re: PSST!!! IB90proof... It's been over a year.. Tariffs have no effect on consumers so far

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.

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

quote:

---

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 may be the most sophist, quintessential 90 thing i have ever read.

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:

---

the pre-existing state of the world is the baseline of the empirical analysis to which the world with the tariff impact is estimated

---

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?

quote:

---

as i've told you before

---

link that.

quote:

---

that doesn't even make sense

---

you don't know what episodic vs systemic means? yet you're trying to criticize me.

quote:

---

say what you mean in a way that makes sense

---

you mean for the 10th time? fine, i don't want you to have any excuses.

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.

quote:

---

do you have a better way to gather useful evidence on the effect of what we've been doing

---

yeah. stop looking at something that is so far downstream of what the tariffs are initially trying to accomplish. that might help.

quote:

---

how bout we carefully assess the threat

---

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

quote:

---

why do you get so irate at credible attempts to assess the actual impact of this supposed addressing though

---

complete non response to the point i made

quote:

---

it is a vague

---

if you think THAT is vague, i can't help you. i suspect you're intentionally being obstinate

quote:

---

conveniently-unfalsifiable

---

that ip theft has occurred? what planet are you living on?

quote:

---

attempt at hand-waving away actual evidence

---

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.

quote:

---

evidence >>>>>>>>> any vague promise of some hopeful outcome by you

---

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.

quote:

---

i'm not the one who fears data

---

he says to the person who keeps posting statistics and facts.

quote:

---

LINK

---

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

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

quote:

---

you need to start making sense

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

see my imaginary and vague big picture!

---

so ip theft by china and the threat is represents is imaginary and vague? again, either you're trolling or you are just dense

quote:

---

what is at issue is the magnitude of the problem

---

exactly. hence, tariffs. it's a big deal and an urgent threat

quote:

---

the cost of any fix

---

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!"

quote:

---

feefees aren't a great basis for far-reaching policy actions

---

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.

quote:

---

restating it 100 times won't make it any better

---

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.

quote:

---

it's really asking too much of someone to respond substantively

---

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.

now you're just losing it.

quote:

---

if you have an argument to make, make it and support it

---

you mean OTHER THAN the points i have been making for weeks?

quote:

---

it's not my position to defend, it's yours

---

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.

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.

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"