The Trump Presidency

nsacpi said:
I'm not assuming cheap is better. The point is based upon choices millions of consumers make. Some prefer more expensive and higher quality. Others prefer cheap. That's their choice. I wouldn't presume to tell people what choices to make when they go shopping.

Just checked the label on my shirt. Madagascar. Hey. Don't take away my Malgache shirt.

And I'll add something that to me is an important part of this discussion. Malgache are children of God. As are Chinese. And Guatamalans. And Indians. And Nigerians. My concern for the well being of my fellow human beings is all encompassing. It is not restricted by geography or nationality. I don't expect other people to share this view. But it is mine. Thanks to trade, an enormous number of my fellow human beings have been lifted from poverty in the past 30 years. And millions more will experience the same in coming decades. It is not something I want to see thrown away due to a misdiagnosis about what ails blue collar workers in this country.
Click to expand...

The most important thing for the world is to have a strong US. We have lifted up the world and that has been vaulted always by a strong middle class.

If the path we are on continues there will be social unrest in America and the very beacon of freedom of the world could fall.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm not arguing against the fact that many people in those states have a similar view to yours. I'm actually arguing two different matters:

1) The wisdom of those views. There is an issue about the lack of upward mobility of certain demographic groups. It is an important issue. And I would like to see it properly diagnosed. The patient is not always the best person to look to for a diagnosis.

2) I also think that the "protectionism" that you are longing for is not in fact what the Chosen One is pursuing. He is replacing one trade deal with Canada and Mexico with another. When you compare the two deals there are some things better in one and some things better in the other. But the new deal (assuming it passes Congress) does not represent any sort of break with existing trade policy. It tinkers at the edges. Similarly, what is going to come out of this tariff war with China will very much resemble the current arrangement, at least in terms of its impact on ordinary American consumers and workers. So we will have gone through a tax increase for consumers (tariffs), disruptions to supply chains, an economic slowdown, pain and anxiety to our farmers for very little. What's the point.

As for subsidies, I say bring em on. If someone offers to subsidize anything I'm buying, I'm quite happy to accept.
Click to expand...

It is strange to me that smart people can bemoan the effect of Wal Mart on communities while praising the impact of free trade on the country as a whole. Along with being hand in hand, they have a lot in common. Both are very good at increasing unemployment while making a few executives and shareholders exceedingly wealthy from the sale of cheap junk to Americans.

I agree with you that the new NAFTA deal isn't great, but I certainly think it's better. I expect the same result from the China trade war. None of those countries are led by stupid people, they know that eventually they will be negotiating with someone else if the current administration holds out for a perfect deal. But both deals will stop bad momentum for us.

More importantly, both deals establish that the previous deals were bad. Previous administrations just mumbled noncommittal free trade platitudes and talked about factory workers getting a degree or writing apps for a living. That accomplishes the hardest task, because now we can look at future relations in a dynamic sense instead of the previous status quo.
 
Jaw said:
It is strange to me that smart people can bemoan the effect of Wal Mart on communities while praising the impact of free trade on the country as a whole. Along with being hand in hand, they have a lot in common. Both are very good at increasing unemployment while making a few executives and shareholders exceedingly wealthy from the sale of cheap junk to Americans.

I agree with you that the new NAFTA deal isn't great, but I certainly think it's better. I expect the same result from the China trade war. None of those countries are led by stupid people, they know that eventually they will be negotiating with someone else if the current administration holds out for a perfect deal. But both deals will stop bad momentum for us.

More importantly, both deals establish that the previous deals were bad. Previous administrations just mumbled noncommittal free trade platitudes and talked about factory workers getting a degree or writing apps for a living. That accomplishes the hardest task, because now we can look at future relations in a dynamic sense instead of the previous status quo.
Click to expand...

I think the main beneficiaries from Walmart are the people who shop there. And shop at their competitors. There is a Walmart near me that recently closed down. Across from it is a Target. I shop at the Target more often. And I've noticed that their prices have gone up since the Walmart shut down. So I'm missing that Walmart even though I rarely shopped there.

This is an underappreciated aspect of capitalism. The choices and innovation and price cutting that arise from competition, including foreign competition. Individually, we all dream about a comfy sinecure where no one will take away our business if we get lazy and don't offer a good product. Who wouldn't like that. Well our customers wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
goldfly said:
The beacon of the free world fell about 2 years ago
Click to expand...

But the point remains that the United States and the leadership it has provided since World War II has been very important. The Pax Americana has been a thing. Even though there has been war and conflict in this period, there has been less war and conflict than would have been the case if not for our leadership in institutions like NATO and the international trading order. It has provided an orderly and largely peaceful way for rising countries like China to integrate themselves into the global economic and political system. It is not perfect. But the period since 1945 has largely been a golden age for human progress. That's why I have no hesitation in using the word restoration to describe what I would like to see come out of the 2020 elections. Restoration sounds old-fashioned and reactionary. Kind of like hoping for the restoration of the French monarchy. But I think there is much of great value that has been threatened the last few years and hope 2020 will bring about a restoration of sanity.
 
Carp said:
It's ok, he's from **** hole country anyway, amirite?
Click to expand...

Muslim too. And his friends post objectionable things on social media.

Bottom line: He's a deplorable deportable.

Personal take: Anyone Harvard wants we need to keep out of the country.

Bonus anti-Harvard rant: Has anyone from Harvard stepped forward yet to take responsibility for taking money from Epstein and helping to provide him with a veneer of respectability.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
nsacpi said:
And I'll add something that to me is an important part of this discussion. Malgache are children of God. As are Chinese. And Guatamalans. And Indians. And Nigerians. My concern for the well being of my fellow human beings is all encompassing. It is not restricted by geography or nationality. I don't expect other people to share this view. But it is mine. Thanks to trade, an enormous number of my fellow human beings have been lifted from poverty in the past 30 years. And millions more will experience the same in coming decades. It is not something I want to see thrown away due to a misdiagnosis about what ails blue collar workers in this country.
Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment, although I side more with Rousseau on exactly what kind of prosperity we are bringing to less materialistic corners of the world.

How many t-shirts or solar panels are 3rd world citizens able to take home when they exchange amour de soi for amour-propre?
 
Jaw said:
I agree with this sentiment, although I side more with Rousseau on exactly what kind of prosperity we are bringing to less materialistic corners of the world.

How many t-shirts or solar panels are 3rd world citizens able to take home when they exchange amour de soi for amour-propre?
Click to expand...

Well I would guess that for many of the families coming out of poverty for the first time, their main priority is an even better life for the next generation. For those families, this might mean a chance to send one of their children to college. Which side of the amour de soi/amour-propre divide does that fall on.
 
For those families and for good people like you with good intentions, it falls on the amour de soi side, with the reality of execution and the marketplace landing squarely on the amour-propre end. But I'm not even an amateur philosopher.
 
Jaw said:
For those families and for good people like you with good intentions, it falls on the amour de soi side, with the reality of execution and the marketplace landing squarely on the amour-propre end. But I'm not even an amateur philosopher.
Click to expand...

You do ok for an amateur philosopher. You are in NC right? We have to get together for a meal next time I'm in Charlotte.
 
CNN
@CNN
·
12h
94-year-old former President Jimmy Carter, who underwent hip surgery last spring after a fall,

is set to construct 21 homes alongside his wife, former first lady Rosalynn Carter,

as part of his role as a volunteer house builder with Habitat for Humanity.
 
The orange **** and thethe etc “socialism is evil and will be the end of the country”

Also them:

[tw]1166488990884741120[/tw]
 
68868127_1649557008512594_5096488689710661632_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top