I can see it now. Walmart will become our new postal service. They will have their “associates” delivering groceries, mattresses, big screen TVs, opioids and mail on their breaks…and not pay them for gasoline, mileage or their time. Wasn’t that Sears business model in 1890? The same one that made them go bankrupt this week?
The officials say the treaty is used by shippers of the narcotic fentanyl to the U.S. from China.
Trump voters never cease to vote against their interests.
2 Likes
There is no international norm or institution that is so old, so well established, so universally accepted, that this kleptadministration won’t try to burn it down. If allowed to run unchecked, there may not even be such a thing as “diplomacy” by the time they’re done.
Only one of several reasons why this upcoming election is historically important. VOTE!
144 years ago Obama’s ancestors came over, ok were brought over, point is weren’t born here,and put this in place!
The science of economics for the past couple of centuries has debated and analyzed this question extensively since it is one of the most important ones to society. There is no short answer, but there’s a consensus that lack of free trade increases inefficiency. If via tariffs or other means a commodity is protected, the higher cost is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, which results in less disposable wealth to the society and less employment due to less spending on other goods and services. If the consumer happens to be an industry, for example one that requires steel or microchips to produce its goods or services, the costs for this industry increase and may lead to unemployment despite the gains in employment in the local protected industry.
The debate over the solution to creating jobs under such economic realities can almost be described as a bitter one and underlies our political divide. Our side believes in taxation, not merely or even necessarily for redistribution, but more importantly, to keep the huge fortunes of the rich invested in production and job creation rather than lying fallow while they accumulate. This principle is no different from that of our 401K monies that are not taxed and are instead invested in the stock market rather than sitting in our banks, were we as able as the ultra rich to save. The other side believes in doing nothing and that all will resolve itself. Really!
So back to your question, there is broad consensus that picking winners may seem simple enough to do, as it does to Trump, but leads to enormously more losers than planned due to created inefficiencies, and the alternatives to doing so are the source of extensive study and debate. There are cases when the inefficiencies are deemed worthwhile for environmental or public health reasons. In other words, yours is one of the truly huge questions addressed in the study of political economics.
Yes. In the same sense I can trust a blind person to fall down stairs.
It would be hard to do worse for the US than the current system.
You don’t wanna put a wager on that.
If this was Pence or Clinton handling this, then I’d be comfortable with possible renegotiation, because those guys would be cautious in not making this upcoming matter, a ‘my way or the highway’ issue. Fortunately for this administration, there aren’t a lot of Beijings who are willing to fight him over what they see as trivial matters.
This action could change that.
1 Like
Not to sound ignorant but from what I just read maybe in the long run these trade wars with China are a good thing? Make it wholly inefficient to have production and services conducted overseas and more effecient here. If we were to bring production back to America ,though,how would you be able to have efficient wages? How do we set up , create,manage a system that is beneficial to both employees and employers,the bougoise and the proletariat?