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.