Trump wants to increase tariffs On china again .

The American worker was betrayed and left behind by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

In 1980 a full time worker making $10 an hour could afford a modest but reliable auto, pay for 2 bedroom apartment, afford groceries and take a driving vacation once a year. That was me as a young person starting out so dont tell me it was untrue, I lived it!

Fast forward 40 years and starting wages in many if not most locals are still $10 an hour but prices have far outpaced that wage. With domestic demand will come better wages.

Our politicians allowed circumstances/policy that brought this situation forth and its refreshing to see one actually doing something after all this time for the worker.

a reply to: midnightstar

Tariffs are for those who can’t compete. Resorting to protectionism to restrict competition is the last resort of those who are no longer capable of participating in the labor market.

Why are you scared of China? Because they work harder and produce a more marketable product? We live in a free market society where the very basis of economic well being is competition, and you’re scared of communists who don’t have any sort of profit motive to be competitive.

If they can work for 1/50 what you can work for, then you simply need to make it up in delivering 50 times the quality. If you can’t do that, then maybe you should have worked on yourself more during the last several decades of prosperity.

Or, look at changing our economy so that it doesn’t push social Darwinism above all.

In either outcome, supporting an isolationist/protectionist trade policy only means that you can get a few more years of labor, while denying better goods and services to the entire nation. After that point, the ideas will migrate over here, people will implement them, and you’ll still be out of a job.

You want factory work? Great. Humans will never replace machines though, and machines have the same costs in any country. If you want to work in a factory, go get triple degrees in robotics, engineering, and whatever sector you want to build machines for. Then invent the next machine that’s better, faster, and cheaper. If you want to compete that’s what you have to do. That is the modern day factory worker, if you worked in factories in the 70’s and 80’s you should have made more than enough money to afford the education to stay in the field and do this.

originally posted by: midnightstar
I am 53 My father pushed buttons at Delbar ( factory made mirror parts for trucks )
A chimp could have been trained to do his job .
he made 14 a hour by the time i was 17 had health full dental full retirement teh works .
Fact at best a high school education .
This is 70 % of teh US most people will not be lawyers or doctors someone must take out teh trash and taht someone should make enough to live on it .

People are no longer needed to push buttons. Machines can push buttons for themselves.

If you want to work in a factory you need to do something that can’t be automated. The barrier to entry on work always goes down, the way to fight back at that is to become increasingly specialized so that the barrier to entry on your job goes up. Specialization requires education.

All I ever hear are that millennials are entitled for wanting a good job but at least my generation have educated ourselves to be qualified for those jobs. What I’m hearing from you is that you want to be handed a good job, that doesn’t even need a person to do it these days without putting in any work for it. Essentially, you want to be paid well for doing nothing.

a reply to: midnightstar

I used to make the same argument about my grandfathers time but we are living in a new world we have to adapt, we can't isolate ourselves as the rest of the world moves forward. We have to be forward thinking and we have to figure it out quick because globalization and automation are going to change the world right before our very eyes.

If tariffs are for those who can't compete, then why does China have some of the world's highest tariffs of industrialized countries?
3.83% is the average tariff in China while 1.65% is the average in the US.

That should tell you that some of the assumptions made on competition are wrongheaded. The "free trade" moniker of globalism is a sham, and was purely a means to run communist countries into bankruptcy. I say was for a reason, free trade is over, and it had run it's course by 1992.

Yes competition is great for consumers and innovation, if and only if there are no government subsidies or favorites. As soon as you throw in those subsidies and favoritisms, competition in and of itself isn't of pure enough form to get rid of those who can't compete and should fail. Furthermore bailouts of any form on kick the can down the road, as it prevents actual competition from occuring. Without allowing failures there is no space for innovation, and inefficient forms of production continue.

So yes, tariffs are good, especially when they are for the protection of localized goods to ensure a complete economy is locally available. The US has more than enough natural resources to be completely self sufficient, and thus does not actually need trade. The same can not be said for China. Sure there would be short term economic pain involved, but that is far better than long term economic death.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

Well said.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
If tariffs are for those who can't compete, then why does China have some of the world's highest tariffs of industrialized countries?
3.83% is the average tariff in China while 1.65% is the average in the US.

That should tell you that some of the assumptions made on competition are wrongheaded. The "free trade" moniker of globalism is a sham, and was purely a means to run communist countries into bankruptcy. I say was for a reason, free trade is over, and it had run it's course by 1992.

Yes competition is great for consumers and innovation, if and only if there are no government subsidies or favorites. As soon as you throw in those subsidies and favoritisms, competition in and of itself isn't of pure enough form to get rid of those who can't compete and should fail. Furthermore bailouts of any form on kick the can down the road, as it prevents actual competition from occuring. Without allowing failures there is no space for innovation, and inefficient forms of production continue.

So yes, tariffs are good, especially when they are for the protection of localized goods to ensure a complete economy is locally available. The US has more than enough natural resources to be completely self sufficient, and thus does not actually need trade. The same can not be said for China. Sure there would be short term economic pain involved, but that is far better than long term economic death.

Government subsidies are just another form of competition.

Let me give you an example. Lets say the US was interested in seriously addressing the issue of running out of fresh water soon, and the implications that has for our agriculture industry. We could solve the problem right now by moving most of our agriculture to hydroponic growing. It requires few to no pesticides, it delivers much higher crop yields, it's a more comfortable working environment than field picking so it would attract more workers, it allows for year round growing, it requires less energy, and most importantly it uses only 1% of the water that traditional crops require.

The US could give out 0% interest loans to build such infrastructure all around the country. Or we could even foot the bill entirely. Either way we would profit off of it immensely, and we would do a good thing. It would give our agriculture industry a huge leg up around the world in coming decades and the side effects would also be huge, as we would have more water resources available.

Here's what it really comes down to. People need to work asymmetrically. One person delivering the labor of one worker is not enough. You need to innovate ways such that one person can do the labor of 50 people, and so that labor can also be decentralized. The economy of the future is software driven and software sources revenue globally but spends it locally. Someone who is reliant on the local or regional economy to make the majority of their revenue simply cannot compete. By engaging in protectionism, you cut off anyone who does want to innovate and do that as well, so that when protectionism eventually fails, as it always does, the barrier to get into such markets is much higher.

a reply to: Aazadan
The profit from subsidy only occurs if you can assure that what you are attempting to reinforce is going to work, and presumes a perfect knowledge of market reactions to said subsidy.

An example of this type of subsidy failing miserably occurred in the great recession. It originated in the movement of people who could not afford housing from public subsidized housing into homes at low interest rates. This occurred under the Clinton Administration. Since this was deemed as working as intended it drove up demand of private housing, driving up costs, and thus the leverage of loans in the housing sector. In an attempt to de-leverage these loans were bundled, allowing the sales of these loans at better rates as they were "safer" and less likely to default. Eventually these loans started to default and caused a cascade of failures leading to the bailouts of banks who over leveraged themselves in the first place due to government intervention.

This occurs over and over again, as perfect knowledge of the future of markets is simply not possible, and is the reason why in general centralized methods for decentralization do not work in the long term. Beyond this, if money is spent locally it has a value that differs locally as well due to the nature of humans as physical beings and not electronic beings (for the near future). Due to this a software based economy you speak of is reliant on local economies, be they cities, states, or countries. For instance I could move my location 50 miles and have quadruple the expected expenses, and that is within my own state. This means that revenue on its face is relative, and localization of economies will continue to exist even in a software based economy due to local differences, much like (im going to date myself now) how different servers of some MMORPGS have different prices for good within them even when the exact same things are being sold.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

This is amazing trump has turned conservatives into communist protectionists.


Yeah china is doing well. They dont have a free market. They have one where the government controls every aspect of society.

My lord. The next thing trump will do is change conservatives to single payer and free college.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: Aazadan
The profit from subsidy only occurs if you can assure that what you are attempting to reinforce is going to work, and presumes a perfect knowledge of market reactions to said subsidy.

An example of this type of subsidy failing miserably occurred in the great recession. It originated in the movement of people who could not afford housing from public subsidized housing into homes at low interest rates. This occurred under the Clinton Administration. Since this was deemed as working as intended it drove up demand of private housing, driving up costs, and thus the leverage of loans in the housing sector. In an attempt to de-leverage these loans were bundled, allowing the sales of these loans at better rates as they were "safer" and less likely to default. Eventually these loans started to default and caused a cascade of failures leading to the bailouts of banks who over leveraged themselves in the first place due to government intervention.

This occurs over and over again, as perfect knowledge of the future of markets is simply not possible, and is the reason why in general centralized methods for decentralization do not work in the long term. Beyond this, if money is spent locally it has a value that differs locally as well due to the nature of humans as physical beings and not electronic beings (for the near future). Due to this a software based economy you speak of is reliant on local economies, be they cities, states, or countries. For instance I could move my location 50 miles and have quadruple the expected expenses, and that is within my own state. This means that revenue on its face is relative, and localization of economies will continue to exist even in a software based economy due to local differences, much like (im going to date myself now) how different servers of some MMORPGS have different prices for good within them even when the exact same things are being sold.

You have described the trump presidency as he is loosening all kinds of loan regulations from corporate, housing, and payday loans.

We have high expansion and high "employment"
Yet we have record welfare spending, record consumer debt, record annual budget debt, record national debt, high suicide rate etc...

Tariffs create inflation. These will eventually hit the lower middle class and working poor the hardest.

We dont want to compete with china as communists. We need to move into the future with innovation and not pretend we are bringing factory jobs back. We need to produce goods to sophisticated for china. Automation is taking more factory jobs than asian workers.

Total consumer debt is up!

Individual debt is down.

More people makes for a higher total number.

But whats a few million people here and there when 100,000 a month are crossing our border

a reply to: Aazadan

Most hydroponic large scale farms are moving towards automation. In fact they are being designed around it.

The real questions about where we are going seem to only be discussed by andrew yang as far as politicians. Now I don't know about his ideas working but he is the only person discussing what the actual future looks like.

But yes the us has decided things like this like with processor chips.

originally posted by: mikell
Total consumer debt is up!

Individual debt is down.

More people makes for a higher total number.

But whats a few million people here and there when 100,000 a month are crossing our border

This is false individual debt is up. Credit card debt up. Savings is down. Most Americans cant pay an unexpected bill.

Welfare is up. More Americans need assistance per capita.

Per capita debt is up.

Americans paid banks $113 billion in credit card interest in 2018, up 12% from the $101 billion in interest paid in 2017, and up 49% over the last five years, as Fed rate increases have been passed on to consumers. MagnifyMoney analyzed FDIC data through December 2018 for each bank whose deposits are insured by the FDIC.

A trio of new reports paint an increasingly troubling picture of the auto loan landscape. First up: According to new numbers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a record 7 million Americans are at least three months behind on their car loan payments. That’s about a million more than there were in 2009, the end of the last recession.

A new Bankrate survey of 1,004 adults finds that only 44 percent of households have more money in emergency savings than the amount they owe in credit card debt. That’s down from 58 percent last year and the lowest amount in Bankrate’s nine years of conducting the survey.
Results trend negatively from the other side as well: 29 percent of those surveyed reported having more credit card debt than emergency savings, which is an increase from last year’s 21 percent and the highest in nine years.

a reply to: luthier

Nothing I said had anything to do with communism. Protectionism has always existed whether a "free market" has existed or not. Technically speaking free markets have never existed since trade between civilizations has occurred. The straw man you are presenting is a rather weak argument.

The idea of tariffs creating inflation is inane. Money supply is the only thing that causes inflation, and yes loans and the like do cause inflation due to fractional reserve practices. Nowhere did I back expanding and making it easier to attain loans, in fact I made a statement explicitly against it, using it as an example of bad practice.

So continue to allow other countries that manipulate their currency and have over 6 times the debt that they claim they do due to it to exploit our country by lack of tariffs. (source btw www.forbes.com... ) Via "out competing" the US, when they are specifically manipulating currency through loans from government owned banks, all while having higher tariffs than the US does. Continue to sell out your countrymen and neighbors to make a quick buck, it is unsustainable.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: luthier

Nothing I said had anything to do with communism. Protectionism has always existed whether a "free market" has existed or not. Technically speaking free markets have never existed since trade between civilizations has occurred. The straw man you are presenting is a rather weak argument.

The idea of tariffs creating inflation is inane. Money supply is the only thing that causes inflation, and yes loans and the like do cause inflation due to fractional reserve practices. Nowhere did I back expanding and making it easier to attain loans, in fact I made a statement explicitly against it, using it as an example of bad practice.

So continue to allow other countries that manipulate their currency and have over 6 times the debt that they claim they do due to it to exploit our country by lack of tariffs. (source btw www.forbes.com... ) Via "out competing" the US, when they are specifically manipulating currency through loans from government owned banks, all while having higher tariffs than the US does. Continue to sell out your countrymen and neighbors to make a quick buck, it is unsustainable.

Lol. The CPI is held low with cheap goods.. inflation is gauged by the cpi.


Yeah there isn't a such thing as a totally free market like in Austrian economics.

However you dont understand economics enough to even get the rule of unintended consequences.

We want the government doing as little as possible. Not nothing but showing restraint to intervene.

Apparently you dont understand why inflation is low due to imports and the CPI and what would happen to spending power without a supply line from imports never mind the actual products.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

Sounds to me like you dont support the trump economy. Which is to use debt for expansion.

He is literally tweeting about printing money as a way to combat China's fake economy.

The day of reckoning will come for china if we just stay the course and slowly change tariff policy over decades. Not in 4 or 8 years.

a reply to: luthier
Who do they owe this debt to? There are cries and articles stating silly things like each person owes China 220k, when that simply is not the case. Each person owes themselves 72k, even after subtracting the debt held by China.
www.marketwatch.com...

Some 70% of the national debt is owned by domestic government, institutions investors and the Federal Reserve. A shade under 30% is owned by foreign entities, according to the latest information from the U.S. Treasury.

Oh come on... Trump knows he can post a couple tweets and tank the markets so he and his swamp-buddies can make bank on the puts.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

I have no idea what your post was about. But consumer debt and individual debt are also up. As are how long people are carrying loans. It jumped hugely from 2017-2018.

National debt is also increasing by about a trillion a year under trump. May be 2 trillion with infrastructure plan.

a reply to: luthier

I don't understand economics?!?

Im done. I was an Econ double major.