81–90 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we are creating those jobs at a cost of $900K per job. Tariffs are hardly ever a good way to create jobs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/07/trumps-st...
If that supposed $900K comes from Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, I'm OK with it. In that case, he alone is worth a hundred thousand jobs. I can see why his newspaper might be complaining.
In that case what about Forbes?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ikebrannon/2018/07/02/steel-tar...
The most recent tweets by Trump regarding this: "The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier)…
There are very real problems with how China treats foreign companies (intellectual theft, requirements to partner with Chinese companies and many more). I'm happy they get addressed. However, Trump completely misrepresents the problem and the impact of tariffs. The negotiations clearly are tackling the right issues, yet here he is talking about trade deficits as some kind of theft and tariffs as a straight up win lik…
Also balanced trade would be better than trade deficit, so it's a worth goal to achieve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the one thing where I find myself supporting the policies of the Trump administration.
Yep, one of the hardest and most important things in life is the ability to agree/compromise with people you have fundamental issues with. This is one of those cases and his tweet is correct, they can just wait this out until the next election after someone new gets in and we do a 180.
No. Chuck Schumer, one of Trump's major political rivals tweeted this in response his tweet on tariffs:
> Hang tough on China, President @realDonaldTrump. Don’t back down.
> Strength is the only way to win with China.
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1125143336837206016
The US isn't going to do a 180 until a pro-business Republican or a Libertarian sits in the Oval Office, and its unlikely that will happen next cycle unless Trump dies or is impeached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you can understand it better if you ask yourself if he and his administration is actually capable of achieving anything. Did his tweetbluster and love for Kim denuclearize the Korean Peninsula? Did his wall or child caging stop immigration? Did his repeal of parts of the ACA give people "the best health coverage"? Did his Muslim travel ban stop terrorism and make America safer? Did Jared bring peace to the mi…
Please try not to flamebait, particularly with political topics, on HN. Aside from the actual topic at hand — China — the big pillars of Economic growth, immigration, healthcare, North Korea, the Middle East, national security, ISIS, and NATO are all massive issues that US continues to struggle with and has for decades (well, ISIS is a recent spinoff of an older problem). Trump has set a great direction in Iraq/Afgha…
(Minor edit: I want to emphasize I'm not trying to challenge for any political chargement, even though this is a politically charged area. I'm mostly interested because this is drastically different from my understanding, and believe this is an educated viewpoint from different sources that I lack in my life. I'm looking to be appropriately enriched by being informed of other information I've been left ignorant on.)
> Trump has set a great direction in Iraq/Afghanistan (get the hell out).
This has concerns about leaving (yet another) power gap, no?
> Trump has worked marvels with Kim (when was the last nuclear test?)
Didn't Kim absolutely walk away from the most recent meeting with Trump with absolutely no deals made whatsoever?
> Trumps purpose with the travel ban was forcing better intelligence/screening of incoming passengers and we’ve got the data sharing he wanted.
I didn't know that increased surveillance was a good thing. Also, if his was to increase surveillance it disrupted a lot of people's lives, careers, etc. I don't know if that was the best strategic way to go about this given other, less-disruptive manners.
> NATO countries are paying more than ever.
Why is this a good thing?
> The ISIS caliphate is defeated.
Is this attributable to Trump?
> Trump wants to get true historic immigration reform on that list
What is that historic immigration reform specifically? I hear stuff about separating families at the border, children getting 'lost', and biometric screenings to verify families. Is that the reform? Is there reform I haven't heard about from the MSM?
> continues to push for a real Republican answer to healthcare while chipping away at the margins for things like drug pricing
I thought the Republican answer was to repeal ACA, which makes healthcare deniable to people with pre-existing conditions again, among other things. What are other proposed solutions?
> the economy has literally never been better, and never been better for everyone across the income scale
Is this attributable to anything Trump specifically did? I agree this is good, but I'm not sure if this is something Trump did. I'm not an economist, btw!
> Trumps strategy with China is sound (despite the talking heads all saying tariffs don’t work) and he had the leverage going into this negotiation to get important concessions.
We're going into an article where China is actually not giving any concessions and in fact has reneged on almost all of them. So I'm... confused?
If you have sources I'd love to be educated since you seem to have much greater insight into this than me, and are getting different conclusions than I am, possibly because my sources are not covering the things your sources are! Could you tell me where you're getting your sources? Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
theres a lot of reasons for someone to look at both what and how trump is approaching this, and rationally come away less-than-enthused: 1. Poor execution & personnel at odds with each other leaking play-by-play details has led to a lot of market fluctuation and difficulty for the market to price in the "real world". Anyone exposed to this gets a first hand look at the monetary cost of this. 2. Real impacts of the ta…
The facts say differently: GDP growing around 3%. US net exports up about $55b. Unemployment 50 year low. Minority unemployment record low. Non-farm payrolls up by about 3%. Business confidence (Fed Ind Businesses) highest in 45 years. (sources) https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishme... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-g...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t costing consumers much. I run a company that was affected by the tariffs. If we had kept manufacturing in China, cost of goods sold (COGS) would have gone up by 25%. But COGS are only 50% of the price customers pay for our products. So the price increase to our customers would have only been 12.5%. But we didn’t keep our manufacturing in China, we moved it to Taiwan and Vietnam. As a result, our COGS went up…
In other words the tariffs, like all tariffs, did absolutely nothing but harm the country putting them in place. Brilliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Trump’s steel tariffs cost U.S. consumers $900,000 for every job created, experts say“ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/07/trumps-st...
Very similar story with the Obama tire tariff. $926,000 cost to consumers per job saved, plus the loss of 3 retail jobs due to consumers spending more on tires and less on other stuff. http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-con...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trade war isn't helping anyone. It's costing US consumers, companies, farmers and the stock market. Just a quick search, I couldn't find any mainstream, usually Republican leaning economists, magazines, or newspapers that said it was a good idea.
It isn’t costing consumers much. I run a company that was affected by the tariffs. If we had kept manufacturing in China, cost of goods sold (COGS) would have gone up by 25%. But COGS are only 50% of the price customers pay for our products. So the price increase to our customers would have only been 12.5%. But we didn’t keep our manufacturing in China, we moved it to Taiwan and Vietnam. As a result, our COGS went up…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that supposed $900K comes from Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, I'm OK with it. In that case, he alone is worth a hundred thousand jobs. I can see why his newspaper might be complaining.
No, the $900K it costs the economy per job. So you are doubting the number because it's from the "liberal media"? In that case what about Forbes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/ikebrannon/2018/07/02/steel-tar...
This isn't even a political conflict along the liberal/non-liberal axis though, so Forbes doesn't change a thing. I'm sure you've heard of the uniparty, demipublicans, republicrats, and so on. The leaders of multinational corporations have a globalist mindset. Aside from desiring regulatory capture to suppress competition, they also have a libertarian mindset. Very few media sources and very few politicians break from either mindset by much, except some hot air from some politicians. Politicians don't last long if they anger the large multinational corporations.
There is almost nobody with interests aligned with the American worker. Of the few who are, many would admit to loving the tariffs only if somebody like Bernie Sanders had imposed them. Generally, all of those with a big voice (media and politicians) would gladly wipe out American jobs in exchange for greater profit. This is short-term thinking, ignoring the slow collapse of the nation and the changing balance of world power.