✡Experts✡ Warn of Backlash in Donald Trump’s China Trade Policies

No, no, don’t elect this guy - It can’t possibly work

archive.is/Cf0c7

On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump has promised to do quite a few things that are beyond the powers of an American president, like billing Mexico for a border wall. But when it comes to foreign trade, his powers as president would come closer to his expansive ambitions.
As president, Mr. Trump could seek to penalize other nations for undercutting American manufacturers or stealing American ideas. He could also pursue congressional legislation to impose a 45 percent tariff, or tax, on imported Chinese goods, as he has proposed.
The bottom line, some experts say, is that Mr. Trump might well be able to squeeze China.

That does not mean, however, that his punitive approach would ease America’s economic pains. In fact, a range of experts agree that Mr. Trump’s proposals are more likely to deepen those problems, particularly if China or other targeted nations retaliate, rather than accept his demands.
Starting a trade war might be cathartic for workers who have lost jobs, but it is unlikely to create a lot of factory work.
“There’s no way a tariff of this kind could deliver the kind of benefits that he’s talking about, and it’s quite wrong to think that the big problem for American workers has been foreign trade,” said J .W. Mason, a professor of economics at John Jay College and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank. “But I think it could be very destructive for the rest of the world.”

Mr. Trump’s views on trade are among his oldest and steadiest public policy positions. He has long maintained that other countries are taking advantage of the United States because Americans spend more money on foreign goods than the rest of the world spends on American goods. And he has long argued for slapping higher tariffs on those foreign goods in order to fortify the American economy.
Trade was the first policy issue Mr. Trump mentioned last Tuesday in a speech after his latest round of victories in five northeastern primaries.

“Our jobs are being sucked away from our country and we’re not going to let it happen anymore, folks,” he said at a victory party in New York that night.

It emerged again Wednesday in Washington during what was billed as a major foreign policy speech.
This Tuesday, Mr. Trump hopes to sweep the delegates in Indiana and all but sew up the Republican nomination. Nowhere has trade figured more centrally than in the Hoosier State, where the air conditioner maker Carrier opted to move operations to Mexico, becoming a recurrent feature in Mr. Trump’s anti-free-trade litanies.

China has prospered over the last few decades by focusing its economy on low-cost manufacturing for foreign markets. Exports to the United States soared, particularly after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. American businesses and consumers bought $481.9 billion in Chinese goods in 2015, about one-fifth of all imports and the most from any country. But manufacturing employment in the United States has fallen sharply. A 2013 study estimated that China’s rise had eliminated at least one million domestic factory jobs.

In the current campaign, Mr. Trump has proposed a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports and a 35 percent tax on Mexican imports. He has also proposed tariffs on goods that specific American companies produce in foreign countries, including Carrier air-conditioners and Ford automobiles.
Mr. Trump has said the threat of such tariffs would persuade China, for example, to modify the economic policies that he describes as providing unfair advantages to Chinese companies. Rather than incur his wrath, he says, American companies would be persuaded to keep more of their factories close to home.

“The 45 percent is a threat that if they don’t behave,” Mr. Trump said at a Republican debate in Miami last month, the United States “will tax you.”
He added: “It doesn’t have to be 45; it could be less. But it has to be something because our country and our trade and our deals and most importantly our jobs are going to hell.”

As president, Mr. Trump would have some latitude to reverse a course that the nation has pursued for decades. But the results could be troublesome on multiple fronts. The removal of trade barriers has played a significant role in reducing global poverty and encouraging peace between nations, achievements that could be eroded by tit-for-tat backsliding.

“The basic principle is that a sovereign state enters trade agreements of its free will, and it can get back out,” said Robert Howse, the Lloyd C. Nelson professor of international law at N.Y.U. School of Law. “But that’s the easy part.”

- continued next post

Other urls found in this thread:

psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Capitalism
sociology.ucdavis.edu/people/fzblock
epi.org/blog/apple-iphone-profits-dwarf-labor-costs/
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Imposing sweeping tariffs would reverse a mainstay of United States foreign policy. Beginning after World War II, the United States gradually reduced its import taxes and pushed other nations to do the same, seeking not only to promote increased trade but to prevent conflict. The United States now imposes average weighted import tariffs of just 1.4 percent, according to the World Bank, among the lowest rates in the world.

Under existing laws, Mr. Trump could impose tariffs only on specific categories of imports, not whole countries, and only by demonstrating specific violations of trade rules, such as export subsidies. “There are at least 50 sets of laws and regulations that exist that China has, at least in spirit, crossed the boundaries,” Sam Clovis, an adviser to Mr. Trump, said in an interview.

But Mr. Trump would have the difficult task of proving that China is breaking the rules before the World Trade Organization, which polices global commerce. International trade laws limit the type of help governments can provide to companies, but the role of the Chinese government is particularly opaque, said Mark Wu, a professor of law at Harvard and a former United States trade negotiator in the administration of President George W. Bush.

“China’s economy is its own beast, and it has a form that was not envisioned at the time these rules were created 20 years ago,” Mr. Wu said. “W.T.O. rules are not necessarily equipped to address all of the problematic aspects of that China Inc. system as far as American exporters are concerned.”

In fact, one of Mr. Trump’s favorite charges, that China and other nations are suppressing the value of their currencies, is actually not a violation of existing trade agreements.

A central problem is defining currency manipulation in a way that excludes the United States — in particular, the Federal Reserve’s post-recession stimulus campaign, which had the effect of weakening the dollar much in the same way that other countries do to their currency.

Alternatively, Mr. Trump could pursue the radical option of seeking legislation to impose a broad China tariff, in effect demolishing the rules of global trade.

“It would be a flagrant violation,” said Alan O. Sykes, a professor of law at Stanford and an expert on international economic relations. “There is no prior violation of W.T.O. law that would be even close.”

The impact of such legislation would touch almost every aisle at Walmart.

In 2015, Americans bought $14.2 billion worth of Chinese shoes, $2.5 billion of Chinese jewelry and $593 million of Chinese rugs. And, most of all, cellphones — $64 billion worth, according to the Commerce Department.

All told, the United States imported $481.9 billion in Chinese goods in 2015, a record.

But research suggests that the price of Chinese goods would rise by significantly less than 45 percent because companies would hold the line to preserve their market share. Consumers can also buy comparable goods. When the United States imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires in 2009, imports of tires from China declined while imports from Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand rose sharply.

For the same reasons, however, economists see little chance that a tariff would achieve Mr. Trump’s goal of encouraging domestic production. They say it is even less likely to create large numbers of new factory jobs. American manufacturing output is at the highest level in history and employment has fallen because of large gains in efficiency, a trend that is unlikely to reverse.

China could retaliate by imposing its own tariffs. China responded to the tire tariff, for example, by imposing a tariff on American chicken parts.
The United States sold $116.2 billion in goods to China in 2015, including aircraft parts, automobiles and semiconductors — high-value industries in which workers earn high wages. Losing China’s market could mean sacrificing better jobs for less desirable ones.

Doug Oberhelman, chairman and chief executive of Caterpillar, described higher tariffs as “very dangerous” in February. “We’re 5 percent of the world population,” said Mr. Oberhelman, who spoke in his capacity as president of the Business Roundtable, a pro-trade lobby. “Ninety-five percent of our potential customers are elsewhere. We’ve got to learn and figure out how to deal with that.”

The damage to international trade agreements could also have deep and enduring consequences.
One of the central benefits of the current system is that it separates trade disputes from other kinds of conflict. The global effort to reduce tariffs after World War II “was dreamed up as a way to prevent world wars,” said Mr. Howse, the N.Y.U. professor. “That should not be forgotten.”

MAGA 2016

MAKE AMERICA INDUSTRIAL AGAIN

user from now on write it like this

(((Experts)))

That's getting a little too trendy for my taste but thanks anyways.

If you don't buy $10 Chinese shoes there's going to be another world war, got that goyim?

Go back to Holla Forums, kid.

I'm certain he doesn't have a bone to pick, nor an ideological support for neoliberal economic policy

Objectively false, the real reason there's been no major wars has been nuclear weapons and the overwhelming supremacy of US


because we were the only producer that wasn't in rubble at the end of WW2 and we had captive markets in Europe and Asia

Gay as fuck. Implying Holla Forums knows better than pretty much 100% of economists. Because after all you feel that trade is bad because dirty foreigners, so it must be so.
Wow Holla Forums is so cool and rational


No but it makes it somewhat more likely


This is autism

kek

Didn't take long to smoke you out did it?

Ever been to the rust belt, schlomo?

Note he offers no further explanation.

you mean the economists who are mostly upper and upper middle class who generally don't feel much, if any impact from the policies they advocate?

...

The NYT comments section is shitting all over the article. That's a very good sign.

If that were true, then we'll just have to make him emperor.

Hey, retard, has it ever occurred to you that value doesn't come from thin air? The difference is coming out of our pockets and going elsewhere.

The fact that many foreigners are dirty is a different topic. What is key to economic discussion is that they are taking value away from us by doing it themselves, plus the value of the shipping.

Nice try at demeaning people who make sense, though.

We used to run the budgets of nations on tariffs. Then they realized they could do it + destroy the competition if they ran it on the backs of the middle class instead.

retarded fantasy. those industrial jobs aren't coming back, dude

Why not?

And it's not headlined on Drudge?
Wow. Just. Wow.

America: now with 60% more Republicans, and they're all voting for Donald J. Trump!

That's called a bad deal.


Chinese Defense Force need to be exposed to the masses at every opportunity, I just wish the people that were pushing gamergate cared enough to use their resources for something like this as well.

comparative advantage and robotics

So much for caring about worker's rights, rich exploiting the poor, and oppressed "minorities". What good is virtue signaling if you aren't trendy while doing it amirite?

> psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

3. Bargaining

The normal reaction to feelings of helplessness and vulnerability is often a need to regain control–
◾If only we had sought medical attention sooner…
◾If only we got a second opinion from another doctor…
◾If only we had tried to be a better person toward them…

Secretly, we may make a deal with God or our higher power in an attempt to postpone the inevitable. This is a weaker line of defense to protect us from the painful reality.

okay

PIC RELATED, TRUMP TARDS.

We already make the robots, you stupid fuck. But, building tires (for instance) employs more people than building robots that build tires. Get it?

Those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, dude. At best, you have R&D, design, computer programming, etc jobs, but not manufacturing jobs, asshole

Then maybe the problem is our population is too high. At least 40% of the people in America could be disposed of comfortably. And if we still need more jobs, why not start banning imports one country at a time and seeing just how self-sufficient we can be?

...

I don't recall robots manufacturing Carrier Air Conditioners.

Reminder that a new smartphone would cost around $5000 if Donald's trade policies were enacted.

What a shame I can't get niggertech that I don't need

Do you think everybody is the type of person to buy an iphone every year or something

Apple goyphones have something like 60% profit margin currently; they have room to move. Maybe they could rethink the planned obsolescence model while they're at it.

I wish, but we'd never get so lucky. Kikes would just subsidize them; way too useful for controlling and profiting off the average goyim.

Source?

...

No argument here

That estimate maybe fairly high, but I'm not going to quibble over hypothetical numbers

Comparative advantage, that's why. The US could basically survive at autarky indefinitely, but it wouldn't necessarily be comfortable.

What we need to do is purge all the (((anti-america lefties))) and (((neocons))) who keep destroying/subverting investment and wasting money on disastrous wars overseas, respectively. Think about this: for what we spent in Iraq in less than two months, would have provided enough solar panels to make every American household essentially individually energy independent for at least 20 years. Think about that. And, up to a point, that would suppress electricity rates making running a factory that much cheaper. Also, we need massive directed investment in Hi-Tech R&D, especially health, robotics, and IT. That would be my plan, tbh fam.

It would also require massive job retraining and/or simply purge the niggers as they go unemployed and send the spics back I would also reemploy unskilled labor in urban renewal and building green roofs, installing energy efficient windows, etc. Naturally, all the solar panels would be built and installed by US workers, by law.

I would avoid trade wars, except in the case of political enemies, authoritarian governments (which have a huge advantage), and other bullshit like currency manipulation. also, a genocidal colonial war against the rest of the world would hurt.


Absolutely not. I would rather just give them two years wages and job retraining, low-interest loans for a small business, etc. Halting automation is shooting your own industries in the foot - preposterous. Possibly we should use a co-determination system like Germany, but we should automate as quickly as possible, and make electricity as cheap as possible (without hurting wages or the environment)


So? I mean, I clearly understand what you're getting at, but I'm not going to argue against a rhetorical one-liner. Elucidate your point like a big boy, please.

fuck yeah, you mean normies will actually have conversations with people again?

How? By charging a tax on American imports to them?

They already do that.

Seems like a puff piece.

correction. The genocidal war would NOT hurt

America is one of the few countries that is entirely self sustainable. By all means.

Yes it would cause some turmoil and changes would need to happen. But they're all positive changes.

Sounds decent. Genocide would be much more efficient with killdrones and pathogens anyway and ending "aid" to shitskins might even make it unnecessary

Let's review:

What further point is there to be made smartass?

jej
Western Hemisphere is burger clay

Oh not this shit again.

Tell me, when a shoe company wanted to open up the first shoe factory in Indonesia how did they calculate the comparative advantage of doing so? Keep in mind there were no other modern shoe factories, the work force has no training, experience, or even the ability to read, and it will cost a lot of money to pay off the local government so you can set up shop.

Comparative advantage has always been a load of bullshit. If it was actually applied in real life then industry would never have gone overseas in the first place. Even today there are companies that are willing to pay millions and millions of dollars in taxes and bribes just to do business in China. So stop bringing this bullshit up.

Perhaps I'm not aware of the facts. I was not aware that Carrier had moved their plant to Mexico… yet. So, I don't understand your point.

Note also that Goodyear attempted to build a plant in Mexico, too, but the beaners were too fucking stupid to run it, apparently, so they shut it down. So, you could say, that those jobs came "back" to the US, I guess.

But, that example doesn't refute my point, either, imho. So, perhaps you could fill me in on what the argument you are making is. Perhaps you don't understand what argumentation is? Should we start there?


damn fucking rite.


wew fucking lad

As far as I can see it, the only real arguments against the comparative advantage argument are a) more consumption is not always better
b) the type of job matters for noneconomic reasons (for quality of life or defense, etc)

I'm willing to entertain both of those two, but what you said isn't even an argument. And, I don't think its even factually correct. Third, your argument about comparative advantage and job loss is egregiously fallacious. There are several angles I can attack it from, but the most basic is that it is a red herring / false equivalency. Jobs going overseas isn't always a matter of comparative advantage and comparative advantage doesn't necessarily involve jobs going overseas. (also, yes, they very much calculate how much it would cost to build the factory, train the population, etc etc.)

this isn't an argument either, so I'll just move on

I would love to hear an argument against comparative advantage; in fact, I could supply a few myself. But, what you said isn't a very good one, tbh fam. Did you listen to that debate Vox had on free trade?

(((((((experts))))))))

I'm saying there is no way you could even begin to calculate the comparative advantage of starting the first shoe factory in Indonesia because there was nothing there before that. It's not a matter of it being hard. It's that there was literally NO PRECEDENT. They moved operations to Indonesia for only one reason and that is slave labor and corrupt officials that won't enforce environmental laws. Comparative Advantage was always an excuse and not a real reason.

(cont)

I would like to add that I'm pretty sure the US manufactures plenty of, for instance, textiles - plenty for any normal, civil consumption, and we usually make the high quality ones I love my woolies, made in the USA!

Slap a 45% tax on China and all their stuff simply go through Hong Kong, again.

That IS their comparative advantage, dingdong. You act like they didn't calculate those costs, or at least know they'd be way, way lower there than elsewhere, and have pretty good estimates. And, I already made the point that trade war would be acceptable in the case of political enemies, authoritarian governments (who have advantages as you stated) and manipulating currencies, etc

And this is why it's bullshit. Comparative advantage is SUPPOSED to be a metric for determining what nation A is really good at because if nation A is really good at that thing then nation B should not waste their time trying to do that thing. But the only metric that matters anymore is who is most desperate for money.

What we have in reality is just a fancy word for saying 3rd world slave labor. The comparative advantage looks more like a race to the bottom of the human condition. Then once the market is saturated or the people start demanding better wages the industry just moves on to the next shithole. Thanks jews.

Maybe I just have extreme autism. But give me a modern example of comparative advantage that isn't 3rd world slave labor and I will stop raging every time I see that term. Because if comparative advantage is just 3rd world slave labor then I will insist on the more honest and transparent vocabulary.

how long till basic income soylent green tier cyberpunk dystopia?

That's absolute advantage, my silly friend. Perhaps you should get past Adam Smith and maybe read a little Ricardo. At least then your economic theory would only be like 200 years old and not 235 years old or whatever. :^)

I'm not inclined to argue against this observation, however, most economists would tell you that these countries still indeed benefit, as their labor productivity has significantly increased, thereby allowing them to afford consuming things like sanitation and medicine. haha.


lol. All of Europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Capitalism

You can find the intro online, I think. Its all you really read to need to get the idea. The book is a collection of articles with extraordinarily difficult econometrics (maths). I have the intro on my computer, so I can get it to you if you want.

If you're going to read it right away and want to talk about it, I can brush up on it. I'll be around. Just let me know.

...

*oh, and I should add that we supposedly benefit by releasing low productivity labor and investing in high productivity labor (usually involved capital investment and R&D/innovation) So, when indonesia opens that shoe factory, we can invest in more heavy industrial, for instance. This is, in fact, what has generally happened

We don't need to optimize. We can do everything all by ourselves.

Nobody cares. Let them figure out their own shit and stop leeching off of us.

It's a zero-sum game and anybody who says otherwise is conning you. If they're gaining, we're losing.

That's absolutely a preposterous assertion without significantly curtailing consumption and massive planned investment – you'd have to treat capital with an iron fucking fist.

see, and here your ignorance comes out again. See:

Again, you are being too narrow in your thinking. You have the right intuition, but you are still a young padawan :^)

I'm not hating on automation, I simply understand the inescapable truth that there will always be people whose only chance at a better life is performing manual labor. Not everyone has the intelligent and skill to be an engineer or technician, and even if they did, we don't have a need for that many. We already have a glut of programmers today as-is. If every miner, ditch digger, lumberjack, and truck driver had to retrain as an engineer, teacher, or whatever, we'd have so many that they'd have to work for peanuts and no benefits just to stand a chance. An engineering degree wouldn't be worth a roll of toilet paper. And what happens to the ones who wash out? Who can't hack it as an engineer? Whose businesses fail? Who can't get hired as a teacher or programmer? Who simply aren't intelligent enough to pass and get those degrees and certifications? Is the government supposed to subsidize them permanently?

There will always been an underclass of people whose only prospects will be performing manual labor. If you take away their jobs by creating robots that will perform that work, all you are doing is creating a class of people who will have to compete with robots to try and survive. They will have to lower the asking wages and health care benefits of what they do to be less than what it would cost to invest in a robot to do it instead, which means even lower wages and fewer benefits for the working class.

There is no such thing as a society with no underclass. There isn't. The Communists already tried this, and it didn't fucking work. For you to not understand or grasp this is to show an ignorance of all of the socioeconomic engineering projects that have taken place in the 20th century going forwards, as well as the reason for most of their abject failures to accomplish what they set out to do.

There is a theoretically infinite amount of manual busywork that stands to be done, in the form of construction, farming, food preperation like butchery, cutting down and replanting forests for sustainable lumber, and performing maintainence on things like roads, damns, buildings, sewers and water treatment, and power lines. The lack of jobs to perform is not a hallmark of a lack of work that needs doing, since there is always more work that needs doing, but evidence of an incredibly inept beaucracy and a policy of outsourcing jobs to foreign groups. This was clearly evidenced in National Socialist Germany, in which Hitler's NatSoc beaucracy was so efficient at distributing jobs that not only did they have a 100% employment rate, but they actually had too many jobs and not enough people to fill them, which required them to bring people in from outside Germany to work.

The correct solution to the problem is to copy German beaucracy and put human laborers first, and use automation to fill in the excess jobs that cannot be done without importing labor from elsewhere, i.e. don't import labor, use robots to pick up the slack. This would be managed by passing laws that only permit companies to make use of robotics when they can find no human laborers to fill the jobs, and if such a laborer does come along, that they must shelve that robot and allow the human to take the spot instead.

Your reckless futurism will replace all of those job positions with automation, which would crash huge sections of the market and create an enormous underclass of unemployed, both skilled and unskilled, that fight tooth and nail to fight for cheap scraps and crumbs.

It is not a sustainable strategy and it doesn't attempt to understand any of the causes or effects of such a policy whatsoever. It is robots for robots own sake, which is childish and absurd. Achieve a 100% employment rate and a 0% poverty rate, and then we can talk about robotic labor.

How much has the government helped or harmed this process to the point that America has begun falling apart?

I already planned for that. If you had read my post, my plan involves a massive increase in renewable energy production and installation, urban renewal and energy efficiency, etc. In the end, the population has to shrink, though, and that shrinkage is going to have to come from the dumb ones, to the extent that IQ is inheritable.

Strawman. Notice I refuted all of this from the very beginning. Also, a society could be imagined where there isn't, like Star Trek or something. Its at least hypothetically possible in the future


I'm going to ignore this whole paragraph, because you've completely abrogated your responsibility to read my posts. I'm actually somewhat frustrated, but unrustled.

again, this is pretty much my argument… sort of

another strawman. I'm not even angry now. I'm just getting a little frustrated.

Now you're off in la-la land.

I thought you wanted to go all NatSoc bureaucracy. Now, I just think you're fucking retarded. "The market," he says… hahaaha, ((("the market")))!!!

So, you just want to create jobs in order to occupy people's time, not to make their lives better? I think you've just made a fool of yourself, fam. Are you trolling? be honest


First of all, are you 17? America is not falling apart. They say that every election cycle.

Actually, the US has been pretty good at protecting those jobs. The problem is that the services sector (moving money and moving goods) has been more profitable – not better for society, mind you, but more profitable – for the investment class. We've essentially gone from being producer-citizens to investor-consumers.

I suppose I don't understand your question? Did that answer it?

Falling apart is kind of hyperbole since this is Holla Forums after all, but like you said who profits has changed which is causing societal issues. Do you see a way to change the concentration of wealth in the investment class without forced redistribution?

you're going to have to define that

But you will always have people who are stupider than everyone else, no matter how small the population gets.

I read your psudo-Globalist 2030 Proposition, and it's still as bullshit as it was before you reiterated it. Your plan is "population control out the ass and bank on Newtypes+robots rendering class obsolete," which is the same shit Bill Gates and Soros are banking on. You've just taken their nonsense and given it a new paint job.

"Here's a great idea for Nationalism, guys. We're going to do the exact same shit the Globalists want, but it'll be us doing it instead. Great idea, huh?"

Go read Pat Buchanan and Benjamin Franklin, and come back when you can drink something without coughing up a lung.

so what?

I'm not going to read the rest, since you keep saying shit that is this stupid. We can come back to that later

So what job are you giving the person who isn't smart enough or talented enough to do anything else but cut down trees, drive vehicles, or dig ditches and lay concrete?

Raising taxes and trying distribute the wealth through the rest of society through social programs, meant do you see a way the average person can earn a good living in the way they used to earn one in a factory in the new environment, since they can't take risks like the investment class can.

LOL were you literally wearing a fedora when you wrote that. Let me guess, you would remain alive of course. This is a bad pipe dream that will always remain a bad pipe dream.

where have i seen this before?


That's the problem nigger! Not everybody can afford to be an investor, you just spelled out the current problem with the US economy, but you framed it like it's a benefit.

see the pic here:

Those were often forced investment decisions. Look, what you're saying here is incoherent to me. You're literally using political buzzwords, probably without knowing it. Also, I don't think you understand how the modern economy has worked: most of everything we take for granted today came out of the government sector, even Google.

Let that sink in:

Almost everything we take for granted today came out of the government sector, including Google.

Look, there are any number of ways to achieve these goals, but, to answer your question, chances are your GOP orthodoxy rules them out a priori. Of course, who cares what the cucks think anyway, right?

Forced by what exactly?

Don't really know what you mean but you probably don't have time to explain, so we'll just leave that there, I guess if you could explain what you meant by forced that'll be the end of it.

...

At least quality posting will come back.

It's actually possible and a good thing, but your iphone/chinkphone will be at the same price as your bungalow and there's always a risk of your country end up with the same fate as soviet/dprk.

Also the international bankers wouldn't allow it.

China is in an enormous bubble, entire cities are constructed that have almost no people, the economic growth that they report is almost entirely illusory, and their central bank is doing everything it can to keep it from popping. China has had plans to transition to a less export dependent economy for a while and develop their own consumer markets but the reality is that many of the Chinese are very poor, and their domestic aggregate demand may be increased bit by bit but will not come close to the consumption of the United States in this lifetime. Tariffs on their exports would almost certainly be the straw that breaks the camels back and pops their bubble, so while by itself it may not be useful the 25-45 percent tariff is a Trump card that they will not challenge and they certainly will not try to retaliate, once we reduce exposure to their financial markets we can cause an absolute catastrophe on their economy and hurt them much, much, more than they hurt us, the tariff will be a bargaining chip that gives us complete leverage in renegotiating a deal that ends their fuckery with export subsidies, yuan devaluation, blocking access to their markets, etc. and will be a stepping stone to have an equitable trade agreement for american manufacture. Whatever they attempt to weasel out of an effective renegotiation or retaliate, we absolutely have all the leverage and we can negotiate as we see fit.

By the government or industrial-labor committees… regulation, taxation, subsidy, forced negotiations, you name it. "The Market" you've been fed is an ontological fallacy. It doesn't exist.

Yeah, I mean, I think I explained it. Those investment decisions were 'corporatist' in nature – New Deal Warfare-Welfare Keynesianism or whatever you want to call it. It wasn't some swimmingly free market of global capital sloshing all across the globe: that was specifically prohibited. and we all know why coughKIKEBANKERScough


-5/10 troll. i had to respond just to tell you how shitty that was, which actually provided me with a spark of happiness – that's where the negative comes from


Don't be naive. Maybe you're right that this would fuck the Chinese, but you really underestimate the amount of economic restructuring that would have to happen and the probable social dislocations and political effects.

Bullshit. Source? DARPAnet was basic as fuck, basically a glorified telephone system, and the telephone technology it was based on came from the private sector originally, it was also private sector that developed DARPAnet into an efficient internet that didn't fucking suck, web browsing and all of the data transfer protocols and development tech came from private sector entreprenuers. Saying Google came from the Government sector is nonsense, strictly speaking there wouldn't be calculus or quantum mechanics without arithmetic but that doesn't mean the Ancient Sumerians who developed arithmetic get full credit for every math discovery ever, they contributed in a very tiny way, and Government doesn't get to call dibs on the Internet and the entire internet-based economy because they made a basic bitch LAN that didn't even fucking work half the time, there is some derivation but not complete derivation.

Pretty much sums it up. It's repackaged globalist rubbish delivered with the same sneering arrogance one hears from Gates or Zuckerberg.

.>I'm totally uncontrollable! I know what a wrench is, it what you use for nails? Guns scawe me!

bwah ahahahahahahahaahahaha see pic here:

You could check out some of this guy's stuff, for instance: sociology.ucdavis.edu/people/fzblock

specifically, this edited volume: State of Innovation: The U.S. Government's Role in Technology Development

You are so fucking naive. Also, pretty much everything going through MIT is DoD funded, and of course this doesn't even include what I mentioned here:

lol. so blind. as Holla Forums would say "pure ideology [sniff]


timmy, its time to go to bed now. this is an 18+ website anyway; your mommy might be angry

Liquidating malinvestment is painful but necessary, like pulling infected teeth or ripping off a bandaid, the difference between a 1-2 year recession and a prolonged depression is whether you let malinvestment implode on itself and capital return to where it is actually useful, or bail it out with extreme Central Bank measures and exacerbate it long term so it will bite you in the ass 10 times harder later. I certainly expect there to be massive social dislocation but with a business environment that favors and incentivizes American production moreso than other countries the long-term results will still benefit our country, reversing the trade deficit will benefit us year after year, while temporary job loss in bubbled sectors will only suck temporarily for specific groups of people.

You argue like a redditor, tip your fedora like a redditor, misuse syntax like a redditor, and shit on people who disagree with you like a redditor.

If it walks like a duck.

>>>/reddit/

it's not malinvestment if the economy keeps expanding as planned, retard. molyneux, go to sleep


nice to see the usual low-IQ Holla Forumslacks are still around. High? Would you like some oxycontin? It'll make your trailer seem much more comfy! :^)

In case you don't understand, I'm saying that those "honest factory jobs" you're talking about were created consciously through the means I spoke of in the former post. I don't understand why you don't get that. You're living in a planned economy. And, when industrial cttees, negotiations, subsidies, regulations, etc etc etc didn't work, they use the media to shove a consumption ethic down your throat and turn you into the basement dwelling faggot cuck you are today. pic related is very relevant

Holla Forums why so you still come here? I knew it was you after the 2nd comment :^)

Its not malinvestent if we keep inflating the bubble goy! Expansionary money policy will keep everything growing indefinitely with no problem! The immense gap between market fundamentals and asset prices is obviously not malinvestment since those asset prices keep going up! Would you be interested in monetizing these assets with derivatives? Here are top picks from Wall Street.

You really are retarded aren't you, do you even know what "malinvestment" means? Go to bed, Keynes.

Mr. Molyneux - you are a complete autist. Please stay off our board


Yes, I do. And, its part and parcel of "everything can expand indefinitely" you fucking nincompoop. It's only malinvestment on capitalist terms because that term is defined within orthodox capitalist economics. I don't understand why you don't see that.

Your critique is pathetic, and half-asked. You can't escape the natural process of capitalism by appealing to more capitalism, you fucking idiot. Global capital aka the Jews isn't just going to change its plan because you scream "but you're not being capitalist enough" – fuck you're stupid

hahahahahahahaaha: see pic here: Molyneux, quit using proxies. this is really pathetic

Answer the question, faggot

You argue like a Jew or someone who has been around too many Jews.

"Stop you right there."

"Didn't read the rest of your entire argument because I wanted to nitpick this single thing you said in the very beginning."

"Naive ad hominen strawman troll hahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha try harder you paint huffing trailer trash maybe one day you'll be as euphoric as I."

You don't belong here. Go back to where you came from.

Not only that but to run any any circle and be an expert is largely political, if you have a difference of opinion you have no chance of climbing the ranks or getting your name out. This happens in every field including economics, medicine, engineering. Haven't you noticed how stagnant research has become all about chasing those grants or following the mantra of a given corp.

a) very few people are that stupid. You have to be seriously fucking retarded and they should be sterilized if they can't be bribed to stop reproducing
b) I never said that no one would ever drive a truck or chop down a tree again

I stopped reading there. Since you're so fucking stupid that you won't stop strawmanning me, I'm I see no reason to engage with you further. Go fuck yourself. And, now you've been hidden.

Whats your deal with Molyneux? do you want him to get shot?


lol l.pol sthap. Its not our fault you killed your own board by forcing everybody to read shitty books by communists.

Bullshit, the difference between IPhones being made in America and IPhones being made in China is that Apple makes ~$320 profit per unit instead of $250, the profit per unit is 20 times the cost of labor, even with the large difference between Chinese and American labor overhead ($1.50 vs $12 per hour) Apple is 15 percent of the global mobile phone market but has 50 percent of its profit, if it could do with $200 or $150 per unit and drop the price sales would go up proportionally, likely enough to maintain its profit and revenue, only difference is they would have to optimize their production possibilities curve.
epi.org/blog/apple-iphone-profits-dwarf-labor-costs/

none of that even makes sense. I've hidden you now. bye bye

L.pol i hate to break it to you but i dont think youll make the IQ cut off if youre pushing future communism

pic related to my last post.. crippledkike amiright?

...

but l.pol. I thought only Holla Forums got made and hid people. I thought this was a hugbox just like Tumblr? L.pol did you lie to me?

lol. As if I don't work on my own car. hidden. bye bye


lol. he thinks I can see his reponse


lol. can't see a thing. hahahaha

okay, well good night. All the serious conversation is clearly over here. nitenite

He shoots, he scores!

nah youre a lefty, we both know you didnt have me hid so you can read what im saying

l.pol i still dont know why you come here if you just get mad

...

Don't let them bring down your IQ. Watch this video

hahaha can't see you


Anyway, this time I'm for real. Going to bed. goodnite

No, malinvestment is rooted in market fundamentals and persists regardless of whether you define it with orthodox capitalist economics or not. The only difference is that in a Socialist economy or planned economy economic calculation becomes impossible and malinvestment is all pervasive, because private property is necessary for supply to relate to demand via pricing mechanisms, this process can only happen in a decentralized manner. Malinvestment still persists in establishment economic theory like Keynsianism, only difference is that they outright deny that it exists or misunderstand it as "overinvestment".
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Malinvestment is not inherent to capitalism dipshit, it is caused by expansionary monetary policy, and central banking in general.

You are absolutely a leftist. Only progressives and commiekids have this level of cognative dissonance.

just another l.pol spook killed

It's waste of time, He posts like a bitch.

i knew that from his 2nd post. l.pol all have the same writing style

It's pure shilling. Those stars in the headline drew them in like a rat to cheese.

...

They also feel like block someone is the ultimate comeback.

nah they never block. They still want to see what we're saying. too bad we showed up so late and newfags got pushed around for a while. We really need to teach people who to argue against kikes.

I don't even have a cellphone.

...

...

I once tried out this Democracy video game once. I forget which version it was. I played as Germany, and for laughs, decided to, as closely as possible, reinstate German superiority. It went something like this:

So I:

Plus some other happiness bullshit. I did this a long time ago. I barely remember

Anyways, the economy got worse, then it got better, then it became one of the strongest in the world. The liberals grew to hate me more and more, and even though everyone was happy but the liberals, and the economy (I think) was one of the top 4 in the world, and the crime rate was the lowest in the world (less than 4% if I remember), the liberals assassinated me because I didn't give enough shekels to israel via foreign aid.

Democracy is a shit game. I know it's in the title, but you can't have anything but a democracy. You can't change the government into something else. It was the entire reason I played the game.

That was my first and last game of Democracy.

Too bad, we're taking them away from China anyways.

Wait.. so its accurate.

Bump