Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-05-2018, 12:48 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
The market is farther away, so longer supply chains for one. Canada would also be more difficult for Germany to defend and presumably less of a priority in the event of a war.
How bizarre. Why would a stronger Germany be bad for Canada? It's not as if the United States would cease to exist; indeed, as they are allies, a relatively stronger Germany would mean a USA that was richer, even if it wasn't as important as Germany. In no way would Germany being stronger change the military or economic realities of North America, nor would it change the likelihood of Canada being invaded, which is effectively zero.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #52  
Old 10-05-2018, 12:54 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
How bizarre. Why would a stronger Germany be bad for Canada? It's not as if the United States would cease to exist; indeed, as they are allies, a relatively stronger Germany would mean a USA that was richer, even if it wasn't as important as Germany. In no way would Germany being stronger change the military or economic realities of North America, nor would it change the likelihood of Canada being invaded, which is effectively zero.
I believe they are positing an isolationist US that doesn't trade with Canada or the rest of the world, and a (even more fantastic) ascendant German global hyperpower. This wouldn't really benefit Canada that much, since it's going to be hard to have the same volume of trade with Germany as Canada does with the US, and no way could Germany protect Canada in any meaningful way.

Of course, the reality is that the US couldn't be completely isolationist as we rely so much on goods and services imported into the US...and if we did and decided that going back to those good old days of a 19th century economy, we'd pretty much take down the rest of the world as well, especially in the short term. Germany isn't going to rise up like a, well, was going to say phoenix but I guess a two headed eagle to become a global hyperpower...and neither is anyone else, at least not for a long, long time. Happily, even if Trump gets re-elected he can't possibly do that level of damage to the US or the world economy even with a second term...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #53  
Old 10-05-2018, 01:28 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I believe they are positing an isolationist US that doesn't trade with Canada or the rest of the world...
In such a scenario, Germany's relative strength is irrelevant.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #54  
Old 10-05-2018, 01:41 PM
Horatius Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Trump is like most politicians, once a subject is dealt with, they declare victory and move on. There won't be anymore rumblings of a trade war with Mexico or Canada for a decade at least.


Trump is absolutely not like other politicians. This is a guy who breaks every contract he can get away with the moment he perceives even the slightest advantage to himself for breaking it. The first time he sees Canada or Mexico benefiting from this new deal, he'll denounce it as unfair and disastrous.
  #55  
Old 10-05-2018, 02:04 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Happily, even if Trump gets re-elected he can't possibly do that level of damage to the US or the world economy even with a second term...
I'm less sanguine on this. I think major economic changes can get set in place in a very short time period and then have their effects last for decades.

As an example, I'll offer the cotton trade. The economy of the southern United States in the mid-19th century was based on producing cotton for export. Then there was an issue which caused the shipping of cotton to be interrupted.

That "issue" was resolved in less than five years but the southern states found that the cotton market had drastically and irrevocably changed when they tried to re-enter it. When access to American cotton was cut off, new cotton fields were planted in Egypt, India, and Central Asia. American cotton producers found that nobody wanted to buy the cotton that they now wanted to sell. The temporary change caused by the war had become a permanent fixture.

Or consider car sales. It was long accepted that American consumers would exclusively buy American cars. Foreign cars were basically a novelty. Then the oil price crisis in the early seventies created an opening for companies like Honda and Toyota to enter the American car market in a big way. The American car companies were shaken out of their complacency and began making cars that could compete with foreign manufacturers. But they never recovered their exclusive access to the American market. Those foreign car makers established a production and sales network in the United States which has made them a permanent presence.

That's the kind of possibility I worry about happening to American exporters. A Trump-led trade war could shake foreign consumers out of their default tendency to buy imported American products. Other countries would step in to fill that void and will build up manufacturing and distribution systems. Then in a few years Trump would be out of office and the next American president will try to go back to business as usual in exports. But foreign markets will no longer have the default acceptance for American imports. The markets we lose in the next five years may not be regained in the fifty years after that.
  #56  
Old 10-05-2018, 02:16 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm less sanguine on this. I think major economic changes can get set in place in a very short time period and then have their effects last for decades.

As an example, I'll offer the cotton trade. The economy of the southern United States in the mid-19th century was based on producing cotton for export. Then there was an issue which caused the shipping of cotton to be interrupted.

That "issue" was resolved in less than five years but the southern states found that the cotton market had drastically and irrevocably changed when they tried to re-enter it. When access to American cotton was cut off, new cotton fields were planted in Egypt, India, and Central Asia. American cotton producers found that nobody wanted to buy the cotton that they now wanted to sell. The temporary change caused by the war had become a permanent fixture.

Or consider car sales. It was long accepted that American consumers would exclusively buy American cars. Foreign cars were basically a novelty. Then the oil price crisis in the early seventies created an opening for companies like Honda and Toyota to enter the American car market in a big way. The American car companies were shaken out of their complacency and began making cars that could compete with foreign manufacturers. But they never recovered their exclusive access to the American market. Those foreign car makers established a production and sales network in the United States which has made them a permanent presence.

That's the kind of possibility I worry about happening to American exporters. A Trump-led trade war could shake foreign consumers out of their default tendency to buy imported American products. Other countries would step in to fill that void and will build up manufacturing and distribution systems. Then in a few years Trump would be out of office and the next American president will try to go back to business as usual in exports. But foreign markets will no longer have the default acceptance for American imports. The markets we lose in the next five years may not be regained in the fifty years after that.
I was saying that mainly with hope, not absolute conviction (which is why I put the ellipses at the end). That said, a major market shift as you are positing would be pretty painful. Look at what's happening with soybeans and China. China is trying to find other markets, or build up their own soybean cultivation, but they are running into issues with both. Brazil is already at max capacity for growing the things, at least in the short term, and they already have markets for what they grow. Sure, they have shifted to meet Chinese demand, but they aren't close to meeting it, and their soy is more expensive...only a bit below the US costs WITH the tariffs. The Chinese agriculture soy is even worse...it's actually more expensive than the US product with the tariffs. Sure, eventually, after a large capital expense, maybe they can shift completely away from the US...but then, what happens if the sanctions go away down the road? The US could flood the market with the things at cut rates, and you'll be trying to pay off that large capital expense. Same goes for other products.

Then there is the flip side...the US is the largest single market. So...who is China going to dump their products on that they were selling to the US? Who will India? The EU? You are talking about having to rebuild markets from scratch, rebuild trade and product routes all while not knowing if this is a permanent issue or if it's a transitory one...and deciding if you REALLY want the huge capital expense and short term losses while rebuilding. Plus, while Trump is an idiot, some of the issues with US trade to China or even other countries aren't completely without merit or ridiculous...it's just that HE doesn't get them. But they are real enough. And the US isn't the only country that has issues with, say, China wrt trade and WTO compliance. Trump is like that stopped clock...it's still right 2 times a day, regardless of whether the clock gets it or not.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #57  
Old 10-05-2018, 05:42 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I was saying that mainly with hope, not absolute conviction (which is why I put the ellipses at the end). That said, a major market shift as you are positing would be pretty painful. Look at what's happening with soybeans and China. China is trying to find other markets, or build up their own soybean cultivation, but they are running into issues with both. Brazil is already at max capacity for growing the things, at least in the short term, and they already have markets for what they grow. Sure, they have shifted to meet Chinese demand, but they aren't close to meeting it, and their soy is more expensive...only a bit below the US costs WITH the tariffs. The Chinese agriculture soy is even worse...it's actually more expensive than the US product with the tariffs. Sure, eventually, after a large capital expense, maybe they can shift completely away from the US...but then, what happens if the sanctions go away down the road? The US could flood the market with the things at cut rates, and you'll be trying to pay off that large capital expense. Same goes for other products.

Then there is the flip side...the US is the largest single market. So...who is China going to dump their products on that they were selling to the US? Who will India? The EU? You are talking about having to rebuild markets from scratch, rebuild trade and product routes all while not knowing if this is a permanent issue or if it's a transitory one...and deciding if you REALLY want the huge capital expense and short term losses while rebuilding. Plus, while Trump is an idiot, some of the issues with US trade to China or even other countries aren't completely without merit or ridiculous...it's just that HE doesn't get them. But they are real enough. And the US isn't the only country that has issues with, say, China wrt trade and WTO compliance. Trump is like that stopped clock...it's still right 2 times a day, regardless of whether the clock gets it or not.
I think you're right, and even Trump's way of dealing with China is not 100% wrong. China can be hard to interact with a soft diplomacy, you kind of need to threaten to upset their apple cart a little bit to get them to pay attention. I'm not saying his approach has been perfect or even great but I kind of get it.

I.e. you can come to Canada and say "NAFTA has been great for everybody but it is a couple of decades old, and some of our industries are hurting because of it. So while we want free trade, we also want to make sure Americans aren't being left behind because of it. We'd like to take a look at it and modernize it so that everybody is happy." and I think you'd be well received in Canada. You cannot take that approach with China, in large part because there is no NAFTA equivalent to negotiate.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 10-05-2018 at 05:44 PM.
  #58  
Old 10-05-2018, 06:14 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Then there is the flip side...the US is the largest single market. So...who is China going to dump their products on that they were selling to the US? Who will India? The EU? You are talking about having to rebuild markets from scratch, rebuild trade and product routes all while not knowing if this is a permanent issue or if it's a transitory one...and deciding if you REALLY want the huge capital expense and short term losses while rebuilding. Plus, while Trump is an idiot, some of the issues with US trade to China or even other countries aren't completely without merit or ridiculous...it's just that HE doesn't get them. But they are real enough. And the US isn't the only country that has issues with, say, China wrt trade and WTO compliance. Trump is like that stopped clock...it's still right 2 times a day, regardless of whether the clock gets it or not.
That's the point I've been making. Too many people are just talking about America importing goods and how a tariff benefits us. But America is also a major exporter. And the retaliatory tariffs other countries enact in response to our tariffs will hurt our export trade.

So where will China export their products to? To the markets that are reducing their purchasing of American exports. Let's say, as a hypothetical, that the United States imports five hundred billion dollars worth of good from China every year and exports three hundred billion dollars worth of good to the EU. We slap tariffs on foreign goods. So our imports from China drop to three hundred million dollars a year. But China and the EU enact their own tariffs on American goods so our exports to Europe drop to a hundred billion dollars a year. Now China has two hundred million dollars worth of goods it had planned on exporting to the United States and the EU didn't buy two hundred million dollars worth of goods it had planned on importing from the United States. It doesn't take much to see China and the EU reaching an agreement. The result is China and the EU are both doing the same amount of business as before and the United States is the one that's had its business reduced.

As for the infrastructure involved, I've also mentioned that. Yes, it costs money to develop new markets. China isn't currently producing the exact goods that the EU wants. Let's say it would cost them a hundred billion to retool their factories to do so. China has no immediate interest in doing that. Why spend all that money to retool their production lines when they're already producing goods that America's buying? But if a trade war begins, they lose the two hundred billion dollars worth of sales I mentioned above. Now they're motivated to spend the hundred million needed to switch over to selling products to the EU.

And here's the key point; once they've spend the money on building the needed infrastructure, they have no motive in abandoning it. Let's say Trump gets voted out of office in 2020 and the new President rescinds all of the tariffs. We send the word to China that they can come back to selling us five hundred billion dollars worth of goods. And they tell us no thanks; they've paid the cost to switch over to manufacturing for the EU market so they have no reason to switch back. So even if we convince the EU to drop its tariffs on American goods, we're still going to have to compete with all these Chinese goods. So we'll never regain all of the sales we had before the trade war started. The market structure will have changed and we can't change it back to what it was, even if only a couple of years have passed.
  #59  
Old 10-05-2018, 06:56 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's the point I've been making. Too many people are just talking about America importing goods and how a tariff benefits us. But America is also a major exporter. And the retaliatory tariffs other countries enact in response to our tariffs will hurt our export trade.

So where will China export their products to? To the markets that are reducing their purchasing of American exports. Let's say, as a hypothetical, that the United States imports five hundred billion dollars worth of good from China every year and exports three hundred billion dollars worth of good to the EU. We slap tariffs on foreign goods. So our imports from China drop to three hundred million dollars a year. But China and the EU enact their own tariffs on American goods so our exports to Europe drop to a hundred billion dollars a year. Now China has two hundred million dollars worth of goods it had planned on exporting to the United States and the EU didn't buy two hundred million dollars worth of goods it had planned on importing from the United States. It doesn't take much to see China and the EU reaching an agreement. The result is China and the EU are both doing the same amount of business as before and the United States is the one that's had its business reduced.

As for the infrastructure involved, I've also mentioned that. Yes, it costs money to develop new markets. China isn't currently producing the exact goods that the EU wants. Let's say it would cost them a hundred billion to retool their factories to do so. China has no immediate interest in doing that. Why spend all that money to retool their production lines when they're already producing goods that America's buying? But if a trade war begins, they lose the two hundred billion dollars worth of sales I mentioned above. Now they're motivated to spend the hundred million needed to switch over to selling products to the EU.

And here's the key point; once they've spend the money on building the needed infrastructure, they have no motive in abandoning it. Let's say Trump gets voted out of office in 2020 and the new President rescinds all of the tariffs. We send the word to China that they can come back to selling us five hundred billion dollars worth of goods. And they tell us no thanks; they've paid the cost to switch over to manufacturing for the EU market so they have no reason to switch back. So even if we convince the EU to drop its tariffs on American goods, we're still going to have to compete with all these Chinese goods. So we'll never regain all of the sales we had before the trade war started. The market structure will have changed and we can't change it back to what it was, even if only a couple of years have passed.
Well, first off, tariffs don't benefit us. There is a reason that they haven't been used much by the US in the recent past, and when they have been tried they have not done much to help us out.

Certainly retaliatory tariffs will hurt our export companies. They will hurt the countries enacting them as well. But I don't think rebuilding trade networks is going to be nearly as easy or cut and dried as you think because even if you can rebuild the intricate network of shipping, it's going to be difficult to rebuild the market. The US buys a staggering array of goods and services that require an intricate web of suppliers and manufacturers. But the same market for the same goods and services is not going to exist in, say, Germany or the UK or Canada as the one that exists here. We are at the center of a web of buyers and sellers, of suppliers and manufacturers and you can't just recreate the market forces that exist in the US somewhere else. China is already selling a ton of goods and services in the EU...so the EU isn't going to suddenly buy all the stuff they are already buying AND all the stuff we were buying. You are also skipping over the fact that many countries in the EU aren't exactly thrilled with what China has been doing wrt trade either, and they are also starting to worry about other things...like what China has been doing wrt it's predatory baited loans, and the fact that they are already manipulating Greece and how Greece is voting in the EU.

Down the road China MIGHT be able to create new markets in Africa...they are already trying to do that. But their own practices might shoot them in the foot, as they are simultaneously 'helping' several African nations and putting them into untenable debt. They do this because what they currently want is the network, not the market. But they want it to service their current market (and, also to build new markets for their goods and services, especially construction equipment and labor, but creating the sorts of market that the US represents is still decades down the pike at this point).

And Europe is in sort of the same place. Sure, they can slap tariffs on US goods and services, but if they really have to find new markets to replace US consumption it's going to be pretty tough. There isn't a lot of slack. China could, I suppose, buy from Europe what they currently buy from the US, but that's not going to make up for the US market going away. And, sure, Europe could look for new markets in Africa as well (they are already doing this), but, again, that's going to take time to build up. No way is this something that will happen by 2020, or 2024...or 2030. Can they survive that long? They are already having issues, and, frankly, if it really went that far that would probably mean the US is pulling out of NATO and pulling back on all fronts. Which means Europe is going to need to up their game wrt military spending levels and force projection. China is already doing this of course, and so is India. Russia would be if they could, but even without a huge spending increase they have the legacy hardware to be a force.


It's a very tangled mess. And we have a president who doesn't get any of this stuff and who is like a particularly stupid and clumsy bull in a really delicate china shop. But it's not just the US who he'll be hurting if he decides to go for a new round of tariffs all around. Currently, the only ones we are REALLY serious about putting tariffs on are the Chinese. The rest has been, IMHO, mostly for show or to try and see what Trump can get out of the country in question. $250 billion in tariffs is a serious move. I just wish he knew what he was doing, and that his reasons for doing it were the right ones...and his goals for what he's looking for were the right ones. And that he understood about how American power actually works. While I'm wishing for stuff that isn't going to happen, I wish Obama were still president. Hell, we'd be better off under GW than this clown.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #60  
Old 10-05-2018, 07:25 PM
DinoR DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I will *never* buy an American car again (i.e. a car made by an American company).
The company making the car isn't all that relevant to your purpose.

Since NAFTA was first implemented automakers shifted to producing for the entire North American market. They build in factories located in the three countries. Supply chains can cross borders multiple times before final assembly. You might be turning up your nose at a GM that is mostly Canadian made in order to buy a Honda made in the US.

Welcome to globalization.

Last edited by DinoR; 10-05-2018 at 07:25 PM.
  #61  
Old 10-07-2018, 07:39 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's the point I've been making. Too many people are just talking about America importing goods and how a tariff benefits us.
Well, and they should also talk about how tariffs hurts Americans.

Somehow, Donald Trump has gotten his followers to think raising their taxes is a good thing.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #62  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:46 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
The company making the car isn't all that relevant to your purpose.

Since NAFTA was first implemented automakers shifted to producing for the entire North American market. They build in factories located in the three countries. Supply chains can cross borders multiple times before final assembly. You might be turning up your nose at a GM that is mostly Canadian made in order to buy a Honda made in the US.

Welcome to globalization.
I would argue that where something is made is not as important as the company it benefits for me to purchase it.

Not that I would ever buy a car that wasn't used, anyways. That first bit of depreciation always seems to make used worth it.
  #63  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:09 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well, and they should also talk about how tariffs hurts Americans.

Somehow, Donald Trump has gotten his followers to think raising their taxes is a good thing.
That's a separate point from what I was saying but I'll grant you it's an important point. Too many discussions about the American "economy" tend to focus on the economy of American corporate executives. Even if we accept the notion that tariffs benefit America, we should acknowledge that they actually only benefit the handful of Americans who own a manufacturing company.

It's the same thing with other economic "good news". When typical Trumpers brag about how great a job Trump is doing because of high stock market prices, I feel like asking them how big their personal portfolio is.
  #64  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:15 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's a separate point from what I was saying but I'll grant you it's an important point. Too many discussions about the American "economy" tend to focus on the economy of American corporate executives. Even if we accept the notion that tariffs benefit America, we should acknowledge that they actually only benefit the handful of Americans who own a manufacturing company.

It's the same thing with other economic "good news". When typical Trumpers brag about how great a job Trump is doing because of high stock market prices, I feel like asking them how big their personal portfolio is.
Easier question is, are you just using the DOW to determine how well things are going, or if not what metrics are you using?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #65  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:37 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Mercantilism? Where did you study economics; the Holy Roman Empire? Mercantilism was the stuff that Adam Smith discredited back in the 18th century. You might as well be calling for the establishment of guilds and the outlawing of usury.
Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and China are (or have been) mercantalistic. As are Germany and other protectionist export oriented economies.

Mercantilism, according to Laura LaHay, in the Library of Economics and Liberty, “is economic nationalism for the purpose of building a wealthy and powerful state.” Economist Adam Smith coined the term mercantile system.

It can only last as long as the trading partners allow it to last. Sometimes they don't have a choice but to allow the mercantile behaviour and that may be the case with America's trading partners right now because it would be devastating to their economy if an actual trade war broke out.

Perhaps in America's case it is more correct to call it protectionism rather than mercantalism because we are trying to get back to a balanced position rather than improve on an already good position.
  #66  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:39 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
We've already been in the British Empire, no need to go back.
Britain was an empire and you were a colony, you would not be a colony as the 51st through 60th states.
  #67  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:49 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
You see, you say that, but will you, really? Trump is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump by himself wouldn't be a problem, it's everyone else around Trump who is the real problem. The people who voted for him, despite his obvious flaws. The people who still support him, because of his obvious flaws. The cowards and scoundrels in Congress who won't act to curb him. The cowards and scoundrels in Congress who go out of their way to help him.
Trump had a unique message; most of the other 20 Republican candidates had slight variations of the same message. I expect to see the Republican party become more protectionist, more isolationist, less benevolent on the international stage. The new Republican party would have parked the tanks on the Iraqi oilfields and sucked them dry. The new Republican party would be more Machiavelli/Sun Tzu and less City on a Hill

Quote:
And every scumbag power grabber out there who's watching this all, and taking notes. How many open Nazis and regular racists have thrown their hat into the Republican ring this election cycle?
Not much more than usual and they are not experiencing a lot more success than usual.

Quote:
Do you really see a way back to how it used to be? I can't see that happening even if you tried to do a 180 right now. After another 6 years of this? Your government will be so irrevocably broken that you'll pretty much have to start over.
The thing about a democracy is that we do in fact start over every 2 years, 4 and 6 years. The only thing that is not subject to the election cycle is SCOTUS.

Quote:
And gods alone know what that will look like.
I think we should be fine. I suspect that when we elect our next Democratic Government, things will revert to normalcy.
  #68  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
And you're right (see my other post). Right now. But recent events are going to little by little have other countries inch away from trading with the USA because now people are seeing the USA as being a potentially unstable partner. And it is this attitude that the USA is the best (despite not really being the best at a great many things) and we will *always* be the best that also helps to push people away. Empires fall and the USA is no different. It is simply a question when and how.
I don't see anyone moving away from the USA. People don't really choose their trading partners so much as they pursue business opportunities. And right now, America is still the people you do business with to make money.

Quote:
Yeah, I agree. Was I not clear that I'm not happy about the USA descending? I mean I am a little bit because I think Americans kind of having it come because of the arrogance and the way they treat the world, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. But from the perspective of the country I love, Canada, yeah, of course I wish the USA would continue to be successful. A powerful USA has been great for Canada, there is zero doubt about this. A descending USA will imply a descending Canada (and Mexico for that matter). I wish for nothing more than for Canada and the USA to remain good friends and allies. It is too bad that one of those friends just called the other friend a national security risk. You cannot on the one hand say to a friend, we don't trust you, but on the other hand keep treating *us* as if we're you're close friend.
They're just words... by our commander in chief. But still just bullshit words. He's an embarrassing buffoon but hopefully he will serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of the world and future generations.

Quote:
And as per my other post, I have no problem with NAFTA being renegotiated. It was a slightly older agreement. It could be modernized. No problem. It is that it was re-negotiated that irks me, it probably needed it because a lot has changed in the past couple of decades. It was the manner in which it was done that is irksome.
fair enough. It was insulting but that is this president's stock in trade. Like some of the posters on this board he discovered that insults carry a lot of mileage and costs little in the near term.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-09-2018 at 01:52 PM.
  #69  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:20 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Britain was an empire and you were a colony, you would not be a colony as the 51st through 60th states.
I seriously doubt that Napoleon would have sold the Louisiana Purchase to Great Britain, but what's with "the 51st through 60th states"?
  #70  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:32 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and China are (or have been) mercantalistic. As are Germany and other protectionist export oriented economies.
Protectionism is not mercantilism. Mercantilism is the economic theory that there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world based on physical commodities like land or gold. People build up wealth by taking it from other people; the only way one person grows richer is if somebody else becomes poorer. Mercantilism then goes on to expend this to a national scale; nations need to compete against other nations in grabbing the most resources. If they don't, those other nations will grab the resources first and become more powerful than the nation that practices restraint. Mercantilism was the economic theory that justified the first wave of imperialism. It also justified the exploitation of colonies because it said that if the home country spend money on the colonies, it would end up poorer and weaker. So the home countries had to ensure that money flowed from the colonies to the home country rather than the other way around.

Mercantilism essentially denied the possibility that you could create new wealth. So there was no point in investment; you weren't putting money into something with the expectation it would become more valuable. All you were doing was spending money, which was then lost. The closest thing to an investment was doing something like buying a gun so you could go out and rob people and thereby get more money than the gun cost you. But that was just redistributing wealth not creating it.

Adam Smith threw this theory out when he pointed out that it was possible to create wealth. You can invest money and become richer without somebody else having to lose the money you're gaining. For example, rather than buying a gun to rob people, you can buy some metal and wood and build a gun which you then sell. You're happy because you sold the gun for more than you paid for the raw materials. The guy who bought the gun is happy because the gun is more valuable to him than the raw materials would have been. You have a transaction where both parties ended up with more than they started with; you have created wealth. This is capitalism and pretty much everyone believes in it, even people like the communists who don't like it.

What happened in East Asia is sometimes called neomercantilism, which is not mercantilism. It's basically just capitalism but with some restrictions on free trade.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 10-09-2018 at 03:33 PM.
  #71  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:32 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Trump supporters do not now believe in free trade but they are no longer agitating for trade restrictions.
Trump is like most politicians, once a subject is dealt with, they declare victory and move on. There won't be anymore rumblings of a trade war with Mexico or Canada for a decade at least.
But the subject was "dealt" with before he took office. The only rumblings of a Trade war were ones he (and some others on the right) created.

Gee, Dr. Trump ever since you stopped punching me in the face my nose pain went away, your a medical miracle worker!

This is just part of Trumps SOP

1) Threaten to take action that would create a disaster
2) get talked down by cooler heads
3) decide against moves in step 1
4) claim credit for averting disaster predicted in step 1.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017