|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 27 2017 08:21 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:18 zlefin wrote:On January 27 2017 08:16 dankobanana wrote:
and btw doesnt cheap labour force helps american businesses? :\ businesses yes. low-wage workers, tend to be hurt by it, due to the competition. goods, it varies. it does help keep the price of fruit and such low, having people willing to work many hours in a day picking fruit and doing other such farm tasks for minimum wage (or less if illegal). as I understand, Trump wants to stregthen USA manufactureres and make them compete with China so I feel this is a missed opportunity. you cant compete if you do not lower wages
you can compete locally if you erect trade barriers and tariffs; of course you'll still fail to compete internationally.
not sure what trump's current plan is on the minimum wage; among his stated goals was more jobs in manufacturing; not sure if he's also pushing ofr higher wages in those jobs or not.
|
On January 27 2017 08:24 zlefin wrote:
you can compete locally if you erect trade barriers and tariffs; of course you'll still fail to compete internationally.
not sure what trump's current plan is on the minimum wage; among his stated goals was more jobs in manufacturing; not sure if he's also pushing ofr higher wages in those jobs or not.
copeteting locally sound like a strategy for the 20th century, not the 21st
|
On January 27 2017 08:27 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:24 zlefin wrote:
you can compete locally if you erect trade barriers and tariffs; of course you'll still fail to compete internationally.
not sure what trump's current plan is on the minimum wage; among his stated goals was more jobs in manufacturing; not sure if he's also pushing ofr higher wages in those jobs or not.
copeteting locally sound like a strategy for the 20th century, not the 21st
tha'ts why many in the media and the "establishment" are against trump, because he's pushing plans that don't actually work, and people who've studied the issues carefully know that.
or at least that's what I and those on my side would say.
|
idk if this was posted already but just saw it pop up for me:
U.S. government scientists go 'rogue' in defiance of Trump
Employees from more than a dozen U.S. government agencies have established a network of unofficial "rogue" Twitter feeds in defiance of what they see as attempts by President Donald Trump to muzzle federal climate change research and other science.
Seizing on Trump's favorite mode of discourse, scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and other bureaus have privately launched Twitter accounts - borrowing names and logos of their agencies - to protest restrictions they view as censorship and provide unfettered platforms for information the new administration has curtailed.
"Can't wait for President Trump to call us FAKE NEWS," one anonymous National Park Service employee posted on the newly opened Twitter account @AltNatParkService. "You can take our official twitter, but you'll never take our free time!"
The @RogueNASA account displayed an introductory disclaimer describing it as "The unofficial 'Resistance' team of NASA. Not an official NASA account." It beckoned readers to follow its feed "for science and climate news and facts. REAL NEWS, REAL FACTS."
The swift proliferation of such tweets by government rank-and-file followed internal directives several agencies involved in environmental issues have received since Trump's inauguration requiring them to curb their dissemination of information to the public.
Last week, Interior Department staff were told to stop posting on Twitter after an employee re-tweeted posts about relatively low attendance at Trump's swearing-in, and about how material on climate change and civil rights had disappeared from the official White House website.
Employees at the EPA and the departments of Interior, Agriculture and Health and Human Services have since confirmed seeing notices from the new administration either instructing them to remove web pages or limit how they communicate to the public, including through social media.
The restrictions have reinforced concerns that Trump, a climate change skeptic, is out to squelch federally backed research showing that emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other human activities are contributing to global warming.
The resistance movement gained steam on Tuesday when a series of climate change-related tweets were posted to the official Twitter account of Badlands National Park in South Dakota, administered under the Interior Department, but were soon deleted.
A Park Service official later said those tweets came from a former employee no longer authorized to use the official account and that the agency was being encouraged to use Twitter to post public safety and park information only, and to avoid national policy issues.
Within hours, unofficial "resistance" or "rogue" Twitter accounts began sprouting up, emblazoned with the government logos of the agencies where they worked, the list growing to at least 14 such sites by Wednesday afternoon.
An account dubbed @ungaggedEPA invited followers to visit its feeds of "ungagged news, links, tips and conversation that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is unable to tell you," adding that it was "Not directly affiliated with @EPA."
U.S. environmental employees were soon joined by similar "alternative" Twitter accounts originating from various science and health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Weather Service. Many of their messages carried Twitter hashtags #resist or #resistance.
An unofficial Badlands National Park account called @BadHombreNPS also emerged (a reference to one of Trump's more memorable campaign remarks about Mexican immigrants) to post material that had been scrubbed from the official site earlier.
Because the Twitter feeds were set up and posted to anonymously as private accounts, they are beyond the control of the government.
source: www.reuters.com
(man those linebreaks look annoying when you quote)
|
People opened twitter accounts. This is news?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality
|
On January 27 2017 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality
They may be aware of it, but they certainly never made it any sort of priority.
|
On January 27 2017 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality
Being aware only goes so far when voters are under the impression they are not only doing a terrible job at fixing it, but in many cases seem to be making it worse.
|
manufacturing has been coming back to the US a bit. the issue is that a lot is more automated stuff which doesn't require the blue collar working class and just needs a smaller force of engineers, programmers and the like to run.
no matter how many times trump says it, he's not going to make american manufacturing 20th century again.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2017 08:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality They may be aware of it, but they certainly never made it any sort of priority.
It seems like more of an inconvenience for that group than anything else.
|
On January 27 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:47 Nevuk wrote:On January 27 2017 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality They may be aware of it, but they certainly never made it any sort of priority. It seems like more of an inconvenience for that group than anything else.
I feel like they wanted to maintain the current status quo of imbalances, but not let them go any further. The issue those on the left have with that is that they believe we're already at an untenable level. However, the GOP seems to want to make it worse. Trump is a gamble on this point, but it's completely possible that he will do more for it than Hillary would have (though quite possibly unintentionally).
|
On January 27 2017 08:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality They may be aware of it, but they certainly never made it any sort of priority.
The greatest deception of this election is that the common people believe that the left doesn't care about them, whether it was poor campaigning by Clinton or the effective anti-media trust campaign by Trump.
All communication was a nightmare this year. Trump's policies were either non-existent, in every direction, or thoroughly unsubstantiated, but his incessant America first messaging won through even though he's unstable and knows jack-all.
Not to say that Trump's presidency will not be a blessing in disguise for the US now, because a Hillary presidency would have stalled in the same way that Obama's presidency was blocked.
|
On January 27 2017 08:11 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 07:47 On_Slaught wrote:On January 27 2017 07:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 Nyxisto wrote:
xDaunt you seem to be forgetting that the goods flowing into America from Mexico are also being consumed, you don't dump them into the river, so obviously punishing Mexico on the export side punishes American consumers on the import side. The US is free to start trade-wars left and right of course, but is that going to make Trump's core audience happy who actually relies on the stuff? I'm not forgetting anything. Of course trade wars have bilateral adverse effects, just as real wars do. But it's very clear which country has the superior firepower. Trump is smart to use it to the US's advantage. Smart? Risking damage to our economy just so somebody else funds Trump's vanity project? I think you're forgetting just how stupid and petty the basis of this argument is. For Mexico, it's an issue of national dignity. For Trump, considering the wall is to our benefit, not Mexicos, it's a matter of his ego that we don't just pay for it ourselves. You think that justifies damaging relationships and threatening a trade war? I'm not interesting in pointless moralizing. Here are the basic facts: 1) Mexico runs a huge trade surplus with the US 2) Mexico benefits hugely from illegal immigration to the US (which is why the government actively encourages it, despite its brazen hypocrisy when it comes to its own southern border) 3) The US has huge leverage over Mexico given 1 and 2 I really don't give a flying fucking about Mexican feelings. If anything, and as a good American, you should start thinking about the above from the perspective of an American. Mexico is abusing our good will. And it is time that Mexico even out the ledger. You're looking at this from a purely economic perspective and completely ignoring the pragmatics of politics. Do you really think there will be no consequences to bullying nations we're supposed to be allies with?
Why wouldn't we look at the economics? Money is almost always the most important consideration. Money translates directly into strength, wealth, and power. And it's not like we're talking small numbers. We're talking tens of a billions of dollars annually. Trillions over a generation. I find it very hard to believe that there are many considerations that warrant the economic bending over that Mexico is giving us. Again, start thinking like an American and thinking about American interests. And take a good hard look at the current world order. Who exactly is going to punish us for balancing the ledger with Mexico? We are in a world populated by greedy assholes. They will continue to operate in their own selfish best interests. It's time that the US do the same.
This also ignores the the fact that the wall will not stop illegal immigration. Coupled with the fact that making Mexico's economy suffer will only increase the drive of people to make it into the u.s, and basically you're doing a lot of damage for little change.
I beg to differ, but we can ignore this for now.
You also jeopardize NAFTA renegotiations. If you want more fair dealings with Mexico then sort that shit out in renegotiating NAFTA. But to try and "even the ledger" over something as divisive as the wall is counterproductive and only results and people not wanting to cooperate.
Like zlefin said above if your goal is to even things out then this is the exact wrong approach to do.
This is hilarious. The only person who ever was interested in renegotiating NAFTA (unless you want to count Bernie) is Trump. Sorry, but, in a complete vacuum, I'm inclined to believe that he actually has a clue about how to pursue his own stated objective and that the opposition doesn't. Democrats are clueless on this matter because it's not their objective. But hey, feel free to offer an alternative idea for to stop Mexico from bending us over.
|
On January 27 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:11 On_Slaught wrote:On January 27 2017 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 07:47 On_Slaught wrote:On January 27 2017 07:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 Nyxisto wrote:
xDaunt you seem to be forgetting that the goods flowing into America from Mexico are also being consumed, you don't dump them into the river, so obviously punishing Mexico on the export side punishes American consumers on the import side. The US is free to start trade-wars left and right of course, but is that going to make Trump's core audience happy who actually relies on the stuff? I'm not forgetting anything. Of course trade wars have bilateral adverse effects, just as real wars do. But it's very clear which country has the superior firepower. Trump is smart to use it to the US's advantage. Smart? Risking damage to our economy just so somebody else funds Trump's vanity project? I think you're forgetting just how stupid and petty the basis of this argument is. For Mexico, it's an issue of national dignity. For Trump, considering the wall is to our benefit, not Mexicos, it's a matter of his ego that we don't just pay for it ourselves. You think that justifies damaging relationships and threatening a trade war? I'm not interesting in pointless moralizing. Here are the basic facts: 1) Mexico runs a huge trade surplus with the US 2) Mexico benefits hugely from illegal immigration to the US (which is why the government actively encourages it, despite its brazen hypocrisy when it comes to its own southern border) 3) The US has huge leverage over Mexico given 1 and 2 I really don't give a flying fucking about Mexican feelings. If anything, and as a good American, you should start thinking about the above from the perspective of an American. Mexico is abusing our good will. And it is time that Mexico even out the ledger. You're looking at this from a purely economic perspective and completely ignoring the pragmatics of politics. Do you really think there will be no consequences to bullying nations we're supposed to be allies with? Why wouldn't we look at the economics? Money is almost always the most important consideration. Money translates directly into strength, wealth, and power. And it's not like we're talking small numbers. We're talking tens of a billions of dollars annually. Trillions over a generation. I find it very hard to believe that there are many considerations that warrant the economic bending over that Mexico is giving us. Again, start thinking like an American and thinking about American interests. And take a good hard look at the current world order. Who exactly is going to punish us for balancing the ledger with Mexico? We are in a world populated by greedy assholes. They will continue to operate in their own selfish best interests. It's time that the US do the same. Show nested quote +This also ignores the the fact that the wall will not stop illegal immigration. Coupled with the fact that making Mexico's economy suffer will only increase the drive of people to make it into the u.s, and basically you're doing a lot of damage for little change. I beg to differ, but we can ignore this for now. Show nested quote +You also jeopardize NAFTA renegotiations. If you want more fair dealings with Mexico then sort that shit out in renegotiating NAFTA. But to try and "even the ledger" over something as divisive as the wall is counterproductive and only results and people not wanting to cooperate.
Like zlefin said above if your goal is to even things out then this is the exact wrong approach to do. This is hilarious. The only person who ever was interested in renegotiating NAFTA (unless you want to count Bernie) is Trump. Sorry, but, in a complete vacuum, I'm inclined to believe that he actually has a clue about how to pursue his own stated objective and that the opposition doesn't. Democrats are clueless on this matter because it's not their objective. But hey, feel free to offer an alternative idea for to stop Mexico from bending us over.
You talk under the assumption that Trump has any sort of business acumen. He doesn't. His business ventures are all failures or done by screwing the other guy over. That is the exact style of negotiation that you continue to laud and you see no problem with it.
The US hasn't been screwed over by deals. Both sides negotiated things that they wanted to reach an agreement in order to make the deal. What world do you continue to live in where you think bullying everyone is a solution.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 27 2017 08:43 Sermokala wrote:
People opened twitter accounts. This is news?
It's only news because the WH forbade scientists to talk to the press. That should horrify you.
|
On January 27 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:11 On_Slaught wrote:On January 27 2017 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 07:47 On_Slaught wrote:On January 27 2017 07:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 Nyxisto wrote:
xDaunt you seem to be forgetting that the goods flowing into America from Mexico are also being consumed, you don't dump them into the river, so obviously punishing Mexico on the export side punishes American consumers on the import side. The US is free to start trade-wars left and right of course, but is that going to make Trump's core audience happy who actually relies on the stuff? I'm not forgetting anything. Of course trade wars have bilateral adverse effects, just as real wars do. But it's very clear which country has the superior firepower. Trump is smart to use it to the US's advantage. Smart? Risking damage to our economy just so somebody else funds Trump's vanity project? I think you're forgetting just how stupid and petty the basis of this argument is. For Mexico, it's an issue of national dignity. For Trump, considering the wall is to our benefit, not Mexicos, it's a matter of his ego that we don't just pay for it ourselves. You think that justifies damaging relationships and threatening a trade war? I'm not interesting in pointless moralizing. Here are the basic facts: 1) Mexico runs a huge trade surplus with the US 2) Mexico benefits hugely from illegal immigration to the US (which is why the government actively encourages it, despite its brazen hypocrisy when it comes to its own southern border) 3) The US has huge leverage over Mexico given 1 and 2 I really don't give a flying fucking about Mexican feelings. If anything, and as a good American, you should start thinking about the above from the perspective of an American. Mexico is abusing our good will. And it is time that Mexico even out the ledger. You're looking at this from a purely economic perspective and completely ignoring the pragmatics of politics. Do you really think there will be no consequences to bullying nations we're supposed to be allies with? Why wouldn't we look at the economics? Money is almost always the most important consideration. Money translates directly into strength, wealth, and power. And it's not like we're talking small numbers. We're talking tens of a billions of dollars annually. Trillions over a generation. I find it very hard to believe that there are many considerations that warrant the economic bending over that Mexico is giving us. Again, start thinking like an American and thinking about American interests. And take a good hard look at the current world order. Who exactly is going to punish us for balancing the ledger with Mexico? We are in a world populated by greedy assholes. They will continue to operate in their own selfish best interests. It's time that the US do the same. Show nested quote +This also ignores the the fact that the wall will not stop illegal immigration. Coupled with the fact that making Mexico's economy suffer will only increase the drive of people to make it into the u.s, and basically you're doing a lot of damage for little change. I beg to differ, but we can ignore this for now. Show nested quote +You also jeopardize NAFTA renegotiations. If you want more fair dealings with Mexico then sort that shit out in renegotiating NAFTA. But to try and "even the ledger" over something as divisive as the wall is counterproductive and only results and people not wanting to cooperate.
Like zlefin said above if your goal is to even things out then this is the exact wrong approach to do. This is hilarious. The only person who ever was interested in renegotiating NAFTA (unless you want to count Bernie) is Trump. Sorry, but, in a complete vacuum, I'm inclined to believe that he actually has a clue about how to pursue his own stated objective and that the opposition doesn't. Democrats are clueless on this matter because it's not their objective. But hey, feel free to offer an alternative idea for to stop Mexico from bending us over.
wait... so on one hand the US has all this leverage and can totally win a trade war or whatever, and on the other mexico is bending us over? i'm very confused what the argument here is exactly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 27 2017 08:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
nominally the sort of direct influence on u.s. business decisions practiced by trump is something i and a hrc administration support. it is industrial policy.
difference is that trump takes very publicity heavy deals with low return for workers, while a more conscientious administration would try to devise actual policies and bargain harder.
believe it or not, 'neoliberal' center-left is well aware of the imbalances in the economy, and the demonizations from the left is more fantasy than reality They may be aware of it, but they certainly never made it any sort of priority.
two things.
trade deficit is not the problem if that is what you meant by imbalances.
policy focus is entirely about more jobs so it is just a matter of perception and lack of messaging.
go read the policy papers and look at the personnel
it isnt even fair to blame hillary's messaging on this one because she explicitly talks about the role of management decisions in terms of lacking long term investment focus. this is basically calling for direct industrial policy.
as ive said on many occasions, demonization of hrc and center-left is just fantasy
|
|
|
I don't get it, he talks about investing in our infrastructure, but then wants to go ahead and spend billions on an unnecessary wall...
|
that a trade imbalance exists does not seem to be the same as "being bent over"
nor do I see strong evidence for the notion that the US is "being bent over" otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
