- 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
Official tariff challenge to ibchini and npc90
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:13 pm
I have asked these questions and they have gone unanswered. I'm starting this thread to definitively show that they are ducking the questions yet continue to make anti tariff posts.
Why are you using episodic anecdotes (various segments of the economy) to assess a systemic problem (national trade imbalance)? IOW, why do you consider the temporary price of various products more important than the national security threat posed by China's actions?
You keep bringing up the temporary pain being felt by the tariffs yet, you do not acknowledge that the country was already experiencing pain due to China's trade policies. The president addressed this in his press conference today. So if there was already pain, why is this temporary pain unacceptable even though it is addressing the root problem? IOW, you are commenting on the effect, not the cause.
Let's see if they respond. IB has been ignoring me and ncp90 admits he is more concerned with the price of washing machines than national security. If it were up to me, everyone would stop responding to them until they answer these 2 questions.
Why are you using episodic anecdotes (various segments of the economy) to assess a systemic problem (national trade imbalance)? IOW, why do you consider the temporary price of various products more important than the national security threat posed by China's actions?
You keep bringing up the temporary pain being felt by the tariffs yet, you do not acknowledge that the country was already experiencing pain due to China's trade policies. The president addressed this in his press conference today. So if there was already pain, why is this temporary pain unacceptable even though it is addressing the root problem? IOW, you are commenting on the effect, not the cause.
Let's see if they respond. IB has been ignoring me and ncp90 admits he is more concerned with the price of washing machines than national security. If it were up to me, everyone would stop responding to them until they answer these 2 questions.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:44 pm to bfniii
Good luck getting an answer.
Posted on 5/24/19 at 1:34 pm to bfniii
quote:
Why are you using episodic anecdotes (various segments of the economy) to assess a systemic problem (national trade imbalance)?
Dunno about IBF, but I've never used anecdotes "to assess" any national trade imbalance, which I do not see as an inherent problem. So, I guess this can't apply to me. I'd recommend OP get to work establishing precisely why they think the trade balance is either "systemic" or a problem.
quote:
why do you consider the temporary price of various products more important than the national security threat posed by China's actions?
What, exactly, is the nature of the supposed security threat? What is its magnitude? I don't see a credible one.
quote:
you do not acknowledge that the country was already experiencing pain due to China's trade policies
I do not deny that some people have felt pain as some low-skill industries shifted to low-skill China. Although there are winners and losers from a long-term shift toward an economy comprised relatively more of service production than goods production, I don't see a loss on net.
quote:
f there was already pain, why is this temporary pain unacceptable even though it is addressing the root problem
How, exactly, is it successfully addressing anything? The "pain", as you so rigorously describe it, is not being fixed by our unilateral protectionism or any of trade partners' retaliation.
quote:
he is more concerned with the price of washing machines than national security
Can you try to be coherent for once. You think washing machine tariffs improve our national security?
Posted on 5/24/19 at 1:35 pm to bfniii
quote:
90. where are you
here bruh
also looking forward to continuing our discussion of revisions and patterns of them
Posted on 5/24/19 at 1:38 pm to 90proofprofessional
Wow I don't see 90 anywhere what a coward
Posted on 5/24/19 at 2:52 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:you are a straight up, flat out liar
I've never used anecdotes "to assess" any national trade imbalance
"why do you get so irate at credible attempts to assess the actual impact of this supposed addressing" in response to the price of washing machines
exhibit a
"i'm looking at us now with big tariffs on metals and staring down big tariffs on stuff from one of our primary import sources- and note that about 2/3rds of our imports from china aren't consumer goods, they're intermediate/raw/capital goods that support our competitiveness in manufacturing!"
exhibit b
quote:oh my gosh ip theft. it's been explained to you over and over. again, the prez JUST ADDRESSED this yesterday. he went so far as to say that the business owners he's spoken to are completely on board with the program so you're trying to defend people who don't even agree with you
get to work establishing precisely why they think the trade balance is either "systemic" or a problem. What, exactly, is the nature of the supposed security threat? What is its magnitude? I don't see a credible one
quote:then your position is completely hypocritical. also, there have been plenty of threads showing that some businesses are thriving and the economy is overall doing well yet, you never seem to acknowledge that.
I do not deny that some people have felt pain
quote:pressure. it appears that the tariffs are doing exactly that. working as designed. just like any sanction the us is levying on any country. keep doing that and we'll hurt your wallet.
How, exactly, is it successfully addressing anything?
quote:and this the is the 90 bluster. "take me at my word. i know the future."
The "pain", as you so rigorously describe it, is not being fixed by our unilateral protectionism or any of trade partners' retaliation.
quote:and finishes with the obligatory strawman, complete misrepresentation that has been clearly explained multiple times
Can you try to be coherent for once. You think washing machine tariffs improve our national security?
to sum up the 90 position:
1. temporary price increase of some products is unacceptable
2. "i don't see a problem" in regards to ip theft by a military adversary
3. "i know the future/tpp alternate reality"
the funniest part of the response - 90 responded to NPC.
Posted on 5/24/19 at 2:53 pm to Iosh
quote:i don't know who has a worse reputation, you or 90. you endorsing 90 is fitting
Iosh
btw, let's see you take a stab at it, genius
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:09 pm to bfniii
quote:
you are a straight up, flat out liar
"why do you get so irate at credible attempts to assess the actual impact of this supposed addressing" in response to the price of washing machines
exhibit a
do you have an actual learning disability? at what point do i "assess a trade imbalance" in any shape or form there, let alone with an anecdote?
quote:
oh my gosh ip theft. it's been explained to you over and over.
just saying "ip theft" is just laughably insufficient for demonstrating a credible national security threat, or describing its nature, or assessing its magnitude
quote:
then your position is completely hypocritical
it's like you're getting progressively dumber at an accelerating rate
immediately following what you quoted, i stated that i do not see a loss on net.
quote:
pressure. it appears that the tariffs are doing exactly that.
how? describe the pain that you allege we felt precisely, and then describe how said pain has been alleviated.
quote:
and this the is the 90 bluster. "take me at my word. i know the future."
that comment didn't address the future. it addressed the present. the present in which you claim that the "problem" is being "addressed" with success
quote:
and finishes with the obligatory strawman
how else should i have interpreted your nonsense? you literally said i care more about washing machine prices than national security.
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:12 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:yeah. you saying it's "my" claim and a whole bunch of "nuh unh"
also looking forward to continuing our discussion of revisions and patterns of them
oh good grief i saw that you responded yet again with more nonsense. you are a special, not in a good way
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:13 pm to bfniii
quote:
oh good grief i saw that you responded yet again with more nonsense
i mean the "nonsense" is just a bit more of the data you kick and scream about having to address
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:31 pm to bfniii
Good job calling out someone for ducking your questions by linking examples of where he...addresses your questions.
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:31 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:he says right after i just posted a quote from him responding to me "why do you get so irate at credible attempts to assess the actual impact of this supposed addressing". my word
at what point do i "assess a trade imbalance" in any shape or form there, let alone with an anecdote?
quote:yeah, you're right. all of the people in govt and industry observers who are complaining about ip theft are just making up something vague and irrelevant. you're just not even rational. it's no wonder you can't be objective about this issue because you can't even understand/acknowledge it.
just saying "ip theft" is just laughably insufficient for demonstrating a credible national security threat
not that you will be able to understand this
quote:then you have no complaint. that's all you needed to say
i stated that i do not see a loss on net.
also, i noticed you avoided responding to exhibit b
quote:did you listen to the president's press conference yesterday? if so, then you have your answer. if not, you are uninformed. he addresses this point specifically
describe the pain that you allege we felt precisely, and then describe how said pain has been alleviated
quote:no, you are lying again. your point all along has been that these temporary price increases are not acceptable because the tariffs won't address ip theft. you do not know that for a fact and you can't even acknowledge that chinese ip theft is a national security threat.
it addressed the present
quote:and i've addressed this. did china visit the us about trade? is their economy slowing?
the present in which you claim that the "problem" is being "addressed" with success
quote:by not intentionally posting garbage? how about that
how else should i have interpreted your nonsense?
quote:which you are continuing to demonstrate.
you literally said i care more about washing machine prices than national security
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:36 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:saying "nuh unh" is not a substantive response. but you knew that already right?
Good job calling out someone for ducking your questions by linking examples of where he...addresses your questions
so in response to your stupid response, he STILL hasn't responded to the points in the op. all he is doing is repeating already refuted points and lying. he can't even acknowledge that chinese ip theft is a national security threat. how stupid is that? i'm now having to cite articles on the subject to get him educated on that
it's interesting that a couple of knuckleheads have chimed in to defend one of the worst personalities on this board yet, they haven't bothered to try to answer the questions in the op
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:37 pm to bfniii
quote:
my word
speaking of "your word", you need to just re-read the wording of your own questions
you say i assessed a trade balance, whatever that means, with an anecdote. re-read your own words in this thread. i say i didn't.
quote:
not that you will be able to understand this
i thought we were talking about trade policy, not cyberattacks by hackers? you think our tariffs are stopping this "policy", which is an explicitly non-trade policy?
quote:
did you listen to the president's press conference yesterday? if so, then you have your answer.
as always, can't make an actual coherent argument for yourself.
quote:
then you have no complaint. that's all you needed to say
also, i noticed you avoided responding to exhibit b
"no complaint" =/= correctly noting that our current approach is stupid and unnecessary and hurting us while getting us nowhere
quote:
no, you are lying again. your point all along has been that these temporary price increases are not acceptable because the tariffs won't address ip theft.
that's not what i said there. but i see, you want to respond to things other than what i actually say. goes nicely with your typical approach of just claming sweeping things without evidence
quote:
and i've addressed this. did china visit the us about trade? is their economy slowing?
so the pain has stopped? this is your threshold for something has been addressed?
This post was edited on 5/24/19 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:46 pm to bfniii
quote:
it's interesting that a couple of knuckleheads have chimed in to defend one of the worst personalities on this board yet, they haven't bothered to try to answer the questions in the op
I don't have to agree with his position to see he doesn't duck you. silly
Your cat fight is at a standstill because you are asking him to explain a position he's not really taking. If anything, you've left his points unaddressed.
Posted on 5/24/19 at 3:47 pm to bfniii
quote:
saying "nuh unh" is not a substantive response
you wouldn't know substance if you were choking on it.
Posted on 5/24/19 at 4:07 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:Well that's fairly simpleton, isn't it though?
"to assess" any national trade imbalance, which I do not see as an inherent problem.
An "inherent problem"? I guess that would depend on the cause of inherence and the nature of the problem. If imbalance results from one country's workers building better products for less money, I'd not see that as an inherent problem either. If OTOH imbalance results from predatory subsidized export of nationalized products while restricting, stealing, and otherwise disadvantaging imports, the problem is both easily visible and inherent.
quote:Wow. Just wow!
What, exactly, is the nature of the supposed security threat?
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II (U.S.)
Shenyang J-31 which was unveiled in late 2014.
========
Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)
Chinese Lijian Sharp Sword UCAV
========
Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned helo (U.S.)
Chinese SVU-200 Flying Tiger unmanned helo
========
General Atomics MQ-1 Predator UAV (U.S.)
Chengdu Wing Loong “Pterodactyl” UAV
Posted on 5/24/19 at 5:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Wow. Just wow!
Is your set of pictures intended to be responsive to the question of the nature of the threat?
What aspect of the threat precisely are you trying to claim with your pictures exists due to trade policies or IP policies that we don't like?
What specific kind of concessions are we going to get that will satisfy you that they don't try to hack our defense/contractor networks or copy our advancements? Shouldn't we be "keeping an eye" on their advancements as well?
quote:
Well that's fairly simpleton, isn't it though?
An "inherent problem"? I guess that would depend on the cause of inherence and the nature of the problem. If
"If"?
"Would depend on the nature of the problem"?
Was a substantive argument about the degree to which the imbalances are a problem, and why, and to what extent, supposed to be in there somewhere? All I saw was a vague hypothetical and a maybe-claim of something being self-evident.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News