re: Tariffs on importers from China going to 25% Friday, apparently

i'm telling you, if we want an actual fix to our problems with china's model, we'll need more leverage than we have. they will have to change their actual laws, which is by all indications the sticking point here. with TPP + TTiP, if china wanted access to that deal, they'd have to accede to that level of, for example, IP protection which would already be formalized. as of now, we are making unclear demands and with more access to only our firms/market as a carrot.

quote:

---

no one has sniffed supporting the claim of 2 million US jobs a year due to IP. or even 2 million in aggregate

---

i've already responded to this multiple times but you keep repeating yourself, probably because it's all you've got. you're not capable of "interacting with the data"

quote:

---

see above

---

which had nothing to do with the point that i made. i wouldn't expect anything different from you

quote:

---

you can't prove this

---

dude that's what TPP is. well, was, before they moved on without us and it became CPTPP.

quote:

---

i challenge you to refute all the economic experts who think the tpp is a laughably bad deal for the us

---

i'm down for that, in another thread. i'll need you to start by citing all these experts, or even just one or two of them, that state this. i'd need to evaluate their reasons. like i said earlier, i actually thought TPP might have gone a bit too far with IP protection

quote:

---

f course you don't, because that would mean actually substantiating your points

---

do you seriously not think the tens of thousands of lower tariffs, plus the absence of our steel/aluminum/china tariffs, plus having isolated china further from its neighbors with the hurdle of TPP's IP regs, even if we forget about TTiP, isn't substantial enough?

quote:

---

quote:
about 2/3rds of our imports from china aren't consumer goods, they're intermediate/raw/capital goods that support our competitiveness in manufacturing
yes and i've responded to this with two questions which remain unanswered by you

---

link to the post. it better not be some weak shite like "we're just applying pressure"

quote:

---

i know we're not returning to our manufacturing workforce of the mid-20th century, trade war or not.

---

you do? prove it. just for once, PROVE SOMETHING instead of acting like a petulant arse

quote:

---

uh, yes? and they had been lowering tariffs for years blah blah blah

---

still ignoring the main point. you are incapable of advancing a discussion. all you are capable of doing is a first level combative response and repeating it.

quote:

---

it certainly doesn't mean they'll give us everything we want

---

is this supposed to be some sort of excuse for your tds? no one knows what's going to happen but one thing ought to be obvious for any non-deranged person: something had to be done. action had to be taken. a direct approach was taken. you prefer an indirect approach with a bad trade deal. good for you. you can stop insulting people now. we get it. orange man bad

quote:

---

you do? prove it.

---

i'll walk you through that in as great of detail as you like just as soon as you finally back yourself up for real on that claim about obama manipulating official economic data releases, in the way you'd actually need to with that publicly-accessible data that's right there for you to use at any time. deal?

quote:

---

still ignoring the main point.

---

you think the fact that the vice premier is coming to continue talks is "the main point"?

quote:

---

is this supposed to be some sort of excuse for your tds?

---

it's just another way of explaining why this approach is dumb, even though it may feel good to people who just want to lash out.

quote:

---

something had to be done. action had to be taken.

---

something was being done. a long-term and tactical something, that didn't needlessly use american consumers and producers as leverage.

quote:

---

you prefer an indirect approach with a bad trade deal.

---

just because it doesn't lend itself to yeah stick it to 'em instincts doesn't make it indirect. i prefer the approach that is likely to end up with the most stable setup with the lowest barriers all around. we're going in the opposite direction and even if we strike a deal that ends up with us dropping all our new tariffs including the ones on steel/aluminum, we'll still a good ways in the other direction compared to if we were party to TPP

quote:

---

interesting how rarely it is ever engaged

---

and here comes the obligatory whining about how misunderstood you are. people interact with your "data" way more than you are implying. and way more than you deserve. i offer exhibit a into evidence: the fact that you are one of the most infamous people on the pb. your views have been consistently challenged to the point that people just don't even try any more. there's no point because you are incorrigible. this thread is just more proof. i have asked to specific, direct questions multiple times and you REFUSE to respond to them

quote:

---

look at how you consistently fail to respond to the very true point about how to convincingly defend your assertion about obama manipulating official economic data.

---

and it's astonishing/horrifying that you don't realize the very fact of me citing the articles does precisely what you are asking for. the articles patently say exactly that and then dive into the data which leads to the conclusion. i can only conclude that this tactic you are attempting is a result of you not wanting to actually do any work. you know, reading the articles and interacting with the data.

quote:

---

The Chinese MOU was unclear?

---

which one?

but in terms of enforceable trade terms, yeah, an MOU is unclear too

regardless, i probably should have said something more like "what Trump and therefore his flock will accept as a deal is unclear and always subject to change"

quote:

---

here comes the obligatory whining about how misunderstood you are

---

yep, ole pity-party 90!

quote:

---

the very fact of me citing the articles does precisely what you are asking for

---

it doesn't, never has, and never will. and that's why you won't quote this claim that "isn't yours", or the supposed evidence presented. which we knew already.

quote:

---

you're seriously asking me to just copy/paste the entire articles i cited?!

---

how could any literate adult get that from "show me where any of them state the number of downward revisions under obama compared to the total number of revisions"

quote:

---

THE MUO.

The one the Chinese are in DC renegotiating right now.

---

thought you were referring to something else because you were using the past tense.

quote:

---

The agreement as it stood went well beyond where the TPP did regarding bilateral US-China trade policy.

---

one sticking point was that according to all parties, there was no commitment at all to remove the steel/aluminum tariffs, or even the existing 10% tariffs on that 200billion of chinese imports