ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Kavanaugh will be impeached

Good to know that the rule of law means nothing to you.

Trump 2020 is looking ever closer to be a sure fire thing now.

Haha Trump has liberals all fucked up.

Just read that the NYT going forward wont allow its reporters or correspondents on MSNBC or CNN because the networks appear to far left.

Has the NYT ever read the New York fucking Times! Haha this is gold!

Oh man the next 18 months are gonna be amazing.

Let's do a little experiment on the power of Trump's lie fog has over the folks reading this thread. Does anyone here believe the lie that tariffs that President Trump places on China are paid for by China or the truth that it is an import tax paid for by the importer and typically passed on to the American consumer? I'll guess that at most only one person reading this thread believes this Trump lie.

Kavanaugh won't be replaced unless he's judged guilty for the rape accusations (which is quite unlikely).

"

faerwin wrote:

Kavanaugh won't be replaced unless he's judged guilty for the rape accusations (which is quite unlikely).

The statutes of limitations is long past so it would not be possible.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Kavanaugh won't be replaced unless he's judged guilty for the rape accusations (which is quite unlikely).

The statutes of limitations is long past so it would not be possible.

Thus the cult of social (in)justice marches ever forwards.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Let's do a little experiment on the power of Trump's lie fog has over the folks reading this thread. Does anyone here believe the lie that tariffs that President Trump places on China are paid for by China or the truth that it is an import tax paid for by the importer and typically passed on to the American consumer? I'll guess that at most only one person reading this thread believes this Trump lie.

Pro-tariff people usually project the illusion that the extra cost is paid entirely by the foreign business. Anti-tariff people usually project the illusion that the extra cost is paid entirely by the domestic importer, who passes the added costs on to the customer. Both of these are oversimplifications that try to place the increase in only one place, when the market is a dynamic system that transmits supply and demand information throughout it using pricing as a mechanism. The truth is that the entire chain is effected, without any one bearing the full weight; the foreign manufacturer sells at a lower cost per unit and sells less units, the importers (who technically pay the tariffs) make smaller margins on a smaller quantity, and the consumer pays a higher price per unit and therefore buys fewer.

I think the term "trade war" is particularly apt. In war, one side might win over another, but both sides inevitably take casualties. The question is: who surrenders first?

"

Turtledove wrote:

Does anyone here believe the lie that tariffs that President Trump places on China are paid for by China or the truth that it is an import tax paid for by the importer and typically passed on to the American consumer?

As an "anti-tariff" person, I do think that tariffs are ultimately a tax on the American consumer.

---

There are interesting questions regarding the goal of the tariffs or their duration, though. Certainly more interesting than the sophomoric "Do politicians lie?", at any rate.

If you think that tariffs are bad, then waging trade war for mutually assured economic destruction might be the only possible way to get China to reduce their tariffs or combat their culture of IP theft. Certainly sitting on our hands for the last few decades hasn't fixed anything.

Or in the case of Mexico, Americans already pay a "tax" providing social welfare to illegal immigrants. If the "tax" induced by a Mexican tariff ends up reducing illegal immigration, the net result might be less American expenditure in the long run.

---

In an ideal world, Congress would get off their ass and write policy for these (and other) issues themselves instead of 24/7 dick-measuring contests while they point the finger of blame at the executive branch after giving it all the power they claim it's abusing.

For the moment I see tariffs (and E.O.s) as the executive branch using the only tools it can to make policy headway while Congress has abdicated their duty. I slightly prefer these kind of unilateral actions to e.g. DACA where the executive branch just decides to not faithfully implement legislation, though all such cases of non-war-time unilateral action are gross and anti-Constitutional.

If there was a way to vote such that Congress would reduce executive power and start doing their job, I would vote that way.

The funniest thing is how nationalistic Americans think they are but at the same time they are cutting each others throats and mocking their own president on every late night talk show. :D

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Let's do a little experiment on the power of Trump's lie fog has over the folks reading this thread. Does anyone here believe the lie that tariffs that President Trump places on China are paid for by China or the truth that it is an import tax paid for by the importer and typically passed on to the American consumer? I'll guess that at most only one person reading this thread believes this Trump lie.

Pro-tariff people usually project the illusion that the extra cost is paid entirely by the foreign business. Anti-tariff people usually project the illusion that the extra cost is paid entirely by the domestic importer, who passes the added costs on to the customer. Both of these are oversimplifications that try to place the increase in only one place, when the market is a dynamic system that transmits supply and demand information throughout it using pricing as a mechanism. The truth is that the entire chain is effected, without any one bearing the full weight; the foreign manufacturer sells at a lower cost per unit and sells less units, the importers (who technically pay the tariffs) make smaller margins on a smaller quantity, and the consumer pays a higher price per unit and therefore buys fewer.

I think the term "trade war" is particularly apt. In war, one side might win over another, but both sides inevitably take casualties. The question is: who surrenders first?

For all the hype about the US-China trade war, trade is only a fraction of China’s economy. It is a great deal of rhetoric. Chinese exports to the USA are probably around 3.85% of their GDP. Neither side needs the other to thrive. You can fight this shitty trade war forever if you want.

It is like letting Trump sending recruits risking their life or your own beloved sons, the casualties are not your own, go ahead kill all your soldiers in the friendly fire.

China does not have to compromise with other countries. China just don't like losing money. What do you define as surrender? The first person to blink loses?