US to give farmers $12bn trade war bailout

a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't mind paying a few extra dollars to make sure my country is prosperous.

Apparently you prefer to save a few dollars while building the Chinese economy and decimating your own.

China is only a threat to the US because we built their economy by shipping all of our jobs and money to China.

If this doesn't make sense to you, then you are the fool.

Every nation on the damm planet has tarrifs against the US. How long do you want your money enriching the competition? How long should we be the world's piggy bank?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

1975. I've been alive longer. 100 million is not the same as close to 1 trillion. Actually the deficit was still only 150 million in 1987. How does that compare to today's trade deficit? It doesn't. Your article is useless for this debate.

If our trade deficit was even 10 billion our econmy could handle that forever. We can't keep sending a trillion dollars over seas and not expect to be impacted. A trade deficit can be a sign of a good economy, but at close to 1 trillion it is a force that is decimating our econmy.

The only way to maintain enough currency when we ship 1 trillion of it overseas each year is to print more of it which causes inflation at least as bad as the tarrifs that will end this BS trade deficit.

Apples to Oranges. I don't consider 30-40 years a long time. Nor do I think 100 million is in the same ball park as close to 1 trillion.

Our economy was doing the best and the worker had the most buying power from the 60s to the early 90s, when our trade deficit still had the word million attached to it.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't mind paying a few extra dollars to make sure my country is prosperous.

Apparently you prefer to save a few dollars while building the Chinese economy and decimating your own.

China is only a threat to the US because we built their economy by shipping all of our jobs and money to China.

If this doesn't make sense to you, then you are the fool.

Every nation on the damm planet has tarrifs against the US. How long do you want your money enriching the competition? How long should we be the world's piggy bank?

You mean you don't mind government communist handouts of free money as long as its to white farmers?

Its literally your and my money he's just giving to these farmers. Are you a communist now?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I would prefer spend 12 billion to help US farmers than to send 500 billion to the Chinese.

Perhaps you are from Communist China sense you like to argue on behalf of the Chinese and their economy.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Wayfarer

I would prefer spend 12 billion to help US farmers than to send 500 billion to the Chinese.

Perhaps you are from Communist China sense you like to argue on behalf of the Chinese and their economy.

No dude, you're a hypocrite if you believe you're not a communist but don't mind literally giving free money to farmers (yours and my money). No amount of inane bloviating is ever going to change that.

Its 12 billion in losses that Trump magically just created. It didn't exist before he started the trade war, so he literally made the 12 billion deficit, then made it up to the farmers by giving your and my money to them (in essence putting the 12 billion deficit in your and my court). He has essentially just blundered into this with rank stupidity and is scrambling to save face by literally redistributing our money into the hands of the folks he screwed over with his stupidity.

Welcome to the communist party comrade!

a reply to: Wayfarer

It's impossible for me to debate with someone clueless on how global and national finances actually work.

Continue sending all your money to China and eventually they will own you and you will have Communism forced on you.

We are in debt over a trillion dollars to Communist China because of these deals. Communist China keeps buying US real estate with the money they make off this trade deficit.

All of this is ok as long as we don't support American farmers according to your argument.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Wayfarer

It's impossible for me to debate with someone clueless on how global and national finances actually work.

This is because you have absolutely no idea how they work.

I don't want our farmers to be damaged by this. It's not their fault.

DP

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Wayfarer

It's impossible for me to debate with someone clueless on how global and national finances actually work.

This is because you have absolutely no idea how they work.

I understand the economics of free trade and the theory on how it should work. However, it will never work in an environment with massively unequal wages or when Communist China manipulates the value of their currency. Nor does free trade benefit us when every other nations has tarrifs against our goods.

You can throw every economic model that suggest free trade is good out the window until we fix the system to make it mathematically feasible.

Would you like to make an intellectual rebuttal or call me a comunist because you don't understand?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't mind paying a few extra dollars to make sure my country is prosperous.

Apparently you prefer to save a few dollars while building the Chinese economy and decimating your own.

China is only a threat to the US because we built their economy by shipping all of our jobs and money to China.

If this doesn't make sense to you, then you are the fool.

Every nation on the damm planet has tarrifs against the US. How long do you want your money enriching the competition? How long should we be the world's piggy bank?

You mean you don't mind government communist handouts of free money as long as its to white farmers?

Its literally your and my money he's just giving to these farmers. Are you a communist now?

Yup, it's also propping up the root cause of US food produce being illegal or in low public demand in international markets as it's harmful to human health. Cost cutting has led to GM crops, GM cattle, chlorinated chicken, irradiated meat to 'sterilize' it, meat full of growth hormone, anti-biotics and destruction of wildlife and environment by producing monoculture, mass production intensive farming.

Seems like the US public have a choice of paying more tax to be poisoned and incur the hospital bills (and giving the UK/EU loads of money via purchase of pharmaceuticals), or pay the tariff taxes to get 'clean' food as already struggling ethical/small scale producers get muscled out the market.

Hard to see how the strategy could work for public benefit either long or short term.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I don't want our farmers to be damaged by this. It's not their fault.

Sure, nobody wants farmers damaged by this. However, the farmers were presumably a large % of Trump's base, so why shouldn't they shoulder the burden that they brought upon themselves willingly (rather than you and I and every other US citizen in this thread)?

As Burdman30o6 mentioned to me yesterday, in this instance a little lack of compassion may end up going a long way to helping these same farmers rethink whether they want to support Trump and his Trade Wars come next election.

a reply to: bastion

Our farmers were doing fine shipping their goods overseas. It's the counter tarrifs being placed against US farmers that is keeping our farmed goods from being bought overseas and has nothing to do with GMO or quality.

This whole debate proves you are wrong. How can you fail to see that?

For the record I am against GMO and serveral other things that have made it into our food industry. But that has nothing to do with this OP.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Wayfarer

It's impossible for me to debate with someone clueless on how global and national finances actually work.

This is because you have absolutely no idea how they work.

..it will never work in an environment why with massively unequal wages...


..when Communist China manipulates the value of their currency....

... Nor does free trade benefit us when everu other nations has tarrifs against oir goods. ..

You can throw every economic model that suggest free trade is good out the window until we fix the system to make it mathematically feasible.

I'd love to dissect your response!

1.) Massively unequal wages - this is not a primary driver in inequality through trade. It foments low wage nations utilizing low cost labor for low skill tasks, which, for even those only versed in the most basic economic study, yields those same nations to specializing in goods/services most optimally served by low cost labor. This national specialization is in fact beneficial for all countries (as evidenced by the glut of cheap goods from China you can find stocking Wal-Mart shelves).

2.) China manipulating currency has a relatively small effect on net trade values between the US and China. In fact the term itself has been leveraged recently as some 'bogeyman' catchphrase which denotes some great negative effect when in fact by and large its hard to quantify what amount of currency fluctuations are caused by direct manipulation (with intent to game the international markets) or rather standard adjustments in their financial markets which drive currency values (just as they do here in the US).

3.) Every other nation doesn't have tariffs against our goods. This is hyperbolic and factually incorrect.

4.) You and I are living in a free trade world (and have enjoyed the spoils of that system for many decades already). The world hasn't ended (in fact economies have grown and wealth has grown worldwide), so the idea that free trade is dead and we need a trade war to fix things now is pure Trump propaganda.

a reply to: Wayfarer

1.) Massively unequal wages - this is not a primary driver in inequality through trade. It foments low wage nations utilizing low cost labor for low skill tasks, which, for even those only versed in the most basic economic study, yields those same nations to specializing in goods/services most optimally served by low cost labor. This national specialization is in fact beneficial for all countries (as evidenced by the glut of cheap goods from China you can find stocking Wal-Mart shelves).

A reference to the Hunger Games, to help with your perspective. You have the perspective from someone living in district 1. Why don't you move to district 12 and tell me how great those low wages and specialization works for you.

If you think you have a right, because you were born in the US (district 1), to live well off the back of the cheap labor from those living in district 12, and believe that it is ok for those born in district 12 to have only the basic necessities than this debate is pointless. I'll take humanitarianism over Narcissistic Sociopathic ideologies.

I may have exaggerated when I say every nation. I should have just said every nation we have massive trade deficits with.

a reply to: Wayfarer


While i'm not a big fan of most subsidies....

Stating that subsidies and communism is the same and equivalent, is absolutely ludicrous.... That's not even a real argument..

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: angeldoll
I don't want our farmers to be damaged by this. It's not their fault.

However, the farmers were presumably a large % of Trump's base, so why shouldn't they shoulder the burden that they brought upon themselves willingly (rather than you and I and every other US citizen in this thread)?

Translation : I think, I feel, that farmers in the mid-west don't agree with my politics ; And they should be forced to suffer for it. Punish them for voting against the DNC !


Wonder if the person quoted would make that same argument for health insurance premiums due to the A.C.A. ? Have registered voting democrats pick up the slack for millions of citizen's increased premiums ? I bet not...

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: angeldoll
I don't want our farmers to be damaged by this. It's not their fault.

However, the farmers were presumably a large % of Trump's base, so why shouldn't they shoulder the burden that they brought upon themselves willingly (rather than you and I and every other US citizen in this thread)?

Translation : I think, I feel, that farmers in the mid-west don't agree with my politics ; And they should be forced to suffer for it. Punish them for voting against the DNC !


Wonder if the person quoted would make that same argument for health insurance premiums due to the A.C.A. ? Have registered voting democrats pick up the slack for millions of citizen's increased premiums ? I bet not...

Except they voted for Trump. They agree with his politics. Its like saying I want Trump to start a trade war and I believe that a trade war is the right way to fix things, but I don't want to lose any money over it either, so please just let the little folks shoulder the cost so I can have my cake and eat it to.



Are you implying that whoever voted for Trump should be immune to whatever maladies befall Trump's actions while those who did not support/endorse Trump should?



And lastly I absolutely supported subsidizing the healthcare of the poor. I understood that my costs went up to help support those who couldn't support themselves, and I was ok with it (and lo and behold I supported Obama implementing it!). I didn't ask that farmers shoulder that bill for me.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Wayfarer

1.) Massively unequal wages - this is not a primary driver in inequality through trade. It foments low wage nations utilizing low cost labor for low skill tasks, which, for even those only versed in the most basic economic study, yields those same nations to specializing in goods/services most optimally served by low cost labor. This national specialization is in fact beneficial for all countries (as evidenced by the glut of cheap goods from China you can find stocking Wal-Mart shelves).

A reference to the Hunger Games, to help with your perspective. You have the perspective from someone living in district 1. Why don't you move to district 12 and tell me how great those low wages and specialization works for you.

If you think you have a right, because you were born in the US (district 1), to live well off the back of the cheap labor from those living in district 12, and believe that it is ok for those born in district 12 to have only the basic necessities than this debate is pointless. I'll take humanitarianism over Narcissistic Sociopathic ideologies.

I may have exaggerated when I say every nation. I should have just said every nation we have massive trade deficits with.

Woa, are you actually suggesting this trade war is in fact to benefit the indigent low paid Chinese worker?!?

First time for everything I suppose.....


American workers are the high paid ones in your example, so District 12 (Chinese labor) could stand to improve, but obviously at the expense of balance from District 1.

a reply to: Wayfarer

The trade war is not good for the average Chinese citizen. But outside of a few tourist cities China is a wasteland.

Why does it seem that the US is the only nation to develop from within? Why are the majority of Chinese still living in a wasteland?

The trade money goes to the Government and a handful of wealthy influential Chinese buisnessmen who come from proper bloodlines.

No amount of money is going to help the average Chinese citizen who lives under their Elitist brand of Forced Communist society, AKA Facism.

It is not my job to fixed their backward system but I sure in the hell don't have to support it either.

If the US could grow an econmy from within it should be possible for any nation to do the same. But Communism doesn't allow that to happen.

Based on the Communist structure of China your point is invalid.