DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump announces Tariffs

I'm saying that the TTP agreement remains the same. It has NOT changed. Now you can dance around that if you so desire. Carry on.....

Oh ... so your saying that Trump is just going to enter into the current deal ... gotcha ...

...

I'm not saying he's going to enter into anything. It's just as likely he'll change his mind again next week. lol

The TPP was designed to cut trade barriers in the Asia-Pacific region as well as countering China’s rising economic and diplomatic power.

The TPP has in fact changed slightly with the current members adapting to the withdraw of the US from the pact.

Trump was so blinded by wanting to undo Obama accomplishments, that he pulled out without one thought of the consequences, and now is backtracking to rejoin since his demented "trade war" is not as near as easy as he led the American public to believe and is taking a toll on the very people whom supported him.

Now, he has to say he wants to re-negotiate the pact to save face, when the majority of the members are not quite welcoming us back with open arms... mainly due to Trump's unreliability and continuous deflection of facts.

Asia is vary wary of his foreign policy style... they have some pretty choice nickmanes fro him over here...

PM me, dude... or folks will say you're lying.
I'll say you're lying.

Man, Donald The Trump- beloved the world over.

Hmmmmm ... someone with a CLUE ... not near enough of one but at least u know more than most ...

Since u know so much my friend ... riddle me this ...

How many countries are in the tpp?

Of those countries how many of them have the US either negotiated new trade deals with or re-structured the trade deals in place at the time they entered tpp?

How many of the countries that are in tpp that we haven’t sinned new trade agreements with are we negotiating with now?

I like u so i’ll Help u out with the answer ....

1. 11
2. 6
3. At least 2 with the big one being Japan ...

How much u know about the details of tpp? Can u discuss INTELLIGENTLY why it was a HORRIBLE DEAL for the US ( i can) .... what was one of its main purposes ... and who are we currently in a dust up with over trade? ... the math is clearly with trump here my friend ....

or are u only interested in what seems to be the national pastime in this country of just crapping on trump regardless of how far removed from the truth it is ....

It was a HORRIBLE deal for us ... and we’ve made or are making our own UNILATERAL DEALS with many involved in it ...

But just IGNORE THE FACTS and join with the TDS crew in the BASELESS BASHING in this case ...

Actually... the original TPP does not exist, as it was never ratified due to the US pulling out.

The remaining members went ahead in the absence of the US and negotiated and ratified the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP.



What my boggle is, is that Trump pulled out without really researching the partnership and the true benefits the US made from it... to him it had Obama written on it so screw what may be best for the country and let us show are ass to the rest of the partners.

Do we have trade agreements in place with some of the members... yes... but please tell me exactly what was so lopsided for the US in this agreement.

I look to the strongest point of the quote above as to the geopolitical benefits.

To me, and my Asian colleagues, this was a purely political move on Trump's part to insert his anti-Obama sentiments..

Just my Honest opinion... as far as the bashing, I don't really enjoy it, but seeing incompetence combined with arrogance has a tendency to set me off...

Nothing personal, my friend...

You're not unique in that regard.

So you're saying diam doesn't have the market cornered when it comes to "knowing bigly" about "stuff"?

Before i start ... U OWE ME A PM ... please go take care of that sir ...

OK ... lets rock n roll ...

Before i start ... im a NATIONALIST when it comes to this stuff ... if your a GLOBALIST were never going to agree on things like this ... were “natural” enemies due to our views ...

The reason i’m against them is based on HISTORY ... not one of these “free trade” agreements that were intended to open up markets globally has helped us .. NOT ONE ...

If u care to debate that ... GOOD LUCK ... numbers are a LANDSLIDE ON MY SIDE ...



Yup ... hence why it is 11 ... then u have the other deal .. cant recall the initials off the top of my head .. the one China’s been pushing ... not sure where their at with that one ...



And right there is the #1 reason there’s no way in hell i’d of entered that deal ... NONE ...

No way in hell am i giving anyone or any “entity” the power to resolve OUR COUNTRIES TRADE DISPUTES ... NONE ... not a shot in hell ...

If you’d like to discuss why and tell me why its a “good idea” for the USA ... im all ears ...

And that doesn’t even get us into the details .. the nitty gritty of this trade agreement ... we can discuss that if u like ...

As for the outcomes by the sources in your article ... all i’ll say is this .. and u know its true ...

Their conclusions is that ... how’d they phrase it ... led to positive economic outcomes for everyone ...

We both know that’s IMPOSSIBLE .... i cant take that seriously ... its not a zero sum game ... theres going to be winners and losers ....



Ok ... PLEASE EXPLAIN to me what exactly those benefits were ... i’d Love to know .. i really would ... i love learning .. TEACH ME SOMETHING ...

Lets get into the details my friend ... LETS GOOO ... right after u take care of my PM ... ..

And i dont agree with U .. Trump not wanting in this had NOTHING TO DO WITH O ... he’s ripped EVERY PRESIDENT since Regan for where we are ... ALL OF THEM ...

This is where u guys lose me .. saying this was about Trumps hatred of O is COMPLETE AND UTTER BS ... he’s RIPPED ALL THE PRESIDENTS ...

U might not agree with Trump ... but please GET OVER THE HATRED ... he gives u plenty of things to give u reasons to rip him ... he gives u PLENTY OF AMMO ... why u have to make crap us is beyond me ...



Lopsided ... *L* ... thats a pretty high bar ... and crap ... if u want to go there ... they could be called LOPSIDED just cause were not getting RAPED like we have in all the other “free trade agreements” we’ve negotiated over the last 35 years ....

FACT IS ... we have made unilateral deals with over half the TPP participants ... and i’m A huge proponent of unilateral deals vs multi country deals ...

We can discuss that ... we will more than likely end up disagreeing .. but if u want to have the discussion ... i’m ALL FOR IT ... right after u PM me ..



Please tell your Asians friends ... that DIAM CALLS BULLHOOT ... *L* ....

Please go keep your word and PM me so i dont have to come to Asia and kick your ass .. ..

Diam is 100% correct here.

Trump used to take out full page ads in the Post ripping Reagan about trade and calling for tariffs.

Trump has a turnip for a brain, and doesn't understand the basic definition of the word "trade deficit", but the drum he's been banging has been consistent, for decades.

He has no actual solutions that aren't knee-jerk reactionary, and he will have to back down on this because he's too stupid to negotiate from strength, but he has always been firm on his tariff philosophy.

If you're a true nationalist on trade matters, then Trump is your worst enemy.

I’ve never said i had the market cornered ... i do however know way more than U when it comes to this stuff .... we’ll find out how much Lair knows ... hopefully its more than me ... cause i like to LEARN from folks that know more than me ... in this case ... that ain’t u ...

maybe u oughta step aside and let the adults have a convo ... ...

I may actually pass out because we agree on something. I don't call myself a nationalist or a globalist but I've always viewed the globalist economy as a huge reason Americans suffered.

Opening up foreign markets sounds good on paper but that is when we as a workforce had to start competing with low wage third world countries. The rise of the middle classes in China and India was on the backs of Americans, period.

Additionally, I noticed years ago that things like higher quality lumber and high quality cuts of meat became more scarce here as we began to ship it overseas for higher profit.

Economic Globalism was code for "more wage slaves" in my honest opinion.

Economic globalism means achieving some type of level or average on a global scale... which means if you are at the top in standard of living, to find an average, you must fall back closer to those lower than you..... so countries like India, Thailand, etc rise closer to the new median... but for that to happen, the US must ball back in order to find a median...

And that is good for us how? Yes the rest of the world benefits. I don't see the benefit for average americans.

How Globalization Affects Developed Countries

Globalization is defined as a process that, based on international strategies, aims to expand business operations on a worldwide level, and was precipitated by the facilitation of global communications due to technological advancements, and socioeconomic, political and environmental developments.

The goal of globalization is to provide organizations a superior competitive position with lower operating costs, to gain greater numbers of products, services and consumers. This approach to competition is gained via diversification of resources, the creation and development of new investment opportunities by opening up additional markets, and accessing new raw materials and resources. Diversification of resources is a business strategy that increases the variety of business products and services within various organizations. Diversification strengthens institutions by lowering organizational risk factors, spreading interests in different areas, taking advantage of market opportunities, and acquiring companies both horizontal and vertical in nature.

Industrialized or developed nations are specific countries with a high level of economic development and meet certain socioeconomic criteria based on economic theory, such as gross domestic product (GDP), industrialization and human development index (HDI) as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Using these definitions, some industrialized countries are: United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

Components of Globalization

The components of globalization include GDP, industrialization and the Human Development Index (HDI). The GDP is the market value of all finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a year, and serves as a measure of a country's overall economic output. Industrialization is a process which, driven by technological innovation, effectuates social change and economic development by transforming a country into a modernized industrial, or developed nation. The Human Development Index comprises three components: a country's population's life expectancy, knowledge and education measured by the adult literacy, and income.

The degree to which an organization is globalized and diversified has bearing on the strategies that it uses to pursue greater development and investment opportunities.

The Economic Impact on Developed Nations
Globalization compels businesses to adapt to different strategies based on new ideological trends that try to balance rights and interests of both the individual and the community as a whole. This change enables businesses to compete worldwide and also signifies a dramatic change for business leaders, labor and management by legitimately accepting the participation of workers and government in developing and implementing company policies and strategies. Risk reduction via diversification can be accomplished through company involvement with international financial institutions and partnering with both local and multinational businesses.

Globalization brings reorganization at the international, national and sub-national levels. Specifically, it brings the reorganization of production, international trade and the integration of financial markets. This affects capitalist economic and social relations, via multilateralism and microeconomic phenomena, such as business competitiveness, at the global level. The transformation of production systems affects the class structure, the labor process, the application of technology and the structure and organization of capital. Globalization is now seen as marginalizing the less educated and low-skilled workers. Business expansion will no longer automatically imply increased employment. Additionally, it can cause high remuneration of capital, due to its higher mobility compared to labor.

The phenomenon seems to be driven by three major forces: globalization of all product and financial markets, technology and deregulation. Globalization of product and financial markets refers to an increased economic integration in specialization and economies of scale, which will result in greater trade in financial services through both capital flows and cross-border entry activity. The technology factor, specifically telecommunication and information availability, has facilitated remote delivery and provided new access and distribution channels, while revamping industrial structures for financial services by allowing entry of non-bank entities, such as telecoms and utilities.

Deregulation pertains to the liberalization of capital account and financial services in products, markets and geographic locations. It integrates banks by offering a broad array of services, allows entry of new providers, and increases multinational presence in many markets and more cross-border activities.

In a global economy, power is the ability of a company to command both tangible and intangible assets that create customer loyalty, regardless of location. Independent of size or geographic location, a company can meet global standards and tap into global networks, thrive and act as a world class thinker, maker and trader, by using its greatest assets: its concepts, competence and connections.

Beneficial Effects

Some economists have a positive outlook regarding the net effects of globalization on economic growth. These effects have been analyzed over the years by several studies attempting to measure the impact of globalization on various nations' economies using variables such as trade, capital flows and their openness, GDP per capita, foreign direct investment (FDI) and more. These studies examined the effects of several components of globalization on growth using time series cross sectional data on trade, FDI and portfolio investment. Although they provide an analysis of individual components of globalization on economic growth, some of the results are inconclusive or even contradictory. However, overall, the findings of those studies seem to be supportive of the economists' positive position, instead of the one held by the public and non-economist view.

Trade among nations via the use of comparative advantage promotes growth, which is attributed to a strong correlation between the openness to trade flows and the affect on economic growth and economic performance. Additionally there is a strong positive relation between capital flows and their impact on economic growth.

Foreign Direct Investment's impact on economic growth has had a positive growth effect in wealthy countries and an increase in trade and FDI, resulting in higher growth rates. Empirical research examining the effects of several components of globalization on growth, using time series and cross sectional data on trade, FDI and portfolio investment, found that a country tends to have a lower degree of globalization if it generates higher revenues from trade taxes. Further evidence indicates that there is a positive growth-effect in countries that are sufficiently rich, as are most of the developed nations.

The World Bank reports that integration with global capital markets can lead to disastrous effects, without sound domestic financial systems in place. Furthermore, globalized countries have lower increases in government outlays and taxes, and lower levels of corruption in their governments.

One of the potential benefits of globalization is to provide opportunities for reducing macroeconomic volatility on output and consumption via diversification of risk.

Harmful Effects

Non-economists and the wide public expect the costs associated with globalization to outweigh the benefits, especially in the short-run. Less wealthy countries from those among the industrialized nations may not have the same highly-accentuated beneficial effect from globalization as more wealthy countries, measured by GDP per capita etc. Although free trade increases opportunities for international trade, it also increases the risk of failure for smaller companies that cannot compete globally. Additionally, free trade may drive up production and labor costs, including higher wages for more skilled workforce, which again can lead to outsourcing of jobs from countries with higher wages.

Domestic industries in some countries may be endangered due to comparative or absolute advantage of other countries in specific industries. Another possible danger and harmful effect is the overuse and abuse of natural resources to meet new higher demands in the production of goods.

The Bottom Line

One of the major potential benefits of globalization is to provide opportunities for reducing macroeconomic volatility on output and consumption via diversification of risk. The overall evidence of the globalization effect on macroeconomic volatility of output indicates that although direct effects are ambiguous in theoretical models, financial integration helps in a nation's production base diversification, and leads to an increase in specialization of production. However, the specialization of production, based on the concept of comparative advantage, can also lead to higher volatility in specific industries within an economy and society of a nation. As time passes, successful companies, independent of size, will be the ones that are part of the global economy.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/globalization-developed-countries.asp

I believe in striking a balance between nationalization and globalization... both need measured participation in order to stay competitive in our strengths and diversification to offset our weaknesses.

I have been living and working as an expat in Asia trading physical commodities for over 15 years...

While I will be the first to say that I may not be the smartest guy in the room(sometimes close, though), but my experience speaks for itself..

Anyway... just my two cents as well...

I've been looking for them. And as you would say, "it ain't you!" lmao

There are Americans that benefit from increased globalization. I'm one of them. I work primarily for a french company, and worked for a german company in the past. My primary industry (video games) also relies significantly on Japanese innovation, so the industry would be much smaller without Sony/Nintendo being involved. Many tech workers benefit from globalization because we can reach our market globally, and even work globally.

How much has the US lost from China's IP theft?

President Donald Trump has slapped tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, taking aim at China's theft of US intellectual property.

The United States has long said that intellectual property theft has cost the US economy billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs.

So just how much damage has it done?

The United States Trade Representative, which led the seven-month investigation into China's intellectual property theft and made recommendations to the Trump administration, found that "Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually."

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/china-us-trump-tariffs-ip-theft/index.html

Enough already!

So you don't like redistribution of wealth when you're on the giving end of that deal?

If i actually posted what I thought we’d agree on a lot more than u think ... i am not a republican by any stretch ... someone said earlier the repubs spend more ... i dont know about more but they definetly spend way to much ... like the earlier poster said .. they just spend it on different stuff ...

Its one of the problems the two party system creates ... when the parties are on opposite ends of an issue one of two things happen ...

They “compromise” like they do on budgets ... and we all get hurt ... the libs get all their social funding and the so called conservatives get their military and corporate welfare funding ... we get the bill ...

Or like with regulations ... the dems regulate the crap out of everything and then the repubs come in and deregulate the crap out of everything ... how can anyone plan with those swings ... its IMPOSSIBLE to live in that world ... yet its the world we’ve created within this country ...

Those are two real simplistic examples ... hopefully u get my drift ....

That’s why we need more than 2 parties, and more representation of those parties in government.

I’m not so sure what were talking about really applies to your field ... it may apply more than i know ...

I’m pretty sure regardless of what the trade agreements are that the “gaming” industry is pretty much a stand alone industry ...

U know way more about this than me ... please explain to me how “globalization” opens up markets and creates jobs (like the one u have) and how things would be different if we had more nationalistic trade agreements ...

I would imagine that most Americans benefit from increased globalization. Could you imagine the cost of electronics if we had to mine the natural resources in the US, assemble all the parts here as well as the final product? Not to mention other products, but the resources needed to make semiconductors are hard to find in the US. What would happen if we couldn't ship our trash to other countries and had to find places in America to dump it? Globalism helps out a lot of Americans by making sure the poorest people are not Americans. Unfortunately that means we have to spend a lot of money throughout the globe, but that is the price of diplomacy. The cost of war is a lot more expensive and a threat we could easily face if we retreaded from our global position.

So, you're in favor of getting the cheapest goods you can. Ok. Yet, you want to be paid the highest amount possible. Those are, necessarily, exclusive. And that's fine, as long as you understand that buying the cheap products is not helping our fellow workers that demand high wages so they too can buy cheap products.


Ever been out west? There's plenty of room for landfills. Plenty. But, we don't want to mar our so called pristine landscape due to our consumerism economy. We just want to ship it to someone else.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean here....I'll have to ponder this one. My first take is "globalism helps Americans by making sure the poorest people aren't Americans".... That means sending YOUR job overseas, because someone can and will do it cheaper, will help you?

Again, maybe I'm not reading that the way you meant it.

Sorry Arch, just saw this post.


Personally, I am not "in favor in of getting the cheapest quality good as I can while expecting to be paid the highest amount possible". Capitalism does promise that exact concept however. That you can have your cake and eat it too. And yes that concept is not good for the workers or the collective good, which is why a few members on here dabble with socialism and why I'm a communist.


And how long could we keep dumping our own trash into our land and what would be the ecological cost of it? Also dumping it out west seems to be a globalistic answer within itself. America is so big, so we can put our garbage away from where people live. That's the exact thinking we have right now.


Yes, that's exactly what I mean. For America to prosper it needs to import labor and resources from other parts of the world. Especially when it comes to heavy labor and resources that are hard to extract here. This is because we do not have enough people to work at all the jobs need doing. To continue with the cobalt example, the labor it would take to mine and refine it would cost an astronomical amount. And who exactly would do these jobs? If you look at the u5 unemployment rate, it sits at 5%, which is incredibly low. If we were to build American from scratch, how could we? Even with a compulsory labor force, you're still looking at a labor shortage. Which economic sector loses those jobs? Retail? Fast food? Maintenance? Healthcare? Globalism helps us out freeing up our workforce to focus on growing industries and not ones from the turn of the 19th century.

The argument against globalization basically boils down to, "it's preferable to have sustainably high wages, but far more expensive products" - i.e. my dining room table my neighbor made cost me $5,000, as opposed to a $500 imported manufacture.

It's essentially a sacrifice in reward to labor, which is antithetical to capitalism both in definition, and in practice.

Capitalism requires globalism. The two don't really function without each other.

Trump has extended the date for the tarrifs to take affect by 30 days on the EU. Brazil and Mexico and Canada I believe.

Kudlow and Mnuchkin and a few others are going to China today for some face to face meetings ...

This is what u call NEGOTIATING FELLA’S ....

*Trump trips over his tie and falls head first into a jar of molasses*

DIAM: This man is a genius

For anyone interested in why we're scrambling to grovel to China's face today:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/02/it-a...impression=true

Sheer genius... should prove to spike my company's business, though...

this isn't good news for the Farmers whatsoever.

completely counterproductive overall.

But on the bright side, their obsolete tractors and harvesters are built with good 'ol "Murican Steel so they got that going for them

Well the price of Tofu and soy milk is going to go down. lol The GOPers should appreciate that.

Diam thinks it's PURE GENIUS.

The 3rd quarter just started and ya’all think the games over ...

How many times ya’all gonna put your hand back over the fire and doubt Mr. President before u learn ...

Trump Impeachment Odds Have Increased Dramatically: Valliere

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/05/03/...=20180404073943

Odds are 50% that he is impeached.

You're using the "hand over the fire" analogy to describe your insane and idiotic devotion to a senile racist moron that you go out of your way to pretend is cunning?

The football analogy is also fitting for the "you all will see, Brady Quinn is THE BEST" guy.

US-China trade talks end with both sides miles apart

Washington and Beijing exchange lengthy lists of demands
_

BEIJING/WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is seeking a $200 billion cut to its trade deficit with China by 2020, twice earlier plans, with recent negotiating positions showing an ocean-sized gap between the two countries.

President Donald Trump sent a delegation including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to Beijing for two days of talks that wrapped up Friday. Negotiations for China were handled by Vice Premier Liu He, a close economic adviser to President Xi Jinping.

The two sides agreed to create a framework for cooperation. The first meeting likely aimed to confirm the continuation of talks, with a focus on avoiding the implementation of tariffs by both nations.

But documents seen by Nikkei highlight significant differences between Beijing and Washington, with both taking hard lines.

The Trump team wants to cut America's roughly $380 billion goods trade deficit last year by $200 billion from 2018 levels by 2020 after a $100 billion reduction by June 2019. It requested that China reduce tariffs in noncritical sectors to U.S. levels or lower for corresponding products and called on Beijing to refrain from such retaliatory actions as stricter quarantine standards and higher tariffs.

The numerical targets have generated concern that the two countries' trade becomes increasingly government-managed.

Beijing pushed back by asking Washington to ease restrictions on China-bound exports of high-tech products like semiconductors. China estimates that this alone could slash the trade deficit more than 30%. Beijing also requested that the U.S. open up its aviation equipment market to the Chinese by ending discriminatory treatment in the safety inspection process.

China offered to lower a 25% tariff on automobiles if export restrictions are lifted. It demanded that the U.S. recognize China's status as a market economy in the World Trade Organization, which would make it more difficult to maintain anti-dumping duties on Chinese goods.

On American investment in China, Washington stressed that Beijing should not distort trade through investment restrictions and that any restrictions should be narrow and transparent. In this regard, the U.S. wants China to issue a slimmed-down "negative list" laying out the minimum areas where it cannot accept foreign investment.

The list would come out by July and be evaluated by the American side within 90 days. Washington would identify restrictions that it sees as denying U.S. investors fair access and ask the Chinese to remove them from the negative list.

On the intellectual property front, the U.S. pressed China to stop stealing corporate secrets through cyberattacks and eliminate provisions for foreign technology transfers that favor Chinese companies by the end of 2018. China requested the U.S. not to initiate any Section 301 investigations against it in the future.

China's official Xinhua News Agency reported Friday that the talks were "candid, efficient and constructive" but that "considerable differences still exist on some issues."

Another issue of contention was Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan to upgrade the nation's manufacturing infrastructure. U.S. information technology companies are among those worried that government subsidies to Chinese technology companies will give them unfair advantages and build them into future competitors.

Beijing has fostered Chinese tech companies with generous financial aid and quickly snapped up those technologies through public investment funds. It says it wants to be self-sufficient in such key components as semiconductors, but it is a scheme under which U.S. companies could be shut out.

Trump's team asked Beijing to immediately do away with subsidies for companies in industries targeted by Made in China 2025, which would virtually stunt the scheme. An official from China's Ministry of Commerce deemed the request completely unacceptable.

China demanded that the U.S. lift restrictions on ZTE, which Washington dealt a major blow in April with a seven-year ban on American technology exports to the smartphone and telecommunications equipment maker.

"The Trump White House is worried that the Made in China 2025 plan would give Chinese companies an advantage in future technology and leave the U.S. nothing but a producer of airplanes and agricultural products and cut out of the cutting-edge areas," said Ryan Hass, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and former director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia at the National Security Council.

"But China sees this criticism from a different paradigm," said Hass, who explained that "Beijing thinks that an anxious declining power is blocking the rise of an aspiring new power, and therefore this may not lead to corrective action on issues such as ZTE."