8 ms·

Really? Could you send a note to the soy and corn farmers? 'Trump Trade Tweets Send Grain Markets Diving to 42-Year Low' - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic

Really? Could you send a note to the soy and corn farmers? 'Trump Trade Tweets Send Grain Markets Diving to 42-Year Low' - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/grains-soy-trump-tariff-threat-to-china-drives-ag-prices-lower https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/grains-so...

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
"Mostly for the better" does not imply totally for the better. Of course you can find counterexamples, but that totally fails to answer the point. If you want to actually argue the point, you need some statistics about the economy as a whole, not about one sector.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >"Mostly for the better" does not imply totally for the better. Of course you can find counterexamples, but that totally fails to answer the point. If you want to actually argue the point, you need some statistics about the economy as a whole Really? Lets look at the context; >'Lots of things are changing because Trump doesn't follow the "experts" but have his own way of approaching China for better or worse. Right now mostly for the better.' How would looking at the economy as a whole reflect on the way Trump approaches China? If I want to keep to that subject, I look at the situation with the sectors of the economy being impacted by the trade war with China and not the economy as a whole.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    And I look at 4 million jobs being lost to China because Wallstreet, big companies and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum decided to trade American jobs for cheaper flatscreens, decided to introduced competition IN America through things like H1Bs and lax immigration rules both providing plenty of cheap labour and hurting ex. young black men the most because of extremely low wages. It's not serious to take one thing and pull it out of the whole ESPECIALLY when the goal of tariffs is not to make it the new normal but to force China to give us better access to their markets. If you can't see that we have no base for a rational discussion.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      You're confusing China losing with the US winning. We both lost.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        How can the strongest economy for more or less everyone especially minorities, increasing salaries, increasing jobs in blue collar industries be the US loosing? I think you are the one who is confusing what the trade war is about with what is economic theory. The tarrifs is not economic policy it's a tool to win the tradewar with china and give us better terms. How anyone can be against that is beyond me unless they working in the tech industry and don't really feel the reality of the last 30 years of destroying the american middle class.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >How anyone can be against that is beyond me unless they working in the tech industry Most economists?
        ThomPete 7y ago
        Most economists thought Trump would ruin the economy and have been wrong repeatedly. Most economists are wrong most of the time about most things. The proof is in the pudding.
        jayd16 7y ago
        All it cost was a trillion dollars deficit tax cut, and subsidies for the farmers that can't sell their crops. Do you really believe this is sustainable?
        ThomPete 7y ago
        It's not meant to be permanent. We already introduced tarrifs, they didn't hurt the economy overall, on the contrary. What i don't think is sustainable is the 4million americans who lost their jobs to china because of the wheeling and dealing of Wall Street and Washington. It's worth it because if he succeeds getting better deals all Americans benefit and we stop chinas blatant abuse of things like their developing nation status and complete lack of defending IP rights and access to chinese market for most companies. That's whats not sustainable.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

"Mostly for the better" does not imply totally for the better. Of course you can find counterexamples, but that totally fails to answer the point. If you want to actually argue the point, you need some statistics about the economy as a whole, not about one sector.

inflatableDodo 7y ago
>"Mostly for the better" does not imply totally for the better. Of course you can find counterexamples, but that totally fails to answer the point. If you want to actually argue the point, you need some statistics about the economy as a whole Really? Lets look at the context; >'Lots of things are changing because Trump doesn't follow the "experts" but have his own way of approaching China for better or worse. Right now mostly for the better.' How would looking at the economy as a whole reflect on the way Trump approaches China? If I want to keep to that subject, I look at the situation with the sectors of the economy being impacted by the trade war with China and not the economy as a whole.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  And I look at 4 million jobs being lost to China because Wallstreet, big companies and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum decided to trade American jobs for cheaper flatscreens, decided to introduced competition IN America through things like H1Bs and lax immigration rules both providing plenty of cheap labour and hurting ex. young black men the most because of extremely low wages. It's not serious to take one thing and pull it out of the whole ESPECIALLY when the goal of tariffs is not to make it the new normal but to force China to give us better access to their markets. If you can't see that we have no base for a rational discussion.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You're confusing China losing with the US winning. We both lost.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      How can the strongest economy for more or less everyone especially minorities, increasing salaries, increasing jobs in blue collar industries be the US loosing? I think you are the one who is confusing what the trade war is about with what is economic theory. The tarrifs is not economic policy it's a tool to win the tradewar with china and give us better terms. How anyone can be against that is beyond me unless they working in the tech industry and don't really feel the reality of the last 30 years of destroying the american middle class.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >How anyone can be against that is beyond me unless they working in the tech industry Most economists?
        ThomPete 7y ago
        Most economists thought Trump would ruin the economy and have been wrong repeatedly. Most economists are wrong most of the time about most things. The proof is in the pudding.
        jayd16 7y ago
        All it cost was a trillion dollars deficit tax cut, and subsidies for the farmers that can't sell their crops. Do you really believe this is sustainable?
        ThomPete 7y ago
        It's not meant to be permanent. We already introduced tarrifs, they didn't hurt the economy overall, on the contrary. What i don't think is sustainable is the 4million americans who lost their jobs to china because of the wheeling and dealing of Wall Street and Washington. It's worth it because if he succeeds getting better deals all Americans benefit and we stop chinas blatant abuse of things like their developing nation status and complete lack of defending IP rights and access to chinese market for most companies. That's whats not sustainable.