• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dow tumbles more than 700 points as trade war fears intensify

Jetboogieman said:
Indeed, what journalists should start doing is taking tons of drugs and pretend to support Trump, what do you think?
Click to expand...

Any school shooters to glorify in today's headlines? Today's front page of the NY Times "Man murders wife." The article reads "x, inspired by a report of how another man cooked and ate his wife after killing her to eliminate the evidence, did the same, joked with members of the press about recipes as he was escorted from the courthouse to prison transportation after his conviction."

Responsible journalism.
 
Mycroft said:
Seems China has decided to show the world their "Panda" instead of their "Red Dragon".
Click to expand...

Let's say that China quintuples its purchases of semi-conductors to $13B, that, then, reduces the trade deficit from $375.2B to the totally insignificant sum of $364.8B AND reduces the supply of semi-conductors available for American manufacturers thus driving up the price of American manufactured goods that require semi-conductors. The amount of money to do that works out to around 0.580% of China's GDP and, quite frankly, China could afford to simply warehouse the semi-conductors for a couple of years, declare them surplus to requirements, liquidate them at auction for pennies on the dollar, and then put them back into the US market at a price that US semi-conductor manufacturers simply couldn't match.

PS - Have you ever seen someone after they have annoyed a Panda (Medical article and rather gory photos [Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014; 7(11): 4515–4518. Published online 2014 Nov 15.]). The Truth About Pandas isn't quite what you think it is.

Mycroft said:
Trump's got their number.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to bet my lunch money on it.
 
Phys251 said:
What Donald's loyalists do not understand is--I don't want the economy to go off a cliff. We already went through that a decade ago and we don't need to go through that again.

A trade war might be just the thing to make it happen.
Click to expand...

Some people have difficulty telling the difference between

"Don't walk on the ice it isn't strong enough to support your weight."

and

"I want you to fall through the ice.".
 
OldFatGuy said:
Ah, a luddite.
Click to expand...

Nope, a straight forward question.

OldFatGuy said:
Take a look at the history of automation and what it does for labor.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking it allows the people who own the means of production to produce more of their product by using less labour. The fact that there are fewer jobs means that there is more competition for those jobs and that generally drives down the real wage per unit of production. If automating a factory enables the factory owner to operate the factory at the same level of output (and, assuming for the sake of illustration, that "labour" constitutes 50% of the cost of production) but using only 25% of the former work force then the factory owner can afford to increase wages 50% for those who are still working and still save money on "labour".

OldFatGuy said:
With automation comes new jobs that didn't exist previously, more and with better remuneration.
Click to expand...

True, but there isn't necessarily enough "new jobs with better remuneration" that are created to make up for the "old jobs with worse remuneration" that were lost.

OldFatGuy said:
You'll have to do much better than this old argument that never went anywhere.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making an "argument" I was asking a question.

American factories in America automated. American factories decreased their American work forces. Did those American manufacturing jobs go "off shore"?
 
Phys251 said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/03/22/stock-market-falls/448665002/





President Trade Wars is going to hurt the very working class to whom he appealed. The Dow Jones has lost nearly 3000 points since late January and has shown no signs of long-term stabilizing.
Click to expand...

Cannot help but notice how quick you are to post anything negative that happens during the Trump Administration but how slowly react to positive news like yesterday's stock market 3rd biggest one day increase in history. Not surprising but does show true partisanship and an inability to be objective

Dow jumps 669 points as trade war fears cool - Mar. 26, 2018
 
Conservative said:
Is that right? what was the stock market when Trump took office and what is it today? Show me any other investment that generates that return? just another anti Trump thread. Think those tariffs are going to help US steel companies and steel workers? Seems you don't really care about creating jobs just bashing Trump
Click to expand...



“what was the stock market when Trump took office and what is it today?”

You can’t show that the stock market is going up at any greater a rate than under Obama, under whom the trend was established.

“Think those tariffs are going to help US steel companies and steel workers?”

You can’t show that the tariffs help to US steel companies and steel workers is a net positive above the companies that buy steel and their workers suffer because of the tariffs. Tariffs are supposed to allow domestic companies to be more competitive because the higher cost of foreign product makes domestic product relatively lower in price. However, just like is always done, domestic producers automatically raise their prices to take advantage of the spread and make greater profit without adding workers or increasing cost of goods. US produced steel have already gone up as much as 35%, with more to come:

Trump tariff backlash, Keg company 30% layoff ? Natural Resource Report

https://www.metalbulletin.com/Artic...ices-rise-25-per-ton-price-hike-sticking.html

What a surprise. Who'da thunk it?
 
bluesmoke said:
“what was the stock market when Trump took office and what is it today?”

You can’t show that the stock market is going up at any greater a rate than under Obama, under whom the trend was established.

“Think those tariffs are going to help US steel companies and steel workers?”

You can’t show that the tariffs help to US steel companies and steel workers is a net positive above the companies that buy steel and their workers suffer because of the tariffs. Tariffs are supposed to allow domestic companies to be more competitive because the higher cost of foreign product makes domestic product relatively lower in price. However, just like is always done, domestic producers automatically raise their prices to take advantage of the spread and make greater profit without adding workers or increasing cost of goods. US produced steel have already gone up as much as 35%, with more to come:

Trump tariff backlash, Keg company 30% layoff ? Natural Resource Report

https://www.metalbulletin.com/Artic...ices-rise-25-per-ton-price-hike-sticking.html

What a surprise. Who'da thunk it?
Click to expand...

19k and 24k today so what exactly is your point? and yes I can show that the stock market is going up at a greater rate because that is reality, it was over 14,000 in 2007 when the Democrats took Congress and that is the number that should be used as that is the number Obama said he would increase. going from 14k to 18k isn't the same as going from 19 to 24k. what you and the rest of the left want to ignore is that Obama and Democrats helped crash the stock market and want to give him credit from bringing it back from the lows not what he was hired to do.

Keep spouting the negatives totally ignoring the positives like the 2.7 million more Americans working today than Obama's last month in office or the 8.2% U-6 rate vs. Obama's 9.4 or 13.3% average over 8 years
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Let's say that China quintuples its purchases of semi-conductors to $13B, that, then, reduces the trade deficit from $375.2B to the totally insignificant sum of $364.8B AND reduces the supply of semi-conductors available for American manufacturers thus driving up the price of American manufactured goods that require semi-conductors. The amount of money to do that works out to around 0.580% of China's GDP and, quite frankly, China could afford to simply warehouse the semi-conductors for a couple of years, declare them surplus to requirements, liquidate them at auction for pennies on the dollar, and then put them back into the US market at a price that US semi-conductor manufacturers simply couldn't match.

PS - Have you ever seen someone after they have annoyed a Panda (Medical article and rather gory photos [Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014; 7(11): 4515–4518. Published online 2014 Nov 15.]). The Truth About Pandas isn't quite what you think it is.



I wouldn't want to bet my lunch money on it.
Click to expand...

Any reduction of the trade deficit is good...even if it's small.

An increase in purchases won't reduce the supply for American manufacturers. Semi-conductor manufacturers will increase production to meet the increased demand. The price will remain relatively stable.

If China holds onto semi-conductors and tries to sell them later, they'll lose an enormous pile of money. Semi-conductors have a shelf life. The Chinese aren't idiots.

What you do with your lunch money is of no concern to me.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Nope, a straight forward question.



Generally speaking it allows the people who own the means of production to produce more of their product by using less labour. The fact that there are fewer jobs means that there is more competition for those jobs and that generally drives down the real wage per unit of production. If automating a factory enables the factory owner to operate the factory at the same level of output (and, assuming for the sake of illustration, that "labour" constitutes 50% of the cost of production) but using only 25% of the former work force then the factory owner can afford to increase wages 50% for those who are still working and still save money on "labour".



True, but there isn't necessarily enough "new jobs with better remuneration" that are created to make up for the "old jobs with worse remuneration" that were lost.



I wasn't making an "argument" I was asking a question.

American factories in America automated. American factories decreased their American work forces. Did those American manufacturing jobs go "off shore"?
Click to expand...

Forget generally speaking. The world and Americans have consistently enjoyed job growth with increased automation. There's been more than enough job growth, but not enough skilled labor growth.

No the jobs didn't go overseas, they shifted into the service and marketing sectors.

Feel free to look up our major think tank reports from both sides of the political aisle, which put forth for every job loss from transfer of low end profit making industries to third world countries, 5 new jobs were created in the US. No political bias, the same conclusion on both sides of the aisle. Immigration under Employment-Based Immigration Preference EB-3 is the mainstay of the US hotel industry because we do not train Americans to work in hotel services. 150k new jobs and immigrants per decade.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Change is always decried as bad by those who fear for the sake of fear. Yet change is inevitable. It wasn't that long ago when the Pound Sterling was the currency of the day. That ended with the empire where the sun never set.

With freedom comes responsibility. Our free press has rarely shown responsibility. Today, it shows none.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion--a spectacularly ill-informed opinion--and you are entitled to it. Where exactly do you get your information, InfoWars?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Forget generally speaking. The world and Americans have consistently enjoyed job growth with increased automation. There's been more than enough job growth, but not enough skilled labor growth.
Click to expand...

All of which is - naturally - Obama's fault.

OldFatGuy said:
Feel free to look up our major think tank reports from both sides of the political aisle, which put forth for every job loss from transfer of low end profit making industries to third world countries, 5 new jobs were created in the US.
Click to expand...

Great, then the US should continue to "out source" its jobs at an even higher rate until there is a chicken in every pot (except for the Vegans who get Tofu) and two jobs in every garage.

OldFatGuy said:
No political bias, the same conclusion on both sides of the aisle. Immigration under Employment-Based Immigration Preference EB-3 is the mainstay of the US hotel industry because we do not train Americans to work in hotel services. 150k new jobs and immigrants per decade.
Click to expand...

Wonderful, so there should only be a limit on "skilled immigration" rather than the (according to the line of reasoning above) absolutely idiotic encouragement of highly skilled people to immigrate to the US and the reduction of "unskilled labour immigrants". On the other hand, all of those foreign doctors and engineers could be employed to run 7-Elevens.
 
Mycroft said:
Any reduction of the trade deficit is good...even if it's small.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it makes a good partisan narrative among voters ignorant of their own best interest? A trade deficit, by definition, is a function of savings rates. Mercantilism had been abandoned for almost a century... and now it ismaking a surprise return under the guise of GOP policy.

You can't make this **** up!
 
Phys251 said:
That's your opinion--a spectacularly ill-informed opinion--and you are entitled to it. Where exactly do you get your information, InfoWars?
Click to expand...

Really? Are you suggesting change is not feared for the same of fear, or that change is not inevitable? Or that the lb sterling is still the world currency of choice?

What is "InfoWars?"
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
All of which is - naturally - Obama's fault.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think?

TU Curmudgeon said:
Great, then the US should continue to "out source" its jobs at an even higher rate until there is a chicken in every pot (except for the Vegans who get Tofu) and two jobs in every garage.
Click to expand...

Again, "Is that what you think?"

TU Curmudgeon said:
Wonderful, so there should only be a limit on "skilled immigration" rather than the (according to the line of reasoning above) absolutely idiotic encouragement of highly skilled people to immigrate to the US and the reduction of "unskilled labour immigrants". On the other hand, all of those foreign doctors and engineers could be employed to run 7-Elevens.
Click to expand...

Again, "Is that what you think?"
 
Conservative said:
19k and 24k today so what exactly is your point? and yes I can show that the stock market is going up at a greater rate because that is reality, it was over 14,000 in 2007 when the Democrats took Congress and that is the number that should be used as that is the number Obama said he would increase. going from 14k to 18k isn't the same as going from 19 to 24k. what you and the rest of the left want to ignore is that Obama and Democrats helped crash the stock market and want to give him credit from bringing it back from the lows not what he was hired to do.

Keep spouting the negatives totally ignoring the positives like the 2.7 million more Americans working today than Obama's last month in office or the 8.2% U-6 rate vs. Obama's 9.4 or 13.3% average over 8 years
Click to expand...



Now you’re picking a year when Obama wasn’t even in office. I’ll pick mine. The best Obama year was 2013, which went up 35.1% over 2016. Trump’s best and only year to pick is 2017, which went up 25.7% over 2016. If you want to bring in more rationale, you can pick a time period only when respective tax/economic plans went into effect, which has the most effect on the stock market. For Obama, that would be the 01/02/13 enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act, and when the stock market increase in rate of return was the greatest. For Trump, his tax plan wasn’t implemented until 2018, so you’ll have to wait until the end of 2018 for that. In any event, the economic plan in place for 2017, which Trump is taking credit for, was a continuance of what was established under Obama. Like I said, 2017 was a continuing trend of Obama’s.

Again, the improving U-6 and unemployment rates through 2017 are continuances of what was established under Obama. The U-6 rate improved, based on BLS stats, 33% going from 13.6 year-end 2008 to 9.1 in 2016. I can still argue that the financial/economic responsibility of a president is, as many statistics are based, based on the fiscal year. In which case Obama would have started with a U-6 rate of 17.1 in 2009 and ended with 8.1 in 2017, a year when the economic plan in place was still Obama’s. The economic plan in place during 2009 was a continuance of what was established under Bush2.
 
bluesmoke said:
Now you’re picking a year when Obama wasn’t even in office. I’ll pick mine. The best Obama year was 2013, which went up 35.1% over 2016. Trump’s best and only year to pick is 2017, which went up 25.7% over 2016. If you want to bring in more rationale, you can pick a time period only when respective tax/economic plans went into effect, which has the most effect on the stock market. For Obama, that would be the 01/02/13 enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act, and when the stock market increase in rate of return was the greatest. For Trump, his tax plan wasn’t implemented until 2018, so you’ll have to wait until the end of 2018 for that. In any event, the economic plan in place for 2017, which Trump is taking credit for, was a continuance of what was established under Obama. Like I said, 2017 was a continuing trend of Obama’s.

Again, the improving U-6 and unemployment rates through 2017 are continuances of what was established under Obama. The U-6 rate improved, based on BLS stats, 33% going from 13.6 year-end 2008 to 9.1 in 2016. I can still argue that the financial/economic responsibility of a president is, as many statistics are based, based on the fiscal year. In which case Obama would have started with a U-6 rate of 17.1 in 2009 and ended with 8.1 in 2017, a year when the economic plan in place was still Obama’s. The economic plan in place during 2009 was a continuance of what was established under Bush2.
Click to expand...

Got it, percentage change matters more to you than the actual dollar amount as 16.5 DOW is much better than a 24K DOW? Improving U-6 means never getting back to pre recession levels after adding 9.3 trillion to the debt? Keep trying to prop up failure as the electorate got it, when will you? Did it ever cross your mind that the higher the number to compare against the lower the percentage change is going to be? Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or 1.7 trillion which obviously is much worse than taking the debt from 10.6 trillion to 14.7 trillion or 9.3 trillion??

There was an Obama economic plan in place that included EO's that increased regulations on businesses that stifled them which took the GDP to 1.8% fourth qtr 2016 to 1.2% first quarter 2017, Trump removed them and the rest is history.

Think for a change as I know you are smarter than this post makes you sound.
 
Conservative said:
Got it, percentage change matters more to you than the actual dollar amount as 16.5 DOW is much better than a 24K DOW? Improving U-6 means never getting back to pre recession levels after adding 9.3 trillion to the debt? Keep trying to prop up failure as the electorate got it, when will you? Did it ever cross your mind that the higher the number to compare against the lower the percentage change is going to be? Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or 1.7 trillion which obviously is much worse than taking the debt from 10.6 trillion to 14.7 trillion or 9.3 trillion??

There was an Obama economic plan in place that included EO's that increased regulations on businesses that stifled them which took the GDP to 1.8% fourth qtr 2016 to 1.2% first quarter 2017, Trump removed them and the rest is history.

Think for a change as I know you are smarter than this post makes you sound.
Click to expand...



When comparing different time periods, percentage matters more. Otherwise, because the DJIA historically rises, with little exception, each successive presidential term would end with greater volume than the last. By your method of “grading”, each president would be “better” than the last. Do you really think that's a sensible way to compare?

Why not say the standard of comparison for the U-6 rate should be at the pre-recession levels that Bush2 inherited from Clinton? That was 6.9%. How about when it was at its historical low? Isn’t that what we should be striving for, and by which to measure success? I’m going by the improvement in the U-6 rate under Obama. Show me a president that improved the U-6 rate more than Obama. He established the improving trend in the U-6 rate. Typically, I compare what last fiscal year of the previous president’s term to the next president. Obama is much better than Bush2 by both fiscal and annual years. Take your pick.

Yes, the higher the number to compare against the lower the percentage change is going to be as a volume rises. Just as a rising volume will have a greater volume increase each same length of time even though the percentage increase rises at a lower rate. However, you don’t set the method of comparison. Economists use percentages.
 
bluesmoke said:
When comparing different time periods, percentage matters more. Otherwise, because the DJIA historically rises, with little exception, each successive presidential term would end with greater volume than the last. By your method of “grading”, each president would be “better” than the last. Do you really think that's a sensible way to compare?

Why not say the standard of comparison for the U-6 rate should be at the pre-recession levels that Bush2 inherited from Clinton? That was 6.9%. How about when it was at its historical low? Isn’t that what we should be striving for, and by which to measure success? I’m going by the improvement in the U-6 rate under Obama. Show me a president that improved the U-6 rate more than Obama. He established the improving trend in the U-6 rate. Typically, I compare what last fiscal year of the previous president’s term to the next president. Obama is much better than Bush2 by both fiscal and annual years. Take your pick.

Yes, the higher the number to compare against the lower the percentage change is going to be as a volume rises. Just as a rising volume will have a greater volume increase each same length of time even though the percentage increase rises at a lower rate. However, you don’t set the method of comparison. Economists use percentages.
Click to expand...

No they don't especially when the divisor changes, no logic person can ever claim that 9.3 trillion added to the debt is better than 1.7 trillion even though the 1.7 trillion is triple. Absolutely stunning and a pure waste of time.

Bush didn't inherit pre recession he inherited a recession that began in March 2001 long before his economic policies went into effect and then had 9/11
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom