OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[strummingram]

You realize there's a lot more to these tariffs than just trade deficits, right? The Chinese are also stealing technology. They also devalue their currency on purpose, which hurts our economy. As for China having us over a barrel, I don't think you understand the power of the US economy. You realize that if we stop buying from them their economy is done, right? You can also keep the "it's not 1820" argument. It's a "globalist" economy because that's how the corporations want it. We've always bought stuff from other countries and sold to other countries. That's nothing new. The laws implemented since then are what has led to this mess.

As for you calling Trump a bullshitter, who isn't one in Congress right now? This is always the funniest complain I hear about Trump. Trump lies...so what? They all lie. Who was the last honest politician, apart from Ron Paul?

This is why it's pointless to debate you. You live in Prison Planet.com. When you're not sniffing Trump's farts, you're soaking-up these British eccentrics. And, that's fine. Just don't expect me to take you seriously or engage very much. You, much like your leader, say what you want to hear and everyone else is "brainwashed by the media." Meanwhile, someone like me- who never watches even a second of TV news on ANY channel- isn't biased by any media at all, really.

And, Trump has made his entire life a textbook example of how to bullshit people. He is a master bullshitter. And, claiming "everyone in Congress and DC is a bullshitter" doesn't make Trump any less of a bullshitter. It just means you're deflecting and defending his brand of bullshit.

 

[tarheel0910]

I mean, quite simply, that they have a resolve that the USA does not have. The people in the States are not going to take it in the balls- let's say like Americans pulled together in WWII- and "win" a trade war. The Chinese government has their citizens BY THE BALLS! So what if a million or two die? They have a completely different values system in that culture.

The resolve that the people have doesn't matter here either. All that matters is if the politicians have the resolve. Neither side likes the Chinese much right now, so this is something that could drag out for a while. Especially if Trump gets reelected. If he were to get reelected, I doubt he would ever lift the tariffs without an agreement in place.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I mean, quite simply, that they have a resolve that the USA does not have. The people in the States are not going to take it in the balls- let's say like Americans pulled together in WWII- and "win" a trade war. The Chinese government has their citizens BY THE BALLS! So what if a million or two die? They have a completely different values system in that culture.

The Chinese are, by far, the fastest growing millionaires. You don't think they're going to care about getting punched in the wallet?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

This is why it's pointless to debate you. You live in Prison Planet.com. When you're not sniffing Trump's farts, you're soaking-up these British eccentrics. And, that's fine. Just don't expect me to take you seriously or engage very much. You, much like your leader, say what you want to hear and everyone else is "brainwashed by the media." Meanwhile, someone like me- who never watches even a second of TV news on ANY channel- isn't biased by any media at all, really.

And, Trump has made his entire life a textbook example of how to bullshit people. He is a master bullshitter. And, claiming "everyone in Congress and DC is a bullshitter" doesn't make Trump any less of a bullshitter. It just means you're deflecting and defending his brand of bullshit.

You understand how a debate or argument works, right? We both get to have our opinions. I love the fact that PJW gets under your skin. Is it all the facts and articles he puts out that blows up your ideology? I listen to Jimmy Dore for Horus' sake, and you think I'm just some simple-minded Trump fart sniffer? That's funny. I entertain WAY more ideologies than you do, but I'm the one that need to "grow"? Sure, buddy...sure.

Keep being a never-Trumper, dude. I'm sure it's good for your blood pressure.

 

[strummingram]

The resolve that the people have doesn't matter here either. All that matters is if the politicians have the resolve. Neither side likes the Chinese much right now, so this is something that could drag out for a while. Especially if Trump gets reelected. If he were to get reelected, I doubt he would ever lift the tariffs without an agreement in place.

Great, well... let it drag out. The Chinese are not paying for the tariffs any more than Mexico is paying for a wall. And, American consumers are paying for them. And, ask some farmers in the midwest how they feel about it. I doubt that farmers in states like Wisconsin are thinking "hey... we can lose our farm and go hungry if it helps to make Trump look good to someone else, for a little while."

Trump is a novice pretending to be an expert. That's what he has always done, and this is no different. I just hope it can stay together long enough to get his unstable ass out of office.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Great, well... let it drag out. The Chinese are not paying for the tariffs any more than Mexico is pay for a wall. And, American consumers are paying for them. And, ask some farmers in the midwest how they feel about it. I doubt that farmers in states like Wisconsin are thinking "hey... we can lose our farm and go hungry if it helps to make Trump look good to someone else, for a little while."

Trump is a novice pretending to be an expert. That's what he has always done, and this is no different. I just hope it can stay together long enough to get his unstable ass out of office.

You mean the giant corporate farmers that the taxpayers subsidize every year to the tune of billions? Yeah, I'm not feeling sorry for them.

$25 billion a year in subsidies.

https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162

Edit: Added to help prove my point. An article about who actually owns most of the farmland nowadays.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-chart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cdd7e28e6c1b

 

[tarheel0910]

Great, well... let it drag out. The Chinese are not paying for the tariffs any more than Mexico is paying for a wall. And, American consumers are paying for them. And, ask some farmers in the midwest how they feel about it. I doubt that farmers in states like Wisconsin are thinking "hey... we can lose our farm and go hungry if it helps to make Trump look good to someone else, for a little while."

Trump is a novice pretending to be an expert. That's what he has always done, and this is no different. I just hope it can stay together long enough to get his unstable ass out of office.

I don't really disagree with any of that, but to say China can easily win this isn't really true. Right now it's hurting both economies and there really isn't a good reason for both countries not to settle this quickly.

 

[strummingram]

You mean the giant corporate farmers that the taxpayers subsidize every year to the tune of billions? Yeah, I'm not feeling sorry for them.

$25 billion a year in subsidies.

https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162

Edit: Added to help prove my point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-chart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cdd7e28e6c1b

No... I don't mean the "giant corporate farmers"...

Now, we get to play battle of the internet links that result in getting nowhere
https://www.thenews-messenger.com/s...ffs-continue-hurt-regions-farmers/1674585001/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-the-toll-of-trumps-trade-wars-idUSKCN1UR5XZ

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...farmers-hurt-by-china-trade-war-idUSKCN1UI294

https://markets.businessinsider.com...o-hurt-ranchers-for-decades-2019-8-1028411224

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/tru...s-farmers-already-hit-by-china-trade-war.html

Not just farmers:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/business/trade-war-tariffs-revenue.html

 

[strummingram]

I don't really disagree with any of that, but to say China can easily win this isn't really true. Right now it's hurting both economies and there really isn't a good reason for both countries not to settle this quickly.

I'll even match that agreement! Yes, the people running the shows are hard-headed and refuse to give-in because they're not going to be bothered no matter what happens. I'm still not sure I would bet against the Chinese as far as "winning" a trade war. I don't know if the Chinese elections are as open-and-honest as ours! (sarcasm)

 

[NoleSoup4U]

No... I don't mean the "giant corporate farmers"...

Now, we get to play battle of the internet links that result in getting nowhere
https://www.thenews-messenger.com/s...ffs-continue-hurt-regions-farmers/1674585001/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-the-toll-of-trumps-trade-wars-idUSKCN1UR5XZ

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...farmers-hurt-by-china-trade-war-idUSKCN1UI294

https://markets.businessinsider.com...o-hurt-ranchers-for-decades-2019-8-1028411224

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/tru...s-farmers-already-hit-by-china-trade-war.html

Not just farmers:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/business/trade-war-tariffs-revenue.html

Do you think small farmers are selling to China? Corporate farms account for at least 70% of the farm land, and they're really the only ones selling to China. The mid-sized farms are disappearing quickly, they have been for decades now. It's basically just corporations and the local farmer that supplies the nearby farmers market.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Not just farmers:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/business/trade-war-tariffs-revenue.html

BTW, I wonder if the NYT took into account the $25 billion we already give to farmers when they came up with that $28 billion number? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't. It makes the story look better to them.

 

[strummingram]

Do you think small farmers are selling to China? Corporate farms account for at least 70% of the farm land, and they're really the only ones selling to China. The mid-sized farms are disappearing quickly, they have been for decades now. It's basically just corporations and the local farmer that supplies the nearby farmers market.

I think it's all linked, and this is not helping the small farmers, or the evil giant corporate globalist farmers. It does allow Trump to beat his chest and pretend that he thinks he knows what he's doing. The dumb-shit isn't happy unless he's pissing-off some people and at the expense of whatever, it doesn't matter.

 

[strummingram]

BTW, I wonder if the NYT took into account the $25 billion we already give to farmers when they came up with that $28 billion number? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't. It makes the story look better to them.

Well, I'm sure they're globalists who are going to succeed in taking over the world, so you're probably right. Ask them, not me.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I think it's all linked, and this is not helping the small farmers, or the evil giant corporate globalist farmers. It does allow Trump to beat his chest and pretend that he thinks he knows what he's doing. The dumb-shit isn't happy unless he's pissing-off some people and at the expense of whatever, it doesn't matter.

I don't know how tariffs affect you if you aren't selling to the country that is imposing said tariffs.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Well, I'm sure they're globalists who are going to succeed in taking over the world, so you're probably right. Ask them, not me.

It's just the way the article was worded. They said that Trump had committed $28 billion to the farmers. Well, we were already going to commit $25+ billion as it was, so he is really increasing it by $3 billion while raising $20.8 billion just through July? This is why I'm especially skeptical when it comes to articles like this, especially articles from people who are more propagandists than journalists anymore. I honestly don't know if there are many legit journalists at this point, maybe Glenn Greenwald.

 

[strummingram]

It's just the way the article was worded. They said that Trump had committed $28 billion to the farmers. Well, we were already going to commit $25+ billion as it was, so he is really increasing it by $3 billion while raising $20.8 billion just through July? This is why I'm especially skeptical when it comes to articles like this, especially articles from people who are more propagandists than journalists anymore. I honestly don't know if there are many legit journalists anymore, maybe Glenn Greenwald.

It's all a matter of perception. Economics is less about math and more about philosophy, I'm finding out. Bottom line, I trust Donald Trump less than just about anyone living or dead. And, that would have been the case before he ever ran for president.

 

[uncboy10]

China plays by an entirely different set of rules. That have no problem stealing IP which allows them to bypass extremely expensive R&D costs in all kinds of industries. You don’t need a degree in economics to understand the competitive advantage there.

Tariffs are obviously not going to solve that problem. What they will do is increase the cost of production inputs for American business owners which will stifle growth. If the Chinese can produce steel or aluminum cheaper than we can then the efficient decision is to just buy it from them and get cheaper steel and aluminum. We’re trying to hold on to jobs in the manufacturing industry that won’t even exist for much longer.

 

[uncboy10]

It's all a matter of perception. Economics is less about math and more about philosophy, I'm finding out. Bottom line, I trust Donald Trump less than just about anyone living or dead. And, that would have been the case before he ever ran for president.

Economics is math. Even the theories are mostly based on math. It’s mostly non-linear algebra and basic calculus. The problem is most people talking about economics have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

It's all a matter of perception. Economics is less about math and more about philosophy, I'm finding out. Bottom line, I trust Donald Trump less than just about anyone living or dead. And, that would have been the case before he ever ran for president.

There is no perception. It's one or the other. I can't tell you that I know either way for sure, but with the NYT's past, I would bet the outcome I posted is very plausible, if not likely. If Breitbart wrote something like this about Obama, I would feel the same way. It's unfortunate that hardly anyone trusts the MSM anymore, but they did it to themselves.

 

[CanuckChuck]

Uhh, what does that matter? Murder is murder. Plus, I'd rather get killed by a bullet than a stab wound.

Edit: Plus, when you take away guns, you're basically making it survival of the fittest. Women become bigger targets to men. Smaller men become bigger targets to bigger men. Have you ever heard the old adage, "God made man and Sam Colt made them equal?"

It matters a lot. Would you rather be standing next to a person getting stabbed or a person getting shot?

FYI - Colt made p*$$ies think that they were real men.

 

[strummingram]

Economics is math. Even the theories are mostly based on math. It’s mostly non-linear algebra and basic calculus. The problem is most people talking about economics have no clue what they are talking about.

Well, if it's irrefutable math, then somehow or another people are finding ways to argue that 2+2 =/= 4.

 

[strummingram]

It matters a lot. Would you rather be standing next to a person getting stabbed or a person getting shot?

FYI - Colt made p*$$ies think that they were real men.

Excellent comparison. And, go even further and offer a choice of stannding next to someone being shot by a pistol or an AR-15, let alone stabbed or an AR-15.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

It matters a lot. Would you rather be standing next to a person getting stabbed or a person getting shot?

FYI - Colt made p*$$ies think that they were real men.

That depends on where the attacker is, and if you've done away with my right to carry a gun.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Excellent comparison. And, go even further and offer a choice of stannding next to someone being shot by a pistol or an AR-15, let alone stabbed or an AR-15.

Yeah, because a .357 can't do any damage at all.

 

[strummingram]

Yeah, because a .357 can't do any damage at all.

DERP... You know, uncboy is right, you can make some fvcking dumbass arguments. You're the genius who is claiming that knives are as lethal as AR-15's. It all depends on how skilled they are with the knife.

I was just offering a hypothetical to think about. Would you RATHER be next to someone being shot at by an AR-15 or a pistol. It's obviously known, and implied, that a pistol is lethal.

It's useless opinions like this that has dwindled your choices for people to argue with down to a handful of people on this board.

 

[tarheel0910]

China plays by an entirely different set of rules. That have no problem stealing IP which allows them to bypass extremely expensive R&D costs in all kinds of industries. You don’t need a degree in economics to understand the competitive advantage there.

Tariffs are obviously not going to solve that problem. What they will do is increase the cost of production inputs for American business owners which will stifle growth. If the Chinese can produce steel or aluminum cheaper than we can then the efficient decision is to just buy it for them and get cheaper steel and aluminum. We’re trying to hold on to jobs in the manufacturing industry that won’t even exist for much longer.

Agreed. I'm hoping that the IP issues can be addressed in any deal that comes out of this mess. That's the biggest issue that needs to be addressed. From what I've read it looks like IP is being discussed, so at least there is one positive sign.

 

[TarHeelMark]

When you're not sniffing Trump's farts...

LOL

 

[strummingram]

LOL

My eight-year-old niece has said worse

 

[NoleSoup4U]

My eight-year-old niece has said worse

She's probably said smarter stuff too.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

DERP... You know, uncboy is right, you can make some fvcking dumbass arguments. You're the genius who is claiming that knives are as lethal as AR-15's. It all depends on how skilled they are with the knife.

I was just offering a hypothetical to think about. Would you RATHER be next to someone being shot at by an AR-15 or a pistol. It's obviously known, and implied, that a pistol is lethal.

It's useless opinions like this that has dwindled your choices for people to argue with down to a handful of people on this board.

I never said knives were as lethal as an AR-15. And again, this hypothetical has too many variables that aren't explained.

Edit: I guess my statements would seem dumb if you don't understand them

 

[uncboy10]

Well, if it's irrefutable math, then somehow or another people are finding ways to argue that 2+2 =/= 4.

Well people do get things wrong. Idk if I would use the word irrefutable, but a real economist will try to set aside the political ideals and try to crunch the numbers.

That being said, the math behind understanding tariffs is as simple as it gets in microeconomics.

 

[CanuckChuck]

That depends on where the attacker is, and if you've done away with my right to carry a gun.

Really? See, this is why people have problems discussing things in a civil matter. You know the point I'm making (collateral damage). You know that the point is correct. Rather than admit it you try to weasel out of answering the question. Why be civil with someone who is being disingenuous?

 

[strummingram]

Really? See, this is why people have problems discussing things in a civil matter. You know the point I'm making (collateral damage). You know that the point is correct. Rather than admit it you try to weasel out of answering the question. Why be civil with someone who is being disingenuous?

That's one reason why he was kicked-off the other boards.

ETA: You were rather civil in your response, however.

 

[strummingram]

Well people do get things wrong. Idk if I would use the word irrefutable, but a real economist will try to set aside the political ideals and try to crunch the numbers.

That being said, the math behind understanding tariffs is as simple as it gets in microeconomics.

I don't mean to imply that it's not mathematics. But, you've heard of all the different "kinds" of economics. Keynesian, Austrian, and so on. It's almost like the different religious denominations. I'm not sure if there is a way to test them in an objective way. You can speculate. And, what you provided above makes sense. But, are there others who would challenge or dispute that mechanism?

 

[uncboy10]

Agreed. I'm hoping that the IP issues can be addressed in any deal that comes out of this mess. That's the biggest issue that needs to be addressed. From what I've read it looks like IP is being discussed, so at least there is one positive sign.

I agree but I have no idea how you enforce it. Another problem is the Chinese (and Russian) government(s) collecting massive amounts of consumer data on our citizens. It’s been interesting following the current issues with huawei

 

[uncboy10]

I don't mean to imply that it's not mathematics. But, you've heard of all the different "kinds" of economics. Keynesian, Austrian, and so on. It's almost like the different religious denominations. I'm not sure if there is a way to test them in an objective way. You can speculate. And, what you provided above makes sense. But, are there others who would challenge or dispute that mechanism?

Yeah I’m sure there is someone out there who would argue against it. If you have the right credentials you can make a lot of money by making politicized economic arguments to back up whatever think tank or politician is willing to pay you for your “expertise.” So there are people who make all kinds of ridiculous arguments that most economists just shake their heads at.

There are competing theories in Econ just like in physics. At the end of the day, you have to be able to back up your theory with the math or it’s just nonsense.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Really? See, this is why people have problems discussing things in a civil matter. You know the point I'm making (collateral damage). You know that the point is correct. Rather than admit it you try to weasel out of answering the question. Why be civil with someone who is being disingenuous?

How would I know that? You didn't put it into your hypothetical situation. If you want me to comment "specifically" on a hypothetical situation, you have to be, in fact, specific. This isn't high school, guy. Virtually enunciate your hypothetical.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Well people do get things wrong. Idk if I would use the word irrefutable, but a real economist will try to set aside the political ideals and try to crunch the numbers.

That being said, the math behind understanding tariffs is as simple as it gets in microeconomics.

It's cool that he's using a supply/demand model when he thinks it proves his position. I'm guessing that @uncboy10 is also against illegal immigration, but I doubt that is the case. "Facts" are only relevant to some people when they need to prove a point.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I agree but I have no idea how you enforce it. Another problem is the Chinese (and Russian) government(s) collecting massive amounts of consumer data on our citizens. It’s been interesting following the current issues with huawei

Our own companies are doing this. Why didn't you include them in your little rant?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Yeah I’m sure there is someone out there who would argue against it. If you have the right credentials you can make a lot of money by making politicized economic arguments to back up whatever think tank or politician is willing to pay you for your “expertise.” So there are people who make all kinds of ridiculous arguments that most economists just shake their heads at.

There are competing theories in Econ just like in physics. At the end of the day, you have to be able to back up your theory with the math or it’s just nonsense.

This is coming from a guy who could never refute an economic argument from a guy who has a BS in finance. Why would anyone listen to this guy? When challenged he puts you on ignore instead of debating.

Edit: " If you have the right credentials"...Yeah? That's what it's about? This guy talks about scientific mathematical equations, and then he talks about credentials? This is the problem with the "economic" community in a nutshell. They're looking for a high-end job, and the way they get that is to prove to their superiors on how said superiors can screw the common public.

Look, economics isn't a hard subject at its core. It's supply and demand, among a few other minor things. When you start to add all this other stuff, it wreaks of people trying to influence other people politically. @uncboy10 is trying to draft you into his Heavens Gate cult in order to promote his fiscal advantages.