Got to think positive and believe. Play Stellaris vs Civ 6 :)

Hopefully 2 bullies go mano-mano and we'll see what happens.

I'm thinking there are 2 basic camps here.

1) China is not really an economic threat or China may be a threat but don't care
2) China is an economic threat and we should do what we can to stop/blunt them and willing to undergo pain (admittedly some more than others)

I'm more of #2.

Fortune article that for some reason doesn't link properly:

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-e...ing-china-just

Another article.

FWIW, let me clearly say I support Trump's confrontation with China. However, I acknowledge it may not result in a "win". But better than doing nothing.

For those that say TPP would have worked better, possibly but remember that Bernie and Hillary were against it also.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I pretty much knew the above but the last paragraph was new to me. Hadn't really thought about that and only time will tell how it will work out.

And Will Hurd announced he will not seek re-election.

U.S. preparing to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan in initial deal with Taliban

1.It is acceptable now to negotiate and make deals with the Taliban?

2. I thought that withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan before we "won the war" was a betrayal to those that fought and/or died in Afghanistan. That is no longer the case?

smh

I don't understand this at all. It's quite possible both sides lose, that's where we're headed at the moment. Why would that be better than the old status quo?

And a new "consensus" against free trade would be a disaster.

Yes, both sides could lose. But one side will lose more than the other.

Its better than the old status quo because we were losing the status quo. Why not stop, blunt or reverse that trend?

If we're poorer than we would have been, how is that better, regardless of what happens to China?

Right now it's trending toward us being the side that loses more.

Regardless of which side loses more though, if we're inflicting self harm in the process what are we gaining? People losing their homes and businesses so that China's economy isn't growing as fast?

The fact that we're doing damage to ourselves and pushing forward on this in the hope that at some point a miracle happens and we can spin this is as a win is a recipe for disaster.

Not sure I understand?

Using zero sum as an example, there is a pie. If China takes more of the pie, there is less of the pie for the US.

No, I don't believe its a pure zero sum game. But hopefully that illustrates why "what happens to/in China" matters to the US.

We're both losing. That means less of the pie for china, less of the pie for us, and more of the pie for Mexico, South America, and South Korea among others.

Let’s focus on the big one, China.

Sure let help the other smaller economies and we’ll worry about them if they become a big threat.

The question is: can we win or can we lose less than China relatively speaking e.g. China is losing 1 slice vs us losing .5.

I would like to read your source. I’m thinking it’s too early to tell.

Re: self harm, what economic or trade policy doesn’t do some self harm to a certain portion of the population?

As Atocep pointed out, your reasoning assumes the pie is only divided by two parties and that the pie is fixed in size. Neither of those assumptions are correct. We can both get richer, while everyone else gets richer, too. We can both get poorer, while everyone else gets poorer, too. Choosing to follow a policy that hurts us, but maybe hurts China more seems crazy to me.

The zero sum pie example was just illustrative as I mentioned in my above post. I used it because I didn’t understand your comment and thought a simplified example would help.

See my other post on ‘hurts us’.

Trump tonight said that AIDS and childhood cancer will be cured shortly. That should be a big boost to the re-election campaign.

If China takes more and the pie gets bigger so that we also take more, we don't lose. We don't worry about France getting richer or Germany getting richer, why do we care if China gets richer? If we're growing, the outcome for China doesn't matter.

There are specific issues that I think should be pursued, IMO we're being shamefully negligent not fighting to end the Uighur concentration camps, but it's a losing game to base winning on whether or not China has less than they did previously.

This is not how it works. Global economics is not a zero-sum game.

Why dump capitalism for mercantilism when we have so much evidence showing the impact on economies?

I understand, please reread #18280 and how I qualified my statement.

But you stated that when China gets more, we get less. That's not accurate and the current trade war illustrates that. China has gotten poorer relative to how things were going before the trade war, but the U.S. has also gotten poorer relative to where things were going.

Straight from the article I posted above:



This is like saying stubbing your toe and cutting your leg off are the same thing.

It’s kind of like saying, “Let me put my eye out so that China gets two limbs amputated.” Is hurting China worth that?

Also we're losing pretty bad in this trade war. It's just not as evident because we're subsidizing it with debt.

Of course he cut funding to both areas earlier this year and is perhaps the most anti-science President we've ever had, but I keep forgetting he's a God.

I have a high-school friend who is a particle physicist and runs a particle collider, and he and his wife (who is also a particle physicist) left to go teach in the UK a long time ago because of GOP policies cutting grants and school/research funding during the Bush years. Ironic considering all the 'concern' about bringing in quality foreigners when their policies are actively driving out bright American minds.

I'll stick with my articles as its got more facts whereas your article is more opinion. I'm not saying yours is wrong (e.g. trending the US is losing), it may very well be right but also note my article said its not just about trade/economy, its also about "geopolitical dominance and national security".

What I'm saying is it's too soon to tell overall who is trending winning vs losing.


This response is to my:


I'm not really sure how this example is relevant to my counter that any economic policy is sure to hurt a certain population of people. Can't make everyone happy. Care to elaborate?

How about this analogy ...

A new bully comes into town and is beating up the former bully (who, admittedly, isn't all innocent himself but not sure that is relevant). The new bully uses a shotgun with birdshot (can hurt but not lethal) and steal food, water, money, and high-end stuff from the former bully's house.

The former bully hasn't been doing much other than verbal complaints but now has decided to buy a shotgun with birdshot also. The 2 bullies are now shooting each other with birdshot and it does hurt.

There's a bunch of neighbors in the cul-de-sac waiting to see who ultimately wins or backs down. They are important because whoever wins will get invited to neighborhood parties, get baked pies, get the pretty daughter etc.

Should the 2 bullies calm down and live peacefully? Sure. But its hard to do when the new bully is pushing around and stealing stuff from the former bully.

Is it worth it for the former bully to fight back. Yes because he wants the stealing to stop and wants the baked pies and pretty daughter.

I am saying that when China gets more, the US will get less relatively speaking (e.g. as a % of the pie which we all agree is growing some).

In your example, I think you are saying both are growing bigger relative to where each individually were before. This is obviously important.

However, it is also important who is growing faster or losing less relative to each other because there is an advantage to being the big dog in the neighborhood and getting the baked pies and pretty daughter.

What concession do you want from China? One that is worth hurting our economy and running up our deficit.

Possibly.

I hold out hope that Trump's trade strategy continues to encourage manufacturing to move out of China into other lower cost countries, puts pressure on China's stock market (still way below its high vs the US stock market doing very well), pops the real estate bubble, and ultimately causes a Japanese like lost decade (or two).

On the other hand, China could still continue to cook the books and hold out (e.g. they practically have a Premier for life) until there is a more less confrontational President in the White House in 1.5 years.

Good question. Just came back from a torturous travel day. I'll put some thought (vs just winging it and/or writing up some corny "baked pies" and "pretty daughter" analogy) and come up with comprehensive response later.


Thinking long term, strategically (e.g. factoring in "geopolitical dominance and national security"), absolutely worth hurting our economy now assuming we "win". If we lose this fight, then obviously not worth it.

I am not sure how this trade war/tariffs is running up our deficit? Do you mean deficit or trade deficit?

Why do you wish ill on other people? Why is it so important to see another country's economy fail and their people hurt by it? So much so you'd be willing to hurt your own country to see it happen. Seems a bit sadistic.

Do you believe China wishes ill on us?

No, we're their biggest trade partner.

This isn't a video game where one side wins and the other loses. It's just not how economics works. If it's about national security, you want to have a good trade. You don't start a war with a country your economy is intertwined with.

As for our deficit, we are handing out billions of welfare to the agricultural industry for this. Doesn't seem realistic to continue to cover for the losses in industries that are hurt by this through more debt.

We were running up the debt before the trade war.

It's not mutually exclusive.

"Wishes ill" is a nebulous phrase and I can see where it is subject to many different interpretations. It's not like Iran that wishes us ill but if you do not believe China is looking to dominate us economically, geopolitically, militarily etc. then that is the root of our differences. Without this common baseline belief, we are never going to agree much re: China.


Maybe not a video game but it is about one side wins and the other loses. In economics, in geopolitical influence, in national security etc. over the long run.


FWIW, its $8.4B through April 2019 for farmers so far. In 2018, we've raised $69B in revenue with the tariffs but hurt GDP. Don't know all the calculus and not sure what the conclusion is but thought it was interesting nos.

Is the short term loss and hit to the US economy worth it if we "win". Yes

Is the short term (and guess long-term also in this scenario) loss and hit to the US economy worth it if we don't "win". No

USDA Bailout for Impact of Trump’s Tariffs Goes to Biggest, Richest Farmers | EWG

https://taxfoundation.org/tariffs-trade/

There was a very good plan for dealing with China that didn't hurt the US economy as well (in fact would have helped it as free trade always does). It was called the Trans Pacific Partnership - creating a large Asian free trade zone that purposely excluded China.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Goes hand in hand. The people paying the tarriff revenue are US importers, who will pass that cost onto consumers. It's basically a tax on American companies who import certain items from China.

Narrator voice: this policy was in legislation, championed by Senator McCain, and signed into law by President Obama

I hate this man. I might hate even more that stuff like this is effective.

At least he made up for it by joking about Elijah Cummings' home being broken into.

I was all for it and do wish we gave it a chance. But it is what it is and we are where we are - its Trump's way or wait till 2021.

To be fair though, Bernie and Hillary did not support TPP either (Hillary more so for political reasons I think) so they thought it would hurt the US economy/competitiveness.

Or his love tweets to Kim this morning.

Who cares what Bernie or Hillary thought about it? Neither of them would have engaged in a trade war with China, which is an infinitely worse way of dealing with the situation.

I'd rather wait until 2021 rather than engage in a horrible trade war. I have very little room for protectionists (this includes Bernie - I have hope that Warren or Harris trends to free trade but with slightly more worker/child protections).

Hillary called the TPP the "gold standard". That is, until she started running for president and the TPP didn't poll well.

Trump pulls nomination of Ratcliffe as Director of National Intelligence blaming the "LameStream Media" for treating him unfairly and having to undergo months of slander and libel and he explained to Ratcliffe how miserable it would be for he and his family to have deal with that-so he's staying in Congress.

Imagine if you had to go through that for over 30 years and then you ran for president!

Hurd would have actually made a good DNI (and has had his name thrown around for some time now). I think both Democrats and Republicans like him. Sad to see him get so disillusioned.

The first culling happening soon

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/polit...ers/index.html

Trump's WH has kept a list of everyone they think has been mean or disrespectful. There's no way Trump would nominate Hurd for anything, especially since they seem to be looking for a sycophant.

But, you're right, he'd probably be good and he'd sail through confirmation.

Just goes to show there was wide support against it - from the socialist left, to the moderate left and to the crazy Trump right.

There's not much from the Dem candidates on China so far (other than for Biden's misguided comment). Looking forward to hear the different strategies.

Interestingly, I was googling on what Dem candidates would do about China and came to this article. FWIW, I think it presents our 2 differing sides pretty well (in bold).

How Will Democrats Deal With China? - The Atlantic

More details on the letter referred above

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1TU0XL

They are wrong of course (!) but wanted to share as it was timely to our discussion.

Trumps stance isn't on the right. Protectionism and tariffs are really far left economic theory. The right was all about free trade until they had to pretend they weren't a year and a half ago.

Plenty of far right leaders have been protectionist. It's a core tenant of Fascism (autarky). The biggest voices against the EU is Europe are right wing parties.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yes exactly. China ultimately is not paying for these tariffs but we all are with the costs of the tariffs being added to the goods by US distributor before they come to us. Even Fox News says this:

Fox News Host Neil Cavuto Tells Viewers Trump Is Wrong: ‘China Isn’t Paying These Tariffs. You Are.’

And you also had wide support for it from the moderate left (Obama) and moderate right (McCain). If McConnell allowed it to go forward for a vote, it probably would have passed the Senate.

Interestingly I was reading that the UK has had talks with the other members who went ahead with the TPP (now called CPTPP, which also suspended all the provisions mandated by the US in negotiations) in order to join it after Brexit.

I guess it would be smart for UK to join/create/strengthen non-EU trade relationships but Asia seems non-intuitive to me because its so far away.

https://www.businessinsider.com/brex...nership-2019-2

I know 50-60% of the US wails about Trump but I wonder, long term, if Brexit is a more significant negative (I assume) event for the Brits than Trump is for many in the US.

I like to think we can overcome, ignore, put to bed etc. the negatives of Trump over a generation of 10-20 years whereas the implications of Brexit will stay with UK for a much longer time.

Not a good time to be a soybean farmer and no idea if Trump is willing/able to continue subsidizing the farmers to the degree he has been.

What do farmers do with all the excess? Do they sell it at a discount domestically (I like tofu) and plan to grow something else the next year?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The soybeans have crushed the farms here in downstate Illinois. Not sure what they do with the excess. Feds will just have to keep cutting welfare checks.

Not a good day for the markets either.

As good a time as any for a short recession and (hopefully) a more major one for China.

I think earliest it can be declared is 2Q, 2020 because it needs 2 quarters of negative GDP which would be perfect to hurt Trump in the election. Say all you want about his negatives but if economy is booming I think it significantly increases Trump's odds.

Also, we're overdue so that'll get the monkey off our backs.

How farmer trade aid undermines the US in world markets | TheHill

Interesting read on the downside of the Feds continuing to cut those welfare checks.

WTF?

Real people suffer in a recession. It will happen eventually, but cheering it on, especially cheering on increased suffering for the Chinese people is cruel and immoral.

You are wasting your breathe. Par for course.

With China striking back today, much that I read says they are playing the long game and waiting for the next election. This likely means a lot of uncertainty and pain until then ... unless someone blinks.

If you agree that a good economy significantly increases Trump's odds then I'm picking between the lesser of 2 evils.

Re: China, you are right wishing suffering on the Chinese people is cruel and immoral. However, I am wishing much more pressure on the Chinese leadership (vs people) to effect change.

I imagine the beans will be processed (soybeans will mold after 6 months in storage) into things that can be stored longer because you have to have an actual buyer to diminish a stockpile. Mostly made into animal feeds. A good chunk of our soybean production used to feed China's pigs. Rumors have China's hog population cut in 50% this year due to disease so the prediction that we'd fill in demand elsewhere globally has not come to fruition because global demand isn't there. In the meantime, Bolsonaro in Brazil is falling over himself in glee and chopping down rainforest as fast as he can. By the time China rebuilds its hog population, Brazil will likely be the country to fill China's soybean needs.

As for other crops, wheat was ruined for American farmers in an eerily similar circumstance by the Carter grain embargo. By the time we took off the embargo, other countries ramped up their own production (Brazil by chopping down rain forest) and filled our place. Corn has been hurt by the Trump admin granting gas blenders waivers so they don't have to use ethanol. Ethanol plants are shutting down. It'll take farmers getting creative and that's not something they generally are good at in terms of alternative crops. Of course switching to a completely different crop also required a whole new line of not so cheap equipment in order to plant/manage/harvest new crop. Finally, you have lenders that are either completely avoiding or shutting down their ag lending divisions or at the very least being very skittish of anything agriculture right now. The guy who rents our land did put in some potatoes this year, not sure if that's a winner or not.

The American Farm Bureau had a few tweets whining about how this trade war hurts the farmer. Yet you can find a video of Trump getting an absolutely rousing ovation while speaking to the farm bureau while bringing up such important agricultural topics as NFL players kneeling during the anthem.

Truly baffling and evidence to me of what an American personality cult looks like. When a guy that has done nothing but hurt an industry can stand up and be treated like a God by those same people.

Never thought this would be something I'm sharing here, but I sat next to a guy when I was going into Guadalajara who was a swine vet, there as a guest for a conference. He told me that the Swine Flu has decimated China. He said that they the tariffs from the US caused the Chinese to shun the US for the Russian market. The US swine is stringently tested for the Swine Flu and the Russian wasn't. That particular flu can be transmitted through the meat so if your pig gets it, it's not safe for consumption and there's no getting rid of it. The initial result of the corn futures in the US was a drop (when China cancelled) and then a big rise, then a massive crash when the extent of the slaughter was discovered. So far the Chinese have slaughtered over 5 million infected pigs. That is more than size of the entire US swine market. I found all this to be incredible that it wasn't more public knowledge. It's quite a development. Who knew sports forums for fake football games were so interested?

Googled on it. You're right, haven't read about this before.

Coincidentally 2019 is year of the pig.

China’s African swine fever outbreak is unprecedented - Vox

I guess they're getting what they asked for. Then again, cashing their welfare checks likely takes off some of the sting.

I've seen some pretty awful videos from China where they dump thousands of pigs into a pit and bury them alive. Corn isn't actually all that affected by Chinese hogs, they did feed a lot of American soybeans to the pigs though.


Honestly, as a recipient of past government farm handouts, they really don't amount to much in the context of a farming operation. It's being thrown a small bone, maybe a morsel.

Remember the new Air Force-1? It was supposed to cost 3 billion in 2016. Then Trump said he negotiated and it would be 2 billion. Now it's going to be 5 billion.

Everything's a con.

Art of the deal

Not a big surprise.

U.S. State Department Official Involved in White Nationalist Movement, Hatewatch Determines | Southern Poverty Law Center

Only surprise is the random use of the coach from Teen Wolf (the movie) as a pseudonym.

Matthew Q. Gebert

Now it all comes together.

Conway praises the courage of Trump doing nothing:

I read that as couch and was sorely disappointed to find out I misread it.

Any thoughts about Joaquin Castro tweeting out Trump donors' names?

I've thought for quite a while that a good way to stop a bunch of this online hate speech is to eliminate anonymity from the internet. If you're gonna say shit, put your name on it.

It would work GREAT in theory, but it would be absolutely unenforceable. And a bunch of other things like anonymous leaks of information would be negatively impacted.

It seems like a bad precedent/slippery slope kind of thing, but also the reaction seems a bit like 'the lady doth protest too much'. These are all folks who gave literally as much as they could to support Trump, and while I respect the fact that their privacy has been violated I don't think political donations are anywhere near sacrosanct and publicizing someone's political donation history barely qualifies as any kind of 'shaming'.

The more noise conservative talking heads make about this the more they seem to also be implying that supporting Trump is something to be ashamed of, and you don't want your neighbors knowing about, which isn't a very impressive basis for argument.

You can lookup yourself anyone who has donated to a campaign:

Campaign finance data | FEC

It's public information you can easily search through a government website. Shouldn't be treated any different than when a paper publishes a mugshot.

People are just up in arms because this is happening to rich people. And the faux outrage from the right which never shuts up about Soros and Bloomberg donating to politicians is hypocritical.

On one hand, it's publicly available information.

On the other, I always apply the test of "what would the other Party say if their opponents had done this?" If at Trump's Greenville, NC rally, he had read out the names of all Dem donors over X amount in that county, we would have barely heard about "send her back." People would have (rightfully) flipped out. It's a terrible precedent to set. Sure, people on this board know how to get to those names (with addresses if you know where to look,) but the average nitwit didn't know this information was public before it happened, and the fewer people who are aware of how to access that info, the better off we are as a society.

It depends on perspective. Would it be ok to out anyone who either dons a hood or bankrolls the KKK or any other white supremacist organization? At this point, there are some -- Castro being one -- who essentially equate Trump as functioning with such groups' goals in mind. If you believe the situation is that dire...

So some ICE raids took place in Miss. today, and picked up over 600 people. It was also the first day of school for many of their kids in the state and they came home to locked doors and no parents.

How many will have citizenship or a visa? They aren't arresting people that are in the country illegally, they're arresting people that can't prove they are legally in the US.

What's the difference?

Note, I say this not as an anti-illegal immigration, but as a pragmatist. I work in a restaurant in SoCal and have for 28 years. So I'm very familiar with the benefits of illegal immigration.

I don't know that they would've flipped out. Personally, if I were such a max donor, I don't think I'd care that my name would be out there.

I do get your point that it seems like "targeting" to some extent, but I don't know how up in arms you can get for public information to be shared publicly.

Being unable to prove citizenship on demand is being arrested on the suspicion that a person is not a citizen. Almost no one could prove citizenship on demand, we just don't carry those documents with us. I guarantee some of those arrested yesterday are legal, but can't prove that. Some of them may be deported even though they are legal.

If there were concerns about those that are in the country legally, the process would take a lot more time, but here these people were shipped off to Louisiana shortly after the raid with no notification to family that might help produce documents.

The whole plan seems to be, find a place where we know undocumented Hispanics have worked, go there and arrest all Hispanics unable to prove citizenship on demand, ship them out of state as quickly as possible so they can't prove citizenship later.

You know it is pretty bad when Fox news is like, whoa, you need to tone down the white supremacy.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/media...ces/index.html

But hey, David Duke is on your side!!

David Duke on Twitter: "Tucker is RIGHT! White Supremacy is a ZioMedia Conspiracy Theory! The term is itself a lie. Millions of White activists are NOT "supremacists" We seek NOT to oppress or destroy any race! Human Rights for all - EVEN FOR WHITE PEOPLE! Stop antiWhite racism!
https://t.co/vY0knfD0Xx"

Since Citizens United turned money into speech, I have negative sympathy for rich people and corporations having their political leanings made public. Since we can't regulate it anymore, all we're left with is to hurt their businesses and try to embarrass them.

Complete sidebar, but why do they keep moving the start of school day up so much? It used to be third week of August, then second week, now first full week? What the hell?

NY is the week after Labor Day.

There were schools in FL and GA last week that started before August 1.

Seems to be a regional thing with schools in the south starting earlier. Here in NJ we start the 5th of September, but friends in Ohio start next week

My high school senior started today. He graduates in mid-May sometime.

We start the 15th. Next year a new law takes effect that schools cannot start no earlier then 10 days before Labor day. Something to do with kids missing school because of the State Fair.

Yeah, my senior picked up his parking pass today, they start next week.

this is as good a spot as any I guess.

Pretty interesting read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/b...ceptances.html

Blago may be getting out early for some reason.

Agreed. If this were a sensible administration, those rounded up would be detained humanely and their cases would be expedited, allowing them or family members to find the necessary paperwork and get them cleared. Of course, this is not a sensible administration, and the camp in Louisiana probably resembles the prison from Cool Hand Luke.

What we have here is a failure to communicate ... Florida not Cajun country.

Russian cruise missile crashes and kills two.

But the bigger story is that radiation levels spiked in a nearby city, people were instructed to close windows and drink iodine, and a part of the White Sea is being closed to people for a month.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49275577