Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes, the Smoot-Hawkey Argument. You realize, of course, that we were in a severe economic depression at that time and virtually no economic policy could have reversed that.
...well, except a world war, which did reverse that since it destroyed the economy of Europe and revived the US economy.
Also, why do the tariff opponents never want to talk about the dozens of tariff acts which were successful, including the first one, which was passed before the Bill Of Rights?
Because they were enacted during a time when other countries did not have the means or the desire to combat them.
Times have changed since the time your market was the only market growing by leaps and bounds.
On the other hand, you can say he's arguing for global warfare with actual dead bodies on the ground and the US coming on top. We do have a large military apparatus. Perhaps that's what Retroit is arguing for?
Trump supporters have this fantasy that all our allies will come begging to trade with us, that their deity Trump will sit in his throne and our allies will genuflect in his presence. In fact, it's simply making our allies more likely to avoid American products.
Trump pulling the U.S. out of the TPP only served to strengthen the ties among TPP members who are now trading with one another. Canada and Mexico are also members of the TPP.
Trump, for whatever reason, wants to start a recession. We always have one whenever there is a Republican President (just Google this) and he wants to get his out of the way early. It's the only reasonable explanation.
On the other hand, you can say he's arguing for global warfare with actual dead bodies on the ground and the US coming on top. We do have a large military apparatus. Perhaps that's what Retroit is arguing for?
I'd find that hard to believe from anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Trump, for whatever reason, wants to start a recession. We always have one whenever there is a Republican President (just Google this) and he wants to get his out of the way early. It's the only reasonable explanation.
Since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who left office in 1909, every single Republican president has seen a recession take hold in their first term.
While analysts consider this a fluke of timing more than an explicit economic reaction to Republican policies, the odds of this streak continuing during the presidency of Donald Trump are seen as plausible, particularly as he presides over what is already the second-longest bull market in history.
“Republican presidents seeing recessions has more to do with cycles — both political and economic — than policy,†said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist of U.S. equity strategy at CFRA. “Most economic cycles last five to six years, presidential terms are four years, and you usually don’t see more than two straight terms of the same party. Right now we’re already late in an economic cycle that’s already much longer than average ones.â€
Oh, I understand that. I think it definitely makes sense in some instances to enact protectionist policies. I'm asking specifically about this strategy we're embarking on currently. What are the studies on its believed effects of engaging in a trade war on this many fronts simultaneously? Certainly a lot of policies are a means to an end and trade wars have been successful in the past in many situations, but it seems that we've put ourselves in an interesting situation of having started it on multiple fronts simultaneously so what is the projected reasonable results for it in the immediate short term and longer near term?
I think the 'strategy' here is rather simple -- to leverage other countries' trade dependence on us in order to initiate changes in policy. By spreading the trade war across multiple fronts we are sending a message that the US is confident it will weather any negative effects of a trade war and pull out ahead, and more importantly, that we are not afraid to stick up for ourselves when we feel we are being taken advantage of.
You may think that other countries are not as dependent on us for trade as Trump's actions would suggest, but the numbers still show that the US is one of the largest import trading partners of all of the countries involved here (and in most cases we are the largest). This gives us major leverage when it comes to influencing trade policies.
Another key part of the overall strategy is that we import more than we export for all of the countries involved. That gives us the upper hand here as it's generally easier, in a worst-case scenario, to move manufacturing back to the US than it is for the other countries to find someone else to buy their goods so that their economies can survive.
I think the 'strategy' here is rather simple -- to leverage other countries' trade dependence on us in order to initiate changes in policy. By spreading the trade war across multiple fronts we are sending a message that the US is confident it will weather any negative effects of a trade war and pull out ahead, and more importantly, that we are not afraid to stick up for ourselves when we feel we are being taken advantage of.
You may think that other countries are not as dependent on us for trade as Trump's actions would suggest, but the numbers still show that the US is one of the largest import trading partners of all of the countries involved here (and in most cases we are the largest). This gives us major leverage when it comes to influencing trade policies.
Another key part of the overall strategy is that we import more than we export for all of the countries involved. That gives us the upper hand here as it's generally easier, in a worst-case scenario, to move manufacturing back to the US than it is for the other countries to find someone else to buy their goods so that their economies can survive.
I think the 'strategy' here is rather simple -- to leverage other countries' trade dependence on us in order to initiate changes in policy. By spreading the trade war across multiple fronts we are sending a message that the US is confident it will weather any negative effects of a trade war and pull out ahead, and more importantly, that we are not afraid to stick up for ourselves when we feel we are being taken advantage of.
You may think that other countries are not as dependent on us for trade as Trump's actions would suggest, but the numbers still show that the US is one of the largest import trading partners of all of the countries involved here (and in most cases we are the largest). This gives us major leverage when it comes to influencing trade policies.
Another key part of the overall strategy is that we import more than we export for all of the countries involved. That gives us the upper hand here as it's generally easier, in a worst-case scenario, to move manufacturing back to the US than it is for the other countries to find someone else to buy their goods so that their economies can survive.
What you're saying is a pretty concise description of trade wars in general. However, I'm asking about the actual strategy and nuts and bolts predictions for this current trade war we're engaging in. We are starting a trade war on multiple fronts simultaneously with every single major trading partner, but I'm trying to see where it is that we offer a particularly inelastic good without simple substitutes that exist in other parts of the world and what are the numbers we're running here or why we are including overall net surplus trading partners as also part of the trade war. I think maybe there's some part of a supply chain that we're a crucial supplier in somewhere that I'm missing?
The last part you posted is interesting, but we're generally a moderate fraction of the global market for most goods. What is the net benefit in this that we're predicting here? What are the projected numbers of jobs created versus jobs shed? What are our predictions on consumer pricing models? What is a projected range of win conditions we would want? Is there a white sheet of sorts from the administration or an institution advising the administration that's been released?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-06-2018 at 01:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
