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.
I'll be honest -- trade policies was not something I was inherently worried about with Trump. I was naive to think he would have a better understanding of international trade policies and how they connect with the USA. He doesn't seem to get it. It is a complex process and a measured approach realizing the balancing act of protecting the USA and working with other countries requires a give and take, a finesse. Trump doesn't negotiate that way. In a private corporation, Trump's techniques or approach may be effective.....(well sometimes it isn't cough cough -- bankruptcies).....but it is different on the public, global stage. And Trump is too set in his way, naive, ignorant to change his tactics. Having said that, there are people behind the scenes, actually sitting at the table that are conducting the negotiations in earnest and I have a naive belief they are trying to do their best.
Moneill, I believe that the Trade negotiations come down to two issues:
1- Xi and friends are more-than-willing to harm their economy in order to “win” the trade war in the long run. Xi can out-wait Trump for a year or 5 if necessary. If nothing changes the U.S. will lose more jobs and our economy will weaken
2- Trump badly needs a deal as he’s promised to his base - “trade wars are easy to win and won’t take long”
At some point, hopefully soon, Trump will tell his negotiators to “make a deal, any deal so that I can call it a win.” This deal will be a 1% tweak to the current deal IMHO
The “people behind the scenes may be trying” but zero (0) headway has been made in 18 months
China’s theft of out IP is a separate issue - make a trade deal and then sanction China if they keep stealing our IP
3.5% sounds pretty low but without knowing how many people are working it is really hard to tell anything without numbers.
I guess first we would need to know how many people are living in the US so roughly 330,000,000 million.
Then we would need to know how many were over 18 years of age, so that is 75% and that is 248,000,000 million. Next how many workers 158,000,000 million with only 130 million full time workers, doing the math, carry the 1...
US Population Total ................330,000,000
US Population working age.......248,000,000
US Population Employed..........158,000,000
US Population Not Employed......90,000,000
So there are 90,000,000 million people not working but over 18, so that is 36.3% real unemployment?
Why is it so much higher than the 3.5%?
Anyone...
Cat & Dog, the labor participation rate is ~63% - it hasn’t moved much at all. Part of this rate includes kids in college and people retired for some unknown reason to me. It’s gonna get worse before it gets better: we’re in the early stages of baby boomers retiring.
Also, people not looking for a job aren’t unemployed. They’re either unemployable (skills), on drugs, and/or unwilling to work for minimum wage
Strange. Unemployment is at historic lows, yet the deficit is at historic Highs. Has that ever happened before? I mean other than WW2
It's a good question.
The last time unemployment was this low was 1969.
Spending, then, was 18.7% of GDP while revenue was 19.0% of GDP.
Today, 2019 estimated revenue is 16.1% while estimated spending is 21.3% of GDP, up 0.4% since Trump took office.
I'd be willing to cut some programs to get that number back in line.
Average revenue during the Obama years was 16.2% of GDP, and it is only down 1.2% since Trump took office, so I'm less inclined to tinker with that.
Additional import tariffs on Chinese goods would be something to consider.
No sense paying for the new Chinese navy just to send our sons off to fight it in twenty years, and if we can drum up a little more revenue in the process, all the better.
There’s an old truism “you fix your roof on a sunny day”. We should address the Budget Deficit/National Debt during economic expansion.
Sure, because experience has shown us that every time we send a bunch of money to DC, our super honest politicians always use it for the purpose it was intended.
But just to break up the monotony of us sending money to DC and having it used in a responsible manner by our trustworthy office holders, how about this time we hang onto the money and have the nice folks in DC fix that roof with existing funds.
Besides, as rules for acquiring food stamps are always in flux, the number of recipients who get them is one of the poorest measures of the economy to be presented.
Many years ago, I supported a food bank that I thought was doing a good job, until they published a report showing they had "helped" more families than the number of families that lived in our small city. Thankfully, I wasn't the only one who was taken aback by their lack of discernment, and soon after, they changed their rules for who was eligible.
Besides, as rules for acquiring food stamps are always in flux, the number of recipients who get them is one of the poorest measures of the economy to be presented.
Many years ago, I supported a food bank that I thought was doing a good job, until they published a report showing they had "helped" more families than the number of families that lived in our small city. Thankfully, I wasn't the only one who was taken aback by their lack of discernment, and soon after, they changed their rules for who was eligible.
acquiring food stamps are always in flux - I have no idea what this means unless you mean the requirements change? It is getting slightly harder to qualify for food stamps
definition??? lol When you have increased welfare that is not good. That means the overall economy is bad.
I don't understand the need for a food bank when we have government welfare. Wouldn't the need be minimal? Why wouldn't they qualify for government assistance? Are there that many people who are so destitute and lost that they cannot fill out government forms?
I don't understand the need for a food bank when we have government welfare. Wouldn't the need be minimal? Why wouldn't they qualify for government assistance? Are there that many people who are so destitute and lost that they cannot fill out government forms?
Food banks should be for short term, mostly. Like my neighbor's car broke down and he had to spend the grocery money to get it fixed so he could get to work. Then too, there are childless singles or the elderly, some of whom don't qualify for government assistance.
Most food banks have totally lost sight of reality, as the one I described did. Last time I looked into "food stamps" the rules were very very loose. (Been several months, so it could have changed again.)
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.
