Tarriffs

[Aseahawkfan]

You're preaching to the choir regarding people and their financial acuity. I had a guy working for me that was making just minimum monthly payments on his credit card and it wasn't even enough to cover the monthly finance charge, so even if he didn't charge a dime on the card that month, he was still falling behind. I've never paid a penny in interest charges on any of my credit cards or charge accounts, and there's been lots of times when I was living from paycheck to paycheck.

But IMO the problem with credit abuse has less to do with low interest rates and more to do with the ease at which people can get credit, particularly credit to by cars, boats, etc. A person that is impulsive and seeking immediate self gratification doesn't care if he's getting 5% interest on a loan vs. 6%. If he/she wants something, they buy it, and there's always someone willing to give him/her the money. They really need to tighten the rules on borrowing, particularly credit cards and car loans.

I want to see interest rates on home loans remain low. Home ownership is the first step out of poverty.

Low interest rates encourage credit use. They increase in leverage substantially increased credit use including modifying the calculations for creditworthiness for loans often to folks that can't afford them. Low interest rates have a massive effect on the economy, which is why The Fed uses them in bad economic times to drive the economy. It comes at a cost which is leverage. If something happens where they have to slow the economy like high inflation, then when they raise interest rates to slow things down suddenly a bunch of folks can't afford the borrowed money. If the economy has a downturn with already low interest rates, then we have nowhere to go to get the economy back on track. If you can't lower interest rates any further, then you must resort to even more extreme methods like heavy welfare and spending building up the deficit and requiring increased taxation.

The government likes low interest rates because they can expand the debt for a low cost, which as you have seen is at a nutty level. Of course Trump loves low interest rates because it directly benefits his business. Real estate heavily relies on low interest for expansion.

I would be ok taking a hit on property price inflation to encourage home ownership. The bigger danger right now to home ownership as a path out of poverty is the cost of property. Which is also driven by low interest rates flooding the property market with cheap money inflating demand. I'm not sure that will be great either considering if the economy crashes you have a bunch of folks in homes they can't afford because the cheap credit led to an inflated property market also known as a property bubble. When they lose their jobs or interest rates rise, they can't afford the home any longer.

The problems with cheap credit are numerous. If the economy has a downturn, you'll see what I'm talking about. You've watched the collapse of property in 2008 when the government decided to deregulate combined with government programs encouraging home ownership. You want that level of leverage to build up again? I don't. I don't like the level of leverage at all. It's what I call future earnings paying for current production. You're buying the money, not the asset, then you pay back the money over the life of the loan to eventually own the asset. If you can't afford the money you borrowed in an economic downturn, you lose the asset and a lot of your money like happened in 2008 and plenty of other times. It's irresponsible of The Fed to create this type of environment. It's even more annoying that The Idiot who is president is trying to influence interest rates to lower them further, which would directly benefit his business and most wealthy folks far more than it will the working person who will just build up more leverage they can't afford once the worm turns (unless it lasts for the entirety of their 20 or 30 year mortgage).

[idhawkman]

The Dow is set to open near all time highs at 26,851 but the highest it has ever been was 26,951.81 on Oct 3, 2018 and closed that day at 26,828.39. It will be interesting to see if the market can hold its gains and move higher given the lack of news coming from the G20. I don't anticipate a breakout unless the renewed negotiations can actually come up with an agreement. In the meantime, China keeps hemorrhaging businesses that are moving to VietNam, Thailand and other places including moving back to the U.S.

[burrrton]

Something for ID to defend :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -5-billion

[RiverDog]

Something for ID to defend :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -5-billion

Trying to resurrect the steel and aluminum industry was foolish to begin with. There wasn't enough jobs that stood to be gained that would offset losses in other industries, like auto manufacturing. Besides, there isn't a problem with there not being enough jobs available when the number of job openings far exceed the number of unemployed. That is, unless you're trying to get re-elected and need votes in the Rust Belt.

[Aseahawkfan]

The amount of tariffs necessary to equalize the wage and production disparity with resource extraction and production in America compared to foreign countries is way too high. No way an American steel worker will work for $1 or less an hour. That was a pretty useless idea.

[idhawkman]

Something for ID to defend :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -5-billion

Pretty pathetic considering that the industry has been decimated for years and didn't have the funding to update their furnace types with newer technology. But hey, them being broken for decades has to be Trump's fault.

They blame the economic downturn on Trump, too but turn a blind eye toward the Fed chairman for raising interest rates to kill the expansion that Trump had started. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative. Pathetic.

[Aseahawkfan]

Pretty pathetic considering that the industry has been decimated for years and didn't have the funding to update their furnace types with newer technology. But hey, them being broken for decades has to be Trump's fault.

They blame the economic downturn on Trump, too but turn a blind eye toward the Fed chairman for raising interest rates to kill the expansion that Trump had started. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative. Pathetic.

The interest rates are still unnaturally low. If the economic expansion is real, then it wouldn't require low interest rates. Low interest rates come with a cost. You don't want to see that cost realized with interest rates already low and nowhere to go with interest rates. If we had an economic collapse with interest rates at this level, holy crap would that be bad. Interest rates this low for this long is highly unusual. Don't you ever wonder why you can't get a decent rate of return with bonds, savings accounts, or money market accounts? It's because interest rates are so low. You must remember a time when you could keep your money in a savings account or purchase a bond for a substantial rate of return?

Don't worry. The coming economic downturn will be mild and cyclical in nature. It's not a soul crushing collapse like 2008, but more a natural cyclical downturn due to reaching maximal market saturation. Housing may take a big hit due to the price of property, but I doubt it will be anywhere near as bad as 2008. We're due for a cyclical downturn before revving up again.

[idhawkman]

The interest rates are still unnaturally low. If the economic expansion is real, then it wouldn't require low interest rates. Low interest rates come with a cost. You don't want to see that cost realized with interest rates already low and nowhere to go with interest rates. If we had an economic collapse with interest rates at this level, holy crap would that be bad. Interest rates this low for this long is highly unusual. Don't you ever wonder why you can't get a decent rate of return with bonds, savings accounts, or money market accounts? It's because interest rates are so low. You must remember a time when you could keep your money in a savings account or purchase a bond for a substantial rate of return?

The economy for most Americans has been eroding away over the last 20 years until last year when real wages finally started to show a little life. Just when it showed a little life, the FED slammed it in the head with a sledge hammer and killed it again (not in the US but more the world economy). They should have let the economy get its fighting legs under her again before reigning it in.

Don't worry. The coming economic downturn will be mild and cyclical in nature. It's not a soul crushing collapse like 2008, but more a natural cyclical downturn due to reaching maximal market saturation. Housing may take a big hit due to the price of property, but I doubt it will be anywhere near as bad as 2008. We're due for a cyclical downturn before revving up again.

Well thanks to the feds it better be otherwise the world is going into a huge slump.

[burrrton]

But hey, them being broken for decades has to be Trump's fault.

Nobody, at least me, is blaming Trump for old tech, but broken? Aren't they operational, just more expensive to run?

And the point is he argued his tariffs would bring a boon to those old/poor sites, when they're the ones hurt most by them.

[RiverDog]

Something for ID to defend :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -5-billion

Pretty pathetic considering that the industry has been decimated for years and didn't have the funding to update their furnace types with newer technology. But hey, them being broken for decades has to be Trump's fault.

Of course, it wasn't Trump's fault that the industry had been "decimated" for years. But it is his fault for not recognizing that it was very unlikely to recover even with the "benefit" of tariffs.

They blame the economic downturn on Trump, too but turn a blind eye toward the Fed chairman for raising interest rates to kill the expansion that Trump had started. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative. Pathetic.

Not sure you are referring to as "they", but I'm not blaming the economic downturn on Trump. He receives some credit for stimulating it with his tax cut, but by in large, the economy is cyclical and is due for a downturn.

[idhawkman]

But hey, them being broken for decades has to be Trump's fault.

Nobody, at least me, is blaming Trump for old tech, but broken? Aren't they operational, just more expensive to run?

And the point is he argued his tariffs would bring a boon to those old/poor sites, when they're the ones hurt most by them.

Them is the company not the furnaces.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... spartandhp

Thought this was interesting. Companies are looking elsewhere than China to start up/utilize factories to avoid the tariff.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/walmarts-supplier-says-chinese-factories-in-desperate-state/ar-AAE5RkM?ocid=spartandhp

Thought this was interesting. Companies are looking elsewhere than China to start up/utilize factories to avoid the tariff.

Tariffs are having a definite effect on China. It is taking a while to fully hammer them, but it is working. I don't know anyone expected them to work quickly, but if companies transfer production to non-tariff countries China will be hurt.

[RiverDog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/walmarts-supplier-says-chinese-factories-in-desperate-state/ar-AAE5RkM?ocid=spartandhp

Thought this was interesting. Companies are looking elsewhere than China to start up/utilize factories to avoid the tariff.

Tariffs are having a definite effect on China. It is taking a while to fully hammer them, but it is working. I don't know anyone expected them to work quickly, but if companies transfer production to non-tariff countries China will be hurt.

But how does that help us? Where's this "America First" philosophy that Trump so proudly chanted? The tariffs were supposed to help us, not just hurt China. All we're doing is making China less dependent on us, which could have strategic consequences.

[idhawkman]

But how does that help us? Where's this "America First" philosophy that Trump so proudly chanted? The tariffs were supposed to help us, not just hurt China. All we're doing is making China less dependent on us, which could have strategic consequences.

I can help with that question. Not only are the companies leaving China for Vietnam and other low or non tariffed countries but some are relocating back in the US. That's the first way it helps us. The second way is that the countries with low or no tariffs enjoy that status because they buy our producer's stuff without tariffing them. So the farmers, manufacturers, ranchers, etc are benefiting much more in fair trade with those countries than they get today with China.

I'm not sure you really meant to suggest that companies leaving China don't really help us but it is how it came across.

[Aseahawkfan]

But how does that help us? Where's this "America First" philosophy that Trump so proudly chanted? The tariffs were supposed to help us, not just hurt China. All we're doing is making China less dependent on us, which could have strategic consequences.

If you understand the problems with China, then you would see how that helps us. It's not mainly about jobs in China, it's about technological theft and currency manipulation to undercut competition. If we can make our companies find other places to produce, then China loses jobs and productivity. That puts pressure on them to halt their technological theft and currency manipulation. The trade war with China was more about protecting intellectual property rights and their active efforts to manipulate their currency to keep it well below it's real value to keep jobs in their nation.

I thought you understood why we had to step up and find a way to make China compliant. They have been ripping off intellectual property from us for years. They have denied foreign ownership of their companies for years. When you buy a Chinese stock, you don't actually own a piece of the company because the Chinese government doesn't allow it. While if China buys an American stock, Chinese investors own a piece of the company. They've been tying their currency value to U.S. dollars specifically keep the Yuan weak compared to the dollar to ensure they don't lose investment in their nation back to the United States. How it is advantageous for us to have China grow at this exponential rate, but have no real equalization because they keep devaluing their currency?

Why do you think I support the pressure Trump is putting on China? Because I like tariffs? No. I don't like them. China absolutely refuses to respect competition with other nations or create an equitable playing field in the world markets. We're the only one that can have an economic war with China. If we can drive business to other areas and harm China, then we can force them to make some concessions.

[burrrton]

We're the only one that can have an economic war with China. If we can drive business to other areas and harm China, then we can force them to make some concessions.

I think there's something to this, but it's still raising our costs to do so.

I guess you can argue it's worth it, but I doubt the people who are less able to absorb rising costs would agree. Maybe I'm wrong.

[RiverDog]

But how does that help us? Where's this "America First" philosophy that Trump so proudly chanted? The tariffs were supposed to help us, not just hurt China. All we're doing is making China less dependent on us, which could have strategic consequences.

If you understand the problems with China, then you would see how that helps us. It's not mainly about jobs in China, it's about technological theft and currency manipulation to undercut competition. If we can make our companies find other places to produce, then China loses jobs and productivity. That puts pressure on them to halt their technological theft and currency manipulation. The trade war with China was more about protecting intellectual property rights and their active efforts to manipulate their currency to keep it well below it's real value to keep jobs in their nation.

Sensitive technology and intellectual property I can understand. But that doesn't apply to most of the goods and materials impacted by the tariffs, like steel and aluminum. Those industries grew outdated and inefficient in this country.

Why do you think I support the pressure Trump is putting on China? Because I like tariffs? No. I don't like them. China absolutely refuses to respect competition with other nations or create an equitable playing field in the world markets. We're the only one that can have an economic war with China. If we can drive business to other areas and harm China, then we can force them to make some concessions.

So we're doing this in order to help other countries around the world? I could handle that if that was the rationale being used for the tariffs, but it isn't. It was supposed to be "America First."

I have no affinity for China as they are a repressive society, but we have to accept the fact that they are one of if not our greatest geopolitical foe. Having a good, healthy trade relationship with them is a good way to prevent a war and maintain leverage in other areas. I like the fact that they are dependent on us.

[idhawkman]

I think there's something to this, but it's still raising our costs to do so.

I guess you can argue it's worth it, but I doubt the people who are less able to absorb rising costs would agree. Maybe I'm wrong.

The reason you haven't seen the Tariffs hurt he US is partially based on the corporate tax cut that Trump got passed. Those offset any tariff increases in combination to China manipulating their currency and subsidizing their businesses.

[idhawkman]

So we're doing this in order to help other countries around the world? I could handle that if that was the rationale being used for the tariffs, but it isn't. It was supposed to be "America First."

Just wow! You really think this is helping other countries and totally excluding the US?

I have no affinity for China as they are a repressive society, but we have to accept the fact that they are one of if not our greatest geopolitical foe. Having a good, healthy trade relationship with them is a good way to prevent a war and maintain leverage in other areas. I like the fact that they are dependent on us.

That's just it, it hasn't been healthy for decades and it has to end. Better to end it sooner rather than later. Look how much you are whining about it now, I wouldn't want to see how much you'd squeal later.

[Aseahawkfan]

So we're doing this in order to help other countries around the world? I could handle that if that was the rationale being used for the tariffs, but it isn't. It was supposed to be "America First."

I have no affinity for China as they are a repressive society, but we have to accept the fact that they are one of if not our greatest geopolitical foe. Having a good, healthy trade relationship with them is a good way to prevent a war and maintain leverage in other areas. I like the fact that they are dependent on us.

Catch phrases win votes and they make people feel good. Not sure why you're being any harder on Trump than other presidents with their BS catchphrases that mean mostly jacksquat. Like Obama's "change" and Bush's "Points of Light" or whatever catchphrase.

Our companies have been benefiting from cheap foreign labor to produce cheaper goods for years and you know it. We consumers benefit as well. But at some point stealing your intellectual property and manipulating your currency to skew growth in your favor defeats the purpose of the international free markets. Someone had to do something to slow that down.

[RiverDog]

Catch phrases win votes and they make people feel good. Not sure why you're being any harder on Trump than other presidents with their BS catchphrases that mean mostly jacksquat. Like Obama's "change" and Bush's "Points of Light" or whatever catchphrase.

How do you know that I wasn't harder on other POTUS's for their catch phrases? My favorite was Bill Clinton's "the era of big government is over" after he just got through trying to shove HillaryCare down our throats.

Our companies have been benefiting from cheap foreign labor to produce cheaper goods for years and you know it. We consumers benefit as well. But at some point stealing your intellectual property and manipulating your currency to skew growth in your favor defeats the purpose of the international free markets. Someone had to do something to slow that down.

Of course, they have. And we as consumers have benefited from lower prices. So long as we have historically low unemployment, I'm not too concerned with some other country's cheap labor.

I do agree with you as far as the stealing of intellectual property and manipulation of currency, but that's not the rationale being used for the tariffs.

[Aseahawkfan]

Of course, they have. And we as consumers have benefited from lower prices. So long as we have historically low unemployment, I'm not too concerned with some other country's cheap labor.

I do agree with you as far as the stealing of intellectual property and manipulation of currency, but that's not the rationale being used for the tariffs.

Some engineer just stole Tesla's autopilot code and sold it to a Chinese company. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/apple-tesla-xpeng-employee-ip-theft-lawsuit/

We'll see if China does the right thing or just continues to ignore this type of theft. Total BS that China allows this trash.

[idhawkman]

I do agree with you as far as the stealing of intellectual property and manipulation of currency, but that's not the rationale being used for the tariffs.

Where are you getting that this is not the rationale?

[NorthHawk]

This issue with China could have largely been avoided had the western world worked together.
Consider:
The largest economy is the US.
2nd is China
3rd would be the EU
What would have been the TPP with the US leading, was intended to be a mechanism to curb China's excesses and violations.
Those countries included Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Canada, and others which would probably be the equivalent
of the 4th largest economy. Possibly add in India and it's most of the world.

And we all have the same problem with IP and China.
That would have been way too much pressure for China to bear, but Trump has to be the Gary Cooper character
in High Noon and go it alone. It's hurting the economies of the world including the US unnecessarily, as
well, any agreement with China may not be the best deal that could be had.

[RiverDog]

This issue with China could have largely been avoided had the western world worked together.
Consider:
The largest economy is the US.
2nd is China
3rd would be the EU
What would have been the TPP with the US leading, was intended to be a mechanism to curb China's excesses and violations.
Those countries included Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Canada, and others which would probably be the equivalent
of the 4th largest economy. Possibly add in India and it's most of the world.

And we all have the same problem with IP and China.
That would have been way too much pressure for China to bear, but Trump has to be the Gary Cooper character
in High Noon and go it alone. It's hurting the economies of the world including the US unnecessarily, as
well, any agreement with China may not be the best deal that could be had.

That's one of the issues I had with Trump's tariffs. It seemed as if he was taking on all comers all at once.

[Aseahawkfan]

This issue with China could have largely been avoided had the western world worked together.
Consider:
The largest economy is the US.
2nd is China
3rd would be the EU
What would have been the TPP with the US leading, was intended to be a mechanism to curb China's excesses and violations.
Those countries included Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Canada, and others which would probably be the equivalent
of the 4th largest economy. Possibly add in India and it's most of the world.

And we all have the same problem with IP and China.
That would have been way too much pressure for China to bear, but Trump has to be the Gary Cooper character
in High Noon and go it alone. It's hurting the economies of the world including the US unnecessarily, as
well, any agreement with China may not be the best deal that could be had.

These type of trade agreements have been bad for the American worker. If Trump went ahead with it, he would lose votes. NAFTA was despised by labor even though it was pushed through by a Democrat President. Trade agreements like the TPP globalize the labor pool forcing American workers to compete against workers from nations with lower standards of living. It puts downward pressure on wages. And is a major reason wages are stagnant and the standard of living is falling. It gives huge advantages to corporations to bring down labor costs by moving production to other nations, while not doing much to protect the American worker other than cheaper often lower quality goods they need produced to make up for the lower wages.

I'm surprised you support agreements like the TPP. They are great corporate profits, not so great for American workers. I doubt the TPP would improve anything with China. China is far too big to care. The nations around them already despise them. Tell me who in Asia likes China? TPP wouldn't change any of that. China does what China wants because they have 1.4 billion people aka consumers. No nation in Asia is even close to that large a market. They know this and are patiently waiting Trump out. They can literally wait for him to leave office in 2 to 6 years and not worry. I doubt the next president will have the will to stand up to China when American companies not really loyal to America barely care as long as they get access the Chinese market.

The tariffs haven't done much to China. I think our trade deficit with China rose 11% even with the tariffs. TPP isn't changing crap. Just letting American companies do business easier in Asia for cheaper labor and access to markets we already had access to. TPP was nothing more than NAFTA for Asia.

I don't even know why I bother caring since I should be on the side of businesses given I like to make money on stocks. TPP would be great for stocks. I have this strange soft spot for working folk given the majority of my family are working class and agreements like the TPP undercut their wages and opportunities. If even the workers don't understand the economics of what's going on, how can you help them if they just follow news stations and politicians?

I imagine a world labor market was inevitable. Unfortunately Americans seem to be forced into a global labor pool they are not ready for and not having the situation clearly explained.

[NorthHawk]

Trump had the opportunity to shape the TPP into any version he wanted, but he just walked away.
It was intended as a bulwark against the excesses of China and we are seeing what happens
without a group effort. The free trade sides could have been mitigated if it harmed workers as the
deal wasn't yet signed by all and every country knows a new US administration would have a different
agenda. It just would have taken longer.

Free trade hasn't been good for many workers as it's mainly about the free flow of capital which moves jobs with it,
but automation and Artificial Intelligence will be just as bad or worse.
A recent report said that in the next 10 years it's expected that those 2 things will
eliminate 40 to 50% of all manual labor jobs. Everything from Taxis and truck drivers; waiters and cooks;
to some of medical and legal jobs will be done by automation. Factory work will all but disappear. We are seeing that
already with advanced Computer Science degrees needed in a lot of cases because the few workers that are hired
need to be able to understand the coding and its effects on the automated workforce.

[RiverDog]

A recent report said that in the next 10 years it's expected that those 2 things will eliminate 40 to 50% of all manual labor jobs. Everything from Taxis and truck drivers; waiters and cooks; to some of medical and legal jobs will be done by automation. Factory work will all but disappear. We are seeing that already with advanced Computer Science degrees needed in a lot of cases because the few workers that are hired need to be able to understand the coding and its effects on the automated workforce.

IMO some of that stuff is more than 10 years away, particularly in those industries where public safety is at risk, like automated trucking/taxis. All it would take is one or two major accidents caused by an autonomous vehicle out of the hundreds of thousands of daily trips for the government to ban them from the highways and set the program back 5 years or so. Additionally, it's still not clear just how many jobs would be eliminated or if they'd simply be modified, and as a rule, as one industry loses jobs, another one gains as a result.

I think we're getting a little too far out into the future to be talking about the possible effects of AI on the work force.

[NorthHawk]

AI is already in use in the Medical, Legal, and Insurance industries and will only increase.
These are for research positions mostly, but all are at entry level wage scales where
people get their feet wet in whatever industry. And that's where technology will have
the most impact - the largely non-skilled workforce. That's the point I was trying
to make, that factory type jobs will be replaced by automation for the most part.

I agree there will be some problems getting past accidents in driving, but self driving
vehicles aren't that far off and with the testing mileage piling up, the stats are beginning
to show that they are safer than the humans for most situations.

[RiverDog]

AI is already in use in the Medical, Legal, and Insurance industries and will only increase.
These are for research positions mostly, but all are at entry level wage scales where
people get their feet wet in whatever industry. And that's where technology will have
the most impact - the largely non-skilled workforce. That's the point I was trying
to make, that factory type jobs will be replaced by automation for the most part.

I agree there will be some problems getting past accidents in driving, but self driving
vehicles aren't that far off and with the testing mileage piling up, the stats are beginning
to show that they are safer than the humans for most situations.

I dunno about self driving vehicles. They still don't have self driving trains on railroads and subways. Are you OK putting 30 tons of cargo on streets and highways with thousands of cars and pedestrians? I think they're a long ways off of having a significant impact on the trucking industry. If you want an example of an automated system run amok, just think about Boeing and their 737 Max.

Automation, or the newest off shoot AI, has always been a factor ever since the industrial revolution in the mid 19th century. I don't see it as having a game changing impact.

[Aseahawkfan]

IMO some of that stuff is more than 10 years away, particularly in those industries where public safety is at risk, like automated trucking/taxis. All it would take is one or two major accidents caused by an autonomous vehicle out of the hundreds of thousands of daily trips for the government to ban them from the highways and set the program back 5 years or so. Additionally, it's still not clear just how many jobs would be eliminated or if they'd simply be modified, and as a rule, as one industry loses jobs, another one gains as a result.

I think we're getting a little too far out into the future to be talking about the possible effects of AI on the work force.

I imagine human fear would prevent AI driving from taking over. But in testing AI is causing less accidents and problems. AI does not get tired, doesn't fail to pay attention, doesn't drink alcohol or do drugs, doesn't have medical issues, take medications, or slow with age. I think AI driving is closer than 10 years.

Northhawk is mostly right. It's like John Henry fighting against the train. It's great to see human will put up the fight, by the body can't do what these machines can do. We're literally watching the automation of military force and that will be the worst part of it for humans who will have to rely on other humans within the power structure not abusing those machines. But it's coming and sooner than most humans thinking.

The race is on for automating driving and it's getting closer and closer. Once they automate driving, taxi services, trucking. buses, and like will be under pressure. I thought it was farther away myself, but go look up some videos on automated driving including the Tesla autopilot cars. It's pretty surprising.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump had the opportunity to shape the TPP into any version he wanted, but he just walked away.
It was intended as a bulwark against the excesses of China and we are seeing what happens
without a group effort. The free trade sides could have been mitigated if it harmed workers as the
deal wasn't yet signed by all and every country knows a new US administration would have a different
agenda. It just would have taken longer.

Free trade hasn't been good for many workers as it's mainly about the free flow of capital which moves jobs with it,
but automation and Artificial Intelligence will be just as bad or worse.
A recent report said that in the next 10 years it's expected that those 2 things will
eliminate 40 to 50% of all manual labor jobs. Everything from Taxis and truck drivers; waiters and cooks;
to some of medical and legal jobs will be done by automation. Factory work will all but disappear. We are seeing that
already with advanced Computer Science degrees needed in a lot of cases because the few workers that are hired
need to be able to understand the coding and its effects on the automated workforce.

I don't think the TPP would have helped with China myself and it wouldn't have helped the American worker. Look at NAFTA. The agreement was terminated and it didn't change much for America. NAFTA and the TPP are convenient having a single trade agreement, but not necessary. China is just too big to stop. The tariffs are doing nearly nothing to them. I guess we'll see for sure in another six months if no agreement is reached, but since the tariffs increased we've seen trade deficit with China continue to rise. Even with tariffs, it's still way cheaper to produce goods in China. And expensive to move production elsewhere quickly. I was supportive of the tariffs early on, but how can you argue with the numbers. China isn't feeling the impact of tariffs. A few companies looking to move production is a blip to China. Production costs are just one part of China. Access to 1.4 billion consumers hungry for American goods is something we can't afford to lose.

You're mostly right that humans are pretty much hammered. Pandora's Box is open and there is no going back. If not in our lifetime, maybe in the life of our children will see human rebellion quelled by robots. Even now we police other nations using drones and gain huge amounts of intel using drones. Factory automation is up big. My machinist uncle barely has to do anything at his job other than adjust a few machines that take care of the work. More and more robots are being created daily to automate more and more. Lots of robot/automation etfs to invest in for the growth of robotic technology.

[idhawkman]

This issue with China could have largely been avoided had the western world worked together.
Consider:
The largest economy is the US.
2nd is China
3rd would be the EU
What would have been the TPP with the US leading, was intended to be a mechanism to curb China's excesses and violations.
Those countries included Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Canada, and others which would probably be the equivalent
of the 4th largest economy. Possibly add in India and it's most of the world.

And we all have the same problem with IP and China.
That would have been way too much pressure for China to bear, but Trump has to be the Gary Cooper character
in High Noon and go it alone. It's hurting the economies of the world including the US unnecessarily, as
well, any agreement with China may not be the best deal that could be had.

TPP was Trans Pacific not Trans EU. Second, the TPP as it was written put burdens on the US to accept all the other members good without putting any obligations on them which would have turned the US against all of asia and not all of asia against the Chinese.

[NorthHawk]

Read my post again.
I clearly stated the TPP would have been considered the 4th largest
economy not including the US which was already counted. I also said
the deal wasn’t done and the members knew a new administration
would want changes. It was a chance for Trump to lead and he
failed .

Working together, those 3 groups would have left China with very
little leverage.

[Aseahawkfan]

Read my post again.
I clearly stated the TPP would have been considered the 4th largest
economy not including the US which was already counted. I also said
the deal wasn’t done and the members knew a new administration
would want changes. It was a chance for Trump to lead and he
failed .

Working together, those 3 groups would have left China with very
little leverage.

Very little leverage? How so? They have 1.4 billion consumers and workers. How do you challenge that?

[NorthHawk]

Trade.
It's how countries make money and keep their people happy.
By restricting access to the other billion people with the a much higher economic
output and buying power, they would have a huge amount of internal pressure from
their people and many of their factories would have to shut down.
With their population, the Gov't doesn't want to have any form of uprising and
they are sensitive to it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trade.
It's how countries make money and keep their people happy.
By restricting access to the other billion people with the a much higher economic
output and buying power, they would have a huge amount of internal pressure from
their people and many of their factories would have to shut down.
With their population, the Gov't doesn't want to have any form of uprising and
they are sensitive to it.

What happened last time China had an uprising? How does China deal with uprisings?

The answer to those questions shows you how much China gives a crap about uprisings. China does not have some American constitution protecting individual rights. You get out of line in China, they'll put in back in line even if you're a billionaire.

[Hawktawk]

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

[RiverDog]

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.