• 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!

Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war[W:44]

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Paul Krugman: Oh, What a Stupid Trade War


Excerpt:
We do want to know whether the Trump trade war ... would add or subtract jobs holding monetary policy constant, even though we know monetary policy won’t be constant.


And the answer, almost surely, is that this trade war will actually be a job-killer, not a job-creator, for two reasons.


First, Trump is putting tariffs on intermediate goods…, some of which themselves have to compete on world markets. Most obviously, cars and other durable manufactured goods will become more expensive to produce, which means that we’ll sell less of them; and whatever gains there are in primary metals employment will be offset by job losses in downstream industries.


Playing with the numbers, it seems highly likely that even this direct effect is a net negative for employment.


Second, other countries will retaliate against U.S. exports, costing jobs in everything from motorcycles to sausages. …


Finally – and I think this is really important – we’re dealing with real countries here, mainly democracies. Real countries have real politics; they have pride; and their electorates really, really don’t like Trump.



As usual, Krugman is spot-on with his reasoning. Trade-wars are bad for everybody, including the country that starts them.


Does Donald Dork give a damn? Nahhhhh ...
 
Last edited:
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Seriously who ****ing cares anymore?

Trump supporters have decided reality no longer matters a long time ago, even if this goes horribly wrong they can just blame poor people like in 2008 and foreign countries for their troubles.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

OK lets just leave the status quo in place and watch as the United States is screwed over by all
our trade partners. The days of us being taken advantage of are soon to be over.


When adjusted for inflation, the trade gap narrowed to $77.5 billion from $78.2 billion in March. The so-called real trade deficit is below its $82.5 billion average in the first quarter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/international-trade-deficit-april-2018.html
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

FONT=Arial]Does Donald Dork give a damn? Nahhhhh ...[/FONT][/COLOR]
Does Trump give a damn what Krugman says?
Of course not.
Not many do.
Krugman's been a partisan loon for a very long time.
krugman in net.jpg
You might say he was Obama's economic wingman outside the Administration like Holder was Obama's self-admitted DOJ wingman inside the Administration.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

But really, you should recognize that this whole tariff kerfuffle is Trump's attempt to change the tariffs paced on the USA by those outside the USA to support their own economies that are dwarfed by ours over here.
Gotta get your attention before something changes.
First you'll bluster and posture like we're starting to see.
Wait and see what happens.
Talk of a trade war by slugs like Krugman are scare tactics.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

OK lets just leave the status quo in place and watch as the United States is screwed over by all
our trade partners. The days of us being taken advantage of are soon to be over.


When adjusted for inflation, the trade gap narrowed to $77.5 billion from $78.2 billion in March. The so-called real trade deficit is below its $82.5 billion average in the first quarter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/international-trade-deficit-april-2018.html

The U.S. is a nation in which ~20% of people who were once middle income have been consistently moving into higher income groups and availing themselves of the lifestyles concomitant with doing so.

There's simply no way to credibly say that more middle income households becoming upper-middle or upper income households is a bad thing. Hell, if it is, we need more of it!
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Does Trump give a damn what Krugman says?
Of course not. Not many do. Krugman's been a partisan loon for a very long time.

You might say he was Obama's economic wingman outside the Administration like Holder was Obama's self-admitted DOJ wingman inside the Administration.

"Partisan loon"? Cheap shot.

Is this the sort of contemptuous dialog we want in a Debate Forum amongst intelligent adults?

The looney around here is the ignorant soul who wrote the message!

Bubba gone boozy ...
 
Last edited:
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

"Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true."

The above is one of the dumbest quotes about science that I have seen in a long time.

It's tantamount to "Your wrong because I am right!"

Epistemological = of or relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

Knowledge is always in question because it is a source of "knowing" that is as infinite as the universe is mysterious. To say that you have a bone with someone else's "theory, understanding, argument and thus "knowing"" is one thing but proving it altogether something else.

And in this "quotation" above what is said is a pure unsubstantiated denial of anything that one may have said or done in scientific argumentation/research. It is totally unjustified until YOU PROVE OTHERWISE with well justified arguments or proof ...

PS: Which is why especially Economic Theory is a very difficult "science". Because epistemological proof is so very difficult to find, since the process being studied is "human behaviour" which - unlike the laws of the universe - is an immensely variable animal because it thinks and acts accordingly ...
 
Last edited:
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

The U.S. is a nation in which ~20% of people who were once middle income have been consistently moving into higher income groups and availing themselves of the lifestyles concomitant with doing so.

There's simply no way to credibly say that more middle income households becoming upper-middle or upper income households is a bad thing. Hell, if it is, we need more of it!

Pew Research, whom you mentioned, is doing a lot of the right-research as regards the matter of Income Disparity. Much of it in the US due to its wacky upper-income taxation:
FT_17.10.04_taxes_stats.png


The answer to the question, "Enough to be fair?" is what is missing in the public discourse (this present debate-forum included). It is fully recognized that US tax-distribution is the underlying reason for the extremely unfair distribution of Net Income.

And what becomes of "Net Income after Taxes"? Well ... uh, Wealth. And look what some economists at the UofCal found when they analyzed the distribution of Wealth in America:
20141108_FNC156.png
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

The U.S. is a nation in which ~20% of people who were once middle income have been consistently moving into higher income groups and availing themselves of the lifestyles concomitant with doing so.

There's simply no way to credibly say that more middle income households becoming upper-middle or upper income households is a bad thing. Hell, if it is, we need more of it!

Pew Research, whom you mentioned, is doing a lot of the right-research as regards the matter of Income Disparity. Much of it in the US due to its wacky upper-income taxation:
FT_17.10.04_taxes_stats.png


The answer to the question "How much taxation is enough to be fair and equitable?" is what is missing in the public discourse (this present debate-forum included). It is fully recognized that US tax-distribution is the underlying reason for the extremely unfair distribution of Net Income.

And what becomes of "Net Income after Taxes"? Well ... uh, Wealth. And look what some economists at the UofCal found when they analyzed the distribution of Wealth in America:
20141108_FNC156.png
 
Last edited:
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Pew Research, whom you mentioned, is doing a lot of the right-research as regards the matter of Income Disparity. Much of it in the US due to its wacky upper-income taxation:
FT_17.10.04_taxes_stats.png


The answer to the question, "Enough to be fair?" is what is missing in the public discourse (this present debate-forum included). It is fully recognized that US tax-distribution is the underlying reason for the extremely unfair distribution of Net Income.

And what becomes of "Net Income after Taxes"? Well ... uh, Wealth. And look what some economists at the UofCal found when they analyzed the distribution of Wealth in America:
20141108_FNC156.png

What you wrote is not worth the effort, and I responded in that manner.

Moving right along ...

Yes, do because being intransigent, you really don't need to engage with me.

I had hoped you were sincere when you remarked, "Moving right along..." I see by the fact that you persist in replying to my posts that you were not, so I shall have to disabuse myself of obtaining notice of you.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

"Partisan loon"? Cheap shot.

Is this the sort of contemptuous dialog we want in a Debate Forum amongst intelligent adults?

The looney around here is the ignorant soul who wrote the message!

Bubba gone boozy ...

Sorry for offending your sensibilities but over here Krugman has had that rep for awhile.

Here are some actual headlines from the first page of hits alone ...

Paul Krugman is a partisan hack
More Flawed Partisan Analysis from Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman: Professor Ahab
Paul Krugman the lord of wrong predictions
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

How much taxation is enough to be fair and equitable?

This question is very much on the minds of a good number of economists, who have seen that today's distribution in the US is wholly unfair. With many commenting upon the impact of such unfairness in promoting the nation's bent for gun-related violence.

It is not the purpose of any National Market-economy to make rich-people. If it were, we'd read it in our Constitution. We have seen the idiocy of Communism that imposed a common hourly rate amongst groups of workers, but mostly all in the same gamut of incomes. It doesn't work because of two essential elements of a market-economy.

The first is human intelligence for which people more adept than others should have remunerations of a higher order than others. The only question is "how much higher". And before anyone responds "Let the market decide!", let's first realize that when the market decides without proper guidelines, then the distribution becomes highly unfair all by itself. And there is no better example of that societal defect than the USofA!

It is far, far better that we adopt a nominal system of taxation throughout the range but up to a limit beyond which the taxable amount becomes wholly confiscatory. Let's say the maximum should be 10 megabucks a year. Which is more than enough for anyone to live comfortably.

It also means that financial transactions that are made at sums in the hundreds of millions of dollars are dead-in-the-water if they generate incomes above the fixed-line amount. And, my reasoning is! "That's just too bad. But there is no good reason either that any individual should earn tremendous amounts of money just because of financial manipulations.

And let's top-it-off with a close to 100% Inheritance Tax, above 1 megabuck. Whyzzat?

Because it should not be the sole-purpose in life that anyone should accumulate such sums of money, which are totally unnecessary to live very well.

I suggest therefore that :
*We get this country back to where it was before JFK foolishly brought down upper-income taxation rates from 90 to 70%. See the history of US tax-rates here. Reckless Ronnie took the rates down to below 30% during his tenure.
*And, we institute a much higher level of taxation as well as a confiscatory Inheritance Tax that will reduce the amounts left for no-good-reason to kin. Thus forcing Wealth to be given away to whatever purpose/religion that is a benefactor's desire. Either that or be forcibly taken away by the IRS according to new taxation laws.
*Can't be done in a market-economy as ruthlessly orientated to max-out on Income? Well, one will never know if we don't try ...

I suggest we do the above to obtain a more sociable market-economy that allows economic-justice for all of its members and not just a horribly lucky few. And along the way, we'll banish poverty with a Minimum Wage irrespective of whether one works or not ...

Doing away with ridiculously high-incomes and large-scale poverty will do wonders to improve the American way-of-life by avoiding the causes of gun-related deaths ...
 
Last edited:
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

How much taxation is enough to be fair and equitable?

This question is very much on the minds of a good number of economists, who have seen that today's distribution in the US is wholly unfair. With many commenting upon the impact of such unfairness in promoting the nation's bent for gun-related violence.

It is not the purpose of any National Market-economy to make rich-people. If it were, we'd read it in our Constitution. We have seen the idiocy of Communism that imposed a common hourly rate amongst groups of workers, but mostly all in the same gamut of incomes. It doesn't work because of two essential elements of a market-economy.

The first is human intelligence for which people more adept than others should have remunerations of a higher order than others. The only question is "how much higher". And before anyone responds "Let the market decide!", let's first realize that when the market decides without proper guidelines, then the distribution becomes highly unfair all by itself. And there is no better example of that societal defect than the USofA!

It is far, far better that we adopt a nominal system of taxation throughout the range but up to a limit beyond which the taxable amount becomes wholly confiscatory. Let's say the maximum should be 10 megabucks a year. Which is more than enough for anyone to live comfortably.

It also means that financial transactions that are made at sums in the hundreds of millions of dollars are dead-in-the-water if they generate incomes above the fixed-line amount. And, my reasoning is! "That's just too bad. But there is no good reason either that any individual should earn tremendous amounts of money just because of financial manipulations.

And let's top-it-off with a close to 100% Inheritance Tax, above 1 megabuck. Whyzzat?

Because it should not be the sole-purpose in life that anyone should accumulate such sums of money, which are totally unnecessary to live very well.

I suggest therefore that :
*We get this country back to where it was before JFK foolishly brought down upper-income taxation rates from 90 to 70%. See the history of US tax-rates here. Reckless Ronnie took the rates down to below 30% during his tenure.
*And, we institute a much higher level of taxation as well as a confiscatory Inheritance Tax that will reduce the amounts left for no-good-reason to kin. Thus forcing Wealth to be given away to whatever purpose/religion that is a benefactor's desire. Either that or be forcibly taken away by the IRS according to new taxation laws.
*Can't be done in a market-economy as ruthlessly orientated to max-out on Income? Well, one will never know if we don't try ...

I suggest we do the above to obtain a more sociable market-economy that allows economic-justice for all of its members and not just a horribly lucky few. And along the way, we'll banish poverty with a Minimum Wage irrespective of whether one works or not ...

Doing away with ridiculously high-incomes and large-scale poverty will do wonders to improve the American way-of-life by avoiding the causes of gun-related deaths ...

2 questions...
1) In your reference, which country is "this"?
2) in what group of people are you considered a "Centrist".
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Sorry for offending your sensibilities but over here Krugman has had that rep for awhile.

Here are some actual headlines from the first page of hits alone ...

Paul Krugman is a partisan hack
More Flawed Partisan Analysis from Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman: Professor Ahab
Paul Krugman the lord of wrong predictions

More from the Master of Blah-blah-blah.

Nice to see that your a perfectionist at it ...
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Paul Krugman: Oh, What a Stupid Trade War [FONT][COLOR]

[FONT][COLOR]
Excerpt: [FONT][COLOR]

[FONT][COLOR]
As usual, Krugman is spot-on with his reasoning. Trade-wars are bad for everybody, including the country that starts them.[FONT][COLOR]

[FONT][COLOR]
Does Donald Dork give a damn? Nahhhhh ...[FONT][COLOR]


We've been in a trade war for a century. We just win it through capitalism. I think Ill wait and see if Trumps style of making threats evens the playing field.

U.S. tariffs are among lowest in world ? and in nation's history | Pew Research Center
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

We've been in a trade war for a century. We just win it through capitalism. I think Ill wait and see if Trumps style of making threats evens the playing field.

U.S. tariffs are among lowest in world ? and in nation's history | Pew Research Center

We used to be in a Trade War - before WW2. Then "we" (the US) and a good many other countries devised first the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and then the World Trade Organization to implement and manage them (meaning negotiate differences of opinion regarding the rules).

From the WTO's home-page:
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.

The WTO was created to implement the Trade Rules as designated in the GATT Agreement:
The negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were formally concluded on 30 October 1947. Considered the largest trade negotiation of its time, the GATT was concluded in little over six months thanks to a series of innovative approaches, bold decisions, and a colossal effort by those involved.

The G7 is not where a country goes to to announce unilateral changes of Trade Agreements. The US is breaking the rules, and Donald Dork is the culprit.

Day after day after day, this jerk-of-a-PotUS makes an ass of himself.

Uncle Sam, hang your head in shame ...
 
Last edited:
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

We used to be in a Trade War - before WW2. Then "we" (the US) and a good many other countries devised first the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and then the World Trade Organization to implement and manage them (meaning negotiate differences of opinion regarding the rules).

From the WTO's home-page:


The WTO was created to implement the Trade Rules as designated in the GATT Agreement:


The G7 is not where a country goes to to announce unilateral changes of Trade Agreements. The US is breaking the rules, and Donald Dork is the culprit.

Day after day after day, this jerk-of-a-PotUS makes an ass of himself.

Uncle Sam, hang your head in shame ...

I can tell youre more interested in insults than an actual discussion. My bad for engaging. Ill just ignore you from now on.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Sorry for offending your sensibilities but over here Krugman has had that rep for awhile.

Here are some actual headlines from the first page of hits alone ...

Paul Krugman is a partisan hack
More Flawed Partisan Analysis from Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman: Professor Ahab
Paul Krugman the lord of wrong predictions

Lots of money around for propaganda, so its not surprising.

There's lots of claims fro.the right that there is no possible problem that could arise form excessive wealth accumulation.

But every revolution ever has had that, and hunger for power, as the primary drivers.

Greed and power are addictive. Its how our brains work. How instincts manifest.

The squirrel hiding far more nuts than he'll be able to remember hiding, the hoarder starting another stack of old newspapers and the multibillionaire doing everything in his power to get more billions are all satisfylimg the same neurochemical addiction. The only difference is brain power and competence.

And everybody has seen a co-worker get promoted and lose their minds with the power.

We have tropes for it: "gold fever" "drunk with power".

So all the claims that there is nothing to be concerned about are just PR.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

2 questions...
1) In your reference, which country is "this"?
2) in what group of people are you considered a "Centrist".

my question is what the hell does his comment have to do with a trade war?

if anything trump has a lot of bluster to get the pot stirred and then you find something comes out
of left field that you weren't looking for.

He loves using that tactic as a distraction.
I don't seem him doing anymore than he has to.

The fact is that those countries need out economic power.
they are not going to just give up access to the US market.

It is just too big and too powerful not to have access to it.

i do see us getting better trade deals out of this though.

we should not have an 80b trade deficit.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Lots of money around for propaganda, so its not surprising.
There's lots of claims fro.the right that there is no possible problem that could arise form excessive wealth accumulation.
But every revolution ever has had that, and hunger for power, as the primary drivers.

Why is that though? because money value and currency has always been an issue.
The way we manage our currency is why that will never happen. if it does then there is more going on in
the world that is a bigger issue to be concerned with.

Greed and power are addictive. Its how our brains work. How instincts manifest.
The squirrel hiding far more nuts than he'll be able to remember hiding, the hoarder starting another stack of old newspapers and the multibillionaire doing everything in his power to get more billions are all satisfylimg the same neurochemical addiction. The only difference is brain power and competence.

except the money doesn't sit in a mattress.

And everybody has seen a co-worker get promoted and lose their minds with the power.
We have tropes for it: "gold fever" "drunk with power".
So all the claims that there is nothing to be concerned about are just PR.

Absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

my question is what the hell does his comment have to do with a trade war?

if anything trump has a lot of bluster to get the pot stirred and then you find something comes out
of left field that you weren't looking for.

He loves using that tactic as a distraction.
I don't seem him doing anymore than he has to.

The fact is that those countries need out economic power.
they are not going to just give up access to the US market.

It is just too big and too powerful not to have access to it.

i do see us getting better trade deals out of this though.

we should not have an 80b trade deficit.

Exactly.
What I said in #5.
You expect to hear things like what Trudeau said but he knows after the posturing he'll have to make some changes.
And I'm sure Trump doesn't expect to get a completely balanced system of tariffs but a one to one negotiation allows more flexibility than one size fits all.
So you start big and draw them toward the middle.
There's just no way they should expect us to keep taking a big hit so their economic conditions can improve.
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Lots of money around for propaganda, so its not surprising.

There's lots of claims fro.the right that there is no possible problem that could arise form excessive wealth accumulation.

But every revolution ever has had that, and hunger for power, as the primary drivers.

Greed and power are addictive. Its how our brains work. How instincts manifest.

The squirrel hiding far more nuts than he'll be able to remember hiding, the hoarder starting another stack of old newspapers and the multibillionaire doing everything in his power to get more billions are all satisfylimg the same neurochemical addiction. The only difference is brain power and competence.

And everybody has seen a co-worker get promoted and lose their minds with the power.

We have tropes for it: "gold fever" "drunk with power".

So all the claims that there is nothing to be concerned about are just PR.

Who signs your paycheck?
 
Re: Krugman - Oh, what a stupid trade war

Why is that though? because money value and currency has always been an issue.
The way we manage our currency is why that will never happen. if it does then there is more going on in
the world that is a bigger issue to be concerned with.



except the money doesn't sit in a mattress.



Absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Yet history demonstrates it does happen.

Over and over.

And 52 million per year per congressperson will bring it here, sooner or later.
 
Back
Top Bottom