China Trade deserves its own thread

HelmetBoy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 31, 2009
11,110
42,854
0
Maybe you're right. I used to think so. But now, with the caveat of very good suggestions made regarding Trump needs to honestly tell the American people what's going on is a economic war with China, I think now that Trump is actually right. Though if he would come out and in a major statement longer than a ****ing tweet explain exactly what's going on instead of making tweets like a ten year old, it would make me feel better that he knows what he's doing.

This opinion https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/christian-whiton-chinas-xi-looks-increasingly-dazed-and-confused-could-hong-kong-win-this-showdown (gasp it's on Fox news website , so many will automatically discount it, but I judge by the content and logic, not the website it comes from. I may end up wrong, but it's an independent assessment of my own.) argues that the tariffs on China not as large a portion of our economy as many fear. He also disagrees with Paul Krugman's position about the U.S. ability to hurt China and Xi's control. I automatically give credence to anyone who disagrees with Krugman , an economist who had one good insight that won him a Nobel Prize, and now thinks he's a lot smarter than anyone who disagrees with him. Now, he's simply a partisan hack, pretending to be an economist...in my opinion.

Are the tariffs actually hurting the overall American economy.? In some areas of the economy like agriculture and steel pipe, they're hurting a lot. But the overall pain is many orders of magnitude less than a real shooting war, and they seem like they are effective...judging by the economic downturn in China. Will it cause a recession here? Maybe. But it will be more due to perception than reality. The only thing I really fear about tatleast a normal recession is the Democrats coming into power and totally ****ing us up to whee the result will be far worse than a recession. Most recessions really aren't that bad, and all of them historically have had long term beneficial effects, setting the stage for future growth. We're all burned by the "Great Recession though, but even there, where are we now compared to ten years ago? And it doesn't have to be a repeat of the Great Recession if Washington doesn't **** up. The underlying fundamentals of the economy are much better now. But I'm straying. My opinion remains the same though that we are in an economic war, and if Trump and a Senate majority can survive the 2020 election, we'll win it. If not, then we have much worse things than a recession ahead of us.

PS. You've known my positions since long before Trump was elected, and maybe you've read some of my posts here. It's really insultingly stupid of you to call me Team Trumper. **** that ****, off that pisses me.
1) No, I'm not reading a Fox News opinion column. I know you'll find some article out there on the Internet that supports what you want to believe. I'll just take your word for it.
2) Yes, the tariffs are actually hurting the overall American economy
3) No, the decline in macro indicators like manufacturing activity and business investment and the increasing probability of a near-term recession are not "perception"
4) LOL at "Well, most recessions really aren't THAT bad anyway" (we'll probably hear Wilbur Ross or Peter Navarro say this exactly on CNBC at some point)
5) It is disingenuous and a false choice to assert that America's policy options to combat China's mercantilism are either scorched earth unilateral tariffs or a shooting war
6) I have no idea what your positions are. I haven't posted on this board in many months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J Galt

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,712
282,933
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
LMAO. Who do you think is going to outlast whom? The totalitarian regime with a newly minted president-for-life that runs a command economy and artificially controls employment levels and corporate profits as a core competency or the democratically elected leader with a fully-transparent market economy who has to face the voters a year from now?
The nuts and bolts of it right there, it’s the same situation with North Korea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
1) No, I'm not reading a Fox News opinion column. I know you'll find some article out there on the Internet that supports what you want to believe. I'll just take your word for it.
2) Yes, the tariffs are actually hurting the overall American economy
3) No, the decline in macro indicators like manufacturing activity and business investment and the increasing probability of a near-term recession are not "perception"
4) LOL at "Well, most recessions really aren't THAT bad anyway" (we'll probably hear Wilbur Ross or Peter Navarro say this exactly on CNBC at some point)
5) It is disingenuous and a false choice to assert that America's policy options to combat China's mercantilism are either scorched earth unilateral tariffs or a shooting war
6) I have no idea what your positions are. I haven't posted on this board in many months.
6)I wasn't solely referring to this board, but maybe you're memory is short. You read this whole thread and see what some of my former positions on Trump and the China tariffs were, but frankly I don't give a damn if you do or don't.
5) I said it was an opinion, yours is different. Fine
4)Whatever
3)data?
2)data?
1) OK you have a completely closed mind so there's no reason for me to engage in further discussion with you. Never mind 2) and 3), as it would be too much trouble for you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
The nuts and bolts of it right there, it’s the same situation with North Korea.
Maybe. But while XI is very powerful, China is an oligarchy within the communist Party and neither he nor the Party are immune to dissension from within and even outside the Party. Quite a different case than North Korea. At least that's my analysis. But unlike many here, I'll admit I could and can be wrong. I now believe I was originally wrong about the Chinese tariffs
 

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,794
4,316
0
6)I wasn't solely referring to this board, but maybe you're memory is short. You read this whole thread and see what some of my former positions on Trump and the China tariffs were, but frankly I don't give a damn if you do or don't.
5) I said it was an opinion, yours is different. Fine
4)Whatever
3)data?
2)data?
1) OK you have a completely closed mind so there's no reason for me to engage in further discussion with you. Never mind 2) and 3), as it would be too much trouble for you.
Don’t be stubborn, @HelmetBoy actually knows what he is talking about.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
I used to think so.
Don’t be stubborn, @HelmetBoy actually knows what he is talking about.
He's not completely wrong in my opinion. But we are where we are, and a lot is locked in now. The boat has pretty much sailed on most of solutions he recommends.

He's forgotten me but I've followed his posts here and elsewhere for a long time and usually agreed. But evidently, from his response, he's certain he's the smartest, most knowledgeable guy in the room, and is unwilling to even consider alternative points of view. Now that I think about it, he's always been that way, but since I usually agreed with him, I didn't really notice. Oh well.

I know he's better versed than me overall in this subject, but so what? No one is always right. We would all do well to remember that. Here's another opinion piece where the author backs Trump on this now. https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/chinas-xi-to-trump-help-us-save-face/ Again, it's a conservative source, but where do you expect to find an opinion at all favorable to Trump? Vox? The Atlantic? Rolling Stone? The source should be kept in mind of course, because there's bias everywhere, but it's foolish to say, I won't consider that because of the source without even looking. Anyone is welcome to do that and ignore that I thought it had some merit, but why bother to quibble with me then? Just don't respond to me if you don't care to be civil.

Anyway, new data and examination of other views have made me reconsider my original position of the China tariffs. Far from being stubborn, unlike many people, I'm fully capable of changing my mind, though I freely admit my new view could be largely wrong.

Maybe because of my scientific background, I'm used to the consideration of "multiple working hypotheses". That's a big part of the way science is supposed to work. One continues to explore them and some gain credence and some lose their potential. Even the best scientists change their mind sometimes as new information presents itself, and sometimes, surprisingly, we find that the original hypothesis may indeed have been correct. A good example is Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" which, after Hubble demonstrated the expansion of the Universe, Einstein called his "greatest blunder". Well, now based on new information and analysis, it looks like he may have been right in the first place. https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html If Einstein could change his mind, and then later have it demonstrated that he was probably correct in the first place, I can certainly change my mind, but I admit I could be wrong now. I thinks it's instructive when someone even refuses to consider a different view as time passes and new information becomes available. It's instructive, I think, in that they probably really aren't the "smartest guy in the room", even if they have expert knowledge in the field.
 
Last edited:

J Galt

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 9, 2012
4,319
13,174
0
37
Lake Highlands, Dallas
The problem with the tax cut as relates to the economy is that it largely benefited the already-rich. Giving the rich more money doesn't result in a significant increase in consumer spending (as they're already buying everything they need and pretty much have what they want), and consumer spending is what drives our economy. If you want to increase consumer spending, give the tax cut/money to the people who don't have enough and who will spend it when they get it.
Great prospect but most of the taxes are paid by the rich. "the people who don't have enough and who will spend it" don't pay much of anything in taxes. Unless you're talking about a payroll tax reduction which I think would be a great idea. But good luck sailing that proposition through a Dem house that will say you're trying to cut SS, Medicare/Medicaid.

One of my favorite things about the Trump presidency is how Trump makes his spokespeople crawl out on long limbs defending his policies before he abruptly reverses course and saws them off.

World-class economics dunce and top trade advisor to the president Peter Navarro was on CNBC yesterday talking about how AMERICAN CONSUMERS DO NOT PAY FOR TARIFFS GODDAMMIT....right before the White House delayed implementation of the September tariffs for the (*checks notes*) Christmas shopping season. Navarro went on to call the reversal Trump's "Christmas present to the nation". So Trump saved Christmas everybody!

Anyway, the yield curve inverted this week which is one of the best leading indicators of a recession we have. Bet you a dollar the country enters recession before Nov 3rd next year.
Yield curve inversions have predicted 7 of the last 5 recessions. It's an indicator but not the only one. Of note, the price of oil has doubled in the 12 months preceding the last 5 recessions. Currently oil is down double digits over the trailing 12 months. Do we ignore that indicator? My point is not that recession probabilities aren't increasing (they most certainly are) only that one indicator that has previously shown false positives isn't the standard here.

The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator Index is the better indicator which takes into account 10 components ranging from financial market signals to manufacturing data to employment data to consumer data. We've never had a recession until the LEI has turned negative and it's never given a false positive. The market signals are flashing red/orange. The manufacturing data domestically is flashing orange/yellow (globally red). But the employment and consumer data is still reasonably strong. The index has a whole is softening but still positive. Tough to have a recession if the consumers (70% of the economy) are still doing their part. We'll see. If we start seeing layoffs, then we'll know.

I wish he would admit the economic reality of tariffs being paid by consumers while making the case it’s necessary, in his point of view, that we do so.

He should have said trade wars are not easy to win, especially with China, but we’ll do so if we stick together. “The strong economy compared to China gives us flexibility and if we don’t do this now we never will.”

That would make it easier to block out the noise from the progressives who are fine with getting bent over by everyone in the world.
Would have been truer messaging but not his style.
 
Last edited:

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,794
4,316
0
I used to think so.

He's not completely wrong in my opinion. But we are where we are, and a lot is locked in now. The boat has pretty much sailed on most of solutions he recommends.

He's forgotten me but I've followed his posts here and elsewhere for a long time and usually agreed. But evidently, from his response, he's certain he's the smartest, most knowledgeable guy in the room, and is unwilling to even consider alternative points of view. Now that I think about it, he's always been that way, but since I usually agreed with him, I didn't really notice. Oh well.

I know he's better versed than me overall in this subject, but so what? No one is always right. We would all do well to remember that. Here's another opinion piece where the author backs Trump on this now. https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/chinas-xi-to-trump-help-us-save-face/ Again, it's a conservative source, but where do you expect to find an opinion at all favorable to Trump? Vox? The Atlantic? Rolling Stone? The source should be kept in mind of course, because there's bias everywhere, but it's foolish to say, I won't consider that because of the source without even looking. Anyone is welcome to do that and ignore that I thought it had some merit, but why bother to quibble with me then? Just don't respond to me if you don't care to be civil.

Anyway, new data and examination of other views have made me reconsider my original position of the China tariffs. Far from being stubborn, unlike many people, I'm fully capable of changing my mind, though I freely admit my new view could be largely wrong.

Maybe because of my scientific background, I'm used to the consideration of "multiple working hypotheses". That's a big part of the way science is supposed to work. One continues to explore them and some gain credence and some lose their potential. Even the best scientists change their mind sometimes as new information presents itself, and sometimes, surprisingly, we find that the original hypothesis may indeed have been correct. A good example is Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" which, after Hubble demonstrated the expansion of the Universe, Einstein called his "greatest blunder". Well, now based on new information and analysis, it looks like he may have been right in the first place. https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html If Einstein could change his mind, and then later have it demonstrated that he was probably correct in the first place, I can certainly change my mind, but I admit I could be wrong now. I thinks it's instructive when someone even refuses to consider a different view as time passes and new information becomes available. It's instructive, I think, in that they probably really aren't the "smartest guy in the room", even if they have expert knowledge in the field.
If you view the tariffs as a pre cursor to war, hot or cold, then they make perfect sense. What does a few dollars wasted in market inefficiency matter when looking at it through the prism of National security. I’m no expert when it comes to that
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

J Galt

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 9, 2012
4,319
13,174
0
37
Lake Highlands, Dallas
If you view the tariffs as a pre cursor to war, hot or cold, then they make perfect sense. What does a few dollars wasted in market inefficiency matter when looking at it through the prism of National security. I’m no expert when it comes to that
Tariffs were always a bad tactic in my opinion. But malignant narcissists don't build coalitions; they come in hot.
 

HelmetBoy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 31, 2009
11,110
42,854
0
6)I wasn't solely referring to this board, but maybe you're memory is short. You read this whole thread and see what some of my former positions on Trump and the China tariffs were, but frankly I don't give a damn if you do or don't.
Nothing says I'm an independent thinker and I'm definitely not a Team Trumper than "consider this opinion piece from the administration's de facto propaganda arm that seems to support the President's policies"

5) I said it was an opinion, yours is different. Fine
Your opinion is that the only policy tools available to the US to curb Chinese trade abuses are tariff escalations and shooting wars? Because that's what you just said.

3)data? https://www.bea.gov/
2)data? https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml (see MD&A of companies in the manufacturing, aerospace & defense, auto, construction and technology industries)
1) OK you have a completely closed mind so there's no reason for me to engage in further discussion with you. Never mind 2) and 3), as it would be too much trouble for you.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

HelmetBoy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 31, 2009
11,110
42,854
0
Don’t be stubborn, @HelmetBoy actually knows what he is talking about.
Aren't you the Catholic conservative guy? Boy, your faction has whipped up quite the intramural fight with the First Things crowd waging a broadside against David French and then attacking classical liberalism outright.

Sohrab Ahmari converted to Catholicism, left Commentary and turned into a radical Catholic Integralist overnight.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,712
282,933
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
Maybe. But while XI is very powerful, China is an oligarchy within the communist Party and neither he nor the Party are immune to dissension from within and even outside the Party. Quite a different case than North Korea. At least that's my analysis. But unlike many here, I'll admit I could and can be wrong. I now believe I was originally wrong about the Chinese tariffs
I mean from the standpoint that he doesn't care about what happens to his people and he's much more immune from the consequences than Trump. Sure, not as much as Kim but Trump will struggle to gain ground for the same reasons.

I've never been a fan of the tariffs (or really any taxes) but I'm willing to see where they go.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,712
282,933
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
Aren't you the Catholic conservative guy? Boy, your faction has whipped up quite the intramural fight with the First Things crowd waging a broadside against David French and then attacking classical liberalism outright.

Sohrab Ahmari converted to Catholicism, left Commentary and turned into a radical Catholic Integralist overnight.
No, that's HornsWin.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
Tough to have a recession if the consumers (70% of the economy) are still doing their part. We'll see. If we start seeing layoffs, then we'll know.
You're right and the new estimates for July are very positive. Preliminary estimates are that retail sales and food services grew .7% in July, of course this is preliminary, but it's better than May or June by a good bit. And that's with auto sales taking a hit, which I don't think has much to do with the tariffs.

Tariffs were always a bad tactic in my opinion. But malignant narcissists don't build coalitions; they come in hot.
I agree, but it is what it is, and as I said, I think the boat has pretty much sailed on the'coalition' approach. And coalitions are often not a good answer as they tend to be difficult to put together and more difficult to hold together. Like committees , a beast with too many heads.

I'm afraid it's tariffs or nada now I think, and since it is, I disagree that we can't come out ahead and get the important things we want. Our economy is simply that much bigger and stronger than China's. They need us more than we need them. And continuing on the path of doing nothing (the nada option) was even worse, in my opinion.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
Aren't you the Catholic conservative guy? Boy, your faction has whipped up quite the intramural fight with the First Things crowd waging a broadside against David French and then attacking classical liberalism outright.

Sohrab Ahmari converted to Catholicism, left Commentary and turned into a radical Catholic Integralist overnight.
LOL, are you referring to me? If so, you couldn't be more wrong

I define myself as a classical liberal. Bastiat is a pillar of my economic thought and I quoted him several times when I was arguing against tariffs. But "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

And I'm certainly not Catholic and I have no clue what you're referring to there. I generally don't get involved in religion posts. I am a Christian though, for what it's worth. I'm not able to change anyone's beliefs, and I've never met anyone who agrees with mine 100%, but that's fine by me. I'm not real concerned about whether others validate my beliefs about non-factual matters. In fact I'm not concerned about that at all

You obvious don't remember me at all, but there was a time and forum when and where Toadvine, you, and I were about the strongest anti-Trumpsters around. But since I guess all you can remember are your own thoughts and posts, conversing with you is obviously a waste of my time. Good to know, as I use up a lot of photons and I can conserve those particular ones from now on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

HelmetBoy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 31, 2009
11,110
42,854
0
LOL, are you referring to me? If so, you couldn't be more wrong

I define myself as a classical liberal. Bastiat is a pillar of my economic thought and I quoted him several times when I was arguing against tariffs. But "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

And I'm certainly not Catholic and I have no clue what you're referring to there. I generally don't get involved in religion posts. I am a Christian though, for what it's worth. I'm not able to change anyone's beliefs, and I've never met anyone who agrees with mine 100%, but that's fine by me. I'm not real concerned about whether others validate my beliefs about non-factual matters. In fact I'm not concerned about that at all

You obvious don't remember me at all, but there was a time and forum when and where Toadvine, you, and I were about the strongest anti-Trumpsters around. But since I guess all you can remember are your own thoughts and posts, conversing with you is obviously a waste of my time. Good to know, as I use up a lot of photons and I can conserve those particular ones from now on.
I quote-replied to a different poster so no I was not addressing you.

Also, Toadvine is a textbook neoliberal although he’d probably deny it. Of course he’s anti-Trump.

I get that you’re trying to characterize me as inflexible in my views or whatever but you’re choosing a very strange topic to challenge me on.

Trump trade policy to date has been a total failure and you guys are increasingly hanging your hopes on some kind of deus ex machina that will bail him out.

So what evidence is there that I should be adapting my views around?
 
Last edited:

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,174
13,035
0
Well, since Trump is the talk of the thread, it looks like he's considering purchasing Greenland. Not unheard of, but not sure the Great Danes want to sell.

 
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
I quote-replied to a different poster so no I was not addressing you.

Also, Toadvine is a textbook neoliberal although he’d probably deny it. Of course he’s anti-Trump.

I get that you’re trying to characterize me as inflexible in my views or whatever but you’re choosing a very strange topic to try to challenge me on.

Trump trade policy to date has been a total failure and you guys are increasingly hanging your hopes on some kind of deus ex machina that will bail us all out.

So what evidence is there that I should be adapting my views around?
45864
 
  • Haha
Reactions: calvin farquhar

sacatomato horn

Member Who Talks
Sep 15, 2016
425
887
0
Well, since Trump is the talk of the thread, it looks like he's considering purchasing Greenland. Not unheard of, but not sure the Great Danes want to sell.

I think he's trolling the Dems. He'll suggest statehood with 2 Senators for their 56,000 population and heads will explode.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
Well, since Trump is the talk of the thread, it looks like he's considering purchasing Greenland. Not unheard of, but not sure the Great Danes want to sell.

There's a lot of water there and the climate scientists say it's melting like hell and all the cold water may screw up the Gulf Stream. Although that could be good or bad.

Anyway we could fairly easily capture a hell of a lot of freshwater and ship it to the U.S. in supertankers.Then pipeline to where it's needed. Freshwater is valuable, as any West Texan knows well.

Just a thought.

As to why the Danes might sell, I suppose it depends on the amount of the offer. As to the the economics and science/engineering feasibility, and thus its value to us. I'm sure Trump can give it to some scientists for a government funded project. The cost of a study would be peanuts and more interesting than crickets on a treadmill.

PS I'm not so keen on giving them senators. They'd probably turn out to be socialists. Unless we moved 50K+ West Virginians laid off from the coal mines to Greenland. Give 'em long johns, free satellite TV, cheap whiskey, and old couches to burn and they might like it ok. Mining and shipping ice and water has to be cleaner and safer than coal.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
7,174
13,035
0
There's a lot of water there and the climate scientists say it's melting like hell and all the cold water may screw up the Gulf Stream. Although that could be good or bad.

Anyway we could fairly easily capture a hell of a lot of freshwater and ship it to the U.S. in supertankers.Then pipeline to where it's needed. Freshwater is valuable, as any West Texan knows well.

Just a thought.

As to why the Danes might sell, I suppose it depends on the amount of the offer. As to the the economics and science/engineering feasibility, and thus its value to us. I'm sure Trump can give it to some scientists for a government funded project. The cost of a study would be peanuts and more interesting than crickets on a treadmill.

PS I'm not so keen on giving them senators. They'd probably turn out to be socialists. Unless we moved 50K+ West Virginians laid off from the coal mines to Greenland. Give 'em long johns, free satellite TV, cheap whiskey, and old couches to burn and they might like it ok. Mining and shipping ice and water has to be cleaner and safer than coal.
The U.S. has considered it before. We have military bases there already, plenty of resources, as you noted. There was some discussion by Greenland with China about funding some of their infrastructure but the U.S. stepped in and said nope. The Danes cover a good majority of their annual budget, so maybe, but I wonder what the asking price would be or if there is an interest.

I do like the title of the Buzzfeed article. Got a chuckle.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hayesbrown/trump-has-floated-the-us-buying-greenland
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
The U.S. has considered it before. We have military bases there already, plenty of resources, as you noted. There was some discussion by Greenland with China about funding some of their infrastructure but the U.S. stepped in and said nope. The Danes cover a good majority of their annual budget, so maybe, but I wonder what the asking price would be or if there is an interest.

I do like the title of the Buzzfeed article. Got a chuckle.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hayesbrown/trump-has-floated-the-us-buying-greenland
No, It's Rep. Hank Johnson who thinks that islands float.

Although I can't swear that Trump doesn't think that too and figures we coud just push it down to close to the East Coast.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: eodhorn

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,794
4,316
0
Aren't you the Catholic conservative guy? Boy, your faction has whipped up quite the intramural fight with the First Things crowd waging a broadside against David French and then attacking classical liberalism outright.

Sohrab Ahmari converted to Catholicism, left Commentary and turned into a radical Catholic Integralist overnight.
Naw that’s someone else
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flog

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,978
4,296
0
Well someone thinks we're winning.

The deeper I dig, and the more I think and read about it, I've pretty much come around around to agreement with the author's opinion, I think we are winning and can win this economic war with China, and make no mistake, that is what it is. No doubt tariffs and economic wars are bad, but outright shooting wars between nuclear powers are a whole hell of a lot worse. I've pretty much come around to the conclusion that without Trump taking this stand, before too long we'd be boxed into the binary choice of simply surrendering the future to the oligarchical communist dictatorship that is today's China, or a shooting war. As much as I dislike Trump personally, and I dislike tariffs on principle, I'm starting to think that economic war with China now is better than simply letting China continue on the path they've set.

So the fact Trump is a lousy human being is really beside the point...though I don't expect many here, and certainly none of our 'Progressive' members to agree. Despite the hyperbole, Trump is not Hitler or Stalin, and Roosevelt and Churchill could stomach that truly evil dictator Stalin for as long as it took to defeat a worse evil. History is replete with countless examples of choices between bad and much worse, whether we like them or not. So as much as I dislike admitting it, I think Trump is probably right to face China in an economic war now. That's an about-face from the position I've held until recently.

If only life were such that our choices were always clear and clean, between obviously and absolutely bad and obviously and absolutely good, but I'm afraid it doesn't usually work that way, and we end up with bad and worse as our only choices.
On a related note, this is good.


Trump administration to go ahead with US$8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, angering China
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,149
4,279
0
Texas
On a related note, this is good.


Trump administration to go ahead with US$8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, angering China
Anyone is welcome to correct me here, since I'm far from really knowledgeable about the subject, but as I understand it, Taiwan had been wanting to buy F-35's but China was going ballistic and the U.S. was dragging it's feet on that they decided to go for the F-16 Viper, Block 70 upgrade, which is not a whole lot different in many aspects from the F-35, other than it's not a "stealth" fighter. But it's got essentially the same avionics, electronic countermeasures. So since this is really about defending Taiwan rather than trying to take out mainland facilities before non-stealth aircraft come in (like what we'll do to Iran if it comes to war there), basically it's just as good for their purposes. It's not like we're selling them some outdated junk, these are really good fighters, very close to 5th gen. So China is still going ballistic.

So with this, Trump and the U.S. are upping the game once more, essentially, saying "OK you want to hold joint strategic bomber exercises with the Russians violating Japanese/South Korean airspace and keep otherwise provoking us in the South China Sea, here's an "up yours". And what are they going to do more tariffs? It's either that or take another step toward a shooting war in the South China Sea.

As I said, I've come to the point of thinking it's confront China now and remain the "big dog" or accept that they will be the new # 1 superpower in not too many years. I really hope that we can beat them back down economically and strengthening our proxies like Taiwan and Japan before it goes to a real shooting war. But as I said above, I do believe it's become just that either/or.

Interesting times.

 
Last edited:

kennoisewater

Member Who Talks
Nov 19, 2018
506
839
0
Anyone is welcome to correct me here, since I'm far from really knowledgeable about the subject, but as I understand it, Taiwan had been wanting to buy F-35's but China was going ballistic and the U.S. was dragging it's feet on that they decided to go for the F-16 Viper, Block 70 upgrade, which is not a whole lot different in many aspects from the F-35, other than it's not a "stealth" fighter. But it's got essentially the same avionics, electronic countermeasures. So since this is really about defending Taiwan rather than trying to take out mainland facilities before non-stealth aircraft come in (like what we'll do to Iran if it comes to war there), basically it's just as good for their purposes. It's not like we're selling them some outdated junk, these are really good fighters, very close to 5th gen. So China is still going ballistic.

So with this, Trump and the U.S. are upping the game once more, essentially, saying "OK you want to hold joint strategic bomber exercises with the Russians violating Japanese/South Korean airspace and keep otherwise provoking us in the South China Sea, here's an "up yours". And what are they going to do more tariffs? It's either that or take another step toward a shooting war in the South China Sea.

As I said, I've come to the point of thinking it's confront China now and remain the "big dog" or accept that they will be the new # 1 superpower in not too many years. I really hope that we can beat them back down economically and strengthening our proxies like Taiwan and Japan before it goes to a real shooting war. But as I said above, I do believe it's become just that either/or.

Interesting times.

If President Trump had any ability whatsoever to shut his mouth, stay off the internet and let his policies do the talking he would be fine. I'll add the caveat that if he does feel the need to say or type anything for public consumption, it should be filtered through someone on his staff who could translate it from his typical schoolyard obnoxiousness to measured and reasonable language. However, he is so unbelievably vain, narcissistic and immature that he simply cannot act like an adult.

And I've said before, his behavior has let the genie out of the bottle. President Trump has made it perfectly acceptable to be a jackass as long as his policy decisions align with his base. I really dread the next democrat president because Trump has absolutely eliminated any complaints we might have about character, integrity, honesty or maturity.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,925
44,330
0
Gold and treasuries are safety assets. Investors rush into them when they see storm clouds on the horizon and want to reduce their exposure to risk assets. Central banks reduce rates when economic growth slows/declines so low- or non-yielding assets become more attractive.

Bottom line is that Trump caught the tiger by the tail and is getting a real trade war right in time for his re-election run.
What should I do with my 401k?
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,925
44,330
0
Maintain whatever you have as your preferred long-term growth/income portfolio orientation in well-diversified, low-fee funds because only fools think they can time markets
I have all in equity index funds right now—large cap, mid cap, and international. I am that fool! How do I time it?!?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

HelmetBoy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 31, 2009
11,110
42,854
0
I have all in equity index funds right now—large cap, mid cap, and international. I am that fool! How do I time it?!?!
99.9% of people rotating out of equities before a cyclical recession are going to miss the easy gains when the market turns well before the rebound in the economy.

And when stocks get cheaper your contribution dollars buy more of them which is good because you want to buy more stocks when they are cheap. That’s dollar cost averaging.

I’m not even an equities guy but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,925
44,330
0
99.9% of people rotating out of equities before a cyclical recession are going to miss the easy gains when the market turns well before the rebound in the economy.

And when stocks get cheaper your contribution dollars buy more of them which is good because you want to buy more stocks when they are cheap. That’s dollar cost averaging.

I’m not even an equities guy but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Same thing I told you last time you asked: nothing. Just keeping saving and investing, even if it's 100% equity.

I'm about to be 37. All of my retirement accounts are 100% equity.
Fine I’ll do the smart thing. :mad:
 

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,312
2,844
0
99.9% of people rotating out of equities before a cyclical recession are going to miss the easy gains when the market turns well before the rebound in the economy.

And when stocks get cheaper your contribution dollars buy more of them which is good because you want to buy more stocks when they are cheap. That’s dollar cost averaging.

I’m not even an equities guy but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Rotating out before a cyclical recession isn't the problem, the problem is rotating out during the recession after the market has tanked and then staying out through the rebound: lose - lose.
 

HelmetBoy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 31, 2009
11,110
42,854
0
Tariffs not only impose immense economic costs but also fail to achieve their primary policy aims and foster political dysfunction along the way