- 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: Breaking: China offers a way to eliminate US trade imbalance. HAIL TRUMP!
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:09 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
given the boneheaded crap you've consistently posted.
link to what you think is boneheaded about any of my post please.
don't link if you haven't read that 301 directive--it could be bad for your reputation.
0
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:12 pm to I B Freeman
I do look at the "friggin numbers". Every week when they come out. Part of my job. Why are you so worked up about something you clearly don't understand? I still have no idea what you are arguing?
Yes, China imported massive amounts of beans from SA. They didn't import hardly any US beans in q4 last year. No one said that 100% of what China buys from SA is "resold" from the US. It's actually a pretty small portion. Still waiting for your explanation on how Bangladesh/Vietnam/other Asian countries end up with boats full of beans to sell to China
Yes, China imported massive amounts of beans from SA. They didn't import hardly any US beans in q4 last year. No one said that 100% of what China buys from SA is "resold" from the US. It's actually a pretty small portion. Still waiting for your explanation on how Bangladesh/Vietnam/other Asian countries end up with boats full of beans to sell to China
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:14 pm to I B Freeman
quote:No nitwit.
$160 billion is what are exporting every year.
$160 billion is what would theoretically be compensated for exports every year. That is $160B of money infused into our economy. As to offsets, production costs, etc. as I said, "we don't really know enough about the spend to say, do we?"
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:14 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
The population of the USA is 325 million. So 325/129 times $53128 should be a reasonable SWAG at the value of an additional job in the USA. That is 2.52*53128=$133,849.61---roughly 13.3% of your estimate of $1 million.
Great point, I just used an estimate. So instead of my original number of 200,000, divide that by 0.133 = 1.5 million jobs
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:14 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
China offers a way to eliminate US trade imbalance. HAIL TRUMP!
"China offered it therefore Trump cannot take credit for it." - the media
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:18 pm to I B Freeman
Dude it’s a fricking scale up. My original 200,000 is based on China evenly ramping up every year. So every year they spend $167,000 more. Then over 6 years they meet their goal of evening the trade deal by buying $1 trillion more per year
So every year they buy $167k more. Which requires 200,000 more jobs, based on my original estimate. Which thanks to your data, can be much closer estimated to 1.5 million jobs per year. Get informed
So every year they buy $167k more. Which requires 200,000 more jobs, based on my original estimate. Which thanks to your data, can be much closer estimated to 1.5 million jobs per year. Get informed
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:18 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:LINK
By agreeing to buy more goods from the U.S., China may just shift its trade surplus toward other trading partners, said Tom Orlik, the chief economist for Bloomberg Economics. “If China switches its imports from other countries to the U.S. -- less Brazilian soybeans, more U.S. soybeans -- that might help deal with their bilateral problem with the U.S., but at the expense of worsening imbalances with other countries,” he said.
Not our problem.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:21 pm to NC_Tigah
We know enough about the spend to say that if the sales come equally over the 6 years the job growth will come in year 1 and will not increase past that as you imply.
We know the entire spend does not come as salary as you imply.
We know the entire spend does not come as salary as you imply.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:24 pm to I B Freeman
quote:You really do not read well.
will not increase past that as you imply.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:24 pm to Upperdecker
Why is it a scale up???
they are going to buy $1 trillion total spread over 6 years. $167 billion per year we are to assume.
they are going to buy $1 trillion total spread over 6 years. $167 billion per year we are to assume.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:26 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
The positive news is that the trade war may end.
quote:The Chinese have been in a trade war with the US for decades. Trump was the first one to throw a punch back.
The positive news is that the trade war may end.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:27 pm to ClampClampington
One of you say Bangladesh and the other says Brazil.
If traders from Vietnam from any country are buying beans who knows where they came from.
The idea that we have replaced the purchases of China through such deals is ludicrous and the USDA numbers prove it.
There is no question the SA countries gained market share as their inventories are near 0 while ours is at a record high.
If traders from Vietnam from any country are buying beans who knows where they came from.
The idea that we have replaced the purchases of China through such deals is ludicrous and the USDA numbers prove it.
There is no question the SA countries gained market share as their inventories are near 0 while ours is at a record high.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:27 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Making that assumption, how many jobs at $80K/yr per job would be created?
$167 billion per year we are to assume.
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:29 pm to NC_Tigah
Well read the part to me again about that ROI and job growth you said.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:30 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
tariffs
quote:
That would be the first definitive impeachable offense he commits IMHO.
You sir, are an idiot...Congress's release of tariff power, combined with article II on foreign affairs combine with authorized powers of the DIME(conomic) means unless Congress passes a law stating cease and desist...
The POTUS can tariff us into ruin if he wished!
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:30 pm to UnitedFruitCompany
quote:Whoa...I just spewed every last drop that I had!!
Make room for Trump on Rushmore
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:31 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
That will be oil and agricultural products and it will be good.
F**k yeah, more $$$ in my pocket.
quote:
Not much in the way of job creation
Uh did you read the article?
quote:
Even a massive buying binge would likely fail to eliminate the trade deficit with China, said Brad Setser, who served as deputy assistant secretary for international economic analysis in the Treasury during the Obama administration. It’s not clear how quickly U.S. farmers and companies would be able to meet increased Chinese demand, he said. Increasing exports of soybeans would require more land dedicated to growing the crop and investment in storage capacity. .
More storage investment => more grain bins and grain bins are made out of steel => increased steel demands as well as more jobs for people who build the grain bins, repair them, drive trucks moving grain from inland grain bins to river ports, more jobs for people that move cargo on the rivers, repair barges, etc.
quote:
Likewise, exporting more LNG to China would demand a surge in investment in export terminals.
Investments in export terminals => more jobs in SWLA and maybe some of those megaprojects that Jindal gave out $$$ to will resume construction and the state will start seeing more return on its investment.
quote:
For Boeing, which has been straining to meet existing orders for its planes, it would likely mean adding a new plant
Pretty damn sure a new Boeing plant will create a f**kload of jobs.
quote:
good for commodity sectors of our economy.
Yes it is.
China has also been buying up movie studios. More Chinese investment => more film tax credits.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:33 pm to NC_Tigah
We have not a clue BUT we do know this is BS
If they do $160 b a year in new purchases why will be need more people to produce that in year 6 than in year 1????? There is no GROWTH past year one. It is simply maintaining the same level of activity.
quote:
Why should we think these numbers will increase every year?
Because that is the way a healthy economy works. Each job created fractionally supports creation of others. ROI compounds.
If they do $160 b a year in new purchases why will be need more people to produce that in year 6 than in year 1????? There is no GROWTH past year one. It is simply maintaining the same level of activity.
Posted on 1/18/19 at 3:34 pm to IceTiger
He has to comply with the rules of a 301 tariff in this case and he outline the reasons for the tariffs in his directive.
What authority does he have from Congress if the directive reasons are addressed and he continues the tariff??
What authority does he have from Congress if the directive reasons are addressed and he continues the tariff??
This post was edited on 1/18/19 at 3:35 pm
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News