The US decides to go full protectionist in the 70s

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,767
USA
#22
His policy might be populist and win some votes but that doesn't stop it from being half-arsed and lazy.
Actually Trump didn't win the popular vote. Hillary won 3 million votes than Trump. The constitutional democracy of the US makes such wins possible, rare nevertheless. Trump concentrated his campaigns in those states where people had lost jobs and wages the most, and felt that they were being victimized by the relentless free trade. His tactic worked and he won.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,077
Caribbean
#24
His policy might be populist and win some votes but that doesn't stop it from being half-arsed and lazy.
I have never heard anyone refer to a policy as lazy before, and doubt you could make that case.

On the other hand your criticism seems lazy, and that case seems to make itself.

You first posted this
"Can anyone find a single industry today that is benefitting from the current round of tariffs?"
Even the dairy industry is suffering."
I took me ten seconds to make an internet search, turn up a list, and post "steel" industry - which you admitted rebuked your hypothesis. Wouldn't that lack of diligence in developing a criticism qualify as "lazy?"

And this week from Gallup"
"A majority of Americans, 56%, rate their current financial situation as "excellent" (12%) or "good" (44%), while 29% rate it as "only fair" and 15% as "poor." This overall positive rating has increased 10 percentage points since 2015 and is currently the highest since 2002, though it is statistically unchanged since last year."

Maybe you need to explain to these people who are not in the 12% that said "poor," that they are suffering that EVEN the dairy industry is suffering. The dairy farm line should really convince -
as apparently the durable dairy industry is always the last domino to fall.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,077
Caribbean
#25
Most economist agree that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 turned a secular downturn into an unprecedented depression that only ended with WWII.
Do they really?

Do any of them explain how a severe deflation in the supply of credit had no effect? Didn't one of the Rothschilds say something to the effect of it didn't matter who makes the laws if he has his hands on the money supply switch? Do you really think that diddling around with some tax rate is going to make a difference when the supply of credit disappears? Didn't Milton Friedman write about a book arguing that had the FED - what do they call it - "supplied liquidity" that this would have forestalled the Great Depression?
(And then the other question, why would a private corporation with secret ownership pump its own mega-fortune into an economy to prop it up rather than just buy up everything for pennies on the dollar after prices bottom out)?


1556885524959.png
 

Edratman

Forum Staff
Feb 2009
6,688
Eastern PA
#26
His policy might be populist and win some votes but that doesn't stop it from being half-arsed and lazy.
-------------------------------------------
Actually Trump didn't win the popular vote. Hillary won 3 million votes than Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE="Code Blue, post: 3135270, member: 34159"

And this week from Gallup"
"A majority of Americans, 56%, rate their current financial situation as "excellent" (12%) or "good" (44%), while 29% rate it as "only fair" and 15% as "poor." [/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------
That is enough discussion of current politics.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,077
Caribbean
#27
If American consumers can buy a Chinese product that is both cheaper and higher quality than the American version of the product, wouldn't that generally benefit American consumers?
My criticisms would be directed at the foolishness that created such circumstances in the first place - decades in the making.
 
Likes: grey fox

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,673
Australia
#28
And this week from Gallup"
"A majority of Americans, 56%, rate their current financial situation as "excellent" (12%) or "good" (44%), while 29% rate it as "only fair" and 15% as "poor." This overall positive rating has increased 10 percentage points since 2015 and is currently the highest since 2002, though it is statistically unchanged since last year."
What a ridiculous poll. You look at their actual financial position, not what they think it is. Buying stuff with someone else's money doesn't make you rich.

Student debt is at record highs.
Medical debt is at record highs.
Auto loan debt is at record highs.
Credit card debt is at record highs.
Homelessness is at record highs.
Drug addiction is at record highs
Suicides are at record highs.
Retail store closures are at record highs.
Mortgage refinancings have collapsed.
Agricultural bankruptcies have risen to the highest level since the GFC.
Small business optimism has fallen to a two-year low.
An average wage earner cannot afford a home in 70% of the country.
 
May 2017
172
Monterrey
#29
What is a service economy? As good are so expensive, in order to save money, maybe I could try to eat, wear, and drive service: and build a house and some rental properties out of it?
Service economy - Wikipedia
Tertiary sector of the economy - Wikipedia

I don't really get the rest of your post(maybe I could try to eat, wear, and drive manufacturing and raw materials???). Have you seriously no idea what service economy is? Try building a house without buying the materials and services from anyone else and you'll be living in the stone age.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
#30
Japan had all NEW, MODERN steel production mills with up to date machinery, we had old prewar outdated equipment.
Right, and we forget that now and then.

It's something that occurred previously in history. It's one of the factors making US surpassing Europe, it's one of the factors why China (probably) will surpass US, aso.
 
Likes: Mando

Similar History Discussions