- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PSST!!! IB90proof... It's been over a year.. Tariffs have no effect on consumers so far
Posted on 5/11/19 at 12:05 am to bfniii
Posted on 5/11/19 at 12:05 am to bfniii
quote:I didn't say it was right. I said that they took risks knowing the potential consequences.
ou're basically saying "we know your ip got stolen but, well, china." that doesn't make it right.
quote:And one consequence would be for companies to decide not to take the risk. And regardless, I'm not against the US trying to address the problem; I'm against the US trying to address the problem by instituting costs on those who did not ask for it, and may not benefit from what they're trying to address.
they entered into an agreement. china should honor the agreement and when they don't, there should be consequences.
quote:OK? I didn't say there wasn't. And that has nothing to do with my point that the government forcing costs on people.
THERE WAS ALREADY IMPACT TO THE US DUE TO IP THEFT.
That is my problem. It's not trying to help those who have their IP stolen. Just like I don't have a problem with the government helping those in need; I do have a problem that their only solution is to take more and more from others.
Posted on 5/11/19 at 12:31 am to buckeye_vol
quote:ok, so your course of action is what? you know it's a problem and military risk. what are we to do about it? ib suggests we do nothing. npc90 wants the tpp which is a joke.
I didn't say it was right
quote:again, missing the point. a contract was entered into. it's already happened. chini broke it. now what?
And one consequence would be for companies to decide not to take the risk
quote:and i've already addressed this. "those who did not ask for it" were already experiencing pain and risk due to ip theft. at least now someone is trying to do something about it.
I'm against the US trying to address the problem by instituting costs on those who did not ask for it
quote:yet you keep saying that the costs of the current course are not justified, which they absolutely are. something had to be done. something is being done. it appears to be working. step 1 - get them to the table, which happened today.
I didn't say there wasn't
quote:of course it is. what a ridiculous thing to say.
It's not trying to help those who have their IP stolen
Posted on 5/11/19 at 12:34 am to buckeye_vol
i also happened to notice that in the thread where you were defending "no you didn't"90, i showed multiple examples of him acting like an arse and dodging my responses. your silence on those instances was notable.
Posted on 5/11/19 at 1:03 am to Jjdoc
Mardi Gras throws got more expensive.
Posted on 5/11/19 at 9:56 am to bfniii
quote:
there was already pain from ip theft.
the pre-existing state of the world is the baseline of the empirical analysis to which the world with the tariff impact is estimated, of course, so this has literally zero bearing on the meaning or validity of the figure
This post was edited on 5/11/19 at 9:57 am
Posted on 5/11/19 at 9:59 am to 90proofprofessional
Literally no effect on anyone and IB90proof still want to convince ppl they do
Who was the fool that said washing machines increased by 50 dollars would destroy us
Who was the fool that said washing machines increased by 50 dollars would destroy us
Posted on 5/11/19 at 10:02 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:this may be the most sophist, quintessential 90 thing i have ever read.
the pre-existing state of the world is the baseline of the empirical analysis to which the world with the tariff impact is estimated, of course, so this has literally zero bearing on the meaning or validity of the figure
so in review: i acknowledge that what you're saying is right but, i don't want to directly admit it so i'm going to manufacture this artificial guard rail to my comments so i don't have to eat crow.
quote:first, "empirical". second, the state of the world was that the us was being stolen from by an enemy and that included for military purposes. there's your baseline. third, i have addressed your "tariff impact" multiple times and you refuse to respond. you know, episodic vs systemic?
the pre-existing state of the world is the baseline of the empirical analysis to which the world with the tariff impact is estimated
Posted on 5/11/19 at 10:05 am to bfniii
quote:
this may be the most sophist, quintessential 90 thing i have ever read.
don't be mad at me for the fact that you 100% fail to understand the argument, the evidence for it, or the utter lack of merit your contention has, as usual
quote:
i'm going to manufacture this artificial guard rail
haha oh wow
quote:
you refuse to respond. you know, episodic vs systemic?
as i've told you before, that doesn't even make sense. say what you mean in a way that makes sense
Posted on 5/11/19 at 10:26 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:link that.
as i've told you before
quote:you don't know what episodic vs systemic means? yet you're trying to criticize me.
that doesn't even make sense
quote:you mean for the 10th time? fine, i don't want you to have any excuses.
say what you mean in a way that makes sense
you and ib are looking at results in specific sectors of the marketplace (episodic) to oppose the tariffs that are in place to address the threat china presents, including military threat (systemic). just because there are some steel companies that have experienced temporary pressure or because washing machines temporarily went up a few pennies doesn't mean the tariffs aren't addressing the obvious existential threat china represents to the entire nation.
i have posted this comment several times in direct response to you and ib. you have NEVER responded to it yet, you keep up your middle school playground insults. then you whine about being so misunderstood because no one interacts with your data. you are the worst personality on this board. worse than ib. worse than toddy. worse than aggiehank. congrats. you are the champion
i feel sad for you. you're a deluded individual who has a victim complex. you are right and everyone else is wrong. no one can recognize your genius.
Posted on 5/11/19 at 10:50 am to bfniii
quote:
you don't know what episodic vs systemic means?
i do. what makes no sense is how this hurts any argument i've made.
quote:
you and ib are looking at results in specific sectors of the marketplace (episodic)
do you have a better way to gather useful evidence on the effect of what we've been doing, or of what expanding/intensifying what we've been doing is likely to result in? or are you just opposed to acknowledging or considering any cost at all?
quote:
the tariffs that are in place to address the threat china presents
"address the threat"? how bout we carefully assess the threat and the success in addressing it, as well?
quote:
just because there are some steel companies that have experienced temporary pressure or because washing machines temporarily went up a few pennies doesn't mean the tariffs aren't addressing the obvious existential threat china represents to the entire nation.
why do you get so irate at credible attempts to assess the actual impact of this supposed addressing though
quote:
i have posted this comment several times in direct response to you and ib. you have NEVER responded to it
there is nothing in it to respond to. in the case of this thread, it is a vague and conveniently-unfalsifiable attempt at hand-waving away actual evidence as it is collected and presented, consistently coupled with hostility to that evidence.
evidence >>>>>>>>> any vague promise of some hopeful outcome by you, 10 times out of 10
quote:
you're a deluded individual who has a victim complex. you are right and everyone else is wrong. no one can recognize your genius.
you're wasting your time feeling bad for me, i'm not the one who fears data in favor of vague suggestions and promises
quote:
link that.
LINK
This post was edited on 5/11/19 at 10:53 am
Posted on 5/11/19 at 11:04 am to Jjdoc
Don’t kill the messenger but Trump has lost a lot of support in fly over states where farmers have taken huge hit. The cost to produce hasn’t dropped but the product has lost value
Posted on 5/11/19 at 8:44 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:yeah. stop looking at something that is so far downstream of what the tariffs are initially trying to accomplish. that might help.
do you have a better way to gather useful evidence on the effect of what we've been doing
quote:how do you know this hasn't been done? btw, it doesn't take assessment to know china is a military threat to the us
how bout we carefully assess the threat
quote:complete non response to the point i made
why do you get so irate at credible attempts to assess the actual impact of this supposed addressing though
quote:if you think THAT is vague, i can't help you. i suspect you're intentionally being obstinate
it is a vague
quote:that ip theft has occurred? what planet are you living on?
conveniently-unfalsifiable
quote:no, i'm just not giving in to you trying to introduce downstream, temporary, episodic effects to a systemic, national problem. you're clinging to that junk because you can't admit you're wrong.
attempt at hand-waving away actual evidence
quote:first, your "evidence" is not relevant as i have explained multiple times. it is downstream. it is episodic. it is temporary. second, therefore, the "hopeful outcome" is indeed the the primary mission. it's crazy how complicated you are making this. third, you are STILL not proving how your tpp scenario would be doing any better. all you can say is "i think" and "most likely." so far, you haven't even tried to rebut the economists who think the tpp is a bad trade deal, much less deal with the ip theft aspect.
evidence >>>>>>>>> any vague promise of some hopeful outcome by you
quote:he says to the person who keeps posting statistics and facts.
i'm not the one who fears data
quote:so you cite a link where you DIDN'T respond to the point. classic 90. "that doesn't even make sense" is not a substantive response. a substantive response would have been to state precisely HOW my characterization doesn't make sense. your response is typical 90 bluster
LINK
Posted on 5/11/19 at 8:50 pm to Jjdoc
How does this...
Translate to this...
quote:
The Department of Labor said Friday that its consumer price index was up just 2.0 percent compared with a year ago,
Translate to this...
quote:
It's been over a year.. Tariffs have no effect on consumers so far
Posted on 5/12/19 at 5:06 pm to bfniii
quote:
stop looking at something that is so far downstream of what the tariffs are initially trying to accomplish. that might help.
you need to start making sense
quote:
how do you know this hasn't been done?
because all that's been offered for it is rhetoric or extremely vague and scary-sounding unsourced estimates that no one can discuss in any detail
quote:
complete non response to the point i made
your "point" seems to consist entirely of shutup shutup shutup about that empirical work and see my imaginary and vague big picture!
quote:
that ip theft has occurred?
not at issue, retard. what is at issue is the magnitude of the problem, and the cost of any fix, and its likelihood at working. anything less is just lashing out like a bitch on the rag
quote:
i'm just not giving in to you trying to introduce downstream, temporary, episodic effects to a systemic, national problem
why do you hate rational, evidenced-based decisionmaking? feefees aren't a great basis for far-reaching policy actions, you know
quote:
your "evidence" is not relevant as i have explained multiple times. it is downstream. it is episodic. it is temporary. second, therefore, the "hopeful outcome" is indeed the the primary mission. it's crazy how complicated you are making this. third, you are STILL not proving how your tpp scenario would be doing any better. all you can say is "i think" and "most likely." so far, you haven't even tried to rebut the economists who think the tpp is a bad trade deal, much less deal with the ip theft aspect.
comprehensively worthless argument. particularly the "episodic and temporary" aspect. restating it 100 times won't make it any better. ever.
quote:
he says to the person who keeps posting statistics and facts.
quote:
"that doesn't even make sense" is not a substantive response.
when something you say doesn't make sense, it's really asking too much of someone to respond substantively. regardless, it's just an excuse to ignore the best evidence we have.
i get it though; that's kinda your main thing
Posted on 5/12/19 at 11:33 pm to I B Freeman
quote:I just looked up the GE washer I purchased in 2016 and compared it to the equivalent model on the GE site.
Washing machines cost a lot more now than they did in 2017
It's now exactly $40 less than it was three years ago.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:31 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:so you don't understand how fair trade practices in isolated segments of the economy are downstream of ip theft by a military rival? if that doesn't make sense to you, you should stop commenting on the topic. to quote spider man - you can't be the friendly neighborhood spider if there's no neighborhood
you need to start making sense
quote:so you don't know. that's all you had to say. this is the typical 90 bluster. the purpose of the bluster is to avoid having to admit you're wrong
because all that's been offered for it is rhetoric or extremely vague and scary-sounding unsourced estimates that no one can discuss in any detail
quote:so ip theft by china and the threat is represents is imaginary and vague? again, either you're trolling or you are just dense
see my imaginary and vague big picture!
quote:exactly. hence, tariffs. it's a big deal and an urgent threat
what is at issue is the magnitude of the problem
quote:the cost is proportionate to the threat. yeah, that might mean a handful of products increase in price. i'm sorry you don't understand this. this country would be in big trouble if you were running it. "sir, china is stealing our ip and we are seeing it show up in their military hardware." 90 responds "but MUH WASHING MACHINES!"
the cost of any fix
quote:you didn't even try to respond to my point. temporary, downstream (not a matter of national security), episodic (only SOME segments of the economy). what you are looking at is incidental compared to the reason for the tariffs.
feefees aren't a great basis for far-reaching policy actions
quote:yet more "no you didn't" evasion. how about explaining precisely HOW my comment is invalid? you can't because you know i'm right. you are looking at factors that are secondary to national security.
restating it 100 times won't make it any better
quote:i know, right! you shouldn't have to be required to actually defend your positions with facts and stuff. you should just get to say NUH UNH and everyone just go right along with you. now, if you really wanted to defend your position, you would show how the price of steel and washing machines is at least equal to ip theft by china in importance. but since no one can do that, you're pretty much just wasting space.
it's really asking too much of someone to respond substantively
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:38 pm to bfniii
quote:
so you don't understand how fair trade practices in isolated segments of the economy are downstream of ip theft by a military rival
if you have an argument to make, make it and support it
quote:
so you don't know. that's all you had to say. this is the typical 90 bluster
it's not my position to defend, it's yours
quote:
you would show how the price of steel and washing machines is at least equal to ip theft by china in importance
would love to. nothing solid has been presented about y'alls claims of massive ip theft, in terms of magnitude or distribution, though
go ahead and hit us
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:46 pm to 90proofprofessional
now you're just losing it.
i also noticed you, yet again, failed to address the challenge i issued: prove that temporary price changes in some segments of the economy are at least equal to ip theft in importance.
quote:you mean OTHER THAN the points i have been making for weeks?
if you have an argument to make, make it and support it
quote:this is getting bizarre even for you. you claimed that a cost-benefit analysis had not been done regarding the tariffs (presumably by the administration). your support was to cite your perception of what had been said publicly about the tariffs. it's your claim and it's laughable because you aren't in policy meetings nor do you have all the info they have.
it's not my position to defend, it's yours
i also noticed you, yet again, failed to address the challenge i issued: prove that temporary price changes in some segments of the economy are at least equal to ip theft in importance.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:52 pm to 90proofprofessional
That 1100-1200 points off the Dow in a week had no effect on consumers with retirement accounts either.
All those stock traders and investors should simply ask the folks at TD PB about the tariff impacts on the economy and the impacts on future earnings growth of Dow components. They obviously do not know what they are doing.
It's the FEDs fault!!!! tweet any second
As money leaves the market and heads into T bills the dollar naturally gets stronger so the latter tweet will be "China is manipulating currency"
All those stock traders and investors should simply ask the folks at TD PB about the tariff impacts on the economy and the impacts on future earnings growth of Dow components. They obviously do not know what they are doing.
It's the FEDs fault!!!! tweet any second
As money leaves the market and heads into T bills the dollar naturally gets stronger so the latter tweet will be "China is manipulating currency"
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 12:56 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News