- 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: Tariffs on importers from China going to 25% Friday, apparently
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:02 pm to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:02 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:since you can't be bothered to follow a link, you now have no excuse
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"
0
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:14 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:still haven't responded to the point
dude that's what TPP is
quote:there it is. you can't follow a link and then you're just going to obfuscate. no thanks. just like in the other thread, the info is out there
i'll need you to start by citing all these experts
quote:i know for a fact that not everyone thinks the tpp is a good deal for the us nor that it will fix our specific problem with china.
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:why? so you can ignore it for the 5th time?
link to the post
1. explain why you and ib are using episodic instances to oppose something systemic
2. prove that you can defeat the ip theft problem by something other than the approach trump is using
quote:i've addressed this already multiple times. see my previous comment
no one has sniffed supporting the claim of 2 million jobs a year due to IP
quote:you can't predict the future or know alternate realities
i'll walk you through that
quote:uh yes. absolutely. no doubt about it.
you think the fact that the vice premier is coming to continue talks is "the main point"?
quote:says you
it's just another way of explaining why this approach is dumb
quote:delusion. multiple people have explained this to you. i'm sorry you don't understand
something was being done. a long-term and tactical something, that didn't needlessly use american consumers and producers as leverage
quote:"likely" being the key word
i prefer the approach that is likely to end up with the most stable setup with the lowest barriers all around
quote:you are wrong. if you disagree, prove it. i imported the content so you have no excuse to not follow a link.
it doesn't, never has, and never will
quote:in regards to ip theft, oh yes it is. you are wrong
"fair" may be facile, but it is far from discrete
quote:because that's what the articles do halfwit. i've been telling you that for a year and a half but you are a special kind of dense
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"
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:24 pm to 90proofprofessional
China is blaming Trump the them backtracking on previous concessions.. They believedwhen Trump said him and the head Chink had a good relationship this meant Trump may go easier on China. Also, Trump's spat with the Fed was seen as evidence that the US economy was weaker. So, they are blaming Trump because they misread Trump. 
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:46 pm to bfniii
quote:
still haven't responded to the point
your "point" was nonsensical, as usual. you said that "i couldn't prove" that TPP would drop 17000 tariffs, even though that's what TPP literally was.
quote:
there it is. you can't follow a link
you never provided a link to all the economic experts who think the tpp is a laughably bad deal to begin with!
quote:
1. explain why you and ib are using episodic instances to oppose something systemic
that doesn't even make sense. say what you mean in a way that makes sense.
quote:
2. prove that you can defeat the ip theft problem by something other than the approach trump is using
the costs of defecting from a multiparty IP agreement are greater than defecting from a bilateral IP agreement because you have a broader source of market access to lose and greater number of parties who will retaliate. QEDMF
quote:
i've addressed this already multiple times. see my previous comment
no, you haven't, unless your notion of addressing it is implying that assessing the validity of the claim itself doesn't matter
quote:
uh yes. absolutely. no doubt about it.
oh ok. more talks with underlings and maybe even another vague agreement where we keep our high "temporary leverage" tariffs on china and permanent high ones on the rest of the hemisphere and pacific rim. awesome trade-off
quote:
delusion. multiple people have explained this to you. i'm sorry you don't understand
who's the one saying "nuh-uh" again? even to the FACT of the tens of thousands of reduced tariffs we'd have right now if we were in TPP
quote:
"likely" being the key word
no, "most likely".
quote:
in regards to ip theft, oh yes it is. you are wrong
it is most certainly not discrete with the word "fair". that is one of the most subjective words in our political discourse.
and as far as the legal concept of IP goes, it is neither facile NOR discrete. IP is an arbitrary concept, as discussed at some length in this thread
quote:
that's what the articles do halfwit
man, none of those articles contemplate the total numbers of revisions over obama's tenure. how many times will i have to say that?
Posted on 5/11/19 at 11:18 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:except that basically every rational person on this board has been telling you essentially the same thing. at some point, it's you.
your "point" was nonsensical, as usual
quote:and herein lies the problem. you can't even accurately reproduce what i've said. then you respond with childish nonsense. what i said was that you can't prove that the tpp is directly and solely responsible for making things "better" (whatever that means) nor can you prove that it would solve the china problem. in fact, IT WASN'T solving the china problem. i'm asking you to prove that your alternate tpp reality is better in grown up terms. like with substantiation and stuff. not just obligatory 90proof bluster we just have to take you at your word because in your mind you are so much smarter than everyone else.
you said that "i couldn't prove" that TPP would drop 17000 tariffs, even though that's what TPP literally was
quote:you asked me to cite people who disagree with the tpp, which is easy to find btw. you don't need me for that. but in the past, you have shown that even if i were to provide that, you wouldn't even acknowledge it anyway. so there's no point. you can't be bothered to follow a link to evidence.
you never provided a link to all the economic experts who think the tpp is a laughably bad deal to begin with!
quote:so you can't prove your point. you're just posting your opinion and then insulting people who disagree with you. the tpp wasn't addressing the china problem and there are economists who don't think it was a good deal anyway, on it's own merits. i'm sorry you don't see that.
the costs of defecting from a multiparty IP agreement are greater than defecting from a bilateral IP agreement because you have a broader source of market access to lose and greater number of parties who will retaliate.
quote:of course you cite evidence that they are working but then say they aren't working. textbook "no you didn't" 90.
more talks with underlings
quote:have you even looked at china's economy lately? my gosh you are insufferable. trade off.
awesome trade-off
quote:90 speak for "i have no idea. i'm just guessing and then acting like i know something."
no, "most likely".
quote:ok. so when trump directly links the 2, that's not discrete. you're just not even rational on this subject. you're defending the tpp for crying out loud.
it is most certainly not discrete with the word "fair"
quote:you're just delusional. several examples have been provided with the cost result. never mind that china is stealing our own ip for military use against us. my word you are dense.
and as far as the legal concept of IP goes, it is neither facile NOR discrete. IP is an arbitrary concept, as discussed at some length in this thread
quote:i've addressed this point
none of those articles contemplate the total numbers of revisions over obama's tenure. how many times will i have to say that?
Posted on 5/11/19 at 11:47 am to bfniii
quote:
you asked me to cite people who disagree with the tpp, which is easy to find btw. you don't need me for that.
yeah that's what i thought
quote:
you can't prove that the tpp is directly and solely responsible for making things "better" (whatever that means) nor can you prove that it would solve the china problem. in fact, IT WASN'T solving the china problem.
first of all, it was never in effect for us. we abandoned the deal late in the game. we abandoned 17000 lowered tariffs -which would've been an unambiguous "better" right off the bat- and increased leverage on china via an agreement with 11 more countries that China also likes trading with that included IP protections as a condition of entry
quote:
so you can't prove your point. you're just posting your opinion
my opinion is based on the same reasoning y'all provide consistently- leverage. we'd have more of it in TPP. and be better off with the trade barrier situation on top of it. trump bailed on it to pander to populists and unions
quote:
of course you cite evidence that they are working
"evidence they are working" would be actual results. which would include comparison with a pre-defined standard to which we could compare whatever "deal" we wind up with
quote:
have you even looked at china's economy lately? my gosh you are insufferable. trade off
the fact that it hurts them more than it hurts us does not mean we are going to get what we want- even though you won't even specifically say what that is or what it will do for us- and it certainly doesn't mean that we're not being hurt
quote:
so when trump directly links the 2, that's not discrete
not if we're dealing with a contentious and nebulous legal concept, and if you can't tell us exactly what your standard of "fair" is without hiding behind absurdly-general platitudes that cannot serve as a basis for a legal deal
quote:
several examples have been provided with the cost result
none that can remotely withstand discussion over whether any of them support for the $2 billion figure. why do you resist cost-benefit analysis so strenuously?
This post was edited on 5/11/19 at 11:48 am
Posted on 5/11/19 at 11:57 am to 90proofprofessional
No... what you thought was Trump would be bad and you would get to brag on that. Turns out you were wrong.
Now you cling to the lies that you purchased.
Now you cling to the lies that you purchased.
Posted on 5/11/19 at 7:18 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:good. get to it. let's see you trounce all those simpletons.
yeah that's what i thought
quote:you keep repeating it but you can't prove that it would have been ULTIMATELY better than the current approach nor can you prove that it would have solved the china problem. i know you don't understand what the word prove means.
we abandoned 17000 lowered tariffs -which would've been an unambiguous "better" right off the bat
quote:this sounds great on paper but, you certainly aren't incorporating the criticisms of the deal
increased leverage on china via an agreement with 11 more countries that China also likes trading with that included IP protections as a condition of entry
quote:your tpp scenario is in theory. china's economic slump and visit to the white house are real
my opinion is based on the same reasoning y'all provide consistently- leverage
quote:according to you
we'd have more of it in TPP
quote:good
trump bailed on it to pander to populists and unions
quote:like them showing up on us soil? like the china market problems. those actual results?
"evidence they are working" would be actual results
quote:the predefined standard is the chinese threat to the us due to ip theft. i've explained that to you many times
which would include comparison with a pre-defined standard
quote:on this score, you actually have a good point. we have no idea how this will end up but, we also have no guarantee that the tpp would have been better. however, there is no question that trump's approach has china's attention.
which we could compare whatever "deal" we wind up with
quote:i've only said it about 25 times, curbing ip theft. if we get a good trade deal out of it, that would be icing on the cake.
even though you won't even specifically say what that is or what it will do for us
quote:yes, even if we're dealing with your additional factors. it is absolutely discrete and facile. it's so simple even YOU can grasp it. the fair trade aspects you refer to do not change the threat due to ip theft.
not if we're dealing with a contentious and nebulous legal concept
quote:i don't need to advance a standard of fairness. we are shooting for more fair than what we have now. we can keep working on it indefinitely. you are making this more complex than quantum physics.
if you can't tell us exactly what your standard of "fair" is without hiding behind absurdly-general platitudes that cannot serve as a basis for a legal deal
quote:the $2bil it's just an incidental aspect of the story. the fact that there is loss is what matters. this is your typical missing the forest for the trees tactic that i have noted many times.
none that can remotely withstand discussion over whether any of them support for the $2 billion figure
quote:what the hell would that accomplish? us companies are losing ip and it's a threat to the us. what difference does it make if it has cost us $1 or $100bil? none. it matters none. you keep trying to add irrelevancies in order to obfuscate.
why do you resist cost-benefit analysis so strenuously?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:23 am to I B Freeman
Market value loss since Sunday week ago tweet approaches $1 trillion in US alone as the DOW is poised to open down close to 500 points this morning.
But Trump tells us it will not impact us.
The value of access to Chinese markets and the cost of the tariffs will soon be apparent to voters.
But Trump tells us it will not impact us.
The value of access to Chinese markets and the cost of the tariffs will soon be apparent to voters.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:28 am to I B Freeman
IBtariffboi does not understand leverage.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:34 am to I B Freeman
quote:I’m agains the tariffs, but I don’t think that the above is correct. The Russell 3000 (about 98% of entire US market), isn’t even down 2% (about 1.7%). So while the US market is north of $30 trillion, it would have to be $58 trillion for a 1.7% drop to result in a trillion loss.
Market value loss since Sunday week ago tweet approaches $1 trillion in US alone as the DOW is poised to open down close to 500 points this morning.
Besides, we’ve had far bigger swings both ways in the past year and a half. When the market cap is over $30 trillion, a regular old market correction will result in a $3+ trillion loss.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 7:36 am
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:39 am to BuckyCheese
I understand completely.
What is China’s ultimate tool? Access to a billion people—the central issue of this entire trade war.
Cue tweets blaming the Fed
Cue tweets whining about a cheaper RMB calling it currency manipulation ignoring the fact that dollars leaving the stock market because of the trade war are buying treasuries running up the dollar (a strong dollar of course lessens the impact of tariffs to a degree)
What is China’s ultimate tool? Access to a billion people—the central issue of this entire trade war.
Cue tweets blaming the Fed
Cue tweets whining about a cheaper RMB calling it currency manipulation ignoring the fact that dollars leaving the stock market because of the trade war are buying treasuries running up the dollar (a strong dollar of course lessens the impact of tariffs to a degree)
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:42 am to I B Freeman
quote:
the DOW is poised to open down close to 500 points this morning.
Show me. It's not that I don't believe you it's just that I don't believe you. I read it was going to be 300 points.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:49 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:CNBC has it currently down 475 with an implied opening down 445. These things can change quickly though.
Show me. It's not that I don't believe you it's just that I don't believe you. I read it was going to be 300 points.
CNBC: Pre-market data
Posted on 5/13/19 at 7:53 am to buckeye_vol
You are right on the $1 trillion. The number is between $300 and $400 billion. We are down about 1100 points on the Dow since Sunday a week ago.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 7:55 am
Posted on 5/13/19 at 8:23 am to I B Freeman
quote:Thick irony coming from someone constantly whining and blaming in his posts.
Cue tweets blaming . . .
Cue tweets whining . . .
Posted on 5/13/19 at 8:33 am to buckeye_vol
Market alarmists like to quote absolute numbers instead of percentages because of the conditioning people have received to think of three digit moves as significant. Absolute numbers when the dow is at 25k mean half as much as they did when it was 12.5k. They also misinterpret index levels as the only indicator of economic health.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 8:35 am
Posted on 5/13/19 at 8:50 am to I B Freeman
quote:
What is China’s ultimate tool? Access to a billion people—the central issue of this entire trade war.
1.4 billion of which a huge percentage still live in an agrarian economy with little purchasing power.
The US has less than a third of the population with a much larger economy.
China needs us more than we need them and it isn't close.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 8:51 am to BuckyCheese
China is out of bullets. Dump Treasuries. Lol. Go for it. BTFD
Posted on 5/13/19 at 9:46 am to I B Freeman
here's some quick price-effect analysis stuff from Goldman over the weekend that surprised me. it may even surprise you
CPI decomposition:
PPI:
CPI decomposition:
PPI:
Page 18 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News