• 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!

Is President Trump already Winning the Trade War?

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the trade war may not affect my investments (overly much). Thus far it seems to be primarily a problem for people in trump country who'll lose their jobs and their homes, but this is what they signed on for so I'm sure they'll manage.

Jimmie Coffer, a machine programmer at the nation’s largest nail-making plant, voted for Donald Trump partly because he was confident he would bring manufacturing jobs back to America.

So the 39-year-old factory worker was shocked last month when 60 of his co-workers were laid off after the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on the steel his company imports from Mexico. Now, as his bosses cut back hours and warn they may have to let 200 more workers go in the coming weeks, he worries he may lose his job as a result of the president’s policies.

But Coffer is still gung-ho about Trump.

“I support him 100%,” he said last week. “In fact, I’d like to shake his hand. He’s doing a great job.”

Workers in this town may become victims of Trump's trade war, but they're behind him 'no matter what'
To say the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if Hillary got more votes than Trump. Oh wait... Anyway, if Hillary won the election, this guy wouldn't be losing his job. But her emails...

The trade war will hurt Americans plenty, regardless of an op-ed by a stock analyst.
 
To say the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if Hillary got more votes than Trump. Oh wait... Anyway, if Hillary won the election, this guy wouldn't be losing his job. But her emails...

The trade war will hurt Americans plenty, regardless of an op-ed by a stock analyst.

How many?
 
How many?

Trump’s Unpopular Tariffs Could Cost U.S. 400,000 Jobs, Economists Estimate


From WaPo:
CBY4TM7WUE3HZNJMVSA54N7IMA.png
 
Is President Trump already winning the trade war? (CBS News, Anthony Mirhaydari 07/07/18)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ning-the-trade-war/ar-AAzFTsT?ocid=spartanntp

Well this is one report which indicates the "trade war" may be more beneficial to U.S. interests than naysayers in the Left-wing of the MSM are saying.

I think that whatever his other failings may be, and despite doom and gloom naysayers, Mr. Trump seems to have a firmer grasp of economics than many on the Left are willing to admit.

Will his tactics be succesful? I think it depends on which side "blinks" first, and my hope is that China which seems to be facing greater economic impacts than the U.S. will blink first.

Time will tell.

How much extra are you willing to pay for the products you by and how many will lose their job in the process? No one wins in trade wars, we are about to learn that lesson, it will get worse long before it ever gets better, count on that.
 
Last month the economy created 210K jobs. How will we know when this "prediction" has come to fruition?

I love your posting style, by the way.. Reel them in.. ;)


Tim-
 
Last month the economy created 210K jobs. How will we know when this "prediction" has come to fruition?

So what? 210,000 was the average Obama created per month.

Trump's at about 170,000 per month.

2017 saw the slowest pace of private sector job growth since 2010.
 
So what? 210,000 was the average Obama created per month.

You're ignorant on this. Obama left the office with an average of 195,000 jobs per month, not 210,000. He did manage to accomplish 210, but that was in 2015.

Trump's at about 170,000 per month.

More ignorance.

2017 was an average of 185,000 jobs per month.

2017 saw the slowest pace of private sector job growth since 2010.

The economy still losing jobs in 2010, and so far in 2018, the economy has created an average of 215,000 jobs.

At this point, I think you are still just making things up, which is generally what ignorant people do.
 
Last month the economy created 210K jobs. How will we know when this "prediction" has come to fruition?

At about the same time AGW predictions become remotely accurate. That's to say, when hell freezes over.
 
ou're ignorant on this. Obama left the office with an average of 195,000 jobs per month.

Still higher than Trump!

And from where are you getting this?


2017 was an average of 185,000 jobs per month.

I didn't say just 2017, did I?


The economy still losing jobs in 2010. At this point, I think you are still just making things up, which is generally what ignorant people do.

Exactly...so Trump's job growth was just as weak as it was when the economy was losing jobs. Or, it means that Obama did a fantastic job of creating jobs. And only two months of 2010 had job losses. March 2010 was the start of the 75-month consecutive streak of job creation that lasted through Obama's term.
 
Still higher than Trump!

And from where are you getting this?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/PAYEMS.txt

I didn't say just 2017, did I?

Yes, you did.

Exactly...so Trump's job growth was just as weak as it was when the economy was losing jobs.

If the economy isn't losing jobs in 2018, then no, Trumps job growth is not just as weak is it was when the economy was losing jobs.

Or, it means that Obama did a fantastic job of creating jobs. And only two months of 2010 had job losses. March 2010 was the start of the consecutive streak of job creation that lasted through Obama's term.

If that is what you want to keep telling yourself, sure.

Average annually job growth has gone from a high of 250,000 jobs in 2013 to 195,000 in 2016.

Trump began with an average annual job growth of 185,000 in 2017 and so far as accumulated an annual average of 215,000 in the first half of 2018
 
You're ignorant on this. Obama left the office with an average of 195,000 jobs per month, not 210,000. He did manage to accomplish 210, but that was in 2015

Well actually, if you start from the bottoming out of the jobs in February 2010, he did achieve an average job gain of 210,000 over the next 76 months. As you said, the economy was still losing jobs as recently as February 2010. March 2010 is when the consecutive job creation streak started.
 
At about the same time AGW predictions become remotely accurate. That's to say, when hell freezes over.

I don't doubt the economy will lose jobs. Most people don't understand that most economic predictions are usually wrong.
 

Of course, you're starting in January 2009, when the economy was losing jobs and wouldn't bottom out until February of 2010.

From February 2010-January 2017, Obama averaged 210,000 jobs a month.

So I amend my previous statement; from the start of the consecutive streak of job creation, Obama added an average of 210,000 jobs per month.


Yes, you did.

No I didn't, and you even quoted me showing I didn't say that.


If the economy isn't losing jobs in 2018, then no, Trumps job growth is not just as weak is it was when the economy was losing jobs.

It is just as weak as it was in 2010, by your own admission. And 2010 only had two months of job losses. March 2010 was the start of the 75 consecutive months of job creation. So Trump added jobs at the same rate Obama did in 2010.


Average annually job growth has gone from a high of 250,000 jobs in 2013 to 195,000 in 2016.

Still higher than Trump.


Trump began with an average annual job growth of 185,000 in 2017 and so far as accumulated 215,000 in the first half of 2018

Do you mean average monthly?

And no, you're wrong.

Total Employment, January 2018: 125,482
Total Employment, May 2018: 126,369

126,389 - 125,482 = 887

887/5 = 177,400
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV
 
I don't doubt the economy will lose jobs. Most people don't understand that most economic predictions are usually wrong.

Oh, I agree. Some jobs will be lost in some portions of the economy. It will not be an economic Armageddon, however. The numbers should be relatively low, and while I don't mean to dismiss the problems some may have as a result, I'm not about to overblow the effect to make a political point, either.
 
Of course, you're starting in January 2009, when the economy was losing jobs and wouldn't bottom out until February of 2010.

From February 2010-January 2017, Obama averaged 210,000 jobs a month.

So I amend my previous statement; from the start of the consecutive streak of job creation, Obama added an average of 210,000 jobs per month.

I'm not even thinking of 2010, so I'm not even going to address this. You said that the rate of job growth today is just as bad as it was in 2010. This is objectively false.


No I didn't, and you even quoted me showing I didn't say that.

2017 saw the slowest pace of private sector job growth since 2010.

More ignorance.

2017 was an average of 185,000 jobs per month.

I didn't say just 2017, did I?


It is just as weak as it was in 2010, by your own admission.

Nope. Never admitted to such a thing.

And 2010 only had two months of job losses. March 2010 was the start of the 75 consecutive months of job creation. So Trump added jobs at the same rate Obama did in 2010.

5 months by my count. I'm not sure what crazy methodology you are using to compare job growth in 2010 and job growth in 2018, but it sounds stupid.

fredgraph.png



Still higher than Trump.

So far, Trump has an average of 215,000 jobs created each month.


Do you mean average monthly?

And no, you're wrong.

Total Employment, January 2018: 125,482
Total Employment, May 2018: 126,369

126,389 - 125,482 = 887

887/5 = 177,400
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV

I'm not sure why you only want to calculate private sector employment. By excluding Government employees you are excluding a large sector of the economy.
 
This opinion piece is wrong on many fronts.
First, much of what China exports are merely assembled in China. The parts are made elsewhere, such as Korea. Thus, this trade war hurts Korea.

Second, more than half of America's soybean exports typically go to China, but Chinese tariffs will shift much of that demand to Brazil, and countries that normally get their soybeans from Brazil have raced to replace them with U.S. beans. The perverse result is that the prospect of tariffs has temporarily led to a remarkably large surge in U.S. soy exports as the price plunged.

Third, Trump putting tariffs on steel and aluminum hurt American consumers of finished products, like cars, that will get a price bump of about $2,500.

Fourth, what is the objective of the Trump's trade war? Trump has set up a trade conflict in which there is no way the other sides can accommodate his demands, because those demands are vague and/or incoherent. China's retaliation is designed to hurt counties that voted for Trump -- which is the only option he's giving the rest of the world.

Fifth, the EU is China's largest trading partner, not the U.S. China presses Europe for anti-U.S. alliance on trade

So no, trade wars are not good and easy to win and there will be a lot of Americans suffering due to this stupid unnecessary action on Trump's part.

Those family farmers who do borrow every year, then pay it off after commodity season, have already lost $500 off their skinny margin next year on a $100,000 loan at simple interest with the two quarter ticks this year; with two more this year yet; 4 scheduled for next year.

Corn seed, for example, tripled under Bush-41; ammonia and methane skyrocketed last decade; now, I’m seeing ammonia still going up and in short supply. Higher humidity zones are being forced into more expensive liquid nitrogen. So much ammonia is imported, having to travel the longest distances to farm country. The ammonia is being diverted to make UAN.

It’s not just plummeting prices for soybeans, and depressed prices for every commodity. It’s the loss of PERMANENT markets to South America, like Brazil. Meanwhile, the cost of everything to farm rises for the little guy, as he gets out-bid for buying land and renting land by the bigly boys with their windfall tax cuts, that just do happen to benefit goPC House members.

I don’t smear any of this and so much more in the faces of my trump farmers-in-law. At 64-yoa, this is my last profession as I’m retired; so VERY much to learn; so much physical work, good for me; exhausting heat index and the flying insects.
 
Is President Trump already winning the trade war? (CBS News, Anthony Mirhaydari 07/07/18)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ning-the-trade-war/ar-AAzFTsT?ocid=spartanntp

Well this is one report which indicates the "trade war" may be more beneficial to U.S. interests than naysayers in the Left-wing of the MSM are saying.

I think that whatever his other failings may be, and despite doom and gloom naysayers, Mr. Trump seems to have a firmer grasp of economics than many on the Left are willing to admit.

Will his tactics be succesful? I think it depends on which side "blinks" first, and my hope is that China which seems to be facing greater economic impacts than the U.S. will blink first.

Time will tell.
no
 
Back
Top Bottom