DONALD J TRUMP

[Aseahawkfan]

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

It's not just just China. There is a very real attempt enabled by these lopsided trade agreements to take advantage of low cost, exploited labor in poor nations run by dictatorial or corrupt regimes that are overlooked or brushed aside by economists like Friedman concerned only with theory and less with application. I've listened quite a bit to Friedman and taken economics myself.

When economic analysis is done, it is often done with numbers only as I told you, without accounting for the moral and legal situations of other nations, which must be accounted for. To put it simply, America cannot go on dollars and cents and theoretical assumptions only when analyzing a competitive market, it must look at what is being done within that market to maintain a competitive advantage. Then it must ask, "Do I want my people subject to this?"

To put it simply and use a nation other than China, if Mexico must allow it's people to live in shacks and eat beans and rice to maintain it's competitive advantage in labor costs, do I want Americans to have to live in shacks and eat beans and rice to compete with them? That is a question economics (the base science) does not ask or answer or care that much about. This is coming from someone that studies economics.

Please do not interpret that as hating capitalism, which I do not. I am pointing out problems in capitalism that must be addressed in free trade and general markets as standard of living is an important idea to most Americans and should be more the focus of discussion than wealth inequality which is a nebulous and impossible to define numerical fantasy.

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

Not true. I merely want you to state that we have been in a trade war for a while with many nations. You pretending this trade war just started because of tariffs just imposed show a lack of keeping up with current economic policy on a global scale. Then you pull out Friedman, while not at all paying attention to the global environment for trade? Really, that's the problem with so many economists like Friedman. So much theory, so little application or analysis of the current world environment. Theory is great if everyone conforms to its parameters, but they aren't. So we need to analyze how to best implement policy in the face of a trade that is not free.

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.

What Trump says to the public and what Trump does in private are going to be different like it is with every president. You have been watching this game long enough to know this. Which is why I say let us see what happens in the final deals. You can say a lot of things about Trump, but as near as I can tell he's always been a great negotiator/salesman. This is him playing hardball to get us better deals, like he's always done with his companies. Sales/negotiation is one area I don't have a problem with Trump. He's not a well-spoken lawyer or a by the numbers academic. He's a down and dirty salesman that will use hardcore negotiation tactics to obtain the best possible deal he can. Most of the politicians are unaccustomed to dealing with that, especially from America. We'll see how good the deals are when they're done. Right now I'm watching a salesman work and knowing that none of these tariffs or the like are final.

[burrrton]

Not true. I merely want you to state that we have been in a trade war for a while with many nations.

"It's not true that I call disagreeing with me ignorant- I merely want you to agree with me before I stop calling you ignorant".

Thanks for the magnanimity, asea.

Look, I've stated I acknowledge the gray areas in all this, but if you think we've been in a trade war (as the term is commonly understood) with all the countries he either is or is proposing to slap tariffs on, I don't think you quite have the grasp of this you think you do.

Now excuse me while go read up on this "Chinese currency manipulation" bombshell you dropped.

[NorthHawk]

Like all economic models, Friedman's depends on perfect conditions. None can anticipate the variances of the real world, so you look at them as a base from which to act or understand the economics of the day.
Many nations in the world are granted "Developing Economy" status which in most cases means they need (or are allowed) to have trade barriers at home while their economies mature. This can be a very good thing as it can keep
the peace and create a new market in later years. I believe China was granted this status when it began down the road towards economic reform and began to open itself to the world as a place to invest. They were
very shrewd in keeping this status alive longer than I believe required and created an economic giant that now has to be dealt with. China used to own a lot of US debt, and maybe that's why there was some reluctance
to make bold moves.
The bottom line is China has a managed economy whereby the Gov't decides which industries they want to promote, how much people should be paid, and what products to subsidize on exports to gain advantage
in foreign markets not to mention restrictions on products entering their market. There is no way a free market economy can compete with a managed economy, so free trade deals, in my mind, should never be
pursued with them. Free trade can and has shown to be very beneficial for countries of like markets such as relatively comparable wages and benefits, regulations, taxes and such. There will always be sticking
points within some specific industries, but if you can get agreements for the vast majority of goods and services, it benefits both countries.

[Aseahawkfan]

Look, I've stated I acknowledge the gray areas in all this, but if you think we've been in a trade war (as the term is commonly understood) with all the countries he either is or is proposing to slap tariffs on, I don't think you quite have the grasp of this you think you do.

Sure, all those countries don't deserve the horns. We've always had a good relationship with Canada and England. Main beefs with them are things the market can't change such as their socialized medicine. It means the American medical system ends up supporting almost all drug/medical development in the world, while the European and socialized nations like China and Japan enjoy the developments at a lower cost because the American system absorbs all the research costs with exorbitant prices on new procedures, drugs, and the like.

There are so many economic factors to discuss regarding how government and free markets interact that the discussion is too long to a forum. I can only encourage you to read up on certain subjects such as how much we subsidize world medical development, the location of chip manufacturing, Chinese economic policies as a whole, and how American labor and wages are affected by cheap labor in foreign nations with much lower standards of living.

Now excuse me while go read up on this "Chinese currency manipulation" bombshell you dropped.

Not sure if you're being truly sarcastic or not, but it is an interesting read. We have been putting a lot of pressure on China to stop manipulating their currency in relation to the dollar to undercut us as their economy grows. They are the second largest economy in the world and will easily be number one soon if they allow their currency to rise as it should. Then we might one day become manufacturers for China, the consumer beast only India can match if they get theirs heads out of their asses.

[burrrton]

I can only encourage you to read up on certain subjects such as how much we subsidize world medical development, the location of chip manufacturing, Chinese economic policies as a whole, and how American labor and wages are affected by cheap labor in foreign nations with much lower standards of living.

Wow! More things that are a true mystery to everyone!

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions.

Not sure if you're being truly sarcastic or not, but it is an interesting read.

And has been for something like 20 years (although they stopped, or at least slowed down, on it more recently, but I'm sure you knew that because you read things and sh*t).

[idhawkman]

Interesting read regarding Trump's popularity by a Conservative Democrat Mayor.

May 12
The mayor of Livermore California explains Trump’s popularity and success. This is perhaps the best explanation for Trump's popularity ....

Marshall Kamena is a registered Democrat and was elected mayor of Livermore, CA.. He ran on the democratic ticket as he knew a Bay Area city would never vote for a Republican. He is as conservative as they come. He wrote the following:

Trump’s 'lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship' By Marshall Kamena, Mayor of Livermore, CA.

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.

Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today.

Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking.. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.

It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond.

This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do.

These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!