Patterico's Pontifications

7/6/2018

Trump Tariffs Are Hurting These Trump Supporters, But They Still Love the Man Who Conned Them

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:43 pm

The L.A. Times has a sad story of Trump supporters from the manufacturing sector whose livelihoods are being destroyed by tariffs, but who refuse to abandon their support for the con man responsible:

Jimmie Coffer, a machine programmer at the nation’s largest nail-making plant, voted for Donald Trump partly because he was confident he would bring manufacturing jobs back to America.

So the 39-year-old factory worker was shocked last month when 60 of his co-workers were laid off after the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on the steel his company imports from Mexico. Now, as his bosses cut back hours and warn they may have to let 200 more workers go in the coming weeks, he worries he may lose his job as a result of the president’s policies.

But Coffer is still gung-ho about Trump.

“I support him 100%,” he said last week. “In fact, I’d like to shake his hand. He’s doing a great job.”

. . . .

Trump won 79% of the vote here in Butler County and, while many were surprised to discover the tariffs are hurting their town, they still believe Trump is on the right track and firmly support his goal of pouring life back into dilapidated manufacturing communities — even if they end up losers.

The article is a sad tale of people who were sold a bill of goods and are desperate to believe they weren’t conned. Few things are sadder to watch, but the psychology of con artists and their marks ensures that it will happen:

Con artists aren’t just master manipulators; they are expert storytellers. Much as we are intrinsically inclined to trust, we are naturally drawn to a compelling story. Just ask any advertising executive or political operative. “When a fact is plausible, we still need to test it,” Konnikova writes with characteristic concision. “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” And once we’ve accepted a story as true, we’re not likely to question it; on the contrary, we will probably unconsciously bend any contradictory information to conform to the conclusion we’ve already drawn. There’s a name for this phenomenon — confirmation bias. It provides the key psychological scaffolding for the long con, during the course of which the mark finds a way to rationalize any number of warning signs.

The L.A. Times says they are standing by their man:

Conspiracy theories and rumors also have spread. Some locals theorize the company’s Mexican owners have long planned to relocate south of the border and are using the tariffs as an excuse to finally leave. (Company officials do not rule out relocating to Mexico — where they could buy steel and export the finished nails back to the U.S. without tariffs — but insist they are committed to remaining in Poplar Bluff.)

“This has nothing to do with tariffs — or Trump,” Mark Orton, the owner of Bluff Barber Shop, said as he dabbed shaving foam on a customer’s face. “It’s smoke and mirrors. This Mexican company is just trying to blame Trump.”

His client, a red-headed factory worker who declined to give his name, blamed politicians and newspapers for “banging on” Trump.

“They can’t say anything nice about him,” he griped. “If Trump ran into a burning building to pull out children, they’d say he’s hurting firefighters.”

Trying to fight persistent and pigheaded ignorance often feels the same as repeatedly bashing your head into a brick wall. You can do it. But at a certain point you start to ask why.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

500 Responses to “Trump Tariffs Are Hurting These Trump Supporters, But They Still Love the Man Who Conned Them”

  1. Sad ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Merkel caves on trade
    Chancellor Angela Merkel will cut German tariffs on American cars rather than risk losing the U.S. car market. President Trump and America are winning. Once again, Washington’s experts were wrong.

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/07/mother-jones-now-supports-labor.html

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  3. Oops. Wrong link above. Should have been this.

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/07/merkel-caves-on-trade.html

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  4. Romney is right.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  5. President trump is president because he won michigan, ohio, pennsylvania and wisconsin and nearly won minnesota. Free trade republicans lost them. 90% of republican party tell you free traders get out and don’t let the door hit you on the way out! bye bye libertarian conservative free traders and donor class.

    wendell (c26857)

  6. 90% of republican party tell you free traders get out and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

    And this is why I say that this is the Party of Patrick Buchanan, not Reagan, taking the longstanding positions of American labor unions.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  7. Just saw a genuinely sad and pathetic interview on Cavuto with an Oklahoma GOP congress critter whose district is getting hammered by the agricultural tariffs. He “bravely” insisted that his people were still behind DJT. Never mind that he is acting as a Progressive would by instituting a tariff fight as an effort to raise wages for manufacturing (historically union) workers. I do feel for the smaller farmers who typically are patriots with a true sense of what being an American means. They had no good options in 2016, and they have none, today. DJT is all they have and he just knifed ’em.

    With the bubble market already about to explode in the auto sector, this madness is guaranteed to have enormous impact. One thing which I will enjoy is a massive pullback in marketing and advertising by dealerships. This is gonna send valuations of media through the floor. I can hear the wailing. Sounds like…VICTORY!

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  8. N.Y. Times:

    The Chinese government is targeting a range of American products with tariffs, including pork, soybeans and automobiles.

    The prospect of rising costs for imports is expected to impact businesses and consumers alike. The United States has also imposed tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, solar panels and washing machines from countries like Canada, Mexico, the European Union and Japan.

    For now, it is unclear how — or whether — the trade war might conclude. On Friday, China’s, Ministry of Commerce said the United States “has launched the biggest trade war in economic history so far,” and President Trump on Thursday continued to threaten Beijing with escalating tariffs on as much as $450 billion worth of Chinese goods.

    With its own tariffs on American goods, China would join other countries that have retaliated against Mr. Trump’s trade measures, bringing the total value of affected American exports to about $75 billion by the end of the week. That is still a small fraction of the $1.55 trillion of goods the United States exported last year, but in some industries, the pain is becoming intense.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  9. It’s gonna work out splendidly I promise you that

    it’s funny (suspicious) that this so-called nail plant can’t find steel made here in america – i can find it real easy!

    at this point you have to question the depth of their commitment to the nail-making arts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. 9 thats because your chinese commies put the steel plants out of business. thats like the kid who kills his parents asking for leniantcy because he is an orphan! Reoublicans tell free traders to take a hike.

    wendell (c26857)

  11. And this is why I say that this is the Party of Patrick Buchanan, not Reagan, taking the longstanding positions of American labor unions.
    Paul Montagu (91b6ad) — 7/6/2018 @ 1:36 pm

    Reagan imposed tariffs against the Japanese, on motorcycles and electronics. He also imposed “quotas” on cars, limiting the number that could be brought to the US market.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  12. It will work out splendidly, hf. The USA and China will both pound on their chests and impose new tariffs on each other. Then, there will be talks, a deal will be struck, and when all is said and done, the US will be in a better position than when Trump started things.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  13. Let’s remember what Sowell said. No matter what any POTUS does with respect to trade, someone is going to be feeling the knife. I find it unfair to assign blame for that which is unavoidable. Not unlike blaming the surgeon for the scar after a procedure. I would rather wait to see if the procedure is a success before registering my criticism.

    felipe (023cc9)

  14. I agree 100% Mr. Mous

    this is all about getting to what savvy deal-makers like President Trump call a “win-win proposition”

    and everybody’s going to be smiling at the end

    the trade will be more better

    more wealth will be created

    and there will be much rejoicing!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. Let me rephrase:

    “Not unlike blaming the surgeon [during a procedure] for the scar [that will be] left after a procedure. I would rather wait to see if the procedure is a success before registering my criticism.”

    This is more precise given where we are in time.

    felipe (023cc9)

  16. Anon Y. Mous (01516b) — 7/6/2018 @ 1:58 pm

    This would be a good outcome, and worth the scars.

    felipe (023cc9)

  17. felipe – Serious question. Given that our economy is pretty darn robust these days…What, precisely, makes the imposition of new tariffs “unavoidable?”

    If you want to argue that the current economy is built on straw and we need to bake some bricks upon “fair” markets, is there not a major risk that the pols will never be able to withstand the heat of the new pain and we will just abandon the new “get tough” trade policies?

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  18. if the trashy nevertrumps didn’t spend so much time mocking border security then maybe they’d have credibility on trade but they pee-peed their credibility away already

    nobody believes they have any problem whatsoever with foreigners raping the american worker

    and they don’t even realize the issues of trade and border security are intertwined

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  19. Thank you for your question:

    “Unavoidable refers to the trade-offs resulting from the imposition of tarrifs, not to the imposition of tariffs.

    felipe (023cc9)

  20. lol I spelled “tariffs” in two differing ways in the same sentence! My brain is fluxed.

    felipe (023cc9)

  21. No one ever accused Trump or his supporters of understanding basic economics.

    I feel sorry for these simple people who were duped.

    James (78ba71)

  22. And on Monday, July 9, you’ll love him; all will be forgiven and forgotten with the Prime Time Special:

    “COURT GESTURE”

    LIVE, from the East Room of the Executive Mansion, 9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central- IN COLOR!

    Pop your corn, conservatives, as the Trump-parties-on!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  23. In the 80s lighthizer was a junior member of these trade delegations where unfair terms were imposed, with wary a summer, he took to making paper airplanes.

    Narciso (f5864b)

  24. If you want to argue that the current economy is built on straw and we need to bake some bricks upon “fair” markets, is there not a major risk that the pols will never be able to withstand the heat of the new pain and we will just abandon the new “get tough” trade policies?
    Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 7/6/2018 @ 2:08 pm

    I’m getting a “three little pigs” vibe here. Where’s the “bad wolf” in all this? Anyway, I wouldn’t argue that our current (or past, for that matter) economy is built on straw. If you catch my drift.

    felipe (023cc9)

  25. 19 felipe Thank you. By this, may I take it that you are not attempting to rebuke critics, such as myself, who see this as an unforced and unnecessary error, without waiting a year to measure the outcome(s)?

    I fully agree with Sowell’s point that only a fool would express shock that, for example, staying out in a harsh sun resulted in a sunburn. Tariffs are de facto taxes. It’s simply a matter of fascistic declaration of the “winners.” DJT chose against the farmers, and consumers on the lower end of the economic spectrum – his base!

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  26. All the allcaps repetition that Trump is right can’t change the basic reality that a trade war is a wealth transfer. From red states to blue states. From agriculture and folks who shop at Target, to the pockets of unionized labor. We gain some steel revenue, lose some farm revenue, but it’s not like it’s the same person gaining and losing as some vague American entity. This was clear from the start. There’s a reason Trump is so happy about this arrangement, but it’s unclear to me why conservative republicans, or most Americans would be.

    The government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. It should be getting out of the way. Those who disagree really shouldn’t lecture us about conservatism.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  27. 24 felipe – The Wolf is the natural economic consequences of putting everything on a credit card (QE) and failing to pay for services (federal debt obligations and most pension schemes) as we go.

    He be coming.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  28. All the allcaps repetition that Trump is right can’t change the basic reality that a trade war is a wealth transfer.

    Given that it’s a tax, it’s a wealth transfer from consumers to the government — and thus is not just a transfer, but a drag on the economy, as money moves from the more productive and choice-oriented private sector to the less productive and force-oriented public sector.

    Patterico (ea0387)

  29. If we’re citing Sowell, I encourage you to look up what he says about tariffs. I won’t bother. I have enough faith in him as an economist and thinker to know he is against them, without my even having to check.

    Patterico (ea0387)

  30. Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 7/6/2018 @ 2:23 pm

    You are welcome, and correct that I meant no rebuke, as I am persuaded that this may be an unforced error. If “everyone” caves to Trump by dropping their retaliatory measures and, instead, renegotiate, then history may not record this as an error. We’ll see.

    felipe (023cc9)

  31. …a sad tale of people who were sold a bill of goods and are desperate to believe they weren’t conned…

    Reaganomics. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. Reagan imposed tariffs against the Japanese, on motorcycles and electronics.

    True, but as Cato noted, those were exceptions to Reagan’s general rule of expanding free markets, represented by his involvement in both WTO and NAFTA. Ironic that Trump has been bad-mouthing one of Reagan’s signature trade agreements, a position that is closer to Patrick J. Buchanan than Ronald W. Reagan.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  33. Patterico (ea0387) — 7/6/2018 @ 2:32 pm

    Thanks you, sir, I too know this. I cited Sowell only to place, foremost in the mind, the idea of trade-offs, rather than solutions. This is wise to remember in all decisions.

    felipe (023cc9)

  34. Yikes!
    “Thanks you, sir”

    Should be

    “Thanks to you, sir”

    Let me sit down before I hurt myself.

    felipe (023cc9)

  35. In 2016 american people had a choice and flush 16 free trade republican candidates down the toilet along with their donors. American people vote against free trader clinton because they didn’t believe her lies that she NOW opposed t.p.p. the free traders here are a debating society with themselves. What part of NO don’t you understand.

    wendell (c26857)

  36. He be coming.
    Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 7/6/2018 @ 2:26 pm

    I totally agree.

    felipe (023cc9)

  37. True, but as Cato noted, those were exceptions to Reagan’s general rule of expanding free markets, represented by his involvement in both WTO and NAFTA. Ironic that Trump has been bad-mouthing one of Reagan’s signature trade agreements, a position that is closer to Patrick J. Buchanan than Ronald W. Reagan.
    Paul Montagu (91b6ad) — 7/6/2018 @ 2:41 pm

    NAFTA wasn’t enacted until Clinton was President. Can you link to anyone who calls NAFTA a Reagan signature trade agreement?

    And, if you watch how things play out, there will be less tariffs at the end of Trump’s presidency than there were at the start. Assuming you count the tariffs by foreign countries against American goods. Trump will force others to drop their tariffs against us under threat of our tariffs against them. Very few will refuse to capitulate, as they need us more than we need them.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  38. Sowels and milton friedman wanted to cripple or destroy unions. they have been paid handsomely by the donor class who prefer all workers to be non-union ignorant southern white trash workers or failing that illegal aliens. their motto: greed is good. what is not nailed down is mine and what I can pry loose is not nailed down! Stephen brill in tailspin explains these intellectual predators. The democrat establishment elites are being discredited as the phony hypocrites limousine liberals you have been saying they are. Now democrats see them for what they are corporate establishment stooges. BAD NEWS! The democrats reject them ;but not for conservatism. But for sanders and cortez. Liberal blogs are now questioning their opposition to the second amendment as establishment elites have no answer for when republicans say what you going to do about it?

    wendell (c26857)

  39. You’re right, he didn’t sign NAFTA but it was still his signature legislation because it his vision that came to fruition, not Clinton’s and not Bush 41’s.
    And now, Anon, I’ve already asked you twice, and this is the third time I’m asking.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  40. You’re right, he didn’t sign NAFTA but it was still his signature legislation because it his vision that came to fruition, not Clinton’s and not Bush 41’s.
    And now, Anon, I’ve already asked you twice, and this is the third time I’m asking.
    Paul Montagu (91b6ad) — 7/6/2018 @ 3:15 pm

    LOL. For starters, it’s not his signature legislation because he didn’t sign it. He didn’t even negotiate it. Bush 41 negotiated it and Clinton signed it. A Bush/Clinton monstrosity, so all the severe conservatives love it.

    I didn’t notice Reagan say anything about China in the transcript of his description of his vision. If his vision was that Chinese parts being imported into Mexico and Canada for assembly and then entry to the US, he failed to mention it.

    And, NAFTA worked out about as well as his amnesty did. But, as he only talked about an agreement in vague terms, I wouldn’t blame him for it.

    And, as far as you following me from thread to thread, demanding that I answer your stupid question, it’s not going to happen. I said what I had to say. You answering with a one word question, “Why?” is not what I call meaningful engagement and I’m not going to waste my time with it.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  41. Next time Trump calls in to Fox & Friends, Kilmeade should as him if this will affect the price of rice in China.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. If you want to take the coward’s way out and not answer questions, noted.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  43. Whether the steel tariffs are right or wrong, I admire the factory-worker in the story for not putting his own self-interest first. That’s patriotism.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. Wrong day to drive to Carmel, but right day for beach weather… 75 degrees on the sand. i agree with felipe’s take at #13, I think it was.

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  45. Well, Colonel, I have to say, you have finally and totally lost me…There is no such thing as a “wrong day” to drive to Carmel!

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  46. The traffic was terrible, Ed. I do have to say that when I have thoughts of leaving this state upon retirement, a day or longer at the coast, whether Laguna Beach (sweet autocorrect: Latina Beach!), Pismo, Carmel/Monterey or Mendocino, it puts me in the right frame of mind. Gosh what a beautiful coastline!

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  47. Thanks for that link, aphrael. I do not watch TV, so I might not have had the benefit of seeing this.

    felipe (023cc9)

  48. Who doesn’t love getting lectured by the arrogant elite who think they know better for us then ourselves. Maybe some people put the good of the country above themselves.

    We got where we are by your failed logic, Trump won promising to try something else, so far it’s working out splendidly.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  49. 25 “DJT chose against the farmers, and consumers on the lower end of the economic spectrum – his base!”

    Have you missed the employment numbers for the past 18 months. Economy perception. Quit rate? Trumps base is doing better than it has any time in the past 16 years. Once you pseudo intellectuals pull your head from your backside you might notice.

    Why do you feel the need to tell people that think they are doing better that they are dupes and can’t gauge their own lives?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  50. President Trump’s First Year Of Job Growth Was Below President Obama’s Last Six Years

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/president-trumps-first-year-of-job-growth-was-below-president-obamas-last-six-years/#466c8b3425ab

    Davethulhu (3fc14a)

  51. Edit to the above, article was updated since I first viewed it: Last 4 years, not last 6.

    Davethulhu (3fc14a)

  52. The argument proved persuasive — many of the nation’s most economically distressed regions voted for Trump.

    Now the early returns are in: In the first year of the Trump presidency, places that voted for Trump are doing better economically than at the end of the Obama administration. But that is not totally surprising, because the overall economy has continued to add jobs.

    What may be more surprising is that not only are these counties adding jobs, but also job growth has accelerated the most in counties where Trump earned the most votes, according to a Washington Post analysis of Labor Department data.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  53. They seem to indulging in underpants gnome thinking, forgetting about fordney macumber,

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. @53 Nate

    From your article (here’s a link for others: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/29/job-growth-is-accelerating-fastest-in-areas-where-trump-vote-was-highest/?utm_term=.24a3800ed96d )

    “Remember that Trump’s apparent success is relative to a particularly anemic baseline. His strongest supporters are still seeing the country’s slowest job growth, even if it’s faster than what they had become accustomed to by the end of the Obama years.

    And if they’re growing slower than the rest of the country, then not only are they not making up lost ground, but also they’re falling further and further behind.”

    Davethulhu (3fc14a)

  55. Tariffs on commodities, or near-commodities like steel and aluminum are stupid. We shouldn’t do that. But I don’t have to defend them to defend the use of tariffs in general.

    Tariffs on finished products, when fighting a trade “partner” who consistently hampers your ability to sell in their country — or who steals your intellectual property and uses it to undercut the inventor’s own products — are NOT insane. It’s really the only tool you have.

    Wake me up when we start hearing that Chinese duties on corn or beer are causing lost jobs.

    Oh, and no Huawei should be sold in the US and all such now present should be confiscated as stolen property.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  56. It ignores what happened between firdney and smooth:

    https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-fordney-mccumber-tariff-definition-overview.html

    True the tariff is a tax, so were tariffs permitted on American goods in a free trade environment?

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. And I hear the “Oh but they’ll go tit for tat”. Problem is that they’ll run out of tats to duty and we’ll have plenty of tits to slap with tariffs.

    maybe I should rephrase that….

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  58. CNBC reported:

    Workers looking for fatter paychecks had their best year in 2017 since before the financial crisis, according to a government report Wednesday.

    The Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs, registered a 2.6 percent gain for the full year, tied for the best since 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  59. @50 Nate Ogden Giving you the benefit of the doubt…Did I not point out that things are pretty good right now for the Trump base?

    My point is that he is picking a fight which is almost certain to hurt them badly more than help. The tax savings are about to be wiped out in the costs of basic goods to them. And for what? It’s an insane decision if DJT’s goal is to MAGA for the blue collar masses.

    Signing the omnibus will also hurt those good folks. But, it did preserve the short term momentum so there was at least that.

    You can accept this or not, but I absolutely care more for the hard-working American patriots and for their welfare than I do elites of any type. This betrayal by DJT is no small thing and it angers me.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  60. > This betrayal by DJT is no small thing and it angers me.

    It’s not a surprise, though; imposing tariffs and starting a trade war was a clear part of his agenda from the get-go.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  61. So what was your solution, to reverse 30 years of deindustrialization, the Chinese don’t believe in the invisible hand.

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. What happened to the old “dog trainer” days

    steveg (a9dcab)

  63. The dog died of bad dog food.

    narciso (d1f714)

  64. Who are they supposed to trust, again, the same experts who were deaf to their concerns for 39 some years. As pointed out the GOP congress that imposed Fortney macumber.

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. The Chinese government is targeting a range of American products with tariffs, including pork, soybeans and automobiles.

    Automobiles might hurt, but pork and soybeans can be sold anywhere and the Chinese have to buy them from somewhere. Fungibility, thy name is “mud fort.”

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  66. You will note that Trump isn’t putting tariffs on Chinese frozen vegetables, which cut-rate outfits like Whole Foods buy by the kiloton. Why? For the same reason that Chinese tariffs on soybeans are stupid.

    (Yes, China is stupider than Trump)

    I fully expect China to eventually refuse to sell things to us — it will be their only ploy after the few things we sell them are dutied.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  67. american automobiles are mostly made by piggy illiterate uaw trash, always looking for a handout

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  68. I think KevinM is illustrating how trade imbalances can work in Trumps favor.
    In other words it can hurt China, Mexico and Canada disproportionately to us, and we can probably sustain it longer.
    Mexico will have to fold because their economy is already a wreck. Canada needs us more than we need them too. Ditto China.
    Trump and Sec Ross are going to pick things that put a hurt on and they are probably confident the others will have to call for mercy first.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  69. Given that it’s a tax, it’s a wealth transfer from consumers to the government — and thus is not just a transfer, but a drag on the economy, as money moves from the more productive and choice-oriented private sector to the less productive and force-oriented public sector.

    The predictable sociopathic libertarian response. One of the responsibilities of governments is to be a brake on change so that people are not hurt willy-nilly.

    The idea that “choice” is involved in Joe Sixpack’s livelihood being shipped off to Malaysia is one of those things that only an economist can believe. Joe, you see, does not eat in the short run and during the time it takes him to learn a new trade, his wife has left him and the hose has been foreclosed.

    But that’s just collateral damage to the economist.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  70. Also the house, but Joe LIKED that hose.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  71. we make our own vodka did you know that

    we sure do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  72. Almost every state makes a vodka it seems.
    In fact at the moment I am sipping on a vodka made in Texas.
    Austin, to be precise. Tito’s is the brand.
    And such are the wonders of the free market, Tito’s thinks it worthwhile to have the OU hechsher. So you give it to any rabbi with no problem.

    kishnevi (f0a3aa)

  73. What’s the trick is it potatoes or some other legume, that gives it flavor.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  74. Trying to fight persistent and pigheaded ignorance often feels the same as repeatedly bashing your head into a brick wall. You can do it. But at a certain point you start to ask why.

    So to summarize, you hate everyone who voted for Donald Trump.

    Right?

    (Kidding! Kidding!)

    Dave (a77a24)

  75. i love Tito’s it’s a staple here but i don’t waste it on certain cocktails that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  76. for example it’s wasted on a bloody mary for that you can use something like new amsterdam and as long as your mix sings everybody’s happy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. if you’re stuck in cave in thailand the one thing for you want to have handy is plenty of oxygen

    but i can’t get over how tacky

    the whole trip was to go into this amazing cave system and do graffiti all up in it

    that’s not acceptable

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. It’s seems Perkins and coie was part of the narrative ‘re soldiers being expelled, again not the whole story

    Narciso (b9b290)

  79. Trump tariffs are killing Thai’s stuck in a cave?
    One thing you gotta give Trump credit for is some reach

    steveg (a9dcab)

  80. Good thing we have government employed lawyers to tell us private sector blue collar workers what’s good for us.

    We just aren’t smart enough to figure these things out ourselves.

    I mean really, we hardly felt that recession at the end of W.’s second term at all. We need more of the masterminds guiding us to more of the same!

    I for one wish we could just import more cheap foreign labour to enable “free trade” myself.

    Hey, did you hear? All the other countries are going to boost their economies by dropping their tariffs, leaving us strangling as the only one imposing them. Man they are smart!

    lee (ab26cf)

  81. No where in the global economy is safe from Trump… next up Inuits burning to death in their Igloos

    steveg (a9dcab)

  82. Well they are using that orbital mirror from die another day.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  83. Happyfeet, I’ve heard that 10 man submarine crews come back from the voyage as 5 couples (a sailor told me that one, well before DADT)…im thinking 80 percent of those kids come back as ladyboys.

    urbanleftbehind (a03dde)

  84. The predictable sociopathic libertarian response. One of the responsibilities of governments is to be a brake on change so that people are not hurt willy-nilly.

    Isn’t that the same justification deployed to rationalize The New Deal, The Great Society and Porkulus?

    The cure is worse than the disease, Kevin. Distorting the market to try to make up for the misery caused by … distortion of the market is a lot like trying to use racial discrimination to make amends for other racial discrimination. Not only is it wrong, it also just doesn’t work.

    Dave (a77a24)

  85. What’s the trick is it potatoes or some other legume, that gives it flavor.
    The label says Tito’s is made from 100 percent corn.

    My current favorite is an arak made in Israel: Askalon. It’s made from molasses, which gets around the kosher complications that come using grapes (which would mean following the rules of kosher winemaking).

    kishnevi (ce6470)

  86. Lee fewer tariffs mean fewer government lawyers deciding what you can and can not do.

    kishnevi (ce6470)

  87. i’m embarrassed i didn’t know this but gin is just vodka with botanicals and specifically some juniper added to the distillation

    it’s same same otherwise

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. oh my goodness

    i did my first arak here in chicago

    i’d kinda forgotten about it

    but i keep records

    i went this direction:

    Arak Caipirinha

    Bali meets Brazil in a cocktail

    • 5 cl arak

    • 1 lime sliced into 8 wedges

    • 2 tsp. of granulated sugar

    • Ice cubes

    Muddle the sugar into the lime wedges in a glass. Fill the glass with ice cubes. Add the arak and stir. This one is a great at the poolside.

    just a recipe i grabbed offline

    it really is a good drink for hot summer evenings though

    but this weekend looks to be beautiful

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  89. yeah i had to google cl

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  90. What I like about economists [that’s just an expression, I don’t really like it] is that they claim to be descriptive and not prescriptive but they never describe anything which actually exists.

    nk (dbc370)

  91. i think a lot of our limes come to us from mexico btw

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  92. Like holodec technicians,

    Narciso (b9b290)

  93. I had to Google it. Star Trek, right?

    nk (dbc370)

  94. Since we’re talking about steel … why is it that cars stopped rusting some time in the 1990s? And I don’t mean in Florida and California, I mean in Chicago. I have been looking very hard for months (never mind why) and I have spotted exactly one car with rust on the bottom of the panels — an older Chrysler minivan.

    nk (dbc370)

  95. Maybe manganese or some other element

    Narciso (b9b290)

  96. slutbama jacked up the cafe so high everything’s plastic now like rockem sockem robots

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. In the meantime there seems to be another Nazi running for Congress as a Republican.
    https://thinkprogress.org/gop-candidate-for-congress-california-neo-nazi-be57ad1be109/
    Going by the links, calling him an Nazi is not hyperbole.

    kishnevi (ce6470)

  98. The cure is worse than the disease, Kevin. Distorting the market to try to make up for the misery caused by … distortion of the market

    Governments intervene. Sometimes, like the last 40 years, they intervene to grease the skids for a particular policy. In this case globalization. And it was a good policy, for a while, until it got to the point where everything was made by slaves in China, or by dirt-cheap immigrants in America who thought that $10/hr was opulence.

    When people can’t find work, when their houses go to the bank, when less than 80% of native-born American men ages 20-50 have work, they start looking for someone to stand up for them. And here was TRUMP. Flawed as all hell, but he was the only one not on the screw-America-some-more bandwagon, and he won.

    Now, he’s doing EXACTLY what he said he would, and those of you who still haven’t a clue about what is going on are still so surprised no one is listening to you any more.

    You have no idea how much I dislike Trump. Too bad there were no better men with better ideas.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  99. Does anyone remember how Rubio CAMPAIGNED on quadrupling H1-B visas? Bet you no one ever does that again.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  100. Good thing we have government employed lawyers to tell us private sector blue collar workers what’s good for us.

    We just aren’t smart enough to figure these things out ourselves.

    You’re the guy who voted Trump in the primary.

    Why would I try to tell you what’s good for you? As someone once said: trying to fight persistent and pigheaded ignorance often feels the same as repeatedly bashing your head into a brick wall. You can do it. But at a certain point you start to ask why.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  101. The Illinois one came about because nobody ran against him. The Illinois GOP did not bother to recruit anyone. And this is in my former Congressional district which was also the home of Judy Baar-Top!nka, the Chairwoman of the Illinois GOP when Obama was elected to the Senate.

    “Illinois Republican” is an oxymoron. And so are they. I’ve pretty much made up my mind that I’m not voting for Bruce Rauner again.

    nk (dbc370)

  102. I think there are distinction as with Stewart, but then there is utter stupidity, it is Soros xylophone after all.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  103. 60 Ed, “My point is that he is picking a fight which is almost certain to hurt them badly more than help.”

    I would disagree as do most of those who support him, time will tell.

    What is certain, is doing nothing, i.e. the past 20 to 30 years solution, will continue to hurt and nothing will get better.

    For everyone trying to tell Trump supporters what is in their best interest, I have never once heard one of them outline an alternative. Trump was elected because the past and present sucked and the future wasn’t looking any better. Fine you don’t want a trade war, how are you going to fix the problem then? What this article and your argument comes off like is telling the tens of millions of Trump voters to shut up and know their place. To be happy with what ever scraps you allow them. You can guess the response.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  104. The predictable sociopathic libertarian response. One of the responsibilities of governments is to be a brake on change so that people are not hurt willy-nilly.

    The idea that “choice” is involved in Joe Sixpack’s livelihood being shipped off to Malaysia is one of those things that only an economist can believe. Joe, you see, does not eat in the short run and during the time it takes him to learn a new trade, his wife has left him and the hose has been foreclosed.

    But that’s just collateral damage to the economist.

    “Sociopathic”?

    Thank God your form of non-sociopathic economic analysis wasn’t around to spur government into being a “brake” on the change of the introduction of the automobile. Your deep concern with Joe Sixpack and his job at the buggy factory could justify any governmental thuggery impeding any form of economic progress under the sun.

    Fortunately, people’s standard of living has improved all over the world because emergent systems of capitalistic cooperation — you know, what you call sociopathy — have escaped the desire of know-nothings who sought to use government to stop progress.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  105. 99, yes a Nazi Nazi, and one who was heartfully ostracized by one Ted Cruz who even said “vote for the Democrat”. Rauner might have lost some of his Winnetka neighbors when he held back from going as far as Cruz (he did backtrack/clarify).

    http://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/04/rauner-cruz-nazi-arthur-jones-chicago-694768

    urbanleftbehind (a03dde)

  106. What this article and your argument comes off like is telling the tens of millions of Trump voters to shut up and know their place. To be happy with what ever scraps you allow them.

    Totally. You nailed the message of the post. Your reading comprehension rivals that of the Great Donald Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  107. Was the Republican party always this stupid, or did Trump change it? Did he shine a light on what was already there or transmogrify it?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  108. 69 steveg, that’s the absurdity of this, how did we get pushed around and used for 30+ years when we have all the power. With the exception of energy and rare earth metals there is nothing we have to have from any of them. They on the other hand can’t survive without their trade surplus with us.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  109. i have no use for rauner

    he’s feckless and devoid of amusement value besides

    but he has this thing about outerwear and i like to see what he wears every winter

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  110. I voted for Dan Lipinski, the Democrat, when I was in that district. He is pro-life, maybe the only Democrat elected official in Cook County who is.

    nk (dbc370)

  111. rauner hates fetuses

    emphatically

    it’s kind of a thing with him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  112. Well initially we were focused on the cold war, then we thought the dragon had changed its nature, but tien an men should have cued us on that.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  113. I think there are distinction as with Stewart, but then there is utter stupidity, it is Soros xylophone after all.

    I can live with neoConfederates like Stewart. It’s the neoNazis I can’t live with.

    kishnevi (ce6470)

  114. china noticed that the tranny-trash us military

    in spite of having 40 years and an unlimited budget

    was never really able to put a military option together on North Korea

    that has to be very empowering

    like winning American Idol

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  115. 96 nk, look at aNY gmc Sierra or Chevy Silverado from 90 to 96 or so, rust buckets. Rocker panels, grills, bumpers, everywhere. It’s so bad it’s easy to find parts on amazon to replace them.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  116. Thank God your form of non-sociopathic economic analysis wasn’t around to spur government into being a “brake” on the change of the introduction of the automobile. Your deep concern with Joe Sixpack and his job at the buggy factory could justify any governmental thuggery impeding any form of economic progress under the sun.

    Well, they missed that one, and the collapse of the late 20's reflected it. After the buggy was out of the barn, they tried to fix it. I didn't say government was usually SMART about it, just that it could be expected to react when large numbers of people get hurt.

    For example, the US's tilt towards unfettered trade and open immigration for the last 40 years is just as much an intervention as the current tariff reaction. Is it a measured reaction? No. Is it going to harm some people? Yes. Is it better than continuing to let China do whatever the F it wants, calling it "free trade"? Also yes. We've wheedled them for a couple decades now and they've just mooned us and we took it. Now, the gloves come off.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  117. the uk’s a dirty fascist leggy meggy breeder vat anymore

    coo coo ca choo Mr. Robinson

    you’re the new Anne Frank just in time for summer bummer womp womp

    so how does it feel

    how does it feel

    to be on your own

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  118. “Tariffs on finished products, when fighting a trade “partner” who consistently hampers your ability to sell in their country — or who steals your intellectual property and uses it to undercut the inventor’s own products — are NOT insane. It’s really the only tool you have.

    …Oh, and no Huawei should be sold in the US and all such now present should be confiscated as stolen property.”

    ^^^THIS^^^

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  119. Anyone who didn’t expect a trade war with China, or however many shots across the bow it takes, wasn’t listening during the campaign. When it’s over the relationship will be better than it was, but until we stand up, they’ll think we’re still bending over.

    I would love to see a post WHY China will win/should win this trade war, instead of some theoretical diatribe about trade.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  120. For example, the US’s tilt towards unfettered trade and open immigration for the last 40 years is just as much an intervention as the current tariff reaction.

    Fewer taxes in the form of tariffs is “intervention”?

    Is cutting taxes “intervention” in general or only when the taxes are called tariffs?

    Is cutting regulation “intervention”?

    Weird — I always thought all these things were a lessening of intervention.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  121. As for Libertarian ideas being “sociopathic” –I spent 10 years in that Party and that’s my take-away. Your experience may be different.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  122. I would love to see a post WHY China will win/should win this trade war, instead of some theoretical diatribe about trade.

    I bet you would have hated theoretical diatribes during the 20th century about why Communism is dangerous and kills millions.

    And yet this “theory” is very real, and deadly.

    We are in a war of ideas and you are posing as an anti-elitist who thinks ideas don’t matter.

    Well, they do. They kill and they save lives. I’m sorry you don’t understand that. But your lack of understanding doesn’t make it false.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  123. Any change in the status quo helps some and harms others. Every change was in the direction that gave Capital complete fluidity and Labor complete uncertainty. All Yin, no Yang. Did you REALLY think there would never be a reaction? In a Republic?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  124. As for Libertarian ideas being “sociopathic” –I spent 10 years in that Party and that’s my take-away. Your experience may be different.

    Where the fuck did the Libertarian PARTY enter this discussion?

    Classical liberalism and the free market were around a LONG time before some party I never mentioned in this post. Stop changing the subject.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  125. will the queen last the summer

    for queen phillip’s sake i hope he goes first

    she’s the only thing making sure he gets his pudding cup every day

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  126. “Since we’re talking about steel … why is it that cars stopped rusting some time in the 1990s?”

    Better rust-proofing.

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  127. “Tariffs on finished products, when fighting a trade “partner” who consistently hampers your ability to sell in their country — or who steals your intellectual property and uses it to undercut the inventor’s own products — are NOT insane. It’s really the only tool you have.

    What a load of horseshit as applied to Trump’s tariffs, which have zero to do with the issues you mention (and there are other tools) and everything to do with a blinkered and ignorant view of economics which you (and Haiku the Heckler) apparently share. Stop giving Trump some nonsensical inapplicable justification that any sentient being can see has nothing to do with why he is doing this.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  128. “Sociopathic.”

    Free markets are now “sociopathic.”

    I can’t deal with the stupidity mixed with the arrogant rudeness.

    I’m out for the night.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  129. The tariff waa the chief source of revenue for at least a hundred years, it was the slave power the democrats who were more resolutely free trade and the whigs were for protection.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  130. 96 nk, look at aNY gmc Sierra or Chevy Silverado from 90 to 96 or so, rust buckets. Rocker panels, grills, bumpers, everywhere. It’s so bad it’s easy to find parts on amazon to replace them.
    Nate Ogden (223c65) —7/6/2018 @ 9:21 pm

    I agree, but that seems to be the end of it. The mid or late 1990s. Not newer cars or SUVs.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. is it super hot where you are i heard even the west side was feeling it today

    yeah i hear things

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  132. There’s a small town in Missouri where you guys would feel right at home. You can share in the misery caused by these tariffs as you and your fellow know-nothings cheer them on.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  133. I bet you would have hated theoretical diatribes during the 20th century about why Communism is dangerous and kills millions.

    Didn’t need them. Nor with Nazis. Nor with fascist strongmen like Somoza. Why do you need theory when the daily headlines tell you the practicality? If the Soviet Union had been creating wealth fast and furious, and theory said it shouldn’t, which would be wrong?

    What WAS important was whether our policy towards them was effective. The “nuclear freeze” vs the “arms buildup” had little (directly) to do with economic theory (except maybe with what credit could do for you in wartime). If you thought the goal should be co-existence you’d have one choice, if it was “the ash heap of history” it would be another. It wasn’t theory that told you the Soviet system was evil. One look at the Berlin Wall would make that clear.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  134. Patterico,

    When the US wins the trade war and China and the US sit down and work things out, I hope you’ll write a post about what a stupid bad idea this all was.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  135. The question of how do we stop China from stealing our technologies and intellectual property is one I raised on this forum more than once in they’ve recent past. No answers from anybody. If Trump’s attempts at better positioning us vis-a-vis China this subject should be right at the top. Thieving sons of b*tches anyway.

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  136. In the recent past…

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  137. mark twain was from missouri

    hannibal where the bluffs tower above the river in a way that humbles you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  138. Is that one of those towns Kevin Williamson wanted to wither and die, just like his thought bubble about abortion.

    Somoza fascist I don’t think so typical of statist regimes in Latin America probably.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  139. 135 winning hearts and minds, wow.

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  140. Didn’t need them. Nor with Nazis. Nor with fascist strongmen like Somoza. Why do you need theory when the daily headlines tell you the practicality? If the Soviet Union had been creating wealth fast and furious, and theory said it shouldn’t, which would be wrong?

    The daily headlines totally reported everything happened in the Soviet Union correctly. Mises and Hayek were unnecessary when we had Duranty:

    [T]he new liberty of trade. . . (has resulted in) a perceptible note of optimism in Moscow. . . .This means to the masses concrete proof that the era of communism is definitely past, and that the individual will again have a chance to improve his condition and that of his family by his own efforts.

    Walter Duranty, “Moscow is Buying and Selling Again” quoted here, speaking of Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  141. Somoza was Henry Stimson handpicked aide, he wouldn’t have made a mistake like that. He was the proxy designated to replace the us marine contingent.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  142. That sounds like evan Thomas circa 2010.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  143. Rustproofing in auto manufacturing has improved due to improved methods of galvanizing, preventive coatings and designing cars with a goal of eliminating nooks and crannies where water and plant material can collect and do damage.

    Colonel Haiku (b52e12)

  144. Yes there was a,temporary truce then Stalin took over and the famines started in earnest, as relayed in red harvest

    Narciso (b9b290)

  145. R.I.P. Steve Ditko

    Icy (2d81cb)

  146. Stan Lee seemed the real Jonah jameson.

    Narciso (b9b290)

  147. meanwhile the only elected nation-leader person on this continent actually grabbing it by the pussy is Justin Trudeau

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  148. he likes to grab it

    he’s a very tactile person

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  149. Walter Duranty was decades before either one of us was born. I SAW the Berlin Wall with my own two eyes. Touched it. Walked about 2 miles of it. Noted the names and dates, here and there, in untouched areas near the top of the wall. Decided I didn’t really need to go over to East Berlin.

    WTF did I need theory for?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  150. Stan Lee seemed the real Jonah jameson.

    Stan Lee isn’t going to be around much longer either. In some respects he’s already gone. But he was the driving force behind Marvel’s silver age. Kirby, Ditko, Everett, etc were just the talent he used. Sure, there was feedback, but Lee was the indispensable man.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  151. Both the Nazis and the Communists subjugated labor and eliminated it as a political force. I don’t think it will be any better should capital do it. “It” being a healthy society.

    nk (dbc370)

  152. thor has titties now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  153. When the trade war is won by Trump, detractors will be writing about some other issue they despise him for.

    mg (9e54f8)

  154. China has been planning for this conflict for a long time, ten or fifteen years, through their belt and road strategy, and now their China 2025 plan. In their strategy, belt refers to reestablishing the Silk Road trade routes to gain access and dominance in Eurasian markets. Road refers to establishing trade routes in emerging markets by land, sea and air. When China identifies a trade route advantageous for its exports and imports, Chinese banks invest in infrastructure projects by loaning undeveloped countries money for highway, railway, airport, and seaport construction or enhancement. It’s debt trap foreign policy, because these countries must then pay back the loans by trading their products, but China controls the routes. That is exactly what China has been doing in Brazil for several years, investing in infrastructure projects and agricultural development. In case no one noticed, Brazil just surpassed the US as the No. 1 exporter of soy beans to China this year.

    This was the whole purpose of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to constrain China in its pursuit of dominance in the Pacific rim trade markets, and why it was stupid of Trump to withdraw the US from the negotiations of the agreement. Now the remaining member nations, which include Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Viet Nam are negotiating amongst themselves with China in the lead and without US influence. That’s an enormous trading bloc, comprising half the world’s population and at least one-third of global trade, the US has withdrawn itself from.

    Meanwhile, the Trans-Atlantic Partnership between the US and Europe, and international institutions like the World Trade Organization, which under US post-WW II leadership made America the wealthiest nation on the planet, are being torn apart. The North American Free Trade Act, which greatly benefited the US, is being ripped asunder.

    Look at what Trump is doing in his belligerent economic idiocy. He’s not only imposing tariffs on our adversaries, he’s imposing tariffs on our allies as well.

    Suspend military exercises with South Korea and withdraw troops from the Korean peninsula? That’s what China wants. It will give China, which has been expanding its naval forces, total control over the South China Sea and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Disrupt the G-7, break up NATO, withdraw troops from Germany and Western Europe? That’s what Russia wants. It will give Russia hegemony over the Balkan States and total control of the Black Sea and eventually the Mediterranean; oil and natural gas pipelines that feed Europe’s energy needs, which is why Russia is partnering with Syria and Iran.

    What will emerge out of this mess is a Trans-Pacific Partnership with China in the lead. And a Trans-Atlantic Partnership with no one in the lead, and a dominant Russia. Suspend the WTO? Are you kidding me?

    The US is now a debtor nation. It is not the manufacturing economy any more; it is now a service economy. It’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be over 100% in ten years. The US must sell debt in order to finance budget deficits. It’s a total pyramid scheme. National debt is $21 trillion now, with another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities on entitlement programs; mandatory spending which will soon displace discretionary spending, including on the military. How can we possibly pay off that debt and fund those programs without a growing economy? Isolating ourselves from foreign markets by imposing tariffs on allies and adversaries alike in NOT the answer.

    Some idiot above asked for an explanation of how China plans to win this trade war. Well, they could just start dumping US Treasuries and start buying gold, which Russia has already done. Or they could shut off all exports of rare earth minerals, which are absolutely essential for all technology from cell phones to satellites–China does own 90% of the global market on rare earth minerals, which is the impetus behind their 2025 plan. Or they could simply impose tariffs and issue boycotts on all US products, which Canada and Mexico are already doing, with the EU soon to follow.

    China couldn’t care less about winning this trade battle, which realistically will last for a couple of years. Donald Drumpf will not be in office for very much longer. Xi and Kim are dictators for life, and so is Putin in effect. They will remain in power long after Trump has exited stage left, leaving the US economy decimated in a severe recession if not a depression.

    Since its founding, the US economy has endured a market correction every four to seven years. That is just a historical fact of market upswings and downturns. The last one occurred eight years ago, so the next one is coming soon, later this year or early in the next. It is inevitable. Except the coming market correction will be much more severe than the last one, because it will be compounded by a global tariff war. Higher prices on imports, lower profits on exports, business contraction, job losses, increasing deficits, spiraling debts–the everything bubble is going to burst, and it’s going to hurt, badly.

    Will the US survive? Sure, we are resilient. But we won’t come out of this battle anywhere near as strong as we were before. China, nor Russia, is concerned about losing a battle in this decade; they’re concerned about winning the war in this century. MAGA will become MABA (Make America Bankrupt Again), if we follow Trump and his inept Republican butt gerbils along the dead end they’re leading this country down.

    GawainsGhost (b25cd1)

  155. 156 they will say he lied because the trade war wasn’t won till his third year in office instead of the day he was inaugurated. Ala he lied because he hasn’t built a 20 billion dollar wall in 18 months.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  156. 157 “Look at what Trump is doing in his belligerent economic idiocy. He’s not only imposing tariffs on our adversaries, he’s imposing tariffs on our allies as well.”

    Our Allies like Germany that run huge trade surpluses but can’t even spend 2% of GDP on their own national defense. Idiocy is what we have allowed our Allies to get away with.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  157. If Russia is such a threat to NATO why do the EU nations buy so much gas from them instead of paying slightly more for US gas. That would also address the huge trade surplus they have with us. NATO funds their enemy then expects us to pay for their defence, you don’t take issue with this?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  158. Talk about idiots!

    “MAGA will become MABA (Make America Bankrupt Again), if we follow Trump and his inept Republican butt gerbils along the dead end they’re leading this country down.”

    IThe wasn’t Trump that ran up 20 Trillion in debt plus 100 trillion of unfunded liabilities but you propose doing exactly the same things that got us here. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of Idiocy.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  159. They allowed an invasion of a million men, in the case of the mad queen, which would be five million here.

    Narciso (40a416)

  160. The Ghost of King Arthur’s noblest knight wrote:

    The US is now a debtor nation. It is not the manufacturing economy any more; it is now a service economy. It’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be over 100% in ten years. The US must sell debt in order to finance budget deficits. It’s a total pyramid scheme. National debt is $21 trillion now, with another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities on entitlement programs; mandatory spending which will soon displace discretionary spending, including on the military. How can we possibly pay off that debt and fund those programs without a growing economy?

    Exactly. You have identified the problem perfectly. But then you conclude:

    Isolating ourselves from foreign markets by imposing tariffs on allies and adversaries alike in NOT the answer.

    That’s not at all clear that this is what Trump is doing. He says that he is looking for a fair shake for American manufacturing in both the domestic and foreign market and the evidence bears him out. As to whether it is The Answer, probably not. Economies are complex things and there is no single magic charm. But by the same token, I don’t see the tariffs as the bullet at the base of the skull of the American economy either.

    nk (dbc370)

  161. The tariff did not allow the state to grow to it’s gargantuan size, the income tax did that.

    Narciso (40a416)

  162. Since you mentioned the income tax:

    From an anti-tax perspective, cutting into the profits of multinationals with import tariffs is more morally defensible and patriotic than taxing the sweat (and sometimes blood) of the American worker.

    nk (dbc370)

  163. Do we all agree that Trump is correct in his stated goal of more free trade? Is the chief complaint that his use of tariffs is antithetical to that stated goal? Or do some commenters here think that trade should be less free?

    One of the important issues I don’t recall being discussed here is what advantages a trading partner is allowed to exploit.

    Many decry the use of naturally cheap foreign labour caused by a lower foreign standard of living, especially those who would lose their jobs. Much of the rhetoric is about “protecting jobs” which is odd given the whole point of trade is to to get goods at lower cost, which nearly always means the loss of jobs. The only possible import that does not cost local jobs is the import of something the importing country cannot produce.

    What I really want to see is an analysis of how much a country loses by losing jobs, how much it saves with cheap imports, and how much it would cost to retrain displaced workers, supporting them the whole time, for life if necessary. Why could the US not do that analysis then apply tariffs in an amount to do that, rather than punitive tariffs?

    I think Trump may be in error in his tactics, but I think it wrong to take the first position that Trump is a con-man rather than just “wrong” or “mistaken”. I’ll do a ‘wait and see’ for a while longer.

    Fred Z (5981b0)

  164. I’m taking a wait and see attitude about all this. Doing something that can have a disastrous impact on the economy is nothing to be trifled with. But by the same token, China’s theft of American technology and intellectual property must be addressed and stopped to the extent possible. In addition, any country that has depended on the largesse of the American taxpayer and America’s defense for as long as some have need to fund their own.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  165. 167 I haven’t done the math but suspect it is very simple.

    An American needs $X to survive, either through wages or welfare. Where welfare always returns $0 of productivity it’s always going to be a negative return compared to them working.

    That’s the basic math. Add to that people not working are more likely to do drugs, commit crimes, and have kids and the math gets even worse.

    Cheap foreign labor isn’t just from lower standards of living. Worker protection, child labor, intellectual property theft, lax environmental regulation are substantial causes of labor costs disparity.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  166. A mistake some of today’s free trade proponents make when discussing cheap foreign labor is that they are using models from the Age of Empire. China is not our colony. It is not our overseas plantation. The Chinese are not our peons. We are not harvesting their natural resources and labor, i.e. their wealth, putting it in our ships, and bringing it here. They are taking our wealth, like good capitalists, by selling us something for more than it cost them to produce it and using the profit to strengthen their own economy, not to mention their military.

    nk (dbc370)

  167. The mad queen isn’t totally responsible she’s only been in office for 12 years:

    nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-air-force-dying-slow-death-25157

    Narciso (a0b92f)

  168. Sorry:

    http://www. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-air-force-dying-slow-death-25157

    Narciso (a0b92f)

  169. And this is the industrial powerhouse of europe, yet greece can make their 2% contribution to defense and germany is not,

    Narciso (a0b92f)

  170. How do tariffs solve the IP problem? Is the theory that we will try to hurt them so much they will come to the negotiating table, where we can get concessions?

    I can see that working with our allies who have democratic/elected governments, but totalitarian governments don’t care if their citizens suffer so they can hold out longer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  171. Why do you need theory when the daily headlines tell you the practicality?

    Because you think the daily headlines are #FAKENEWS. The practicality is described in the story linked in the post and you ignore that just like you ignore the theory. You ignore both in favor of emotional prejudice. Just like the dupes in Missouri.

    You don’t understand or care WHY Communism killed people, so you discount the ways tariffs are a minor step down the same road.

    At least answer me this: in your non-sociopathic world, are these tariffs a good thing all by themselves? Or are they a necessary tool to get us to a world without tariffs? You seem to argue both but they are inconsistent positions — a sure sign that emotion is driving the train.

    Patterico (ea0387)

  172. 175… I don’t know how it does, DRJ, that’s why – as I’ve mentioned before – i’ve asked several times on China tariff-related posts for suggestions on this issue. Businesses that agree to China’s terms to be granted access to their market are also culpable, damned if they do, lose that access if they don’t. How to get their attention, that is key, I think.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  173. Why should we do something if we have no idea why or how or if it would work, Haiku?

    DRJ (15874d)

  174. No serious person thinks Trump’s tariffs are really a response to the IP problem — which is real and can be addressed by sanctions, like the sanctions on ZTE — you know, the sanctions that Trump zapped

    You guys care so much about IP theft that when I did a post about Trump undoing the ZTE sanctions everyone was up in arms over it and angry at Trump….remember??

    http://patterico.com/2018/05/13/president-trump-hard-at-work-on-restoring-lost-jobs/

    Oh wait I guess not. That thread has one Trumpalo trying to equate the sanctions (paid by the company) to tariffs (paid by consumers) — with everyone else maintaining a nervous silence or saying it was necessary somehow.

    Patterico (ea0387)

  175. That’s a good point. It doesn’t seem like Trump thinks government should solve the IP problem.

    DRJ (15874d)

  176. Patterico, without naming individuals at all (honestly), I think that many people these days are just cheerleaders for “their people.”

    I mean, most people have seen the late night comedy bit where someone walks through a particular district, asking people how they felt about policies after stating that they were Obama’s policies. No matter how conservative, the response was “great.”

    So it’s all cheerleading and narrative.

    Okay, mostly.

    Simon Jester (a4a9de)

  177. Stalin used tariffs, not wholesale confiscation, got it. I guess the us was wrong for the first 150 years when they used tariffs for revenue.

    When Fidel damned up our tiny plot of land, and flooded it, that’s equivalent.

    Narciso (4cb598)

  178. Haiku:

    There is a sanction called a denial order that was reached for ZTE after they were caught violating IP laws. That was targeted to ZTE and responded to the specific problem. Trump undid that.

    Trump is not putting idiot tariffs on Canada because Chinese company ZTE stole IP. He is doing it because he is an economic ignoramus and misuses authority granted him for national security purposes.

    And when he unwinds the actual sanctions targeted at the actual IP thefts, none of you who claim to be concerned about IP theft say a damned thing.

    Because you Trump superfans don’t actually care about that. You care about defending Trump and that’s the line you were told to spout. So you spout it.

    Patterico (ea0387)

  179. Trump says he is going the tariff route for other reasons. Time will tell if it has any positive effect or is a disaster. What’s your suggestion on IP and technology theft, DRJ?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  180. 178 – Like going into Iraq?

    mg (9e54f8)

  181. I don’t know why you are going out of your way to pick fights, Patterico, but this isn’t like you. What’s going on?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  182. Awan and stolen goods from the democrats never gets discussed.

    mg (9e54f8)

  183. Which side is acting like bloc committees, colctivos and tur bas, thosr are names for mobs simon, which one just nominated a Stalinist in thought if not deed?

    Narciso (4cb598)

  184. No why would They, people are threatened with bodily harm, shot and beaten up, that’s just narrative. Trump says something sound the alarm

    Narciso (4cb598)

  185. 173… hey, narciso! Things haven’t improved since this back in 2015: https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/geraghty_merkel_12-9-15-1.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  186. And of course there are issues ‘re zte and their pipelines into Ericsson and Nokia, but why let facts get in the way of a rant.

    Narciso (4cb598)

  187. Trump says he is going the tariff route for other reasons. Time will tell if it has any positive effect or is a disaster.

    Explain the reasons. I just told you there is a solution in place that is targeted to the offense, and Trump rejected it for tariffs that have nothing to do with Chinese IP theft (since he’s imposing them on Canada too), and you brushed my comment aside in a handwaving fashion.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  188. For any others who were not up to speed on ZTE as I was not, this may be of interest: http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/395653-trump-gave-the-giant-chinese-cellphone-maker-a-stay-of-execution?amp

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  189. I disagree Patterico is picking fights. He made a good point about Trump and ZTE.

    As for IP, I don’t think there is a way to convince people not to steal. All the government can do is try to catch/prosecute or sanction them when they do it. Meanwhile, American businesses can work harder to protect their IP and decide if the benefits of expanded foreign markets are worth the risks to them. But the world is a much smaller place when it comes to trade so there may be no way to safeguard IP outside the US. At least least there are some remedies inside the US. It’s one if many reasons why we have more innovation.

    DRJ (15874d)

  190. Answer me these questions three:

    1. What, specifically, is China stealing?
    2. What, specifically, are our tariffs on China?
    3. What, specifically, is the relationship between the theft and the tariffs?

    If China is stealing high-speed rail designs and computer software and spoofing our brand names, why are we imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum? And why are we imposing these same tariffs on Canada?

    These are simple questions that I predict will not be answered because the answers do not favor Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  191. It seems to me that Trump thinks that running a net trade deficit with a country means that we are getting a bad “deal”. I think that this is the impetus for his tariffs as much as anything else.

    Davethulhu (270006)

  192. Bravo Britannia

    “LONDON, July 6 (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May secured a cabinet agreement on Friday for her plans to leave the European Union, overcoming rifts among her ministers to win support for “a business-friendly” proposal aimed at spurring stalled Brexit talks.

    After an hours-long meeting at her Chequers country residence, May seemed to have persuaded the most vocal Brexit campaigners in the cabinet to back her plan to press for “a free trade area for goods” with the EU and maintain close trade ties.

    The agreed proposal – which also says Britain’s large services sector will not have the current levels of access to EU markets – will not come soon enough for Brussels, which has been pressing May to come up with a detailed vision for future ties.

    But the hard-won compromise may yet fall flat with EU negotiators.

    By also committing to ending free movement of people, the supremacy of the European court and “vast” payments to the bloc, May could be accused of “cherry-picking” the best bits of the EU by Brussels officials, who are determined to send a strong signal to other countries not to follow Britain out of the door.”

    harkin (fabd28)

  193. It seems to me that Trump thinks that running a net trade deficit with a country means that we are getting a bad “deal”. I think that this is the impetus for his tariffs as much as anything else.

    I think that’s right, and it’s a further illustration of his deep economic ignorance that he thinks a trade deficit is a bad thing.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  194. the filthy chinesers seem to think trade deficits are very bad indeed, moreso than does president trump (best president) i’d wager

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  195. the slutty chicago law enforcement trash cooperated with protestors this morning to shut down an interstate

    State police originally said that they would work with protestors to keep some lanes open to cars, but according to multiple reports, march leaders continued to negotiate with police to shut down all lanes of the expressway, and were successful for part of the march.

    no wonder everybody hates them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  196. And photos show Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and and Rev. Michael Pfleger, the march leader, walking arm-in-arm.

    filth-nasty chicago popo

    you make me sick

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  197. Patterico (115b1f)

  198. Happy, you don’t even have a damn car AND I don’t think you’ve even been South of Hype Dark (not a mispelling) or Midway.

    urbanleftbehind (a03dde)

  199. “I can see that working with our allies who have democratic/elected governments, but totalitarian governments don’t care if their citizens suffer so they can hold out longer.

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/7/2018 @ 8:39 am”

    Arab SPring ring any bells? There have been tons of articles on the threat to Xi from a disgruntled populus. Can you name a overthrown totalitarian government that had a happy population?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  200. but i have to uber to like

    bucktown tonight (i think)

    maybe logan square

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  201. This is the same fatuous “What’s the Matter With Kansas” critique recycled for Trump.

    It is also the same classist “I know better what’s good for you than you do” world view that is the hallmark of Progressive, anti-democratic thought. Yes, yes . . . the elite knows best.

    A conservative, you are not.

    The logic of #195 is beyond me. Why does there need to be a direct link between the theft and the tariff? We don’t punish car thieves by taking away their drivers licenses. You gotta do better than this.

    I’d say the measure of Trump’s economic ignorance, as well as the ignorance of his predecessors in the White House, is the performance of our national economy. By that objective measure, Donald Trump is the wisest President of our lifetimes. “Trump is economically ignorant” is just another “Who Ya Gonna Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes” argument.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  202. “No serious person thinks Trump’s tariffs are really a response to the IP problem ”

    Those hundreds of articles in every major publication discussing it must not be serious. No serious person would dismiss them as an option. Who exactly are you going to sanction and how effect will those sanctions be when they don’t have substantial business with US suppliers or consumers? ZTE only worked because they relied on our chips.

    How do you plan to sanction the Chinese Military for what they steal?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  203. This is the same fatuous “What’s the Matter With Kansas” critique recycled for Trump.

    It is also the same classist “I know better what’s good for you than you do” world view that is the hallmark of Progressive, anti-democratic thought. Yes, yes . . . the elite knows best.

    A conservative, you are not.

    You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the “elite.” Is writing on a blog about what I think is good policy somehow elitism? Why?

    Did you vote for Obama over Romney, ThOR? I ask because you say I am not a conservative, which is obviously absurd but I guess you’re trying to upset me and upsetting Trump critics is good per se, right?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  204. The logic of #195 is beyond me. Why does there need to be a direct link between the theft and the tariff? We don’t punish car thieves by taking away their drivers licenses. You gotta do better than this.

    I don’t know, maybe for the same reason we punish car thieves by locking them up (analogous to targeting the company itself) rather than locking up the car thieves along with other randomly selected people on the street (analogous to targeting Canada in retaliation for Chinese IP theft).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  205. Who exactly are you going to sanction and how effect will those sanctions be when they don’t have substantial business with US suppliers or consumers?

    Specifics?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  206. “I don’t know why you are going out of your way to pick fights, Patterico, but this isn’t like you. What’s going on?”

    – Haiku

    I’ve been wondering the same thing and commented on it the other day. Recent posts read like an anti-Trump parody of Trump. There is a part of me that finds this approach deeply amusing: what’s good for the goose, an all.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  207. the dirty filthy chinesers ate the goose and now they’re starting in on the dog

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  208. I’d say the measure of Trump’s economic ignorance, as well as the ignorance of his predecessors in the White House, is the performance of our national economy. By that objective measure, Donald Trump is the wisest President of our lifetimes. “Trump is economically ignorant” is just another “Who Ya Gonna Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes” argument.

    This assertion is born of your own ignorance. Thank God, a President is still not a dictator and the economy still runs badly or well mostly independently of what a President does. There are exceptions: Hoover’s tariffs and FDR’s interventionism had a horrible effect on our economy and lengthened the Depression badly. ObamaCare is distorting a large sector of our economy. Trump’s tariffs may not be enough to sink an economy that is recovering for reasons mostly independent of him (and which is aided by some good things he has done, like lowering regulation and cutting taxes). None of this makes Trump’s tariffs a good idea, your incredibly simplistic analysis notwithstanding. A few drops of Trump urine added to an otherwise good soup might not ruin it if people aren’t told, but they won’t improve it for anyone — except maybe his superfans, if they were told about it, since they would be thrilled to ingest his bodily fluids.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  209. I’ve been wondering the same thing and commented on it the other day. Recent posts read like an anti-Trump parody of Trump. There is a part of me that finds this approach deeply amusing: what’s good for the goose, an all.

    Did you vote for Obama, ThOR? You keep ignoring me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  210. Patterico,

    You made fun of me in yesterdays thread for being suckered by Fake News about McCain.

    I might have felt offended by your comment if it weren’t the umpteenth time I’d taken the bait in the past couple of years. I can’t remember another period in my life when it has been such a struggle to figure out what is true/factual and what is not.

    No offense taken.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  211. Obama?

    Heck no. I voted against Obama for the same reason I voted against Trump. I didn’t believe what either of them were saying on the campaign trail. Trump has surprised me; not Obama.

    Although not voting for Obama was easy, it was still a bit of a challenge to vote for the Liberal Romney and the disagreeable McCain. I bit the bullet.

    I don’t mean to ignore you. It is your posts that get me thinking and commenting. I have virtually zero commenting presence anywhere else.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  212. if Mike Lee hadn’t been such a dirty dirty sphincter he might could be headered to the Supreme Court!

    but choices have consequences don’t they Mikey licklick

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  213. We have our son who lives in the area over visiting us today… yay!

    So, as I’ve read, there is a 1974 trade law that can be applied to China’s alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property that will allow a president to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods or other trade sanctions until China changes its policies.

    China wants to dominate markets that include AI, robotics and autonomous vehicles.

    On national security, the purpose of tariffs is said to involve some retaliation for Chinese IP practices. These include espionage directed at U.S. and Euro IP, lax enforcement of IP standards in the USA, and also the forced technology transfer from U.S. firms (to allow access to China’s market) that operate in China. As I understand it, there’s a need to prevent China from grabbing an unfair advantage in industries considered strategic and to punish China for the theft of U.S. defense technologies.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  214. Patterico’s 214…eeeeew!!

    I’m getting worried about you man. You’re in a dark place…

    lee (ab26cf)

  215. 212… yeah, I suppose. He sounds like he’s fed up. But the talk of ingesting bodily fluids… well, I guess one gets their chuckles where one can.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  216. Patterico,

    You made fun of me in yesterdays thread for being suckered by Fake News about McCain.

    I might have felt offended by your comment if it weren’t the umpteenth time I’d taken the bait in the past couple of years. I can’t remember another period in my life when it has been such a struggle to figure out what is true/factual and what is not.

    No offense taken.

    My initial comment was harsh and I quickly apologized for its tone. As you know if you read the post (did you?) the entire allegation is premised on a false claim about a friend of mine whom I have known for over 20 years. Seeing how easily such nonsense is spread and believed upsets me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  217. Because you think the daily headlines are #FAKENEWS. The practicality is described in the story linked in the post and you ignore that just like you ignore the theory. You ignore both in favor of emotional prejudice. Just like the dupes in Missouri.

    Now you are telling me what I *think*?!? And that I’m a “dupe”? Try opening your mind to what is going ON, rather than your preconceived notions. (and if that sounds like I’m describing your thought process unfairly, well, I’m not the only one)

    You don’t understand or care WHY Communism killed people, so you discount the ways tariffs are a minor step down the same road.

    I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t NEED to understand. Do you feel you needed to understand Nazi theory to oppose the Holocaust?

    At least answer me this: in your non-sociopathic world, are these tariffs a good thing all by themselves? Or are they a necessary tool to get us to a world without tariffs? You seem to argue both but they are inconsistent positions — a sure sign that emotion is driving the train.

    Again with the thought-portraits. Sigh.

    Tariffs, by themselves, are rent-seeking barriers to trade that serve no long-term good. Last refuge of the privileged/inefficient.*

    But they are often used by nations for short periods for other reasons that are less disruptive. Protecting nascent industry from established players and forcing open foreign markets are two common uses that are NOT pure rent-seeking.

    With respect to China in particular, and in earlier times to Japan and South Korea, negotiation and reasoning has failed to alter their overt and hidden trade barriers, IP theft, and market-flooding**, behaviors which are anathema to free trade. You cannot allow a competitor to use your own inventions in their products and undercut you due to their zero-cost development cycle. We don’t tolerate any of this in DOMESTIC markets, why should we tolerate it overseas.

    ———
    *The steel and aluminum tariffs are stupid, rent-seeking and the worst type of tariffs. Their ONLY defense is some national security argument, but even then building better production facilities is a better answer for all kinds of reasons and direct federal help to do so is LOADS better than tariffs.

    **Yes, I know the theory that says if they want to give us stuff for free, we should just take it, but when that destroys local competitors the day will come when that stuff is dear, not free, and the barriers to entry are now high. Solar panels are a clear example.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  218. I sure hope it ain’t the same situation! https://youtu.be/jAT5ewOfwEI

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  219. Question: IF it were clear that a given cellphone producer was incorporating hundreds of US patents in their devices without permission, and then selling them in the US at a third of the cost of those that paid royalties, would you argue against barring those phones from sale?

    Note that such a ban would raise the cost of phones to the public. Why is this not a tax on the people?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  220. 199. “further illustration of his deep economic ignorance that he thinks a trade deficit is a bad thing.”

    Is this the flawed Costco analogy again? Your only able to continue your trade deficit with Costco because you have a trade surplus with your employer. Give up the paycheck can you continue your trade deficit with Costco indefinitely?

    Trade deficits in whole are not sustainable.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  221. 298… I agree… no shortage of articles linking the two.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  222. No a ban would make it unavailable, a tariff would raise the price.

    narciso (d1f714)

  223. Now you are telling me what I *think*?!? And that I’m a “dupe”? Try opening your mind to what is going ON, rather than your preconceived notions.

    You too.

    You got this conversation off track by describing my completely mainstream support of the free market as “sociopathic.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  224. From The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for It … Every Time, by Maria Konnikova (2016), the author presents a comprehensive breakdown of the steps in every successful confidence game:

    Each one of us is exceptional in our own minds. And exceptional individuals are not chumps.

    And:

    The longer we remain in the confidence game, and the more we have invested and even lost, the longer we will persist in insisting it will all work out: in the breakdown, we’ve lost, and it seems like we should rightly quit, yet here we are in the send, reupping our commitment so that the actual touch goes off without a hitch.

    And:

    Once we’re in the home stretch of the confidence game, our investment renders us unable to be objective about the past evidence; we ignore the breakdown and open the way for the send because we refuse to admit we could have been wrong. We persist in acting as we did before, despite the growing evidence that we should change course. And so of course the con is successful: the touch goes off without a hitch, and we’re left completely fleeced.

    And:

    In June 2014, a so-called suckers list of people who had fallen for multiple scams surfaced in England, It had been passed on from shady group to shady group, sold to willing bidders, until law enforcement had gotten hold of its contents. It was 160,000 names long. When authorities began contacting some of the individuals on the list, they were met with surprising resistance. I’ve never been scammed, the victims insisted.

    The book was published in January 2016, when Trump had not yet grabbed the world’s attention. But it’s impossible to read the book without recognizing the techniques Trump has in fact uses and uses daily.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  225. I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t NEED to understand. Do you feel you needed to understand Nazi theory to oppose the Holocaust?

    Having a thorough grounding in the basics of free market theory — the notion that voluntary exchange benefits both parties — helps me analyze any plan for economic tinkering and understand why it’s good or bad (hint: if it’s actual tinkering it’s usually bad). Knowledge is power. Understanding is power. Millenials and you disdain this knowledge and as a result you go off the path and don’t understand why tariffs are bad. If you are determined to remain ignorant, I can’t stop you, Kevin. But I’d appreciate you not insulting me simply because I have chosen to learn the theory that helps me understand what you clearly don’t.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  226. And yes, I’m being insulting. I was insulted and I am “punching back twice as hard.” My, isn’t this fun and productive.

    I’m willing to stop if you’ll retract your “sociopathic” comment and apologize for it. We could actually try having a constructive conversation. I think you’re capable of it. But making your opening volley an insult does NOT help.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  227. 195 Tarriffs on Canada have nothing to do with tarrifs on China, why create the straw man?

    In regards to Canada last year or year before they wiped out our milk derivative exports to them, we can’t put tarrifs on those milk products because they don’t import to us, what would you suggest doing?

    https://www.fb.org/market-intel/canadian-dairy-is-having-its-cake-and-eating-it-too

    In regards to China I’ll assume your not making the absurd claim we should place tarrifs on knockoffs or sanction black market manufacturers? When China allows those actions how do you want to counter them? Tarriffs on other goods is the only option.

    As stated numerous times tariffs on steel and aluminum were to maintain domestic capacity. A perfect example of the consequences of not doing this is rare earth metals, we are now held hostage by China for these vital resources because we didn’t protect our domestic sources.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  228. Is this the flawed Costco analogy again? Your only able to continue your trade deficit with Costco because you have a trade surplus with your employer. Give up the paycheck can you continue your trade deficit with Costco indefinitely?

    Trade deficits in whole are not sustainable.

    Wrong.

    [A] large trade deficit — even one that persists for decades — is not necessarily bad or unsustainable. As I hoped to show in this essay, if the Austro-libertarians ever realized their dream, the resulting society would almost certainly have massive trade deficits — and this would be a natural reflection of its economic might.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  229. Tariffs are only bad when the US does them?
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/a-guide-to-understanding-the-dairy-dispute-between-the-us-andcanada/article34802291/

    “Why are U.S. dairy farmers mad at Canada?

    Canada has long maintained a high tariff wall on most dairy products. The duty on milk is 270 per cent. That keeps most imports from the United States and elsewhere out of Canada, while helping to prop up higher domestic prices. One notable exception is ultrafiltered milk and other protein-rich dairy ingredients used to make dairy products such as cheese and yogurt. North American free-trade rules do not cover these ingredients, so they enter Canada duty-free. And in recent years, U.S. dairies have developed a booming business selling these low-cost products to dairies in Canada ($133-million last year). That all changed about a year ago, when Canadian dairy farmers and producers moved to close the breach in the tariff wall with a new “ingredients strategy.” They persuaded regulators to create a new lower-priced class of industrial milk as an incentive to get dairies to produce protein substances in Canada, using Canadian milk. The result was predictable: U.S. imports fell in 2016, and are declining sharply so far this year.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  230. Nate:

    The contraction of “you are” is “you’re.”

    “Tariffs” is spelled “T-A-R-I-F-F-S.”

    Nate, if we could reach a deal with all countries abolishing all tariffs, would that make you happy or sad? In other words, I asked above: “are these tariffs a good thing all by themselves? Or are they a necessary tool to get us to a world without tariffs.” Kevin M gave a long-winded answer that didn’t really tell me whether his goal is to HAVE tariffs or ABOLISH tariffs. It sounds to me like he wants to have it both ways: to argue that tariffs are a short-term good all by themselves and also that Trump’s program is great because it will reduce tariffs (which, if they’re a short-term good, would be a bad thing, which is why I say his position is internally contradictory).

    So, which is it? Are you looking to have tariffs only as a method to abolish them or as a good in and of themselves? It can’t be both. Which is your argument?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  231. You got this conversation off track by describing my completely mainstream support of the free market as “sociopathic.”

    You misread. I said that the Libertarian analysis itself was sociopathic, not you. The failure of libertarianism (this is coming from a former such) comes in treating people as machines and ignoring hurt to individuals in its reverence for the “unfettered” market. It actually has quite a bit of similarity to communism in a “greatest good for the greatest number” way, albeit with impersonal harm as opposed to directed harm.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  232. You got this conversation off track by describing my completely mainstream support of the free market as “sociopathic.”

    You misread. I said that the Libertarian analysis itself was sociopathic, not you.

    Judas H. Priest on a popsicle stick. Read what I wrote. I didn’t SAY you described ME as sociopathic. I said you described “my completely mainstream support of the free market” as “sociopathic.” And you did. To the extent you are claiming that your description was a description of a libertarian argument in the abstract and not a description of MY argument, let me remind you of exactly what you said:

    Given that it’s a tax, it’s a wealth transfer from consumers to the government — and thus is not just a transfer, but a drag on the economy, as money moves from the more productive and choice-oriented private sector to the less productive and force-oriented public sector.

    The predictable sociopathic libertarian response.

    Quote from me, followed by “The predictable sociopathic libertarian response.”

    You described MY argument as “sociopathic.” Please don’t pretend you didn’t.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  233. Let’s try this again, now that the dodge of “I wasn’t saying that about you” has been destroyed.

    I’m willing to stop if you’ll retract your “sociopathic” comment and apologize for it. We could actually try having a constructive conversation. I think you’re capable of it. But making your opening volley an insult does NOT help.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  234. Your using utopian dreams of Murphy as a definitive argument? Maybe you missed the whole part about pretending some military didn’t just walk in and take everything, or are you just willing to risk your future on the altruism of the Chinese? In a perfect world where everyone acted in the best interest of society your argument would hold up. In the real world where people hurt others and take things that aren’t there’s it’s a joke. Your an economic pacifists.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  235. Tariffs are bad, ideally we would have none and our trading partners would have none.

    The exception to that is maintaining the ability to feed and defend ourselves.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  236. In the real world where people hurt others and take things that aren’t there’s it’s a joke. Your an economic pacifists.

    *theirs

    *you’re

    *pacifist

    I’m done with you. I will never get through to you and I feel IQ points dropping away as a result of my even trying.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  237. Tariffs are bad, ideally we would have none and our trading partners would have none.

    The exception to that is maintaining the ability to feed and defend ourselves.

    Tariffs are bad except when they’re not. They’re bad when we’re arguing that Trump is really just fighting a trade war to get rid of them, and they’re not when we’re arguing that it’s good Trump is using them. The consistency here is defending Trump and nothing but defending Trump. There is zero consistency beyond that imperative.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  238. Am I the only one who notices a positive correlation between bad spelling, bad grammar, poor reasoning ability, hyper-aggressiveness, and superfan-level support of Donald Trump?

    I know correlation is not causation, but the correlation is literally impossible to miss.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  239. If you can’t win on ideas beat them with ad hominem.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  240. What’s your plan for the Canadian Milk tariffs that have been in place for decades? Short on solutions long on hypothetical models.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  241. This may be the single stupidest, most misleading thing ever written and published to the American public by an American president:

    When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 2, 2018

    It’s easy! You just tax your own people to punish, errrrm, someone else … right? Umm. Umm. MAGA!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  242. @ Nate Ogden, who asked:

    What’s your plan for the Canadian Milk tariffs that have been in place for decades? Short on solutions long on hypothetical models.

    I have no plan for rescuing Canadian citizens from their unfair taxes imposed to protect Canadian dairy producers and allow them to charge far-above-market rates for a necessary food product. It’s up to Canadians to come up with that plan.

    I likewise have no plan to pick winners and losers in the American economy, specifically its would-be dairy exporters. If Canada lets their products in without tariffs, that would be terrific, but that is not a proper goal for the United States government to be seeking to promote.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  243. PS: Eventually the Canadians will figure out that the only plan for them to protect themselves from their own government’s taxes (being used to pick winners and losers in Canada) is to replace those leaders. Or they won’t.

    But American dairy exporters don’t have some vested moral or legal or economic expectancy that they must be permitted to sell in Canada tariff-free. And they damned sure don’t have any expectancy that our government will punish other Americans who want to buy goods from Canada (e.g., cars) free from American-imposed tariffs designed to protect American dairy interests over anyone and everyone else.

    Anyone who ever faulted Barrack Obama’s government for trying to pick economic winners and losers, who supports Trump’s tariffs or the very notion of tariffs, is an idiot and a hypocrite. It is not the proper function of the federal government to pick economic winners and losers; that’s graft and corruption. That’s the damned swamp, you fools.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  244. Offered for your consideration.

    lee (ab26cf)

  245. Duly considered. Laughed at.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  246. Beldar, so your living in Pat’s hypothetical world of utopian assumptions.

    Here in the real world, those jobs supported by exporting milk are now gone and those people are unemployed. The subsidized product is now undercutting our exports to other countries and because of the free one sided traded policies we have in place they are also replacing our domestic production. That is even more unemployed Americans.

    What do you think happens to these unemployed? We don’t let them starve or go without healthcare, they are now dependent on the State, which requires more taxes to provide for the unproductive which raises cost making us less competitive, and it repeats.

    Most people are clear who the idiots are, those demanding we continue failed policy even when it’s clear it doesn’t work. Maybe, just maybe your not smarter than everyone else like you seem to think.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  247. If you’ve bitched about American federal and state government prop-ups of businesses like Tesla, you are either an idiot or a hypocrite if you support Trump’s trade wars.

    The trade war isn’t between American and Canada. It’s between one group of Americans (in this specific example, American dairy producer; but it might be Teslas or Iowa ethanol or Intel microchips), who want to enlist the American government to make them richer than they’d otherwise be by boosting their export sales to Canada, versus the Americans who will pay the costs of the countervailing tariffs, on other products, that the Canadians impose on their exports to the U.S.

    I don’t want American governments picking winners and losers, as between Americans, in that fight. Period, end of paragraph, end of story.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  248. Yes, Mr. Ogden, capitalism includes winners and capitalism includes losers. Sometimes people lose their jobs. Protecting their jobs when there is no economic justification for them to be maintained in the market is another form of picking winners and losers.

    It doesn’t matter if you focus on the American dairy owner, as employer, or the employee he’s paying: Government shouldn’t be picking these winners and losers.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  249. Did you happen to read the Whitehouse link in the article?

    That was what I was actually directing the reader to. Sorry I didn’t point it out before.

    lee (ab26cf)

  250. There’s nothing theoretical or hypothetical or utopican about any of this. It’s real dollars — real dollars that my clients in the energy industry are having to pay, right now, because their imported steel costs have gone up and their delivery dates have been disturbed, for instance.

    You want the American government to prefer instead a dairy farmer in Wisconsin. I don’t want the American government making that choice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  251. @ lee, no I didn’t read the WH link in the article you linked before I commented at #255. Since you pointed it out, though, I gave it a quick skim. Let’s stipulate that it’s a comprehensive indictment of the Chinese government’s wicked practices.

    Not a single word of it persuades me that we should tax the American public because the Chinese are bad guys.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  252. I do think I’m smarter, at least on the subject of trade wars, than those who say “trade wars are good and easy to win,” Mr. Ogden. Because someone has to be stupid as dirt to believe that’s true.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  253. Here’s how I benefited from free trade today (actually, one of a thousand ways):

    I used this recipe (thank you, New York Times!):

    https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/9101-classic-shrimp-scampi

    without the white wine or broth

    and Trader Joe’s Wild Argentinian Red Shrimp.

    Oh, man.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  254. Actuality, they probably do, Beldar.

    Because “Texas oil companies = Bad”
    And “Wisconsin dairy farmers = Good”

    The ironic part is they are the first to claim they aren’t PC.

    DRJ (15874d)

  255. The only thing is that I question the need for so much parsley. I used 1/4 cup instead of 1/3 and that still seemed excessive. It worked, but I think it could work better with less.

    Also I used more butter and olive oil. My philosophy is: if a recipe calls for 2 units of butter or olive oil, use 3.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  256. Good rules. Butter is especially good.

    DRJ (15874d)

  257. Meanwhile, military tensions escalate in Taiwan Strait … because of tariffs?

    DRJ (15874d)

  258. Like superfan followers, like leader:

    Patterico (115b1f)

  259. Who’s more deserving of his job, Mr. Ogden: My client’s employee who’s laid off because of Trump’s steel tariff, or the employee of a Wisconsin dairy farmer who’s laid off because Canada taxes imported butter so highly that his employer’s products can’t compete in the Canadian market?

    Why do you want the federal government to make this choice?

    What if it’s Barrack Obama at the head of that government?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  260. 254 “Yes, Mr. Ogden, capitalism includes winners and capitalism includes losers.”

    So your just ignoring we live in a welfare state. What’s capitalism’s take on food stamps, EMTLA, section 8, public education, and the rest?

    It’s why your academic dogma fails in real life. Congratulations Beldar, you support a model that works great on paper but doesn’t exist in the real world. Not to mention you make no accounting for bad actors and those wishing to do us harm.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  261. 265 When you can explain how you support a population with no jobs I’ll answer who is more deserving.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  262. Doncha know, Patterico, Trump misspells things on purpose, for emphasis, just like he randomly capitalizes words for emphasis:

    After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pore over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 3, 2018

    See also:

    We scrawls many Best tomes we does! After that we prides selfs- Prides on soundsing out letters! Scrawling words! No ghost scribers precious? NO! Only us! So Many words scratched, bigly for EMFATSES- brains so yuge! Bursting with smarts! But FALSE NEWSES POORS OVER OUR TWEETSES!— Gollum J. Trump (@realGollumTrump) July 4, 2018

    Beldar (fa637a)

  263. Mr. Ogden, do you know what creates wealth, and thus jobs? Free market transactions between willing buyers and sellers. Do you know what made the Great Depression incomparably worse: The Smoot-Hawley tariffs and resulting trade wars. You can look it up.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  264. 259… my wife has been cooking with those TJ shrimp for a while now. They are very tasty!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  265. After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pore over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized!— Donald J. Trump

    I’d lay good money he didn’t write that tweet.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  266. 259… my wife has been cooking with those TJ shrimp for a while now. They are very tasty!

    Yeah, they claim they are like lobster and honestly they’re not far off.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  267. And I pointed Fordney macumber as a midpoint exercise.

    narciso (d1f714)

  268. Evidently Dysphoria Sam doesn’t realize he has been banned.

    You were banned, Dysphoria Sam. Your joke about how someone should commit suicide by taking pills was the final straw. There is no coming back from this one. You’re gone for good.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  269. I don’t want to punish innocent Americans for economic protectionism, or even for criminal misconduct (like IP theft), by foreign governments and actors, Mr. Ogden.

    If you’d like to propose remedies which don’t punish Americans, I’m willing to listen. But tariffs punish the Americans who either pay them, or pay higher prices for domestic products of the government-protected and -favored industry. I’m against them. I reject the premise for them. I rely on the results of historical examples when they’ve been applied.

    Name me one trade war the United States has ever won, Mr. Ogden, and perhaps I’ll reconsider.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  270. Beldar if your so against government picking winners and losers; do you oppose licensing of Attorneys? More specifically how about the prohibition of corporate pro se representation?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  271. Mr. Ogden wrote (#266):

    So you[‘re] just ignoring we live in a welfare state. What’s capitalism’s take on food stamps, EMTLA, section 8, public education, and the rest?

    We don’t live in a welfare state. We do live in a capitalist state, with the world’s largest capitalist economy, whose Navy protects the sea lanes that have permitted the greatest increase in international wealth, including our own, through free trade, in the history of the world.

    We have, in that capitalistic state, a gigantic safety net that is indeed abused and unsustainable. I support, therefore, comprehensive entitlements reform.

    Your guy doesn’t, and so there won’t be any while he’s POTUS.

    Nice try at a diversion, though. See how it rebounds on you?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  272. Is Sam’s comment (presumably in another name) still here? Or did it get nuked (which would surely be appropriate)? I’m guessing — because I don’t see a comment comprising mostly all-caps words — the latter. Just curious, for purposes of spotting his writing & argument style in the future.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  273. Speaking of lobster, a few years ago my BIL went on a fishing trip to Alaska and caught a large halibut. He gave me hunk, and told of how the locals make halibut taste like lobster. I tried it, and darned if it didn’t.

    What you do is chunk it up in one inch squares, and drop them in simmering 7UP. Yes, the soft drink. When the pieces float to the surface, they’re done. Easy and tasty!

    lee (ab26cf)

  274. 269 “Mr. Ogden, do you know what creates wealth, and thus jobs? Free market transactions between willing buyers and sellers.”

    Sometimes, know what else creates wealth? Theft, manipulation, slavery, collusion, monopolies, regulated markets and many other non willing transactions. Your academic text and I’m real world. You just ignore all the variables that don’t fit your narrative.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  275. His comment probably was filtered, so Patterico can see it but we can’t. I think that’s why Patterico said Sam doesn’t realize he was banned.

    DRJ (15874d)

  276. “Theft, manipulation, slavery, collusion, monopolies, regulated markets and many other non willing transactions, ” don’t create wealth, they transfer it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  277. Is Sam’s comment (presumably in another name) still here? Or did it get nuked (which would surely be appropriate)?

    The more recent one is in moderation. The one that got him banned is still on the blog.

    It appears to be a quote of some meme going around. Doesn’t matter. It was quoted with approval. Anyone who tries something similar is gone.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  278. I support state licensure of the “learned professions,” including lawyers, doctors, accountants, and engineers, where ordinary consumers put their lives or fortunes at risk on the professional judgments of those actors without much ability to meaningfully second-guess those judgments. That has nothing whatsoever to do with tariffs, and if professional licensure is used instead to unduly restrict market entry by otherwise qualified professionals, I oppose that.

    Do you think we’re letting too few lawyers into the bar, Mr. Ogden? Should we throw open those gates? How about heart surgeons? Civil engineers who design bridges?

    More to the point: What does any of that have to do with the federal government taxing cars imported from Canada?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  279. Speaking of lobster,

    Speaking of lobster, Trump’s tariffs are threatening to drive lobstermen in Maine out of business.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  280. YOU MAY HAVE TO WRITE THE BAN IN ALL CAPS FOR DYSPHORIA SAM TO SEE IT.

    HAIL DYSPHORIA SAM!

    HEY, DYSPHORIA SAM!

    D Y S P H O R I A
    S A M !

    YOU RACKIN’ FRACKIN’ VARMINT!!!1!

    YOU’VE BEEN BANNED, SON, I SAY, YOU’VE BEEN BANNED!

    Sorry, I promise never to do that again.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  281. Beldar, how long can your capitalistic model last with its, not a welfare state, safety net? As long as that safety net is in place you seem to be admitting your model is not viable? Your entire argument assumet assumes there isn’t a safety net…but there is one.

    See how that rebounds?

    I’m all for a pure capitalistic government by the way, just don’t try to sell me one when it isn’t, which is exactly what your arguing. Fix the safety net then argue for cleaner capitalism, it doesn’t work the other way around.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  282. I think the ban on corporate pro se is unconstitutional and a perfect example of government picking winners and losers.

    As to how it relates; I find those that are against something usually have different opinions when it comes at a cost to them. You have stated your against government picking winners and losers so I would assume you would be opposed to the ban on corporate pro se, I have meet very few attorneys who are.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  283. We’ve nothing to say to each other that either is willing to listen to, I suspect, Mr. Ogden. You’re now starting to fabricate things from your imagination, and pretending I’ve said them. That’s not productive, and it’s annoying.

    If you’re for tariffs, then you’re not “all for a pure capitalistic government by the way,” and I really don’t think you understand capitalism at all.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  284. Let me guess, Mr. Ogden: Have you tried to represent, in court, a corporation that you own or control, doing it pro se (on your own), rather than through a lawyer?

    Because that would explain a lot.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  285. DRJ, my local power company is regulated for delivery, I have no choice but to use them or go off grid.

    If I understand you correctly, their stock transfers wealth but Apple’s stock creates wealth?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  286. Let me put it in small words:

    Trump is for the welfare state. I’m not.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  287. I support the use in tariffs in certain cases, specifically with the steel industry for example. I see that as a national security issue, and same goes for the case of China in general, for the same reasons. They are more a hostile competitor than a trading partner.

    “Free trade” sounds wonderful in the abstract, but it really isn’t. It’s kinda like calling Obamacare the affordable care act. In the real world the best we can do is “fair trade”, and there are many different aspects to its calculation.

    As for American dairy and Canadian tariffs, I’m less sold on the idea. Our dairy industry has been in trouble for a while; the recent changes to Canadian practices only exacerbated, not caused them. Mostly I think, Dept. of Ag policy and technology have created a situation where too much milk is being produced (in part to meet export expectations that didn’t materialize), and supply is outstripping demand.

    I can only guess, but I wonder that tariffs on Canada (and Mexico) may be to create pressure on NAFTA negotiations. We are still in negotiations, or is that done and I missed it?

    lee (ab26cf)

  288. (Using that term to refer, generally, to state & federal benefits, not to a political sovereign state, or to the entire economy within it.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  289. Explain a lot? What do you mean to imply by that?

    As to your question I have done a couple personal lawsuits per se. Unfortunately have had to hire attorneys for fare more than that.

    Tried to represent a corporation? As I’m not a licensed attorney it couldn’t be done so there wasn’t much trying to it. Look forward to hearing your explanation on what that explains or reveals.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  290. lee wrote, in #294, in part:

    In the real world the best we can do is “fair trade”, and there are many different aspects to its calculation.

    When the government does that calculating, it’s no longer remotely “free” at all, is it?

    And what’s “fair” depends on the perspective of the calculator. What about when it’s Barrack Obama who’s doing the calculating and resulting rebalancing of the variables?

    Why on God’s green earth does anyone who claims to be a conservative in favor of giving the federal government the power to choose between the job of an oilfield worker in Texas or a dairy worker in Wisconsin?

    “Fair trade” is nonsense. Let the traders decide for themselves what is or isn’t fair. Don’t expect the government to improve things by getting into that decisionmaking; rather, as history proves, letting the government into that decisionmaking promotes graft and ultimately impoverishes everyone.

    It’s a con job.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  291. So, you wanted to represent a corporation in court, but were prevented by the rules from doing so, is that a correct restatement of your history on this particular point, Mr. Ogden? I just want to be sure I understand. :-)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  292. That is correct, on numerous occasions I wanted to represent my company and was prevented from doing so.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  293. Tell ya what, Mr. Ogden: I don’t really want to quiz you about your personal or business history in more detail, so I’ll let this go with an observation:

    Perhaps if you have a generalized grudge against lawyers, you ought not choose lawyer-written and -frequented blogs to read and comment at, because your grudge may cost you some of the objectivity which, in turn, might make your comments more persuasive.

    FWIW: Were I the Czar, I would probably relax the rules for representation of single-owner corporations and limited liability companies upon a proper showing that the nonlawyer attempting to provide that representation is, in fact, only capable of affecting his own personal economic interests (e.g., a pure single-member pass-through corporation), provided that the owner also waives the protection of the “corporate veil” and assumes personal liability for the corporation’s resulting debts and obligations. I’d treat those, in other words, like an individual appearing in his d/b/a name for a single-owner, unincorporated business.

    If there are co-owners involved, or if there’s any possibility that a creditor may be frustrated by the maintenance of the corporate veil (the limitation on a corporation’s owner(s) personal liability), then no, there must be a lawyer involved, not for the protection of the corporation, but for the protection of other litigants and the avoidance of misuse of the judicial system to perpetrate fraud.

    But I freely concede that’s not the present law in most jurisdictions in the U.S. So vote for me, for Czar.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  294. Why on God’s green earth does anyone who claims to be a conservative in favor of giving the federal government the power to choose between the job of an oilfield worker in Texas or a dairy worker in Wisconsin?

    That is part of the paradox of anarcho*-capitalism in a democratic society. Who is to say that the oilfield worker and the dairy worker should not flex their political muscle to promote what they consider to be their selfish best interest?

    *Meaning without rulers, not sociopathic. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  295. Belmar, I think what Nate is getting at in part and what I think you are not acknowledging is that government is already deeply involved in the “free” economy, and acting like tariffs are something other than just another aspect of that is one dimensional thinking.

    Agriculture is tremendously manipulated by the DoAg for example, and how can an American manufacture compete equally with a Chinese company that doesn’t have OASHA, minimum wage, environmental, and a thousand other government regulatory constrains on them? And then our exports have tariffs on them that theirs don’t?

    Pretty tough, which is why our manufacturing base is disappearing. Tariffs are not a be all end all solution, but they are a tool to be used. Theoretically it would be nice if no one had them. That’s not the reality though.

    lee (ab26cf)

  296. Anarchy capitalism seems am oxymoron, it must exist inside a narrow framework of rules.

    narciso (d1f714)

  297. Beldar… stupid autocorrect.

    lee (ab26cf)

  298. Also @ Mr. Ogden: I’m not entirely unsympathetic to your grudge.

    FYI, in Texas, that rule was previously enforced on corporate defendants even in small claims court. That created an unhealthy dynamic, frankly, an asymmetry in which pro se plaintiffs, operating with no lawyer, could boost the “nuisance value” for a low-dollar quick settlement because even showing up through an attorney meant the corporate defendant had to expend money in legal fees. The rule promoted a cottage industry in low-level extortion, basically.

    In response to that abusive dynamic, and to allow more flexibility for small-business owners, Texas adopted Tex. R. Civ. P. 748a as part of the Rules of Practice in Justice Courts (i.e., small claims courts):

    RULE 500.4. REPRESENTATION IN JUSTICE COURT CASES

    (a) Representation of an Individual. An individual may:

    (1) represent himself or herself;

    (2) be represented by an authorized agent in an eviction case; or

    (3) be represented by an attorney.

    (b) Representation of a Corporation or Other Entity. A corporation or other entity may:

    (1) be represented by an employee, owner, officer, or partner of the entity who is not an
    attorney;

    (2) be represented by a property manager or other authorized agent in an eviction case;
    or

    (3) be represented by an attorney.

    (c ) Assisted Representation. The court may, for good cause, allow an individual representing
    himself or herself to be assisted in court by a family member or other individual who is not
    being compensated.

    I supported this change in the rules for small claims court, which in Texas now extends to disputes for less than $10k. Above that amount, and except in the single-owner pass-through situations I mentioned above in #300, in my judgment, the risks of dispensing with the rule are outweighed by its prophylactic benefits, but reasonable minds could indeed differ.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  299. @ lee, who wrote (#302):

    Bel[d]ar, I think what Nate is getting at in part and what I think you are not acknowledging is that government is already deeply involved in the “free” economy ….”

    No, I acknowledge that it is, and I want to reverse that trend, but Democrats, and unfortunately Donald Trump, don’t. That’s why I’ve been a lifelong conservative, and a lifelong Republican, and that’s why I resent and continue to oppose the attempted hostile takeover of the national GOP by Trump and his protectionism. It’s bad policy and it’s ugly, divisive politics.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  300. 249

    … It is not the proper function of the federal government to pick economic winners and losers; that’s graft and corruption. …

    It is a proper function (at least in my opinion) of the federal government to encourage economic growth. It is hard for me to see how it can do this without picking winners and losers to some extent. A decision to route an interstate highway one way instead of another way will help some economic actors and hurt others. It seems appropriate to pick the route which gives the greatest overall benefit. This is only graft and corruption when the decision is made for improper motives.

    Similarly laws regulating economic activity have winners and losers. Do you oppose all such laws?

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  301. No offense taken when anyone misspells my screenname. It’s concededly, indeed deliberately, ridiculous, the product of a scripting session from college when SNL’s Coneheads were all the rage and my drunk friends & I were trying to figure out who should pretend to be playing Dan Ackroyd’s character. Bill Dyer –> Beldar.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  302. I wouldn’t call it a grudge nor would I consider it wise to avoid things we dislike or even don’t care for. This is one of a few attorney blogs I read and by far the less legally. I enjoyed this blog more when there was more legal discussed.

    Your response is what I would expect from an attorney. I think it ignores the very big issue of justice denied isn’t justice served. I’ve been party to hundreds of lawsuits by the way.

    An example of one that use to drive me nuts, only as it matters to your opinion, we were a closely held C Corp. We administered health plans for employers, majority of the time ERISA Plans. We, as the administrative service privider, not the fiduciary nor plan sponsor, we’re sued frequently in local court, all over the country, by doctors unhappy how we paid the claim. Always small amounts. These claims should have immediately been dismissed or moved to Federal Court, not to mention they sued the wrong party.

    My cost to send an attorney to these far flung places was not reasonable. My cost to find a local attorney to have the case moved or dismissed was also greater than the amount we were being sued for.

    In a logical system the President of the Corporation should be able to communicate with the courts instead of being the victim of lawfare. This isn’t an uncommon problem with our legal system, the government picks winners and losers for the benefit of the system.

    We eventually found a solution, far from capitalistic or efficient and it pissed off some clients.

    I guess in those cases my wealth was transfered to the doctors instead of them creating it.

    By far not my worse case of the ban on corporate pro se, just the most common and one in conflict with your solution.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  303. It depends on the laws, Mr. Shearer (#307). In general I want the government’s involvement in commerce to be as minimal as possible, but any particular law must be examined individually to determine whether its benefits are real, legitimate, and important enough to abridge economic liberty. Tariffs don’t come remotely close to that; they are the opposite of that, because they’re not about promoting the entire economy, but rather, particular participants in it. I don’t want President Trump to run the national government in a way that makes me rich. I want it to get the hell out of the way so that I can get rich, if I can manage it, in a free market in wealth-creating voluntary transactions.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  304. Thanks for the TX info, I use to be much more into the issue and knew there was an effort by some to change the laws. I sold out most of my businesses so I focus my energies elsewhere now.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  305. 283

    “Theft, manipulation, slavery, collusion, monopolies, regulated markets and many other non willing transactions, ” don’t create wealth, they transfer it.

    Theft generally doesn’t create wealth but slavery often created wealth. Maybe it didn’t distribute it fairly but it created it. Similarly monopolies and regulated markets often create wealth.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  306. Natural resources and labor create wealth. Everything else is merely part of the process. And that’s not Karl Marx. That’s John Locke.

    nk (dbc370)

  307. 313 Should we protect and retain our natural resources then?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  308. No, I acknowledge that it is, and I want to reverse that trend, but Democrats, and unfortunately Donald Trump, don’t.

    That’s not true. Trump has cut regulation, passed tax cuts, withdrew from the climate change nonsense, relieved the energy sector (most notably the coal industry), approved the Keystone pipeline, and expanded oil exploration, and more. He’s done tons to help the economy by relieving business from government intervention.

    I resent and continue to oppose the attempted hostile takeover of the national GOP by Trump and his protectionism. It’s bad policy and it’s .

    Not to be insulting, but I’m thinking when you’re part of the resistance to the duly elected president, ugly, divisive politics is your bread and butter.

    lee (ab26cf)

  309. An example of where free trade fails;

    ” China has dominated rare earth mining since the 1990s, extracting 85 to 95 percent of the world’s REEs from large clay deposits in the country’s south. When China cut back sharply on REE exports in 2010, it triggered a global price spike, exposing the superpower’s monopolistic grip on materials that are critical to dozens of high-tech industries.

    Now a Chinese-led coalition threatens to further tighten control of the rare earths trade with the purchase of the only operational REE mine in America. The Mountain Pass Mine in the California desert south of Las Vegas was a powerhouse producer of REEs from 1965 to 1985, at which point China took over global production and never looked back. Mountain Pass was shuttered from 2002 to 2012 because it couldn’t compete with the low prices coming out of China. After a brief revival from 2012 to 2015, Mountain Pass closed for good in 2016 and its owner, Molycorp, filed for bankruptcy.

    This past June, an investor group with alleged ties to the Chinese government bought the mine for $20.5 million, beating out American bidders including entrepreneur Tom Clarke of ERP Strategic Minerals.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  310. How does theft “sometimes” create wealth?

    How does the institution of slavery, as opposed to workers (whether employed or slave labor), create wealth?

    How do monopolies or regulated entities create wealth, as opposed to using the monopoly or regulations to prevent others from competing?

    I understand someone gets wealthy in these instances, but the vehicles themselves don’t create wealth.

    DRJ (15874d)

  311. 313 Should we protect and retain our natural resources then?

    ? Well, we could mine them out of the ground and smelt them ourselves, or buy what the Chinese mined out of the ground and smelted. If the second, what would we use to buy them with?

    nk (dbc370)

  312. Ugh, cut off the last of that blockquote, the main of which I was responding to.

    Oh well, I think y’all got it.

    lee (ab26cf)

  313. Tariffs aren’t the only answer to scarcity. Scarcity can lead to technological advances like synthetic rubber.

    DRJ (15874d)

  314. “Well, we could mine them out of the ground and smelt them ourselves, or buy what the Chinese mined out of the ground and smelted.“

    They who smelt it must dealt it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  315. I’m fond of the shrimp raised on Kaui

    mg (9e54f8)

  316. lee wrote (#315):

    Trump has cut regulation, passed tax cuts, withdrew from the climate change nonsense, relieved the energy sector (most notably the coal industry), approved the Keystone pipeline, and expanded oil exploration, and more. He’s done tons to help the economy by relieving business from government intervention.

    So stipulated. But now he’s doing the opposite — he’s starting an international trade war that will not be good or easy, and that will raise taxes, increase regulation, and depress our economy. And that’s the topic for today, and of this post: tariffs. What he’s doing on tariffs is wildly inconsistent with what he’s done elsewhere, which is to get the federal government out of the way.

    I actually don’t think that Trump is in the pocket of, for example, the Wisconsin dairy-farm owners. I think he’s identifies that particular example of a very high and protectionist Canadian tax on its own citizens as an issue that he can use to promote tribalistic support from the economically illiterate. That it’s ugly politics doesn’t mean it’s ineffective politics. I regret that the GOP historically fell prey to that protectionist instinct, and I regret Trump’s return to it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  317. Theft generally doesn’t create wealth but slavery often created wealth.

    As compared to a free market? Is that why the price of cotton went down after slavery ended in the U.S.?

    This is like saying Communism created wealth because, hey, things were created under Communism. The observation is brilliant — that is, until you compare the terrible system (slavery or Communism) to a more efficient and better system. Once you do that, your profound observation looks….less profound.

    To put it mildly.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  318. @ lee: I don’t deny that Trump was duly and legally elected, and I support his actions that deserve support — even though I think he’s an unfit occupant of the office and someone for whom I’ll never vote, ever, for anything. I don’t think that makes me a member of the resistance, and I’ve never so described or considered myself. So I disagree with that characterization; I read it as more carping that I’m insufficiently worshipful of the cult leader.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  319. Of course, understanding things like this is easier with a grounding in the theory.

    ELITISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1!!!!!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  320. @ lee: I don’t deny that Trump was duly and legally elected, and I support his actions that deserve support — even though I think he’s an unfit occupant of the office and someone for whom I’ll never vote, ever, for anything. I don’t think that makes me a member of the resistance, and I’ve never so described or considered myself. So I disagree with that characterization; I read it as more carping that I’m insufficiently worshipful of the cult leader.

    I agree with every word.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  321. “support from the economically illiterate.”

    Wanting to feed your family and put a roof over their head makes one illiterate?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  322. Who doesn’t love dairy farmers and their cute cows that they only kill when they get old?

    DRJ (15874d)

  323. People getting hurt by tariffs just want to feed their families and put roofs over their heads, too. Why do you want the government to hurt them, Nate?

    DRJ (15874d)

  324. I read it as more carping that I’m insufficiently worshipful of the cult leader.

    Of course you do.

    lee (ab26cf)

  325. Beldar, I’d vote for you for Czar anytime.

    Problem is, I don’t think you’d want the job. And the kind of guy who would want the job of Czar, I wouldn’t trust with it.

    gwjd (62b1c4)

  326. “Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets — free trade. I, like you, recognize the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations… I believe that if trade is not fair for all, then trade is free in name only. I will not stand by and watch American businesses fail because of unfair trading practices abroad. I will not stand by and watch American workers lose their jobs because other nations do not play by the rules.”

    —- President Ronald Reagan, in a speech to business leaders in 1985

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  327. By the way, beldar, DRJ, what do you think of our host saying Trump “superfans” want to ingest Trumps body fluids?

    Just curious.

    Can’t wait to see tomorrow’s bible passage.

    lee (ab26cf)

  328. I thought it was a metaphor, a technique used often in literature including the Bible.

    DRJ (15874d)


  329. Matt Fuller
    @MEPFuller
    Excited to see if Croatia can do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t.
    __ _

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    Visit Wisconsin?
    __ _

    Pete Kidder
    @PeteKidder
    Replying to @MEPFuller
    Turn over 33,000 subpoenaed emails?
    __ _

    Herpty Derp
    @herpty_derpty
    Replying to @redsteeze
    Accept Defeat?

    —-

    harkin (fabd28)

  330. I thought it was a metaphor

    Of course you did.

    lee (ab26cf)

  331. I don’t think Trump fans or anyone would want to eat soup with his urine, but it’s not what I think that matters. Trump thinks his fans would do anything for him, including vote for him even if he shot someone.

    DRJ (15874d)

  332. Eating soup with his urine seems quite mild compared to that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  333. Re: Canadian milk tariffs:

    The report estimates that in 2015, the support granted to U.S dairy producers represented approximately C$35.02/hectolitre – the equivalent of 73% of the farmers’ marketplace revenue. USDA data also reveals that US dairy farmers operate at a loss, and have a cost of production that is higher than what they earn from the marketplace. In fact, the difference between the U.S national average farm-gate price received by farmers, and the U.S. national average costs of production, in every year from 2005-2016, represents a loss to the farmer. Clearly, the ability of processors to purchase milk at prices below the costs of production offers a significant competitive advantage to the American dairy industry.

    http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/american-dairy-farmers-depend-on-government-subsidies-1015126442

    Tariffs are only half the picture.

    Davethulhu (270006)

  334. Off to dinner with my adult kids & ex. This has been a generally civil discussion, for which I thank the participants.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  335. That sounds nice, Beldar. Hope it’s steak!

    DRJ (15874d)

  336. 40. And, as far as you following me from thread to thread, demanding that I answer your stupid question, it’s not going to happen. I said what I had to say. You answering with a one word question, “Why?” is not what I call meaningful engagement and I’m not going to waste my time with it.

    On further reflection, Anon, I should say “thank you”. Since it’s well within bounds to ask someone to explain himself, your bad-faith reply was itself an answer to my question, and it better clarifies whom to interact with here and whom not, and offers quite the glimpse into your character. And absent your explaining yourself, I’ll take your comment to Patrick…

    I do believe he [Ahmadinejad] would endorse this piece by Patterico.

    …as bad faith as well. Thanks for saving my time. Much appreciated.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  337. Forget the soup.

    DRJ (15874d)

  338. I thought it was a metaphor, a technique used often in literature including the Bible.

    Beldar can use your help, DRJ.

    http://patterico.com/2018/07/03/u-s-president-donald-trump-it-is-bad-to-have-u-s-citizens-from-iran/#comment-2134163

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  339. Off to dinner with my adult kids & ex. This has been a generally civil discussion, for which I thank the participants.

    Not on my part. I got angry because Kevin M described my views as sociopathic, and at the general level of cultlike defense of Trump from others, which always sets me off. I think I needed the long walk I just took (in uncharacteristically high Southern California heat, which actually made the dog lie down in the shade for a few minutes halfway through) and will benefit from the meditation and prayer I am about to undertake. Apologies to all for letting my pique get to me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  340. On my way out, since I just saw it:

    lee, I’ve seen in my law practice that desperate, dying people are sometimes tricked into paying for a supposed cancer drug distilled from human urine directly into their bloodstream via a subclavian catheter.

    I read Patterico to be engaged in satire and exaggeration for humorous effect with his reference.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  341. Yes that was a poor choice of words, when you’re dealing with two perhaps three economic blocs that use state power to secure their posterity, economic disarmament is not recommended.

    Narciso (adc024)

  342. 317

    How does theft “sometimes” create wealth?

    When the thief puts the stolen item to better use than the legal owner. Of course this is unusual and it is far more common for theft to destroy value. As for example when a thief crashes a stolen car. Or a thief does thousands of dollars of damage in order to steal copper wire worth a hundred dollars.

    How does the institution of slavery, as opposed to workers (whether employed or slave labor), create wealth?

    I am not sure what distinction you are making here. I am saying enterprises employing slaves can be creating wealth. Perhaps they could be creating even more wealth if they were organized differently.

    How do monopolies or regulated entities create wealth, as opposed to using the monopoly or regulations to prevent others from competing?

    Suppose you have a monopoly based on a patent. In order to profit from the patent you must create wealth by producing a product that you can sell for more than the value of your inputs. Perhaps even more wealth would be created if you had competitors but you are still creating wealth.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  343. Well apple and Microsoft operating system. Zuckerbergs misappropriated patent from the vinklevossi.

    Narciso (adc024)

  344. “I read Patterico to be engaged in satire and exaggeration for humorous effect with his reference.”

    Beldar (fa637a) — 7/7/2018 @ 4:20 pm

    Another reminder of which profession Beldar chose…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  345. DRJ, 338. So, generous with the metaphors, stingy with the hyperbole.

    Sure there’s not a little bigotry involved there?

    lee (ab26cf)

  346. Trumpkins swallow everything Trump offers them, there’s no secret about that.

    nk (dbc370)

  347. I’m willing to stop if you’ll retract your “sociopathic” comment and apologize for it.

    I am sorry that I appended “sociopathic” and “libertarian” in a way that could be construed as reflecting your thinking as “sociopathic.” We’ve met several times and you are clearly no sociopath.

    However, my takeaway from years working in the Libertarian vineyards, is that libertarianism is cold to the very individuals it supposes to adore. It sees no role for the state in protecting the stupid, the weak, the infirm or the unlucky from the collateral damage of the marketplace. Again, this isn’t theory, this is my own two eyes and listening to many of the individuals in the Party at the time.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  348. And now, in view of pattericos 346, I’ll drop the matter entirely. Good how sir.

    lee (ab26cf)

  349. At times we have to remember JUST how limited raw text is as a form of communication. No facial expressions, no body language, no indication at all as to tone. It’s easy to read something, particularly something short, differently than intended.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  350. show, sir!…

    lee (ab26cf)

  351. Classical liberalism and the free market were around a LONG time before some party I never mentioned in this post. Stop changing the subject.

    Missed this. To me, since my education in libertarian thought was tightly coupled with the LP of the 80’s and 90’s, they are interchangeable. I accept that this isn’t the case today, since the LP has gone off several deep ends since.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  352. That’s a good point. It doesn’t seem like Trump thinks government should solve the IP problem.

    Which is moronic, if true, as IP cannot exist outside of a legal framework. Unlike real property, or even food, you cannot both market and defend intellectual property in a state of nature. It’s not all that easy even when governments “secure” IP rights. E.g. torrents.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  353. 259… my wife has been cooking with those TJ shrimp for a while now. They are very tasty!

    Yeah, they claim they are like lobster and honestly they’re not far off.

    TJ’s Argentinian red shrimp, sauteed in a little oil and garlic, over rice with some drawn butter… fabulous.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  354. This is why doing business in Cuba or China is a joke, and as with russia…

    Narciso (3535e2)

  355. In regards to Canada last year or year before they wiped out our milk derivative exports to them, we can’t put tarrifs on those milk products because they don’t import to us, what would you suggest doing?

    It’s helpful to have a little perspective on our trade relationship with the Canuckistanians.

    The meeting’s central disagreements were over tariffs that Trump has imposed for false reasons. He claims that he’s merely responding to other countries. But the average current tariff of the United States, Britain, Germany and France is identical, according to the World Bank: 1.6 percent. Japan’s is 1.4 percent, and Canada’s is 0.8 percent. Yes, every country has a few objectionable tariffs, but they’re small–and the United States is not a victim here.
    So Trump isn’t telling the truth about trade, much as he has lied about Barack Obama’s birthplace, his own position on the Iraq War, his inauguration crowd, voter fraud, the murder rate, Mexican immigrants, the Russian investigation, the Stormy Daniels hush money and several hundred other subjects. The tariffs aren’t a case of his identifying a real problem but describing it poorly. He is threatening the Atlantic alliance over a lie.
    If you need more evidence, look at his tweets after leaving the summit. Close readers of Trump’s Twitter feed (and I don’t envy that title) have learned that he often accuses others of committing his own sins. On Saturday, he called Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, “very dishonest.”

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  356. In the spirit of 353…

    Q: What do you get when you cross a blonde with a lawyer?

    A: You get a blow job that won’t stop until blood is drawn.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  357. #259

    My wife cooks a scampi with fresh pasta and what seems like a lot of parsley and garlic, but it evens out nicely. The thing that sets it off is her mixture of finely chopped peanuts, chili flakes and olive oil that she uses as a condiment to mix in (with a light touch) just before serving.
    If you want more spice, she leaves it on the table.

    One year I almost burned the house down (fire box was cracked and created a bit of a “flue”) and my wife made the fire house down the street this dish plus her banana bread. They were very appreciative… of my wife… me, not so much.
    I’m used to it though

    steveg (a9dcab)

  358. Lucky me, my wife is using the TJ shrimp… very sweet… right now to make a shrimp fettuccine. She is one helluva chef!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  359. 364… btw… that pasta dish sounds absolutely delicious, Steve!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  360. DRJ, 338. So, generous with the metaphors, stingy with the hyperbole.

    Do you think Patterico literally meant his statement as much as Trump literally meant his?

    DRJ (15874d)

  361. Smoking Hatch green chili stuffed sausage.
    Know your Butcher!!

    mg (9e54f8)

  362. Lucky me, my wife is using the TJ shrimp… very sweet… right now to make a shrimp fettuccine. She is one helluva chef!

    You are lucky. I had to have the shrimp on their own, on account of the carbs.

    Patterico (33f66d)

  363. If Trump were serious or honest about lowering or eliminating Canadian tariffs on US dairy, then he would’ve jumped on board and joined the TPP, which would’ve accomplished exactly that.

    The deal allows signatories to send an increasing amount of dairy products to Canada over the next two decades — with zero tariffs. That includes milk, cream, butter, cheese and ice cream, among other products.
    “The US would have enjoyed these benefits had it not decided to exit the original TPP deal,” said Christophe Bondy, a trade negotiation expert and special counsel at law firm Cooley.
    Another recent free trade deal is opening up Canada’s market to cheese from the European Union.
    By 2022, the amount of tariff-free European cheese that will be allowed into Canada will reach 16 million kilos — the weight equivalent of 78 Statues of Liberty.

    And joining this partnership would’ve given us trade leverage against China. Trump has been going about this completely ass backward, and this backasswardness only confirms that the GOP is the Party of Pat Buchanan, not Reagan.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  364. I’ll tell my wife. This is the only condiment she’ll use for spice as a sub for eating a couple serranos per meal… bite of serrano, bite of scampi, repeat. makes my eyes water just to watch and I grew up eating jalapenos, serranos. She’s tougher than me by a long shot. When I ask her how she does some tough thing like riding her bike up to Reagans ranch up at the top of Refugio Canyon after not riding in over two years at 60 years old and two hip replacements, she just answers some variation of “I’m Mexican”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  365. 372… the fettuccine was delicious, but now it will be back to the drudgery of calorie counting.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  366. Try counting the calories you’ve exercised rather than what you ate…

    My wife got her toughness from her mom. they were never close, but her mom who like her daughter was 5′ 3″ and 115lbs of rawhide soaking wet got hit by a truck crossing the street in Mexico. Broke ribs, her legs etc… and she got mad. “I’ll show that SOB what happens when he runs over a Mexican woman….” Then she moved to La Paz and got beaten to death in La Paz at 78… I’d almost guarantee that up until that last gasp when she realized she was done, her last thoughts were “fuck you”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  367. It Doesn’t appear to be much flexibility:https://www.ft.com/content/b5a4bdba-ea90-3d46-b34c-ac01241621db

    narciso (d1f714)

  368. Everything in moderation, Col.

    mg (9e54f8)

  369. @ steveg: Your wife sounds very formidable. Congrats to you both.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  370. Thank you

    As you can tell, I admire the heck out of her (love her too)

    steveg (a9dcab)

  371. 376… yeah, I try to fast walk 2 miles a day, Steve. Seeing how little that burns off and how many calories one lousy donut has tells me I need to avoid donuts, bagels, etc.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  372. On June 12, immediately after reading the joint statement released by both governments after the Trump-Kim summit in Singapore, I wrote, in a comment here:

    Madelyn Albright at least got a glass of champagne, without having to buy the bottle for her hosts. We’ve just paid for Kim to have a luxury vacation, during which we’ve transformed him into an international rock star.

    Trump’s just given Kim and the Norks the most spectacular propaganda coup in the history of their nasty little country, and turned the Dear Leader into the Respected Leader, in exchange for which it appears that we may, perhaps, get a handful of magic beans some very old bones.

    To which Rackin’-Frackin’ Rootin-Tootin’ Dysphoria Sam replied:

    Oh, Beldar’s mad that we GOT THE REMAINS OF THE WAR DEAD back, I see, yeah, screw those sentimental military families whose requests for these things gets in the way of Qaddafi Part II.

    Followed immediately by:

    I have never seen anyone achieve that combination of utterly callous ghoulishness and rank analytic incompetence that Beldar just demonstrated outside of talking to British leftists about the First and Second amendments.

    I responded:

    They’ve promised even this paltry cooperation before, Sam, repeatedly:
    Operation Glory (and other returns): As required by the Armistice, both sides made an effort to return war dead during September through November of 1954. The Chinese and North Koreans provided a total of 4,167 containers, with an estimated 4,219 human remains, of whom 2,944 are known or believed to be Americans. Generalizing, the figures presented in the slide are “net,” after identifications from these returns have been deducted. This is also true of unilateral remains turnovers by the North Koreans in 1990-94 and in 2007, and our own recovery work in North Korea from 1996-2005.

    You can make up words to insult POW/MIA families and pretend here that I said or wrote them, but what that boils down to is you making up words to insult POW/MIA families. I didn’t say or write them.

    But I will say that another empty, equivocal, toothless Nork promise about war remains is hardly the “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” that the WH has been promoting as the goal posts for the last two weeks.

    Trump’s a sucker, a chump, a dupe, a mark. He’s just been outplayed on the world stage by a complete rookie. There’s no there there. They didn’t even bring in mirrors to make the smoke look thicker.

    And now it turns out: Even the promise about the old bones were (again) another lie:

    Another potential stumbling block is the repatriation of U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War between 1950-1953.

    Mr. Trump told a rally in Minnesota on June 21 that the transfer of more than 200 sets of remains had already taken place, as per the summit agreement. But weeks later, Defense Department officials were still waiting for the promised remains at the border with empty coffins and no explanation for the delay.

    When asked about the remains on Saturday, Mr. Pompeo demurred on a timeline for the repatriation, saying the Defense Department would meet the North Koreans for a discussion about the process on July 12.

    “The repatriation of remains will take place at the border and that process will begin to develop over the days that follow,” he said.

    Trump’s a big sucker. What a maroon!

    ^^^ (Beldar’s best Flatbush Avenue Bugs Bunny voice.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  373. @ steveg: I can tell, which is why I said congrats to you both. :-)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  374. Ay-yay-yay, sorry about the subject/verb disagreement in #383. Even the promise about the old bones was (again) another a lie.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  375. @ DRJ: Not steaks, but take-out Tex-Mex from a family-run joint nearby whose owner was a former Ninfa’s franchisee. She’s a friend & occasional client. We had beef & chicken fajitas in pechuga gravy, refried beans, corn & flour tortillas, pico de gayo, and queso flameado (a melted cheese/choriso sausage mixture that our family refers to as the “heart attack on a tortilla”). Plus frozen margaritas.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  376. *pico de gallo, sorry. Don’t get it in your eye-oh.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  377. Oh, and guacamole, not on toast.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  378. You mean like the money that Albright arranged that went to pay aq Khans network who btw were also on the way to Libya.

    Narciso (052f51)

  379. 373 Paul, your link appears to be missing some context;

    “If the United States wants increased access to Canada, it should rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership that granted a 3.25 per cent quota that was expected to be filled mainly by the U.S., said Dairy Farmers of Ontario CEO Graham Lloyd.”

    “More than 15 per cent the Canadian dairy market will be opened to imports with the implementation of TPP. That includes 10 per cent from trade deals in the 1990s and two per cent as part of the Canada-Europe trade deal.”

    Hardly sounds like free trade when you not only have a quota but it’s only 15%.

    Would those opposed to tariffs be OK with quotas?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  380. Nate, you didn’t provide a link but I found it, and what’s notable is the following paragraph you left out.

    “The TPP is the vehicle that they should be going to,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “They shouldn’t be looking for NAFTA to gain access to the dairy market.”

    Some access without tariffs is better than none, which is an argument for TPP and NAFTA, not against. And what’s more, once part of that agreement, there is opportunity to negotiate more access within that framework. Taking that approach is not glamorous and it takes work, but it is a way for allies to work together. But instead, Trump pissed all over TPP and threatened tariffs without a real plan for an agreement. It’s classic Trump, i.e., shallow, stupid and short-sighted. Yeah, he sounds like a hardass, which makes his unquestioning base happy, but he’s going to accomplish diddly because he pissed off a longstanding ally and shredded any political capital and goodwill that he might’ve had. And the sad part is the US has a trade surplus with Canada, our 2nd largest trading partner.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  381. “Can’t we all just get along?” http://americandigest.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/5b3a588a53565.jpeg

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  382. Waimea Butcher makes sausage that is Mighty tasty.

    mg (9e54f8)

  383. @393

    Haiku falls for fake news again

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/duct-tape-antifa/

    Davethulhu (270006)

  384. mr mg

    Sounds great. One of these days Ima come visit my son and swing by and sit a spell.

    If you want that sausage cooked just right add some Dragonfire: Queen

    Pinandpuller (6632cd)

  385. Patterico, The logic is consistent as I understand it.

    The current system is unfair to the USA.
    Other countries take advantage of the USA.
    To address this unfairness either their tariffs must be lowered or US tariffs must be raised.

    Not saying it’s true or in our own best interest but it’s a consistent viewpoint.

    I’d add that from what I observe “fairness” is very important to trump supporters.
    Trump talks about fairness frequently but based on context he appears to feel anything not to his advantage is unfair.

    I’d also add that causing any change could be characterized as winning. Winning is another inherent good for Trump.

    Additionally the unfairness he seems most concerned about in for industries in swing states.

    Joe (7cfd07)

  386. Anytime the waters great, pinandpuller. And the locally grown food is incredible

    mg (9e54f8)

  387. 395… that is funny that snopes would check an obvious parody out, Cthulhu.

    Thanks for the early morning chuckle!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  388. Just remember Pat, if you ever feel the need to apologize for being/acting upset when other people are jerks, you’re human. Christ-like forgiveness is the ideal to which we all should aspire, but we will often fall short.

    Besides, Jesus himself whipped bankers and overturned their tables. 😉

    Gryph (55b787)

  389. 392 Paul, I quoted facts from the article, your quoting an opinion, one I and many others disagree with.

    You do seem to confirm Trump is right to open up NAFTA and demand it be renegotiated.

    And no thanks on signing bad trade deals and hoping to fix them once in place, we have been sold that BS going back to letting China into WTO, which they still haven’t lived up to.

    I love how people like you always expect the US to take the hit up front with empty promises of it could get better in return. If Canada was a good trade partner they wouldn’t have implemented the new filtered milk scheme. They never negotiated it, they went and did what was in their best interest but when the US does the same we are the bad guy.

    Time will prove you wrong and his base will be sure to remind you of all these attacks you have made.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  390. https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/agriculture/trudeau-has-billions-of-reasons-to-dig-in-against-trump-on-dairy

    I’m guessing the anti Trump crowd would claim these quotas and tariffs transfered wealth instead of creating it?

    “Trudeau is digging in for a variety of reasons, including the financial fallout. Canada’s protected dairy system caps production to avoid oversupply and maintain stable prices for farmers. Permits to sell within supply management’s cap, known as quota, have grown in value and are now worth $35 billion (US$26 billion), with about $30 billion in dairy specifically. Farmers use quota as collateral, and total farm debt across Canada amounts to $102 billion — nearly one-third of it lent through a federal agency.”

    Prior to Uber mucking it up, did NYC cab medallions create or transfer wealth?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  391. And yet they still whine about the rosenbergs

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/americas_junk_weapons

    Bridge at toko ri made this vividly clear

    Narciso (18c1a5)

  392. More money for the same amount of product is not economic growth, which is what wealth creation means to me. We can always print more money but that is not economic growth. Real growth is producing more products for consumers. Canada’s dairy system means there is less production of milk for consumers, not more, and that decrease in supply is why it costs consumers more money to buy the same thing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  393. Yet trudeau hangs on to it like a teddy bear, of course there is a scale problem but it isn’t brought up with health care is it.

    Narciso (18c1a5)

  394. Making one group of people more wealthy by requiring consumers to pay more for the same products is not creating wealth. It is transferring wealth from one group, consumers, to another group, producers. It would be different if producers produced more milk to get paid more. IMO that would be creating wealth.

    DRJ (15874d)

  395. You do seem to confirm Trump is right to open up NAFTA and demand it be renegotiated.

    I would say that you’re drawing the wrong conclusions from the facts, Nate. Trump seeks to have separate agreements with Mexico and Canada, which would blow up NAFTA. Anyways, thanks for the “people like you” comment. Like with a couple of others, it’s always helpful to whom not to waste time conversing with.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  396. …helpful to know whom…

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  397. On trade wars from a conservative economist.
    To be clear, trade wars are still a mistake, most of all when directed against one’s allies. But it’s worth thinking more clearly about what the final costs might or might not be.
    Another factor I only mentioned in passing is currency adjustment. The dollar has been relatively strong this year. One hypothesis (unconfirmed) is that prospective tariffs strengthen the dollar, but of course that it turns gives back some of the supposed gains on the export side. And many of you already know the standard result that if a country subsidizes its exports and taxes its imports, the exchange rate adjusts to make the policy more or less neutral. There are lots of moving pieces here, and it may in fact be hard for an under-informed government to even get the trade war it wants.
    From a liberal economist.

    So in today’s world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising costs for downstream producers of domestic goods. True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you’re afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn’t be getting into a trade war in the first place.
    But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods. Chad Bown and colleagues have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production:
    Is there a strategy here? It’s hard to see one. There’s certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.

    As a pundit, Krugman is a political hack, but as an economist, he knows a thing or two. And finally, from The Economist.

    Surveys of China’s manufacturing sector have pointed to falling export orders. Mr Trump could take all this as evidence that he was right when he tweeted that trade wars would be easy for America to win.
    In that, though, he would be mistaken. The turbulence in China reflects domestic challenges more than trade tensions. The hit to growth from the $34bn-worth of tariffs is likely to be minuscule, adding up to just about 0.1% of Chinese GDP. Depictions of China as a trade-reliant economy are hopelessly outdated: net exports account for just 2% of national income.
    Instead, the bigger cause of China’s market turmoil is homegrown. After a rapid build-up of debt over the past decade, officials have been working to defuse financial risks. This has depressed demand for both equities and corporate bonds. Slower credit growth has weighed on liquidity. Capital spending has slowed sharply. Adding to the gloom was a report published by the National Institute for Finance and Development, a government-backed think-tank, on June 25th, warning that China was “very likely to see a financial panic”. The institute’s head later clarified that he believed the government could manage the risks. But jittery investors latched onto his warning, not his reassurance.
    Yet seen from a different angle, China’s market troubles demonstrate one of the reasons why its officials think they can outlast America in a trade war. An authoritarian regime can limit and dictate the public discussion. After the stockmarket tumbled, authorities warned journalists against citing the trade conflict as an explanation, according to a directive published by the China Digital Times, a website that tracks government censorship. Reporters were also ordered to emphasise the economy’s bright spots. In America, meanwhile, the hurly-burly of its public discourse has been on display. On July 2nd the US Chamber of Commerce, the country’s biggest business group, launched a lobbying campaign to explain how tariffs would hurt the economy. Republican lawmakers in Congress are criticising the president’s trade policies more openly than heretofore—though on past form, if Mr Trump pushes ahead, they will probably fall into line.
    Another source of confidence for China is the knowledge that it is not fighting America alone. From steel tariffs on Japan to threats of auto tariffs on Europe and negotiations that might wreck the North American Free-Trade Agreement, Mr Trump is taking on every one of America’s allies. China has tried to rally them to its side. It has asked the European Union to join it in condemning Mr Trump’s trade actions, according to Reuters (the EU declined because of its own trade grievances against China). Even as it raised tariffs on soyabeans from America, it removed them from soyabeans from India, South Korea and others in Asia. Xi Jinping, China’s president, has hinted that its markets will become more open to non-American firms.

    This bears repeating, Trump’s “strategy”, if you can call it one, is hardly thought out, only serving to roil markets on some vague, nebulous bet that he could negotiate something better.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  398. Switching gears a little, Rep. Ron Johnson (R-Ghhh) spent his 4th of July in Moscow (which is somehow symbolic of his agenda), trying to appease Putin. If Johnson were a Democrat and if this were the Obama administration, conservatives would be calling Johnson anti-American for that stunt. (Since the abrupt dismissal of Ms. Wright and others, RedState traffic has taken a hit.)
    Across the pond, Brexit financier Arron Banks met with Putineers eleven times as part of his Putin-appeasing, anti-British agenda.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  399. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/devin_nunes_looks_ready_to_dismantle_deep_state.html

    Narciso,

    you really need to work on your copy/pasta *sic* skills.

    I can only find and fix about half the bad links you post. Just take a moment to be sure you copy the entire address. Thanks in advance.

    NJRob (b00189)

  400. 410 “under-informed government” I love how people who support a 3+ decade failed policy feel in the position to question and insult those that wish to try something besides failure. Keep your failure, if you like it that much, the rest of us are going another direction.

    “So in today’s world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods,” Talk about ill informed, look at the failure of tariffs on Samsung and the other Chinese appliance maker. They can move production around these days quicker than the US can apply tariffs. The same thing happened with galvanized steel, China sent the rolled steel to Vietnam for final processing and avoided the tariffs. It’s like your arguments never leave the academic theory stage, we have real world results to show these ideas don’t work but you cling to your models worse than we cling to our bibles and guns.

    “Is there a strategy here? It’s hard to see one. There’s certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.”

    So the same economist that have been wrong for 30+ years can’t see it, great, that tells me we are on the right path and are more likely to be successful.

    “As a pundit, Krugman is a political hack, but as an economist, he knows a thing or two.” How to be wrong would be one and two how to get paid handsomely doing it. As it applies to economics he is a tool with far more failure than success.

    We are obviously not going to agree but Trump won and change is happening. You can root against it or enjoy his continued success.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  401. Paul Krugman and Economist(short version, the quarter in my pocket is more accurate);

    https://mises.org/library/fact-checking-paul-krugmans-claim-be-right-about-everything

    “Thus wrote the great Paul Krugman. A man so modest as to proclaim that “I think I can say without false modesty, a huge win; I (and those of like mind) have been right about everything.”

    Quite a claim. Indeed, predictions are extraordinarily difficult. Even to an expert in a subject who has dedicated his life to a field of study, predicting the future proves elusive. Daniel Kahneman referenced a study of 284 political and economic “experts” and their predictions and found that “The results were devastating. The experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned equal probabilities to each of three potential outcomes.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  402. https://mises.org/library/origins-welfare-state-america-1

    Interesting argument that we are in fact a welfare State and not a capitalistic market with a safety net, with a compelling argument for why we are a growing welfare state. A fun exercise would be to try and come up with transactions the government is not involved in. If government is party to every transaction you will never have pure supply and demand market.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  403. So is your new argument that we should stop trying to be capitalists, Nate 415, and embrace the corrupt cronyism? I think Trump can do that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  404. Can I just outsource my commenting to you DRJ since you are just making it up anyways?

    Interesting word choice though, “stop trying to be capitalists”, have we really been trying? Prior to Trump’s slaughter of regulation what has the GOP done capitalistic? They have talked a good game when asking for votes, but what have they actually done? Thinking back through my 25 years of voting I can think of lots of less anti capitalistic laws(than what Democrats where pushing) but nothing purely or even close to capitalistic.

    The courts have struck a number of victories for capitalism, all the more reason to celebrate Trump going forward, that is where most victories will probably come from.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  405. 402

    Prior to Uber mucking it up, did NYC cab medallions create or transfer wealth?

    The cab medallions were a form of wealth. However if NYC didn’t already have a medallion system instituting one would destroy value. The wealth created in the form of medallions would be outweighed by the value lost by others (drivers and riders). Similarly getting rid of the medallion system will have a long run overall benefit. There will of course be losers.

    There is also a second order effect in that if you have too many disruptive changes occurring too rapidly (even if each one can be justified individually) this can cause people to lose faith in the system as a whole and this has can have negative effects that out weigh the benefits.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  406. I believe there’s still a pending question, which I renew to all Trump supporters:

    When has the United States ever won a trade war? We’ve had several, most notoriously, the tariffs imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Act.

    But if they’re good and easy to win, surely we’ve won at least one, right? So … name it! Please provide one or more links.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  407. You sounded pessimistic about capitalism, Nate, as if you have given up. Did I misunderstand? If so, please tell me what you want Trump to do. Do tariffs help capitalism?

    DRJ (15874d)

  408. Plus, I’,m not sure what capitalist laws look like. Making laws to promote specific interests is the antithesis of free market capitalism.

    I agree that reducing regulations are good and I am glad Trump is doing that, but he isn’t the only GOP President to do that. Reagan and the Bushes did, too, although Bush 43’s efforts were offset by the increase in 9/11-related security regulations.

    DRJ (15874d)

  409. 418 James, “There is also a second order effect in that if you have too many disruptive changes occurring too rapidly (even if each one can be justified individually) this can cause people to lose faith in the system as a whole and this has can have negative effects that out weigh the benefits.”

    What if your baseline measure is a lack of faith in the system? Can it work the other way where excessive change, even if unjustified, can restore faith with a net positive benefit? What immediately comes to mind is when governments fall, a dissatisfied populous has enough and demands immediate change. Seldom are these well thought out events and usually are full of negatives like rioting and looting, but it’s enough to fuel the change.

    A large segment of America views things as being in a terrible place, the election of Trump was asking for disruption, his election has restored faith. This could explain the positive stock markets, consumer sentiment, and all the other positive measures our learned experts and betters keep telling us wouldn’t, couldn’t, and shopuldn’t happen. While it is easy to find fault with many specific actions the outcome as a whole has been amazing.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  410. Beldar, are you going to define what qualifies as a trade war up front or wait until your given an example then claim it doesn’t qualify? What is the definition of victory? Outright reversal of an outcome or does victory include a less bad negative outcome. Your question is very lawyerly, you can claim victory no matter the answer.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  411. I agree that reducing regulations are good and I am glad Trump is doing that, but he isn’t the only GOP President to do that. Reagan and the Bushes did, too

    Interesting. Back when conservatives were defending W. on the 2008 crash, conservative pundits were arguing differently.

    On July 31, 2002, declaring that free markets must not be “a financial free-for-all guided only by greed,” he signed the Sarbanes-Oxley law, a sweeping overhaul of corporate fraud, securities, and accounting laws. Among its many tough provisions, the law created a new regulatory agency to oversee public accounting firms and auditors, and imposed an array of new requirements for financial reporting and corporate audits.
    […]
    Like the alligators lurking in New York City sewers, Bush’s massive regulatory rollback is mostly urban legend. Far from throwing out the rulebook, the administration has expanded it: Since Bush became president, the Federal Register — the government’s annual compendium of proposed and finalized regulations — has run to more than 74,000 pages every year but one. During the Clinton years, by contrast, the Federal Register reached that length just once.

    Similarly, the administration has broken every previous record for regulatory agency spending. According to researchers at Washington University and George Mason University, appropriations for federal regulatory functions have soared during the Bush years. Adjusting for inflation, the regulatory budget has grown from $25 billion in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $43 billion in FY 2009 — a 70 percent increase.

    lee (ab26cf)

  412. I more agree than disagree with Nate when he bemoans we are not under a capitalist system. For me, the complete refusal to allow “losers” to pay the price in the ’08 crash was the end of capitalism in the USA. We live in some hybrid system now where the Federal Reserve, the government, and its judiciary decide winners and losers to an astonishing degree. It’s one of the problems with the fiat money we have.

    I’ll never forget when the Bankruptcy Court simply ignored the debtors of GM and Delphi and allowed the Obama plan which was designed to save the unions above all else. This was true when several states themselves were senior debt holders!

    Check out the Treasury Department gimmick which saved Synovus from bankruptcy with one stroke of the pen. A billion dollar debt due to catastrophic real estate losses? 75% or more vanished with the stroke of a regulatory pen. The loss happened and many folks were wiped out. But, not Synovus and other banks! My favorite aspect of this was that a dividend was paid without fail each quarter an operating profit was declared, in full anticipation Treasury would bail them out. Never mind the debt. We’re paying dividends!!!!! And they got away with it.

    Whatever system we have, it’s all built on a foundation of tissue. When we are made to stop magically erasing debts? Boom. And yes, it is still a far better system than whatever hybrid socialistic mess there ever was or will ever be.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  413. 420 Prior to Trump’s victory I was extremely pessimistic, even sold most of my businesses and decided to focus on other aspects of life. Since his victory, disappointed where we are and hoping it can be turned around and pointed in the right direction. I expect this to come from the courts not the politicians.

    Tariffs, like any regulation, can help capitalism, usually in short term application. A good analogy, a new treatment for a deadly form of brain cancer is to introduce viruses into the brain. Sometimes you need to make something sick or break it in order to fix it.

    If your striving for global capitalism instead of capitalism for just our market, that requires everyone play by the rules and make decisions in the best interest of the global market. It’s impossible to have one-sided capitalism. When other nations deviate from capitalism, or the agreed upon level of capitalism, they must be brought back to standard, tariffs are a tool to accomplish this.

    True or pure capitalism will never exist, to try and hold our side to that standard while giving the other side a pass will fail for sure. The US has high labor and environmental protections, those are anti capitalist beliefs. If an individual wants to risk their life for $x, in pure capitalism they could make that trade. In China and most third world countries they do.

    421 I would like to see elimination of mandatory marketing councils. Reduced reporting to government, one of the big things that drove me away from business.

    Our Not a Welfare State but safety net needs drastic reform. This is one area specifically where establishment GOP are long on talk and non existent of delivery.

    I think targeted tax breaks should be outlawed.

    Most grants and government funding of business eliminated, as a business owner having your tax dollars used to fund your competitors was maddening.

    Fannie and Freddie gone. Flood insurance subsidy gone. Student loans gone.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  414. 425 I had one of my investment houses foreclosed by IndyMac, I forget the owner but it was some connected banker that not only got a bail out but a guarantee when he assumed the prior lenders block of assets. They used my tax dollars to incentivize someone to take my property. I got caught in the first place because they changed the law on how many properties an individual could have. They made it impossible for me to refinance then paid someone to take my property. The tenant in the house that was on a rent to own deal just walked away and bought a unit a couple doors down for half the price.

    Just one example of countless non capitalistic transactions I have been in. I would argue passing of Social Security and Medicare killed any claims to being a capitalistic market.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  415. You need to be more discerning Mr. Montagu

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/what-really-happened-when-gop-senators-visited-moscow?platform=hootsuite

    As for the guardian its very hard to read their Russia coverage through their bloody Stalinist ink

    narciso (d1f714)

  416. You pick the trade war victory, and explain how it ended in a victory. Define it however you like, and the rest of us will see whether your claim makes sense or not; if I come up after the fact with some weasel argument that relies on outrageously manipulated definitions, that should be pretty obvious.

    This really isn’t a hard question. The POTUS has assured us that winning trade wars is easy, so surely there must be some easily identifiable example, right? Use whatever example you think he may have had in mind when he told us trade wars are good and easy to win.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  417. N. Korea has been a thorn in our side since Trump was in kindergarten, but yeah, whatever Trump does with the situation will for sure be the wrong thing. The de-nuking of the peninsula was going so well til he came along…

    lee (ab26cf)

  418. Oops, wrong thread. Lemme go out it in the right one.

    lee (ab26cf)

  419. 422

    What if your baseline measure is a lack of faith in the system? Can it work the other way where excessive change, even if unjustified, can restore faith with a net positive benefit? What immediately comes to mind is when governments fall, a dissatisfied populous has enough and demands immediate change. Seldom are these well thought out events and usually are full of negatives like rioting and looting, but it’s enough to fuel the change.

    This is an interesting question. What people need is predictable rules going forward so that it makes sense to plan long term (and for example make long term investments). Generally speaking one would expect a falling government accompanied by riots and looting to increase uncertainty and hurt long term thinking and investment. This depends of course on just how bad the existing government was and what replaces it. If you look at countries like Libya it is hard to see how the fall of the existing government (bad as it was) hasn’t made things worse.

    With regard to the United States the disruptive changes I was thinking of were those caused by pure free market ideology which has produced a lot of angry losers (even if overall there are more winners). To the extent that Trump is introducing more chaos this has a definite downside.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  420. There wee the Nixon interlude and Reagan’s round of tariffs, dialing to smooth Hawley is undignified

    narciso (d1f714)

  421. Furthermore red state has branded itself for three years as militantly antitrump, many will not darken its door sadly:
    https://themarketswork.com/2018/07/05/devins-journey-rule-of-law-cold-anger/

    narciso (d1f714)

  422. 425

    … the complete refusal to allow “losers” to pay the price in the ’08 crash …

    but then

    … I’ll never forget when the Bankruptcy Court simply ignored the debtors of GM and Delphi and allowed the Obama plan which was designed to save the unions above all else. …

    Many losers like GM debt holders and shareholders were allowed to pay the price. The fact that the government chose to bail out some other potential losers like the auto workers doesn’t change this.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  423. 427

    Just one example of countless non capitalistic transactions I have been in. I would argue passing of Social Security and Medicare killed any claims to being a capitalistic market.

    I don’t think this is a useful way of looking at things. We have never been in a pure free market system (and I don’t think such a system is either feasible or desirable). But we are and have been in system where markets are important and which overall has worked pretty well. Over time many changes have been made. Some have been positive others have been negative. We can discuss which are which and what would improve things going forward.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  424. Libya is an impossible moral question. On one hand you had a terrible dictator responsible for mass death, slightly moderated from his worst. Now we have greater death, open air slave markets, and chaos.

    Not sure what has produced more losers, US Capitalism or our own special crony capitalism, like the bailouts and stimulus. Personally while they both hurt losing at the hand of crony capitalism felt much worse than just getting beat by a better competitor.

    When a competitor beat me I always felt like I could adapt and change to be competitive again. When government or it’s preferred winners beat you it felt hopeless, nothing I could do would change the outcome.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  425. Um no, the islamists mounted an revolt largely directed by Al queda elements like bel hadj and fmr gutmo detainee bin qumu, whose capture three weeks ago in Deena has not been noted by the major press in this country, which Hillary mistake for a popular revolt

    narciso (d1f714)

  426. @435 James B.Shearer Many, if not most, of the executives at GM and the unions as a whole were assuredly NOT made to pay THE price. Their price paid was subsidized by dubious policy and insane bankruptcy court decisions. The class of debtors I mentioned paid a BIGGER price than they otherwise should have. There was substantial cash and property/equipment available to them as senior note holders. They would have recovered a significant percentage of their debt. Instead, they got zero.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  427. Obama was largely influenced by Stalinist frank Davis who had an animus against capitalism in general and gm in particular (re kengor) it still had to go through bankruptcy after receiving tarp funds, its overseer was a maoist then Steven rattner a crook who was involved in the insurance scam with lee briody (yes that lee briody)

    narciso (d1f714)

  428. In trying to define a trade war, let alone victory I’m starting to agree more with this opinion they don’t exist.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/free-traders-cant-name-a_b_9409890.html

    Our 25% light Truck tariff from the Chicken war has been very beneficial for a truck makers and jobs market. You will counter consumers paid more and had fewer choices.

    France Italian Trade war appears to have come out very lopsided to the benefit of the French.

    China’s entry to the WTO has benefited them far more than anyone else, would the period prior to their entry qualify as a trade war?

    I will go with the French Italian Trade war, lets hear why it wasn’t.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  429. now the French should have taken better care, dontcha think:

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20180706/paris-attacks-suspect-linked-to-horrific-pilot-burning

    narciso (d1f714)

  430. Tariffs instead of an income tax? Government at 6% of GDP…..one can dream

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2018/03/09/when-tariffs-worked/

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  431. A reason government was small under the tariff was that it was widely understood that government and its functionaries are objectionable. The tariff communicated this lesson inherently and explicitly. Because the tariff was a list displaying cronyism and making no play for being enlightened or fair, it did not demand respect. The quid pro quo the populace made with the tariff is that Congress and its conspirators in business got their favors, but in turn Congress’s realm, the government, had to stay small.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  432. I agree with James 436. I also agree with Nate 437 when he said it us hard to compete when government gets involved. That’s another reason why tariffs are so bad — they make it very hard to compete.

    DRJ (15874d)

  433. That’s another reason why tariffs are so bad — they make it very hard to compete.

    I know, huh? So, question: Why don’t the EU and China drop all their tariffs against us if they are so self destructive?

    lee (ab26cf)

  434. And another question: if trade deficits are good for us, why is China doing so well?

    lee (ab26cf)

  435. 439

    … There was substantial cash and property/equipment available to them as senior note holders. They would have recovered a significant percentage of their debt. Instead, they got zero.

    They didn’t get zero. I have not found a clear statement of exactly what their final recovery was but it appears to me to have been about 30%. See here for the shares and warrants received per $1000 in claims. I think the package was roughly worth about $300. Perhaps a little more.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  436. I love how people who support a 3+ decade failed policy feel in the position to question and insult those that wish to try something besides failure

    It is under-informed to proclaim NAFTA a failure. It just isn’t. And both liberal and conservative economists agree, hence my referencing Krugman and Cowen.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  437. I think our best case scenario is for tariffs to push China to be more open to joint ventures with American businesses that will recognize and protect American IP. It could happen but I think some businesses will see the value of this approach, while others never will.

    I think the worst case scenario is that China and the US will frame this as a international power struggle in which their citizens will be asked to sacrifice for each country’s benefit. They will and they will suffer, hopefully for a good reason.

    DRJ (15874d)

  438. Why do countries make the decisions they do? Because they see those decisions as beneficial. The more important question is: Who benefits?

    DRJ (15874d)

  439. 451. Mostly the politicians. That’s as true now in America as it is in any third-world communist hellhole.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  440. 447. China is not doing well because of export-to-import ratios. China is doing well because they are an industrial kleptocracy driven by the twin evils of de facto slave labor and an absolute-and-utter disregard for intellectual property rights. Next question?

    Gryph (5efbad)

  441. You need to be more discerning Mr. Montagu

    Couple of points. One, the Byron York effort to defend the GOP Senators does not take away from the fact that Senator Johnson went all wet-noodley on sanctions against the Putin regime. My link went to Susan Wright, who exclusively linked to the WA Examiner, and Mr. York is a pundit (not a reporter) for the same Examiner. York went in a different direction, but he also affirmed that that Johnson was wobbly-kneed on sanctions, which have appropriately hit Putin’s economy.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  442. As for the guardian its very hard to read their Russia coverage through their bloody Stalinist ink

    The irony of your comment must lost on you, narciso. The Guardian is indeed left-of-center, but they’re not the ones praising a communist dictator with the blood of 20 million souls on his hands.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  443. I don’t know about French or Italian trade wars with each other, Mr. Ogden (or anyone else); I have no idea what that is, or when it happened, and you’ve provided no link.

    The question was, what trade was has America ever won? Provide one or more links, please, with your supporting data.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  444. China is doing well because they are an industrial kleptocracy driven by the twin evils of de facto slave labor and an absolute-and-utter disregard for intellectual property rights. Next question?

    Right. This is the same answer those of us supporting Trumps China policy give. So, given our agreement, why are retaliatory tariffs on Chinese imports wrong?

    And before you give the argument of it being taxes on American consumers, remember to consider the aspects of long term good and national interests.

    lee (ab26cf)

  445. And you can’t say, “Let’s here why it wasn’t.” The POTUS claims trade wars are good and easy to win. Show us, then, evidence of an American trade war that was easy and that we won. Define it the way you think Trump intended to use those words.

    I think the answer is: Everyone loses in a trade war, except, temporarily, the protected domestic industry. But that isn’t proof that the country has won, is it? So tell us what trade war was easy that America won, and provide your supporting evidence.

    Or give up. Which you should, because we’ve never won a trade war, but we’ve sure as hell lost some (see above re Smoot Hawley and its contributions to the Great Depression).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  446. Why are retaliatory tariffs on Chinese imports wrong? Because they’re a tax on Americans. How many times does this have to be said?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  447. “[R]emember to consider the aspects of long term good and national interests.” How is it a long term good and in our national interests for Americans to pay higher taxes in order to confer preferential benefits on a selected group of winners that the American government has picked?

    This sounds like something a Democrat would say. It is something Democrats say, and do.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  448. China is doing well compared to how it did under Mao because both sides benefit in voluntary free-market trades. The reason those trades are made is because both sides are left better off afterwards.

    And if you’ve ever set foot in a Walmart or a Target and compared prices (adjusted for inflation), you can confirm that in those same trades, American consumers have benefited too.

    This is what our host means when he says you need an understand of the basics of free market transactions to discuss this.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  449. Beldar:

    I recall arguments that GOP tarriffs in the second half of the 19the century were helpful in allowing certain important US industries to develop. But I will leave the documentation to others, because it stopped being 1875 in 1876.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  450. well China was consuming itself in the 50 through the 70s, xi unfortunately, is a fan of mao, if not the leader of the taiping rebellion,

    narciso (d1f714)

  451. 461. All I would add to that, Beldar, is that yes, Americans are benefiting. But most Americans neither know nor understand the price they are paying for that benefit, namely their unwitting support of a communist kleptocratic slave driving dictatorship.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  452. That’s only looking at the input, why do Americans end up shopping at Walmart, because economic mobility has decreased

    narciso (d1f714)

  453. 453

    China is not doing well because of export-to-import ratios. China is doing well because they are an industrial kleptocracy driven by the twin evils of de facto slave labor and an absolute-and-utter disregard for intellectual property rights. Next question?

    Actually 40 years ago China replaced a terrible leader with a halfway decent one. Since the Chinese are naturally intelligent and law-abiding this made it more or less inevitable that they would start doing better.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  454. 466. Really? Slave labor and intellectual property theft is “law-abiding?” Okay… I guess you have a different definition of law-abiding than I do.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  455. 465. And insofar as economic mobility has decreased, you can thank the politicians on both sides of the pond for that.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  456. Pay attention 29 to 50 million dead, mind you the leader of the taiping rebellion wasclose to the lower number.

    narciso (d1f714)

  457. @465. Most items at the Dollar Store are still a buck and still Made in China. But savvy Yankee Doodle Shoppers can save even more at the 99 Cent Store!

    And when they want to step up to quality; made Japan, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and Mexico; they try Big Lots or Target before hitting America’s Bloomingdale’s: Walmart. Too late for the kiddies, though, Toys-R-Us has gone the way of Gimbel’s and Montgomery Wards.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  458. Because they’re a tax on Americans. How many times does this have to be said?

    OK, so stipulated. Are taxes inherently bad? Government (elected officials and their staff, the judicial system including law enforcement and the prison system, military including g intelligence services and contractors, and on and on) require funding. America used to do this with tariffs, then we got income taxes.

    Well, industry is just as important too. Say N Korea goes sideways (as anti-Trumpers predict), do we want to depend on China in such a scenario for our steel for tanks, aluminum for aircraft, and rare earth elements for electronics? Don’t you think a manufacturing capacity is vital for national security?

    So I hear the argument for subsidies instead of tariffs. How is this less of a tax and government picking winners and losers? Not seeing it myself.

    Cheap cr@p from China isn’t what ‘s going to sustain us. Personally, I will sleep fine at night if I have to pay more for some stuff if I know we are self sufficient. I think most of the middle class feels the same. Thus Trumps popularity.

    lee (ab26cf)

  459. 467

    466. Really? Slave labor and intellectual property theft is “law-abiding?” Okay… I guess you have a different definition of law-abiding than I do.

    From wikipedia:

    Inversely, the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 (with 2016 population estimates) was:

    0.0102% of Black or African American population (4,379/42,975,959)
    0.0023% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/4,200,658)
    0.0019% Hispanic American population (1,096/57,516,697)
    0.0014% of White American (3,799/198,077,165)
    0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/646,255)
    0.0005% of Asian American population (101/18,418,268)[51][53]

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  460. 472. That has precisely jack-s**t to do with my assertion that the Chinese GOVERNMENT engages in wholesale slave labor and IP theft. All you’re telling me is that the Asians that live here don’t commit murder, which has nothing to do with how a Communist government runs itself at all.

    Gryph (08c844)

  461. In the spectacularly unlikely scenario of a war in which we have the time to manufacture additional tanks, lee, we have more than enough domestically produced steel to do so. That’s a b.s. argument that Trump supporters pull out of their butts without bothering to every check the actual data, and as soon as you do look at the data, you realize it’s silly:

    American’s aerospace and defense companies support efforts that enhance American economic security and maintain a strong U.S. manufacturing and defense industrial base, including the ability to domestically source critical metals such as aluminum and steel.

    However, according to a recent Department of Defense memo related to the proposed tariffs, the U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each represent only 3 percent of U.S. production. Since national security is not affected by our current acquisition of steel and aluminum, the administration should consider the broader economic impact of tariffs or quotas and take care not to inflict unintended consequences on users of these raw materials.

    Now tell us more about how great taxes are.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  462. This is the same defense department focused on transgenderism and climate change as major priorities.

    Narciso (087789)

  463. More stats:

    The top 10 source countries for U.S. steel imports represented 79 percent of the total steel import volume in YTD 2018 at 6.3 million metrics tons (mmt). Canada accounted for the largest share of U.S. imports by source country at 20 percent (1.6 mmt), followed by Brazil at 13 percent (1.0 mmt), South Korea at 11 percent (0.9 mmt), Mexico at 11 percent (0.9 mmt), and Russia at 7 percent (0.5 mmt).

    Who’s missing from this list? China, lee, China’s missing. But by all means, let’s improve our national security by … erm … trade wars with Canada and Mexico?
    Nonsense on stilts. Looks to me like if strategic supplies for national defense is your top priority, you sure don’t want to be picking trade wars with our neighbors to the north and south.

    See also Is Imported Steel a Threat to American National Security? It hasn’t been, it isn’t now, and it probably won’t be in the future; The U.S. Steel Industry: A Reality Check.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  464. 473

    That has precisely jack-s**t to do with my assertion that the Chinese GOVERNMENT engages in wholesale slave labor and IP theft. All you’re telling me is that the Asians that live here don’t commit murder, which has nothing to do with how a Communist government runs itself at all.

    I see my original post would have been clearer with a word added:

    “Since the Chinese people are naturally intelligent and law-abiding …”

    I wasn’t talking about their government.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  465. Beldar, who’s number 10 on the top ten list you quote?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  466. @475 Narciso

    So, is the DOD lying? Are they in error?

    Davethulhu (270006)

  467. Even when quoted fully your stats don’t tell the whole story. From the NYT;

    “Mr. Trump imposed tariffs last month on steel and aluminum imports almost no matter where they come from, citing transshipments, though he later carved out temporary exemptions for some countries. He argues that China uses transshipments to send much more steel to the United States than trade data suggests and that broad tariffs are needed to stop it.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  468. OK, so stipulated. Are taxes inherently bad?

    Conservatives don’t usually applaud raising them. Or, they didn’t used to. But in the era of Trump, all principles except defending Dear Leader are cast aside.

    And so we see folks like lee asking questions like this — questions that would normally come from a so-called “progressive.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  469. Transshipments and relabeling aren’t the only trade dodge out there, and China by no means has a monopoly on them. American steel and aluminum companies complain that some basic metal is sent to other countries for minimal processing before it is shipped to the United States. Critics say big multinational companies use an accounting trick called transfer pricing — a common way to dodge taxes — to avoid paying higher tariffs when shipping goods between their international subsidiaries.

    The network of Chinese brokers that bypass tariffs in the West by shipping goods through other countries is extensive and highly developed. The company websites boast of sending steel, aluminum foil, clothing, solar panels and even stainless steel sinks to the United States and Europe while evading tariffs.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  470. Maybe trade deficits aren’t as great as we were told?

    “Over the long run, nations with trade surpluses tend also to have a savings surplus. The U.S. generally has developed lower savings rates than its trading partners, which have tended to have trade surpluses. Germany, France, Japan, and Canada have maintained higher savings rates than the U.S. over the long run.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  471. Umm, Patterico…I really, really appreciate the work you do.

    Where does your paycheck come from?

    lee (ab26cf)

  472. 458 Tariff of 1816

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1816

    Raised needed revenue, protected infant US manufacturing, addressed British dumping and militarization of trade, and best of all…..they didn’t retaliate.

    It was a short term tariff to address specific problems and correct the market.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  473. Patterico, on another thread you requested our opinion on which commenters should be banned.

    I nominate lee. To be clear, the lee who just left this comment:

    Umm, Patterico…I really, really appreciate the work you do.
    Where does your paycheck come from?
    lee (ab26cf) — 7/8/2018 @ 9:06 pm

    He does not add value.

    nk (dbc370)

  474. There is a rather long history of using tariffs for revenue, as compared to the income tax.

    Narciso (087789)

  475. Well, my point was that taxes are necessary for important government functions. No one likes them, but they are a fact of life.

    I’m wrong?

    lee (ab26cf)

  476. The fact that they had just ended a war with us and defeated Napoleon might have something to do with their reaction.

    I seem to remember the years after 1815 were economically bad years, as everyone was adjusting to the fact that the Napoleonic Wars were over.

    kishnevi (14a2e1)

  477. 487. Using tariffs for revenue went right out the door with the passage of the 16th amendment (which incidentally, I would like to see repealed).

    Gryph (08c844)

  478. 477. I was. The communist party of China engages in slave labor and intellectual property theft as a standing economic policy. Convince me that I’m wrong.

    Gryph (08c844)

  479. 481

    Conservatives don’t usually applaud raising them. Or, they didn’t used to. But in the era of Trump, all principles except defending Dear Leader are cast aside.

    How about we talk about whether ideas are good or bad not whether they are liberal or conservative.
    Or since we have been talking about China:

    It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  480. But you’d think the end of twenty years of war would be a good thing

    Narciso (087789)

  481. There was also the eruption of tambira and the year without a summer

    Narciso (087789)

  482. 492. Shearer, you’re a sellout. I hope you choke on whatever meager crumbs the federal government throws your way when Donald Trump is back in the private secotr.

    Gryph (08c844)

  483. On tariffs, Trump is not Reagan.

    Reagan did impose tariffs on Japanese motorcycles, electronics, and other products. But while these penalties could be seen by some as a precursor to Trump’s recent decisions, there are some critical differences. Reagan’s actions were more targeted, and he also promoted some free-trade policies alongside them, including proposing a North American common market. Perhaps more important is the fact that, according to a recent study, it wasn’t really the tariffs, but another policy altogether, that helped U.S. businesses compete in a global economy: Reagan’s change to the tax code in 1981, establishing the federal Research and Experimentation Tax Credit to subsidize innovation.

    He’s not only not Reagan, he’s not right about the economic impact of his tariffs.

    Akcigit, Ates, and Impullitti find that protectionism can lead to short-run gains for an economy—say, over 10 to 15 years—as businesses temporarily reap higher profits. This only works, though, if a country can impose tariffs without retaliation. That’s an unlikely scenario, as evidenced by the fierce response to Trump’s import duties. If countries retaliate, the researchers find, global competition diminishes, and everyone suffers because of slower technological progress.
    Over a longer period, whether countries retaliate or not, consumers in the country that imposes the tariffs become much worse off. If countries do not retaliate, companies have less fear of foreign competitors entering their home market. If countries do retaliate, companies have fewer opportunities to expand overseas. Either way, businesses in the home market have less motivation to come up with new ideas. “You are shielding them from international competition,” Akcigit said, “so they become lazier.”
    This is the opposite of the argument from the White House. “We may have a little bit of short-term pain, but we’re certainly going to have long-term success,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters in April.

    This has really become Bizarro World. Trump’s ideas on trade deals and tariffs could’ve come straight from a Teamster Union white paper. Fifteen years ago, they would’ve been laughed out of conservative comment sections, and with good reason. But now that Pat Buchanan’s paleo retro reactionary conservatism has body-snatched Trump, conservatives are actually arguing about all the good things that can come from a trade war. Surreal.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  484. What is the starting point of their analysis?

    “If countries do retaliate, companies have fewer opportunities to expand overseas.”

    For the most part we are a;ready locked out of China so this woulnd’t apply.

    Further in many ways these are not new Tariffs but retaliatory tariffs for those already in place against us.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  485. “This is the opposite of the argument from the White House. “We may have a little bit of short-term pain, but we’re certainly going to have long-term success,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters in April.”

    This is not accurate if Trump expects the trade war to be over in 10-15 years, per your quote we would gain. If after the end of the war we have freer and more level trade we gain even more.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  486. Axios has obtained a leaked draft of a Trump administration bill — ordered by the president himself — that would declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules.
    Why it matters: The draft legislation is stunning. The bill essentially provides Trump a license to raise U.S. tariffs at will, without congressional consent and international rules be damned.
    The details: The bill, titled the "United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act," would give Trump unilateral power to ignore the two most basic principles of the WTO and negotiate one-on-one with any country:
    1. The "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) principle that countries can't set different tariff rates for different countries outside of free trade agreements;
    2. "Bound tariff rates" — the tariff ceilings that each WTO country has already agreed to in previous negotiations.
    "It would be the equivalent of walking away from the WTO and our commitments there without us actually notifying our withdrawal," said a source familiar with the bill.
    ▪ "The good news is Congress would never give this authority to the president," the source added, describing the bill as "insane."
    ▪ "It's not implementable at the border," given it would create potentially tens of thousands of new tariff rates on products. "And it would completely remove us from the set of global trade rules."

    Link. No one except Trump and his unquestioning supporters will like the smell of this FART.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1411 secs.