Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Tariffs suspended, immigration deal reached

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tariffs suspended, immigration deal reached

    Now to see if it WORKS !!

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Trump Suspends Tariffs on Mexico after Deal on Immigration Reached

    U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he has indefinitely suspended the threat of tariffs against Mexico after reaching "a signed agreement" on immigration.

    "I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico," Trump said on Twitter. "The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended," he said.



    ........................


    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tru.../07/id/919471/

  • #2

    Yes, Mexico has to stop letting herds of people into its OWN country from its OWN southern border.

    They're marching through Mexico to get HERE.

    I wonder what Canada might think of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans marching through America to get THERE ??

    Do we think Canada would handle these people the way WE handle them ?

    I wonder ...

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to stem the tide of Migration through Mexico, and to our Southern Border. This is being done to greatly reduce, or eliminate, Illegal Immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States," Trump said.

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tru.../07/id/919471/


    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      This sort of tactical use of tariffs (or in this case the threat thereof) I don't mind. Trump's broader tariff agenda still has me skidish. Despite occasional lip-service to the contrary, I think Trump just doesn't understand trade. He seems to have this ingrained notion that there is a winner and a loser to every exchange, which is simply not the case.

      Much has been made of the early history of our nation, when the primary source of funding of the federal government was tariffs. But that was in a time when international trade was a far smaller portion of overall economic activity (overwhelmingly goods that were consumed by the "rich") and it was in place of (rather than in addition to) other domestic taxation.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
        This sort of tactical use of tariffs (or in this case the threat thereof) I don't mind. Trump's broader tariff agenda still has me skidish. Despite occasional lip-service to the contrary, I think Trump just doesn't understand trade. He seems to have this ingrained notion that there is a winner and a loser to every exchange, which is simply not the case.

        Much has been made of the early history of our nation, when the primary source of funding of the federal government was tariffs. But that was in a time when international trade was a far smaller portion of overall economic activity (overwhelmingly goods that were consumed by the "rich") and it was in place of (rather than in addition to) other domestic taxation.
        You shouldn't be so worried about his broader tariff agenda. Trump has said that the goal is not to tariff, but to have NO tariff's with trading partners. Trump has also said that a good negotiation is where both parties are satisfied, and not a winner and loser, as you said. Both parties must be acting in good faith. When other countries tariff American products, they are not acting in good faith. And some trade deals are just not good deals and worth walking away from.

        I think he understands trade very well. Chill out during the negotiation process. It'll be rough at times, but it's the result that counts. Some times it's best to hang tough and instead of only considering the damage that can be done to America, it's equally important to consider what the other party has to lose, if more damage will be done to them, that will initiate them to come to the table with more concessions in order to avoid the hardship it would cause their country. Also important to consider walking away and perhaps making a better deal with a different party/country, that both parties negotiate in good faith and come to a fair agreement that will help both countries.

        It's not helpful to the US for our media and politicians to publicly, negatively critique our president, showing fear of what we have to lose. This does not help the president in negotiating the best deal for America. It's one thing to share concerns like we do here on this forum, but quite another thing to be sending the messages of our concerns to the party Trump is negotiating with.

        I'm skeptical of everything and everyone, however, I'm pretty confident that he know's what he's doing. A lot of it is pure common sense and weighing the odds.
        Last edited by msc; 06-08-2019, 08:58 AM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          A good read on the presidents tariff policies and their successes

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Here are the latest installments:

          The president slaps tariffs on China (as he said he would) after it refuses to stop cheating and stealing.

          Pundits predict the end of the world.

          The president threatens a tightening vice of sanctions on the elites who run Mexico unless they shut down the migrant conveyor belt carrying a million Central Americans to the U.S.

          Know-nothings have a hissy fit.

          We've seen this movie before.


          ....................

          When President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports over a year ago, the 'experts' said consumer prices would skyrocket.

          Inflation remained flat.

          When the president imposed the first round of tariffs on China in 2018, the eminentos of Wall Street declared with 100 percent certainty the economy would stall.

          The economy took off.

          It gets even better.

          When President Trump set out to renegotiate our trade agreement with South Korea, as he promised voters he would, the geniuses in the Establishment actually said it would cause thermonuclear World War III. (I'm not making this up - Bob Woodward chronicled their hysteria.)

          Last I checked, we're not living in bomb shelters, I'm not glowing in the dark - and the president negotiated a better trade deal with Korea.

          The 'experts' were wrong then and they are wrong now.


          They have apparently been brainwashed to believe tariffs are the awful-est thing ever.

          But they need to take another spin in the washing machine - literally.

          In 2013, the U.S. government determined that South Korean conglomerates Samsung and LG were making washing machines in South Korea and Mexico and selling them in the U.S. below the cost of production.

          When the U.S. International Trade Commission slapped a tariff on Samsung and LG imports from South Korea and Mexico to compensate for the under pricing, the two companies moved production to China to evade the tariff.

          When the Commerce Department put a tariff on Korean washing machines imported from China, Samsung and LG moved their production again, to factories in Vietnam and Thailand.

          Then, in 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended slapping a tariff on Samsung and LG washers wherever they are made to keep them from flooding the American market and destroying the American appliance industry.

          That's what President Trump did.

          Right on cue, the earth-is-flat economists predicted disaster. Wrong again.

          Here's what's really happened:

          Whirlpool, the iconic American appliance maker that was in danger of being driven out of business by the South Koreans, continues to employ 15,000 Americans in manufacturing and, most importantly, 3,000 workers at its Clyde, Ohio, washing machine factory.


          GE Appliances employs hundreds more in Kentucky.

          President Trump's tariffs forced both Samsung and LG to invest in American manufacturing and begin producing washing machines here in the U.S. - Samsung in Newbery, South Carlina, and LG in Clarksville, Tennessee.


          This is no surprise: After President Reagan threatened import quotas on Japanese cars in 1981, Japanese automakers began manufacturing in the U.S.

          The Koreans' two new facilities have generated hundreds of millions in new plant investments and created roughly 1,600 new manufacturing jobs in South Carolina and Tennessee.

          But wait, there's more.

          Each saved and new manufacturing job here in the U.S. generates another three jobs up and down the supply chain. That means the jobs in Ohio, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee support more than 15,000 jobs for American steel workers, local component suppliers and other logistics companies.

          In the year and a half since the washing machine tariffs were imposed, American made washers have begun replacing foreign-produced, illegally dumped imports.


          Contradicting the critics who said tariffs would drive up prices for consumers, plenty of washing machines are still available at every retail price point, including entry level washers at $300.

          The U.S. appliance industry is in the midst of making hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments to ensure its long-term competitiveness.

          President Trump's trade policies have resulted in more manufacturing, investment and innovation and better jobs for Americans.

          George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln all used tariffs to build America's industrial might.

          The so-called experts who question President Trump's America First agenda are ignorant of history.

          The next time someone tells you the sky is falling, don't listen - look up and see for yourself what's really going on.



          https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/history-...critics-wrong/

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            You have to admit that Trump has tried any number of things to improve / increase border security and border law enforcement. This gambit seems to have worked in getting Mexico to own at least some of their part of problem. This also puts an onus on the US congress to do something about their part of the problem as well. But I'm not expecting much of anything from the Democrat controlled House.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
              You have to admit that Trump has tried any number of things to improve / increase border security and border law enforcement. This gambit seems to have worked in getting Mexico to own at least some of their part of problem. This also puts an onus on the US congress to do something about their part of the problem as well. But I'm not expecting much of anything from the Democrat controlled House.
              Yet sadly, I doubt that voting in "republicans" will accomplish much either.

              They're so incompetent and stupid, they can't agree on ANYTHING and waste more time fighting among themselves.

              While democrats stick together working towards their Satanic goals, even when they lose, ...and ... bit by bit by bit slowly chip away at America

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by msc View Post

                You shouldn't be so worried about his broader tariff agenda. Trump has said that the goal is not to tariff, but to have NO tariff's with trading partners. Trump has also said that a good negotiation is where both parties are satisfied, and not a winner and loser, as you said. Both parties must be acting in good faith. When other countries tariff American products, they are not acting in good faith. And some trade deals are just not good deals and worth walking away from.

                I think he understands trade very well. Chill out during the negotiation process. It'll be rough at times, but it's the result that counts. Some times it's best to hang tough and instead of only considering the damage that can be done to America, it's equally important to consider what the other party has to lose, if more damage will be done to them, that will initiate them to come to the table with more concessions in order to avoid the hardship it would cause their country. Also important to consider walking away and perhaps making a better deal with a different party/country, that both parties negotiate in good faith and come to a fair agreement that will help both countries.

                It's not helpful to the US for our media and politicians to publicly, negatively critique our president, showing fear of what we have to lose. This does not help the president in negotiating the best deal for America. It's one thing to share concerns like we do here on this forum, but quite another thing to be sending the messages of our concerns to the party Trump is negotiating with.

                I'm skeptical of everything and everyone, however, I'm pretty confident that he know's what he's doing. A lot of it is pure common sense and weighing the odds.
                Absolutely wrong, if Trump believes (which his own statements have demonstrated he does) that long-term imposition of tariffs can be a net positive, he is absolutely wrong. Trump seems to have a fundamental gut presumption that there is no such thing as a win-win deal, but also oblivious to the idea that a trade war can be lose-lose. Just because the other guy is hurt MORE, does not make us the winner.

                I do not agree that it is bad to offer a fair, even-handed and objective critique of any political leader's actions. This is what I have done. The media and the left (and some sincere free market conservatives) have been critical in an unfair manner, refusing to draw the distinctions I have (the use of tariffs, or the threat thereof) in the short- to medium-term as a tactical means to achieve a particular policy objective. But it is crucial that any leader using a particular tactic understand the actual impact and limits to those tactics to avoid doing more long-term harm than good.

                The one fundamental flaw evident in Trump's understanding is that trade deficits cost U.S. jobs (the overwhelming majority of job losses in manufacturing are due to automation and not offshoring) and that they are inherently bad. Each and every one of us have 100% trade deficits in our daily lives. How much does your local super market buy from you? NOTHING, EVER. Does that make you the loser in that trade relationship? Of course not, and international trade is no different.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                  This sort of tactical use of tariffs (or in this case the threat thereof) I don't mind. Trump's broader tariff agenda still has me skidish. Despite occasional lip-service to the contrary, I think Trump just doesn't understand trade. He seems to have this ingrained notion that there is a winner and a loser to every exchange, which is simply not the case.

                  Much has been made of the early history of our nation, when the primary source of funding of the federal government was tariffs. But that was in a time when international trade was a far smaller portion of overall economic activity (overwhelmingly goods that were consumed by the "rich") and it was in place of (rather than in addition to) other domestic taxation.
                  If our founders had used cheap labor for max profit instead of tariffs to make us independent and give us industries we would not have become powerful enough to win ww2 nor an empire.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                    If our founders had used cheap labor for max profit instead of tariffs to make us independent and give us industries we would not have become powerful enough to win ww2 nor an empire.
                    Again, this is a complete misread of history. At the time of the founding, comparative advantage in labor was simply not a part of the global trade calculus. Pre-industrialization (and pre-heavy regulatory state), there was nowhere near the dramatic variations in the cost of labor around the world. The only reason for trade was for things not readily available in different parts of the world. In addition, the cost of transportation was a much larger portion of the cost of globally traded goods than it is today.

                    We became powerful because we had vast natural resources, and relatively libertarian tax, expenditure, and regulatory policies. Tariffs, though a much larger portion of total federal revenues, were still relatively small in terms of the cost of globally traded goods. It is simply idiotic to think that it was tariffs (as opposed to the substantially smaller level of taxing and spending in the aggregate) that was the primary driver of our nation's pre-Industrialization growth. Just like it is foolish to ascribe out post-WWII boom to various domestic policies, rather than the fact that most of our global competitors had suffered historically incomparable levels of destruction (even WWI saw far less wide-spread destruction of the industrial bases of the countries involved) from which it took decades for them to recover (this is why we started facing serious competition in the 70-80s.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                      Absolutely wrong, if Trump believes (which his own statements have demonstrated he does) that long-term imposition of tariffs can be a net positive, he is absolutely wrong. Trump seems to have a fundamental gut presumption that there is no such thing as a win-win deal, but also oblivious to the idea that a trade war can be lose-lose. Just because the other guy is hurt MORE, does not make us the winner.

                      I do not agree that it is bad to offer a fair, even-handed and objective critique of any political leader's actions. This is what I have done. The media and the left (and some sincere free market conservatives) have been critical in an unfair manner, refusing to draw the distinctions I have (the use of tariffs, or the threat thereof) in the short- to medium-term as a tactical means to achieve a particular policy objective. But it is crucial that any leader using a particular tactic understand the actual impact and limits to those tactics to avoid doing more long-term harm than good.

                      The one fundamental flaw evident in Trump's understanding is that trade deficits cost U.S. jobs (the overwhelming majority of job losses in manufacturing are due to automation and not offshoring) and that they are inherently bad. Each and every one of us have 100% trade deficits in our daily lives. How much does your local super market buy from you? NOTHING, EVER. Does that make you the loser in that trade relationship? Of course not, and international trade is no different.
                      It's a combination. No one single thing alone is responsible.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by msc View Post

                        It's a combination. No one single thing alone is responsible.
                        I did not say one single thing was responsible, I noted a number of things. Low spending, low taxes, few regulations. Tariffs were not a driver of our early economic growth (no tax is a driver of growth) as a nation, and the fundamental impact of tariffs (for the reasons indicated) have become decidedly more negative. The point is that saying that we had tariffs then is indicative that they are good is specious and reflect ignorance of economic history (and basic economics). It would be like attributing Ford's early success selling only one color car. It is a basic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                          Again, this is a complete misread of history. At the time of the founding, comparative advantage in labor was simply not a part of the global trade calculus. Pre-industrialization (and pre-heavy regulatory state), there was nowhere near the dramatic variations in the cost of labor around the world. The only reason for trade was for things not readily available in different parts of the world. In addition, the cost of transportation was a much larger portion of the cost of globally traded goods than it is today.

                          We became powerful because we had vast natural resources, and relatively libertarian tax, expenditure, and regulatory policies. Tariffs, though a much larger portion of total federal revenues, were still relatively small in terms of the cost of globally traded goods. It is simply idiotic to think that it was tariffs (as opposed to the substantially smaller level of taxing and spending in the aggregate) that was the primary driver of our nation's pre-Industrialization growth. Just like it is foolish to ascribe out post-WWII boom to various domestic policies, rather than the fact that most of our global competitors had suffered historically incomparable levels of destruction (even WWI saw far less wide-spread destruction of the industrial bases of ttheountries involved) from which it took decades for them to recover (this is why we started facing serious competition in the 70-80s.
                          The founders wanted their new nation to be independent .and as self sufficient as possible and tariffs were used to heip us to make our consumption. Just common sense.

                          Globalism is but another scheme to max out disparity in favor of the top. At a great cost to AAmericans. It also empowered and enriched a communist nation. Aided a natural enemy.

                          Adverse to common sense.
                          Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-11-2019, 02:10 PM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            I did not say one single thing was responsible, I noted a number of things. Low spending, low taxes, few regulations. Tariffs were not a driver of our early economic growth (no tax is a driver of growth) as a nation, and the fundamental impact of tariffs (for the reasons indicated) have become decidedly more negative. The point is that saying that we had tariffs then is indicative that they are good is specious and reflect ignorance of economic history (and basic economics). It would be like attributing Ford's early success selling only one color car. It is a basic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
                            The point is that Trump wants no tariffs. He promotes the good of tariff's only during negotiations and if a deal cannot be met to eliminate the tariff.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by msc View Post

                              The point is that Trump wants no tariffs. He promotes the good of tariff's only during negotiations and if a deal cannot be met to eliminate the tariff.
                              While he says that at times, he also says without qualification that tariffs are good. He has also frequently made statements that he does not think tariffs are a bad thing, even if they are in place for long periods of time.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X