3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 70 Percent Of Americans Don't Have A College Degree :(
Kristofer Dahl
post Dec 21 2016, 04:47 PM
Post #41


GMC Founder & Rocker
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.379
Joined: 15-August 05
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 2



To both sides of the fence: any political discussion at GMC needs to be handled cautiously.

This is not the right place to throw in disguised provocations. If any of you are just looking to vent your anger, you can easily find other places for that. So in other words factual, and constructive discussions are what we encourage.

These discussions serve the purpose of explaining your perspective, and understanding your fellow GMC'ers perspective. If you participate in this thread for any other reason - I ask you to refrain from posting.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Dec 22 2016, 02:33 AM
Post #42


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.275
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post motivated me otherwise smile.gif Well said!!!!!! smile.gif Hopefully the forum can be a place to talk politics without venting, without provocation, hopefully without wads of questionable vids as well, mostly focused on genuine discussion.

Todd

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Dec 21 2016, 11:47 AM) *
To both sides of the fence: any political discussion at GMC needs to be handled cautiously.

This is not the right place to throw in disguised provocations. If any of you are just looking to vent your anger, you can easily find other places for that. So in other words factual, and constructive discussions are what we encourage.

These discussions serve the purpose of explaining your perspective, and understanding your fellow GMC'ers perspective. If you participate in this thread for any other reason - I ask you to refrain from posting.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kristofer Dahl
post Dec 22 2016, 09:44 AM
Post #43


GMC Founder & Rocker
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.379
Joined: 15-August 05
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 22 2016, 02:33 AM) *
I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post motivated me otherwise smile.gif Well said!!!!!! smile.gif Hopefully the forum can be a place to talk politics without venting, without provocation, hopefully without wads of questionable vids as well, mostly focused on genuine discussion.

Todd


Yes! But for that to happen you also need to think about being more careful with the touchy stuff that you know will provoke, otherwise discussions won't move forward - and instead just turn into meaningless conflict seeking.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Dec 22 2016, 05:51 PM
Post #44


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.759
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Dec 22 2016, 03:44 AM) *
Yes! But for that to happen you also need to think about being more careful with the touchy stuff that you know will provoke, otherwise discussions won't move forward - and instead just turn into meaningless conflict seeking.


It is difficult Kris, the president elected fan a campaign based rooted in emotion, without substance. But I will give it a whack.

Let's take the most recent proposal that has emerged, slapping 5% Tariffs on imports.

Perhaps he is not really serious, that this is just his way of throwing out something sensational. Then I ask myself, why is he doing that? Is this for foreign consumption, or for his populist base? It would seem that it would be for his domestic base supporters, something that would sound good to them. And 5% is such a low number, it would not be very significant anyway, he had floated tariffs of closer to 50% during his campaign, which of course would be totally insane. I am not sure how China and others would react to a 5% tariff. It is more of a message than anything that would in itself change anything.

Now I have made a statement. I really have not provided any support, that wold take a lot of paragraphs and nobody would read it. But I invite anyone to explain to me, why this 5% Tariff plan has been floated out here, and what good this is supposed to do for anyone, for Trump, the American people, or whoever?

My interpretation is that this is to drum up populist support primarily, but it is also a message to the Chinese. For the former it will work in the short term. For the latter, I think it will be received just a well as the English symbolic Tea Tax was by the North American Colonials. They won't stand for it, and they don't have to. They see Americans as having created their own problems, and they have no intention of shouldering the weight of the solution to those problems.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Dec 22 2016, 06:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kristofer Dahl
post Dec 22 2016, 11:45 PM
Post #45


GMC Founder & Rocker
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.379
Joined: 15-August 05
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 22 2016, 05:51 PM) *
It is difficult Kris, the president elected fan a campaign based rooted in emotion, without substance. But I will give it a whack.

Let's take the most recent proposal that has emerged, slapping 5% Tariffs on imports.

Perhaps he is not really serious, that this is just his way of throwing out something sensational. Then I ask myself, why is he doing that? Is this for foreign consumption, or for his populist base? It would seem that it would be for his domestic base supporters, something that would sound good to them. And 5% is such a low number, it would not be very significant anyway, he had floated tariffs of closer to 50% during his campaign, which of course would be totally insane. I am not sure how China and others would react to a 5% tariff. It is more of a message than anything that would in itself change anything.

Now I have made a statement. I really have not provided any support, that wold take a lot of paragraphs and nobody would read it. But I invite anyone to explain to me, why this 5% Tariff plan has been floated out here, and what good this is supposed to do for anyone, for Trump, the American people, or whoever?

My interpretation is that this is to drum up populist support primarily, but it is also a message to the Chinese. For the former it will work in the short term. For the latter, I think it will be received just a well as the English symbolic Tea Tax was by the North American Colonials. They won't stand for it, and they don't have to. They see Americans as having created their own problems, and they have no intention of shouldering the weight of the solution to those problems.


I don't have enough insights to provide meaningful input. But I do think you did well in reasoning around this in a sensible way. If we can keep this tone, political discussions will add value to the community.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Dec 22 2016, 11:54 PM
Post #46


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.881
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 22 2016, 05:51 PM) *
It is difficult Kris, the president elected fan a campaign based rooted in emotion, without substance. But I will give it a whack.

Let's take the most recent proposal that has emerged, slapping 5% Tariffs on imports.

Perhaps he is not really serious, that this is just his way of throwing out something sensational. Then I ask myself, why is he doing that? Is this for foreign consumption, or for his populist base? It would seem that it would be for his domestic base supporters, something that would sound good to them. And 5% is such a low number, it would not be very significant anyway, he had floated tariffs of closer to 50% during his campaign, which of course would be totally insane. I am not sure how China and others would react to a 5% tariff. It is more of a message than anything that would in itself change anything.

Now I have made a statement. I really have not provided any support, that wold take a lot of paragraphs and nobody would read it. But I invite anyone to explain to me, why this 5% Tariff plan has been floated out here, and what good this is supposed to do for anyone, for Trump, the American people, or whoever?

My interpretation is that this is to drum up populist support primarily, but it is also a message to the Chinese. For the former it will work in the short term. For the latter, I think it will be received just a well as the English symbolic Tea Tax was by the North American Colonials. They won't stand for it, and they don't have to. They see Americans as having created their own problems, and they have no intention of shouldering the weight of the solution to those problems.

Your side of the isle seems to always complain about jobs leaving so I would think going this direction would limit jobs leaving , as businesses would know they won't save money , since they get taxed on goods coming back in ( creating more jobs here ). It would also level the field, as many countries thrive on selling their goods to the US and have the same tariffs ( do a honest search you probably won't believe my source ) for US goods coming into their country.
Now to cover the costs of the tariffs , they will need to increase the cost of their goods ( because they will not survive not making profit and more importantly , not having America buy their products ) >now if products from foreign countries are more expensive, would that make it possible for American products to be more competitive ? 5% percent might not be enough but its a start . what did Obama do ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Dec 23 2016, 12:35 AM
Post #47


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.759
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 22 2016, 05:54 PM) *
Your side of the isle seems to always complain about jobs leaving so I would think going this direction would limit jobs leaving , as businesses would know they won't save money , since they get taxed on goods coming back in ( creating more jobs here ). It would also level the field, as many countries thrive on selling their goods to the US and have the same tariffs ( do a honest search you probably won't believe my source ) for US goods coming into their country.
Now to cover the costs of the tariffs , they will need to increase the cost of their goods ( because they will not survive not making profit and more importantly , not having America buy their products ) >now if products from foreign countries are more expensive, would that make it possible for American products to be more competitive ? 5% percent might not be enough but its a start . what did Obama do ?


As Kris has injected the concept "civility not optional" I i will continue with that theme, I agree that people, including myself, should act that way.

Regarding sources, as I think you will agree, that whatever one's view on anything, one can find sources that on the surface sound convincing to prove anything, and then find sources just as convincing to support the opposite POV. For anything like that to be convincing it would necessarily be very specific, very limited in scope. Broad general topics take in depth exhaustive analysis. Not that that does not stop people arguing endlessly over broad topics based on minimal superficial supporting documents.

For example, some claim that Tariffs would be effective, and justify this based on the US having them in the distant past, as in the 19th century. That may seem supportive, but they leave off the fact that global trade was a minimal part of our economy back then, and also that we had a number of depressions and recessions in our history, some of them very long lasting.

So let me just say something that I think everyone may agree with. Do you really think that the Chinese, or anyone else, thinks that they are taking advantage of the United States in global trade? This is where I would be concerned about Trump's limited experience. Is he capable of really seeing things from the perspective of others, a perspective far different than his own?

Whatever we may think is unfair, don't delude yourself that the Chinese look at things that way. Take a different topic, Taiwan independence as an example. Most in the West deep down think they should have self-determination. But be assured, and I mean 100%, the Chinese on the mainland don't feel that way, and will NEVER feel that way, and they feel very righteous in that regard, they feel they have a sacred right to that Island, and it is not negotiable, and never will be, end of story. I am just saying, you have to accept such things, when it would come down to kill or be killed, and there would be no other possible outcome.

So if we put on Tariffs, I submit that the Chinese would look at this as unfair to them. And the question is, will they take actions to punish us. And they can. And politically they might be forced to do this, even if the outcome would be recessionary on a global scale.

An ECON 101 type analysis (you can find such online) explains how countries can start into these trade wars, and it degenerate into what are called "Beggar Thy Neighbor" policies. That is what happened during the Great Depression, and one of the big reasons that depression became so deep and persistent. China can hurt us, and hurt us bad, in a number of ways, if we start playing hardball with them, and they perceive it as unfair, regardless of how justified we may feel about it.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Dec 23 2016, 12:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Dec 23 2016, 02:43 AM
Post #48


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.938
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



We don't really know what products would be subject to the tariffs. It could be only big ticket items like cars, steel and appliances. Who knows - he's not actually president yet and policy takes some time.

Where things can or may get a little more complicated or cloudier is with an across the board tariff on all goods from a foreign country that is deemed to be unfairly pricing their goods or adjusting their monetary policy. If we're talking about China then it's important to remember that a lot of stuff made in the USA uses some Chinese (or Asian in general) parts. I know Gibson and Fender guitars do, I know Ford cars do, I know most US furniture has Asian bolts and screws. Shit, 'Craftsman' tools (Sears) are made in Taiwan and China. If there's this hypothetical 5% import tariff then probably most things, even US things will cost a few percent more. You maybe wouldn't really feel it when you purchase barbecue tools but that next flat screen TV or dishwasher may give you some sticker shock.Then think about all the clothes you buy that are relatively cheap. The tee shirts, socks, gym shoes, etc. What about pencils and pens? Tires, bikes, hot wheels, cheap silverware, soccer ball, coffee mug ... it's kind of endless. And it would all go up. You put a tariff on foreign socks and maybe Bangladesh or Indonesia will sell elsewhere - ? American made tube socks are not going to cost $10 for ten pair. Our standard of living here is high - even for shit wage workers compared to workers in Asia. Our fed min wage is $7.50. A Bangladeshi garment worker makes about .45 an hour. A Chinese, $1.26.

JSTCRSN - you build and install Jacuzzis and spas, correct? Are any of the parts or materials you have to order made overseas? Would they be included in this hypothetical tariff? Would your supplier pass this cost on to you? Would you be passing this cost on to the consumer? I'm honestly asking. Do you think it would or could be something that would affect you as business owner?

The tariff thing never really works. Goods from parts of the world where it's cheaper to live (and wages are cheaper) are generally going to cost less for us here in the States and in Europe than those goods produced here and in Europe.
Japan is a great example. Japanese stuff used to be cheap (price and quality) in the 50s, 60 and 70s. Since the 80s their cost of and standard of living is now one of the highest in the world. Japanese things are expensive now and considered to be of high quality (Sony, Ibanez, Lexus, their steel, etc.)
Let's just say that hypothetically anything and everything from China goes up 5%, even excluding Chinese materials in American goods. It'll still be cheaper than most of the US, Japanese or European competition. So India and Indonesia will then be the heavy competition price wise. But we can't really have a trade war with them because they don't artificially alter their monetary policy. They just have a really low cost of living and wages.

We spend a lot on Foreign goods because we like the cheaper prices.

This post has been edited by klasaine: Dec 23 2016, 02:58 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Dec 23 2016, 03:45 AM
Post #49


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.881
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (klasaine @ Dec 23 2016, 02:43 AM) *
We don't really know what products would be subject to the tariffs. It could be only big ticket items like cars, steel and appliances. Who knows - he's not actually president yet and policy takes some time.

Where things can or may get a little more complicated or cloudier is with an across the board tariff on all goods from a foreign country that is deemed to be unfairly pricing their goods or adjusting their monetary policy. If we're talking about China then it's important to remember that a lot of stuff made in the USA uses some Chinese (or Asian in general) parts. I know Gibson and Fender guitars do, I know Ford cars do, I know most US furniture has Asian bolts and screws. Shit, 'Craftsman' tools (Sears) are made in Taiwan and China. If there's this hypothetical 5% import tariff then probably most things, even US things will cost a few percent more. You maybe wouldn't really feel it when you purchase barbecue tools but that next flat screen TV or dishwasher may give you some sticker shock.Then think about all the clothes you buy that are relatively cheap. The tee shirts, socks, gym shoes, etc. What about pencils and pens? Tires, bikes, hot wheels, cheap silverware, soccer ball, coffee mug ... it's kind of endless. And it would all go up. You put a tariff on foreign socks and maybe Bangladesh or Indonesia will sell elsewhere - ? American made tube socks are not going to cost $10 for ten pair. Our standard of living here is high - even for shit wage workers compared to workers in Asia. Our fed min wage is $7.50. A Bangladeshi garment worker makes about .45 an hour. A Chinese, $1.26.

JSTCRSN - you build and install Jacuzzis and spas, correct? Are any of the parts or materials you have to order made overseas? Would they be included in this hypothetical tariff? Would your supplier pass this cost on to you? Would you be passing this cost on to the consumer? I'm honestly asking. Do you think it would or could be something that would affect you as business owner?

The tariff thing never really works. Goods from parts of the world where it's cheaper to live (and wages are cheaper) are generally going to cost less for us here in the States and in Europe than those goods produced here and in Europe.
Japan is a great example. Japanese stuff used to be cheap (price and quality) in the 50s, 60 and 70s. Since the 80s their cost of and standard of living is now one of the highest in the world. Japanese things are expensive now and considered to be of high quality (Sony, Ibanez, Lexus, their steel, etc.)
Let's just say that hypothetically anything and everything from China goes up 5%, even excluding Chinese materials in American goods. It'll still be cheaper than most of the US, Japanese or European competition. So India and Indonesia will then be the heavy competition price wise. But we can't really have a trade war with them because they don't artificially alter their monetary policy. They just have a really low cost of living and wages.

We spend a lot on Foreign goods because we like the cheaper prices.

Not any more but , yes and no. For the most part yes , I won't work for free and I would pass that along to the consumer, but everyone would , so the consumer would then Have a choice to pay or not have the service . I would also have a choice , if I needed to work bad enough ,and I do, low-ball jobs in slow times just to keep food on the table. This is all the free market eb and the flow, the other option is to raise taxes to cover and then everybody has to pay regardless, why should you have to pay for my business , if times are good I charge what I want (win for me ), if times aren't so good I low ball ( win for both, I keep my family feed and the consumer gets a discount) But , I will Low ball when I need to , the government can not move quick enough to help but the free market can . As a Owner of a company I am well aware of every decision that hits my bottom line

One question though , if it doesn't help , why do other countries do it

after china has got a taste of money they make from the US , I think they would think long and hard before they ruin that

If not tariff's than what ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Dec 23 2016, 05:12 AM
Post #50


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.275
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Again well said. It seems that my deeply held views are a pinch much for a core group of folks to stomach and it does seem to devolve despite my best efforts. I keep swearing off talking politics, then see some post that I just can't seem to let slide without offering a counterpoint. I honestly do not enjoy conflict for conflict's sake and always try to depersonalize political issues as much as possible. I'll make every effort to be more careful in the future though smile.gif

Todd

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Dec 22 2016, 04:44 AM) *
Yes! But for that to happen you also need to think about being more careful with the touchy stuff that you know will provoke, otherwise discussions won't move forward - and instead just turn into meaningless conflict seeking.


In keeping with a tone of civility and citing a source that is largely neutral, (neither msnbc or some blog or brietbart etc.) namely THE ECONOMIST (a pubilcation with a long an much lauded history from both sides of aisle), and offer this article about the impact of what is essentially "Protectionism", e.g. Tariffs. The people most hurt, in terms of purchasing power, are the poor. Which is why tariffs have not been widely adopted in our economy for some time now. Also, the article goes in to the declining participation of men in the work force that lack a college education. A topic I have brought up a few times, and gotten some fairly harsh criticism for I might add. I"m just sharing numbers here people, not passing judgement.

Here is the article.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-repo...oming-and-going

I wanted to point out that I didn't personalize ANYTHING in my post here. I'd request any responders do the same? Such that we might maintain our civic tone?

Here is the chart in question with the employment/education numbers.
*Disclaimer: (Only talking about the issues I'm bringing up, not trying to talk about things I didn't mention, nor am I implying anything of any sort in any way to anybody)
Attached Image





This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Dec 23 2016, 05:26 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Dec 23 2016, 06:08 AM
Post #51


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.938
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 22 2016, 07:45 PM) *
One question though , if it doesn't help , why do other countries do it

after china has got a taste of money they make from the US , I think they would think long and hard before they ruin that

If not tariff's than what ?


Other countries do do it and some of their populace complains about the outrageous prices they have to pay for everyday goods and services. Folks keep less of their money. Hence a lot more social programs to make up for that added living expense like subsidized school, medical, wage standards, retirement, almost unlimited unemployment insurance, some subsidized housing, a ton of subsidized transportation, etc. All paid for by higher taxes.

*Keep in mind that those countries that impose heavy tariffs on imported goods are essentially what we here in the US would label as 'socialist' governments.

There's really nothing you can do about a country that can produce goods at a fraction of the cost of what we can until their standard of living rises to the point where their wages are at least closer to ours. Our lowest paid workers make between 7 and 14 times more than what a low wage worker makes in Asia. Other than an outright embargo, we'll never be able to make it for less here. With shops like Walmart, Costco and K-Mart we've all gotten used to and expect that socks essentially cost $1 per pair. It ain't like that in other countries with a similar standard and cost of living.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Dec 23 2016, 09:27 AM
Post #52


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.759
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



I spent 10 minutes of my life looking for a very easy to read explanation of why Tariffs have serious deleterious effects on the populations of those that impose them. I made sure it was written by someone qualified, an Economics Professor, and that it was very clear and easy to read, you can read it in 2 or 3 minutes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/0...riffs/87286114/

You ask, if not Tariffs, then what? That is a big question.

An analysis was done of speeches by candidates during the last campaign. The best of them communicated on perhaps a 8th or 9th grade level. Trump was much lower, I saw him listed at a 4th grade, but at best a 5th or 6th grade level. We are not hearing anything serious from any of them, the answers lie well above those intellectual levels.

I guess the big question about Trump is whether he is actually operating on that level. My suspicion has been that it is not an act, his depth of comprehension of such matters is very limited. Apparently he is going to conduct his presidency in a similar manner to his presidential campaign, that he is going to keep trying to say things that gender support, rather than actually pursue a well thought out plan for success.

He is still doing all the tweets, whatever crosses his mind he just tweets it out, and I am sure they discuss in the morning whether it was effective propaganda or not, whether the response was favorable. So he apparently will focus on a day to day basis, trying to say what will be received favorably, until the next tweet.

Do you think that is really going to be an effective manner of running the Presidency? The man frightens the hell out of me, and i don't get scared that easily. We have never had a president like this. I understand that people want change, so do I, but you need to be sure that in making changes you don't wreck the joint. Even if your roof is leaking, it is better than no roof at all.

I always keep a year's supply of good dog food. Because if things really fall apart, nobody is going to put pets as a priority. A lot of dogs in England died in 1940. And hell, if worst comes to worst, the dogs will have to share with me, I buy them excellent food, it is not cheap. Not a lot of people have $1,000 worth of dog food in their house.

Attached Image

This post has been edited by fkalich: Dec 23 2016, 09:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Dec 23 2016, 02:22 PM
Post #53


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.881
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 23 2016, 09:27 AM) *
I spent 10 minutes of my life looking for a very easy to read explanation of why Tariffs have serious deleterious effects on the populations of those that impose them. I made sure it was written by someone qualified, an Economics Professor, and that it was very clear and easy to read, you can read it in 2 or 3 minutes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/0...riffs/87286114/

You ask, if not Tariffs, then what? That is a big question.

An analysis was done of speeches by candidates during the last campaign. The best of them communicated on perhaps a 8th or 9th grade level. Trump was much lower, I saw him listed at a 4th grade, but at best a 5th or 6th grade level. We are not hearing anything serious from any of them, the answers lie well above those intellectual levels.

I guess the big question about Trump is whether he is actually operating on that level. My suspicion has been that it is not an act, his depth of comprehension of such matters is very limited. Apparently he is going to conduct his presidency in a similar manner to his presidential campaign, that he is going to keep trying to say things that gender support, rather than actually pursue a well thought out plan for success.

He is still doing all the tweets, whatever crosses his mind he just tweets it out, and I am sure they discuss in the morning whether it was effective propaganda or not, whether the response was favorable. So he apparently will focus on a day to day basis, trying to say what will be received favorably, until the next tweet.

Do you think that is really going to be an effective manner of running the Presidency? The man frightens the hell out of me, and i don't get scared that easily. We have never had a president like this. I understand that people want change, so do I, but you need to be sure that in making changes you don't wreck the joint. Even if your roof is leaking, it is better than no roof at all.

I always keep a year's supply of good dog food. Because if things really fall apart, nobody is going to put pets as a priority. A lot of dogs in England died in 1940. And hell, if worst comes to worst, the dogs will have to share with me, I buy them excellent food, it is not cheap. Not a lot of people have $1,000 worth of dog food in their house.

[.JPG]

I agree with this story mostly , but he is taking an example from 1930 , I don't think that is what caused the depression ( might not have helped ) but if you that scenario out from 1930 , all it has one mans view point at best . Lets see if it works or not, but what we are doin surely ain't working,

The whole rant after the story is what Kris is talking about , it does nothing for the conversation or a valid point you have in the link that we should discuss. He won , you are going have to come to grips with this . Can you put aside your hatred for the man to see clearly , What if some of what he does works? . Are you able to look back at Obama's mistakes or do you think he was perfect ?

P.S. If we are on the wrong path it will hurt to get off . It''s like riding a bike down a hill you get going to fast to control it , but you knowthat you have to bail before the hill gets steeper, it will hurt , you have a few bumps and bruises , your head spins for a little bit and then life goes on.
If you think any president, that has to get us out of 20 trillion dept, is going to be able to do it without a little pain you might need to rethink things. I think a little pain now is better for my kids than letting them try to have to clean up my generations( generation give me ) mess


This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Dec 23 2016, 02:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Dec 23 2016, 06:51 PM
Post #54


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.275
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



The points being made seem to be, simply, that Tariffs have a net negative impact on a populace and a far worse net negative impact on the poor. Per the article I shared, it's just bad economics in general. But it does play well as a tweet/talking point, etc. Muscle jobs go where muscle is cheap and that ain't here. The quicker we can make the full transition to an information based economy, the sooner we can get back "on track" imho. (Also why I keep focusing on education and graphs showing lack of labor participation by folks without an education) Trying to cling to the past, to economic realities that are simply no longer real, is just red meat for the base, not pragmatic policy imho. So in short, I'm asserting that tariffs will do nothing but make things worse for the folks that need the most help. But time will tell smile.gif

Todd

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 23 2016, 09:22 AM) *
I agree with this story mostly , but he is taking an example from 1930 , I don't think that is what caused the depression ( might not have helped ) but if you that scenario out from 1930 , all it has one mans view point at best . Lets see if it works or not, but what we are doin surely ain't working,

The whole rant after the story is what Kris is talking about , it does nothing for the conversation or a valid point you have in the link that we should discuss. He won , you are going have to come to grips with this . Can you put aside your hatred for the man to see clearly , What if some of what he does works? . Are you able to look back at Obama's mistakes or do you think he was perfect ?

P.S. If we are on the wrong path it will hurt to get off . It''s like riding a bike down a hill you get going to fast to control it , but you knowthat you have to bail before the hill gets steeper, it will hurt , you have a few bumps and bruises , your head spins for a little bit and then life goes on.
If you think any president, that has to get us out of 20 trillion dept, is going to be able to do it without a little pain you might need to rethink things. I think a little pain now is better for my kids than letting them try to have to clean up my generations( generation give me ) mess


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Dec 23 2016, 06:53 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Dec 23 2016, 09:43 PM
Post #55


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.881
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 23 2016, 06:51 PM) *
The points being made seem to be, simply, that Tariffs have a net negative impact on a populace and a far worse net negative impact on the poor. Per the article I shared, it's just bad economics in general. But it does play well as a tweet/talking point, etc. Muscle jobs go where muscle is cheap and that ain't here. The quicker we can make the full transition to an information based economy, the sooner we can get back "on track" imho. (Also why I keep focusing on education and graphs showing lack of labor participation by folks without an education) Trying to cling to the past, to economic realities that are simply no longer real, is just red meat for the base, not pragmatic policy imho. So in short, I'm asserting that tariffs will do nothing but make things worse for the folks that need the most help. But time will tell smile.gif

Todd

I know what your articles have said ( are these the same professionals that said Trump was going to get annihilated ) , I could have found articles that said the opposite, which are all conjecture and theory , So I am saying , lets give it a chance, I don't think this economy is so fragile that we can't turn from it if it doesn't work . You said you would give him a chance , did that mean , you would give his policies a fair time to see if they would work or did it mean as soon as Trump talked about something you view as wrong , you are justified in your descent ? If it was the later , I don't really view that as giving him a chance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Dec 23 2016, 10:56 PM
Post #56


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.275
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Allow me to offer a correction here, the Economist, in particular the article I mentioned, said nothing about Trump getting elected or not getting elected. It simply made a valid argument with rational facts to reach a conclusion. I realize we live in a fact free world now, so I probably should have saved the article for another space. We have no choice at all, but to take the "wait and see" approach of course. I thought that much was a given, no?

I was pointing out that the path we seem to be heading toward has shown, repeatedly to be deleterious to any economy. Also that the ones who suffer most are the ones who need the most help. So while we "Wait and See", Ph.d Economists are simply pointing out the wheel turning yet again toward protectionism and pointing out the resultant problems that it creates. It has simply always had certain impacts. These are not conjecture. These are what we call "facts". They are not in dispute as they are hard numbers, with serious impact on the economy.


So I do agree that we have utterly no choice but to wait and see our govt regulation dismantled and perhaps tariffs added, history shows us that this approach favors the rich at the expense of the poor. A simple matter of history, not a matter of debate or conjecture. In short, we are heading for an even steeper divide between rich and poor. This isn't hard to see coming for anyone familiar with historical patterns of economic policy. It simply "is". Of course you can find any article you wish and I'd be happy to read it, but please do source from the Economist, Reuters, or the Associated Presss. For all their short comings, (and I admit they have many) they are simply the best of the worst from which to choose. If you can find a paper from a primary source (Mentioned previously) that suggest a contrarian view. I'd love to see it. It may exist. You'd have to find it though.

Todd


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 23 2016, 04:43 PM) *
I know what your articles have said ( are these the same professionals that said Trump was going to get annihilated ) , I could have found articles that said the opposite, which are all conjecture and theory , So I am saying , lets give it a chance, I don't think this economy is so fragile that we can't turn from it if it doesn't work . You said you would give him a chance , did that mean , you would give his policies a fair time to see if they would work or did it mean as soon as Trump talked about something you view as wrong , you are justified in your descent ? If it was the later , I don't really view that as giving him a chance.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2017 - 08:29 AM