Yes, the heads of the steel associations says there is a crisis. There is global overcapacity. Why should the US government step in and pick winners and losers in this instance?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Tariffs and Trade Wars and Trump....
- Thread starter Calminian
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the heads of the steel associations says there is a crisis. There is global overcapacity. Why should the US government step in and pick winners and losers in this instance?
Because, as they point out, the crisis was caused by other countries picking winners and losers. Why should the US sit back and let other governments pick global winners and losers? I've asked you this several times. You're evading the question. I'm going to now ask in every post until you answer. Stop dodging.
Again, what crisis?
The oversupply of global steel. Is that the crisis?
Sure, and I'll keep asking you why should the US government step in and be on the side of the steel industry?
Because other countries are doing it? Is that why?
Love him or hate him, it shouldn't matter. All should agree with the below.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
From Bush 1 to present, our Country has lost more than 55,000 factories, 6,000,000 manufacturing jobs and accumulated Trade Deficits of more than 12 Trillion Dollars. Last year we had a Trade Deficit of almost 800 Billion Dollars. Bad Policies & Leadership. Must WIN again! #MAGA
3:40 AM - 7 Mar 2018
Yep, old fashioned manufacturing jobs are going away. These jobs were popular in the past 100-150 years but now are being moved to other, less developed countries. Meanwhile the US is creating more and more jobs in other sectors besides manufacturing.
Here's a chart on the jobs changes since Bush 1.
Why are you content with other countries picking winners and losers through subsidies and immoral labor practices? You can dodge all you like, but we can't go further until you have the guts to address this question. Everyone knows you're dodging.
Other countries affairs are not my business, and should not be the US business, unless they are life-threatening to our citizens.
By immoral labor practices do you mean labeling the country of origin on steel as being from South Korea when it's really from China? Is that what you mean?
Which is a fancy way of saying you don't care, and dodging the question. I know you don't care. I'm asking why?
Why are you content with other countries picking winners and losers through subsidies and immoral labor practices?
"unless they are life threatening" LOL! You really dig in deep.
I've answered it twice now. It's not our business to interfere in what other countries do. Are they violating any treaties? Are they violating any trade agreements? Then maybe get involved.
You haven't answered my questions:
1. Why do you favor trade protectionism, a staple of Bernie Sanders' trade policies, and liberal Democrats policies in general?
2. What is the crisis in the US steel industry?
I've answered a ton of your questions. Time for you to answer one!
Why are you content with other countries picking winners and losers through subsidies and immoral labor practices?
So far you only answer has been, because!
Now you are begging the question. I'm not content with other countries picking winners and losers. That is your mischaracterization of my position.
I'm for countries being sovereign nations and able to pick their own policies, so long as it doesn't endanger American lives, violate treaties, or violate trade agreements.
I guess we're done here. You are being uncooperative.
1. Why do you favor trade protectionism, a staple of Bernie Sanders' trade policies, and liberal Democrats policies in general?
2. What is the crisis in the US steel industry?
1. Why do you favor trade protectionism, a staple of Bernie Sanders' trade policies, and liberal Democrats policies in general?
2. What is the crisis in the US steel industry?
hmmm. you say it's a mischaracterization rather than saying it's false.
I am too. Therefore I support my nations right to make adjustments when other countries pick winners and losers. You do not, which means you're content with them stacking the deck for themselves.
But my question to you, Why are you content with other countries picking winners and losers through subsidies and immoral labor practices?
So ITL, you support other countries picking winners and losers through subsidies and immoral labor practices, because you respect their sovereignty. Right? But you don't support the US correcting the problem through tariffs. Therefore, can I concluded you don't respect the US's sovereignty?
A cold war type scenario. Who knows? China might actually take its defense treaties with Rocket Man UN seriously. China is the emerging super power.
It would ruin the credit rating of the U.S. to default.
You think running huge deficits funded by foreign governments is a good idea?
Why not a balanced budget? You think we can indefinitely run huge deficits?
[QUOTE="InTheLight, post: 2398335, member: 10533]
Sure, and I'll keep asking you why should the US government step in and be on the side of the steel industry?
Because other countries are doing it? Is that why?[/QUOTE]
Yep, we should pick our steel producers to be winners.
Sure, and I'll keep asking you why should the US government step in and be on the side of the steel industry?
Because other countries are doing it? Is that why?[/QUOTE]
Yep, we should pick our steel producers to be winners.
I think other countries would understand what China was attempting and would take that into consideration when judging our creditworthiness. What country could be expected to pay back a large chunk of their debt in one fell swoop?
No, I don't think running the amount of debt that we have is a good thing. I think it is much too high.
A balanced budget would be a good thing. Even better would be a budget surplus. The way to reduce overall debt would be to run budget surpluses.
No, we cannot indefinitely run deficits. Running deficits year after year increases overall debt. A good policy would be to require a balanced budget and then slowly, methodically reduce our debt levels. It might take a couple of decades just to cut it in half but it would be a worthy goal.
What's so special about steel?
Why not pick our winners in the automobile tire segment? Goodyear is losing to Bridgestone, for example. Did you agree with Obama's tire tariffs?
How about picking the US as winners in the desktop PC business? Dell computers, based in Texas, used to dominate that segment. Now it is losing to Acer and Lenovo.
The sad thing is Gingrich and Slick Willie Clinton had it balanced. Then Bush 43 and Obama blew it up to epic proportions.
Don't forget China combined with Russia in support of North Korea. We are in a heavy military buildup. Let's hope the buildup is soon enough. Putin may want war.
- Status