|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 27 2018 06:20 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:
Trade tariffs on China is not going to impact them investing in the US bond market. And its not like they can get in a fight with the US about it or try to accelerate the collection. I don't think that's an issue. In general, the US encourages other nations to invest in their debt & in US savings bonds & by buying property in US cities in such, much like Britain does. For example, Russian & Saudi Arabian princes with a lot of money tend to buy hotels in London or New York. I guess nowadays they are trying to discourage that in order to get locals to step it up instead. The trade tariffs are meant to protect local businesses & hurt "outside" businesses. I think the idea there is that there would be more trade done by local businesses when these rules are in place. Whether that's how things are going to turn out or not is unclear. International trade is good for businesses anyways so I guess I'm not too sure how things are going to pan out there. There aren't as many businesspeople in China as there are in the US so the state is trying to take a more direct role in managing the economy, whereas in the US it is thought that folks should trust the CEO's & encourage them to spend money in interesting ways.
The problem with tariffs is they lead to trade wars, which is what both sides are trying to avoid. No one wins a trade war, they just lead to more conflict. International free trade and interconnected markets encouraged post WW2 to prevents real wars. The idea being that if we interconnected our economic futures, nations would be less likely to engage in armed conflict. And it has worked for more than half a century with most nations, China included.
There are ways to address the problems coming out of China, like steel dumping. But those need to be done through partnerships with our trading partners, not through unilateral actions. A trade war will mean a full blown assault on our agricultural industry, who does not have buyers lined up of China does not buy what it buys from them. The food will rot on ships and in warehouses before a new buyer is found. This is a very dangerous game Trump and his folks are playing, which is why people are trying to head it off quietly.
|
On March 27 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:20 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:
Trade tariffs on China is not going to impact them investing in the US bond market. And its not like they can get in a fight with the US about it or try to accelerate the collection. I don't think that's an issue. In general, the US encourages other nations to invest in their debt & in US savings bonds & by buying property in US cities in such, much like Britain does. For example, Russian & Saudi Arabian princes with a lot of money tend to buy hotels in London or New York. I guess nowadays they are trying to discourage that in order to get locals to step it up instead. The trade tariffs are meant to protect local businesses & hurt "outside" businesses. I think the idea there is that there would be more trade done by local businesses when these rules are in place. Whether that's how things are going to turn out or not is unclear. International trade is good for businesses anyways so I guess I'm not too sure how things are going to pan out there. There aren't as many businesspeople in China as there are in the US so the state is trying to take a more direct role in managing the economy, whereas in the US it is thought that folks should trust the CEO's & encourage them to spend money in interesting ways. The problem with tariffs is they lead to trade wars, which is what both sides are trying to avoid. No one wins a trade war, they just lead to more conflict. International free trade and interconnected markets encouraged post WW2 to prevents real wars. The idea being that if we interconnected our economic futures, nations would be less likely to engage in armed conflict. And it has worked for more than half a century with most nations, China included. There are ways to address the problems coming out of China, like steel dumping. But those need to be done through partnerships with our trading partners, not through unilateral actions. A trade war will mean a full blown assault on our agricultural industry, who does not have buyers lined up of China does not buy what it buys from them. The food will rot on ships and in warehouses before a new buyer is found. This is a very dangerous game Trump and his folks are playing, which is why people are trying to head it off quietly.
I guess I'm not sure how a +1% or +2% change in the tax rate that is put on imports is going to cause a "trade war." These are normal conflict interactions that happen between countries. Another thing that occasionally gets changed is the Federal Reserve interest rate. I thought it was fairly well known that China heavily taxes ANYTHING that comes to China, so, now there are retaliatory measures being made by other countries that China trades with where they consider that to be an unfair imbalance. They may be able to enact that change with no consequence. I guess I don't know how things work over there really beyond what is said in the news. In general the US tends to try to help China in terms of business acumen & I think there is an awareness of that. They shouldn't allow a "raw deal" to be made where they are being taken advantage of. The US continues to be the world's #1 economy, although China is a close #2 & the EU is #3
|
On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:Or we can just let the adults work on resolving the issue, rather than throw more rocks at glass houses. A full blown trade war will hurt us as much as it hurts China. that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar
How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit.
I just don't see how it works.
|
On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:Or we can just let the adults work on resolving the issue, rather than throw more rocks at glass houses. A full blown trade war will hurt us as much as it hurts China. that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar
That is super judgemental considering how many people live more or less paycheck to paycheck.
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
washingtonsblog.com
Those numbers are from a couple of years ago, but still more or less accurate. It's all well and good for someone to say "well, people should just save more," but if someone making $30k wants to spend ~$80 a month on frivolities that make life worth living instead of saving ~$1000 a year, let them. We're not all Puritans or the 1830s British.
|
On March 27 2018 06:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:Or we can just let the adults work on resolving the issue, rather than throw more rocks at glass houses. A full blown trade war will hurt us as much as it hurts China. that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit. I just don't see how it works.
Japan has a trade surplus because Japanese tend to save a lot & don't seem to spend their money all that often. Germany is also running a trade surplus & they save about 20% of their monthly income, which, by the way, is a MASSIVE amount. So, if the US saved as much as those countries save, the amount of US money spent abroad would be lower. That would mean that the trade deficit would be small. Anyways, these are the working habits of thousands of people so I guess I just can't imagine all Americans turning into a bunch of savers overnight, I just don't see that happening. People in the US tend to be spenthrifts, but they also produce a lot of things to make up for that, so that's just how it goes if that's how they live. Incidentally that is why the US economy is doing so well in general if you don't consider the trade deficit to be that big of an issue
|
On March 27 2018 06:41 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 06:20 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:
Trade tariffs on China is not going to impact them investing in the US bond market. And its not like they can get in a fight with the US about it or try to accelerate the collection. I don't think that's an issue. In general, the US encourages other nations to invest in their debt & in US savings bonds & by buying property in US cities in such, much like Britain does. For example, Russian & Saudi Arabian princes with a lot of money tend to buy hotels in London or New York. I guess nowadays they are trying to discourage that in order to get locals to step it up instead. The trade tariffs are meant to protect local businesses & hurt "outside" businesses. I think the idea there is that there would be more trade done by local businesses when these rules are in place. Whether that's how things are going to turn out or not is unclear. International trade is good for businesses anyways so I guess I'm not too sure how things are going to pan out there. There aren't as many businesspeople in China as there are in the US so the state is trying to take a more direct role in managing the economy, whereas in the US it is thought that folks should trust the CEO's & encourage them to spend money in interesting ways. The problem with tariffs is they lead to trade wars, which is what both sides are trying to avoid. No one wins a trade war, they just lead to more conflict. International free trade and interconnected markets encouraged post WW2 to prevents real wars. The idea being that if we interconnected our economic futures, nations would be less likely to engage in armed conflict. And it has worked for more than half a century with most nations, China included. There are ways to address the problems coming out of China, like steel dumping. But those need to be done through partnerships with our trading partners, not through unilateral actions. A trade war will mean a full blown assault on our agricultural industry, who does not have buyers lined up of China does not buy what it buys from them. The food will rot on ships and in warehouses before a new buyer is found. This is a very dangerous game Trump and his folks are playing, which is why people are trying to head it off quietly. I guess I'm not sure how a +1% or +2% change in the tax rate that is put on imports is going to cause a "trade war." These are normal conflict interactions that happen between countries. Another thing that occasionally gets changed is the Federal Reserve interest rate. I thought it was fairly well known that China heavily taxes ANYTHING that comes to China, so, now there are retaliatory measures being made by other countries that China trades with where they consider that to be an unfair imbalance. They may be able to enact that change with no consequence. I guess I don't know how things work over there really beyond what is said in the news. In general the US tends to try to help China in terms of business acumen & I think there is an awareness of that. They shouldn't allow a "raw deal" to be made where they are being taken advantage of. The US continues to be the world's #1 economy, although China is a close #2 & the EU is #3
We already have targeted taxes on specific Chinese goods and we are making efforts to have them open up their market to our goods. Increasing those taxes will only make China respond by taxing goods that they are buying from the US, which will harm the US agricultural industry and others. But that won't change the fact that labor in this country costs more than in China, which is why we buy things from them in the first place. We are a consumer economy, so we will naturally take in more than we ship out. The trade defect is not a balance sheet and viewing it that way is not productive to our economy and can do real damage.
|
On March 27 2018 06:41 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 06:20 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:
Trade tariffs on China is not going to impact them investing in the US bond market. And its not like they can get in a fight with the US about it or try to accelerate the collection. I don't think that's an issue. In general, the US encourages other nations to invest in their debt & in US savings bonds & by buying property in US cities in such, much like Britain does. For example, Russian & Saudi Arabian princes with a lot of money tend to buy hotels in London or New York. I guess nowadays they are trying to discourage that in order to get locals to step it up instead. The trade tariffs are meant to protect local businesses & hurt "outside" businesses. I think the idea there is that there would be more trade done by local businesses when these rules are in place. Whether that's how things are going to turn out or not is unclear. International trade is good for businesses anyways so I guess I'm not too sure how things are going to pan out there. There aren't as many businesspeople in China as there are in the US so the state is trying to take a more direct role in managing the economy, whereas in the US it is thought that folks should trust the CEO's & encourage them to spend money in interesting ways. The problem with tariffs is they lead to trade wars, which is what both sides are trying to avoid. No one wins a trade war, they just lead to more conflict. International free trade and interconnected markets encouraged post WW2 to prevents real wars. The idea being that if we interconnected our economic futures, nations would be less likely to engage in armed conflict. And it has worked for more than half a century with most nations, China included. There are ways to address the problems coming out of China, like steel dumping. But those need to be done through partnerships with our trading partners, not through unilateral actions. A trade war will mean a full blown assault on our agricultural industry, who does not have buyers lined up of China does not buy what it buys from them. The food will rot on ships and in warehouses before a new buyer is found. This is a very dangerous game Trump and his folks are playing, which is why people are trying to head it off quietly. I guess I'm not sure how a +1% or +2% change in the tax rate that is put on imports is going to cause a "trade war." These are normal conflict interactions that happen between countries. Another thing that occasionally gets changed is the Federal Reserve interest rate. I thought it was fairly well known that China heavily taxes ANYTHING that comes to China, so, now there are retaliatory measures being made by other countries that China trades with where they consider that to be an unfair imbalance. They may be able to enact that change with no consequence. I guess I don't know how things work over there really beyond what is said in the news. In general the US tends to try to help China in terms of business acumen & I think there is an awareness of that. They shouldn't allow a "raw deal" to be made where they are being taken advantage of. The US continues to be the world's #1 economy, although China is a close #2 & the EU is #3
a bit besides the point but:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0hF1j3j.png)
On the savings... I'm not really sure if I trust that. Everytime I hear people talk about that it's about how bad it is for the German economy that germans save so much and that we should be more like the US or other European countries and spend more money.
While saving money is a german trait for sure it's usually understood to be a bad one I think? Especially the kind of "put 100$ in a sock under your pillow for hard days!" saving. You're way better off the american way by putting that into stocks, a house or whatever else.
//But I haven't thought about it that way. It probably is true. If you save more you're spending less in general. Which means less people shopping on foreign amazon to get the latests Bluray of their favorite whatever. But it comes with the price that your economy just goes down as a whole. As imports reduce you also reduce domestic demand (while not necessarily impacting output/exports). So yes, a change of mind would probably reduce your trade deficit at the cost of crashing your economy//
On the tariffs. I'd have to look into it. Cars are a weird thing in the US. On the one hand yes, the US doesn't have big taxes on cars imported, as you mentioned with Chinese cars or even with European cars.
On the other hand they do have way more taxes on trucks and (I'd assume? but not sure, maybe it's just specifically trucks) SUVs. While the EU asks for 10% on those, European trucks going into the US are at 25% iirc.
Seems like a conscious decision on the US' part to me. They seem to think that making sure their Jeeps and whatever else have a good time is more important than competing with mini's and other cars in that range (or size) because quite frankly, noone would ever buy a US car for that.
I'm not quite sure if it's the same for China but I read that that's how it is for the EU. While on the other hand the EU doesn't distinguish between the two and asks for a general 10% tax, which is inbetween what the US is asking depending on what kind of automobile.
|
On March 27 2018 06:55 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:47 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Or we can just let the adults work on resolving the issue, rather than throw more rocks at glass houses. A full blown trade war will hurt us as much as it hurts China. that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit. I just don't see how it works. Japan has a trade surplus because Japanese tend to save a lot & don't seem to spend their money all that often. Germany is also running a trade surplus & they save about 20% of their monthly income, which, by the way, is a MASSIVE amount. So, if the US saved as much as those countries save, the amount of US money spent abroad would be lower. That would mean that the trade deficit would be small. Anyways, these are the working habits of thousands of people so I guess I just can't imagine all Americans turning into a bunch of savers overnight, I just don't see that happening. People in the US tend to be spenthrifts, but they also produce a lot of things to make up for that, so that's just how it goes if that's how they live. Incidentally that is why the US economy is doing so well in general if you don't consider the trade deficit to be that big of an issue Why do you think having a trade deficit is bad? What is the problem with America importing masses of cheap goods for its citizens?
Lots of other countries have a trade deficit with China. They don't seem to care.
|
On March 27 2018 07:04 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:41 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 06:20 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:
Trade tariffs on China is not going to impact them investing in the US bond market. And its not like they can get in a fight with the US about it or try to accelerate the collection. I don't think that's an issue. In general, the US encourages other nations to invest in their debt & in US savings bonds & by buying property in US cities in such, much like Britain does. For example, Russian & Saudi Arabian princes with a lot of money tend to buy hotels in London or New York. I guess nowadays they are trying to discourage that in order to get locals to step it up instead. The trade tariffs are meant to protect local businesses & hurt "outside" businesses. I think the idea there is that there would be more trade done by local businesses when these rules are in place. Whether that's how things are going to turn out or not is unclear. International trade is good for businesses anyways so I guess I'm not too sure how things are going to pan out there. There aren't as many businesspeople in China as there are in the US so the state is trying to take a more direct role in managing the economy, whereas in the US it is thought that folks should trust the CEO's & encourage them to spend money in interesting ways. The problem with tariffs is they lead to trade wars, which is what both sides are trying to avoid. No one wins a trade war, they just lead to more conflict. International free trade and interconnected markets encouraged post WW2 to prevents real wars. The idea being that if we interconnected our economic futures, nations would be less likely to engage in armed conflict. And it has worked for more than half a century with most nations, China included. There are ways to address the problems coming out of China, like steel dumping. But those need to be done through partnerships with our trading partners, not through unilateral actions. A trade war will mean a full blown assault on our agricultural industry, who does not have buyers lined up of China does not buy what it buys from them. The food will rot on ships and in warehouses before a new buyer is found. This is a very dangerous game Trump and his folks are playing, which is why people are trying to head it off quietly. I guess I'm not sure how a +1% or +2% change in the tax rate that is put on imports is going to cause a "trade war." These are normal conflict interactions that happen between countries. Another thing that occasionally gets changed is the Federal Reserve interest rate. I thought it was fairly well known that China heavily taxes ANYTHING that comes to China, so, now there are retaliatory measures being made by other countries that China trades with where they consider that to be an unfair imbalance. They may be able to enact that change with no consequence. I guess I don't know how things work over there really beyond what is said in the news. In general the US tends to try to help China in terms of business acumen & I think there is an awareness of that. They shouldn't allow a "raw deal" to be made where they are being taken advantage of. The US continues to be the world's #1 economy, although China is a close #2 & the EU is #3 a bit besides the point but: On the savings... I'm not really sure if I trust that. Everytime I hear people talk about that it's about how bad it is for the German economy that germans save so much and that we should be more like the US or other European countries and spend more money. While saving money is a german trait for sure it's usually understood to be a bad one I think? Especially the kind of "put 100$ in a sock under your pillow for hard days!" saving. You're way better off the american way by putting that into stocks, a house or whatever else. On the tariffs. I'd have to look into it. Cars are a weird thing in the US. On the one hand yes, the US doesn't have big taxes on cars imported, as you mentioned with Chinese cars or even with European cars. On the other hand they do have way more taxes on trucks and (I'd assume? but not sure, maybe it's just specifically trucks) SUVs. While the EU asks for 10% on those, European trucks going into the US are at 25%. Seems like a conscious decision on the US' part to me. They seem to think that making sure they Jeeps and whatever else have a good time is more important than competing with mini's and other cars in that range (or size) because quite frankly, noone would ever buy a US car for that. I'm not quite sure if it's the same for China but I read that that's how it is for the EU. While on the other hand the EU doesn't distinguish between the two and asks for a general 10% tax, which is inbetween what the US is asking depending on what kind of automobile.
Interesting. I feel like the US could tax European cars by 5% less than they do now & Chinese cars 5% more than they do now, and that would be a change that would be beneficial in terms of getting a more reasonable trade balance between those several countries. Cars are more of a luxury item in Europe anyways whereas it seems to be a necessity in the US in terms of having transportation to work & back every day.
Investing in property is a fairly sensible way to spend money that, in my opinion, is about as good as saving that money, as you have a roof over your head & a bed to sleep on every night that is paid for. On a personal note, since I got a new job last year I have bought a new car & new phone & a new wardrobe. Now that is done and these are things that will last a long time & be useful a long time. So some consumer spending is a good thing if it is done judiciously.
https://www.euitalianinternationaltax.com/articles/u-s-italy-tax-treaty/
I'm guessing this is pretty esoteric for most people but Trump just signed off on a new US / Italy tax treaty. That settles things up there between the world's #1 economy & the world's #9 economy (#3 in the EU)
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php
|
http://business.financialpost.com/technology/u-s-ftc-investigating-facebooks-privacy-practices
Shares of Facebook Inc fell more than 5 per cent on Monday after the U.S. consumer protection regulator made public its investigation of how the social network allowed data of 50 million users to get into the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.
Scrutiny by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which generally confirms the existence of an investigation only in cases of significant public interest, adds to pressure by lawmakers in the United States and Europe for Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to explain how his company handles user data.
Facebook shares briefly dipped below US$150 on Monday for the first time since July 2017, before recouping some losses. They were down 3.1 per cent at US$154.37 in afternoon trading.
At the day’s session low the company had lost $100 billion in market value since March 17, when newspapers first reported that Facebook member data was improperly used by consultants Cambridge Analytica to target U.S. and British voters in close-run elections.
So facebook is starting to feel the results of selling unsecured data? Wow, thought this day would never come.
|
On March 27 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:47 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:
[quote]
that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit. I just don't see how it works. Japan has a trade surplus because Japanese tend to save a lot & don't seem to spend their money all that often. Germany is also running a trade surplus & they save about 20% of their monthly income, which, by the way, is a MASSIVE amount. So, if the US saved as much as those countries save, the amount of US money spent abroad would be lower. That would mean that the trade deficit would be small. Anyways, these are the working habits of thousands of people so I guess I just can't imagine all Americans turning into a bunch of savers overnight, I just don't see that happening. People in the US tend to be spenthrifts, but they also produce a lot of things to make up for that, so that's just how it goes if that's how they live. Incidentally that is why the US economy is doing so well in general if you don't consider the trade deficit to be that big of an issue Why do you think having a trade deficit is bad? What is the problem with America importing masses of cheap goods for its citizens? Lots of other countries have a trade deficit with China. They don't seem to care.
The US spends the most money in the world. That is ok as long as they also produce the most things as well to offset that disparity. That could change. I think that people should be aware that there is some danger that things will not go on forever as they are going right now. I think that if things were to go south in economic terms in the US, the consumer spending would immediately cease & all of that money would be saved instead, & spent only on essentials. China is a rising star in the world economy & is much better off than India is. That being said, there is a lot of struggle in China & so they are not "there" just yet.
at one engineering company, ID Software, there is a big emphasis on the personal lives of the employees over the underlying economic performance of the company. That tends to put the focus on the people's personal foibles & interests & friends & such, rather than on economic metrics. That's definitely a US way of thinking that is unique to the States.
|
On March 27 2018 07:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:http://business.financialpost.com/technology/u-s-ftc-investigating-facebooks-privacy-practicesShow nested quote +Shares of Facebook Inc fell more than 5 per cent on Monday after the U.S. consumer protection regulator made public its investigation of how the social network allowed data of 50 million users to get into the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.
Scrutiny by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which generally confirms the existence of an investigation only in cases of significant public interest, adds to pressure by lawmakers in the United States and Europe for Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to explain how his company handles user data.
Facebook shares briefly dipped below US$150 on Monday for the first time since July 2017, before recouping some losses. They were down 3.1 per cent at US$154.37 in afternoon trading.
At the day’s session low the company had lost $100 billion in market value since March 17, when newspapers first reported that Facebook member data was improperly used by consultants Cambridge Analytica to target U.S. and British voters in close-run elections. So facebook is starting to feel the results of selling unsecured data? Wow, thought this day would never come.
There is also a report that they have been collected the phone logs and maybe texts messages of android phone users that used the messaging app. There was a NPR story that quoted a guy in personal info marketing field saying that no one collects phone logs or text information because there is no market for it. No company wants that information because they know how it will be seen. Facebook was collecting the information simply because they could and might be able to sell it down the line.
|
On March 27 2018 07:18 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2018 06:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:47 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit. I just don't see how it works. Japan has a trade surplus because Japanese tend to save a lot & don't seem to spend their money all that often. Germany is also running a trade surplus & they save about 20% of their monthly income, which, by the way, is a MASSIVE amount. So, if the US saved as much as those countries save, the amount of US money spent abroad would be lower. That would mean that the trade deficit would be small. Anyways, these are the working habits of thousands of people so I guess I just can't imagine all Americans turning into a bunch of savers overnight, I just don't see that happening. People in the US tend to be spenthrifts, but they also produce a lot of things to make up for that, so that's just how it goes if that's how they live. Incidentally that is why the US economy is doing so well in general if you don't consider the trade deficit to be that big of an issue Why do you think having a trade deficit is bad? What is the problem with America importing masses of cheap goods for its citizens? Lots of other countries have a trade deficit with China. They don't seem to care. The US spends the most money in the world. That is ok as long as they also produce the most things as well to offset that disparity. That could change. I think that people should be aware that there is some danger that things will not go on forever as they are going right now. I think that if things were to go south in economic terms in the US, the consumer spending would immediately cease & all of that money would be saved instead, & spent only on essentials. China is a rising star in the world economy & is much better off than India is. That being said, there is a lot of struggle in China & so they are not "there" just yet.
Here's where I think almost everyone agrees to some point that it's an interesting aspect you can discuss about. I just wouldn't frame it as trade deficit. It's spending in general, no matter if domestic or international.
I know Germany is more on the saving side of things (to the extreme actually) and we don't spend a lot. And like I mentioned that's usually considered to be a bad thing by people because spending more money is what makes the economy grow.
Now the question is if that's sustainable in the long run. If you're framing that question like that I think it's way easier to get people into the issue than talking about trade deficit because as mentioned, at most it's a symptom that shows an underlying issue, not a problem itself (as taking from your link earlier).
And I don't think people would crash so much on that tradedeficit buzzword.
Wether "the problem" actually is a problem is to be seen imo but I can see people discussing that at least.
|
On March 27 2018 07:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:http://business.financialpost.com/technology/u-s-ftc-investigating-facebooks-privacy-practicesShow nested quote +Shares of Facebook Inc fell more than 5 per cent on Monday after the U.S. consumer protection regulator made public its investigation of how the social network allowed data of 50 million users to get into the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.
Scrutiny by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which generally confirms the existence of an investigation only in cases of significant public interest, adds to pressure by lawmakers in the United States and Europe for Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to explain how his company handles user data.
Facebook shares briefly dipped below US$150 on Monday for the first time since July 2017, before recouping some losses. They were down 3.1 per cent at US$154.37 in afternoon trading.
At the day’s session low the company had lost $100 billion in market value since March 17, when newspapers first reported that Facebook member data was improperly used by consultants Cambridge Analytica to target U.S. and British voters in close-run elections. So facebook is starting to feel the results of selling unsecured data? Wow, thought this day would never come.
More like the best time to buy shares while they're low. I wouldn't be so ready to call for the death of Facebook. The company is on a downturn, but they're worth hundreds of billions of dollars with hundreds of billions in revenue. Do you think all that is going to stop? Maybe lawmakers make some new regulations to reel Facebook in, but until that happens they're still making bank and those aren't happening tomorrow.
What is most amusing about the whole thing is Amazon is basically just as culpable with none of the bad press or stock damage.
|
Facebook is sort of a house of cards, though. Their entire business model is selling user data, which people willingly hand over. They have to seek constant new users to sell new data, which this story, the FTC investigation, and the UK digging into CA is going to erode trust. And the press is going to do them no favors, since most reporters and news agencies would be happy to not have to try to fight the algorithm of the giant billionaire overlords. They won't die, but this could be the end of their growth for a long while.
|
On March 27 2018 07:18 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2018 06:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:47 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit. I just don't see how it works. Japan has a trade surplus because Japanese tend to save a lot & don't seem to spend their money all that often. Germany is also running a trade surplus & they save about 20% of their monthly income, which, by the way, is a MASSIVE amount. So, if the US saved as much as those countries save, the amount of US money spent abroad would be lower. That would mean that the trade deficit would be small. Anyways, these are the working habits of thousands of people so I guess I just can't imagine all Americans turning into a bunch of savers overnight, I just don't see that happening. People in the US tend to be spenthrifts, but they also produce a lot of things to make up for that, so that's just how it goes if that's how they live. Incidentally that is why the US economy is doing so well in general if you don't consider the trade deficit to be that big of an issue Why do you think having a trade deficit is bad? What is the problem with America importing masses of cheap goods for its citizens? Lots of other countries have a trade deficit with China. They don't seem to care. The US spends the most money in the world. That is ok as long as they also produce the most things as well to offset that disparity. That could change. I think that people should be aware that there is some danger that things will not go on forever as they are going right now. I think that if things were to go south in economic terms in the US, the consumer spending would immediately cease & all of that money would be saved instead, & spent only on essentials. China is a rising star in the world economy & is much better off than India is. That being said, there is a lot of struggle in China & so they are not "there" just yet. So your problem isn't actually the trade deficit with China.
Your afraid the US economy would spend more then it produces. A legitimate problem, and unlike you I think its already more of a problem then you realize. The levels of debt on the middle and working class. Credit Cards to pay other Credit Cards to pay bills with, loan sharks ect.
But what about this does an attack on trade with China solve? a 25% tariff on Chinese cars is going to make Chinese cars 25% more expensive in the US. it doesn't make people save more money. It doesn't reduce spending.
People buying a non-China car instead (because they are not to expensive) will lower the trade deficit (less Chinese goods imported) but again won't cause US citizens to save more.
Your attacking a symptom, and not the problem.
The US consumes to much, that's what you need to change. Not where the goods they consume come from. They could all be made in the USA, it wouldn't stop Americans from spending more money then they make.
|
On March 27 2018 06:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:Or we can just let the adults work on resolving the issue, rather than throw more rocks at glass houses. A full blown trade war will hurt us as much as it hurts China. that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 it's a hard problem to fix; and it's clear the republicans and trump don't really care about it since they voted to make it worse. it's really more of a social problem than an economics one in terms of what fixes need to be deployed. it's notoriously difficult to fix social problems.
I think I'm reaching a point where I can't blame US politicians. If the public is so short-sighted and stupid - as a body politic - that Trump's approval ratings climb for passing a bill that'll fuck them up even more than before in the long term... fine. It's what the people want.
|
On March 27 2018 08:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 06:04 zlefin wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2018 04:57 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:Or we can just let the adults work on resolving the issue, rather than throw more rocks at glass houses. A full blown trade war will hurt us as much as it hurts China. that is a resolution to that issue. There continues to be a pretty major debt problem in America. That's what we are doing right now is proposing a solution to that exact problem What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 it's a hard problem to fix; and it's clear the republicans and trump don't really care about it since they voted to make it worse. it's really more of a social problem than an economics one in terms of what fixes need to be deployed. it's notoriously difficult to fix social problems. I think I'm reaching a point where I can't blame US politicians. If the public is so short-sighted and stupid - as a body politic - that Trump's approval ratings climb for passing a bill that'll fuck them up even more than before in the long term... fine. It's what the people want.
The white working class has been voting for decades for a party whose sole real agenda is upward redistribution of wealth, because racial resentment is apparently more important than not voting consistently for Christmas when you are a turkey.
So you know...
|
On March 27 2018 07:18 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2018 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2018 06:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:47 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:12 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On March 27 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:57 Mercy13 wrote:On March 27 2018 05:55 A3th3r wrote:On March 27 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What debt problem are you referencing? Trade deficit problem not debt problem, sorry. The US imports more goods than it exports by a large margin. That's considered problematic by economists. It is unclear what the solution to that is & there have been many ways to fix it that have been considered. https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 Do you have a source for this? Yes "My view is that the trade deficit is not a problem in itself but is a symptom of a problem. The problem is low national saving. Given that national saving is low, I am not eager for the trade deficit to disappear, because that would mean that domestic investment would need to fall to the low level of national saving. But I do think it would be good if the trade deficit were to disappear accompanied by an increase in national saving." N. Gregory Mankiw (2006) https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/june/trade-deficit-exchange-rate/ Does he mean national saving as how much the people of the nation save? Or what the states save? The nation as a whole? Sorry I am just a bit confused The savings rate of people in general. So if everybody stashed away ten percent from every paycheck, which is a normal amount to save, the problem would clear up overnight. People in America don't do that - they invest in stocks or buy houses or cars or new electronics. I guess I don't know how to make people not be foolish with their money except by maybe educating enough of them that it doesn't matter if there are a few dummies in the mix e: 10 percent, not a dollar How does me saving more get rid of trade debt? I buy shit made in china because its cheaper. If I am buying less because I am saving x amount of my income than I am ONLY going to buy the cheap shit. I just don't see how it works. Japan has a trade surplus because Japanese tend to save a lot & don't seem to spend their money all that often. Germany is also running a trade surplus & they save about 20% of their monthly income, which, by the way, is a MASSIVE amount. So, if the US saved as much as those countries save, the amount of US money spent abroad would be lower. That would mean that the trade deficit would be small. Anyways, these are the working habits of thousands of people so I guess I just can't imagine all Americans turning into a bunch of savers overnight, I just don't see that happening. People in the US tend to be spenthrifts, but they also produce a lot of things to make up for that, so that's just how it goes if that's how they live. Incidentally that is why the US economy is doing so well in general if you don't consider the trade deficit to be that big of an issue Why do you think having a trade deficit is bad? What is the problem with America importing masses of cheap goods for its citizens? Lots of other countries have a trade deficit with China. They don't seem to care. at one engineering company, ID Software, there is a big emphasis on the personal lives of the employees over the underlying economic performance of the company. That tends to put the focus on the people's personal foibles & interests & friends & such, rather than on economic metrics. That's definitely a US way of thinking that is unique to the States.
Are you really using a game studio of a couple hundred people as a standard by which to judge American business culture? How about the culture of EA, which is much larger and became famous for a while because it was treating its employees as disposable? Or maybe Amazons warehouses? Perhaps Walmart? American business culture is different from the rest of the world and bad, but it's because it's got Puritan ideas about work stuck in it, not because it's employee friendly.
|
The video game industry has an average career length of 5 years. Activision had a very profitable year and still shitcanned like 3 studios and fired a bunch of highly paid employees. There is a growing push for unionization that just got floor space at GDC. The video game industry is possibly the worst example of an industry that cares about its workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
