|
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 |
-trade war not a threat.
-usa will win the trade war.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/mohamed-el-erian-sees-risks-to-the-market-but-not-a-global-trade-war.html?recirc=taboolainternal
The highly criticized trade war seems to end up in a (big?) win for the usa/trump,at least according to el-erian.
@below:yes it still remains to be seen how this will play out off course and anything can happen. But this is not average joe who is saying it. El-erian has been wrong in the past,like every economist, but it seems to be consensus that the trade war is not a big threat and that the usa will win. Wall street for example confirms this.
It will take some time,it is also in the article. It will get worse before it will get better (personally I don't think it will get much worse btw) but there is no way the usa can lose if they are willing to do damage,which they are. The other side depends more on the usa then the usa depends on them,
I am just formulating it carefully,because nearly everything has some uncertainty in the end.
|
Lol. Seems to? This "analysis" if You even can call it that is just pure guessing. At this point noone knowns how this will end. It will take months to see the results:
1. To see wheter or not some businesses become unprofitable (on both sides)
2. To see how many suppliers will be replaced by third country parties
3. To see wheter it makes sense for US/EU companies to move its production from China to Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh etc.
4. To see how much political will there is on both sides to continue this trade skirmish (i wouldnt call it war)
There are plenty of factors to consider:
a)Its true that US have more ability to hit China simply beacuse of trade balance
b)But China has some heavy hiting ability on its own which they havent used yet (like rare earth metals for example)
c)Chinese society can endure much more than US, people who survived Mao are still alive
d)The ability of Chinese people to pressure its government is null, on the other side American companies are already pressuring US gov
d)Recent weapon trade related sanctions will bring Russia and China closer
e)China can always sell to Europe and India
In my opinion it will take at least 3 to 6 months to see real results and indication of who is going to blink first.
|
In my opinion it will take at least 3 to 6 months to see real results and indication of who is going to blink first.
I think it is safe to say noone will blink.The only way this ends is with kind of deal with some kind of deal where both look ok.
In reality, it is a very stupid move by the US that will accomplish very little except hurting the economies of both countries and bringing China and Russia closer (yay!)
But it is what Trump was elected for, too bad the US is in no position to be a World bully like that...
|
I have little doubt that there will be an agreement. By "blinking" i meant some kind of political move or signal indicating desire to compromise. For sure there wont be anything like surrender and admiting the other part is stronger. The victory or lack of there of will lie in details of agreement.
And actualy in this case i hope US will prevail (it doesnt look likely though), China unfair practices are real and not something made up like many things on Trump agenda. I am not sure if he chose the proper aproach and what will be and result but at least props for trying.
|
I have a few questions about Trump's trade war: is it right to think that this will weaken the dollar? (I'm aware it might be hard to tell right now). Also, isn't there merit in the idea of closing the trade deficit given he's increasing the fiscal deficit, so as not to run a double deficit (even if the method he's choosing is provocative)?
|
I think we shouldnt confuse economical perspective with political one. The goal of this "trade skirmish" is to end "unfair" Chinese practices - namely copying and stealing of technology. In order to achive that US is prepered to take serious loses. This makes no sense from economical standpoint but from political perspective its worth it since if succesful it secures US position and allows it to keep running technology oriented economy for a forseable future.
The deficit in my opinion is just smoke screen, it is much easier to sell toTrumps base (hell maybe he himself even belives it) than the idea that it is done to protect Hightech industry. Its ironic that states that can benefit the most from this are the ones that are opposing Trump most fiercly.
|
On September 22 2018 21:15 kollin wrote:
I have a few questions about Trump's trade war: is it right to think that this will weaken the dollar? (I'm aware it might be hard to tell right now). Also, isn't there merit in the idea of closing the trade deficit given he's increasing the fiscal deficit, so as not to run a double deficit (even if the method he's choosing is provocative)?
Why is a "double deficit" a bad thing? Further, why is a trade deficit a bad thing?
|
On September 22 2018 23:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 21:15 kollin wrote:
I have a few questions about Trump's trade war: is it right to think that this will weaken the dollar? (I'm aware it might be hard to tell right now). Also, isn't there merit in the idea of closing the trade deficit given he's increasing the fiscal deficit, so as not to run a double deficit (even if the method he's choosing is provocative)? Why is a "double deficit" a bad thing? Further, why is a trade deficit a bad thing?
A trade deficit isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just a thing that has effects - cheaper goods but suppressed wages at home, for example, as well as a stronger dollar because China (and other Asian countries) hold enormous dollar reserves. Also, a double deficit COULD be bad because China ends up holding huge numbers of US treasuries, amongst other dollar denominated assets, that give it a lot of influence over the value of the dollar. I know this was a big thing that centrist economists were worrying about pre-2007 (at which point their worries were refocused on the financial crisis obviously), but I don't know how legitimate their worries are.
|
On September 22 2018 13:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 13:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2018 11:13 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) Lost your patience? It’s been like a week my guy. One more week won’t hurt anything. There is literally no rush. The woman can ask for the details of what is to take place at the hearing, rather than walking in blind. Oh yeah, she isn’t holding up the nomination, Senators like Collins are. She is, her delays are causing people like Collins to squirm. The woman had this letter written for months. Presumably before she wrote it, and certainly after she hired a lawyer, she had everything she knows on lock, what little that is. She's known for days, they've wanted to talk to her for days, now, today, we find out she doesn't want to a fly. A professor, who presumable goes all over the place for various events, doesn't want to fly, even for something this important. Days ago Grassley said we'll send people to you. Nope, not good enough. This from a woman who's plan was to stay anonymous the whole time, while stopping a Court nomination. If she doesn't want to talk, then she shouldn't. And just say it. They are just dragging this out. her lawyer said 6 days ago she was ready. They invited her days ago. Now, when they were actually asked to come, they stall. I may step out here again, I await more developments, and hopefully not more stalling. Edit: your best argument is that they are haggling for better conditions (though that's not really for her to do, but whatever). But I think hours ago we knew what the Committee would agree to, what it would not. So decide. "Dragging this out"? Why do Republicans show so much more respect to business leaders when organizing hearings than to a woman that is an alleged victim of sexual assault? "Time sensitive" is a load of shit. There's plenty of time to take to thoroughly vet a candidate that is a lifetime appointment. Unless Republicans just want to jam this appointment in before the midterms. Something something blatant hypocrisy something something... The character of an individual is extremely telling based on how they respond to this situation. The whole thing is sickening and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. I didn't use the phrase "time sensitive," why is it in quotes? let's cut to the chase. of course this is about the midterms. That's why the letter wasn't leaked until the very end. That's why her lawyer has been hemming and hawing for days. one party wants to this to go past the midterms so they can claim a mandate to oppose a nominee. because you are potential a victim doesn't mean you get to set the agenda, especially when you thought that you could get to your goal by written a letter and assuming an anonymous accusation would count for jack-all. She may have never wanted to come forward, but as soon as she spoke to the WP, that was it. She's had weeks, she hired a lawyer some time ago (before she apparently took the polygraph). This isn't a bolt from the blue, entirely.
You forget that she's no longer a potential victim, but an actual one; irrespective of the original incident, she's now receiving death threats and getting harrassed daily because of her involvement in this, and those consequences are likely going to be playing out for years.
I don't blame her for delaying or making demands.
Side note: If Trump does conclusively win the trade war, then bully for him. It'll be proof positive that he knew what he was talking about at least on that front, and that the US government's strategy around China has been balls for a long time. It's starting to sound good for him on that front.
|
On September 23 2018 01:03 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 23:29 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2018 21:15 kollin wrote:
I have a few questions about Trump's trade war: is it right to think that this will weaken the dollar? (I'm aware it might be hard to tell right now). Also, isn't there merit in the idea of closing the trade deficit given he's increasing the fiscal deficit, so as not to run a double deficit (even if the method he's choosing is provocative)? Why is a "double deficit" a bad thing? Further, why is a trade deficit a bad thing? A trade deficit isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just a thing that has effects - cheaper goods but suppressed wages at home, for example, as well as a stronger dollar because China (and other Asian countries) hold enormous dollar reserves. Also, a double deficit COULD be bad because China ends up holding huge numbers of US treasuries, amongst other dollar denominated assets, that give it a lot of influence over the value of the dollar. I know this was a big thing that centrist economists were worrying about pre-2007 (at which point their worries were refocused on the financial crisis obviously), but I don't know how legitimate their worries are.
While I'd go a bit further and assert that deficits are pretty much only "bad" when utilized as justification for definitively regressive austerity measures, I agree with your take 
|
On September 23 2018 02:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 01:03 kollin wrote:On September 22 2018 23:29 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2018 21:15 kollin wrote:
I have a few questions about Trump's trade war: is it right to think that this will weaken the dollar? (I'm aware it might be hard to tell right now). Also, isn't there merit in the idea of closing the trade deficit given he's increasing the fiscal deficit, so as not to run a double deficit (even if the method he's choosing is provocative)? Why is a "double deficit" a bad thing? Further, why is a trade deficit a bad thing? A trade deficit isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just a thing that has effects - cheaper goods but suppressed wages at home, for example, as well as a stronger dollar because China (and other Asian countries) hold enormous dollar reserves. Also, a double deficit COULD be bad because China ends up holding huge numbers of US treasuries, amongst other dollar denominated assets, that give it a lot of influence over the value of the dollar. I know this was a big thing that centrist economists were worrying about pre-2007 (at which point their worries were refocused on the financial crisis obviously), but I don't know how legitimate their worries are. While I'd go a bit further and assert that deficits are pretty much only "bad" when utilized as justification for definitively regressive austerity measures, I agree with your take
I guess the left response to the potentially destabilising effects of any kind of deficit is enough growth alongside progressive budgeting (education, redistribution through taxation or whatever) to balance out the harm inflicted?
|
On September 22 2018 21:31 Silvanel wrote:
I think we shouldnt confuse economical perspective with political one. The goal of this "trade skirmish" is to end "unfair" Chinese practices - namely copying and stealing of technology. In order to achive that US is prepered to take serious loses. This makes no sense from economical standpoint but from political perspective its worth it since if succesful it secures US position and allows it to keep running technology oriented economy for a forseable future.
The deficit in my opinion is just smoke screen, it is much easier to sell to Trumps base (hell maybe he himself even belives it) than the idea that it is done to protect Hightech industry. Its ironic that states that can benefit the most from this are the ones that are opposing Trump most fiercly.
China has copied and stolen technology for a long time now, as has every country, but not so blatantly or
to this extend... It's just the way of the game if you want a piece of the world's largest emerging consumer market that is China. High tech companies know that they'll have to give up IP rights, but still choose the enormous profits they will make anyway and are against tariffs and sanctions that will hurt their business... China is the biggest market for the automotive industry, every big automotive company Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota... all have collaborations with Chinese companies, even Tesla has plans of bringing production to China, as China is well ahead of the world in battery production. This companies are not about to stop doing business with China, IP theft didn't stop them, tariffs and sanctions probably won't as well. It's probably the same for other industries as well, the profit they will make in their eyes outweighs the losses from IP theft, as they can invest more in R&D...
These practices won't stop just, because of some tariffs. They'll just become less blatant, but it will hurt both the US and China's economies. I don't think this is the way to do it. Negotiation and reforms are probably a better way, but I don't expect that to happen with Trump.
|
On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't.
If it is found to be a false allegation hopefully she faces charges.
|
On September 23 2018 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. If it is found to be a false allegation hopefully she faces charges.
It's extremely rare for perjury to actually be convicted from congressional testimony. Any false testimony given to any branch of the US government is actually punishable oath matters not, it's been criminalized for a very long time that lying to the government can be prosecuted. Only a handful of people have ever been convicted, likely because they are not the courts and many people testify voluntarily and it would spook people if they actually bothered to enforce that code. Outside of that there wouldn't really be any vector to charge her with anything, there is no criminal investigation taking place, at most kav could file a civil suit.
|
The woman we found out about later who was supposedly at the party Dr. Ford describes now says, through a lawyer, that she is both "a lifelong friend" of Ford, and also that she has no recollection of ever seeing Kavanaugh at a party, with or without Ford being present. So I think that makes all 4 of the others who were named in the letter saying on the record that they never saw anything, and even that the party as described never happened. (or at least they dont remember it happening. )
Short article, so I posted it all:
As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.
CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.
On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee..
"Simply put," Walsh said, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."
The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.
Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.
"I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.
Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was "flabbergasted" when he learned of them.
"This is a completely and totally false allegation," he said after Ford came forward. "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone."
In addition, two others have issued statements.
"I have no memory of this alleged incident," said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.
In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement. "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
"Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html
|
Hmm. Well, whatever did or didn't happen, at this point it seems there'll be no way to pin much on Brett. If half the people allegedly there claim they weren't and that it never happened... that's a tough pill, evidence-wise. The lifelong friend part is weird. I'd have thought she'd have been in touch with Ford first and telling her that this is a bad idea, if she doesn't believe any of this is true. But maybe they haven't been in touch for a while or something.
Either way, this seems to smooth the way for the nomination to go ahead. They should still do the testimony, but I can't imagine it adding up to anything at this point.
If it's all a case of mistaken identity, that's kind of tragic. Ford's going to be tormented for years over this. The political actors don't tend to forget a target (see: Sandy Hook parents still getting occasional harrassing messages because that fuckwit Alex Jones claimed it was a false flag operation).
And arguably worse, whoever actually is responsible is going to get away scot-free.
|
frankly, if she is wrong she deserves some retribution. obviously not death threats, so perhaps she can be let off for time served.
and whoever it was has already gotten away. it was always only a matter of whether or not it disqualified him from the job. at the risk of stating the obvious.
|
On September 23 2018 11:19 brian wrote:
frankly, if she is wrong she deserves some retribution. obviously not death threats, so perhaps she can be let off for time served.
and whoever it was has already gotten away. it was always only a matter of whether or not it disqualified him from the job. at the risk of stating the obvious.
Honest question: if I can prove I was at a party with Kavanaugh as a kid, can I make exactly as credible an accusation as her? It is unclear to me what kind of evidence she could have provided to even get to this point. What is stopping 50 other people from saying the same thing?
|
United States42008 Posts
On September 23 2018 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. If it is found to be a false allegation hopefully she faces charges.
Found how? It's not a provably false allegation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
This seems relevant to what Introvert posted since he posted the CNN story. It appears they left out some parts of the interview as well as some of Ford's comments about the situation that paints the story in a certain light that might not be appropriate. The idea that a party might be life changing to one person but of no consequence and not worth remembering to another isn't a new concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
