In reply to Wally :
Deny and deflect, but never admit you may have been wrong.
In reply to Wally :
Deny and deflect, but never admit you may have been wrong.
In reply to Ian F :
That goes back to at least the mid nineties as standard operating procedure.
In reply to T.J. :
You're comment was directed at trusting experts. My comment was in response
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
In reply to markwemple :
You have an e-mail requesting that you refrain from posting on the forums for 1 month related to your posts in another thread. Please PM me if you have any questions.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to markwemple :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
You're wrong in many areas. But in the end this isn't poker. And taking crazy chances with everyone else's money is too big a risk when the evidence is strongly against you. Ask a Harley employee.
I'm skipping over your other post where you double down on calling people dumb.
I'll address this one. How am I wrong? I didn't express an opinion on what I thought was the correct course of action. I simply stated that there is more than one course of action, and each has it's own risk/reward. But make no mistake, it is a poker game. We are already sitting at the table (we are engaged in world trade.) There is a finite number of chips. Harley Davidson is already playing. They are a chip. That sounds bad, because it is. But it's reality. The alternative is to not play. Stay stateside. I'm sure someone else would be happy to copy their bikes and sell them as their own. This is how many of our trade partners see it, and they have been playing to win for quite some time. Some have been bending the rules a bit, maybe an ace up their sleeve from time to time.
Right or wrong, the current administration has decided to push their chips in. Not because they are stupid. They either feel they have the winning hand, or their opponent has been stealing the pot with a weak hand. Predictable is bad in poker, and this administration has been anything but predictable.
Now, you could argue that it's wrong to take the chance, and it would be a sound argument. Keep folding for now, and wait it out. But you cannot argue the outcome, because it hasn't happened yet.
I’m not going to comment on if this administration is right or wrong. Rather point out that anytime either party has controlled the three branches of government bad things happen.
Our founding fathers set the government up so there should always be a dissenting voice to listen to.
Our failure to do that has always cost this country. The Great Recession, savings and loan scandal, Post Vietnam runaway inflation. The Great Depression etc.
Look at the root cause of each and it’s when too much power gets in too few hands. Compromise isn’t a bad word. It’s how a democracy works best.
send a message in Nov.
It's a joke..
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Pretty much every part of me says that this is a horrible idea. There will be unintended consequences that will happen immediately and some that will stretch-on for years. In addition to making enemies out of our long-term partners.
But, but, but...there is a strange voice that makes me question everything I know to be true. It tells me that something this outrageous will end-up helping us long-term through better trade deals. A lot of pain will happen first, but it could actually work. Kind of like letting a monkey type on your computer - who knows, maybe he can churn out an award winning novel?
Back to being rational. I have to give it to them, it does take some stones to do what they're doing. However, I'm more comfortable with a traditional negotiation, and not transactional, to get what we want. For instance, the end goal would be to get rid of tariffs altogether or at least get them lowered. Pick the things that are important and focus on those. I don't think you need to bet the farm to make that happen.
There have been several references to “trusting the experts” in this thread. As a practicing statistician, I’ve got to say that economist consistently demonstrate a truly bizarre level of overconfidence in their ability to predict the effects of various actions. Meteorologists – epidemiologist - guys like me, we’re all in the business of battling chaos and we all know our limitations but not economist…they just love, love, love to get in front of a reporter, camera, or whatever and make ridiculously specific and definitive claims.
T.J. said:markwemple said:In reply to T.J. :
So you're the kind of guy who hired the local teenager to do serious plumbing?
No, not at all, but the fact that you would even type that is why I made an attempt to cease further interaction with you in this thread. It is not productive and you are either not interested or not capable of an actual discussion. Like I said before, good luck.
Kudos for not falling for it.
This is a tactic (Straw man) used frequently on this forum to start fights. Some people know they're doing it, some don't and some take it personally when you call them on it.
kilgoretrout said:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Pretty much every part of me says that this is a horrible idea. There will be unintended consequences that will happen immediately and some that will stretch-on for years. In addition to making enemies out of our long-term partners.
But, but, but...there is a strange voice that makes me question everything I know to be true. It tells me that something this outrageous will end-up helping us long-term through better trade deals. A lot of pain will happen first, but it could actually work. Kind of like letting a monkey type on your computer - who knows, maybe he can churn out an award winning novel?
Back to being rational. I have to give it to them, it does take some stones to do what they're doing. However, I'm more comfortable with a traditional negotiation, and not transactional, to get what we want. For instance, the end goal would be to get rid of tariffs altogether or at least get them lowered. Pick the things that are important and focus on those. I don't think you need to bet the farm to make that happen.
I'm kind of with you on this, mainly because I know diddly squat about macro economics (of course, I agree with RX Reven that even the experts may not.) I think it's going to be bad, like really bad, but since I also don't know that much I'm open to being wrong. But I certainly wouldn't have chosen this path.
I disagree about it taking stones to try it. Most of the people making this decision are massively wealthy enough that it won't really affect them. I feel like they're making risky decisions with all of our futures but don't have any skin in the game. I would also suspect anyone wealthy enough to be a top policy-producer is diversely invested both at home and over seas, so it's a net zero on these kind of situations.
kilgoretrout said:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Pretty much every part of me says that this is a horrible idea. There will be unintended consequences that will happen immediately and some that will stretch-on for years. In addition to making enemies out of our long-term partners.
But, but, but...there is a strange voice that makes me question everything I know to be true. It tells me that something this outrageous will end-up helping us long-term through better trade deals. A lot of pain will happen first, but it could actually work. Kind of like letting a monkey type on your computer - who knows, maybe he can churn out an award winning novel?
Back to being rational. I have to give it to them, it does take some stones to do what they're doing. However, I'm more comfortable with a traditional negotiation, and not transactional, to get what we want. For instance, the end goal would be to get rid of tariffs altogether or at least get them lowered. Pick the things that are important and focus on those. I don't think you need to bet the farm to make that happen.
“Beware of what you wish for”. Or “When the Gods want to punish you they grant you your wish”
History has repeatedly shown us the result of trade wars and it isn’t good. Plus there is that whole Law of unintended consequences thing. Where even if you get the results you wanted there will be consequences.
ultraclyde said:kilgoretrout said:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Pretty much every part of me says that this is a horrible idea. There will be unintended consequences that will happen immediately and some that will stretch-on for years. In addition to making enemies out of our long-term partners.
But, but, but...there is a strange voice that makes me question everything I know to be true. It tells me that something this outrageous will end-up helping us long-term through better trade deals. A lot of pain will happen first, but it could actually work. Kind of like letting a monkey type on your computer - who knows, maybe he can churn out an award winning novel?
Back to being rational. I have to give it to them, it does take some stones to do what they're doing. However, I'm more comfortable with a traditional negotiation, and not transactional, to get what we want. For instance, the end goal would be to get rid of tariffs altogether or at least get them lowered. Pick the things that are important and focus on those. I don't think you need to bet the farm to make that happen.
I'm kind of with you on this, mainly because I know diddly squat about macro economics (of course, I agree with RX Reven that even the experts may not.) I think it's going to be bad, like really bad, but since I also don't know that much I'm open to being wrong. But I certainly wouldn't have chosen this path.
I disagree about it taking stones to try it. Most of the people making this decision are massively wealthy enough that it won't really affect them. I feel like they're making risky decisions with all of our futures but don't have any skin in the game. I would also suspect anyone wealthy enough to be a top policy-producer is diversely invested both at home and over seas, so it's a net zero on these kind of situations.
I gave you a thumbs up for your response.
You pointed out that if the real goal of this trade war is to provide income to justify the 1 &1/2 Trillion dollar tax break they granted themselves. Should the trade war backfire they likely are in a position not to be hurt Because of it. At that level there are three ways to get ahead.
They can get more
they can remain the same but have others go backwards
They can get more and have others go backwards.
Nick Comstock said:In reply to Ian F :
That goes back to at least the mid nineties as standard operating procedure.
It goes back way farther than that. And yes - definitely SOP. In today's hyper-information world, it just happens a lot faster.
You know.. I'm fearful about the reprecussions about from this trade thingy... but I'm very hopeful that those in charge are correct... I mean, If they're not.. It's going to be pretty bad for all of us for a long time to come. So. I hope they're right.
In reply to alfadriver :
I agree that the overall issue of trade balance is very complex. My comments were more directed toward that tariffs. I wasn't advocating either way, just pointing out that there are a many choices, and none are guaranteed a particular outcome. Tariffs may be a horrible choice. But taking them off the table could also be a horrible choice. Or both could be true. Tariffs are weapons in a trade war. Using them can start or escalate a trade war. But telling your adversaries that you won't use them can be dangerous too. While bullying our trade partners may not be a good idea, allowing ourselves to be bullied isn't great either.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
It's just that the simple tariffs are being used to solve a very complex problem that we partially made as bad as it is. Tariffs are a very simple device that is like slapping a kids hand for doing something wrong. Can work, sure. But it can be far more effective in the long run to not choose punitive methods to get your way. They actually turn trade issues into trade wars. And all wars have bad consequences.
Ian F said:Nick Comstock said:In reply to Ian F :
That goes back to at least the mid nineties as standard operating procedure.
It goes back way farther than that. And yes - definitely SOP. In today's hyper-information world, it just happens a lot faster.
Oh, I'm sure it does. I just didn't start paying attention until then.
My take:
1. Another country is manufacturing X (pick any good that almost everyone buys) cheaper than USA, causing people who make X in USA to "lose" jobs. (in quotes because I think this point is debatable but let's go with it for now).
2. People in USA (by definition above) buys a lot of X.
3. Price of X is a lot less than an entire year salary for the person who makes X, therefore there must be a lot more people buying X than people who are employed making X.
4. Import tariff benefits the people employed making X, because they don't lose their jobs. But they hurt EVERYONE buying X, because X is now more expensive.
So basically tariffs are exactly like wellfare because they take money from the many and give it to the specific few.
RX Reven' said:There have been several references to “trusting the experts” in this thread. As a practicing statistician, I’ve got to say that economist consistently demonstrate a truly bizarre level of overconfidence in their ability to predict the effects of various actions. Meteorologists – epidemiologist - guys like me, we’re all in the business of battling chaos and we all know our limitations but not economist…they just love, love, love to get in front of a reporter, camera, or whatever and make ridiculously specific and definitive claims.
Even though it's been proven otherwise, economists still want to believe in the rational model, but all experts (all people) are prone to overconfidence. And being non-intuitive most of us, including statisticians, don't think statistically either. But you're definitely on to something
The United States is still the leading economy in the world and holds by far the most private wealth (last number I saw was 62 trillion) and has the the largest military. Is there an expectation that tariffs will make this better in some way? Is there a higher ranking than number one?
This has a lot more to do with manipulating an electorate than anything else.
One (hopeful) consideration:
Some people (and cultures I suspect) see the want to negotiate and talk first as sign of weakness (clearly the current admin believes this). The tactic then becomes: show some aggressive strength, in whatever way, let that set in, then negotiate partially based on the removal of that aggression.
Otherwise, you simply have to rely on the other persons / leaders / government good nature to negotiate. Many leaders are leaders because they are rather ruthless.
Of note: a recent study showed that many political and business leaders have psychopathic characteristics (which are actually useful in their positions), and as such, really don't care that much about other people (but are good at pretending they are). When negotiating with a psychopath, appealing to their good nature is not likely to be effective.
lateapexer said:The United States is still the leading economy in the world and holds by far the most private wealth (last number I saw was 62 trillion) and has the the largest military. Is there an expectation that tariffs will make this better in some way? Is there a higher ranking than number one?
This has a lot more to do with manipulating an electorate than anything else.
While I happen to agree with you please let’s avoid statements that may be considered political in nature?
There have been some really intelligent things said by most people here and yet we are always at the risk of being locked.
aircooled said:One (hopeful) consideration:
Some people (and cultures I suspect) see the want to negotiate and talk first as sign of weakness (clearly the current admin believes this). The tactic then becomes: show some aggressive strength, in whatever way, let that set in, then negotiate partially based on the removal of that aggression.
Otherwise, you simply have to rely on the other persons / leaders / government good nature to negotiate. Many leaders are leaders because they are rather ruthless.
Of note: a recent study showed that many political and business leaders have psychopathic characteristics (which are actually useful in their positions), and as such, really don't care that much about other people (but are good at pretending they are). When negotiating with a psychopath, appealing to their good nature is not likely to be effective.
The risk of damaging long term relationships must be taken into consideration over pure economics. Global politics isn’t just about bank balances.
Allis will be there and will support you in ways that go beyond mere economics
Alliances must be give and take because in a very real sense they our this countries Family. Just like a family not everyone agrees with everything but the goal must be for the betterment of the “Family”
Just throwing out a few thoughts (keep in mind I've got some academic background in economics, but I also don't agree with a lot of the mainstream neoliberal economics).
First, tariffs in the US generally seem lower to me than in a lot of other countries, when there are any. And that's before we get to the typical European thing that you then get to pay VAT on top of the cost of goods, shipping and tariffs. Obviously that's only the case for trade relations where there isn't an existing tariff-free trade agreement in place. This helps getting stuff into the country.
Second, tariffs are usually considered as a protective measure for local industries. In this case, the local industry includes a lot of the companies that have plants in the US, but a global supply chain. Other than making things more complex I don't see how that would help in this case - the usual way to fix one's trade balance is to make and export stuff that other people want to buy (aka the German model, which then leads to the country also having to extend credit to the buyers). Just imposing tariffs doesn't tend to help with that much.
Now there is an argument to be made (and I'll try to stay out of politics here) that the free trade agreements like Nafta have made things worse for certain parts of the electorate (like the people whose jobs got exported to Mexico or China) and likely have led to the lack of wage growth in places like the US and at least parts of the EU. Which means that on a purely economics base, you have to import more cheap stuff because people can't necessarily afford to more expensive domestic made stuff anymore.
Is a trade war going to help with all of this? Unlikely, I would say. As mentioned by other posters, it'll rub a whole bunch of people the wrong way whose cooperation might be helpful, and the elephant-in-china-shop approach clearly isn't helping here. Unfortunately, one could also give the impression that the negotiations have to be conducted in such a way that one side is seen losing.
It'll also potentially end having and inflationary effect, which the Fed has been worried about for a while. The importers aren't going to eat the 25%, so prices will go up and there's a non-zero chance that the Fed will then raise interest rates in tandem.
You'll need to log in to post.
