|
Post by markesq on Jul 26, 2018 9:42:09 GMT -5
I would like to point out, too, that should Trump's bull-in-a-china-shop approach via tariffs etc somehow result in the US being in a better trading situation, that's not the same thing as Trump having a good understanding of economics or international trade. If a burglar breaks into my house at night I can run screaming from room to room swinging a baseball bat and I might knock him out. Best strategy? Probably not.
Given that (according to the stories I'm hearing on NPR) people are already suffering because of his tariffs, given his many, many failed businesses, given that actual economists in the main thing he's getting it wrong... no, I can't quite force myself to believe that a man who barely reads and has demonstrated petulance, impetuousness, and dishonesty actually has and can implement a coherent, well-thought-out economic strategy.
Again, what I'm saying is: we might somehow, magically, end up in a better trade position, and if so I'll be like Cass and acknowledge it. But give Trump credit? Only for being lucky.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 26, 2018 10:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 15:13:05 GMT -5
Ha! This made me laugh (though perhaps it shouldn't) The fact that a very small percentage of economists think this might turn out all right doesn't give me much comfort when the overwhelming majority think it's likely to turn out badly. Could the minority be right? Sure. But by and large, I'd place my bets with the majority, myself, unless the minority has some brilliant analysis or special expertise and information that (heh) Trumps that. The "gee, most experts think this, but the bull in the china shop says pfft", that's not reassuring or convincing to me. If the overwhelming majority of trial lawyers you asked told you that your legal strategy would be likely to put you in jail, and that another approach would be better, you'd probably take a closer look at your trial strategy, no? If the overwhelming majority of doctors told you you should have an operation, would you at least consider that their recommendation might be right? I'm guessing yes, unless the lawyers and doctors in the tiny minority had some very special expertise that made their opinion deserve extra weight. Like, you can find a tiny minority in almost any group that will support something utterly batshit. So yeah, not comforting to me. Sure, as I've said and others have said, we'll have to wait and see. But the potential for disaster is yuuuge, and Trump's history gives me little confidence in his judgment. People in whose judgment I DO have confidence are all extremely apprehensive. And it goes against every economic gut I have, to the extent I have one, and my understanding of the market. I'm not an expert. But like I said, both economists and conservatives are overwhelmingly of my view. I dunno, between them and Trump... FYI -- I've read bunches of articles explaining Trump's assertions on our yuuuuuuge trade balance are, according to experts, largely misleading, out of context, etc. ( Lots articles in conservative leaning or neutral publications, too -- this is not a leftie thing by any means, nor an anti-Trump thing. Republican legislators and business people are worried too. If you'll recall, Sen. Flake was talking about refusing to confirm judges until Trump backed off his trade war.) I actually have a meeting and then plans, so I don't have time to support my statement about Trumps facts-n-figures right now. But I will. Consider giving at least some degree of skepticism to Trumps assertions that our current trade situation is bad, and to his figures. His track record for accuracy is pretty piss-poor. (And yes, I can back that up, too.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 16:13:51 GMT -5
Am heading out, but can't resist a few more analogies. that's just how I roll.
-- if an overwhelming majority of engineers said a bridge was likely to collapse at any second, and 12 % said "meh, it'll be fine," how comfortable do you feel driving your family over it?
-- if an overwhelming majority of mechanics opined your engine was likely to explode, but 12% said 12 % said "meh, it'll be fine," do you feel good about continuing to drive it?
-- if an overwhelming majority of plumbers opined that your pipe was likely to burst and flood your basement, but 12 % said "meh, it'll be fine," would you patch up the pipe, or risk the flood.
Obviously, I could go on. But the point is this: Sure, the minority of experts might be right. It happens for sure. But when it really matters, when big things are at stake, and most experts in a field are screaming "NO ! STOP! BAD!" and only a very small percentage think it'll work out fine, you don't just ignore the majority of people who actually have expertise and say "oh, what the heck. 12% think it'll be fine." You need to take a really good look at that twelve percent. Why trust them over all the other experts? If they have some kind of special knowledge, have done some kind of special study, okay then. But if not...
I've also seen articles talking about past trade wars. Let's just say they support the pessimists. Will post them tomorrow or over the weekend.
So. Everyone have a good night.
ETA:
By the way -- that's all taking Trump's assumption that our current trade situation is bad and detrimental as true, and assuming we have something to fix. Well, a shitload of economists dispute that as well, as does, well, our actual fucking economy.
Taking the assumption as true, though -- most experts think Trump's approach will be detrimental. See everything I've said about why we should take into serious consideration whether they are correct.
We should also consider whether other approaches would be better and less risky.
But before we even get there, I suggest we take a good hard look at whether we actually have something to fix in the first place. Really, taking figures the Trump administration spews out and that economists and trade experts dispute (cites to follow) to say "Yuuuuuge problem" is, well, a really fucking bad idea given Trump's record for accuracy on this sort of thing, and take a good hard look at his assertion that something need fixing.
Not to mention maybe we should consider his record for loving chaos for the sake of chaos, and a good many other factors about his history and character. And, I dunno, maybe we should consider his multiple bankrupties, his driving a casino into the ground, and the fact that he's so coy about his tax records before we say "okey doke! Gonna trust him and the 12% over all those other screaming experts because hey, why not?
I don't see good reasons to trust him and the 12% over the majority of experts and most of the Senate. The best I can come up with is "what the heck, may as well give it a shot" which, given the downside and all the factors above, is really not good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 26, 2018 16:43:39 GMT -5
Most supposed experts on economics have been painfully wrong on a ton of stuff in the last couple of decades (and beyond). Look at Facebook. It's stuck plunged yesterday and today, dropping the company's value by over $100 billion. Yet, most analysts had FB as a "buy" just a couple of days ago. Of course, NOW it's probably a "buy"...
But I'm not trying to argue that Trump has this all 100% nailed down, that he's going to MAGA with his approach. I'm just noting that he's not wholly wrong, and that the US has been making less-than-stellar deals (for US interests) for a while now. The rest of the world knows the US hasn't wanted to come across as hard-assed and has--predictably and intelligently--taken advantage, whenever possible.
There is--in my view--a widespread hesitancy to accept the current reality of US economic dominance. Noting this doesn't require one to bow down before the US or accept the silliness of American Exceptionalism at all. It's just the current reality. And that reality means that countries who can't do business with the US are screwed, comparatively speaking. That includes China and that Includes the EU (as much as it might irk both).
So Trump is going places past leaders feared to go. While I don't want Trump to be making these decisions by and large, I'm not going to pretend that there isn't some satisfaction--and a lot of potential benefit--from this approach. But of course, he'll probably go too far. Still, that doesn't mean on balance that sticking with kow-towing of the past several decades would have produced--overall--better results. That's where most experts lose themselves, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 17:29:02 GMT -5
Well, sure, and doctors get things wrong all the time and lawyers lose cases all the time. Like I said, experts can be wrong and sometimes the minority gets it right. And sometimes shit just happens.
But if economists were usually wrong, would we still have professional economists? If it's just like tarot card readers and groovy new age healing practicioners, what's up with serious people continuing to consult and cite them?
And if the stakes are high, and you could lose bigly, I submit that when you go against the weight of the experts you have a solid, considered reason for it. You don't go all bull in a China shop fuck the experts.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 26, 2018 18:02:16 GMT -5
I wonder if the economists predicting doomsday from Trump's trade policies are the same ones who predicted the stock market would crash if Trump were elected. They were all over the news. LOL
Note: Obviously, this post is a joke and not an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 26, 2018 21:38:12 GMT -5
But I'm not trying to argue that Trump has this all 100% nailed down, that he's going to MAGA with his approach. I'm just noting that he's not wholly wrong, and that the US has been making less-than-stellar deals (for US interests) for a while now. The rest of the world knows the US hasn't wanted to come across as hard-assed and has--predictably and intelligently--taken advantage, whenever possible. There is--in my view--a widespread hesitancy to accept the current reality of US economic dominance. Noting this doesn't require one to bow down before the US or accept the silliness of American Exceptionalism at all. It's just the current reality. And that reality means that countries who can't do business with the US are screwed, comparatively speaking. That includes China and that Includes the EU (as much as it might irk both). So Trump is going places past leaders feared to go. While I don't want Trump to be making these decisions by and large, I'm not going to pretend that there isn't some satisfaction--and a lot of potential benefit--from this approach. But of course, he'll probably go too far. Still, that doesn't mean on balance that sticking with kow-towing of the past several decades would have produced--overall--better results. That's where most experts lose themselves, imo. Why did past leaders "fear" to go where Trump is going? Why hasn't the U.S. heretofore wanted to come across as hard-assed? Why are you and others like you somewhat satisfied by Trump's approach? What exactly is this potential benefit of which you speak? Since the U.S. is economically dominant, why haven't we already mown down our trade partners, bent them to our will, and been all about the #winning. Why is this just now a thing? In a global economy, it's not all or just about having advantages over other countries, it's about cooperation and alliances and mutual benefit. Maybe the U.S. has given up too much, I don't know. I'm interested in hearing arguments to that effect. Are we really losing, or are we cooperating with our partners, with a mutual goal that all parties succeed? Have we been losing, or have we just not been winning in the way that Trump childishly and greedily interprets winning?
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jul 27, 2018 7:46:26 GMT -5
I've said several times before that Trump, or any President really, don't have a lot to do with the performance of the economy or the stock market. That said, considering the US is currently experiencing the greatest economic growth in the last 5 years unless something changes (or Trump gets impeached) its not going to be an easy road for the opposition in either the mid-terms or in 2020.
I think the bottom line is large portion of Americans like the increase in their 401k plans more than they dislike border separations, Russian interference or any of the of the other innumerable controversies of the administration.
To quote Carville.... the economy, stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 11:20:10 GMT -5
Okay, am busy today, but wanted to at least get a start at my promise to take on Trump's trade claims that c.e. cites here. There's lots of fact-checking out there on Trump's misleading trade claims -- this is just a very quick slice at a couple of figures c.e. cites. As a general thing, as the discussions I cite below indicate, Trump's cherry-picked trade claims don't take into account the whole picture -- advantages the U.S. gains elsewhere, or reasons that deficits might exist that have nothing to do with our government making "bad deals." Global trade isn't something where you can look at one isolated statistic and say "Ah HAH! We're getting screwed!" It's hugely complex. There are a lot of factors. There are trade-offs To look at a single number in isolation is a kinda like a kid stomping his foot and saying "NO FAIR! HER PIECE OF CAKE IS BIGGER THAN MINE!" -- it may be true, but without considering that he got more ice cream, or had a previous slice of cake, or also got a candy bar, it isn't giving a fair and accurate picture. I submit that's what Trump is doing (and what he always does). I think it's rather bizarre that some conservatives are so very ready to nod along with Trump and say "oh, yeah, for years the U.S. (the most powerful nation on earth) has just been rolling over and taking terrible terrible trade deals because..." ...Because why? Seriously, WHY would we do that in the first place, if there is no quid pro quo? It would actually make no fucking sense. Isn't it at least worth considering that maybe, yanno, in context as a whole, it isn't actually true? And if it is true, why is it so many economists and FREAKING CONSERVATIVES disagree? And why are we so comparatively well-off if we are constantly giving away the farm and getting nothing back. Again, this isn't a libturd softee let's-be-nice-to-other-countries-even-if-it-hurts-us theory. To me, it's basic common sense to at least stop and consider whether claims that we always make these awful awful disadvantageous trade deals is actually accurate, especially when taking in the context of trade as a whole (as opposed to one isolate number). So with that, a START on taking apart what Trump says on trade, beginning with c.e.'s claims above. www.fox13memphis.com/news/ap-fact-check-trumps-goosey-claims-on-trade-jobs/766189707Well, actually, no it wasn't. On that same point, see this: www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-the-u-s-global-trade-deficit-really-800-billion/And this, which adds some additional nuances Trump is ignoring regarding the trade deficit: fortune.com/2018/06/09/donald-trump-trade-deficit-terrified-g7-speech/is such a deficit problematic? (There's more at the link, including discussion regarding related statements from Peter Navarro, the director of the White House’s Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy). Yes, he's gone bankrupt before, but he's also rebuilt his empire after that, so he gets credit from me for knowing something about business. This is a side issue, but I gotta address it. There's actually a huge question as to just what extent Trump "rebuilt his empire" and by what means. There's a reason he's reneged on his promise to release his tax returns. There's increasing evidence regarding questionable loans he when no bank would give him money. I submit that his businesses are not nearly as successful and his wealth not nearly as great as he touts, that he's achieved such success as he has by dubious means (and by reality show type appeal) as opposed to economic savvy. Negotiating the nuances of global trade is just not the fucking same as running your own family business where everyone has to do what you say, nor is it like having a reality show. A few other links to fact checks on Trump's trade claims (there are plenty more): www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/28/donald-trump/did-us-have-500-billion-deficit-china-2017/www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trumps-specious-trade-tweets/www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trump-distorts-facts-on-agricultural-trade/www.factcheck.org/2018/06/trump-garbles-canadian-trade-stats/www.factcheck.org/2018/04/trade-surplus-in-cars-with-china/In sum -- Trump is simply wrong about a lot of his numbers and claims. But even where he's not wrong, or where we DO have a deficit, it's just not as simple as "oh, we have a deficit, obviously that means we made BAD DEALS and are getting SCREWED." It's just way more complicated than that. Trump doesn't do complicated. He refuses to listen to anyone who DOES do complicated. People who DO do complicated are, overall, deeply concerned about his sledgehammer approach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 11:54:14 GMT -5
I've said several times before that Trump, or any President really, don't have a lot to do with the performance of the economy or the stock market. That said, considering the US is currently experiencing the greatest economic growth in the last 5 years unless something changes (or Trump gets impeached) its not going to be an easy road for the opposition in either the mid-terms or in 2020. I think the bottom line is large portion of Americans like the increase in their 401k plans more than they dislike border separations, Russian interference or any of the of the other innumerable controversies of the administration. To quote Carville.... the economy, stupid. As I've noted before, I agree with you that the effect of presidents in general on the economy and stock market tends to be overstated, and all too often presidents, including Trump, get credit or blame that they don't deserve. This is especially true when they've just come into office, when they've inherited the economy before them. The economic ship takes time to turn; it doesn't switch around on a dime because some new dude enters the oval office. That said, policies DO have some effect (though it may take some time for it to register and a whole lot of other factors that the president can't control also come into play). Right now, Trump supporters are just giddy about the 4.1% growth in the last quarter, giving all the credit to Trump's economic brilliance. Um, yeah, no. And there's no reason at all to think it's going to continue -- to the contrary, in fact: The tax gains for most consumers is temporary and will be phased out, and moreover the rise in prices of goods, healthcare etc. driven by, among other thing, Trump's other policies is forecasted to erase it even in the short term over this year, let alone when they are phased out. See, e.g., www.thestreet.com/markets/rising-gas-prices-threaten-consumer-savings-from-trump-tax-cuts-14648427www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/trumps-gas-tax-would-wipe-out-60-percent-of-tax-cut-benefit.htmlwww.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/06/01/Trump-s-Tariffs-Could-Gobble-Trump-s-Tax-Cutswww.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/06/01/trumps-trade-and-immigration-policies-could-wipe-out-any-benefits-of-the-tcja/fortune.com/2017/12/01/trump-senate-tax-bill-vote-individual-mandate/Consumers who run out and spend their temporary tax gains are likely to rue it, but unlikely to be able to continue to splurge. So that's a temporary blip. And the rush that relates to impending tariffs is, I submit, certainly a blip that will not continue. (By the way, allow me to roll my eyes at those who credit Trump with economic genius for this 4.1% quarter, but sneered that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with, e.g., the 2014 quarter of 4.9% growth, or deny that it ever happened. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 22:58:04 GMT -5
I mean, the economy is clearly important to people for sure. But it surely not the only factor. E.g , lots of us oppose Trump for a host of non-economic reasons. And Trump fans can hardly criticize them for that, given that they continued to oppose Obama and insist he was destroying the economy when, yanno, this: and when you look at what the economy did over his 8 years as president. I mean, come on, look at the economy at the end of 2008 and the time Obama left office. Look at the stock market. But the right wingers current pointing to the 4% quarter and crowing over Trump's economic genius not only never gave Obama credit for his quarters over 4%, but kept bemoaning how bad he was for the economy. I might not be rolling my eyes so much at the excessive credit to Trump if they hadn't spent 8 years on what a disaster Obama was economically, no matter what the economy was actually doing. Like I said, I actually agree with you, Prozyan, that presidents tend to get more credit and blame for the economy and stock market than is typically warranted. But currently we seem to be in a political environment where hardcore partisans are quite ready to assign credit and blame -- as long as its credit to their guy and blame to the other guys.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jul 28, 2018 2:22:52 GMT -5
The larger point I was trying to make wasn't that presidential policies have no effect but rather, as Cass alluded to above, the overall economy is a huge di ship that takes time to turn.
Obama is perceived as being bad for the economy because of the 2008-2009 housing collapse and recession. This despite the fact no Obama policy had anything to do with that economic crisis. Toward the end of Obama's second term and into the beginning of Trump's term, 2014- present, the effects of Obama policies made in reaction to the recession have shown. But Trump gets credit for the turnaround and Obama gets credit for the recession
Likewise, whoever is in office in 2020 and beyond is going to reap the effects of Trump's policies and tariffs and will take the credit or blame for the resulting success or failure of those policies.
I think if a Democrat is in office at this time they are going to have a tough time as the economy most likely won't be rocking and rolling by then. Much like Reagan's policies eventually hit the economy and helped seal Clinton's win over Bush, I think Trump's policies will hurt the next administration.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 28, 2018 4:38:27 GMT -5
To me (a social liberal/libertarian but with some sympathy for certain conservative economic principles), this seems like everything conservatives have always condemned: picking winners and losers in an economy, and then throwing money at the losers who are only losers because your policy created the problem in the first place. That was the one that really stuck in my craw. I'm gobsmacked that people who call themselves conservatives or republicans are supporting such nakedly authoritarian policies. Obama got thoroughly raked over the coals, and rightly so, for the distortion he caused in the relatively small solar industry by picking winners and losers. Now here's Trump, playing the same damned game, but picking and choosing not just companies but whole industries, and "conservatives" are supporting him. ?? W. T. F. Trump is committing what should be the economic equivalent to shooting someone in Time's Square to any principled supporter of traditional conservative/Republican ideals. His supporters are proving to be as hyper-partisan, unprincipled, and immune to reason as any Obamaite in the previous regime. By supporting Trump, they have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. They can no longer claim (erroneously, but at least they claimed it) that the war is about "freedom vs socialism" (individualism vs authoritarianism). The war has been reduced to one of different strains of authoritarianism. Individualism as a philosophy has been driven from politics to the marketplace. Thankfully, in the long run, choice always wins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2018 6:46:07 GMT -5
I, too, have been gobsmacked as some alleged economic conservatives jump to defend economic policies that are everything they've always decried.
(For that matter, I've been gobsmacked to see Christians defend policies that the Christ in the New Testament woud be tossing tables over, but that's not this thread.)
The thing is, this is the kind of stuff I think the conservatives get right, so it's just whacky to me to see them set in on fire for Trump -- and then sneer aside as "RINOS" conservatives who continue to stick to it. Are we in backwards land? What on earth IS a conservative these days? It sure isn't what it once was.
For myself, if the government IS going to throw wads money at something, I'd far prefer it to be, e.g., ensuring everyone has adequate healthcare or fixing our infrastructure (remember infrastructure week? ha!)--something that might benefit citizens/society as a whole, serve some greater good, rather than at some individual industry that is only struggling because of some other new, ill-considered policy.
Dunno what this is, but it ain't conservative. SMDH.
ETA:
(For me, it often feels like Trump deliberately went cherry-picking through political philosophies to pick stuff I especially dislike and reject the things I feel have merit, just to piss me off. "Here, you think conservatives are right on this one? HA! I'm going to do the opposite. SUCKAH!")
|
|