it cannot send a proper number of people to Congress due to the US population.
5. As more personal and business interests are created (more population, more companies), more private interests need pork legislation. There is no system in Congress to limit the size of bills to a reasonable length.
6. Congressional pay is mandated too low.
7. The judiciary is inconsistent in rulings due to different regional laws on elected vs unelected judges.
8. Head of State and Head of Government should not be the same individual.
9. The full document needs to apply to anyone in the world who is dealing with the US government.
10. We need to settle the physical vs digital debate.

Fixes:
1. Fractal government to build our representatives. Starts local, goes all the way up to senior Congress officials. At each step, people only vote for those they know personally.
2. Secure and anonymously public voting system that can be done from an app.
3. Seperate Head of State and Head of Government (give one to the VP as an official duty possibly).
4. Take guaranteed rights off the table. Use the states as templates and make politicians lobby to add more, rather than defend what's already there.
5. Pick a page number for legislation. Any legislation that goes over that value requires +1% to the vote in order to pass.
6. Each district should be made up of a mix of elected and unelected judges. We need similar demographics across the country.
7. Make it harder for Congress to take bribes with better pay.
8. Expand the power each member of congress has, to specific subsections of us domestic policy. Make Congress a group of committees based on individual strengths rather than one large body.


While I do not agree with you largely on most points, I just want to say that I admire that you have obviously put a lot of thought into it, and are not just doing a drive by. I will make my best attempt to give you a star...which, as most here realize is a fairly hit or miss proposition.

Be well.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
So cases by case trade deals with individual countries would mostly likely be more beneficial to everyone? As opposed to large sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnerships that are largely imbalanced in favor of other countries?


TPP is such a large deal specifically because it deals with so many case by case issues, that's why it's over 5000 pages long, with thousands more for internal policies in every nation involved. That's how trade should be handled.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Not sure what he's doing here but he often seems to float a bunch of arguments he disagrees with then change back later.

As for steel tariffs, I support that. Steel is an essential industry. We need it. What if there's a war and it got cut off? Also, jobs.


On the flip side, if all our steel is domestically produced, we have fewer economic ties to discourage us from getting into a war.

An international supply line forces countries to talk things out rather than fight each other. It's a very ingenious method of creating world peace. And going by the decrease in wars all over the world since the 40's it's working very well.


Our international supply line works fine even if we produce our own steel. I do not believe economic weakness leads to peace. Look at oil. This is not a new idea. It was US policy since the civil war until recently. We do not become stronger by trashing our key industries.


Oil sells at a price required to maintain a US standard of living, steels global price does not.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Aazadan

Who did you write in?


Does it matter?



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
Do you think that is a good thing to attempt?


A political coup in Russia bringing one of Putins opponents to power would be a good thing for the US.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   


Trump doesn't look at how to line the pockets of government


No he looks for ways to line his own pockets and Putin's. He is a traitor.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Well you said you vote based on competence, I was just wondering who this masked marauder of superior intelligence is, I want to be confident in the competence of my vote as well, quit bogarding.
edit on 6/9/2018 by TheLead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

A) The average farmer knows far, far more about economics, trade, tariffs and subsidies than Trump does. hell the average teenager knows more.

B) Yes, he just spouts things to see what sticks. His ideas are without foundation and his credibility is thoroughly shot in the global community.

C) Governments subsidize industries that are critical to their survival and success. We subsidize our farmers because we do not want a USA that depends entirely on foreign countries for our food supply.

Eliminating all tariffs means eliminating all subsidies. That means countries with very low cost of living and low wages would near immediately destroy industries here in the US, unless we dropped our wages (cost of labor) to compete.

What trump is proposing is a race to the bottom of the barrel in wages and quality of life in the USA. It would actually destroy Manufacturing, Agriculture and other critical industries that are critical to our economic and national security, to say nothing of making us more like impoverished regions of Mexico.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Aazadan

Well you said you vote based on competence, I was just wondering who this masked marauder of superior intelligence is, I want to be confident in the competence of my vote as well, quit bogarding.


What if I told you I didn't vote for anyone?

I don't agree with the premise that everyone should vote.

More voters just pushes more people to mainstream candidates, and makes it harder for anyone other than the selected two to get worthwhile numbers.

Additionally, the average person has an average understanding on the issues. The average is not very high because most people know next to nothing on most subjects, and are lucky to be an expert on one. If my understanding of economics, governance, and leadership is not at an expert level on the subjects involved in the campaign, then how can I trust myself to make the right vote for the right reason?



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Globalization is the best way forward to a world of peace



That is what the Borg told Jean Luc Piccard.
Globalization can only come to fruition under one ideology.

edit on 9-6-2018 by highvein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sublimecraft

A) The average farmer knows far, far more about economics, trade, tariffs and subsidies than Trump does. hell the average teenager knows more.

B) Yes, he just spouts things to see what sticks. His ideas are without foundation and his credibility is thoroughly shot in the global community.

C) Governments subsidize industries that are critical to their survival and success. We subsidize our farmers because we do not want a USA that depends entirely on foreign countries for our food supply.

Eliminating all tariffs means eliminating all subsidies. That means countries with very low cost of living and low wages would near immediately destroy industries here in the US, unless we dropped our wages (cost of labor) to compete.

What trump is proposing is a race to the bottom of the barrel in wages and quality of life in the USA. It would actually destroy Manufacturing, Agriculture and other critical industries that are critical to our economic and national security, to say nothing of making us more like impoverished regions of Mexico.




Using India as an example there is a giant hole in your logic and conclusion.

India fits "wage - quality of life" standard and should be voraciously gobbling up U.S. market share to the detriment of Manufacturing, Agriculture, Critical industries as you put it.

Yet India almost across the board is doing opposite of what you claim should happen in picture you painted because it slaps 100% or greater tariff on most U.S. goods.

If I have strict adherence to your stated reason we should see exactly opposite of reality.

Another great example is China and its treatment of U.S. automobile trade.

In general in this thread (like many others) what I'm seeing is when Trump applies Tariffs folks complain, when Trump says get rid of them, folks complain.

My conclusion,

No matter what Trump proposes it equals "Bad" and there is no pleasing the "anti" crowd right up to and including if it means the general population has to suffer in compliance with political opposition.



posted on Jun, 9 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Globalization is the best way forward to a world of peace



It is the only logical direction.

The question should be How and Who - - not If and When.




top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join