President Donald J. Trump

[136 or 142]

I would rather pay higher prices for goods and services made in the USA, as long as it meant that every able bodied adult was gainfully employed, and generational welfare was abolished.

I thought it was a longer post, but I guess this is what I wanted to respond to.

This comment is based on a form of the asymmetrical information problem: we know, or we think we know, the problems with the way things are now, but we can only guess at what would happen with the alternatives.  Most of the time when faced with this, people tend to choose 'the devil they know.'  However, it seems that with increasing opposition to free trade, that more people are looking at the alternative, tariffs in this case, that in this post of chefist's being the literally perfect alternative.  For one thing, when economists speak of 'full employment' they don't literally mean everybody has a job.  Full employment only means that the economy is operating at full potential output, but there would still be companies growing and companies going bankrupt (likely a Trump company) and companies laying off workers without being bankrupt, and there would still be unemployed people just joining the labor force.  That is the normal nature of any capitalist economy.

In a full employment environment as long as productive capacity is increasing to take up these unemployed, there should be jobs for them, but most of them would still need to be  (re)trained.  This time lag is known as frictional unemployment.

However, in regards to no tariff trade vs. tariff trade, the main point of chefist's post, I'm not knowledgeable enough in economics to come up with likely scenarios of what would happen if the United States abrogated the trade agreements its signed on to in order to bring in new tariffs, but three things beyond the very likely negative short term effects are obvious, one of which has been mentioned:

1.Higher prices
2.loss of export jobs as other countries impose tariffs on American goods and services in response to the U.S abrogation
3.loss of export jobs and higher prices as foreign manufactured inputs and machinery used in U.S manufacturing increase in price due to the tariffs being placed on them

A bit of history on U.S trade, assuming my memory is correct.

The United States was the dominant nation economically from 1945 to about 1960.  Rapist Trump says he could bring the U.S back to this time and 'make America great again.' But, this is obviously stupid as the reason the U.S dominated was, as everybody should know, that virtially the rest of the industrialized world was decimated by World War II.  By the mid 1950s, Europe began to produce again, starting with Germany, and the U.S began facing export competition.

Then, in 1960, U.S manufacturers starting facing the first real threat of competition in the U.S market outside of European goods, via Japan.  And this occurred even though the United States had no free trade agreement or arrangement at the time with Japan.At first, much like many Chinese products today, the Japanese made imports were of poor quality.  But, they got better as Japanese workers became more skilled and as Japanese companies invested so that they could 'move up the value added chain.'  (I normally hate corporate speak like that, but that is one phrase I kind of like.) 

Of course, by the mid to late 1970s for most Japanese products they were no longer of poor quality, and it was the South Koreans who exported poor quality cheap products to the U.S.  The higher quality Japanese output served for a number of years to especially devastate the United States auto manufacturers.  By the early 1970s due to lack of foreign competition, and the U.S auto manufacturing sector being an oligopoly of four companies, U.S cars produced for the mass market were known as 'rust buckets.'

At around this time in 1973, GATT produced it's first major agreement with $300 billion in tariff reductions over the following 74 months involving 102 nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade

Then in 1986 the WTO reached the tariff reduction agreement and in 1988-1989 the U.S and Canada completed negotiations on and signed the first bilateral trade agreement.  Then for the next 20 years or so the U.S signed a large number of tariff reduction and elimination (free trade) agreements, that also had some other components, some not positive at all (Chapter 11).

So, I realize I'm presenting the pro tariff reduction counter argument to chefist's post, but I think there are a few lessons here:
1.Cheap and low quality foreign goods will find a market in the U.S for either poorer consumers or for people who aren't concerned about the quality (The Gap) unless the tariffs are very high, which would hurt poorer consumers.

2.Higher quality goods will find a market in the U.S where the domestic producer(s) either has a monopoly or an oligopoly situation and make poor quality products as a result, unless the tariffs are really high.

3.In situations where there is a monopoly or an oligopoly (in all the cases of oligopoly mentioned such as obviously occurred in the U.S in the auto sector by the 1970s, this refers to where the few companies essentially operate as a monopoly cartel, there are also oligopolistic situations where the companies compete vigorously against each other) and foreign competition is completely frozen out, a likely scenario is a large reduction in the quality of goods produced.  For those who worry about regulatory capture, it's the monopolists and the monopolistic cartels that are most likely to succeed in completely freezing out foreign competition (like our Canadian dairy cartel) by engaging in regulatory capture.  (This is also known as rent-seeking. No idea where the term comes from.) 

So, just a bit of caution for those who think that raising tariffs again would be better than the low tariff or no tariff environment the U.S is in now.

While writing this I realized that I can't sleep because I forgot to take my cipralex pill yesterday. 

[analog kid]

I can only guess that chefist in 2012 wasn't actually looking at RCP or polling sites, but was looking at the websites that claimed to 'unskew' the polls.

That was the year of "fuzzy math." The right was blindsided by Obama's win. Even the Romney campaign, who refused to draft a concession speech, and had already ordered a fireworks display for their victory speech, stood around in shock. It was phony polling numbers, talking points in lieu of data, feeling good being more important than the reality.

Democalypse 2012 - America Takes a Shower Pt 1

Democalypse 2012 - America Takes a Shower Pt 2

Spoiler: they did it to themselves and blamed everyone else

[GuerrillaUnReal]

TCM!  You and 21st Century and I should start a classic movie thread

Oh God, classic films are a significant reason I enjoy life so much. Classic film is one of my great pleasures in life.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Just one national poll today: 
Reuters/Ipsos:
Hillary Clinton 46%
Donald Trump 35%

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YW287?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Were I interested in being biased I would also mention that there is a Zogby poll showing Clinton ahead of Trump in Kansas 43-36%.  Of course, you might say that I just mentioned it, but I only did so to point out that Zogby is an absolute junk polling firm.  I had actually thought that Zogby gave up polling in 2013 and retired because it was evident he could no longer figure out how to poll in this era of cell phones and less and less landlines.

Donald Trump is going to make you kiss his foot.

[aldousburbank]

I thought it was a longer post, but I guess this is what I wanted to respond to.

This comment is based on a form of the asymmetrical information problem: we know, or we think we know, the problems with the way things are now, but we can only guess at what would happen with the alternatives.  Most of the time when faced with this, people tend to choose 'the devil they know.'  However, it seems that with increasing opposition to free trade, that more people are looking at the alternative, tariffs in this case, that in this post of chefist's being the literally perfect alternative.  For one thing, when economists speak of 'full employment' they don't literally mean everybody has a job.  Full employment only means that the economy is operating at full potential output, but there would still be companies growing and companies going bankrupt (likely a Trump company) and companies laying off workers without being bankrupt, and there would still be unemployed people just joining the labor force.  That is the normal nature of any capitalist economy.

In a full employment environment as long as productive capacity is increasing to take up these unemployed, there should be jobs for them, but most of them would still need to be  (re)trained.  This time lag is known as frictional unemployment.

However, in regards to no tariff trade vs. tariff trade, the main point of chefist's post, I'm not knowledgeable enough in economics to come up with likely scenarios of what would happen if the United States abrogated the trade agreements its signed on to in order to bring in new tariffs, but three things beyond the very likely negative short term effects are obvious, one of which has been mentioned:

1.Higher prices
2.loss of export jobs as other countries impose tariffs on American goods and services in response to the U.S abrogation
3.loss of export jobs and higher prices as foreign manufactured inputs and machinery used in U.S manufacturing increase in price due to the tariffs being placed on them

A bit of history on U.S trade, assuming my memory is correct.

The United States was the dominant nation economically from 1945 to about 1960.  Rapist Trump says he could bring the U.S back to this time and 'make America great again.' But, this is obviously stupid as the reason the U.S dominated was, as everybody should know, that virtially the rest of the industrialized world was decimated by World War II.  By the mid 1950s, Europe began to produce again, starting with Germany, and the U.S began facing export competition.

Then, in 1960, U.S manufacturers starting facing the first real threat of competition in the U.S market outside of European goods, via Japan.  And this occurred even though the United States had no free trade agreement or arrangement at the time with Japan.At first, much like many Chinese products today, the Japanese made imports were of poor quality.  But, they got better as Japanese workers became more skilled and as Japanese companies invested so that they could 'move up the value added chain.'  (I normally hate corporate speak like that, but that is one phrase I kind of like.) 

Of course, by the mid to late 1970s for most Japanese products they were no longer of poor quality, and it was the South Koreans who exported poor quality cheap products to the U.S.  The higher quality Japanese output served for a number of years to especially devastate the United States auto manufacturers.  By the early 1970s due to lack of foreign competition, and the U.S auto manufacturing sector being an oligopoly of four companies, U.S cars produced for the mass market were known as 'rust buckets.'

At around this time in 1973, GATT produced it's first major agreement with $300 billion in tariff reductions over the following 74 months involving 102 nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade

Then in 1986 the WTO reached the tariff reduction agreement and in 1988-1989 the U.S and Canada completed negotiations on and signed the first bilateral trade agreement.  Then for the next 20 years or so the U.S signed a large number of tariff reduction and elimination (free trade) agreements, that also had some other components, some not positive at all (Chapter 11).

So, I realize I'm presenting the pro tariff reduction counter argument to chefist's post, but I think there are a few lessons here:
1.Cheap and low quality foreign goods will find a market in the U.S for either poorer consumers or for people who aren't concerned about the quality (The Gap) unless the tariffs are very high, which would hurt poorer consumers.

2.Higher quality goods will find a market in the U.S where the domestic producer(s) either has a monopoly or an oligopoly situation and make poor quality products as a result, unless the tariffs are really high.

3.In situations where there is a monopoly or an oligopoly (in all the cases of oligopoly mentioned such as obviously occurred in the U.S in the auto sector by the 1970s, this refers to where the few companies essentially operate as a monopoly cartel, there are also oligopolistic situations where the companies compete vigorously against each other) and foreign competition is completely frozen out, a likely scenario is a large reduction in the quality of goods produced.  For those who worry about regulatory capture, it's the monopolists and the monopolistic cartels that are most likely to succeed in completely freezing out foreign competition (like our Canadian dairy cartel) by engaging in regulatory capture.  (This is also known as rent-seeking. No idea where the term comes from.) 

So, just a bit of caution for those who think that raising tariffs again would be better than the low tariff or no tariff environment the U.S is in now.

While writing this I realized that I can't sleep because I forgot to take my cipralex pill yesterday.

[chefist]

He's on Hillary's web staff...paid by the word...

[The King of Kings]

He's on Hillary's web staff...paid by the word...

That becomes more apparent every day.

It's Correct the Record.

[FightTheFuture]

That becomes more apparent every day.

It's Correct the Record.

KOcK! What the hell are you going to do when Drumpf drops out of the race? You know he doesn`t  want anything to do with being POTUS, right?

[Yorkshire pud]

 

Donald Trump is going to make you kiss his foot.

Like any benevolent dictator. :

[albrecht]

Like any benevolent dictator. :

What is the latest on the vote and polls? Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg (Germany, really, is the opponent) going to win or England, Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland? I saw some article that they extended the voting registration period because they are afraid of Brexit technical problems?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnLeVSRrLVc

[chefist]

Trump just apologized for using the term, "Pocahontas".  He apologized to Pocahontas for associating her with Elizabeth Warren!

Bwahahahahah

[Yorkshire pud]

What is the latest on the vote and polls? Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg (Germany, really, is the opponent) going to win or England, Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland? I saw some article that they extended the voting registration period because they are afraid of Brexit technical problems?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnLeVSRrLVc

I wish I knew! It's such a fucking ya boo shitfest here over this bollox, I don't think anyone really knows for sure exactly what all the advantages/disadvantages are, either way. It's weird that the proudly far left Dennis Skinner is anti EU and the very Conservative Cameron is pro EU; with the feelings far from split down party lines. Apparently today's Der Spiegel in Germany has a front page printed with the Union flag and a bi lingual 'Don't leave' headline.

Me? I've mo idea simply because no-one has fully explained the truth of either decision, all we hear is overblown rhetoric from both sides of the 'debate'. The registeration deadline was extended because the website was over loaded, but quite why anyone would leave it to the last minute is beyond me. They've had weeks to register if they weren't on the electoral roll.

[albrecht]

I wish I knew! It's such a fucking ya boo shitfest here over this bollox, I don't think anyone really knows for sure exactly what all the advantages/disadvantages are, either way. It's weird that the proudly far left Dennis Skinner is anti EU and the very Conservative Cameron is pro EU; with the feelings far from split down party lines. Apparently today's Der Spiegel in Germany has a front page printed with the Union flag and a bi lingual 'Don't leave' headline.

Me? I've mo idea simply because no-one has fully explained the truth of either decision, all we hear is overblown rhetoric from both sides of the 'debate'.

What are Ladbrokes etc giving odds, I wonder?

[ItsOver]

Oh God, classic films are a significant reason I enjoy life so much. Classic film is one of my great pleasures in life.

Thash thuh trooth! The acting, the production, the cinematography, on and on, is just so much better than most of the crap Hollyweird churns out now.  If they can't stick Vin Diesel or worse and CGI in it, they're lost.  I'll take Bogie and a black-and-white anytime.

[ItsOver]

Donald Trump is going to make you kiss his foot.

Certainly better than kissing this nightmare.

[WOTR]

Whoever came up with the term "free market" probably never imagined that anyone would ever take the word "free" in an absolute sense, meaning that one is able to buy anything from anyone with no rules or restrictions. A better term would have been "open market," which suggests maximizing competition and opportunity to produce and purchase goods and services.

Nobody ever meant to promise the kind of freedom you seem to want and expect. It's hard enough delivering on what they actually do promise. Better not to let our expectations be driven by misinterpreted phrases but by real-life conditions which need to be improved.

I probably should have been more clear- I was joking about the dentist thing.  But government should not be picking the winners and then presenting them to the public.  Here in Canada, the CTRC gives out cell frequency licences.A bunch of smaller companies built towers and were ready to start, but the big guys bought up all of the good bandwidth on the good frequencies leaving just crap for the little guys.  It was shown that they did not need it- but it was a good way to guarantee that their competition would go bankrupt (who wants to drop calls every time they go under a bridge?)  It worked and now the big companies have taken over the small ones when they went bankrupt (more customers for them...)

Good business sense?  Yes. But thanks to the government picking winners, Canadians pay some of the highest cell bills in the world.  In essence, the government has dictated that in the "free market" of cell phones, I will pick Telus or Rogers (maybe Bell) and pay them a fortune because they will not give anybody else licences to operate on a good frequency.

As for the flower thing- I looked at it again quickly.  Did you know that the head of the state republican party is Roger Villere?  Want to guess in what shop he owns where he employs 50 people? That's right... he is the owner of Villere Florist on Vets.  So, the law was passed, and when the governor tried to change it a few years ago, it was soundly defeated.  Yet another shining example of a free market.

I'm sorry, I think we are going to have to disagree on this one.  While I realize that there needs to be some regulation in certain industries, having the government pick which companies I can pay my money to is far from a "free market".  It is a rigged market.

For a more Liberal take on it, you can look up the pot market in Colorado.  Funny that the market that used to be open to minorities (selling pot) is now regulated and almost exclusively run by white middle to upper class folk.  No wonder legalization is becoming popular in many states... The senators friends stand to benefit.  But it will be a free market (as long as you enrich their friends and those who they chose to benefit.)

[TigerLily]

Looks like we have some interest in a Classic Movie Thread.  I think it would be fun and hopefully keep me off the damnable Politics forum. I know we would all be happy about that.

[The King of Kings]

KOcK! What the hell are you going to do when Drumpf drops out of the race? You know he doesn`t  want anything to do with being POTUS, right?

If he does, that is fine.

I have always said my first candidate of choice was Rand Paul, so.

If anything, I will be glad I was part of the contingent that supported Trump over Cruz and blocked that religious wacko from any further political aspirations.

[CornyCrow]

I really wasn't for him before I started chatting with you. Now I think I'll vote for him for sure!  Good job!  

That makes no sense.

[CornyCrow]

Trump just apologized for using the term, "Pocahontas".  He apologized to Pocahontas for associating her with Elizabeth Warren!

Bwahahahahah

Oh, so he talks to the dead, too? 

[Dr. MD MD]

That makes no sense.

Neither do you. You're made for each other! 

[FightTheFuture]

Looks like we have some interest in a Classic Movie Thread.  I think it would be fun and hopefully keep me off the damnable Politics forum. I know we would all be happy about that.

I'm all in on a classic movie thread, but I still think it's healthy to have another woman beside KOcK discuss politics.

[CornyCrow]

At least Art's seen the error of his ways with Trump.  I have to laugh at his only retort to Warren is to call her Pocahontas.  I can't wait until he's in a debate with Hillary.  Although I dislike Hill, I think Trump is just a buffoon. 

[Dr. MD MD]

While writing this I realized that I can't sleep because I forgot to take my cipralex pill yesterday.

If I spent all my time trying to fuck people out of their money and then the rest of it here trying to justify that I'd be depressed too. LOL! 

[21st Century Man]

TCM!  You and 21st Century and I should start a classic movie thread

That would be fab.  I could go on and on about classic movies.

[21st Century Man]

Aside from Turner Classic Movies and the NHL Network, TV is archaic and dead to me. I either subscribe or pirate everything now.

I got WWE Network, NHL Center Ice, Netflix and Prime. Really couldn't care less about television.

Is Amazon Prime's media cool? I haven't even messed with it yet.

TCM is about the only thing I watch on TV.  I'm tired of the endless commercials that are on regular tv.  Recently, I have been watching a few shows on Destination America and The Travel Channel that have to do with hauntings and such but usually I record them so I can fast forward through the commercials when they come on.

[21st Century Man]

I recommend Double Indemnity and White Heat but not The Public Enemy.

Three film noir. (Some regard The Public Enemy as very early film noir)

I don't regard The Public Enemy as film noir.  Film noir is all about playing with light and shadows.  There may be one or two scenes in The Public Enemy that flirts with that idea but the film is not immersed in it.  The Public Enemy is simply a great gangster flick for me and one of the films that cemented my love for classic film during my formative years. Little Caesar was another one.

[21st Century Man]

Oh God, classic films are a significant reason I enjoy life so much. Classic film is one of my great pleasures in life.

Same goes for me.

[Value Of Pi]

I probably should have been more clear- I was joking about the dentist thing.  But government should not be picking the winners and then presenting them to the public.  Here in Canada, the CTRC gives out cell frequency licences.A bunch of smaller companies built towers and were ready to start, but the big guys bought up all of the good bandwidth on the good frequencies leaving just crap for the little guys.  It was shown that they did not need it- but it was a good way to guarantee that their competition would go bankrupt (who wants to drop calls every time they go under a bridge?)  It worked and now the big companies have taken over the small ones when they went bankrupt (more customers for them...)

Good business sense?  Yes. But thanks to the government picking winners, Canadians pay some of the highest cell bills in the world.  In essence, the government has dictated that in the "free market" of cell phones, I will pick Telus or Rogers (maybe Bell) and pay them a fortune because they will not give anybody else licences to operate on a good frequency.

As for the flower thing- I looked at it again quickly.  Did you know that the head of the state republican party is Roger Villere?  Want to guess in what shop he owns where he employs 50 people? That's right... he is the owner of Villere Florist on Vets.  So, the law was passed, and when the governor tried to change it a few years ago, it was soundly defeated.  Yet another shining example of a free market.

I'm sorry, I think we are going to have to disagree on this one.  While I realize that there needs to be some regulation in certain industries, having the government pick which companies I can pay my money to is far from a "free market".  It is a rigged market.

For a more Liberal take on it, you can look up the pot market in Colorado.  Funny that the market that used to be open to minorities (selling pot) is now regulated and almost exclusively run by white middle to upper class folk.  No wonder legalization is becoming popular in many states... The senators friends stand to benefit.  But it will be a free market (as long as you enrich their friends and those who they chose to benefit.)

I was simply commenting on the use and abuse of certain terms, like "free trade." The problems in the marketplace -- which include things like monopolistic and unfair business practices and lobbyists practically writing the rules under which they are regulated -- don't need to be discussed in these terms.

I think it's better to focus on actual issues than get hung up terms like "free market" and "free trade." In the marijuana example you give, why even bother labeling the problem as hurting the "free market," as some people might, when you can simply point to the corrupt collusion between big business and government and show why it needs to stop?

Meaning that it's silly to get caught up in a semantic minefield when you have real stuff to talk about. Let the pundits and the politicians give the stump speeches with all the stock phrases. The rest of us can just talk in plain English.

[Richard Groyper]

At least Art's seen the error of his ways with Trump.  I have to laugh at his only retort to Warren is to call her Pocahontas.  I can't wait until he's in a debate with Hillary.  Although I dislike Hill, I think Trump is just a buffoon.

Didn't Warren lie on her Harvard admission paperwork? Then, later on, she miss remembered that she 'identified' as a woman of color... (All 1/64th Native American, or something like that.) Kek!