Trump wants to increase tariffs On china again .

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

I cannot name a single war that outside antagonists have not tried to leverage, can you?

Boy you really can't argue anything based on economic principles can you?

A let's ignore history type of guy. Sure let's do an economic Vietnam. When it's over we can walk away with only suffering.

Can I assume your refusal to answer indicates you cannot actually name a conflict in which neither side had an ally?


Both North and South Vietnam had multiple allies. I'm not sure what point you are attempting to poorly make.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Refusal to answer what? You asked a question with no bearing to the conversation.

Our current relationship is a problem. I have already answered this.

My issue with nearly everything you are saying is that Donald Trump can win the trade war without Congress and by attacking the allies we need. We will be groveling back to when we need them and make poor deals to win their entire support.

Getting out of TPP was a terrible miscalculation if he knew he was going to use a trade war for negotiation.

You have zero understanding of the history of how these things play out. You assume Donald trump who failed out of Fordham business school has the answer.

And most economists have very little faith tariffs have had any positive impact or secured a lasting reset prior to the beginning of the nation when we had no other income methods and were poor.


Also you completely misrepresent as I showed already that we are no where near as lean on manufacturing as you present.
Not only that having a single gle source economy is a sign of a country still developing.

I don't assume anything of Trump. I've already levied criticism of some of his actions vis a vis tariffs. I thought we were discussing tariffs as an economic tool.

If you say, "name a war in recent memory won without allies", it only has meaning in this context if wars won or lost without allies exists at all. They don't. The question "Name me a war that was lost without allies" does no more or less to create a maxim than your statement.

But sure, to answer the statement you are flailingly making, yes, the resolution of our trade imbalance with China would be easier if we were not besot with lobbyists for the businesses exploiting Chinese workers, illegal workers on behalf of the status quo without regard for the US economy. Not being in the TPP does not preclude any of those nations from addressing Chinese concerns in concert with the US. As I'm sure you are aware, the TPP existed in part to address those concerns by member countries.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Let's try and resolve this slow by point

True or false
Trade wars and tariffs for trade negotiation have a low success rate.

Meaning the market reset the designers planned either don't happen at all or the unintended consequences create a neutral yield for the consumer and worker. After a recession and inflation reset.

True or false

A trade war requires the public support through Congress to prepare for the devastation to farmers, and soon raw material instability. Simply giving proud farmers who want to work money is not going to get support very long. The people need to be prepared for serious economic instability. Not lied to its easy and nobody will notice.

True or false

We have low unemployment?

True or false

Every war requires allies helping with supply lines while others close off.

So attacking your allies when it's highly possible you need help very soon is probably not the way to get the best outcome.

True or false

Everytime a major unilateral change is done in the economy unintended consequences occur and sometimes are a worse situation than before.

Lastly if you are a betting man what is the probability of succes? In this very case as it is today what are the odds in a number?

a reply to: luthier

Trade wars and tariffs for trade negotiation have a low success rate.

True trade wars are rarely fought in the West because politicians and the public are all short-term oriented. What is more frequent is that support rapidly erodes when market disruption occurs. That is why China has won every trade skirmish to date. They aren't beholden to corporations. They can take the long view knowing the West's attention span last about six weeks.
The Bush tariffs were repealed as soon as the EU and China threatened retaliation.

Notably, we just saw tariff exemptions for steel from Mexico and Canada in return for safeguards against Chinese steel dumping through those countries. They even pre-negotiated terms of retaliatory tariffs Mexico and Canada will impose if tariffs are triggered by a preset lvl movement of steel through those countries. Which shows the tariffs are both targeted and negotiating tools to achieve a specific aim.

A trade war requires the public support

It certainly helps, yet many things are accomplished (or not) in spite of public support or lack thereof. No reason this would be necessarily different.

We have low unemployment? 

Do we?

Every war requires allies helping with supply lines while others close off.

Not really. It would ease and quicken transition if we still aim at purchasing specifically targeted products/materials abroad or selling them abroad.
We simply need people willing to take our money for their product at a profit. They don't need to be "allies." They can be completely self-interested bastards who only want our money. Like China is. And there are no shortage of countries who would love to expand their textiles industries, for example, in exchange for hard currency and guaranteed access to our consumer market.
Where "allies" would truly help is that a bloc has more leverage negotiating with China than a single country does.

Everytime a major unilateral change is done in the economy unintended consequences occur 

I'm not sure it should be looked at as "unintended consequences ". There will certainly be ripples, and there will be disruption to the markets affected. That isn't "unintended" or " unpredictable ". It is the cost of realigning lines of trade across whatever markets are affected. There will be a glut of ag products domestically, which hurts farmers and ranchers, but drives down food prices, for example, while disrupted. Both are predictable; one is positive, and one is negative. The negative will out weigh the positive, but the steel industry will survive/expand while farming may contract depending on what follows. It's a calculated cost of saving a national strategic resource, not "unintended consequence".

probability of succes

Depends entirely on the implementation, structure, and political will to absorb the cost, none of which are clear right now.

a reply to: RadioRobert

So like a politician you couldn't answer the questions.

It is beyond obvious you haven't studied economics beyond a brief glimpse of basic terms.

There is a reason a formulaic one trade wars do not work as advertised. The only time trade wars are useful is in a disaster situation or when a country has a weak economy.

The law of unintended consequences refers to how economic decisions may have effects that are unexpected. Usually, this refers to an economic law which distorts consumer or producer behaviour in a way that is not expected.
For example, a law may be implemented with the best intentions to help a group, but, if there are unintended consequences, they could end up being worse off.

We need allies. Its plain and simple. Or you are totally full of crap. If we don't need allies then we are already producing all the raw material and products we need. In which case we don't need a trade war. We have robust manufacturing.

Without public support Congress will stop trump from implementing monetary policy and the public if they have no stomach for the hardships will vote trump out, in which case all will be for naught.

And finally we have been in several trade disputes in lifetime. None have produced net gains or rearranged the economy as advertised.

Basically you want to use something with no proven record of working beyond in someone's mind, has a low percentage of success, has terrible consequences, and could create a great depression by creating massive inflation during a time when the economy crashes.

And before you say the only other option is to do nothing that is fallacious argument.

The binary choice of tariffs or doing nothing as the only option is a complete fallacy.

a reply to: luthier

It is beyond obvious you haven't studied economics beyond a brief glimpse of basic terms. 

Coming from a guy that either didn't know what "artificially depressed" meant or deliberately misinterpreted it to try to knock down a straw man, I'm not impressed. Is there a post where you don't resort to ad hom to address any criticism of your flawed arguments? I must have missed it.

Let me know when you want to have an honest discussion.


In the mean time enjoy exploiting yellow and brown people on behalf of artificial growth in GDP.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Lol none of your post is true and you would need to have English as a third language to think exploiting labor is a policy I support.


Please show the strawman..

I have said over and over the entire economy is a fabrication.

As a tradesman myself I also explained where the labor void came from. It wasn't low wages. It was public pressure to go to college and a lower birth rate.

When a state needs a bridge built it doesn't wait for the pr campaign to get people to join the trades. It uses whatever means necessary as we have seen.

I did not say in any way at any time that was a moral or good long term strategy.

a reply to: luthier

There are millions of people underemployed and unemployed. There are millions more who would move to another industry for a large enough wage. But why would businesses follow the supply -demand curve when they can exploit cheap, illegal labour?

a reply to: RadioRobert

Lol. No. You are totally wrong. Learn to code bro.


I wonder why people can not fill 300k construction jobs a month?
Can't find construction managers and the average wage is moving towards 100k?


Sorry buddy. You can keep saying things that are not true and using binary economic ideas but the market is far more complicated than single economic terms.

Also your arrogance assumes everyone is cut out to be a carpenter. You have no idea how lazy most people under 30 are at physical jobs as a population. Welfare or parents house is way easier.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

There are millions of people underemployed and unemployed. There are millions more who would move to another industry for a large enough wage. But why would businesses follow the supply -demand curve when they can exploit cheap, illegal labour?

Supply and demand is so 1950s... Anyone with at least a little experience in the mkt. knows speculation is operating system in the US. Don't believe me...try the metals mkt!!!

a reply to: olaru12

I use tech. Have made a fortune on blockchain developers, etherium , people investing in AI like Hitachi Texas instruments, bio genetics, etc...but as soon as half the stock can pay for the investment I pull that out knowing how volatile the economy is

a reply to: luthier

Higher wages help you get the people who are cut out for carpentry... They will train for it or move from other sectors IF the demand and subsequent pay is high enough. You are competing with other job sectors. Cheating the labor pool by exploiting other more desperate people isn't actual growth.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

Higher wages help you get the people who are cut out for carpentry... They will train for it or move from other sectors IF the demand and subsequent pay is high enough. You are competing with other job sectors. Cheating the labor pool by exploiting other more desperate people isn't actual growth.

You make little to no arguement towards anything I am talking about.

People stopped being carpenters well before illegals flocked in. The baby boomers are the last trade school generation.

You keep posting useless information.

Illegals had no bearing on the lack of trades. In fact most trades need a liscense.

What you want to be true morally and reality are very different.

Plus the strawman I am for exploiting labor is crusty at this point. Try and argue something against my actual arguements.

By the way I have never once had trouble making over 25 an hour as a wage slave and earn far more as my own boss since becoming a journeyman level tradesman.

They stopped becoming carpenters because the wages were low compared to university jobs where there was high demand (which eventually led to college loan scams and a glut of useless degrees with low demand). They obviously haven't risen enough to compensate for the public perception to shift.

If you buy stolen TVs when there are stores who will sell you televisions simply because it is cheaper, it does not create a "shortage" of televisions. Stop justifying exploiting vulnerable brown people for profit. It's sick.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Lol do you see in color or just binary?

You don't have a clue about nuance.

Illegals had no bearing on the lack of trades.

Oh, sorry. I thought you had said this:

The cheap labor coming over is to fill a labor void. There are 100's of thousands of unfilled construction industry jobs 

Really like what the booming cities in the south couldn't get enough labor and the illegals flooded in to fill the gap?

I get so confused in your pretzel-logic trying to pretend the supply of labour has no effect on the price of labour, I cannot keep it all straight...

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Illegals had no bearing on the lack of trades.

Oh, sorry. I thought you had said this:

The cheap labor coming over is to fill a labor void. There are 100's of thousands of unfilled construction industry jobs 

Really like what the booming cities in the south couldn't get enough labor and the illegals flooded in to fill the gap?

I get so confused in your pretzel-logic trying to pretend the supply of labour has no effect on the price of labour, I cannot keep it all straight...

I never thought you were so obtuse.

Illegals having no bearing in the lack of trades and my statements actually have no association.

Are you really this dense. The lack of trades created a flood of black market labor.

So just to clarify your own statement the illegals created a filler for the lack of trained tradesman available to employers.

Trust me they blanketed the entire country looking for positions.

I have a friend that couldn't fill 78k a year trucking jobs with ads across the country. It took almost 2 years to fill 3 jobs with people who could pass a drug test.

You have no idea what the reality as an employer is

Businesses weren't willing to pay market price for labour. That isn't a shortage. "Illegals flooded over" in your words because businesses can exploit their lower wages.

I do know what it is like to fill jobs. It is hard in any field to fill and retain qualified people if you aren't willing to pay people. If you are having problems filling positions, you aren't offering market value for labour.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Lol consumers were not willing. And the market create false sense of inflation after the gold standard affair...

Boy you really are a one tract mind.