Tarriffs

[Aseahawkfan]

We're also over leveraged and reaching the tail end of many growth cycles. Property prices are at nutty levels. I imagine mortgages are probably taking a huge bite out of incomes. All we need is a recession and a string of layoffs, we're going to get hammered.

I'm sitting on cash right now. I can't trust placing money in this over-leveraged market. One thing about bubbles is that when they pop, they drop a huge amount. We have a huge bubble in the economy right now.

[RiverDog]

One of the concerns, and it's reflected in Trump's second guessing his tariffs, is the upcoming Christmas shopping season. They've delayed cuts in cell phones, laptops, and video game consoles among many other retail items. The first quarter of 2020 is going to be critical to his re-election bid. If Christmas spending is down, it will be reflected in the first quarter numbers.

Trump is manipulating the economy by delaying his planned tariffs in order to enhance is re-election chances. If the economy is going to take a hit, he doesn't want it to happen in an election year. It's one of the advantages an incumbent has. It's also an admission as to who pays for these tariffs, and that they do affect our economy.

[idhawkman]

Market back where it was 18 months ago. Down almost 800 today. Yeah this trade war is going well idiot groping mad tweeter .

The stock market has been on a wild ride in the past couple of weeks. 7 of the 15 days this month have seen moves of 200+ points one way or the other. Trump is starting to blink on his trade war with China as he's delayed some of the tariffs while outright removing others.

The jury is still out on the effect that the tariffs will have. There are signs that the global economy is slowing down as China's economy is in the toilet and Europe isn't far behind. Investors are getting real nervous. If we slide into recession, the blame is going to land squarely at Trump's feet and he can kiss goodbye any chance he has at re-election.

I thought you said that China's economy was great just yesterday. Hmmm....

Don't worry, the FED has a lot of basis points to cut before we hit a recession and as long as the job market and inflation keeps in check we won't be hitting that anytime soon.

[Aseahawkfan]

I thought you said that China's economy was great just yesterday. Hmmm....

China's economy is weakening as is ours. That's the part you don't to be wanting to admit to. Our growth is not domestic. It was tied to growth around the world, especially if you're also not wanting to bring in new consumers aka immigrants.

China seems content to wait Trump out. Your boy Trump already extended the date on his tariffs because he knows they not working so well.

Don't worry, the FED has a lot of basis points to cut before we hit a recession and as long as the job market and inflation keeps in check we won't be hitting that anytime soon.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Leverage can only push the economy so far. The entire world is levered. Bad thing about low interest rates and leverage is the bubbles it creates. When they pop, you get 2001, 2008, and every other bubble burst.

You keep talking about these interest rates like it's good for the economy. A healthy economy doesn't need this much leverage. The economy wasn't healthy which is why they cut interest rates in the first place. If people buying everything on credit, what happens when they can't afford the credit? What happens when all that money flooding in from borrowing artificially inflating demand can no longer be sustained?

I'm not even sure why you are supporting economic policies that will lead to a massive economic implosion worldwide. The entire world is flooding the market with money from low interest rates creating giant, leveraged bubbles and you think this is ok for some reason. Yet you lament the massive government debt. And this levered market is basically the consumer and business version of the massive debt that will blow up far sooner than the U.S. government debt.

Just wow. Well, when it collapses, I imagine you'll find some way to blame the Democrats and engage in typical political BS. You remember that I told you this over levered market with low interest rates is going to kill us at some point. Remember I told you that while Trump was in office calling for even lower interest rates. It's dumb policy. It's going to cost us. I hope you have enough cash sitting around when it happens to take advantage of it. And the collapse this dangerous monetary policy is creating might just be what the left needs to push socialism into America after the bubble collapse and a bunch of folks lose their jobs and houses again.

[idhawkman]

China's economy is weakening as is ours. That's the part you don't to be wanting to admit to. Our growth is not domestic. It was tied to growth around the world, especially if you're also not wanting to bring in new consumers aka immigrants.

China seems content to wait Trump out. Your boy Trump already extended the date on his tariffs because he knows they not working so well.

China won't be able to outlast Trump though. The unrest in Hong Kong will grow and the economic situation in mainland along with the cancelation of all their food orders will start to impact the mainland sooner than the election. As it appears now with the mess they call democratic hopefuls, China is in for the better part of 6 years of this. Also, the dems are as strongly on board as Trump with the tariffs so eventually, China is going to realize that waiting is not a strategy that will work for them. Moreover, the US has called China on there manipulation of currency and just recently called them out for trying to route their goods through 3rd party countries to try and get around the tariffs. Finally, the delay in tariffs is only for certain goods whereas the main bulk is still going to go into effect on Sept. 1. Just he holiday main items have been delayed until Dec 15th at which time they will also be applied (note: any order with that tariff will impact only after the Christmas holiday).

Don't worry, the FED has a lot of basis points to cut before we hit a recession and as long as the job market and inflation keeps in check we won't be hitting that anytime soon.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Leverage can only push the economy so far. The entire world is levered. Bad thing about low interest rates and leverage is the bubbles it creates. When they pop, you get 2001, 2008, and every other bubble burst.

You keep talking about these interest rates like it's good for the economy. A healthy economy doesn't need this much leverage. The economy wasn't healthy which is why they cut interest rates in the first place. If people buying everything on credit, what happens when they can't afford the credit? What happens when all that money flooding in from borrowing artificially inflating demand can no longer be sustained?

You are partly right. Keep in mind the years that the interest rate was 0 under Obama and he still couldn't get the economy to grow. Then Trump steps in and gets the economy rolling and the FED immediately raises the rate which Trump said was too much too soon. Now the FED is realizing that they indeed killed the rally too soon and too fast and has lowered the rate. Raising and lowering the rates as much as the FED has creates long term instability in the bond markets. Maybe you just have to give Trump a little more credit for understanding the economy globally than the newly elected FED chairman because we are now seeing that TRUMP was right and the FED chair was wrong. New predictions is that the FED will lower rates 2- 3 times more over the next 12 months by at least a full basis point.

I'm not even sure why you are supporting economic policies that will lead to a massive economic implosion worldwide. The entire world is flooding the market with money from low interest rates creating giant, leveraged bubbles and you think this is ok for some reason. Yet you lament the massive government debt. And this levered market is basically the consumer and business version of the massive debt that will blow up far sooner than the U.S. government debt.

Again, you would be right if we were in a bubble but the reality is that we are not. The FED has created this problem. If the FED hadn't raised the too soon the US economy would have been leading the global markets out of their anemic economies and the revenues to the Govt. coffers would have been neutral to maybe even positive to the Federal debt. The real question is whether or not the monetary system should be separate from our government. Why do we have a FED at all given that they can impact the branches of government and even the world economy in such a devastating way without being accountable to the people of the US like any other politician?

Just wow. Well, when it collapses, I imagine you'll find some way to blame the Democrats and engage in typical political BS. You remember that I told you this over levered market with low interest rates is going to kill us at some point. Remember I told you that while Trump was in office calling for even lower interest rates. It's dumb policy. It's going to cost us. I hope you have enough cash sitting around when it happens to take advantage of it. And the collapse this dangerous monetary policy is creating might just be what the left needs to push socialism into America after the bubble collapse and a bunch of folks lose their jobs and houses again.

So far, it is the democrats hoping for a recesssion just so they can beat Trump. They know that as long as the US economy keeps going, he won't be beat in 2020. So most likely, it will be the dems fault and you predicting that I will claim it now won't prevent the facts from being evident if the economy crashes. Good try though trying to insulate the dems from an economical catastrophe though.

[RiverDog]

So far, it is the democrats hoping for a recesssion just so they can beat Trump. They know that as long as the US economy keeps going, he won't be beat in 2020. So most likely, it will be the dems fault and you predicting that I will claim it now won't prevent the facts from being evident if the economy crashes. Good try though trying to insulate the dems from an economical catastrophe though.

Of course, the Democrats are hoping for a recession because they know it will increase their chances in 2020. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be hoping for the same thing. With politicians, it always has been and always will be their politics first and the country's welfare second.

And let me get this straight: You're saying that if the economy crashes, it will be the Dem's fault?

[I-5]

Not having read the previous posts, what’s ID’s spin for how the Trump admin trying to bail out the farmers they hurt with their trade wars to the tune of another $14.5B doesn’t amount to socialism? Isn’t that what they accused Obama of doing in Detroit?

[Aseahawkfan]

Not having read the previous posts, what’s ID’s spin for how the Trump admin trying to bail out the farmers they hurt with their trade wars to the tune of another $14.5B doesn’t amount to socialism? Isn’t that what they accused Obama of doing in Detroit?

You're asking for consistency and sense from someone heavily invested in political party fighting? You know that won't happen.

We're all socio-capitalist now. The only question is to what degree.

[RiverDog]

Not having read the previous posts, what’s ID’s spin for how the Trump admin trying to bail out the farmers they hurt with their trade wars to the tune of another $14.5B doesn’t amount to socialism? Isn’t that what they accused Obama of doing in Detroit?

You're asking for consistency and sense from someone heavily invested in political party fighting? You know that won't happen.

Ha! You got that right. He's already hedging his bets by pre-registering his excuse for the possibility of the economy tanking by blaming it on the Dems and/or the Fed. And that comes from the guy that was predicting a 4% economic growth rate.

We're all socio-capitalist now. The only question is to what degree.

True, but I didn't have a lot of choice in the matter (Social Security, Medicare).

[Aseahawkfan]

Ha! You got that right. He's already hedging his bets by pre-registering his excuse for the possibility of the economy tanking by blaming it on the Dems and/or the Fed. And that comes from the guy that was predicting a 4% economic growth rate.

When you have real money in the market, you can't afford to get political about the economy. The numbers mean what they mean and you have to plan accordingly. You need to know about business cycles, where we're at in the business cycle, leverage, markets, and so much more. I'm political about a lot of things, money isn't one of them save for taxes since the Dems tend to run the country like a charity. I don't believe in Trickle Down Economics, but I also don't believe in Keynesian economics. I'm a demand focused market analyst. As far as I'm concerned everything is driven by demand and economic philosophies are a way to manipulate supply and demand. You should only use a particular philosophy when the circumstances for that economic method apply.

Trickle Down made sense when taxes were cutting off the ability of businesses to invest in growth and expansion. Keynesian made sense when the government had useful infrastructure to build to expand the ability of business and commerce to grow. They shouldn't be dogmatic philosophies blindly adhered to regardless of circumstance. That's just stupid.

True, but I didn't have a lot of choice in the matter (Social Security, Medicare).

Socialist elements are not awful for society like some portray. I'd never want a private for profit police force and military. Public roads are also a great boon to equity and business. Pure socialism where the state runs and owns everything is rotten. Then again pure capitalism where everything is pursued for profit is equally bad in my opinion. They both produce evil outcomes if there isn't a solid moral code for the people to follow that puts certain ideas above the pursuit of profit or loyalty to the state. It's a matter of balancing those elements to make a society worth living in.

A simple way I like to look at is is capitalism is your economic engine while the socialized elements are the body of the car the engine gets moving. It doesn't do you much good if the engine destroys the car body and the car body doesn't go anywhere without the engine.

[RiverDog]

When you have real money in the market, you can't afford to get political about the economy. The numbers mean what they mean and you have to plan accordingly. You need to know about business cycles, where we're at in the business cycle, leverage, markets, and so much more. I'm political about a lot of things, money isn't one of them save for taxes since the Dems tend to run the country like a charity. I don't believe in Trickle Down Economics, but I also don't believe in Keynesian economics. I'm a demand focused market analyst. As far as I'm concerned everything is driven by demand and economic philosophies are a way to manipulate supply and demand. You should only use a particular philosophy when the circumstances for that economic method apply.

I have two investment counselors, and except as it relates to the market, they never mention politics, never advocate one candidate over the other. Both were clearly apprehensive about the Trump tariffs and both feel that the economy is heading for a down turn in 2020. That's one of the problems when you have so much emotional capital invested in a POTUS or political party like Idahawk has with Trump and the Republicans. It causes you to rationalize the economic warning signs. It causes you to lose your objectivity.

True, but I didn't have a lot of choice in the matter (Social Security, Medicare).

Socialist elements are not awful for society like some portray. I'd never want a private for profit police force and military. Public roads are also a great boon to equity and business. Pure socialism where the state runs and owns everything is rotten. Then again pure capitalism where everything is pursued for profit is equally bad in my opinion. They both produce evil outcomes if there isn't a solid moral code for the people to follow that puts certain ideas above the pursuit of profit or loyalty to the state. It's a matter of balancing those elements to make a society worth living in.

A simple way I like to look at is is capitalism is your economic engine while the socialized elements are the body of the car the engine gets moving. It doesn't do you much good if the engine destroys the car body and the car body doesn't go anywhere without the engine.

Oh, I agree that there are some things that makes sense for a socialistic system to operate. But the problem is that once those programs are in, they become some bureaucrat's little empire and you can never get rid of them or make meaningful changes when conditions change. My favorite example is the post office. There was a need for it when it was instituted in the mid 19th century, but things have changed. There is no reason we need the federal government competing with private industry in the package delivery business, nor do we need snail mail deliveries, of which 90% is junk, 6 days a week as most of our communication is electronic.

Same goes for Amtrak. Why are we subsidizing passenger rail service when most people using the nation wide routes are old folks on vacation? It should be turned over to the states as it's no longer a viable, nation wide service. Let them manage the short, commuter-like runs that do make sense, like the Boston-Washington corridor.

Medicare and Social Security should have been modified decades ago when they saw that the systems were heading towards a washed out bridge as the worker/retiree ratio kept getting worse and worse, but they kept kicking the can down the road.

[Hawktawk]

I spent Saturday with my best friend taking in the drag races in Spokane then driving back to
Moses lake Sunday . He’s a multimillionaire heavily invested in the market . He agrees with me that really since 911 return in bank deposits is so paltry it forces people wanting to grow money into the market . It’s a dangerous trend Powell was trying to change a bit. Really consumer spending is the bright spot with manufacturing, my current profession in a serious slide along with many other factors . It’s a shaky time right now which is why trumps talking heads were preaching happiness and stability on the evening shows . I’m worried frankly . Don’t want to be 60 looking for work in a down economy .

[RiverDog]

I spent Saturday with my best friend taking in the drag races in Spokane then driving back to
Moses lake Sunday . He’s a multimillionaire heavily invested in the market . He agrees with me that really since 911 return in bank deposits is so paltry it forces people wanting to grow money into the market . It’s a dangerous trend Powell was trying to change a bit. Really consumer spending is the bright spot with manufacturing, my current profession in a serious slide along with many other factors . It’s a shaky time right now which is why trumps talking heads were preaching happiness and stability on the evening shows . I’m worried frankly . Don’t want to be 60 looking for work in a down economy .

I don't blame you for being a little nervous. One of the first industries to get hit in a recession is recreation as it's a non essential activity that families can easily cut from their budgets, plus your business, golfing, is particularly vulnerable as Millennials aren't taking up the sport in the numbers that previous generations have. They need a Tiger Woods-type personality to emerge in order to re-ignite interest in the sport.

We'll see what happens. China is holding the cards right now. They can wait out these tariffs and an economic downturn because they don't have an election to worry about. On the other hand, Trump can't afford for the US economy to slump in 2020. He's linked himself directly to the economy as he continues to boast about it on a daily basis and his much publicized tariffs has made everybody aware of his direct involvement in managing it. Despite his spin machine, he's not going to be able to blame a downturn on the Fed as he appointed the current chairman and the Republican senate approved it, or the Dems as they've been out of power. Trump owns the economy.

[I-5]

A simple way I like to look at is is capitalism is your economic engine while the socialized elements are the body of the car the engine gets moving. It doesn't do you much good if the engine destroys the car body and the car body doesn't go anywhere without the engine.

That's exactly how I see it, too, ASF. Like everything good in life, moderation is what works best. Both pure capitalism and socialism are hell if left to their own devices (unchecked greed and unchecked corruption, respectively).

[RiverDog]

A simple way I like to look at is is capitalism is your economic engine while the socialized elements are the body of the car the engine gets moving. It doesn't do you much good if the engine destroys the car body and the car body doesn't go anywhere without the engine.

That's exactly how I see it, too, ASF. Like everything good in life, moderation is what works best. Both pure capitalism and socialism are hell if left to their own devices (unchecked greed and unchecked corruption, respectively).

My view on the role of government is that with some exceptions, the services they offer should be those that cannot be provided by the private sector. Certainly the armed forces falls into that category, as does police and fire departments. Public schools are an exception. Mail delivery and passenger rail service is clearly not an obligation of the government to provide those services.

[I-5]

Just to be clear, Riv, the Canadian gov’t doesnt provide or operate healthcare - it’s just the single-payer insurance that they administer. I don’t mind bureaucrats handling that at all, do you?

[c_hawkbob]

Just to be clear, Riv, the Canadian gov’t doesnt provide or operate healthcare - it’s just the single-payer insurance that they administer. I don’t mind bureaucrats handling that at all, do you?

Better than a for profit corporate board beholden only to their investors and their own pocketbooks.

[RiverDog]

Just to be clear, Riv, the Canadian gov’t doesnt provide or operate healthcare - it’s just the single-payer insurance that they administer. I don’t mind bureaucrats handling that at all, do you?

Wouldn't that invite the same systematic problems the FAA has had recently when they have just one commercial airline manufacturer to regulate?

[Aseahawkfan]

I spent Saturday with my best friend taking in the drag races in Spokane then driving back to
Moses lake Sunday . He’s a multimillionaire heavily invested in the market . He agrees with me that really since 911 return in bank deposits is so paltry it forces people wanting to grow money into the market . It’s a dangerous trend Powell was trying to change a bit. Really consumer spending is the bright spot with manufacturing, my current profession in a serious slide along with many other factors . It’s a shaky time right now which is why trumps talking heads were preaching happiness and stability on the evening shows . I’m worried frankly . Don’t want to be 60 looking for work in a down economy .

That is exactly why I am not happy with low interest rates. That is what makes bank deposits so paltry. It's so cheap to borrow money that you can't make near as much lending it. That is what you do with bank deposits and bonds. It pushes everyone into equities causing a huge bubble.

[I-5]

Wouldn't that invite the same systematic problems the FAA has had recently when they have just one commercial airline manufacturer to regulate?

Can you give me a scenario where something disastrous could happen? I'm just curious what you're seeing. It's much more mundane and not as catastrophic as what the FAA is responsible for IMO.

[RiverDog]

Just to be clear, Riv, the Canadian gov’t doesnt provide or operate healthcare - it’s just the single-payer insurance that they administer. I don’t mind bureaucrats handling that at all, do you?

Better than a for profit corporate board beholden only to their investors and their own pocketbooks.

Yea, but that corporate board has to constantly be looking over their shoulder as a competitor that might be able to get their foot in the door by providing better service than they can might be breathing down their necks. That situation does not exist with the federal government, and thus no motivation to be responsive to their end customer.

[RiverDog]

Can you give me a scenario where something disastrous could happen? I'm just curious what you're seeing. It's much more mundane and not as catastrophic as what the FAA is responsible for IMO.

I wasn't referring to something disastrous happening as in an airliner crashing. What I was referring to was the cozy relationships that the FAA had developed with Boeing execs that encouraged complacency and too trusting of an attitude that the company they are supposed to be regulating must know what they are doing so rather than ask tough questions, they rubber stamp any initiative they propose.

I could see a situation like that developing between a health care agency and a single entity that administers health care.

[Aseahawkfan]

My view on the role of government is that with some exceptions, the services they offer should be those that cannot be provided by the private sector. Certainly the armed forces falls into that category, as does police and fire departments. Public schools are an exception. Mail delivery and passenger rail service is clearly not an obligation of the government to provide those services.

My criteria is based on if this activity being pursued for profit is a good idea for humans morally on a cost benefit basis. Sure, war for profit would create jobs but militaries loyal to corporations in need of constant war to profit is just a recipe for disaster. Same for police and fire departments responding to the most profitable areas to reduce crime/put out fires or beholden to corporate leaders. Just not a good way to run the law or fire service.

Post office you're probably right.

Not as sure about trains. It seems the government maintaining a massive cross country rail transportation system is helpful to commerce and may be useful if something happens militarily to make flight a problem.

I'm still very torn on medicine. Life saving care being doled out based on your income level can be ethically questionable. I also don't like the current set up. It feels more like socialism through corporations forcing me to keep a job to maintain affordable life saving care. With an affordable single payer system, you have a lot more job flexibility. It takes the cost and management out of the hands of corporations always switching insurance looking for cheaper plans to a stable system that doesn't change on a yearly basis providing you with economic flexibility to start a business, take time off to care for a loved one, switch jobs, learn new skills in an economic downturn, and improves economic flexibility and stability. I think it would be worth a try. Not for the government as charity reasons of the Democrats, but to increase economic flexibility and stability for working folk.

[c_hawkbob]

Just to be clear, Riv, the Canadian gov’t doesnt provide or operate healthcare - it’s just the single-payer insurance that they administer. I don’t mind bureaucrats handling that at all, do you?

Better than a for profit corporate board beholden only to their investors and their own pocketbooks.

Yea, but that corporate board has to constantly be looking over their shoulder as a competitor that might be able to get their foot in the door by providing better service than they can might be breathing down their necks. That situation does not exist with the federal government, and thus no motivation to be responsive to their end customer.

"Competition" doesn't even come close to evening that score. The government may not have to worry about competition (at least in a single payer system, not true for all socialized medicine models) but they have to worry about being voted out of office. And there is no incentive to raise the price of a magic pill 500% because they hold the patent, in the name of profits.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yea, but that corporate board has to constantly be looking over their shoulder as a competitor that might be able to get their foot in the door by providing better service than they can might be breathing down their necks. That situation does not exist with the federal government, and thus no motivation to be responsive to their end customer.

Do insurance companies show a particular responsiveness to their end customer? I don't feel that way. Insurance companies usually sell insurance to large groups. They don't treat individuals within the large group much different than you would expect from a large government institution. Insurance companies are nothing like going to say a restaurant where they try to fix your problem immediately. They have rules to follow and follow them to the tee. They don't want to pay for anything they don't have to pay for per the agreement. They can't exactly comp you a new heart surgery or another doctor visit.

Health insurance is one of those "private" businesses that runs much like a public business due to the size and nature of their business. Another reason I don't think we would notice the difference between public and private insurance much.

[I-5]

I wasn't referring to something disastrous happening as in an airliner crashing. What I was referring to was the cozy relationships that the FAA had developed with Boeing execs that encouraged complacency and too trusting of an attitude that the company they are supposed to be regulating must know what they are doing so rather than ask tough questions, they rubber stamp any initiative they propose.

I could see a situation like that developing between a health care agency and a single entity that administers health care.

Thanks for clarifying, riv. There is no single entity that provides services for anything in Canada. We've gone to 5-6 different providers for different reasons just in the Vancouver area...but they're all covered by the same insurer - Canada.

[idhawkman]

So far, it is the democrats hoping for a recesssion just so they can beat Trump. They know that as long as the US economy keeps going, he won't be beat in 2020. So most likely, it will be the dems fault and you predicting that I will claim it now won't prevent the facts from being evident if the economy crashes. Good try though trying to insulate the dems from an economical catastrophe though.

Of course, the Democrats are hoping for a recession because they know it will increase their chances in 2020. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be hoping for the same thing. With politicians, it always has been and always will be their politics first and the country's welfare second.

You never hear republicans praying for a recession. Name one time during Obama or Clinton terms that a republican prayed for a recession.

And let me get this straight: You're saying that if the economy crashes, it will be the Dem's fault?

How do you come up with that? I said most likely but we'll have to see what unfolds before we can assign causes. It might be the media talking down the economy. Who knows at this point if it will even crash?

[RiverDog]

You never hear republicans praying for a recession. Name one time during Obama or Clinton terms that a republican prayed for a recession.

Name one Dem that's praying for a recession.

And let me get this straight: You're saying that if the economy crashes, it will be the Dem's fault?

How do you come up with that? I said most likely but we'll have to see what unfolds before we can assign causes. It might be the media talking down the economy. Who knows at this point if it will even crash?

Because of this sentence: So most likely, it will be the dems fault and you predicting that I will claim it now won't prevent the facts from being evident if the economy crashes.

But thanks for clearing that up. Glad to see that you're setting up to blame that evil MSM for "talking down the economy" in the event of an economic downturn, as if they're supposed to ignore the vast majority of economists that are predicting one:

However, the NABE (National Association of Business Economists) panel also stated that the growth could be cut short by an upcoming recession, with two-thirds of the economists predicting that a recession will start by the end of 2020 and 18% believing that a decline could begin as soon as the end of 2019.

https://fortune.com/2018/06/04/recessio ... ump-trade/

[Hawktawk]

RD FYI Im no longer in golf course management. I got out in FEB 2018 after 33 years. I've had offers to get back in but it doesn't sound too appealing right now.

What I'm doing right now is assembling brain box controls for 85' Genie lifts in Moses Lake. When I was hired in April of 2018 they were hiring as fast as they could as manufacturing jumped early in the Trump administration. Over the last 8 months of these idiotic trade tariffs, especially on steel we are in a definite recession right now along with most industrial manufacturing including heavy equipment autos, RVs, boats etc. We've had probably a 3rd of our workforce laid off, over 300 jobs gone including the guy who trained me and was a 14 year employee. We have a forest of blue masts of unsold equipment sitting outside the plant. My Value stream VS3 builds the 80-85 line and it's the most popular model but we are cutting from 8 units a day to 7 meaning another workforce reduction is coming.It isn't just steel prices, it's also that the rental companies that buy and rent out our units to construction companies to build stuff aren't as busy. It's a canary in a coal mine regarding this economy. Even assuming it limps along till Nov 2020 can you imagine Trump as president in a recession, tariff wars with people whose help we will need,all the stimulus tools gone, trillion dollar deficits in a good economy imagine what they will be in a recession Is china gonna fork over another 3 trillion to prop us up like 2007-09???????

Here's the things the retard and his zombies dont get about this tariff thing. Take steel as an example. Less than a million people produce raw steel in America and it hasn't changed much with this trade war. Over 7 million people work in industries that use steel to manufacture things including yours truly. A counterweight for an 85' weighs 7 TONS and the overall machine weighs 50 K pounds. our 135 and 175 models are twice as heavy. You think 10% tariffs on steel dont affect us??????Now follow along Trumpie zombies. 350 MILLION PEOPLE use things manufactured out of steel.

China can make it cheaper. Even If Trump runs chinese steel out of the US market the net result to the customer will be the same, higher prices and a lack of parts as the US industry will never be able to pick up the slack.All Trumps buildings including Trump tower were built with chinese steel as well but I digress...


Point 2. When you have 5% of the world's population and consume around 30% of its durable goods etc give or take you will have a trade deficit with everybody. That's not a bad thing.If you can't make it as cheap make your money distributing it and everybody wins by buying it cheaper. He can't have it both ways saying it's the greatest economy ever(its not and it's getting less great as I type) but then saying we need these trade wars with everybody.

Its a recipe for disaster.It's what happens when you have an incompetent mentally ill pilot flying the plane. He crashes sooner or later and everyone is on board.

[RiverDog]

RD FYI Im no longer in golf course management. I got out in FEB 2018 after 33 years. I've had offers to get back in but it doesn't sound too appealing right now.

Sorry about misplacing your employment career. I guess you had told us that you had worked for Genie Lifts. FYI I lived in Moses Lake for 11 years, got my first job out of college at what is now the Simplot potato plant on Wheeler Road.

Here's the things the retard and his zombies dont get about this tariff thing. Take steel as an example. Less than a million people produce raw steel in America and it hasn't changed much with this trade war. Over 7 million people work in industries that use steel to manufacture things including yours truly. A counterweight for an 85' weighs 7 TONS and the overall machine weighs 50 K pounds. our 135 and 175 models are twice as heavy. You think 10% tariffs on steel dont affect us??????Now follow along Trumpie zombies. 350 MILLION PEOPLE use things manufactured out of steel.

China can make it cheaper. Even If Trump runs chinese steel out of the US market the net result to the customer will be the same, higher prices and a lack of parts as the US industry will never be able to pick up the slack.All Trumps buildings including Trump tower were built with chinese steel as well but I digress...

There's a lot less than a million employed in the steel industry, indeed, there isn't even 100k. Latest numbers show that there's 87k. Even in 2000, there was only about 135k with jobs in the steel manufacturing business, so even if Trump were able to restore the number of jobs that there were nearly 2 decades ago, that's only about 48,000, a drop in the bucket when you consider that the US economy has been gaining 4 or 5 times that many jobs in just one month. That's not enough to offset the higher prices that consumers of aluminum and steel products have to absorb as a result of the tariffs, not to mention that China is hitting us with tariffs of their own. Plus there's no guarantee that China's jobs loss will be our jobs gain as there's other countries that manufacture steel and aluminum. Besides, we don't have an employment problem. Our unemployment rate is still at historic lows and we can't fill the jobs that are already open.

That's my biggest beef with Trump's trade war. He picked the wrong fight.

https://www.nwitimes.com/business/steel ... 69877.html

Aluminum manufacturing jobs are even skimpier, employing around 30,000 nation wide, a rate that has been flat for a number of years, even after Trump's trade war.

Point 2. When you have 5% of the world's population and consume around 30% of its durable goods etc give or take you will have a trade deficit with everybody. That's not a bad thing.If you can't make it as cheap make your money distributing it and everybody wins by buying it cheaper. He can't have it both ways saying it's the greatest economy ever(its not and it's getting less great as I type) but then saying we need these trade wars with everybody.

Very true. Plus another thing is that by taking all comers in his trade wars, including China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU, he's de-stabilizing the entire world economy and pushing everyone towards if not a full recession, a major slowdown in the growth rate. Tariffs work best when their targeted at specific abuses, especially if they can be done in cooperation with other countries.

[idhawkman]

Point 2. When you have 5% of the world's population and consume around 30% of its durable goods etc give or take you will have a trade deficit with everybody. That's not a bad thing.If you can't make it as cheap make your money distributing it and everybody wins by buying it cheaper. He can't have it both ways saying it's the greatest economy ever(its not and it's getting less great as I type) but then saying we need these trade wars with everybody.

Wow, you totally miss the point of the trade deficit. We may have a trade deficit because of the 5% and 30% you point out above but why do they tax (tariff) our products going into their country and we don't tariff theirs coming here. That's the point! If they are going to insist on our stuff being tariffed going into their country why wouldn't we reciprocate? We are already at a disadvantage because of the 5%, 30% issue you list above, why do they have to pile on and tariff our stuff even more?

[RiverDog]

Point 2. When you have 5% of the world's population and consume around 30% of its durable goods etc give or take you will have a trade deficit with everybody. That's not a bad thing.If you can't make it as cheap make your money distributing it and everybody wins by buying it cheaper. He can't have it both ways saying it's the greatest economy ever(its not and it's getting less great as I type) but then saying we need these trade wars with everybody.

Wow, you totally miss the point of the trade deficit. We may have a trade deficit because of the 5% and 30% you point out above but why do they tax (tariff) our products going into their country and we don't tariff theirs coming here. That's the point! If they are going to insist on our stuff being tariffed going into their country why wouldn't we reciprocate? We are already at a disadvantage because of the 5%, 30% issue you list above, why do they have to pile on and tariff our stuff even more?

I really don't care how big our trade deficit is. First off, it's not an accurate measure of the interactions between countries as all it does is track the value of physical merchandise and goods. It doesn't take into account things like health care services, insurance, and tourism. It's a stat that economists follow because it trends with our economy. It was at its peak of over $800B in 2008, fell in 2009 to $500B corresponding with our recession, then grew again to nearly $800B as our economy rebounded and continues to grow under Trump.

Secondly, j/b a country has a large trade surplus does not mean it has a high standard of living. Some of the countries with the highest trade surpluses...China, Russia, and India, for example...have some of the worst standard of living and quality of life indexes. So what if China produces aluminum and steel cheaper than we can then sells it to our other industries? So long as our unemployment remains low I see no reason why we need to pay for these tariffs just to save a relatively few, inefficient and outdated rust belt jobs.

[RiverDog]

I have a personal story to tell about that illustrates the impact this trade war is having on life here in America. My former company has been in a very aggressive expansion mode, particularly internationally. We have facilities in both Russia and China. Since the products we produce don't have a real long shelf life, ie 9 months to 2 years, and that it's bulky and expensive to ship per pound as it has to be kept frozen, manufacturing it here in the US and shipping it overseas isn't an ideal way to run our railroad. It's much more efficient to produce closer to the end market. The North American market is pretty much tapped out, so if we want to expand, we have to look for new markets in developing countries.

I have a good friend, 38 years old, an (gasp) immigrant from Peru, that I mentored through his career before I retired. He started as a temporary earning near minimum wage and worked for me in the early part of his career. He was one of the sharpest, hardest working individuals that I've ever I had the pleasure of working with. I helped him get promoted into management, and we've remained good friends. He came over for dinner the other night and he told me how he's applied for a position as a manager of one of our international teams looking to build a facility in China. He'd be perfect for the job as he's had 15 years experience on the production side. Things were going smoothly until this trade war broke out as our company has put on hold all plans to invest in both Russia and China, and with it, his promotion has been put on hold. Now he's not sure if he should wait out this trade war for the job he really wants or to forget about it and apply for other jobs and keep his career moving forward.

This is one example of how this trade war is impacting our own economy. Here we have an American company that is looking to expand into an international market without taking a single American job with it yet they're having to put their plans for expansion on hold.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trade war with China needs to end. It's been mostly a waste of time. China has reached a point where we hurt ourselves more than hurt them with this trade war for exactly the reason you stated. We need access to that 1.4 billion consumers more than we need a perfect trade deal. I hope Trump gets something done and gets this thin over with by early to mid 2020. I know he's probably positioning a deal to give him an election bump just like the Dems are getting impeachment investigations rolling to push out information during the election. Trump has his cards to play and a trade deal a the right time can give him a nice bump. I"m sure he'll look to play that card at the right time.

I was hoping this trade war would have been more effective, but it hasn't. China is too necessary to the world economy at this point. They are the major driver of world growth. Only a handful of people want this trade war and most consider it a waste of time. China is a self-sufficient market now. The rest of the world needs them more than they need us. They are the best place for everyone to grow at this point.

[RiverDog]

Trade war with China needs to end. It's been mostly a waste of time. China has reached a point where we hurt ourselves more than hurt them with this trade war for exactly the reason you stated. We need access to that 1.4 billion consumers more than we need a perfect trade deal. I hope Trump gets something done and gets this thin over with by early to mid 2020. I know he's probably positioning a deal to give him an election bump just like the Dems are getting impeachment investigations rolling to push out information during the election. Trump has his cards to play and a trade deal a the right time can give him a nice bump. I"m sure he'll look to play that card at the right time.

I was hoping this trade war would have been more effective, but it hasn't. China is too necessary to the world economy at this point. They are the major driver of world growth. Only a handful of people want this trade war and most consider it a waste of time. China is a self-sufficient market now. The rest of the world needs them more than they need us. They are the best place for everyone to grow at this point.

I admire you for being able to admit when you've made a misjudgment. The world economy is so intertwined nowadays that a successful trade war is very difficult to wage. The only way a country like the US is going to stand up to abuses by another large player is if multiple countries or partnerships were to all issue tariffs. Doing it unilaterally just won't cut it. Trump's letting his ego get in the way of practical decision making.

[Aseahawkfan]

I admire you for being able to admit when you've made a misjudgment. The world economy is so intertwined nowadays that a successful trade war is very difficult to wage. The only way a country like the US is going to stand up to abuses by another large player is if multiple countries or partnerships were to all issue tariffs. Doing it unilaterally just won't cut it. Trump's letting his ego get in the way of practical decision making.

And China is just too big. They're growth is the main place to grow nowadays for the entire world. They have a consumer culture. 1.4 billion hard working consumers that want all types of goods from around the world is too much to pass up. Nearly every supply chain in the world runs through China as well. Every company is trying to get a piece of the Chinese market. Where else is there to go if not China? Russia? They are a trash economy. India? They are not as consumer driven and too impoverished. There is literally nowhere else to go for explosive growth but China.

[RiverDog]

I admire you for being able to admit when you've made a misjudgment. The world economy is so intertwined nowadays that a successful trade war is very difficult to wage. The only way a country like the US is going to stand up to abuses by another large player is if multiple countries or partnerships were to all issue tariffs. Doing it unilaterally just won't cut it. Trump's letting his ego get in the way of practical decision making.

And China is just too big. They're growth is the main place to grow nowadays for the entire world. They have a consumer culture. 1.4 billion hard working consumers that want all types of goods from around the world is too much to pass up. Nearly every supply chain in the world runs through China as well. Every company is trying to get a piece of the Chinese market. Where else is there to go if not China? Russia? They are a trash economy. India? They are not as consumer driven and too impoverished. There is literally nowhere else to go for explosive growth but China.

Agreed.

I also contend that having a solid trade relationship with China gives us a military/diplomatic lever. War is much less likely to occur if we have strong economic ties. I honestly don't mind having a trade deficit with them or exporting low paying jobs to them so long as the economy and jobs situation in this country aren't suffering.

Industries and their labor demands are constantly changing. Steel and aluminum manufacturing jobs were being eliminated due to automation, they are a huge user of energy that is getting more expensive to produce, and environmental restrictions were making domestic companies less competitive, so I never did get why Trump insisted on using that industry as his starting point in his trade war unless it had to do with his re-election strategy.

[Aseahawkfan]

I also contend that having a solid trade relationship with China gives us a military/diplomatic lever. War is much less likely to occur if we have strong economic ties. I honestly don't mind having a trade deficit with them or exporting low paying jobs to them so long as the economy and jobs situation in this country aren't suffering.

Agreed. Economic relationships reduce war. I'm glad Trump is still very anti-war. I hope he stays that way. Only thing I find funny about that is the left seems to be criticizing him for being anti-war because they criticize him for everything. It's funny when you their hypocrisy is so great that they criticize a president for getting rid of warhawks from his cabinet and maintaining an anti-war stance they supposedly believe in.

Industries and their labor demands are constantly changing. Steel and aluminum manufacturing jobs were being eliminated due to automation, they are a huge user of energy that is getting more expensive to produce, and environmental restrictions were making domestic companies less competitive, so I never did get why Trump insisted on using that industry as his starting point in his trade war unless it had to do with his re-election strategy.

The main reason is The Rust Belt vote. That area has been hit by the loss of those jobs more than anyone. Nothing is saving those jobs. Labor costs are much lower in other countries with lower standards of living and costs.

[RiverDog]

Agreed. Economic relationships reduce war. I'm glad Trump is still very anti-war. I hope he stays that way. Only thing I find funny about that is the left seems to be criticizing him for being anti-war because they criticize him for everything. It's funny when you their hypocrisy is so great that they criticize a president for getting rid of warhawks from his cabinet and maintaining an anti-war stance they supposedly believe in.

Speaking of hypocrisy, I got a laugh yesterday out of an article on my Facebook feed regarding WA Attorney General Bob Fergerson:

Ferguson's partisanship against Trump shows because not long ago he sued the Navy over planned expansion of the Growler Jet Program on Whidbey Island, citing alleged environmental concerns. Now, he's suing in favor of the Sub program (because Trump's taking that money for his border wall)

The $89 million fund diversion is with the blessing of the Pentagon. Because the diversion does affect a military operation in Washington state, one could perhaps understand some legal action. But Ferguson has filed so many lawsuits against the Trump Administration (and none against Obama when he was President) that his accusations, say critics, are starting to sound like the boy who cried wolf.

Industries and their labor demands are constantly changing. Steel and aluminum manufacturing jobs were being eliminated due to automation, they are a huge user of energy that is getting more expensive to produce, and environmental restrictions were making domestic companies less competitive, so I never did get why Trump insisted on using that industry as his starting point in his trade war unless it had to do with his re-election strategy.

The main reason is The Rust Belt vote. That area has been hit by the loss of those jobs more than anyone. Nothing is saving those jobs. Labor costs are much lower in other countries with lower standards of living and costs.

It was a bit of a rhetorical question. Of course, he's buying votes.

Labor costs is a big factor in the competitiveness of Rust Belt jobs. So is the cost to produce electricity, the cost of construction, the lack of environmental restrictions, etc. As far as the loss of jobs goes, most of those people displaced by the loss of aluminum and steel have already moved onto other occupations. I feel badly for those people, particularly those in their late 40's-60's as it's tough to change careers at the tail end of your working life, but it's just one of those facts of life that we have to accept. There's countless occupations that have been eliminated or severely reduced over the past 20-50 years...TV repairmen, key punch operators, check out clerks, telephone operators, etc.

There's people on both sides of the political spectrums that will support anything and everything Trump does and those that will oppose anything and everything. I try to look at each issue stand alone without regard to what the conservative or liberal position is.

[Aseahawkfan]

Speaking of hypocrisy, I got a laugh yesterday out of an article on my Facebook feed regarding WA Attorney General Bob Fergerson:

Ferguson's partisanship against Trump shows because not long ago he sued the Navy over planned expansion of the Growler Jet Program on Whidbey Island, citing alleged environmental concerns. Now, he's suing in favor of the Sub program (because Trump's taking that money for his border wall)

The $89 million fund diversion is with the blessing of the Pentagon. Because the diversion does affect a military operation in Washington state, one could perhaps understand some legal action. But Ferguson has filed so many lawsuits against the Trump Administration (and none against Obama when he was President) that his accusations, say critics, are starting to sound like the boy who cried wolf.

This why I despise both parties. They are both ideologically driven idiots that use science when it suits their purposes and discard it when it doesn't. They just make crap up and pretend they're doing the right thing. So many morons running this country. Talk, talk, talk and do stupid things. It's annoying.