DONALD J TRUMP

[RiverDog]

First, I think you underestimate the strategy which started by getting out of the multiple country trade agreements. What we couldn't produce, we'd get from Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Korea, etc. The trade with them would be much more fair than what we have with China and China is pissed at us and those other countries I mentioned. This is why they are trying to show their strength in the region - they are trying to scare those nations into doing what they want.

I thought that the object of the tariffs was to reduce our trade deficit overall and restore US jobs. How will moving production from China to SE Asia help achieve that goal?

Second, you are right - the cost of doing business in the U.S. was too high because of regulations which Trump has steadily removed and by charging too high a tax on repatriating the funds from overseas. Both those hurdles are gone and now there is just the labor costs which Trump is dealing with in the Tarriffs he has imposed. Fair trade is fair not biased against us.

No matter how successful he is, he's not going to be able to un-do the mountain of legislative action that's occurred over the past 40+ years that has steadily undermined US business, everything from the Endangered Species Act, OSHA, the Clean Air Act, increases in the minimum wage, etc. Those laws do not exist in 3rd world countries like China and SE Asia. And frankly, I'd rather keep many of those laws and let China and/or SE Asia have those menial factory jobs. With unemployment at near historic lows, we don't need those jobs.

Third, I too lived through the crap in the 70's which was largely sparked by OPEC raising oil prices - not because of tarriffs. Also, in the 70's if you didn't like the price of a coat or shoes, you had just a few stores you could go to and get a better deal. Today, you not only have the entire U.S. but many other countries that would gladly sell you those shoes at a cheaper price. Reebok is Korean, etc. So inflation won't be as big of a concern as you think it will (I know you are retired and on a relatively fixed budget but it won't be as bad as you think.)

The oil embargo was just one factor in the mess of the '70's. The economy itself was in recession due to adjusting to the post Vietnam War era. Inflation was being driven by higher wages, mostly due to COLA (cost of living adjustment) clauses in union contracts that thanks to Reagan, are a thing of the past.

Fourth, Trump is not as dumb as Jimmy Carter was. I know you don't like him but he understands how this all works together. Carter had no idea how to handle OPEC. Trump already has. We are now an energy exporting country and not dependent on the world oil like in Carter's days. The Argentina fiasco would normally have raised gas prices by dollars and not cents by now. Russia can't sell its oil on the market making huge gains anymore. The crown prince of Saudi Arabia wants to convert his country to a new economy not based on oil. They all know that the U.S. has the largest oil reserves in the world and that we have lowered our cost of production much quicker than Saudi could. with our demand off the market, economies are looking to change. We will only buy from other countries when the price is real low. So since we won't have energy dependence on other countries, it will be harder for outside infulences to effect our economy. Another thing Trump has positioned us for in the world economy.

OPEC isn't nearly the threat that it used to be as we have domestic production that didn't exist during the 70's. No one had ever heard of the word "fracking" and the first barrel of oil didn't start flowing out of the Alaska Pipeline until the late '70's. Besides, like I said, oil was just one component in the mess of the '70's, with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and unemployment approaching double digits. A lot of that wasn't Carter's fault, but he was a helpless invalent when it came to fixing it.

ONe thing I'd like to offer is that people think Trump is superficial and you might think this too. But what I'd like to point out is that he usually tweets, says something controversial or makes news in one area to distract the media from covering what he's really doing with the other hand. There's a reason you haven't heard a lot about the energy independence, repatriation of stranded U.S. earnings overseas, deregulation of industry, one on one trade agreements, and so much more. Instead you hear about Stormy Daniels, Robert Meuller, etc. Why would he ever want to fire Meuller when he's good for a 2 week news cycle anytime he wants. There's so much more I could say about the Mueller probe but it is off topic here and would probably cause S4E to have a coniption fit.

Surely you're not going to credit him for energy independence, are you?

Even though I have some significant differences with some of his initiatives..the tariffs being one, his immigration stance being another...I'm less bothered with Trump's politics than I am the man. I'll never vote for him because I think he's unfit to serve as the leader of 330 million people. I have very limited sympathy for his distractions, particularly Stormy Daniels. It was of his own doing, and represents a personality trait that I despise, ie that Trump is a spoiled rich kid.

[Aseahawkfan]

So as you can see, he's already close to that 20% number which is scarring the living chit out of the Dems right now. Let the unemployment rate continue to drop for them and their wages to continue to grow with immigration reform and he'll easily hit that number by 2020.

As I've told friends of African descent, the immigration problem hits them harder than it hits any other ethnic group. They are competing for the jobs being taken more than other groups. They live more often in communities overrun with illegal immigrants. Their voting influence and power as a minority group is being eroded by a growing Latin population that is not particularly friendly to their interests.

Nope, Growth rate. Here's a link to an article from CNN which is hardly a shill for Trump about all the great economic news and you probably saw the article from the NYT this past week that stated they have run out of ways to explain how good the economy is right now. http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/25/news/economy/jobs-wages-new-hires/?iid=EL

That article states wage growth rate, not GDP.

First quarters GDP is in. I think it was around 2.6%. It should go up as tax cuts set in. We'll see if we start reaching 4% GDP growth like the old days soon.

The Iraqi Push by Bush pretty much knocked Al Queda off the pages of the news but ISIS was front and center not only in Syria but also in Iraq. Now they are nowhere to be seen or heard of.

Trump won't have to engineer anyone, the democrats are going to give him Russia. Russia won't bite though because of what we did to those 200 Russian soldiers (mercenaries) in Syria. It was a real wakeup call to Russia.

The new enemy will be China who is militarizing the south China seas. They have taken the trade imbalance with us and created a formitable military.

It didn't have much to do with the trade imbalance. I'm not sure why you manufacture these narratives. They had power in that region prior. Neither China nor America have been willing to test it and likely won't. China is an extremely patient nation with no interest in dramatic or extreme moves. If we ever go to war with China (which is highly unlikely), then they will have planned it meticulously. They are playing the long game knowing that 1.4 billion people in a free market will allow them a level of power that they will never achieve militarily. China building up a military is merely them checking boxes to ensure that once everything is in place, they will be ready for flexing muscle should it be required.

Russia has no interest or capacity for war. They have nothing to galvanize their people and Syria won't be enough. At best it will be the usual games. Sure, the government might try to make Russia into a bigger boogeyman than they are as the Dems are doing trying to take down Trump. This Russia thing is the Dems biggest play. If they don't take midterm elections, the play is dead absent Mueller finding something better than paying off a pornstar.

I believe the threat they will build next is likely Iran or North Korea. They have leadership that makes for good villains, like a movie, even though neither nation has a real chance of attacking or harming us to any great degree without committing suicide.

[Aseahawkfan]

China is completely different than France or other western countries in that China has a completely managed economy whereby it takes a long term view and then uses every way possible to achieve the goals set in that view.
For instance their rules that state any planes (Airliners like Boeing or Airbus) that they sell to China have to have a factory set up in China to produce and then sell to them.
This does two things for them: 1) it establishes an industry that wasn't in place previously thereby costing jobs in the west and 2) permits them to take technological leaps forward that would otherwise take years or decades.
My personal viewpoint is this airline component was a militarily strategic move because they had problems building jet engines to work with their own advanced fighter planes. What happened? Suddenly jet engines with state of the art design are being built in China where their engineers can copy and use in their planes.
Trump talks about Aluminum and Steel being a national security issue with allies when in fact the security issue is the transfer of technology and advanced design to a hostile nation.

The same can be said for high tech. If you want to read about stealing technology, put Nortel and Huawei in your search engine. The articles suggest they basically stole the company and cost investors billions of dollars.
That type of theft can only be approved of from the top echelon of that government as their access outside of China is monitored and restricted.

Trade wars with countries that are your allies are not the way to go if you want to have solid long term relationships, but trade wars with countries that don't care about copyrights and patents may be necessary to protect industries
and jobs.

Yes. China is different. They are extreme in their pro-Chinese economic policies. We need to show some more backbone dealing with them.

Nations like France are not business friendly. They are very protectionist against foreign influence. They double tax dividends. Prop up their businesses with government subsidies. And generally act to protect domestic business. Yet no one calls them on it?

NAFTA was also very bad for American labor. Which is why Canada and Mexico aren't getting a pass.

[Aseahawkfan]

Another thoughtful post. Glad you joined in.

I'm too worried about a wage differential between trading partners. For example, in agriculture, we essentially import labor from Mexico to work in our fields, orchards, etc, which is causing a huge immigration/border security debate, so why not allow free trade of agricultural products between the US and Mexico and enhance their industry, thus lessening demand for agricultural workers north of the border? If they can make it cheaper there, then more power to them. It keeps our prices down.

Now if it's a situation where another country is abusing their workers by employing child labor, paying extremely low wagers, demanding excessively long hours, etc, things that an employer would not be allowed to do up here, that might change my opinion.

That is happening in places like Pakistan, China, Thailand, and other nations.

Do you know most of our memory chip production is in Thailand? When Thailand had a flood, memory chip prices rose dramatically because so much production is in that area. Thailand has child labor and child brothels. They are a center of sex slavery and poor labor laws, labor exploitation, and the like.

Do more reading on that.

[Aseahawkfan]

Coincidentally, I just stumbled across this in my morning reading:

"New tariffs intended to bolster the American steel and aluminum industries are starting to have the opposite effect in a key part of the U.S. supply chain."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/steel-tari ... 1527940800

Ugh.

[edit]

A good observation from a commenter:

Sure, that guy knows what's going on this early. Any pain at the moment is not any indication of the long-term plan. This is a negotiation ploy intended to force a better deal. If that happens, then it could be good for the U.S. economy.

Bunch of garbage attempting to determine this early how this strategy will work out.

Once again, I ask you, why are there so many limitations on what the United States can do in other markets, yet so few limitations on other nations here? Is it better to force negotiation from a position of strength or to wait until your economy is weak? We can afford some economic pain right now to ensure better long-term deals.

[Aseahawkfan]

LOL. No, asea, you're the only one that pays attention to such things.

Now tell everyone more about how trade wars are great things for us- seems like you have a great grasp of the complexities and history.

I already did state to you the effects of trade warring. Are you aware China has been warring against us for years using unfair currency manipulation tied to undercutting the U.S. Dollar to maintain their market as the cheapest producer of goods? Any rise in their currency due to the economic strength of the U.S. market has been offset by the government printing or manipulation currency to weaken the Chinese dollar.

Do you know that there are import limits on foreign vehicles in China? This is meant to ensure the domestic car market is extremely strong.

As Northhawk pointed out, Chinese stealing of technology has been extreme. They have been pirating from us for years.

You want to see an effective trade war, spend some time reading on what China has been doing to us. As I said, you're either not paying attention or don't know what a trade war is thinking it is only tariffs. It's about time an American president said, "You want to war? We'll war." You can say the same thing about Mexico. Fact is our government has been soft on foreign nations looking to do business here. It's about time someone started forcing better deals.

Tell Mexico to police it's borders better, then we don't have to do the job it should be doing.

The only good friends we have in trade are Canada and Britain, maybe Australia with a few smaller nations here and there.

[burrrton]

Are you aware China has been warring against us for years using unfair currency manipulation tied to undercutting the U.S. Dollar to maintain their market as the cheapest producer of goods?

Holy smokes- you really DO pay attention to this stuff, asea- how on earth you picked up on such an arcane nuance of the China-US trade balance I'll never know...

You want to see an effective trade war, spend some time reading on what China has been doing to us.

Yeah, it's really killing us, isn't it?

[RiverDog]

Do you know most of our memory chip production is in Thailand? When Thailand had a flood, memory chip prices rose dramatically because so much production is in that area. Thailand has child labor and child brothels. They are a center of sex slavery and poor labor laws, labor exploitation, and the like.

Do more reading on that.

If that can be proven to a certain degree of satisfaction, then of course, I'd support a trade ban.

[burrrton]

Do we have any experts here who can tell me if this is good or bad for us?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... trump-move

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/news/ec ... index.html

[RiverDog]

Do we have any experts here who can tell me if this is good or bad for us?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... trump-move

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/news/ec ... index.html

So you need one of us to tell you if it's good or bad for us?

Better get your money out of stocks, both international and domestic. Buy gold. We could be looking at several months worth of bear markets.

[Aseahawkfan]

Do we have any experts here who can tell me if this is good or bad for us?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... trump-move

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/news/ec ... index.html

We'll see if it's good or bad depending on the final deal struck. Opening shots by all sides. We'll see what the final negotiation looks like and who has the patience and economic strength to push their deal through.

You act like the tariff are some kind of final act set in stone by all sides. They aren't. They are part of the negotiation game.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, it's really killing us, isn't it?

Apparently you didn't notice that Trump was elected. It mattered to some key voters because China and other countries trade issues were really killing certain areas of the nation. Apparently they were areas you don't care much about, just like the Dems and other Republicans running for office that forgot these people as well that Trump used to push him into office.

Just because the economy is improving does not mean the negative impact on wages of globalization won't return. I love how we have good times and you just forget what kind of negative impact China's trade polices have had on American workers.

Your entire argument consists of pulling articles that have no concept of the overall play here to make some kind nebulous point. It makes me wonder if you even have a real education on economics or you just regurgitate the party line without really understanding the fundamental problems of our labor market and while real wages have been stagnant for years. Then again I have this same discussion with socialists that think they can fix things through taxation. Trump's plan to protect labor through negotiation of better deals is a sounder plan. Economic growth in China and other under-developed nations is supposed to balance currency and market values to make labor more competitive. If a nation like China is undercutting us by manipulating their currency to harm our labor market, that needs to be addressed. Unlike you, I don't believe that free trade absent reciprocation from competing economies is a good idea.

You seem to think "free trade no matter what" is great. Whereas I prefer free trade with equally open markets is more desirable as in China doesn't get to cut us off from its 1.4 billion consumers, while we give them open access to our 350 million consumers. China has to provide a more equal playing field or we have to punish them for not doing so.

Then again I am making good money off my Chinese stock. Even though you can't actually own a Chinese company, the paper game let's you exchange it as though you owned it. I was very reluctant to play in Chinese stocks because the Chinese government doesn't allow actual ownership. It's too hard to pass up the paper game of Chinese stocks. You can trade those little no actual value certificates for big gains.

[burrrton]

Apparently you didn't notice that Trump was elected.

My God, asea- you must be a voracious reader.

I guess trade wars are good after all. Thanks.

[burrrton]

Wooohooooo!

https://www.axios.com/europe-eu-tariffs ... 1a433.html

[RiverDog]

You act like the tariff are some kind of final act set in stone by all sides. They aren't. They are part of the negotiation game.

That is a good point. When are the negotiations scheduled to begin? He's taking on China, Mexico, Canada, and the EU. Is he negotiating with all of them at the same time?

There is no way that anyone can argue that these tariffs will have at least an initial negative effect on our economy and the prices we consumers will pay. Good, bad, or indifferent, we are dependent on imports for a good many of our consumables and in the absence of any equally priced domestic alternatives, the American consumer will be the ones paying these tariffs. Additionally, as we're already beginning to see, other countries will react by implementing their own tariffs, inhibititing growth.

Anybody seen the "now hiring" signs go out in front of the aluminum and steel mills in the rust belt? I haven't.

[burrrton]

Anybody seen the "now hiring" signs go out in front of the aluminum and steel mills in the rust belt? I haven't.

My mind drifts back to something I posted earlier:

" but at a certain point you’re just making everything more expensive. In the end, that’s a lot of economic pain for minimal, mostly symbolic, gain."

[RiverDog]

Here's an interesting article on the aluminum industry, particularly the two plants we have in WA that are both currently idle. Here's a snippet that demonstrates what I've been arguing:

In a business increasingly characterized by oversupply and narrowing profits, aluminum companies are reluctant to spend heavily on smelting in the United States, where rising costs for energy, labor and environmental regulation have further eroded profits.


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... rs-future/

Aluminum production consumes a huge amount of electricity. The only way they can make it is if the government, ie the BPA, subsidizes their rates, and with the drive towards green power showing no signs of letting up, the price of electricity will continue to dog the aluminum industry, tariffs or no tariffs.

The Wenatchee plant employed 428, Ferndale 583, or roughly 1,000 employees for two plants. Considering all that we're having to go through with these tariffs, that's not very many jobs. As a matter of fact, in 2006, nation wide there were just 41,000 people employed in the aluminum industry. By 2017, that number had dropped to 28,000, or a difference of just 13,000 jobs. Washington state alone has 375,000 jobs that are tied directly to foreign trade.

The quote that burrton cited is absouletly correct. The tariffs will cause one heck of a lot of pain and suffering for gains that are more symbolic (ie political, designed to win votes) than they are substansitive.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-office ... by-Exports

https://www.statista.com/statistics/209 ... -industry/

[idhawkman]

So you need one of us to tell you if it's good or bad for us?

Better get your money out of stocks, both international and domestic. Buy gold. We could be looking at several months worth of bear markets.

.... he says as the NASDAQ and S&P hit new all time highs...

[idhawkman]

That is a good point. When are the negotiations scheduled to begin? He's taking on China, Mexico, Canada, and the EU. Is he negotiating with all of them at the same time?

Riv,

You do know that is exactly what is happening right now, right? Trump works at business speed which means he's doing so many things at once that the normal media can't keep up. It is also why they think he is meeting with Kim Jong Un too soon but in Trump's timeline, he's moving cautiously. Right now he is playing dimensional chess and everyone else is playing marbles.

NOTE: I think the big blue wave hit a major barrier reef yesterday in the super primaries and especially in California.

[idhawkman]

I thought that the object of the tariffs was to reduce our trade deficit overall and restore US jobs. How will moving production from China to SE Asia help achieve that goal?

Riv, you gotta keep up here. There's other countries to get goods from while we build our factories back up. So "if" China tries to raise tarriffs on us or fight back, we have other markets to go to while we build our own factories.

No matter how successful he is, he's not going to be able to un-do the mountain of legislative action that's occurred over the past 40+ years that has steadily undermined US business, everything from the Endangered Species Act, OSHA, the Clean Air Act, increases in the minimum wage, etc. Those laws do not exist in 3rd world countries like China and SE Asia. And frankly, I'd rather keep many of those laws and let China and/or SE Asia have those menial factory jobs. With unemployment at near historic lows, we don't need those jobs.

Well he's currently deleting on average 23 regulations for every new one. So he might not wipe out 40+ years but the true power so far in this economy which has now created more jobs in the U.S. than people who are looking for jobs (first time in history), he will make a big dent.

The oil embargo was just one factor in the mess of the '70's. The economy itself was in recession due to adjusting to the post Vietnam War era. Inflation was being driven by higher wages, mostly due to COLA (cost of living adjustment) clauses in union contracts that thanks to Reagan, are a thing of the past.

So you are saying that Carter was a miserable failure to counter the impact of the drawdown to the Vietnam war and to understand the economy like Reagan did to get it on its feet again. Yep, I'll agree with that.

OPEC isn't nearly the threat that it used to be as we have domestic production that didn't exist during the 70's. No one had ever heard of the word "fracking" and the first barrel of oil didn't start flowing out of the Alaska Pipeline until the late '70's. Besides, like I said, oil was just one component in the mess of the '70's, with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and unemployment approaching double digits. A lot of that wasn't Carter's fault, but he was a helpless invalent when it came to fixing it.

The Alaskan pipeline was not what made us an energy exporter, it was Trump opening the Oil fields, Shell and the pipeline through deregulation not to mention the Coal industry again. Here again, Trump works on a multidimensonal basis to impact American lives. Remember, Obama restricted private oil drilling, the pipeline (Dakota), Coal and so much more.

Surely you're not going to credit him for energy independence, are you?

Absolutely I am. See above reasons and add to it our exporting natural gas which we really didn't do under Obama.

Even though I have some significant differences with some of his initiatives..the tariffs being one, his immigration stance being another...I'm less bothered with Trump's politics than I am the man. I'll never vote for him because I think he's unfit to serve as the leader of 330 million people. I have very limited sympathy for his distractions, particularly Stormy Daniels. It was of his own doing, and represents a personality trait that I despise, ie that Trump is a spoiled rich kid.

Fair enough but he has gotten the "NEW NORM ECONOMY" as stated by Obama to more closely look like the post WWII economy. BTW, were you just as appalled by JFK, LBJ, WJC, etc and their administrations?

[RiverDog]

Riv, you gotta keep up here. There's other countries to get goods from while we build our factories back up. So "if" China tries to raise tarriffs on us or fight back, we have other markets to go to while we build our own factories.

Build our own factories? Do you have any idea how long that's going to take? No one in their right mind is going to invest in plant and equipment j/b Trump slapped a tariff on a few counties that can be taken off as quickly as he put it on them. And which industries? Aluminum and the 13,000 jobs that were lost in the past 12 years? Do you think that's going to make up for the jobs we stand to lose if we engage in a full scale trade war?

Besides, there's talk in the Republican congress of passing legislation that would limit Trump's ability to impose tariffs:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/brea ... fs/472571/

With that kind of uncertainty, would you invest the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to build even a modest factory based on Trump's tariffs?

Well he's currently deleting on average 23 regulations for every new one. So he might not wipe out 40+ years but the true power so far in this economy which has now created more jobs in the U.S. than people who are looking for jobs (first time in history), he will make a big dent.

How's he doing at repealing the Endangered Species Act, or the Clean Air and Water Act? How's he doing at rolling back the minimum wage?

The Alaskan pipeline was not what made us an energy exporter, it was Trump opening the Oil fields, Shell and the pipeline through deregulation not to mention the Coal industry again. Here again, Trump works on a multidimensonal basis to impact American lives. Remember, Obama restricted private oil drilling, the pipeline (Dakota), Coal and so much more.

I never said the Alaska Pipeline is what turned us into an energy exporter. I said that it wasn't in service until the late 70's. You're putting words into my mouth. And just for your information, it wasn't just the increased production that turned us into an oil exporter. Our consumption has gone flat, thanks mainly to increased fuel efficiency of cars on the highway that started taking effect over a decade ago. Starting in 2007, consumption leveled off and actually declined in some years. It has yet to crack the 20M barrels a day that it hit in 2007.

The oil and gas fields of the Midwest hit their peak production in 2014. Granted, they are starting to crank it up in the last few years and some of that we can credit Trump for. But most of the recent increase in domestic production is due to the natural reaction to the increase in oil prices as our costly production methods require more revenue to offset operating expenses. But the production capacity existed many years earlier when Trump was busy banging pornstars.

Absolutely I am (giving Trump credit for our energy independence). See above reasons and add to it our exporting natural gas which we really didn't do under Obama.

Donald Trump has been in office for 16 months. He hasn't been there long enough to take credit for getting rid of the weeds in the White House lawn. As I demonstrated above, consumption has been flat or in decline for a decade and our oil producing capacity existed long before he took office. Neither Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Congress, or any other pol can be given credit for the energy turnaround. That goes to private industry, namely the oil and auto industries, for coming up with the technologies that made it possible.

BTW, were you just as appalled by JFK, LBJ, WJC, etc and their administrations?

JFK? How old do you think I am? I was born in 1954 and was 9 years old when Kennedy was shot. All I know is what I read in the history books.

I was extremely appalled at WJC. His interview just a few days ago reinforced my dislike for that lying sack of chit. But his adminstration really didn't do much one way or anther as for 6 of his 8 years, the R's controlled Congress, which pretty much thwarted his old lady's agenda. Besides, he really didn't have an agenda as he didn't have a political compass and instead would rely on opinion polls and focus groups to tell him which side of an issue to come down on.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I did not vote for Trump but neither did I vote for HRC, choosing to vote for the Libertarian candidate as a protest against both of the major party clowns. Since I started voting in 1972, I have never voted for a Dem for national office but will probably do so this November and for sure will vote for one (so long as it's not HRC) in 2020 for no other reason than to oppose Trump.

[burrrton]

The Alaskan pipeline was not what made us an energy exporter, it was Trump opening the Oil fields, Shell and the pipeline through deregulation not to mention the Coal industry again.

ID, I don't think:

1. That's what RD said

2. That Trump was even a candidate when we became energy exporters

I could be wrong. I'll review.

[Aseahawkfan]

ID, I don't think:

1. That's what RD said

2. That Trump was even a candidate when we became energy exporters

I could be wrong. I'll review.

I'm not sure why you are arguing facts with IDhawkman. Like Trump, they are not important to his belief system. He believes what he wishes finding facts that support his belief, ignoring those that clearly show he is wrong.

You don't have to look. We've been energy exporters because of shale oil. It was a big business cycle that crashed a while back when OPEC and Russia opened the oil floogates to drop the price because the United States shale production was taking a bite of their percentage of the oil market. It was their specific goal to lower the price of oil to a point that would severely lower oil production in the United States, slow down the adoption of natural gas as an alternative to oil so many companies were investing in, and generally kill the United States growing energy power.

You know, in one of those bad trade wars that never work. It seemed to work for Saudi Arabia, but doesn't apparently work for us according to you and Riverdog. I guess trade wars by other nations work, but not for the United States. So we should never bother to fight back against them when they do it to us because you know, they don't work.

If you were following the business news as you claim to do, then you should have known about the growing power of shale oil, the development of natural gas as an alternative as well as the infrastructure being put in place to make a NG alternative a reality, the building of LNG (liquid natural gas) exportation, and what measures Big Oil and OPEC took to halt/slowdown that movement. The basic story is as oil prices rise, shale oil production picks up, and we export more oil as well as companies starting to look for alternatives like natural gas. Pipelines do not make nations oil exporters, the market does that if you can supply it for a profit. Same as always.

The oil story is so big and varied that no one story can do it justice. There were so many companies involved and side stories that one story won't capture all that happened.

[Aseahawkfan]

That is a good point. When are the negotiations scheduled to begin? He's taking on China, Mexico, Canada, and the EU. Is he negotiating with all of them at the same time?

Do you really have to ask when you just answered your question?

There is no way that anyone can argue that these tariffs will have at least an initial negative effect on our economy and the prices we consumers will pay. Good, bad, or indifferent, we are dependent on imports for a good many of our consumables and in the absence of any equally priced domestic alternatives, the American consumer will be the ones paying these tariffs. Additionally, as we're already beginning to see, other countries will react by implementing their own tariffs, inhibititing growth.

Anybody seen the "now hiring" signs go out in front of the aluminum and steel mills in the rust belt? I haven't.

I'll ask this again, and you know the answer. Do you negotiate from a position of strength or a position of weakness? Do you think it would be better for us to wait for a Bear Market and a recession for negotiate with strength? Or do it while your economy is booming and you can take a little pain to force a better deal? Which way is smarter?

Wait and see the final deal before you knee jerk react. it's obvious you haven't been paying attention since you don't seem to know that other countries have already been erecting trade barriers using means such as currency manipulation, import limits, piracy, and other trade war methods. Yet here you are focusing on tariffs because you been asleep at the wheel as to why we have such poor trade imbalances with other nations, not paying attention to how they exploit us through these rotten trade deals.

What's next? You going to start telling me we need to let all the immigrants in with open borders, while, China, Canada, Europe, and Mexico screw us with more stringent immigration requirements because we're doing fine economically. You're assuming everything is hunky dory. I'm of the mind to push strong while we're strong to ensure better deals when things will inevitably fall apart again. It will happen. As is the case when things are bad, you don't have a good negotiating position.

[Aseahawkfan]

Here's an interesting article on the aluminum industry, particularly the two plants we have in WA that are both currently idle. Here's a snippet that demonstrates what I've been arguing:

In a business increasingly characterized by oversupply and narrowing profits, aluminum companies are reluctant to spend heavily on smelting in the United States, where rising costs for energy, labor and environmental regulation have further eroded profits.


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... rs-future/

Aluminum production consumes a huge amount of electricity. The only way they can make it is if the government, ie the BPA, subsidizes their rates, and with the drive towards green power showing no signs of letting up, the price of electricity will continue to dog the aluminum industry, tariffs or no tariffs.

The Wenatchee plant employed 428, Ferndale 583, or roughly 1,000 employees for two plants. Considering all that we're having to go through with these tariffs, that's not very many jobs. As a matter of fact, in 2006, nation wide there were just 41,000 people employed in the aluminum industry. By 2017, that number had dropped to 28,000, or a difference of just 13,000 jobs. Washington state alone has 375,000 jobs that are tied directly to foreign trade.

The quote that burrton cited is absouletly correct. The tariffs will cause one heck of a lot of pain and suffering for gains that are more symbolic (ie political, designed to win votes) than they are substansitive.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-office ... by-Exports

https://www.statista.com/statistics/209 ... -industry/

The Tariffs have been in place a month and you're posting this BS like you have enough evidence to support your opinion. Do you realize electricity prices in Washington are high period and many companies relying on electricity costs are moving to areas with lower costs like Oregon to lower the cost of energy. More than just aluminum plants. They are closing high electricity businesses in Washington and moving them elsewhere. If aluminum or steel production start again, it will not likely be in Washington, but in a place where they can find lower costs.

Washington State is becoming very unfriendly to business, especially Seattle. The rising costs of living, wages, and everything associated is making this a very unpleasant place to start and grow a business.

[Aseahawkfan]

I guess trade wars are good after all. Thanks.

I will decide when I see the final deal.

We've never stopped trade warring. For some reason you think trade wars involve only tariffs, you don't seem to follow the other ones that occur which I've pointed out to you and Riverdog. Neither of you pays attention until it's something you think is wrong, so you get on your high horses and pretend you really care or follow economic news.

Where were you when China was manipulating their currency to undercut us or try to change the price of oil from dollars to a different currency? Where were you when OPEC and Russia opened the oil floodgates to undercut American shale oil production to the tune of many bankruptcies, lost jobs, and the like when we were hurting? Where were you when China was making laws that restrict foreign ownership of Chinese companies and property, while China was buying up American companies, property, and pirating our technology? As well as engaging in nefarious activities like reverse-mergers to gain access to the American stock market without having to properly file for access to American capital markets? Where were you when Airbus was being subsidized against Boeing? Or Chinese backed companies were undercutting us for mineral rights in Afghanistan subsidized by their government? Or Europe allowing its drug companies to freely sell their drugs for any price in America, while forcing American drug companies to comply with their socialized medicine in Europe? Where were you when all these market inequalities driven by government interference that damage the market were occurring? Now that Trump is playing some hardball back, you got a problem. When other countries are bending us over, you got no problem. Unreal with you and Riverdog

Trade wars are occurring all the time if you're watching. Why you and Riverdog only see tariffs as a trade war, i do not know.

[idhawkman]

Build our own factories? Do you have any idea how long that's going to take? No one in their right mind is going to invest in plant and equipment j/b Trump slapped a tariff on a few counties that can be taken off as quickly as he put it on them.

totally not true. Remember that there's trillions of dollars coming back into the U.S. that was stranded overseas that will build those factories. Plus it isn't like they have to start from scratch, there's tons of factory shells that can be repurposed for quick production. The only thing the companies need is a pretty good idea that the regulations won't be reimposed the next couple of years.

And which industries? Aluminum and the 13,000 jobs that were lost in the past 12 years? Do you think that's going to make up for the jobs we stand to lose if we engage in a full scale trade war?

Besides, there's talk in the Republican congress of passing legislation that would limit Trump's ability to impose tariffs:

First we won't lose that many jobs over this. Its just not going to happen and even if we do, we currently have more job openings than we have people looking for jobs. First time in History that has happened. So not worried in the least at that.

Second, McConnell has already said that he won't bring that to the floor and that it is an idiot idea. So it won't get passed - that was just Corker blowing off steam because he was booed the other day in Tennessee (note: Corker isn't even running to keep his seat because he'd lose it he's so unpopular. He is credited with the cover for Obama doing the Iran Nuke Deal) Additionally, if they do by chance pass that bill and it does by chance get past the house, do you really think Trump will sign it into law? Ridiculous idea just as McConnell said.

With that kind of uncertainty, would you invest the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to build even a modest factory based on Trump's tariffs?

Do you think that uncertainty is worse than the uncertainty of what Trump will do to those companies if they build overseas?

How's he doing at repealing the Endangered Species Act, or the Clean Air and Water Act? How's he doing at rolling back the minimum wage?

Actually, he's gotten a lot of those ridiculous regs recinded. Just curious, did you know that the Tax cut bill included opening up ANWAR for drilling?

I never said the Alaska Pipeline is what turned us into an energy exporter. I said that it wasn't in service until the late 70's. You're putting words into my mouth.

I don't intend to put words in your mouth. It seemed like you were implying that the oil embargo was attributable to not having the Alaskan pipeline. No disrespect at all toward you.

And just for your information, it wasn't just the increased production that turned us into an oil exporter. Our consumption has gone flat, thanks mainly to increased fuel efficiency of cars on the highway that started taking effect over a decade ago. Starting in 2007, consumption leveled off and actually declined in some years. It has yet to crack the 20M barrels a day that it hit in 2007.

That's good to know. But if we haven't declined in our consumption (remained flat) why did we have to import energy before Trump while after Trump (16 months only) we are exporting it even though we are at the same consumption level?

The oil and gas fields of the Midwest hit their peak production in 2014. Granted, they are starting to crank it up in the last few years and some of that we can credit Trump for. But most of the recent increase in domestic production is due to the natural reaction to the increase in oil prices as our costly production methods require more revenue to offset operating expenses. But the production capacity existed many years earlier when Trump was busy banging pornstars.

1. The oil production didn't peak in 2014 as we were still drilling but capping the wells just waiting for oil prices to rise. This we agree on about not producing because of price, however, I think our costs have gone down as the oil industry has stated because they have much less regulation to deal with. This makes it easier for our oil producers to make a profit even at the lower oil prices.

2. I expect more from you than the "banging porn stars" comment when we are having a good discussion.

Donald Trump has been in office for 16 months. He hasn't been there long enough to take credit for getting rid of the weeds in the White House lawn. As I demonstrated above, consumption has been flat or in decline for a decade and our oil producing capacity existed long before he took office. Neither Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Congress, or any other pol can be given credit for the energy turnaround. That goes to private industry, namely the oil and auto industries, for coming up with the technologies that made it possible.

For normal politicians you are right, not long enough but Trump works at the speed of Trump. For an example of that speed, look no further than the move of the US Embassy in Israel, Desimation of ISIS, digging out the deep state, and so much more.

No, private industry was crippled by government regulations. You must know this if you did SWAT analysis in your business. Govt is always a big Threat to any industry or business.

JFK? How old do you think I am? I was born in 1954 and was 9 years old when Kennedy was shot. All I know is what I read in the history books.

Touche'. That said, what was your opinion of what you've read and is that Presidential behavior because I think womanizing has been more the norm for US presidents over the years than not.

I was extremely appalled at WJC. His interview just a few days ago reinforced my dislike for that lying sack of chit. But his adminstration really didn't do much one way or anther as for 6 of his 8 years, the R's controlled Congress, which pretty much thwarted his old lady's agenda. Besides, he really didn't have an agenda as he didn't have a political compass and instead would rely on opinion polls and focus groups to tell him which side of an issue to come down on.

Sorry Riv but I was in the govt in a very sensitive agency during his 1st term and in IT industry for the second term and he did unfathomable damage to the U.S. during his time. I'd love to go into depth on all the ways he undermined the US and how what he did is still having lingering effects on us all but it is too much to cover in a writing, nor would I want to put it in writing what he did.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I did not vote for Trump but neither did I vote for HRC, choosing to vote for the Libertarian candidate as a protest against both of the major party clowns. Since I started voting in 1972, I have never voted for a Dem for national office but will probably do so this November and for sure will vote for one (so long as it's not HRC) in 2020 for no other reason than to oppose Trump.

So you are the resist party now? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[RiverDog]

totally not true. Remember that there's trillions of dollars coming back into the U.S. that was stranded overseas that will build those factories. Plus it isn't like they have to start from scratch, there's tons of factory shells that can be repurposed for quick production. The only thing the companies need is a pretty good idea that the regulations won't be reimposed the next couple of years.

Link?

First we won't lose that many jobs over this. Its just not going to happen and even if we do, we currently have more job openings than we have people looking for jobs. First time in History that has happened. So not worried in the least at that.

I disagree completely. In WA alone, we have 375K jobs that are directly tied to export business:

In 2016, Washington exported $79.6 billion of Made-in-America goods to the world, which supported an estimated 375 thousand jobs.

Lose just 5% of those jobs due to a trade war, and that's nearly 19k jobs, far more than the 12k that the aluminum industry lost NATION WIDE to foreign imports.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-office ... by-Exports

Second, McConnell has already said that he won't bring that to the floor and that it is an idiot idea. So it won't get passed - that was just Corker blowing off steam because he was booed the other day in Tennessee (note: Corker isn't even running to keep his seat because he'd lose it he's so unpopular. He is credited with the cover for Obama doing the Iran Nuke Deal) Additionally, if they do by chance pass that bill and it does by chance get past the house, do you really think Trump will sign it into law? Ridiculous idea just as McConnell said.

So what happens if the Dems win back the Senate? If there's opposition to Trump's tariffs within his own party, just think how a Democratic Senate will react. Besides, I wasn't arguing whether or not Corker would get his initiative passed. The reason I posted it was to demonstrate just how fragile Trump's tariffs are, and if there's one thing that the markets and the bean counters that lend the money don't like, it's uncertainty.

I don't intend to put words in your mouth. It seemed like you were implying that the oil embargo was attributable to not having the Alaskan pipeline. No disrespect at all toward you.

The oil embargo was imposed by OPEC. The fact that we did not have enough production capacity is why the embargo was successful in bringing this country to its knees, and the fact that the pipeline didn't come online until the late 70's means that it was not part of infrastructure that exists today that helps make us less dependent on foreign oil than we were in the 70's. That was the point I was trying to make.

That's (domestic production/consumption) good to know. But if we haven't declined in our consumption (remained flat) why did we have to import energy before Trump while after Trump (16 months only) we are exporting it even though we are at the same consumption level?

I can't answer that. But if I were to guess, it would be that domestic production can't ramp up that quickly. It's not like turning on a faucet and oil comes out. Fracking is a very complicated and expensive process. I have friends that left their jobs 5 years ago to take jobs in the North Dakota oil fields and a year or two later had gotten laid off because the price of oil had dropped and came back home looking for work.

1. The oil production didn't peak in 2014 as we were still drilling but capping the wells just waiting for oil prices to rise. This we agree on about not producing because of price, however, I think our costs have gone down as the oil industry has stated because they have much less regulation to deal with. This makes it easier for our oil producers to make a profit even at the lower oil prices.

Link?

2. I expect more from you than the "banging porn stars" comment when we are having a good discussion.

I didn't realize that you had that much reverence for Trump as the vast majority of my male friends would have laughed at that remark. I guess I should have figured it out as you have yet to do nothing but praise DJT. But now that I know, I apologize and will refrain from using such graphic examples in your presence.

For normal politicians you are right, not long enough but Trump works at the speed of Trump. For an example of that speed, look no further than the move of the US Embassy in Israel, Desimation of ISIS, digging out the deep state, and so much more.

That stuff is a lot different than the economic discussion we were having. It takes much, much longer for economic policies to have a noticeable effect. And ISIS was on the run before Trump took office.

Touche'. That said, what was your opinion of what you've read (about JFK) and is that Presidential behavior because I think womanizing has been more the norm for US presidents over the years than not.

JFK operated under a different set of standards, so comparing his escapades to Trump, Slick Willy, or any of the other millennial personalities is like comparing apples to oranges. IMO JFK was a so-so POTUS and achieved most of his status due to the fact that he died in office and somewhat as a martyr. LBJ's Great Society programs is the main reason why we have such large budget deficits

Sorry Riv but I was in the govt in a very sensitive agency during his 1st term and in IT industry for the second term and he did unfathomable damage to the U.S. during his time. I'd love to go into depth on all the ways he undermined the US and how what he did is still having lingering effects on us all but it is too much to cover in a writing, nor would I want to put it in writing what he did.

I don't doubt it.

So you are the resist party now? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Only as it applies to Trump.

[idhawkman]

I wanted to clear up an earlier post where someone (I think it was ASEA) who questioned the 4% GDP growth. Here's a Reuter's article with one of the Fed's projections of 4.7% for Q2.

Atlanta Fed upgrades U.S. second quarter GDP view to 4.7 percent (dated May 31 2018)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-atlantafed/atlanta-fed-upgrades-us-second-quarter-gdp-view-to-47-percent-idUSKCN1IW2EH

[idhawkman]

Link?

http://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/us-dollar-to-get-boost-from-repatriation-baml-says-2018-4-1020605072

I disagree completely. In WA alone, we have 375K jobs that are directly tied to export business:

In 2016, Washington exported $79.6 billion of Made-in-America goods to the world, which supported an estimated 375 thousand jobs.

Lose just 5% of those jobs due to a trade war, and that's nearly 19k jobs, far more than the 12k that the aluminum industry lost NATION WIDE to foreign imports.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-office ... by-Exports

The United States has the world's largest trade deficit. It's been that way since 1975. The deficit in goods and services was $566 billion in 2017. Imports were $2.895 trillion and exports were only $2.329 trillion. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264
So given this information, how many more jobs could we create with the $566B that would stay here in addition to the jobs created with the Repatriated $3.5T? I think we win hands down on any of these trade wars.

So what happens if the Dems win back the Senate? If there's opposition to Trump's tariffs within his own party, just think how a Democratic Senate will react. Besides, I wasn't arguing whether or not Corker would get his initiative passed. The reason I posted it was to demonstrate just how fragile Trump's tariffs are, and if there's one thing that the markets and the bean counters that lend the money don't like, it's uncertainty.

Nothing will happen even if the dems take back the senate - Trump would never sign it so it would be an exercise in futility which Trump will certainly point out and hang around Shumer's neck saying, "they only pass what has no chance of being signed into law".

1. The oil production didn't peak in 2014 as we were still drilling but capping the wells just waiting for oil prices to rise. This we agree on about not producing because of price, however, I think our costs have gone down as the oil industry has stated because they have much less regulation to deal with. This makes it easier for our oil producers to make a profit even at the lower oil prices.

Link?

No link - it was on the TV where one of the financial channels was interviewing one of the big oil company's CEOs. This is why I state, "I think..." because I have no link to actually show it. Just a report I saw.

I didn't realize that you had that much reverence for Trump as the vast majority of my male friends would have laughed at that remark. I guess I should have figured it out as you have yet to do nothing but praise DJT. But now that I know, I apologize and will refrain from using such graphic examples in your presence.

I can joke with the best but I just didn't see it as helpful for the discussion we were having. I didn't mind you saying it and did smirk a bit when I saw it but I didn't think it was helpful in the context of the discussion we are having. That's all.

That stuff is a lot different than the economic discussion we were having. It takes much, much longer for economic policies to have a noticeable effect. And ISIS was on the run before Trump took office.

On this we disagree. For normal politicians I would agree but not in this instance. Now I do think the economy was ripe for the picking but without the deregulation it would have kept crawling along and under Hillary it still wouldn't be at 2% let alone the 4% growth it is.

JFK operated under a different set of standards, so comparing his escapades to Trump, Slick Willy, or any of the other millennial personalities is like comparing apples to oranges. IMO JFK was a so-so POTUS and achieved most of his status due to the fact that he died in office and somewhat as a martyr. LBJ's Great Society programs is the main reason why we have such large budget deficits

I don't want to put words in your mouth so I want to clarify, you think the standards for JFK were more liberal than for Clinton?

Only as it applies to Trump.

Too bad for the country and the opportunities to move forward.

[burrrton]

Someone linked this on social media- I wish we could have Milton Friedman's head in a jar to keep educating people, Simpsons style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3ruapRQZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqG6OurHaM

(I'll add: I'd love everyone to note how the second link illustrates how debate *should* take place)

[Aseahawkfan]

I wanted to clear up an earlier post where someone (I think it was ASEA) who questioned the 4% GDP growth. Here's a Reuter's article with one of the Fed's projections of 4.7% for Q2.

Atlanta Fed upgrades U.S. second quarter GDP view to 4.7 percent (dated May 31 2018)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-atlantafed/atlanta-fed-upgrades-us-second-quarter-gdp-view-to-47-percent-idUSKCN1IW2EH

This is not a final number. And Atlanta's number is on the high end of predictions. There is wide speculation. We'll see what the final number is soon enough. Q2 ends June 30th. So we're not there yet, thus you were not stating fact. First quarter GDP was mid 2%. I'll happily welcome 4% if we get there as it will be good for investments. I will wait for a number before I assume 4% growth has been attained. You are jumping the gun as we have not reached 4% growth yet as you stated.

[Aseahawkfan]

Riverdog,

You can find news on companies repatriating money held overseas due to the new tax rate. That was widely spread news in the financial community. Not sure how much, but it is in the hundreds of billions range at least, possibly trillions. You can look up articles all over the place on that. It should lead to increased tax revenues if companies no longer keep money overseas to protect it from U.S. tax rates. This was a common practice by multinational corporations funneling money into offshore accounts. Not sure they still won't funnel money offshore, but at least they will be more likely to bring the money into the United States given they won't be punished as badly, even if it is only to avoid bad press.

[Aseahawkfan]

Someone linked this on social media- I wish we could have Milton Friedman's head in a jar to keep educating people, Simpsons style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3ruapRQZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqG6OurHaM

(I'll add: I'd love everyone to note how the second link illustrates how debate *should* take place)

It would be better if you could teach Friedman's head to speak other languages and convince them free trade is good, then maybe we would have free trade rather than the United States engaged in free trade, while the rest of the world protects their markets and workers by blocking us as well as exploiting cheap labor to their advantage to undercut us.

This is so out of touch with our modern reality that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. I should have known you were a Friedman conservative not keeping up with the modern realities of trade. You have no idea what China or Europe are doing to make trade unfair with us do you? You have absolutely not clue as to the modern realities of trade post-Cold War and the establishment of capitalism in China? Wow. I'm always astounded by those that pull out the old information like it is applicable to modern day trade.

Friedman's theories are sound. As usual with Friedman, it all sounds so reasonable and great. Yet where does he address a nation like China that takes advantage of the United States free trade laws, while putting up barriers to trade to protect their nation? Or economies like you find in Europe that double tax dividends while having unfettered access to our investment markets as well as open, unregulated prices their companies can sell goods in while they heavily regulate and punish United States companies? Are you truly so out of touch with the current state of international trade that you think we are engaged in free trade in the global market?

Wow. Unbelievably uninformed as to the modern state of trade. I always knew you were a textbook conservative rather than an actual engaged, informed and active conservative. Tossing out Friedman as though that applies to our situation with Europe and China. You truly need to read up on the state of medical technology, import limitations, currency manipulation, access to capital markets, and the kind of barriers the United States deals with in international trade that Trump is trying to force down. Trump is a believer in Free Trade. He seems to be the mind, and correctly in this situation, that we do not have free trade, we have a bunch of countries taking advantage of our open economic environment while they erect barriers to our business people.

[idhawkman]

I wanted to clear up an earlier post where someone (I think it was ASEA) who questioned the 4% GDP growth. Here's a Reuter's article with one of the Fed's projections of 4.7% for Q2.

Atlanta Fed upgrades U.S. second quarter GDP view to 4.7 percent (dated May 31 2018)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-atlantafed/atlanta-fed-upgrades-us-second-quarter-gdp-view-to-47-percent-idUSKCN1IW2EH

This is not a final number. And Atlanta's number is on the high end of predictions. There is wide speculation. We'll see what the final number is soon enough. Q2 ends June 30th. So we're not there yet, thus you were not stating fact. First quarter GDP was mid 2%. I'll happily welcome 4% if we get there as it will be good for investments. I will wait for a number before I assume 4% growth has been attained. You are jumping the gun as we have not reached 4% growth yet as you stated.

Yes, of course its not a final number since we are talking about the election of 2020 and the reasons why Trump will be reelected. I'm not sure why you think the economy we have now before the tax reforms, real wage increases, deregulation and repatriation of foreign dollars takes effect will be the economy we have in 2020.

[burrrton]

It would be better if you could teach Friedman's head to speak other languages and convince them free trade is good, then maybe we would have free trade rather than the United States engaged in free trade, while the rest of the world protects their markets and workers by blocking us as well as exploiting cheap labor to their advantage to undercut us.

No, and he explains why if you'd do more listening and reading rather than regurgitating "BUT CHINA!" over and over.

Friedman's theories are sound.

No sh*t?

I always knew you were a textbook conservative rather than an actual engaged, informed and active conservative.

1. Use the Oxford comma (pet peeve).

2. Your definition of "informed" is "agrees with me".

[edit]

Now is a good time to make clear I acknowledge there are gray areas in complex matters like global trade, so I'm not an absolutist- it just seems clear that Trump knows nothing of those gray areas and instead looks at every dollar going to another country as a 'loss' to the US, which is a positively infantile assessment IMO.

[NorthHawk]

Friedman's theories like all economic theories has it's faults.
One of the major ones is his belief that the markets if left alone will always work out for the best.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account human nature such as greed or malice whereby players in the market become disruptive forces.
He postulated that those would be weeded out by the market in general, but that would be in a perfect world.

Regarding Trump and international trade, one big concern is he seems to see trade as a winner take all scenario.
That can't work long term as those on the losing end of the deal would have less money to buy goods produced by the trade winner.

[idhawkman]

Friedman's theories like all economic theories has it's faults.
One of the major ones is his belief that the markets if left alone will always work out for the best.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account human nature such as greed or malice whereby players in the market become disruptive forces.
He postulated that those would be weeded out by the market in general, but that would be in a perfect world.

Regarding Trump and international trade, one big concern is he seems to see trade as a winner take all scenario.
That can't work long term as those on the losing end of the deal would have less money to buy goods produced by the trade winner.

Well it seems the US has been on the losing end since 1975 so I don't see where he thinks winner takes all. He's now just trying to reduce the imbalance of trade not win it.

[NorthHawk]

Your statistics with the largest trading partner are mistaken.
Trade with China is a whole different situation, but he has to tread lightly with them if he wants to ensure the employees of ZTE keep their jobs.

[RiverDog]

You know, in one of those bad trade wars that never work. It seemed to work for Saudi Arabia, but doesn't apparently work for us according to you and Riverdog. I guess trade wars by other nations work, but not for the United States. So we should never bother to fight back against them when they do it to us because you know, they don't work.

You're comparing apples and oranges when you compare the USA to Saudi Arabia. Unlike us, they have a virtually unlimited quantity of cheap to mine crude oil and until recently, had virtually a monopoly on the market. Additionally, unlike us, Saudi Arabia is governed by a monarchy. They can wait out a trade war because they don't have to worry about being held accountable for their economy. In the USA, if the economy turns south, especially in an election year, the natives would get extremely restless if prices/inflation started going up due to a trade war. That's why so many Republicans are shaking in their boots due to Trump's protectionism as they know that good, bad, or indifferent that in another 5 months that they're going to have to run on the economy. The Saudi's monarchy has a huge advantage over a democratic form of government when it comes to trade wars.

No one said that we should never 'fight back', at least not me. But we need to pick our fights and weigh the consequences of a trade war vs. the potential benefits. I can't see where the relatively miniscule gains we stand to benefit would outweigh what we'd have to suffer as consequences in this course of protectionism that Trump has chosen to embark on.

Besides, in the case of our allies, what we do in trade may have unintended consequences with our military and security issues as it's bound to affect their cooperation. I'm concerned with this very caustic rhetoric that Trump has engaged in with our friends.

If you were following the business news as you claim to do, then you should have known about the growing power of shale oil, the development of natural gas as an alternative as well as the infrastructure being put in place to make a NG alternative a reality, the building of LNG (liquid natural gas) exportation, and what measures Big Oil and OPEC took to halt/slowdown that movement. The basic story is as oil prices rise, shale oil production picks up, and we export more oil as well as companies starting to look for alternatives like natural gas. Pipelines do not make nations oil exporters, the market does that if you can supply it for a profit. Same as always.

You're both right and wrong regarding pipelines. Having a resource is useless unless you have the means for a cost efficient system to transport it to market. You need both in order to be an exporter, but obviously, the production means comes first, which I think is what your point was. We didn't need a pipeline as most was/is being transported to the refineries by rail. Having a pipeline makes it safer and more efficient than rail. A network of pipelines will help make the domestic oil derived from shale more competitive with imported crude so they don't need such high prices to offset their expenses as the do now.

There is a lot going on in the energy field. One thing that you did not mention is the increasing viability of electric cars.

The oil story is so big and varied that no one story can do it justice. There were so many companies involved and side stories that one story won't capture all that happened.

True.