shaggybaxter

Who really believes tariffs are good business

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

that right there is exactly correct. If US manufacturers can't be competitive at current costs, what makes you think they'll be MORE competitive when costs are higher?

MAGA beans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Millionaire Sen. Chuck Grassley Applying For Trump's Farm Bailout Funds

He's dipping into Trump administration's $12 billion program to subsidize farmers hurt by Trump's trade war.

Quote

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) supported President Donald Trump’s $12 billion bailout for U.S. farmers to mitigate the damaging effects of the trade war. Now the senator is applying for those same bailout funds for his own 750-acre Iowa farm, The Washington Post reports.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) is also applying for payments.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/grassley-applying-for-trumps-farm-bailout-funds_us_5bb15303e4b0343b3dc1591c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 4:06 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 Me, if China wants to send me electrical energy in the form of refined aluminum for less than cost the more the better.

Then I hope you never find yourself in a position of economic authority.

When an economy loses its ability to source raw material and manufactured components from within its own borders, it can eventually lose control of the entire manufacturing process and become just a consumer economy.

Ask yourself ... why are so many components from iPhones made in China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 4:47 PM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That would make more sense.

Applying tariffs to raw materials such as steel & aluminium increases local costs to manufacture finished goods but does nothing to affect the price of imported finished goods. So the only people who make money/sell more stuff are the steel & aluminium mills while all other domestic manufacturers end up further behind.

It's stupid.

FKT

Tariffs may be stupid for common raw materials, but they can help for strategic materials. One need only spend some time in South America to see the results of what happens when protectionism is dismantled wily-nily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Tariffs may be stupid for common raw materials, but they can help for strategic materials. One need only spend some time in South America to see the results of what happens when protectionism is dismantled wily-nily.

Once again you don't seem to realise that I'VE LIVED THROUGH THIS.

Australia had high tariff walls and all sorts of import restrictions to protect domestic manufacturing. Protection all round was the mantra.

It didn't work worth a damn. All we ended up with was inefficient industries with no incentive to get better & compete because they didn't have to, in bed with unions who could make wage demands way over the odds because their employers could just pass it on to the consumers, who had no choice.

Yes, protecting the supply of strategic stuff has some justification, but consumer stuff or commodity type raw materials? No.

As for the South American countries, IMO most of their problems are political screwing about with the economy. They have raw materials and educated people. Venezuela is a poster child for political interference and economic illiteracy. Their inflation rate is going to challenge Zimbabwe for worthless currency soon, if if hasn't already got there.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Once again you don't seem to realise that I'VE LIVED THROUGH THIS.

Australia had high tariff walls and all sorts of import restrictions to protect domestic manufacturing. Protection all round was the mantra.

It didn't work worth a damn. All we ended up with was inefficient industries with no incentive to get better & compete because they didn't have to, in bed with unions who could make wage demands way over the odds because their employers could just pass it on to the consumers, who had no choice.

Yes, protecting the supply of strategic stuff has some justification, but consumer stuff or commodity type raw materials? No.

As for the South American countries, IMO most of their problems are political screwing about with the economy. They have raw materials and educated people. Venezuela is a poster child for political interference and economic illiteracy. Their inflation rate is going to challenge Zimbabwe for worthless currency soon, if if hasn't already got there.

FKT

I get it, I can see why tariffs wouldn't work in Oz. But Oz is not the USA, your population is a fraction of our's, your heavy manufacturing is limited to mostly resource extraction, your export industry is obviously different as an Island-Continent. 

I didn't voice a word of support for protectionism on consumer items, nor commodity materials. And what I saw in Peru was the essential decimation of their manufacturing industries after the border protections were removed. Brazil took over South American manufacturing, but without a major quality of life improvement for their working class, and it left smaller manufacturing towns in Peru, like Chincha, with little more industry than Tico-Taxis and occasional guides for German tourists. That's just no way to live.

But wrt the U.S. economy and strategic materials, yes, tariffs can absolutely be good business. The reason that Apple has to mostly manufacture in China is because that's the most reliable way to secure their supply chain. It's not due to cost as much as people think, because the vast majority of the cost on that $1000 iPhone X is in the financing, the profit model for the distributors, the design and programming operations in California. They could manufacture those phones in Mississippi or Oklahoma if they were so inclined, at maybe just a a few buck hit on their production price. But they can't possibly do it, because China would choke the shit out of their supply chain. China controls about 96% of the world's rare earths metals market and production, and so many parts in that phone (or solar PV panel, or wind turbine or battery) are dependent on those REE dopants and electron transport. Manufacturing in China is Apple saying "we'll send you all this business, and you agree not to fuck us in supply chain, (odd, I just noticed that China and Chain are nearly the same word). Apple doesn't want people waiting months or even days for iPhones, they want as much stock as demand warrants.

Now, the USA had a rare earths element industry, and every President since Clinton has unsuccessfully tried to get it self-sustainable. All have failed. In large part, we don't have an REE industry in the USA because China is willing to sell REEs dirt cheap. But that cheap cost comes at the cost of them exercising total control of their exports. The USA did the same thing before WWII, we wouldn't sell Germany any helium, since it was a "strategic gas" and they filled their airships with hydrogen. We probably couldn't have another era of Texas Instruments and Motorola taking deep manufacturing positions in microprocessor production, because they need similarly deep supply channels for materials, and it's hard to justify investment in a pizza parlor if you don't know that you're going to get your cheese with some level of reliability.

If we have an industry that needs protection, a strategic industry that can't compete in the world economy without getting a few years to sell at a price that will allow investment and infrastructure build-out, then yes, it might be a good move. Manufacturing is a ripple ... the microprocessor fabricator won't invest in long-term build out if they can't be sure of access to the REEs. Board manufacturers won't invest in long-term build out if they can't be sure of access to the microprocessors. Products manufacturing won't invest in long-term build-out if they can't be sure of access to the component boards and batterisl. t's simplistic to the point of nonsense to dismiss any and all tariffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I get it, I can see why tariffs wouldn't work in Oz. But Oz is not the USA, your population is a fraction of our's, your heavy manufacturing is limited to mostly resource extraction, your export industry is obviously different as an Island-Continent. 

I didn't voice a word of support for protectionism on consumer items, nor commodity materials. And what I saw in Peru was the essential decimation of their manufacturing industries after the border protections were removed. Brazil took over South American manufacturing, but without a major quality of life improvement for their working class, and it left smaller manufacturing towns in Peru, like Chincha, with little more industry than Tico-Taxis and occasional guides for German tourists. That's just no way to live.

But wrt the U.S. economy and strategic materials, yes, tariffs can absolutely be good business. The reason that Apple has to mostly manufacture in China is because that's the most reliable way to secure their supply chain. It's not due to cost as much as people think, because the vast majority of the cost on that $1000 iPhone X is in the financing, the profit model for the distributors, the design and programming operations in California. They could manufacture those phones in Mississippi or Oklahoma if they were so inclined, at maybe just a a few buck hit on their production price. But they can't possibly do it, because China would choke the shit out of their supply chain. China controls about 96% of the world's rare earths metals market and production, and so many parts in that phone (or solar PV panel, or wind turbine or battery) are dependent on those REE dopants and electron transport. Manufacturing in China is Apple saying "we'll send you all this business, and you agree not to fuck us in supply chain, (odd, I just noticed that China and Chain are nearly the same word). Apple doesn't want people waiting months or even days for iPhones, they want as much stock as demand warrants.

Now, the USA had a rare earths element industry, and every President since Clinton has unsuccessfully tried to get it self-sustainable. All have failed. In large part, we don't have an REE industry in the USA because China is willing to sell REEs dirt cheap. But that cheap cost comes at the cost of them exercising total control of their exports. The USA did the same thing before WWII, we wouldn't sell Germany any helium, since it was a "strategic gas" and they filled their airships with hydrogen. We probably couldn't have another era of Texas Instruments and Motorola taking deep manufacturing positions in microprocessor production, because they need similarly deep supply channels for materials, and it's hard to justify investment in a pizza parlor if you don't know that you're going to get your cheese with some level of reliability.

If we have an industry that needs protection, a strategic industry that can't compete in the world economy without getting a few years to sell at a price that will allow investment and infrastructure build-out, then yes, it might be a good move. Manufacturing is a ripple ... the microprocessor fabricator won't invest in long-term build out if they can't be sure of access to the REEs. Board manufacturers won't invest in long-term build out if they can't be sure of access to the microprocessors. Products manufacturing won't invest in long-term build-out if they can't be sure of access to the component boards and batterisl. t's simplistic to the point of nonsense to dismiss any and all tariffs.

Imagine if Trump was placing strategic tariffs in place for certain industries or potential industries. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Imagine if Trump was placing strategic tariffs in place for certain industries or potential industries. Imagine!

He did give about the same lip service to our domestic REE industry as all the others before him, so I don't expect much to come of that.

But you might have noticed that I didn't attach any politics to my take on selective protectionism, because politics can confuse this stuff ... Lefties like me end up supporting bad protectionism that is proposed by Democrats or we oppose functional protectionism that is proposed by Republicans.

The solution is to get a handle on what makes good protectionism and what makes bad protectionism, then we can support well-thought policy regardless who suggests it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mikewof said:

The solution is to get a handle on what makes good protectionism and what makes bad protectionism, then we can support well-thought policy regardless who suggests it.

Tell us about when you worked on the Central Resource Planning Committee in Wakanda, Cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Tell us about when you worked on the Central Resource Planning Committee in Wakanda, Cliff.

It was an okay job. The pay sucked, no benefits, the long nights were annoying, but the foreman was porking your mom at the fish canning factory, so at least he was in a good mood most days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Tell us about when you worked on the Central Resource Planning Committee in Wakanda, Cliff.

Oh, I thought he was the note-taker at Breton-Woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't anyone here awake when they took David Ricardo's "Law of Comparative Advantage" in Economics class?  Did it make sense?  I realize the math of the whole thing gets a bit complicated what with overlapping advantages and all.  Great application of fuzzy logic.  The sets are fuzzy, not the logic.  Lets take aluminum.  The US is at a competitive disadvantage in terms of making the stuff.  It is far better to let other people do it than subsidize the US industry that is working at a disadvantage and will eventually fail in a world market.  It is better to use the capital supporting something that the US is good at such as soy bean production.  If the US continues to support aluminum production through tariffs, it is putting its aluminum users at a disadvantage.   The amount of revenue obtained from the tariff is never covers the higher prices the public pays for the product.  This is because of the multipliers along the supply chain.  A small percentage of tariffed items don't do in an economy, but look at the attempts to support industry by the Brits in the late 40s through to the 60s.  Tariffs kill economies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Why the past tense? We're still preventing those German airships from attacking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Helium_Reserve

I love when you think you know your history, click on the link, and see your history's right and Tom was bullshitting again. Hint to Tom: it's got much more relevant modern strategic uses than dirgibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I love when you think you know your history, click on the link, and see your history's right and Tom was bullshitting again. Hint to Tom: it's got much more relevant modern strategic uses than dirgibles.

Boondoggles always have some use. I still agree with Barney Frank:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/opinion/collins-an-ode-to-helium.html

Quote

Former Representative Barney Frank , who said in 1996 that if Congress could not manage to get rid of the helium reserve “then we cannot undo anything,” hasn’t changed his mind. “Everybody is against waste, but strongly defends this or that particular piece,” Frank said in a phone interview.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 6:06 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 We only have 2 major domestic manufacturers left in the US - GM and Ford. Chrysler is owned by Fiat. Ford makes cars for Europe in Europe. GM cared so little for it's european operations they sold them off cheap last year to Peugeot. We  have a thriving business for foreign automakers to make cars in the US right now. Most of this auto bullshit is just bullshit for the slug shitforbrainskis to cheer about.

The US exited lots of manufacturing because it was low margin, high pollution, declining business. The life of a Chinese manufacturer can be a hard low margin affair that businesses just don't want.

Me, if China wants to send me electrical energy in the form of refined aluminum for less than cost the more the better.

Ford has announced major cuts to their European organizations because europe has little growth in their automobile markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I love when you think you know your history, click on the link, and see your history's right and Tom was bullshitting again. Hint to Tom: it's got much more relevant modern strategic uses than dirgibles.

Birthday balloons are strategic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

Ford has announced major cuts to their European organizations because europe has little growth in their automobile markets.

Ford can't make a competitive car. And it all goes from there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Birthday balloons are strategic?

The strategic thing comes from such things as CAT scanners, electronic warfare, military aircraft sensors, physics research, ..........etc., all of which are valid

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Birthday balloons are strategic?

ICBMs are strategic and so was the US Space program. The modern incarnation of the helium reserve stems from need for Helium for those weapons in 1960 - not so much German dirgibles. The Us was short helium for those weapons as well as projected future demand and the government decided instead of producing helium itself like it'd been doing, it'd contract with the oil&gas industry to have it recover the helium from wells - and then as times changed and demand decreased (lessened production of ICBMs, not much of a space race after the early 70s) the government still paid for the Helium from the gas industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 4:54 PM, Raz'r said:

that right there is exactly correct. If US manufacturers can't be competitive at current costs, what makes you think they'll be MORE competitive when costs are higher?

It depends on the industry.

If U.S. private titanium, REE roll deposition and vapor deposition industries are competing with heavily subsidized competitors in China and elsewhere in Asia, they can't possibly compete on an even field without protectionism.

I agree with you in regards to pedestrian products like steel, wheat and truck transmissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It depends on the industry.

If U.S. private titanium, REE roll deposition and vapor deposition industries are competing with heavily subsidized competitors in China and elsewhere in Asia, they can't possibly compete on an even field without protectionism.

I agree with you in regards to pedestrian products like steel, wheat and truck transmissions.

So, another country wants to perform central planning thru a very inefficient means, by taxing their people. You think the best counter is to tax?

how about being direct and just subsidize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

So, another country wants to perform central planning thru a very inefficient means, by taxing their people. You think the best counter is to tax?

how about being direct and just subsidize?

Yeah, subsidies, grants, loan guarantees can work, and we do those through the DOE, DOI, Commerce, etc., but the voting public rebels when they don't work.

Remember Solyndra? My take all along with that one wasn't that we shouldn't have failures like Solyndra, but rather than we should have had ten failures like Solyndra, which would have corresponded to 90 successes, and then we would have had some parity with China's $40 billion/year subsidies on their solar industries.

And a tariff is absolutely not a tax. Unlike tax, tariffs are enabled by The Constitution! They are designed to protect nascent and sensitive industries in a way that tax could never accomplish. For sensitive industries, a tariff is more of a long term investment. 

How much of your opposition to these tariffs is due to Trump? Because Obama also used tariffs. Were you opposed to those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

ICBMs are strategic and so was the US Space program. The modern incarnation of the helium reserve stems from need for Helium for those weapons in 1960 - not so much German dirgibles. The Us was short helium for those weapons as well as projected future demand and the government decided instead of producing helium itself like it'd been doing, it'd contract with the oil&gas industry to have it recover the helium from wells - and then as times changed and demand decreased (lessened production of ICBMs, not much of a space race after the early 70s) the government still paid for the Helium from the gas industry.

In summary, an obsolete program (still) didn't go away.

Yes, I made a joke following on the dirigible comment, but even Barney Frank said 22 years ago that those justifications were dated at that time. He still thought so as of 5 years ago, as the NY Times article showed. And he's still right today IMO.

 Boondoggles get a life of their own and are like zombies, impossible to kill.

Quote

Former Representative Barney Frank , who said in 1996 that if Congress could not manage to get rid of the helium reserve “then we cannot undo anything,” hasn’t changed his mind. “Everybody is against waste, but strongly defends this or that particular piece,” Frank said in a phone interview.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, subsidies, grants, loan guarantees can work, and we do those through the DOE, DOI, Commerce, etc., but the voting public rebels when they don't work.

Remember Solyndra? My take all along with that one wasn't that we shouldn't have failures like Solyndra, but rather than we should have had ten failures like Solyndra, which would have corresponded to 90 successes, and then we would have had some parity with China's $40 billion/year subsidies on their solar industries.

And a tariff is absolutely not a tax. Unlike tax, tariffs are enabled by The Constitution! They are designed to protect nascent and sensitive industries in a way that tax could never accomplish. For sensitive industries, a tariff is more of a long term investment. 

How much of your opposition to these tariffs is due to Trump? Because Obama also used tariffs. Were you opposed to those?

I support tariffs, but only in a very limited way.

I believe the US has agreed that a clean environment, and a safe workplace are important enough to implement laws, some of which increase the cost of production. 

I believe ANY import to be subject to the same laws, and if it isn't, should have a tariff that attempts to level the playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I support tariffs, but only in a very limited way.

I believe the US has agreed that a clean environment, and a safe workplace are important enough to implement laws, some of which increase the cost of production. 

I believe ANY import to be subject to the same laws, and if it isn't, should have a tariff that attempts to level the playing field.

Okay, that's an aspect of tariffs that I haven't considered. And yes, given that, China would lose their edge in REEs, because they control the global market on those due their willingness to flush all the debris of the process into the rivers. Ditto with things like athletic shoes made in sweatshops.

I think the point of tariffs is that they can do what a tax can't, and that's target certain opportunities with a pinpoint precision. In a way, it was tariffs that led to the Civil War and emancipation. Was that the intent of the tariffs, I don't know, but it's undeniable that they can be an instrument of social change. What I saw in Peru supported the idea of protectionism. With protections, those people had profitable jobs and comfortable lives, at the cost of huge profits by multinationals. Without the protections, those people didn't have jobs and they didn't have comfortable lives, but the profits of the multinationals skyrocketed.

It isn't always this way of course, but in general, when governments restrict what corporations can do -- and protectionism can be an example of that -- the winners are often the individuals. When governments remove barriers to what corporations can do, then the losers are often the individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 When governments remove barriers to what corporations can do, then the losers are often the individuals.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

1. Tariff's are taxes, Cliff.

2. Tariff's are taxes' cliff.

Your grammar was imprecise, so I corrected what you wrote to the two most obvious options ...

1. Not in the USA, according to The Constitution. And you're not Normy, thus I'm not Cliff.

2. Assuming you mean they're something of a precipice beyond the process of taxation, perhaps. But they can be managed with the tools available to Congress in a way that taxes cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Raz'r here, but so far no comment ...

How many here who are opposed to these tariffs were also opposed to them when President Obama essentially did the same thing? I supported Obama's tariffs because they were necessary, including the reasons the Raz'r wrote above. Thus I support a tiny handful ofTrump's theoretical tariffs, since they are practically made with a piece of carbon paper from Obama's tariff typewriter, but with some different vocal flourishes when he pitched them.

I would like to think of us lefties as intelligent enough to parse good and bad policy regardless who proposes it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I support tariffs, but only in a very limited way.

I believe the US has agreed that a clean environment, and a safe workplace are important enough to implement laws, some of which increase the cost of production. 

I believe ANY import to be subject to the same laws, and if it isn't, should have a tariff that attempts to level the playing field.

The underlying assumption seems to be that all environmental and workplace safety laws on our books are necessary and good. Many are. Maybe even most. Not all.

The other assumption seems to be that politicians could (or would) adjust a tax to exactly compensate for the goodness of our laws vs theirs. No one has enough information to do it, even if politicians were pure as driven snow. They're not. Not even TeamD ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The underlying assumption seems to be that all environmental and workplace safety laws on our books are necessary and good. Many are. Maybe even most. Not all.

The other assumption seems to be that politicians could (or would) adjust a tax to exactly compensate for the goodness of our laws vs theirs. No one has enough information to do it, even if politicians were pure as driven snow. They're not. Not even TeamD ones.

Nobody does it that way though. Rather, it's price driven. We have a pretty good idea how much it costs to mine and refine an ounce of Yttrium, using decent practices. So when someone is able to undercut that price significantly, our alarm bells ring a bit and we look for things like chemical dumping, prison labor and child labor. 

I guess it's possible that people can undercut our costs significantly by using vastly improved processes, but I haven't seen that too often, other than with Canadian sheet plastic. I'm sure there are examples in other industries though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Can you define "decent practices" without reference to any of those underlying assumptions I mentioned?

Do you mean your "underlying assumption" that "all environmental and workplace safety laws on our books are necessary and good"?

Why would I need to do that? You wrote that most of them are probably good, but not all. What's the point of a LLSF (low level shit fight) when we already seem to agree on this? It ain't rocket surgery ... don't exploit children, pollute as little as possible, run a safe shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Tariff's are taxes cliff.

If the government gets the money it's taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The underlying assumption seems to be that all environmental and workplace safety laws on our books are necessary and good. Many are. Maybe even most. Not all.

....

Every safety law is written in blood. Every single one.

That doesn't mean I think they are all good & necessary. Many of the are a vain attempt to keep stupid impatient people from hurting themselves. Frankly I don't care who hurts themselves, I care about people hurting me or my co-workers. And laws/rules don't do that. Good training and paying attention to what the fuck you're doing, do that. But it's very difficult to codify

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The underlying assumption seems to be that all environmental and workplace safety laws on our books are necessary and good. Many are. Maybe even most. Not all.

The other assumption seems to be that politicians could (or would) adjust a tax to exactly compensate for the goodness of our laws vs theirs. No one has enough information to do it, even if politicians were pure as driven snow. They're not. Not even TeamD ones.

Imagine perfect being in the way of “good enough”

oh, yeah, it’s dogballs we’re talking about..:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Every safety law is written in blood. Every single one.

That's the bottom line.

Right wingers are unable to think far enough to comprehend that simple fact.

To them regulations of all kinds are created by Libruls just to make work for themselves and piss off right wingers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Every safety law is written in blood. Every single one.

Yeah but a lot of them are written to protect stupid people from the results of doing stupid things.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I might add - if they survive then they're a burden on the medical, taxation and social security systems.

I recall one time when I had to tell an OH&S committee it wasn't a good idea to remove heavy steel doors opening onto the weather deck after some idiot got their hand caught in one. In retrospect what *might* have been a good idea, though, was some sort of soft-close system for the last say 200mm of travel.

Anyway, the argument is basically whether foreign countries should be held to the same standards in the interest of comparing prices and levying tariffs to flatten the playing field. I'm sympathetic to that argument if there's a good way of doing the costing - which I doubt.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a fair amount of Failure Effects Mode Analysis in my time.  It really is difficult to work out all the ways someone can screw up a piece of equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of getting more jobs shipped back to the US isn't a bad one. I'm at a loss of a way to do that without tariffs myself. That said it's a tax on the working stiffs, the Walmartians, and they will be poorer. A change they most definitely will believe in. Nevertheless this new tax on the working stiffs should help cover the deficits created by the yuuuuge tax breaks to our fearless Job Creators. We must do something about all this spending. Sad it had to be this way, but has anybody checked out the greens fees at some of their clubs lately? Shit, no wonder they feel it imperative to get tax cuts.  

 Tariffs, if stuck to, could lead to more foreign companies to shift production to the US, or at least as significant part of it. Those are probably the guys we should be patronizing anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark K said:

Shit, no wonder they feel it imperative to get tax cuts. 

Really - the most collectible cars are closing in on $100,000,000 - it's getting harder and harder to be really rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

stupid people think only stupid people do stupid things.

See the happy moron

He doesn't give a damn.

I wish I were a moron.

My God! Perhaps I am.....

FKT (after all I'm pretty happy with LTUAE on the whole - driveway upgrade to extract new boat excepted..... and I *did* build a boat if further evidence is needed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To answer the OP thread title question -

"Tariffs sometimes can achieve the desired results" - Likely Justin Trudeau quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laker said:

I have done a fair amount of Failure Effects Mode Analysis in my time.  It really is difficult to work out all the ways someone can screw up a piece of equipment.

I am fairly good at technology, but have identified 8 discrete failure points with the coffee pot at work.   I have demonstrated each of them is critical to product production, and failure at most points creates a mess.   My own team has banned from operating the device without the benefit of coffee.     Interesting that their solution wasn’t just a long list of procedures for operation.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m posting here as it relates to the trade war.   Anybody have thoughts on the Chinese spy chip in servers story?   I’ll presume we didn’t catch the first one or even second.   I asked an Air Force major about it a decade ago, he claimed all chips used by the military were checked but this story says otherwise.   

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

The goal of getting more jobs shipped back to the US isn't a bad one. I'm at a loss of a way to do that without tariffs myself. That said it's a tax on the working stiffs, the Walmartians, and they will be poorer. A change they most definitely will believe in. Nevertheless this new tax on the working stiffs should help cover the deficits created by the yuuuuge tax breaks to our fearless Job Creators. We must do something about all this spending. Sad it had to be this way, but has anybody checked out the greens fees at some of their clubs lately? Shit, no wonder they feel it imperative to get tax cuts.  

 Tariffs, if stuck to, could lead to more foreign companies to shift production to the US, or at least as significant part of it. Those are probably the guys we should be patronizing anyway.  

There is no case for the tariffs, and the goal of "bringing jobs" back to the US is irrelevant.  If it is a better deal to trade abroad, then we should do it.  If not, then don't.  There will always be more jobs.  It would be like putting a tariff on farm machinery to "bring back" donkey plow jobs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah but a lot of them are written to protect stupid people from the results of doing stupid things.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I might add - if they survive then they're a burden on the medical, taxation and social security systems.

I recall one time when I had to tell an OH&S committee it wasn't a good idea to remove heavy steel doors opening onto the weather deck after some idiot got their hand caught in one. In retrospect what *might* have been a good idea, though, was some sort of soft-close system for the last say 200mm of travel.

Anyway, the argument is basically whether foreign countries should be held to the same standards in the interest of comparing prices and levying tariffs to flatten the playing field. I'm sympathetic to that argument if there's a good way of doing the costing - which I doubt.

FKT

ISO standards go a pretty fair way on those lines. But it's going to be very difficult to come up with an impartial assessment of all factors. Just the "exporting pollution" issue raises so many hackles it makes one despair of human nature.

Heavy steel doors on a rolling ship can be problematic! And adding complex safety mechanisms that need more training and more maintenance are not a good answer IMHO. Make the doors carbon fiber? I dunno. I do know that I am lucky to have quick reflexes (or did) to avoid getting smashed by machinery access hatches a few times. It gets back to my pet theory about safety, that paying attention to what you're doing is the best safety rule. Easy to train, but impossible to codify.

I also have a favorite saying, "Safety is for pussies (or wimps, depending on who's present)!" Our Yacht Club is looking into forming a Safety Committee but recent local events (Hurricane Florence) are likely to put that on a back burner

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

To answer the OP thread title question -

"Tariffs sometimes can achieve the desired results" - Likely Justin Trudeau quote

Is he Joe's brother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about tariffs are that they are taxes on consumption, not on production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

To answer the OP thread title question -

"Tariffs sometimes can achieve the desired results" - Likely Justin Trudeau quote

If the desired result was to make people in other countries despise America then Trump is doing a bang-up job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Well it would seem regardless of any of that, the tariffs imposed have brought several to the table, no?

Was that not the desired effect?

And agree to the terms of the TPP.    A lot of pissed off democracies we used to call allies that made private arrangements without us.  A lot of smoke and mirrors without substance.    Meanwhile we can only buy Chinese made computers with prepackaged spyware.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Well it would seem regardless of any of that, the tariffs imposed have brought several to the table, no?

Was that not the desired effect?

And lo and behold it's the dumbfuck trumpkin sorry independent cheering on the done deal that Trump canceled and then took credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The repeal of the Corn Laws was a high point on the journey to modern democracies.  It is a shame that we ignore that.  As for tariffs as protectionism, there are other ways.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jzk said:

There is no case for the tariffs, and the goal of "bringing jobs" back to the US is irrelevant.  If it is a better deal to trade abroad, then we should do it.  If not, then don't.  There will always be more jobs.  It would be like putting a tariff on farm machinery to "bring back" donkey plow jobs.  

"There will always be more jobs"...laissez faire capitalism...a classic! 

 Image result for Blind Faith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

"There will always be more jobs"...laissez faire capitalism...a classic! 

 Image result for Blind Faith

Is this meant to be a case for something?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

You really are that as well..... but the angry and misinformed really shines through in most of your diatribes.

 

Do you think folks who have endured long term unemployment due to years of sending jobs offshore are upset that Trump has tipped the scales back to some sort of trade parity?

I am, because that soon becomes a straw man if you travel that road much.  Jobs do not get "sent offshore".  Trump is really screwing up the economy.   How he is doing it is exactly in the same way that the Government of Great Britain screwed up just after WWII and it will have the same results.  The only difference is that he hasn't fought his war yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 10:28 PM, Laker said:

I have done a fair amount of Failure Effects Mode Analysis in my time.  It really is difficult to work out all the ways someone can screw up a piece of equipment.

Failure mode and error analysis is very cool stuff, probably one of my favorite physics classes of all time, because the results were both immediate to see and measure, but nebulous to predict. I remember the textbook we used had a photo of the famous Paris train overshoot ...

train_wreck.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Failure mode and error analysis is very cool stuff, probably one of my favorite physics classes of all time, because the results were both immediate to see and measure, but nebulous to predict. I remember the textbook we used had a photo of the famous Paris train overshoot ...

train_wreck.jpg

Lets hope they never repeat that with a TGV. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't really have an issue with the concept of tariffs as a means of coercion to get bad actors to play nice.  What I have a problem with is cheetos ham-fisted, blunt object way of going about them.  He might be getting short term results, but long term relationships are going to be strained. 

I do however, think that it is past time we put our foot down and stop subsidizing the majority of the world's economy.  We have consistently, for decades, rolled over on trade and security issues always wanting to be the "nice guy".  We've put up with trade rule imbalances for far too long and it's been devastating to our middle class and blue collar workers.  In the rush to sign NAFTA and other trade deals, we never really paid much attention and only gave it lip service when it came to what happens to all those jobs that would inevitably get offshored.  In theory, its nice for the blue collar family to be able to buy a widget made in China at Walmart for a few cents cheaper than they could down at the mom & pop hardware store.  But that short term greed did nothing but devastate an entire section of our country.  One needs only look at the meth and opioid crisis in the blue collar swath of the US rust belt and such to see that the world has left them behind in our rush to globalization.  Globalization is not inherently evil or bad, but it can't be at the expense of your own people in order to save a few pennies on cheap plastic toys and Jeans from Asia.  

It will be interesting to see how whoever takes over for him handles the trade thing.  Does he or she continue the hard stance on trade but hopefully with a bit more nuanced approach?  Or do they capitulate and take us back to the days where everyone walked all over us?  I mostly suspect the later will happen as a knee-jerk response to il cheetolini's style.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't really have an issue with the concept of tariffs as a means of coercion to get bad actors to play nice.  What I have a problem with is cheetos ham-fisted, blunt object way of going about them.  He might be getting short term results, but long term relationships are going to be strained. 

I do however, think that it is past time we put our foot down and stop subsidizing the majority of the world's economy.  We have consistently, for decades, rolled over on trade and security issues always wanting to be the "nice guy".  We've put up with trade rule imbalances for far too long and it's been devastating to our middle class and blue collar workers.  In the rush to sign NAFTA and other trade deals, we never really paid much attention and only gave it lip service when it came to what happens to all those jobs that would inevitably get offshored.  In theory, its nice for the blue collar family to be able to buy a widget made in China at Walmart for a few cents cheaper than they could down at the mom & pop hardware store.  But that short term greed did nothing but devastate an entire section of our country.  One needs only look at the meth and opioid crisis in the blue collar swath of the US rust belt and such to see that the world has left them behind in our rush to globalization.  Globalization is not inherently evil or bad, but it can't be at the expense of your own people in order to save a few pennies on cheap plastic toys and Jeans from Asia.  

It will be interesting to see how whoever takes over for him handles the trade thing.  Does he or she continue the hard stance on trade but hopefully with a bit more nuanced approach?  Or do they capitulate and take us back to the days where everyone walked all over us?  I mostly suspect the later will happen as a knee-jerk response to il cheetolini's style.

 

 

I’ve lived around plenty of abandoned factories.   It had nothing to do with being “nice”.  The failures have everything to do with profits to be made by outsourcing and offshoring.  Robots would have been the alternative.  The left behind suffer not only from lack of opportunity and real estate traps.   They also show an inability to adapt due to small minds and poor education that has become increasingly religious.  

Too many read “Left Behind” and wait for the rapture when the work is outsourced.   Their children take the standard US  jobs program.   The Army pays them to live overseas supporting foreign economies while their grandparents take early social security and their parents disability.

I’ve lived in two towns where the baby boomers solution to empty buildings was to build a museum to Glory Days.  It’s not just the Midwest.   911 showed us to be a country more interested in building monuments then rebuilding.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think some of us are looking at an effect, not the cause.

The cause is US business. A increasingly common trait with all the big US majors for the last decade or so has been an obsessive greed for more and more profit. They created the made in China model,  and I would bet my left nut that this alone has been the cause for the largest loss of manufacturing jobs in the US in the last decade or so.

An honest and frank assessment needs to be made to identify the root cause/s first. The US just bitching about a economic power bloc escaping the bonds created by the US to maximise the profit for US businesses?  

Methinks thou protesteth too much about the wrong thing.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

I still think some of us are looking at an effect, not the cause.

The cause is US business. A increasingly common trait with all the big US majors for the last decade or so has been an obsessive greed for more and more profit. They created the made in China model,  and I would bet my left nut that this alone has been the cause for the largest loss of manufacturing jobs in the US in the last decade or so.

An honest and frank assessment needs to be made to identify the root cause/s first. The US just bitching about a economic power bloc escaping the bonds created by the US to maximise the profit for US businesses?  

Methinks thou protesteth too much about the wrong thing.

 

+1 on that.  Just look at the predominance of capital in the capital/labour balance and how public policy has allowed it.  Tariffs are not even a good Band-Aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

You really are that as well..... but the angry and misinformed really shines through in most of your diatribes.

 

Do you think folks who have endured long term unemployment due to years of sending jobs offshore are upset that Trump has tipped the scales back to some sort of trade parity?

Do you think they enjoy lower wages, less workers' rights, lowered workplace safety standards, and far less consumer protection?

How many coal miners have gotten their jobs back?

Dumbass

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Laker said:
3 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

I still think some of us are looking at an effect, not the cause.

The cause is US business. A increasingly common trait with all the big US majors for the last decade or so has been an obsessive greed for more and more profit. They created the made in China model,  and I would bet my left nut that this alone has been the cause for the largest loss of manufacturing jobs in the US in the last decade or so.

An honest and frank assessment needs to be made to identify the root cause/s first. The US just bitching about a economic power bloc escaping the bonds created by the US to maximise the profit for US businesses?  

Methinks thou protesteth too much about the wrong thing.

 

+1 on that.  Just look at the predominance of capital in the capital/labour balance and how public policy has allowed it.  Tariffs are not even a good Band-Aid.

Some corporations..... hell, some smaller businesses...... have less consideration for their workers than you do for a used tissue. Antagonistic attitudes. This is often reflected in labor attitudes towards management (whereas the boardroom is the real enemy of both).

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Some corporations..... hell, some smaller businesses...... have less consideration for their workers than you do for a used tissue. Antagonistic attitudes. This is often reflected in labor attitudes towards management (whereas the boardroom is the real enemy of both).

-DSK

The Economist had an article recently about the successes of the German approach to business in an American context.  Union members on the board, full disclosure,..... that sort of thing.  Certainly the SullAir model has worked in the US.  SullAir  has its issues, but an "all for one" approach is not one of them.

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't really have an issue with the concept of tariffs as a means of coercion to get bad actors to play nice.  What I have a problem with is cheetos ham-fisted, blunt object way of going about them.  He might be getting short term results, but long term relationships are going to be strained. 

I do however, think that it is past time we put our foot down and stop subsidizing the majority of the world's economy.  We have consistently, for decades, rolled over on trade and security issues always wanting to be the "nice guy".  We've put up with trade rule imbalances for far too long and it's been devastating to our middle class and blue collar workers.  In the rush to sign NAFTA and other trade deals, we never really paid much attention and only gave it lip service when it came to what happens to all those jobs that would inevitably get offshored.  In theory, its nice for the blue collar family to be able to buy a widget made in China at Walmart for a few cents cheaper than they could down at the mom & pop hardware store.  But that short term greed did nothing but devastate an entire section of our country.  One needs only look at the meth and opioid crisis in the blue collar swath of the US rust belt and such to see that the world has left them behind in our rush to globalization.  Globalization is not inherently evil or bad, but it can't be at the expense of your own people in order to save a few pennies on cheap plastic toys and Jeans from Asia.  

It will be interesting to see how whoever takes over for him handles the trade thing.  Does he or she continue the hard stance on trade but hopefully with a bit more nuanced approach?  Or do they capitulate and take us back to the days where everyone walked all over us?  I mostly suspect the later will happen as a knee-jerk response to il cheetolini's style.

 

 

Why aren’t you cheering? He’s burning the bitch down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I do however, think that it is past time we put our foot down and stop subsidizing the majority of the world's economy. 

You've got it backwards Jeffreaux. the rest of the world has been subsidizing the US economy and that era's coming to an end. ride that cushy expat job into the sunset brochacho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you think they enjoy lower wages, less workers' rights, lowered workplace safety standards, and far less consumer protection?

and still no jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't really have an issue with the concept of tariffs as a means of coercion to get bad actors to play nice.  What I have a problem with is cheetos ham-fisted, blunt object way of going about them.  He might be getting short term results, but long term relationships are going to be strained. 

I do however, think that it is past time we put our foot down and stop subsidizing the majority of the world's economy.  We have consistently, for decades, rolled over on trade and security issues always wanting to be the "nice guy".  We've put up with trade rule imbalances for far too long and it's been devastating to our middle class and blue collar workers.  In the rush to sign NAFTA and other trade deals, we never really paid much attention and only gave it lip service when it came to what happens to all those jobs that would inevitably get offshored.  In theory, its nice for the blue collar family to be able to buy a widget made in China at Walmart for a few cents cheaper than they could down at the mom & pop hardware store.  But that short term greed did nothing but devastate an entire section of our country.  One needs only look at the meth and opioid crisis in the blue collar swath of the US rust belt and such to see that the world has left them behind in our rush to globalization.  Globalization is not inherently evil or bad, but it can't be at the expense of your own people in order to save a few pennies on cheap plastic toys and Jeans from Asia.  

It will be interesting to see how whoever takes over for him handles the trade thing.  Does he or she continue the hard stance on trade but hopefully with a bit more nuanced approach?  Or do they capitulate and take us back to the days where everyone walked all over us?  I mostly suspect the later will happen as a knee-jerk response to il cheetolini's style.

 

 

NAFTA did not off shore the jobs, it was a reaction to the off-shoring of jobs...but in places where there was no shore. Most of the jobs went to India and China and NAFTA was about countries in this hemisphere. Blaming it is a very successful red herring though. 

 We faced a reality in the 80's, the rest of the world would eventually adopt Western industrial ways. The option of barrackading, or North Koreaning, the US was rejected, instead a policy of addressing what was viewed as the inevitable was adopted. These are the Free Traders, and I think they have set us on a path there is no backing out of. Watch what happens to Trump and Bannon's notions when the prices at Walmart triple. 

   It's full of goods made with labor that is cheaper than slave labor here. It would literally cost more to feed and house slaves here than what they pay the people on the assembly lines making our Samsung phones. We have become like the old south, taking that slave labor for granted. We deserve this "culture" (code for standard of living). 

  The end game of the Free Traders wasn't short sighted. It's highly predictable the Chinese and India would eventually realize that for real security they can't be utterly dependent of foreign markets, they have to develop their own domestic markets, and wages would have to rise. At some point there would be a re-balancing. It's what happened everywhere else. Eventually the People stand up and want coffee breaks and weekends and shit. The US, if it remains a center for high innovation stands a pretty fair shot at maintaining some dominance in a Free Trade world with semi-equals. Most of those bastards have governments even more rigid and self interested than ours. The Free Traders accurately predicted this, IMO, the Chinese are working hard to do just that and so are the Indians. The Chinese are going back to dictatorship to handle the "chaos". Eventually dictatorships wind up with bad dictators that can't be shuffled off to a golf course after a few years.  

 Win Win, as opposed to the Bannon/Trump view of Win Lose. The key was, I suppose, the ability to keep the US public educated on what was the plan, and lacking that, they were easily led to the Win Lose view. Change is painful, always. 

 It's so easy to view them as the bad guys who must be beat on...all while marveling at how cheap those bags of tube socks are...  

  

  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
13 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

ride that cushy expat job into the sunset brochacho.

Don't worry, brah.  I'm riding that pony for all she's worth.....  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

NAFTA did not off shore the jobs, it was a reaction to the off-shoring of jobs...but in places where there was no shore. Most of the jobs went to India and China and NAFTA was about countries in this hemisphere. Blaming it is a very successful red herring though. 

 We faced a reality in the 80's, the rest of the world would eventually adopt Western industrial ways. The option of barrackading, or North Koreaning, the US was rejected, instead a policy of addressing what was viewed as the inevitable was adopted. These are the Free Traders, and I think they have set us on a path there is no backing out of. Watch what happens to Trump and Bannon's notions when the prices at Walmart triple. 

   It's full of goods made with labor that is cheaper than slave labor here. It would literally cost more to feed and house slaves here than what they pay the people on the assembly lines making our Samsung phones. We have become like the old south, taking that slave labor for granted. We deserve this "culture" (code for standard of living). 

  The end game of the Free Traders wasn't short sighted. It's highly predictable the Chinese and India would eventually realize that for real security they can't be utterly dependent of foreign markets, they have to develop their own domestic markets, and wages would have to rise. At some point there would be a re-balancing. It's what happened everywhere else. Eventually the People stand up and want coffee breaks and weekends and shit. The US, if it remains a center for high innovation stands a pretty fair shot at maintaining some dominance in a Free Trade world with semi-equals. Most of those bastards have governments even more rigid and self interested than ours. The Free Traders accurately predicted this, IMO, the Chinese are working hard to do just that and so are the Indians. The Chinese are going back to dictatorship to handle the "chaos". Eventually dictatorships wind up with bad dictators that can't be shuffled off to a golf course after a few years.  

 Win Win, as opposed to the Bannon/Trump view of Win Lose. The key was, I suppose, the ability to keep the US public educated on what was the plan, and lacking that, they were easily led to the Win Lose view. Change is painful, always. 

 It's so easy to view them as the bad guys who must be beat on...all while marveling at how cheap those bags of tube socks are...  

  

  

 

Whole lotta truth in that.  And I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that NAFTA alone was responsible for offshoring jobs.  But I think it did open pandora's box, the floodgates or whatever other cliche fits.  It was inevitable - globalization was going to happen and as you say it needed to happen.  Building a moat around the US wasn't the answer.

I'm simply saying that despite all the promises and lip service - we DID leave behind a significant chunk of the electorate with no real plan to get them into the innovation economy.  In fact we went one step worse than that:  I could see a decision being made to let that generation age out as not being "savable".  But we doomed their kids to worse by taking an education system that was once the envy of the world and turned it into a joke that puts people even deeper into poverty, except for the fortunate few who can afford to move where the schools are decent.  Had we made an investment in the kids of the lost manufacturing job parents, we could have given them a chance.  

I believe this ^^ issue of collectively shrugging our shoulders to several generations of the parents and kids in the midwest, the rustbelt and all the areas hard hit by loss of jobs to the global economy was DIRECTLY responsible for trump coming to power.  I think it had very little to do with Hillary and everything to do with rolling the dice on something different.  A different approach, a different style, something, anything.  These people - the deplorables - had and still have nothing to lose. Its why they doggedly still cling to him despite these YGBFSM moments when cheeto has his tourettes episodes.  Because NO ONE so far has shown them there is anything better.  

And I've said it before and I'll say it again..... if you continue to ignore these people and write them off as nothing but uneducated bumpkins.... you will end up with more Trumps.  And at the moment, our only saving grace is that trump is too stupid and narcissistic to STFU.  Imagine if we had someone as morally bereft as trump, but with actual intelligence and cunning not to be so fucking obvious about it???  Now THAT would be truly scary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

I still think some of us are looking at an effect, not the cause.

The cause is US business. A increasingly common trait with all the big US majors for the last decade or so has been an obsessive greed for more and more profit. They created the made in China model,  and I would bet my left nut that this alone has been the cause for the largest loss of manufacturing jobs in the US in the last decade or so.

An honest and frank assessment needs to be made to identify the root cause/s first. The US just bitching about a economic power bloc escaping the bonds created by the US to maximise the profit for US businesses?  

Methinks thou protesteth too much about the wrong thing.

 

I agree with this.  I don't think US business greed is THE only cause, but I think its a significant driver.  The issue is that its become ALL about short term gain and profits.  There is little long term planning going on.  Its about the next quarter's PNL.  And this short-sighted greed IS having a huge effect on the labor market and the inequality gap we are seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting read regarding America's ongoing decline...https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-will-not-forget-how-it-was-treated-by-trump/

Quote

The chickens could come home to roost. Mr. Trump seeks to limit Chinese exports and Chinese theft of intellectual property. One way to do that would be to sign on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was designed to counterbalance Chinese influence. Another would be to develop a common front with the European Union. A third would be to work with other major actors, such as India.

But Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the TPP, he repeatedly attacks the European Union – “I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade” – and on Monday, he threatened a trade war with India.

As for Canada and Mexico, under a different president the three countries of North America could work together to contain China where necessary, and co-operate with it where possible.

But the Trump administration is going to have to go it alone on China. It no longer has any friends. And that includes Canada.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ish, you DO realize that Hillary was going to pull the US out of the TPP as well, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ish, you DO realize that Hillary was going to pull the US out of the TPP as well, right?

That is what I heard, but it really doesn't matter. Hillary lost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
30 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ish, you DO realize that Hillary was going to pull the US out of the TPP as well, right?

That is what I heard, but it really doesn't matter. Hillary lost. 

YOu're right.  She did lose.  But you heard it FROM her, she campaigned on pulling the plug on TPP.  Reluctantly and late in the game of course.  But she did.  So Assuming she wasn't just lying, the end result would have been the same irregardless of who won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with this.  I don't think US business greed is THE only cause, but I think its a significant driver.  The issue is that its become ALL about short term gain and profits.  There is little long term planning going on.  Its about the next quarter's PNL.  And this short-sighted greed IS having a huge effect on the labor market and the inequality gap we are seeing.

The problem isn't greed, we've always had greed, it helped us win WWII by outmanufacturing the world, it helped us become the global economic superpower.

The problem is the Harvard Business School model of short term profit taking. It has spread like a cancer through American business and industry. Short term profits are WHY we shipped our production floors to Asia, it's why we will want to save 10 cents on the rope that is used to hang us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You've got it backwards Jeffreaux. the rest of the world has been subsidizing the US economy and that era's coming to an end. ride that cushy expat job into the sunset brochacho.

Wait, how has the world subsidized our economy?

Do you mean that the world has been buying stuff from us? That ain't a subsidy, sister sally. That's commerce.

A subsidy is when one country puts a chunk of tax money into programs that allow other countries to advance themselves without needing to spend as much of their own tax money on the thing that is receiving the subsidy from the other country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

The problem isn't greed, we've always had greed, it helped us win WWII by outmanufacturing the world, it helped us become the global economic superpower.

The problem is the Harvard Business School model of short term profit taking. It has spread like a cancer through American business and industry. Short term profits are WHY we shipped our production floors to Asia, it's why we will want to save 10 cents on the rope that is used to hang us.

Exactly. I think I already said that exact thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites