US Presidential Race

There are various reasons why GDP won't be effected - Price rise or falls are meaningless if you don't have Disposable income - If all jobs are shipped out then you have no freaking GDP, forget rise or fall. That is a huge concern - Stagnant & (real - inflation adjusted) falling incomes.

This is not true. Tariffs, all things equal, decrease productivity by making America specialize in something it is not efficient at. This is a supply shock.

As someone from one of the most protective countries in the world I can attest that this just makes the country more poor and have less jobs - Argentina has about a 9% unemployment rate, compared to the US's of half that. We 3x pay more for electronic goods, 2.5x more for cars, 2x more for gas, 4x more for clothing. Meanwhile the average (free market) Chilean has gone from being 62% as rich as the average Argentine to being 110% as rich in the span of just 25 years.

I agree that the inflation risks are overblown. If tariffs bring inflation the Fed will simply step in and raise interest rates. Inflation won't go higher than 3%.

But I would ask you to stop and think about what raising interests would in a scenario with high historical underemployment - it will certainly do nothing good for the labor market, and possibly lead to higher unemployment or a recession (historically they happen every 10 years - we're due). Interest rates have already gone up with the expectation that Trump will be fiscally irresponsible, and he hasn't even presented anything yet.

The free market is not bad for America, it's only bad for little American towns that survive on industry or a single good. But it's great for the middle class.

Btw even with tariffs it's entirely possible Trump will bring manufacturing back to the US (in fact it has been going up recently anyways) without bringing back jobs. Most jobs were lost to automation, not to other countries.

Source on that last claim BC? Mostly just because I'm curious, not because I doubt it

This happened during the presidential elections, and I'm sure most of you, if not all, already know about this. I just saw it now and I'm absolutely speechless!

Regardless of what you feel about Trump, what gives you the right to force your views on other people, harass, verbally and physically assault them when they don't vote for your candidate, trespass on and vandalize private property?

I still haven't seen the other side of the coin though, and I still don't know whether Trump supporters did the same thing to Hillary supporters. If they did, then it's just as bad and disgusting.

But listen to what some of these narrow-minded, hostile, intolerant people said when they were caught red-handed and asked why they did such a thing [trespassing, stealing signs and vandalizing private property]:

Because we just don't agree with your political views

Now, listen to what one of them said when she was asked "Is that the right thing to do":

Umm, well, we're teenagers so I think we have a little bit of leeway in this

I apologize guys if I'm coming across a little angry, and I should've probably waited until the shock has passed before writing this post, but my god!!! This is absolutely revolting!

CBarca wrote:Source on that last claim BC? Mostly just because I'm curious, not because I doubt it

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28

Manufacturing is alive and well, just not manufacturing jobs

Trump has chosen Exxon-Mobil's Rex Tillerson to be his Sec of State according to NBC

RealGunner wrote:Trump has chosen Exxon-Mobil's Rex Tillerson to be his Sec of State according to NBC

Lol. I'm really curious to see what this new very friendly relationship between the US and Russia would look like. I can't remember a time in history it has ever been at this level.

RealGunner wrote:Trump has chosen Exxon-Mobil's Rex Tillerson to be his Sec of State according to NBC

I see that Trump's "draining the swamp" is still in full swing ^^

Whoops, so much for draining the swamp.

I'm confused. He's selecting a CEO, not a lobbyist or politician. How is this not draining the swamp?

Also Romney

"Draining the Swamp" refers to the clearing Washington of the corruption that has long maligned it.

I would counter by asking how is placing an obstructionist GOP senator (Sessions) who openly supported the gutting of the Civil Rights act in the role of Attorney General, the man who wants to destroy the EPA (Pruitt) as its chief,a billionaire who has never taught a single child in a school yet wants to destroy the public school system (Devos), a CEO of the biggest oil company in the world (Tillerson) as Secretary of State, and a man whose son openly admits to believing conspiracy theories and fake news (Flynn) as head of the NSA or a guy who wants to completely obliterate Obamacare (Price) as HHS Secretary? The amount of special interests (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Business, the coal industry...and of course the GOP itself) that stand to benefit from these appointments are alarming. That doesn't sound like Trump's getting rid of the corruption to me. If anything, he's merely reshaping the current political environment to be capable of continuing it.

That's not even mentioning (oops) that he's actively trying to get security clearance for his family, clear conflicts of interest while also apparently expected to still get paid as executive producer of a tv show while president, a departure from his claim that he can keep his business and his governing completely separate.

I will give him this though - The only pick I've liked so far is Mattis for Sec of Defense. I don't like Elaine Chao's connection to her husband, who happens to be the most powerful GOP senator in Congress and I've already said what I think of Ben Carson leading any major agency when he's already said he himself is not fit to lead one.

To me draining the swamp meant simply to replace the politicians and lobbyists in charge. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that Trump, a CEO, would choose other CEOs to head government offices. But I suppose this is part of Trump's "charm", he speaks in such a vague manner that what he promises is really up how each person interprets it, and people usually project what they want to hear in there.

Well there's willful obliviousness and there's outright gullibility. I think Trump voters are largely in that 2nd camp.

Like I said previously, Trump himself isn't the one we should fear. It's who he's surrounded himself with that gives me a lot of pause.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:To me draining the swamp meant simply to replace the politicians and lobbyists in charge.

That's more like replacing one swamp for another.

If anything it would appear to me that he appointed people for certain offices in a way that they can enact their toxic plans (particularly that new EPA head) without the need of additional lobbying as they are right at the steering wheel now.

A month later it all feels so silly.Nothing's gonna change.

Can't take any more of this media commentary moaning about Russia influencing the election:

1. You can't complain about other countries doing to you exactly what the US does everywhere else! Everyone who complains about this without first acknowledging this is either a liar or a hypocrite! In fact, by CIA standards this is as mild as regime change ever gets.

2. If the dems lost because Russia exposed that the dems were rigging the primary towards Hillary, then Russia is not the main problem here, look at the f***ing mirror first!

//rant

Sounds like something to be considered: "President Obama is planning to take the nation’s nuclear launch codes with him when he leaves office"

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-plans-to-take-nuclear-launch-codes-with-him-when-he-leaves-office

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Can't take any more of this media commentary moaning about Russia influencing the election:

1. You can't complain about other countries doing to you exactly what the US does everywhere else! Everyone who complains about this without first acknowledging this is either a liar or a hypocrite! In fact, by CIA standards this is as mild as regime change ever gets.

2. If the dems lost because Russia exposed that the dems were rigging the primary towards Hillary, then Russia is not the main problem here, look at the f***ing mirror first!

//rant

Great points (rants)

Trump wins the electoral college vote.

Sad how many people (at least on Twitter etc) actually thought there would be a coup because 'muh russia'. They must feel like they lost again.

I don't like that he won anymore than anyone else, but this was futile from the beginning.

Even if they had enough votes, all this would've meant is that the voting would've then taken place in the House, where the GOP has total control. Trump would've won again and easily.

This should put to bed the election results for good.

Trump moving lobbyists? Are you kidding me?

This is the most pro-lobbyist transition team ever. Trump's entire transition team was full of lobbyists & special interest. Munchin of Goldman Sachs is the Treasury secretary.

Steve Bannon, a white supremacist of alt-right Breitbart news spreading hatred against blacks, muslims, jews is the Chief Strategist.

The entire team is full of billionaires, big oil, big pharma, lobbyists, Climate Change deniers, White supremacists, racists, fake news organizations, etc

Some key articles - How Hillary lost Michigan & the election?

Operatives watched packets of real-time voter information piled up in bins at the coordinated campaign headquarters. The sheets were updated only when they got ripped, or soaked with coffee. Existing packets with notes from the volunteers, including highlighting how much Trump inclination there was among some of the white male union members the Clinton campaign was sure would be with her, were tossed in the garbage.

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return.

“I’ve never seen a campaign like this,” said Virgie Rollins, a Democratic National Committee member and longtime political hand in Michigan who described months of failed attempts to get attention to the collapse she was watching unfold in slow-motion among women and African-American millennials.

Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.

SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.

On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

There are various reasons why GDP won't be effected - Price rise or falls are meaningless if you don't have Disposable income - If all jobs are shipped out then you have no freaking GDP, forget rise or fall. That is a huge concern - Stagnant & (real - inflation adjusted) falling incomes.

This is not true. Tariffs, all things equal, decrease productivity by making America specialize in something it is not efficient at. This is a supply shock.

As someone from one of the most protective countries in the world I can attest that this just makes the country more poor and have less jobs - Argentina has about a 9% unemployment rate, compared to the US's of half that. We 3x pay more for electronic goods, 2.5x more for cars, 2x more for gas, 4x more for clothing. Meanwhile the average (free market) Chilean has gone from being 62% as rich as the average Argentine to being 110% as rich in the span of just 25 years.

I agree that the inflation risks are overblown. If tariffs bring inflation the Fed will simply step in and raise interest rates. Inflation won't go higher than 3%.

But I would ask you to stop and think about what raising interests would in a scenario with high historical underemployment - it will certainly do nothing good for the labor market, and possibly lead to higher unemployment or a recession (historically they happen every 10 years - we're due). Interest rates have already gone up with the expectation that Trump will be fiscally irresponsible, and he hasn't even presented anything yet.

The free market is not bad for America, it's only bad for little American towns that survive on industry or a single good. But it's great for the middle class.

Btw even with tariffs it's entirely possible Trump will bring manufacturing back to the US (in fact it has been going up recently anyways) without bringing back jobs. Most jobs were lost to automation, not to other countries.

No you are wrong. It doesn't contribute to specializing in other things. For that you have to go into the macro-economic theory of comparative advantage which will take significant time to explain.

I have not studied Argentina but tariffs have almost nothing to do with it. As for your price levels, it depends on many things - Availability of raw material, Availability of skilled manpower, Education Level of the country, Size of Market, Local industries & most importantly economies of scale & Technology.

In the car industry, the biggest driver is Economies of Scale - As you produce for a large market, cost of goods fall reducing fixed cost to virtually 0 & giving huge bargaining power. That is key for automobile. Similarly a local supplier system is key. Educated, skilled manpower & technology is also vital in automobile. So prices can be determined by a range of factors.

On one aspect where you need more Free Trade & globalization which is hugely net positive is technology, people, cultural exchange, education, healthcare & so on as in these areas almost all the time all countries grow significantly when there is free trade.

CBarca wrote:You say there are a million reasons why free trade would be horrible for the US, then you say you are a free trade guy.

I'm not trying to criticize, but I'm curious as to the origin of the seemingly contradictory statement. Can you explain further what you mean?

What I wrote in the other post -

On one aspect where you need more Free Trade & globalization which is hugely net positive is technology, people, cultural exchange, education, healthcare & so on as in these areas almost all the time all countries grow significantly when there is free trade.

So I believe this is one area where you need huge free trade.

In other areas I am more conservative depending on what history & economics tells me. Look, firstly protectionism is not sustainable in the long term to a large extent. So you can't put 80% tariffs on products for a long while & so on.

So IMO how it used to be is an analysis of Marginal Cost vs Margin Benefit. How much do costs rise due to tariffs? What is the level of inflation in the host country? If I put tariffs would it stop the level of transfer advanced technology? What would reactionary policies lead to - What will happen if other countries follow suit? As in what are the types of jobs I would lose? Do I have a Trade deficit or surplus with country X?

In general I believe that tariffs should largely be applied to some extent only in the following cases -

(A) To protect an industry which is very labor intensive & has good paying jobs (like Automobile/Textile) & creates a huge number of total jobs (ie, job losses would have a tremendous negative effect on the economy & GDP) - I still feel if US could have protected large amounts of Textile & Automobile jobs, then in other areas the loss in jobs due to free trade would not have hurt much,

(B) Does the type of jobs I want to protect fit in with my workforce - US has a large number of high school educated folks who want a Mfg job thus a Service sector revolution at a rapid pace is not very welcome & unsuited to the population (EPI analysis of last few decades data show High school grads get a 10% premium in Mfg jobs vs Service sector), it should be a gradual one,

(C) Which country should I apply a tariff with? Do I have a surplus or deficit with that country? What goods are coming from that country & most importantly -> What are the wage levels in that country? - For labor intensive industries, it is absolutely absurd for US to try to compete with China or Taiwan, wages are a small fraction, you have no chance. That is not the case with say EU (although you have to account for EU government subsidies etc).

I am opposed to another kind of protectionist policies which is Quota which IMO is like a ban. Quotas were followed by most countries include South Korea's Miracle growth phase - I am completely against any quantity limits for imports - They create huge drag & dead-weight loss !

https://imgur.com/a/Roplb

footyfan01 wrote:No you are wrong. It doesn't contribute to specializing in other things. For that you have to go into the macro-economic theory of comparative advantage which will take significant time to explain.

I have not studied Argentina but tariffs have almost nothing to do with it. As for your price levels, it depends on many things - Availability of raw material, Availability of skilled manpower, Education Level of the country, Size of Market, Local industries & most importantly economies of scale & Technology.

In the car industry, the biggest driver is Economies of Scale - As you produce for a large market, cost of goods fall reducing fixed cost to virtually 0 & giving huge bargaining power. That is key for automobile. Similarly a local supplier system is key. Educated, skilled manpower & technology is also vital in automobile. So prices can be determined by a range of factors.

On one aspect where you need more Free Trade & globalization which is hugely net positive is technology, people, cultural exchange, education, healthcare & so on as in these areas almost all the time all countries grow significantly when there is free trade.

This is a macro discussion. I'm quite familiar with comparative advantage and it's perfectly consistent with my comments: with free trade everyone specializes in what they're best suited for. Without it, market inefficiencies surface.