Trump Seeks New $15 Billion Subsidy To Protect Farmers From His Own Trade War

No they don't. They only need to blame themselves for voting trump. He's no republican.

 

You did not and can not show me how more and better paying jobs does not lead to less poor people. The statement itself is laughable and I hope you keep defending it.

 

So you assume that the fact that I put a word in bold must mean that I support the word wholly and without question? Does that assumption seem idiotic to you as well?

 

Did I say that? What I said is that allowing truly free trade will not necessarily lead to balanced trade. In the case of china it almost certainly will not.

 

smh
https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/obama-china-tire-tariff/index.html

"
The tariff saved 1,200 U.S. tire jobs, which had been in sharp decline. And U.S. tire production rose after a major decline.


"Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires," Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union address.

But a study from the Peterson Institute of International Economics found that the tariffs cost Americans in many other ways.

Americans paid more for tires. Some Chinese-made tires cost as much as 26% more -- rising on average to $39 per tire, from about $31. And U.S. tire makers, facing less competition from China, also raised prices on American-made tires 3.2%.

According to Peterson's model, higher prices from the tire tariff cost Americans an extra $1.1 billion, which translated to an estimated 3,731 retail jobs lost."

 

Still have not shown me how more and better paying jobs create more poor people. I guess you think less jobs with less pay is the way to fight poverty? LMAO

 

Here's another:
2009 tire tariffs cost US consumers $926K per job saved and led to the loss of 3 retail jobs per factory job saved

http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-consumers-926k-per-job-saved-and-led-to-the-loss-of-3-retail-jobs-per-factory-job-saved/

 

Don't be daft. You lose. Tariffs hurt Americans on balance, anyone with a marginally functioning brain knows this.

 

And another
https://piie.com/publications/pb/pb12-9.pdf

 

You are attempting to change the conversation to tarrifs and avoiding your flat denial that more and better paying jobs lead to less poor people. You now are running from that statement and I don't blame you. You lost, game over.

 

Tariffs and trade wars do not create more and better paying jobs. That is where you already lost.

 

The trade war has been going on for decades and we have been taking fire without shooting back. Trump is attempting to end the war waged on us by China by fighting back before it's too late. Democrats want to wave the white flag and surrender

 

WHAAAT? This entire thread is about tariffs, don't blame me if you can't follow a discussion.

 

Bullshit, you should wake up.

"Bottom Line: From an economic viewpoint, based on economic theory and empirical evidence, protectionism makes an economy worse off, not better off. It is just an economic reality that when both the costs and benefits of protectionism are evaluated, “protectionist math” (cost-benefit analysis) predicts a net loss of jobs and reductions in economic welfare and economic efficiency as the case of tire tariffs above clearly illustrates. Trump has boasted that “protection will lead to great prosperity and strength” for America, but that claim is completely unsupported by international trade theory and contradicts hundreds, if not thousands, of empirical studies like the one above.

From a political viewpoint, protectionism has an obvious payoff because it generates political support, votes, and financial contributions for protectionist presidents and politicians from the beneficiaries — domestic industries and their workers — who are protected from foreign competition by government fiat. Fortunately for the protected industries and their political enablers, the groups that shoulder the burdens and costs of protectionism — millions of dispersed consumers and thousands of invisible, hard-to-identify workers who lose their jobs — are unorganized and therefore completely disregarded by protectionist politicians.

For example, when have you ever heard anything from President Trump about American consumers when he talks about international trade or protectionism? We only hear about US manufacturers and US workers, and never, ever about consumers — the biggest and most important group of all economically. Sure, if you completely ignore the costs of protectionism and ignore those who pay those costs – consumers; and also ignore the economic reality that the costs of protectionism outweigh the benefits, it’s pretty easy to make a political case for tariffs and protectionism, even though that’s a guaranteed prescription for impoverishing and weakening America from an economic viewpoint.

To paraphrase Thomas Sowell: The first lesson of international economics is that free trade makes us better off and protectionism makes us worse off. The first lesson of politics when it comes to trade issues is to ignore the first lesson of international economics. And that pretty much sums up what we’re getting from the “first authentic protectionist to win the White House since the 1920s” — 0% economics and 100% politics."

 

I made a flat statement that more and higher paying jobs mean less poor people. You flatly denied that. Now you want to go back to tarrifs to hide your insane comment and I don't blame you.

 

Holy f*ck, are you serious? I gave you a concrete example of how more "higher paying" tire jobs led to job losses and a cost of almost 1$M per job saved? Are you ok this morning?

 

Still running from your flat denial that more and higher paying jobs leads to less poor people.

 

At this point I have to assume you are trolling. Just know that all of the protectionist defenders are nothing but useful idiots to trump.

 

[

Feel free to explain how more and better jobs don't lead to less poor people. It's a stand alone statement.

 

I think this is a good plan but, this does not change anything for the moment. Unfortunately - Red Administrations (and the Establishment) in particular have - over the past number of decades starting with Reagan - supported policies (tax policy in particular) that supported outsourcing.

 

No it's not. Context is your friend, use it.

 

LOL. Trump is the very embodiment of the Republican party.
Small wonder why those with such limited rational thinking capacity vote for him.

 

No, it's not a good plan. At least not a good plan if you want an iphone.

 

Did you know that if you have more jobs, then you have more jobs?

 

Truth is your enemy, run from it.