international trade/economic policy

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:57 pm

dead man walking wrote:picketty, bennie.

and you are aware of the irony of the working man looking to a bunch of cold-blooded, finagling billionaires to save them. the puppet masters control the strings and citizens imagine themselves to be free.

government by self-deception.

I took a cursory glance at picketty last night and he disagrees with you on trade deals like the TPP which do not contain reciprocal social (non economic) agreements.

Your implication that he merely favors a high tax regime is wrong. His approach is manifold and much in agreement with what I have been arguing. In fact, his positions re trade caused the BO admin to strongly criticize him.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:56 pm

you're partly right, bennie, but wrong too.

recently picketty wrote:

"The tragedy is that Trump’s program will only strengthen the trend towards inequality"

among the non-economic requirements he believes trade deals should include are

" . . . quantified and binding measures to combat fiscal and climate dumping in those same treaties. For example, there could be common minimum rates of corporation tax and targets for carbon emissions which can be verified and sanctioned. "

i think that's what alfred e was referring to. ok, sounds good. but that doesn't sound anything like what i've heard from this admin.

as i understand picketty's work (i don't know it well at all), a central remedy to income inequality is a tax on wealth. that won't happen. so we can know for sure that the ordinary joes and janes will remain pressed down by the gilded thumbs of self-serving reptiles, wearing botoxed replacement sluts on their arms.

and you seem happy about it. you've lost your way, lad.

eat the rich!

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:13 pm

Give me heads up next time you cite to someone whose work you don't understand very well (if at all). Thanks.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:16 pm

bennyonesix wrote:uh oh. i better change the subject

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:25 pm

If you want to discuss picketty read him first.

If you argue that a large tax on wealth is a good thing: fine. I have no issue with that. But what are you going to do with the money? Absent expenditure on infrastructure, reallocation of wealth will not address the underlying issues.

If you argue that taxing the wealthy is a necessary condition to reversing inequality: I disagree. Tariffs and a generally protectionist economic policy will correct much of it AND provide good jobs which taxation won't.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:12 pm

bennyonesix wrote: AND provide good jobs

excluded from the category of good jobs is working for trump:

An electrical contractor is suing President Donald Trump’s Washington hotel for $2 million over what the contractor contends are unpaid bills for “nonstop” work performed to open the luxury lodging at the Old Post Office Building last year.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:17 pm

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:I can sum up Emperor Alfred E. Neuman's trade policy in a few simple lines:
Any country is free to trade with the US as long as your goods are produced in factories that meet our environmental standards, you meet our worker's rights/pay standards, and your country meets the basic human rights standards (to be written out in another dictum). Meet those qualifications? Welcome aboard! Don't? You're shit ain't coming here. Check back in when you join the civilized world.

This is the hypocrisy of the Developed world. How did Western economy managed to get on its feet? By exploiting the shit out of everybody who could help making a profit. 16 hour working days, no consideration of pollution, child labour, gender discrimination and so on and so forth, the list can run several pages. Now that we are at the top nobody else can get here by the same means as us. So if someone in Nigeria wants to start manufacturing goods and sell it to the US they have to invest in the expensive technology that complies with our ideas of good. And where can they get it? They can buy it from the US! It is the same with nuclear power: you want clean atomic energy - fuck off, we will decide who gets the materials.

The West should either drop the ridiculous trade requirements and let other countries prosper (unlikely), or stop the bullshit rhetoric of equality and how much we care about the rest of the world.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:49 pm

that's the spirit, doc.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:36 pm

So the Strumpet's big plan to make Mexico pay for the wall is... a 20% import tax, which means American consumers will pay for the wall. Assuming the GOP Congress lets it happen, which I... highly doubt.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:45 pm

milosz wrote:So the Strumpet's big plan to make Mexico pay for the wall is... a 20% import tax, which means American consumers will pay for the wall. Assuming the GOP Congress lets it happen, which I... highly doubt.

John Weaver promptly dubbed it the Trump Tax.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:46 pm

Economically, Mexico's a train wreck.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mexico/overview
Not sure how the risk that Mexico becomes less stable factors into the calculations.

And no members of Congress from Texas are in favor of the wall
https://theweek.com/speedreads/675971/t ... rumps-wall
This should be interesting.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:43 pm

Does any rational person think he's going to build a literal Great Wall of Trumpia from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific ocean across mountains and through the middle of the Rio Grande river?

Wall + double fence + enhanced human & technological barriers + the end of catch and release, yes; full on wall, no.

The bottom line is everybody knows that Obama, the Dems, and the Repug establishment really and truly wanted cheap labor and future Democrats sneaking into the country; Trump doesn't. That perception changes everything.

johno · Post by **johno** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:51 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:everybody knows that Obama, the Dems, and the Repug establishment really and truly wanted cheap labor and future Democrats sneaking into the country; Trump doesn't. That perception changes everything.

Agree.

Thing 1 - "The Wall" just really meant, "I will enforce immigration laws." IMO, Trump never really meant to build a Wall from sea to shining sea.

Thing 2 - Now that Trump is President, he will have to build Some Wall. Somewhere. And he will enforce the border much more vigorously than the previous handful of Presidents.

Thing 3 - If even one illegal appears in the US, the Press will enthusiastically interview him to prove that Trump's Wall is a failure. And if one mother or child dies within a mile of The Wall, Trump will bear the blame.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:59 pm

Right or wrong, this will be a tough needle for Trump to thread, especially convincing Senate leadership. Cornyn will be concerned about property rights of Texas ranchers, and Durbin is a farm state Senator.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:47 pm

Oh shut up turd. Stop shilling for your cheap labor masters. Those are all manufactured excuses. Yes there are many "conservative" office holders opposed. But they are opposed for one reason, they benefit from depressed wages or they are on the take from The CoC to depress wages.

I am sure your position on this is just like your position on the ACA which you spend your life "opposing" while actually not opposing it on any meaningful level.

But you are very nuanced and intellectual and maybe a little sad about how the arc of history bends toward justice which is whites getting fucked. It really is unfortunate but what can you do *shrugs shoulders* its all for the best in the longterm because of the invisible hand guiding the market.

You are just a sad little apparatchik making shit money selling out your culture to the elites. Admit it.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:50 pm

bennyonesix wrote:Oh shut up turd. Stop shilling for your cheap labor masters. This is all manufactured excuses. Yes there are many "conservative" office holders opposed. But they are opposed for one reason, they benefit from depressed wages or they are on the take from The CoC.

I am sure your position on this is just like your opposition on the ACA you spend your life "opposing" while actually not opposing it on any meaningful level.

But you are very nuanced and intellectual and maybe a little sad about how the arc of history bends toward justice which is whites getting fucked. It really is unfortunate but what can you do *shrugs shoulders* its all for the best in the longterm because of the invisible hand guiding the market.

Note the frustration of a middle-aged virgin on full display...

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:51 pm

You are just a sad little apparatchik making shit money selling out your culture to the elites. Admit it.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:53 pm

bennyonesix wrote:You are just a sad little apparatchik making shit money selling out your culture to the elites. Admit it.

Have you ever even talked to a girl?

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:59 pm

johno wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:everybody knows that Obama, the Dems, and the Repug establishment really and truly wanted cheap labor and future Democrats sneaking into the country; Trump doesn't. That perception changes everything.
Agree.

Thing 1 - "The Wall" just really meant, "I will enforce immigration laws." IMO, Trump never really meant to build a Wall from sea to shining sea.

Thing 2 - Now that Trump is President, he will have to build Some Wall. Somewhere. And he will enforce the border much more vigorously than the previous handful of Presidents.

Thing 3 - If even one illegal appears in the US, the Press will enthusiastically interview him to prove that Trump's Wall is a failure. And if one mother or child dies within a mile of The Wall, Trump will bear the blame.

thing 3 is called consequences.

trump could have a problem. border crossings are down to 1970s levels. he's going to have a difficult time, first, establishing a clear cost/benefit (i think the law requires that) and second, he could have a difficult time showing significant declines in illegals. his reductions will be based on a lower level than if he had build the wall some years ago.

the orange gobshite could be hoist on his own petard.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:07 pm

Turdacious wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:You are just a sad little apparatchik making shit money selling out your culture to the elites. Admit it.
Have you ever even talked to a girl?

No. Not once.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:05 pm

johno wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:everybody knows that Obama, the Dems, and the Repug establishment really and truly wanted cheap labor and future Democrats sneaking into the country; Trump doesn't. That perception changes everything.
Agree.

Thing 1 - "The Wall" just really meant, "I will enforce immigration laws." IMO, Trump never really meant to build a Wall from sea to shining sea.

Thing 2 - Now that Trump is President, he will have to build Some Wall. Somewhere. And he will enforce the border much more vigorously than the previous handful of Presidents.

Thing 3 - If even one illegal appears in the US, the Press will enthusiastically interview him to prove that Trump's Wall is a failure. And if one mother or child dies within a mile of The Wall, Trump will bear the blame.

I think most of the places that need a wall (lots of Mexicans on other side) have a wall. The remote sites, if you don't want the wall to have lots of holes in it, will need constant monitoring.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:48 pm

dead man walking wrote:
johno wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:everybody knows that Obama, the Dems, and the Repug establishment really and truly wanted cheap labor and future Democrats sneaking into the country; Trump doesn't. That perception changes everything.
Agree.

Thing 1 - "The Wall" just really meant, "I will enforce immigration laws." IMO, Trump never really meant to build a Wall from sea to shining sea.

Thing 2 - Now that Trump is President, he will have to build Some Wall. Somewhere. And he will enforce the border much more vigorously than the previous handful of Presidents.

Thing 3 - If even one illegal appears in the US, the Press will enthusiastically interview him to prove that Trump's Wall is a failure. And if one mother or child dies within a mile of The Wall, Trump will bear the blame.
thing 3 is called consequences.

trump could have a problem. border crossings are down to 1970s levels. he's going to have a difficult time, first, establishing a clear cost/benefit (i think the law requires that) and second, he could have a difficult time showing significant declines in illegals. his reductions will be based on a lower level than if he had build the wall some years ago.

the orange gobshite could be hoist on his own petard.

I have complete confidence that Trump's metrics will be great though they may require some alternative facts.

Of course, Obama did that too in a number of areas where he just changed definitions and what is and isn't "measured".

Nevertheless, the Imperial President is somewhere in the not too distant future. Trump is setting it back 4-8 years - or cementing it right now. Not sure which will prove true but I'm moderately positive on our new orange master after the first week.

Watching Ashley Judd over act & Madonna prattle on about her blowing up the white house fantasies on Saturday were worth the price of admission IMO.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:27 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote: I have complete confidence that Trump's metrics will be great though they may require some alternative facts.

Watching Ashley Judd over act & Madonna prattle on about her blowing up the white house fantasies on Saturday were worth the price of admission IMO.

donkey, they will not be merely great. they will be very, very great. fabulous.

as for judd and madonna, sigmund freud would diagnose hysteria, i think. mass hysteria. very massive hysteria.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:34 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Watching Ashley Judd over act & Madonna.

I'd like to see them in a cage match with Alex Jones. Ideological matter/anti-matter explosion

We need more people like this guy...

Fiscally I'm A Right-Wing Nutjob, But On Social Issues I'm Fucking Insanely Liberal
COMMENTARY
May 19, 2011
VOL 47 ISSUE 20

Larry Boudrias
The world is a complicated place, and in this day and age, you just can't expect a person to fall on the same political side of every issue he is confronted with. Things are more nuanced than that, and the average American might think one way about one topic, and a completely different way about another. For instance, when it comes to fiscal issues, I consider myself to be a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, right-wing lunatic. But on the social front, I'm a completely out-of-his-mind, wacked-out liberal loon.

It's all about striking a balance, really.

...So, in conclusion: the African-American community will never receive justice until there is an armed insurrection against Whitey in the streets, Pepsi-Cola should run our government, the elderly are our greatest national resource except for child labor, which I support, slavery should be legalized, as well as rape, and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! It's not the government's job to pamper you and hold your hand unless you want funding for a massive public arts project that involves a giant pile of human feces shaped like the American flag, in which case nothing should stand in the way of your First Amendment rights.

I only wish there were more people out there as open-minded as I am.

johno · Post by **johno** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:33 am

nafod wrote: I think most of the places that need a wall (lots of Mexicans on other side) have a wall. The remote sites, if you don't want the wall to have lots of holes in it, will need constant monitoring.

johno wrote:Thing 1 - "The Wall" just really meant, "I will enforce immigration laws." IMO, Trump never really meant to build a Wall from sea to shining sea.

The Border has always needed constant monitoring and always will. Bush, Obama, all the politicians promised to enforce the Border and voters knew they didn't do so effectively. Trump's WALL promise simply meant that he would enforce the Border, and he meant it. If he can show that he has seriously cracked down on illegal immigration, that will satisfy the voters, WALL or fence or Border Patrol or Drones or Direwolves.
Only the Press will object. And they'll object to anything Trump does.

*^This is all based on my current understanding of TrumpSpeak. I'm learning the language. I think.

IGX

international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy

Re: international trade/economic policy