re: More analayis of the trade deal most here will not want to read or hear

I love how the “drain the swamp” crowd think that the gov’t can fix a gov’t created problem just because the Orange Man said he could with more gov’t. It’s comical.

Whoever wrote that should be fired for stupidity. A basic Econ 101 student could do better

In my time lurking I've paid attention to your threads. Do you wake up each morning and start the process of identifying the day's worth of criticism of Donald Trump's economic and trade policies?

quote:

---

So, was the trade deal worth the cost in the slowing of global growth?

---

Thank you for emphasizing what you apparently think is the most salient point from that article, and which is also 100% wrong.

No point reading anything else.

So by this articles “logic” the trade war had no impact while it was going on. You can’t have it both ways.

quote:

---

Increased American sales to China would likely mean a loss of market share for competing nations.

So, was the trade deal worth the cost in the slowing of global growth?

---

So, the author is upset because Trump doesn't want to let the US economy suffer so other countries can benefit at our expense. Why should I support his globalist vision that is detrimental to our country?

Why are you putting other countries above your own? Is it out of personal greed?

IB copy pasta = auto anchor

quote:

---

Independent thought is not respected here at all. I can count on one hand

---

Not unless that hand had either a thousand fingers, or a tally clicker.

Regardless of your "count on one hand" misnomer, let's test your "independent thought" claim.
Here are excerpts from your own OP, followed by a simple "Good or Bad?" question posed to you. Answer them "independently".

quote:

---

The Great Grain Robbery of 1972 by the Soviet Union proved an embarrassment to Washington, as it was pulled off in secrecy, ultimately sending wheat prices soaring in what was an early episode of the Great Inflation of that decade.

In contrast, the phase-one trade pact between the U.S. and China was signed with great fanfare in Washington this past week, about three months after the deal was struck in principle. And while the promise of $200 billion in purchases by China is a political plus for President Donald Trump’s reelection bid, it’s unlikely to trigger a ’70s-style commodities boom.

---

Good or Bad?

quote:

---

“The return of China as a key buyer is potentially a windfall for U.S. farmers and energy producers,” writes Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at Capital Economics.

---

Good or Bad?

quote:

---

she points out, it would be tough for the U.S. to meet all of China’s import needs, although other commodities, notably pork, lumber, and cotton, could fill part of the bill.

---

Good or Bad?

quote:

---

Increased American sales to China would likely mean a loss of market share for competing nations.

---

Good or Bad?

quote:

---

the easing of trade policy uncertainty should help increase investment

---

Good or Bad?


Your OP commentary implies the Barron Article made an argument.
Aside from an overpromising title, it didn't. It simply laid out a series of points and counter-points regarding the partial, Phase One trade deal.

E.g.,

quote:

---

Tariffs forced China to the negotiating table, talks dragged on deliberately to allow China’s leader to announce reforms ahead of the agreement, to appear in control rather than making concessions to the U.S., and Trump’s ability to win purchases and concessions without having to reduce most of the tariffs is evidence that he negotiated a good deal.

---

Even so, the analysis did significantly downplay Phase One gains in intellectual rights and financial sectors. It inexplicably quoted TDS afflicted individuals' claims that agreements on IP or finance were previously attained. Phase One makes formal strides in that regard. In a "trust but verify" sense, it gives us time to assess Chinese compliance prior to a Phase Two agreement.

====

Lastly, you referenced "supporters of the trade war."
It is an odd invective.
Is it a self-reference?
The US stood as a target in China's trade war for 20 years. You support status quo in that regard. Therein lies the rub. You are not just a supporter of the trade war, but a supporter of our adversary in it.

quote:

---

There was no increase in the price of goods due to tariffs

---

Exactly.
It's a shame this is anchored.