LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Good luck getting those answers from this crowd, CU88.

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:43 pm Serious question about the trade war: what does Trump even want from China?

What are the demands any Chinese government could possibly meet? (The bilateral trade balance isn't a policy variable)

What would "winning" even look like?

Try this one to start.....you should try this neat thingamajig called an innerweb search-engine, you can go on the line and type in questions....it's pretty cool.

Youthathletics---take a look at your citation again. You didn't answer CU88's question.

Do you see one single mention of "what Trump wants" anywhere in that article? Is Trump quoted anywhere in the piece?

Me neither.


Try again, please. The pending question is: what does Trump even want from China?

We are talking past one another again. The entire article is about how we believe China is screwing us. It clearly cites via their 200 page, 301 report, over 1100 instances of IP theft/unfavorable business tactics by China. The question CU88 asked and then conveniently tried to exclude with a qualifier of (The bilateral trade balance isn't a policy variable) . Who cares if its not a policy varaibale , is Policy Formulation not quite important in this negotiation? which is why I chose to cite this article. Your stance is they will just wait us out, BUT if the policy is changed during this issue that favors less loss of IP.....that is a win, No?

For example from the report:

For the president to be able to take such action against another country, an investigation initiated under Section 301 must first establish that it is engaging in “unfair trade policies”.
And, a month before Trump fired the first shot in his trade war against China last April, US Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer produced just such a report. Lighthizer – nicknamed the “trade war general” by Bloomberg – produced a 200-page document under Section 301 which reads like a charge sheet.

Then...

The report provided the legal basis for Trump’s escalating series of tariffs against Chinese imports, currently on hold at 10 per cent on US$200 billion worth of Chinese goods, but threatened to rise to 25 per cent if the 90-day truce does not end in agreement.

For reasons such as these:

The USTR cited business surveys and studies, consultancies and Chinese government documents in the past decade to support its claim that China deliberately forced technology transfers.
At a USTR public hearing in October 2017, Stephen Ezell, vice-president of global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said China had tied General Motors’ access to government subsidies for electric vehicle purchases to the company’s willingness to disclose key information about its electric hybrid car. Ford had been forced to do the same, he said.

In response, Richard Ellings, of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property – who was also cited in the report – said most interviews had to be done in private and remained anonymous because companies were worried about possible reprisals by the Chinese government.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:40 pm Good luck getting those answers from this crowd, CU88.

Trying to recruit another Mr Instant Gratification ?
Why not wait & see how this plays out before losing your minds.

The same things he's been talking about from the start --
fewer tariffs/restrictions on US imports to China, equitable tariffs, WTO rule compliance, no mandatory tech transfer, IP protection.
Won't get everything. Get as much as you can.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:28 pm Trying to recruit another Mr Instant Gratification ?
Why not wait & see how this plays out before losing your minds.

I WISH I had known this was the right response.

Turns out, Obama was correct to pull troops out of Iraq. I forgot to call Old Salt "Mr. Instant Gratification" for flipping out because Obama got us out of Iraq. I should have known to tell Old Salt to "be patient, and see how this works out before losing your mind."

And voila, it's 2019, and lookee here: Iraq is a big fat nowhere in the American news cycle. So it turns out that taking Old Salt's advice works. Turns out Old Salt's complaints about Obama leaving Iraq "too soon" was simply Old Salt being impatient. It all worked out just fine in the end.

So yep, don't sweat the details or tactics. It's all cool. You just have to be patient.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:28 pm The same things he's been talking about from the start --
fewer tariffs/restrictions on US imports to China, equitable tariffs, WTO rule compliance, no mandatory tech transfer, IP protection.
Won't get everything. Get as much as you can.

And if/when we get nothing, what will your advice be?

The same, right? It's all good G, no matter what.

Alright-----I've looked for a while, but cannot find details.

U.S., Japan agree in principle on trade deal worth 'billions and billions'

I'm hoping that this isn't the usual Trump Bullcookies, and this deal is a nothing sandwich.


But if it isn't, and there are actually new buyers and sellers out of a new deal------THIS is what I've been asking for, folks.....


The details matter.







https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019 ... NarTu4eZB4

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:40 pm Good luck getting those answers from this crowd, CU88.

You called it.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:58 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:43 pm Serious question about the trade war: what does Trump even want from China?

What are the demands any Chinese government could possibly meet? (The bilateral trade balance isn't a policy variable)

What would "winning" even look like?

Try this one to start.....you should try this neat thingamajig called an innerweb search-engine, you can go on the line and type in questions....it's pretty cool.

I would have given partial credit for any response that said he is going to confuse them into submission:

ON FRIDAY, President Trump called President Xi Jinping of China an “enemy,” said “we don’t need China” and told U.S. companies they were “hereby ordered” to end their operations there. Over the next 72 hours, he cited a 1977 emergency powers law to back up his threat to end U.S. economic relations with Beijing; announced he did not intend to invoke the law; and, on Monday, declared Mr. Xi to be “a great leader” and “a brilliant man” with whom his administration would probably soon strike a trade deal. It was, all in all, a stunning display of incoherence — even by Mr. Trump’s standards — that encapsulated his performance at the Group of Seven summit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:58 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:43 pm Serious question about the trade war: what does Trump even want from China?

What are the demands any Chinese government could possibly meet? (The bilateral trade balance isn't a policy variable)

What would "winning" even look like?

Try this one to start.....you should try this neat thingamajig called an innerweb search-engine, you can go on the line and type in questions....it's pretty cool.

I would have given partial credit for any response that said he is going to confuse them into submission:

That too

Interesting listen....especially if can fast forward many years. https://twitter.com/standamericanow/sta ... 36224?s=21

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:10 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:40 pm Good luck getting those answers from this crowd, CU88.

You called it.

Daddy Daddy, are we there yet ?

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:53 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:10 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:40 pm Good luck getting those answers from this crowd, CU88.

You called it.

Daddy Daddy, are we there yet ?

Crickets...

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:53 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:10 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:40 pm Good luck getting those answers from this crowd, CU88.

You called it.

Daddy Daddy, are we there yet ?

They can't help it OS. a fan and CU88 are GenXers, a spoiled generation that expects everything yesterday.

You and old salt whined about Obama's Iran Deal. You and old whined about Obama's handling of the Middle East.

Rather than discussing the issues when they came up, I had NO IDEA that you two would have been placated and totally happy with Obama if I had simply told you both "oh, you just need to be patient. It will all work out".

Who knew you were both that easy to please? Live and learn. Now I know how to respond to any and all criticism from you two. Of course, I'll have to wait for a guy with a little D by his/her name to arrive at the White House before I hear a peep of criticism, but.....I'm patient.

While we're being patient, a former Fed chair gives Trump some optimism this summer. Of course, the optimism is that we get nothing from China, yet the Trade War ends.

I see three potential paths forward. First, both sides concede that a trade war is not winnable and eventually reach a deal of modest consequence. The U.S. unwinds tariffs, reversing the fiscal tightening, reducing the damaging uncertainty and restoring confidence in the economic outlook. If I were in the president’s shoes, this is the outcome I’d want because it offers the best chance of reelection.

Second, the sides stay in a holding pattern. Trade negotiations don’t resume, but nobody escalates. President Trump’s threat of a 25% tariff on the remainder of Chinese imports remains no more than a threat -- as has happened with tariffs on European car imports. It’s still out there, but keeps getting pushed into the future. In this case, the economy and markets remain somewhat stressed. But over time, uncertainty subsides as people increasingly assume that this is how matters will remain.

Third, the trade war escalates further and the U.S. carries through on its threat of more tariffs. In this case, the impact on the U.S. economy becomes significant. Higher import prices boost inflation, and added fiscal tightening markedly increases the risk of a recession. Worse, China retaliates, with more negative consequences for the U.S. economy and stock market.


Notice at no point does Dudley think that China will cave. He's saying the same thing I am: the only way out for Trump is for China is offer a pointless concession that does nothing to fix gripes about China and Trade so Trump can declare victory to Trumpland.


But yep, patience while the pointless economic damage continues. Oh well, it's not my money, so I don't care....I'm willing to sit and watch Americans lose their jobs and farms for no good reason like the rest of the Forum is....








https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ork-it-out

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:43 am You and old salt whined about Obama's Iran Deal. You and old whined about Obama's handling of the Middle East.

Rather than discussing the issues when they came up, I had NO IDEA that you two would have been placated and totally happy with Obama if I had simply told you both "oh, you just need to be patient. It will all work out".

Who knew you were both that easy to please? Live and learn. Now I know how to respond to any and all criticism from you two. Of course, I'll have to wait for a guy with a little D by his/her name to arrive at the White House before I hear a peep of criticism, but.....I'm patient.

FTR -- when Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq, then pulled the bait & switch on the Iran deal, I explained why I thought they were mistakes.
I said I was dubious about their prospects, but once those decisions were taken, I said I hoped I was wrong & accepted them, hoping for the best.
When they started to unravel, I said what I thought needed to be done to fix the situation.
I gave both policies a chance to work before I gave up on them.
I included the possibility that I didn't know everything & that I hoped the policies would succeed.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:22 pm FTR -- when Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq, then pulled the bait & switch on the Iran deal, I explained why I thought they were mistakes.
I said I was dubious about their prospects, but once those decisions were taken, I said I hoped I was wrong & accepted them, hoping for the best.
When they started to unravel, I said what I thought needed to be done to fix the situation.
I gave both policies a chance to work before I gave up on them.
I included the possibility that I didn't know everything & that I hoped the policies would succeed.

The bold is EXACTLY what I'm doing here. And yet you and Tech are making fun of me nonstop for it.

Savvy?

The difference between Trade with China and Iran/Iraq is: I have pointed out to you both that Americans are suffering needlessly because Trump and/or Congress aren't actively helping businesses find new buyers and sellers. I want them to act. Trump can fight his war, AND we can mitigate the economic damage, and prepare ourselves for the likely outcome that we won't trade with China for a time.

That's it. Wholly calm, rational criticism. And you both act like I'm some insane whiner for daring to criticize HOW Trump is handling this trade war.

It's silly. All you both need to do is say "hey "a fan", those are good ideas. Point taken, you're right...why aren't we making it easier to pressure China, while minimizing damage to US interests". And we can move on.

I'm not giving up on the policy. And FFS, OF COURSE I'm hoping for the best. I'm telling you what the likely outcome is. What's more, I've been right every step of the way.... we can make it EASIER for Trump to execute his pressure by helping US Trade. We're not doing that.

The most annoying part is: you both agree with me completely on my points. You're both too stubborn to admit as much. It's just silly.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:32 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:22 pm FTR -- when Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq, then pulled the bait & switch on the Iran deal, I explained why I thought they were mistakes.
I said I was dubious about their prospects, but once those decisions were taken, I said I hoped I was wrong & accepted them, hoping for the best.
When they started to unravel, I said what I thought needed to be done to fix the situation.
I gave both policies a chance to work before I gave up on them.
I included the possibility that I didn't know everything & that I hoped the policies would succeed.

The bold is EXACTLY what I'm doing here. And yet you and Tech are making fun of me nonstop for it.

Savvy?

The difference between Trade with China and Iran/Iraq is: I have pointed out to you both that Americans are suffering needlessly because Trump and/or Congress aren't actively helping businesses find new buyers and sellers. I want them to act. Trump can fight his war, AND we can mitigate the economic damage, and prepare ourselves for the likely outcome that we won't trade with China for a time.

That's it. Wholly calm, rational criticism. And you both act like I'm some insane whiner for daring to criticize HOW Trump is handling this trade war.

It's silly. All you both need to do is say "hey "a fan", those are good ideas. Point taken, you're right...why aren't we making it easier to pressure China, while minimizing damage to US interests". And we can move on.

I'm not giving up on the policy. And FFS, OF COURSE I'm hoping for the best. I'm telling you what the likely outcome is. What's more, I've been right every step of the way.... we can make it EASIER for Trump to execute his pressure by helping US Trade. We're not doing that.

The most annoying part is: you both agree with me completely on my points. You're both too stubborn to admit as much. It's just silly.

That's why I said comparing this to my criticism of failed Iraq & Iran decisions was an apples to hand grenades analogy.
Plus, your equating them to a trade dispute trivializes the loss of life, limb & destruction wrought by those flawed decisions.
Personally, I find the comparison disgusting.
We still don't know how the trade dispute with China will play out & what the impact will be, short & long term.
Our current trade imbalance was brought to us by the same Masters of the Universe who gave us the collapsing housing bubble, the credit default swap crisis & the losses from the bursting inflated ipo tech bubble. There's the apt analogies for you.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:48 pm That's why I said comparing this to my criticism of failed Iraq & Iran decisions was an apples to hand grenades analogy.

I'm comparing how you and I react to two separate policies we disagree with strongly. It has NOTHING to do with what the policies are. It's about rational criticism of policies. I picked the Iraq withdrawal for two reasons.

1. You had page after page on how that decision was wrong, and how it was affected the ME.

2. Your reasoning and our lengthy discussion changed my mind on the matter.

I was under the impression that these kinds of discussions were two way streets, and you could be persuaded to opposing views if the reasoning was solid. It's become apparent that that is perhaps not the case. THAT is what I'm reacting to here. I'm not trying to say trade is the same as war. That said, the two are interlinked....a lesson we may learn the hard way with China.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:48 pm Plus, your equating them to a trade dispute trivializes the loss of life, limb & destruction wrought by those flawed decisions.
Personally, I find the comparison disgusting.

How many times have I told you that suicides among farmers are up? This is not a game, and has real consequences.

That said, obviously I understand that war and trade are different.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:48 pm We still don't know how the trade dispute with China will play out & what the impact will be (deleted short term) long term.

Corrected it for you. We 100% know what the impact will be short term. It's happening in real time. That's the part I'm trying, in vain, to relay to you. For whatever reason, you don't want to hear it, and don't want to hear that with a little effort, Trump can mitigate the short term economic damage, thereby strengthening our negotiating position.

Have you been reading what China has been doing over the past few weeks to mitigate economic damage? If you haven't, you ought to. They are turtling up. We'd be wise to get off our *sses and help Americans before more pointless damage is done.