Slashdot Mirror


Trump Officials Planning Escalation of US-China Tech Trade War (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Trump administration is looking to widen its trade war with China by restricting Chinese access to U.S. technology, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. "The Treasury Department is crafting rules that would block firms with at least 25 percent Chinese ownership from buying companies involved in what the White House calls 'industrially significant technology,'" the Wall Street Journal says. A separate proposal would institute beefed-up export controls preventing Chinese companies from buying these technologies from U.S. firms. The policies could be announced as soon as this week, the Journal says. In the past, the Trump administration has blocked multiple attempts by Chinese companies to buy U.S. semiconductor firms and imposed a sweeping export ban on Chinese smartphone maker ZTE after ZTE was caught selling U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea -- though the administration recently lifted the ban.

158 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.

    1. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ultimately, the rest of the world is going to be very happy that Trump is working so hard to confine the recession to the United States.

    2. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The analysis of which states are being hit hardest by Chinese tariffs make it very clear where China wants the hit to be. Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, etc.

      Oil, gas, coal, auto, food - who do you think will hurt the most?

      $8 billion of Texas exports fall under the first rounds of tariffs and $0.12 billion of New York's. Is that more clear?

      The combined hit on the tiny little economies of Alabama and South Carolina beats the hits on the California and Washington mega economies. Maybe that helps make it clear.

    3. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Damned right -- just target the former CSA, it's those a-holes and their nationalist, racist policies that are pissing everyone around the world off. I just wish we could undo the reconciliation, jettison the former Confederate States and round all those KKK and Evangelical fuckwads up put them there and pay Mexican migrants workers to build a wall around them, with no "big beautiful door" They have no place in our Society, the have no respect for Democracy, Liberty or Equality and they march around waving the Confederate and Nazi flags of the enemies of the USA. Fuck 'em

    4. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I smell a recession coming on. It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.

      Usually the 99%. The rich can afford to wait out storms, and even get richer from recessions by buying low and selling high: be it stocks, co's, or real-estate. Recession bargain-hunting is Warren Buffett's main financial weapon, and he's arguably the richest dude on the planet.

      But even without trade-wars, we are statistically due for a recession based on the length of the current upturn. The fact the yield curve is inverting is yet another warning sign. Based on past yield curves, we got roughly 18 months until it "hits".

      Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending his overall economic policy, but generally the sitting President's popularity is largely tied to the current economy, and it has been this way for more than 100 years.

      Where he might have legitimate blame besides trade wars is the debt: the larger the debt, the smaller the possible stimulus when a slump hits. Even among Republicans, giving personal tax-cuts to the rich in exchange for debt is not popular. (The corporate tax-cuts and middle-class tax-cuts score better with Republicans. They believe US corporate tax-rates were higher than other nations'. Whether that was true is debatable.)

    5. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.

      It doesn't remain to be seen. It will be your mom, just like every other night.

    6. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      If they were being strategic, they'd try to hit the rust belt, democratic strong holds that went for the protectionism hoping for some type of change.

      Maybe that's round two though, or maybe they want Trump in power, as it helps them exery power in Asia.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by jriding · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sooo. China is applying tariffs intelligently. Their tariffs directly hit and hurt Trumps main voting base. To maximize the pressure on him to remove the tariffs.
      Some how is this is the liberals doing?

       

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    8. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by youngone · · Score: 4, Funny
      Get out of here with your well-argued and well-reasoned discussion.

      Like everyone else, I come here for CAPITAL-laced flamewars.
      Oh; and, bad: punctuation,

    9. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some how is this is the liberals doing?

      At least in America, protectionism is popular with the left, and much less so with conservatives.

      Trumpism is a blend of the stupidest policies from both left and right.

    10. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the biggest supporters of free trade were the Big Cotton slaveowners.

      Why is that ironic? Are you implying that the slave owners were progressive liberals?

      You might consider that there is no left or right.

      You might consider that, as the centuries go by, parties realign and change constituencies.

    11. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Slashdot has descended to russian trolls arguing with other russian trolls. FFS.

    12. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the democrats will, like usual.

      the republicans trash the country and economy.

      that gets democrats voted in.

      democrats fix the shit but also get the blame, because (shocker) they had to 'raise' taxes on the wealthy to do it (never mind the fact it was tax cuts targeting *those* that cause the mess usually).

      those wealthy fucks smear the democrats while funding and bribing the republicans...

      the republicans get back in power, make good on their under-the-table deals that got them their funding, and fuck shit up again.

      rinse and repeat.

    13. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by tsa · · Score: 2

      The EU does the same thing.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    14. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump may unfairly get the blame for the slump but he is the one who tells everybody he sees that he singlehandedly made the economy boom. He did nothing of the sort, in fact he made it boom slower and less, so he deserves the blame for the slump.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    15. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ridiculous to split politics in only two world views, having only two parties?

    16. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Ironically, the biggest supporters of free trade were the Big Cotton slaveowners."

      Right, the Democrats.

      Correct, the right-wingers. Until the 20th century the Democratic Party was the right-wing conservative party. Left-wing liberals favoured the Republican Party.

    17. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by gtall · · Score: 1

      And yet, Conservatives (sic) in Congress still have no balls, even the women.

    18. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      At least in America, protectionism is popular with the left, and much less so with conservatives.

      Left, right, liberal and conservative are meaningless in America. Democrats and Republicans have a mish-mash of policy that seems to only exist to satiate their need for power than actually improve the outcomes for the people.
      United we stand, divided we fall. Ask yourself which direction we are going in and if you choose to continue down that path....

    19. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The rich can afford to wait out storms, and even get richer from recessions by buying low and selling high: be it stocks, co's, or real-estate. Recession bargain-hunting is Warren Buffett's main financial weapon, and he's arguably the richest dude on the planet.

      Trump himself said the same thing back in 80's when discussing his wealth. NYC in the 70's was in a slump, and he knew that slumps are the best time to buy.
      It could be that he might even engineer a recession in order to get some more bargains. He only cares about himself so anything is possible.

      Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump.

      It's only unfair if it happens in his first 1-2 years like poor old Obama who inherited the country one of the worst positions in a decades. After that it's all you. You are the boss, you take responsibility.
      FWIW, Australia with a mix of conservative and liberal leadership is currently into it's 26th year without a recession, the Dutch managed the same thing until the GFC screwed things up. So if Trump can't make the good times last a piddly 8 years he deserves blame.

    20. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the whole, the US is easily one of the most diverse, least racist, and most welcoming countries on the planet.

      If you're of white European descent....

    21. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by aquacrayfish · · Score: 2

      More ridiculous, I think, to apply labels without historical perspective.

    22. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by steveb3210 · · Score: 1

      The Democrats of the 1800s

    23. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Yup, Russian trolls all the way down...

    24. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US economy will slip into recession this summer, and Trump will angrily state that it's because the rest of the world is ganging up on the USA after 8 years of weak government under Obama. He'll use Twitter to single out and humiliate opposing politicians - preferably female - and use anger and hatred to ride easily into a second term in office.

    25. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      They hit his safe base.

      They hit areas that may not even cause a house seat to flip if it has a big swing.

      Either they strategically don't want to alter the balance of US politics (picking safe red areas), or they are sending a warning, and the next round will matter to Trump.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    26. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 3

      I'm surprised that Trump doesn't understand how these things work, this is literally first year global business and trade strategy. So much for the quality of a Wharton education. Its simple, go and look for vulnerable Republican politicians, districts that could easily flip, look at the key industries in those districts and target those. This either forces those politicians to push back against their own party, or the district goes to the Democrats diluting Trumps ability to maintain these tariffs. This is why you're seeing tariffs on such odd things like felt markers and motorcycles and bourbon. As per usual the Trump administration is being outplayed by people who actually know this stuff

    27. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by shilly · · Score: 1

      It's amazing to think there are people who actually believe this type of crap.

    28. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that Trump doesn't understand how these things work, this is literally first year global business and trade strategy.

      I'd be really surprised if he did.

    29. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by khandom08 · · Score: 1

      ...it starts when you're always afraid....

    30. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      After that it's all you. You are the boss, you take responsibility.

      In practice a President has only a limited effect on the economy, at least in the short term. About the only thing they can do having an immediate impact is promoting and signing a stimulus. (The recent tax-cuts are a stimulus of sorts, arguably a poorly-timed stimulus, per debt and the usual cycles.)

      If the recent trade-wars trigger a crash, one could argue we were near the tipping point anyhow. It's an "interesting" economic experiment.

    31. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      But even without trade-wars, we are statistically due for a recession based on the length of the current upturn. The fact the yield curve is inverting is yet another warning sign. Based on past yield curves, we got roughly 18 months until it "hits".

      Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending his overall economic policy, but generally the sitting President's popularity is largely tied to the current economy, and it has been this way for more than 100 years.

      There's a relationship, but it's pretty fuzzy when the government is divided. Who gets the credit/blame for the economy? The President who runs the administration or the Congress who passes budgets? Still I think it matters, government need to be willing to spend to keep things going in a recession, and when things are good they need to cut back to slow down the economy (and cut deficits). There's still other things driving the economy, but their actions do matter.

      I think the Bush tax cuts were a disaster that exacerbated the last recession. They overheated an already hot economy and took away a lot of opportunity to stimulate the economy when it did crash. I think this last round of tax cuts were even worse, how are you going to pass stimulus when you're already running massive deficits?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    32. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      More so, when there is little difference in their actions.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    33. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Maybe that helps make it clear.

      Okay so let me get this straight. Trump crafted the tariffs to hit states where his approval is high like Texas, but go easy on states that he proclaims to hate like California.

      WTF are you saying? This is some leftist plot, except somehow the leftists tricked Trump into doing their bidding?

      ... food - who do you think will hurt the most?

      Food? Um, everyone that eats food?

    34. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing to think there are people who actually believe this type of crap.

      There isn't. You read the posts of a Russian troll or trolls that're just trying to rattle the American beehive.

      See how they are all AC? Anyone that posts AC is either a bought and paid for troll, or they feel so weakly about their convictions that they can't even attach a mostly-anonymous pseudonym to their posts. Either way ignore them and mod into oblivion.

    35. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by tsa · · Score: 1

      The US is just another country, and certainly not the best country in the world, despite what many Americans think.
      Obama did not want to 'destroy the economy.' Why the hell would any politician want that?
      And lastly, Obama reigned during a recesssion. Because economy is a global thing nowadays, politics have only a very small influence on their country's economy, and it's much easier for politicians to make their country's economy worse than to improve it.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    36. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      In practice a President has only a limited effect on the economy, at least in the short term.

      Only if he has an uncooperative Congress and Senate which a lot of Presidents still a manage to do ok with. If you control Executive, AG, Supreme Court and Congress and Senate and you still blow everything up, it is all you.

    37. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by tsa · · Score: 1

      There's a lot about America to despise. Its politics, its lack of social security, its racism, its colonialism... You say America influences the world throughout. Indeed it does, and it would be great if it did that a great deal less, together with its allies (some European countries, including mine, are also to blame for the total mess the Middle East is right now).
      Obama did his best to at least change some of the US's problems. He was the best president you had in a very long time, and many Americans didn't even realize it. And you replaced him with a bad second hand car salesman, a con man who doesn't think for himself, often changes his opinion in the middle of a sentence and is now working hard to plunge the world into the next recession. Ok, he managed to talk to Kim which is indeed a great achievement, but he achieved nothing beyond that managed to make even that worse by tweeting how dangerous NK still is. Good job!
      Of course the US also has good things. Beautiful countryside, interesting cities, friendly people... And despite Trump they're doing a better job at reducing CO2 exhaust than my country. I have some friends who are happily living there. And putting a man on the moon and returning him safely back to Earth was in my opinion still the coolest thing mankind has ever done.
      But no, I wouldn't like to be born in the US. I am very happy to be a European. Of course there are many things wrong here too but no place on this planet is all good for everyone.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    38. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Australia has gone 26 years without a recession because their economy is based on mining iron and coal for sale to China. The more China's economy goes up, the more Australia's does. In the last 26 years Australia's exports have gone up by 600%, so of course the economy has gone up.

      https://tradingeconomics.com/a...

    39. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Trolling just to get people's emotions to flare up doesn't excite or interest me, and certainly nobody pays me to post.

      I should not have spoken in absolutes. I'm sure there are exceptions. You did not however say anything about why you feel the need to post as AC.

      How are people supposed to trust you actually believe in what you are saying if you can't even put a pseudonym next to your post? You have to admit it makes it kind of hard to take you seriously.

    40. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You have almost a valid point, but my opinion is why does it matter WHO says it. Its what was said that should be looked at.

    41. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I honestly couldn't care less about what you think of my political affiliations (or lack thereof.) The fact is, the Democratic party's superdelegate system quickly becomes one sided when the party elite make a decision. You know, good and well, that the party elite decided that they wanted a female president, no matter what her problems were. So guess where 100% of the superdelegate votes went? While I'm no fan of Bernie, I can plainly see what happened there.

      And I think that if I was partisan towards Republicans, I'd very much have opposite views to many that I espouse often:

      - I'm strongly pro net neutrality
      - I'm strongly pro cannabis legalization
      - I'm strongly against almost everything Trump has done (though some things were good, like making our corporate income tax rates more inline with the rest of the first world nations)

    42. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I didn't post that, ass.

    43. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It was a well timed joke. Chees, fucking lighten up, asshole.

    44. Re: I smell a recession coming on. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That was the whole point. That, and he opened himself up to it, so I felt it necessary to quip (i.e., it was a well timed joke, mainly a slight against the person I replied to.)

    45. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Australia has gone 26 years without a recession because their economy is based on mining iron and coal for sale to China.

      And did that happen because of magic? Or did someone in charge recognise the changing global landscape and respond to it?
      If is was magic, then when the magic ran out , surely the growth should have too? Or maybe smart people used smart policy to stay ahead of the game?

    46. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      The "magic" never ended! Australia's exports are about 20% higher in 2018 than 2016, see the graph in my previous comment.

      Investment has gone down (the graph in your link). But that is a sign that exports are stabilizing, not decreasing. Once a factory has been built, it can keep producing. In a boom, investment approximates not the amount of production, but the derivative of the amount of production.

    47. Re:I smell a recession coming on. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      The "magic" never ended! .

      It's all magic. The next US economic rise or fall will be due to magic. Because apparently that is the how success or failure happens...

  2. FUCK off Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm sick and tired of governments fucking around with with business of private individuals and entities. It's nobody else's business what two private parties do. I don't care if it's in someones bedroom or between companies of two different countries. This idea that a government owns you is bull shit. I don't care if we are talking the EU and GDPR or Trump and his stupid trade war. Neither the EU nor the US nor China should be interfering in the private affairs of others. I own me. Not someone else. I do not wish to be a slave just because some elite(s) have a financial interest in some action and have convinced a percentage of the population to go along (or otherwise do without the populations consent). No person has any right to to intervene in another business or affairs who isn't hurting anyone. Violence (government action) is never justified on the basis of social or political objectives where there is otherwise no violence by the interests of whom they are interfering.

    1. Re:FUCK off Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the swansong of the narcissist. also the problem of western society.

    2. Re:FUCK off Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sick and tired of people like you not thinking through the role of a government.

      The role of the government is to protect the commons. That means it is there job to protect all the "me"s not just you. You may be ok with the factory next door polluting the air and water. There however literarily millions of "me"s that aren't ok with it. Many of those millions don't have enough information, education or time to make an informed decision about the pollution.

      For example the GPDR in the EU. It is clearly designed to give millions of "me" ownership over themselves regardless of what you personally want. If you are making statements like "I own me" and disparaging the GPDR then you are clearly someone who could use some protecting. i.e. You are ad an idiot who can't be trusted to make informed decisions.

      You say that violence is not justified where there is no violence. When you move into a new neighborhood and are informed that you only have the choice of a single internet provider, is that not violence? If local businesses refuse you because you are gay or a minority, is that not violence? At the end of the daym you should have learned in civics class that the government( in theory) has a monopoly on violence and can use it to protect the commons as needed.

       

    3. Re:FUCK off Trump by gtall · · Score: 1

      But it is government's business what the business two private parties do. The SEC (before it was defanged by Bush) was supposed to right shotgun over Wall Street. They didn't and the Great Recession ensued. Your friendly neighborhood drug company would gladly sell you bags of doxie dropping claiming they'll cure what ails you...were it not for the FDA telling them they cannot. You airlines would like to apply cost benefit analysis to plane crashes, i.e., how many a year before it hits our bottom line, were it not for the FAA and NTSB. The EPA, before becoming a tool of industry in the current alleged administration is supposed to keep your drinking water safe (among other things). Now we can look forward to, "Well, it only killed 10 poor suckers...they shouldn't have drank the water."

  3. Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Protectionist trade policy is the knee-jerk reaction of the weak. Retaliation by not just the Chinese, but America's traditional allies in Europe, Canada, and Mexico will cost US jobs, not create them.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I'd be open to at least hearing a rational argument in favor of pursuing more nationalist trade policies. But starting a trade war with everyone clearly isn't rational. It's the policy equivalent of a temper tantrum.

      A trade war with China hurts US exports to 20% of the world's population. Starting a trade war with everyone but the US hurts US exports to 95% of the world's population.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re: Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the war reparations from WW1?

    3. Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      If you look at the trade balances between the U.S and the countries/blocks Trump has so far threatened or actually started a trade war with you can see that they all have a trade imbalance in their favor. Thus, in the short term at least, as long as it doesn't escalate beyond sides putting putting tariffs on imports from each other the U.S has a significant advantage over the other parties as any tariffs they're going to be putting into place are going to be significantly more effective than equally heavy handed tariffs by other parties.

      The problems come in when you start to think about the long term or escalation beyond just tariffs. American-produced goods will obviously end up disadvantaged in foreign markets when compared to competing products produced by companies from any other country, however the real danger is if this escalates beyond just tariffs. While American companies don't bring that much in terms of physical goods over from home, they do bring over a lot of intellectual property and keep a lot of money from the sales of non-US produced goods and services in the regions those products and services were sold in. Once countries and trading blocks start messing with this money and this intellectual property, then things are very much going to tip in favor of the other countries/blocks.

      My personal feeling here is that Trump sees the trade imbalance and understands the much greater impact of trade tariffs imposed by himself than those imposed by other countries in response. He may also understand the long term hazards and the hazards of the situation escalating beyond just tariffs, but his end game seems to be to use the unsymmetrical impact of these tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations to achieve more favorable trade deals with these countries than currently existing agreements.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    4. Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by jebrick · · Score: 1

      I just do not get tired of winning

    5. Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      If you look at the trade balances between the U.S and the countries/blocks Trump has so far threatened or actually started a trade war with you can see that they all have a trade imbalance in their favor.

      But it doesn't work like that. Because you're talking millions of businesses that are all interdependent, when you turn the tap off they all suffer.
      Global prosperity increased massively with global trade, the only result of closing that off if is a reduced overall economy. ie Nobody wins.
      Remember Xi is there for life, he knows he can simply wait Trump out and allow him to squander the US's position in the world. The Chinese probably can't believe their luck. They will already have a strategy in place to drag this out for 6.5 more years ready to pounce once Trump leaves with the US in tatters.

    6. Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      If you look at the trade balances between the U.S and the countries/blocks Trump has so far threatened or actually started a trade war with you can see that they all have a trade imbalance in their favor.

      A) That's false. We have a surplus with Canada. B)That only works if you engage in limited accounting. For one, ignoring services, especially financial investments, skews the overall perception of what value we're getting for the trade surplus. For another, If a US industry needs a product that is part of that trade surplus, we don't count the financial impact of that against the dollar value of the surplus.

      Simply focusing on the straight dollar amount of the trade imbalance is an overly simplistic thing to do. It's far more complicated than that, which is why everyone who's name doesn't end with Trump is against this plan.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    7. Re: Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      Both, the protectionists policies took the reparations problem and made it MUCH worse.

    8. Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      He wouldn't do it if he wasn't sure he'd win. You're listening to what you're being told to think. Instead think. The man has holdings around the world. He knows all about trade and how these things work. He's actually a businessman instead of politicians that don't even know the difference between a million and a billion. Maybe you like the high Dairy tariff Canada has on the US? They've been unfairly hitting us for decades. We've been lied to big time, by both parties.

  4. Protectionism is fine by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when you have an industry to protect. China has leverage because we've let them take over virtually all our manufacturing. We've kept a few of the heavy duty stuff in case we need to spin up for a war.

    Thing is, Trump's base wants action and they want it now. Given that wages keep falling (inflation's 3%, wage growth's 2.5%, do the math) and 40% of Americans don't have $400 bucks in the bank I can't blame them.

    This is what happens when you ignore a sizable portion of the country. They find somebody who'll listen. If you happen to be doing pretty well in this economy and don't want the boat rocked, well, tough shit. If you don't want desperate people destabilizing the world then you need to do something about their desperation. You'd think we'd have learned this from WWI and II.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Protectionism is fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is what happens when you ignore a sizable portion of the country. They find somebody who'll listen.

      Did you know that the average wages for someone in non-supervisory jobs has gone down under Trump? Have you seen the price of gasoline? Know anyone who works at the Harley-Davidson plant in Wisconsin (I do)?

      The problem is that those people who were being "ignored" have now shot themselves in the foot and are starting to feel the fallout, as are we all. Maybe there's a good reason those people were being ignored, if their solution was to elect this jackoff.

      Did you know that only 4% of US workers got a pay raise since the Republicans passed their tax bill 6 months ago? That's why we've got this whole hard-line immigration bullshit going on, because the biggest things Trump has done have been unpopular with real Americans, and all he can hope is that he can gin up enough White Extinction Anxiety to get the oxycontin-dosed disability-collecting racists to act as his human shields.

      https://jamanetwork.com/journa...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Protectionism is fine by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How are those Harley-Davidson people doing? I'm curious considering HD just announced they're going to move some manufacturing in Europe to avoid the tariffs.

      That falls on the heels of their January announcement of closing a Kansas City, MO plant and consolidating work in York, PA. But overseas...they just opened plants in India and Brazil, with another opening in Thailand this year.

      Any decent sized "American" company is a "global" company, but this President doesn't get that at all -- nor does his base.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:Protectionism is fine by hwihyw · · Score: 1, Troll

      Q: We are "protecting an industry" from whom exactly?

      A: Other companies who can provide the same or better service for the same or better price.

      Q: And how are we doing that?

      A: By raising taxes so that the consumer has to pay more for products.

      Q: Then we are not generating jobs or products, we're simply transferring wealth from one group (certain consumers) to another group (certain businesses and industries), right?

      A: Exactly.

    4. Re:Protectionism is fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes. The USA has a huge drug problem. Most of the drugs are coming from Mexico.

      No, dumbshit. The opioid epidemic in the Trump states is home grown.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Protectionism is fine by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

      US manufacturing output has nearly tripled since the 70s, so China's manufacturing has taken apparently hasn't harmed the local industry much at all.

      US manufacturing jobs have declined sharply, however - and this is what Trump's base is concerned about. But since the local industry is quite healthy, blaming China for killing it is misguided - blame the rise of automation instead; output per worker has risen even faster than total output.

      I certainly agree that those ex-workers need help, but those unskilled manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. It's just not economically viable to mass-produce things by hand anymore - you'll get heavily undercut in the world market by developing countries with cheaper labour. It's more effective to help those affected to move to different sectors instead; service jobs (which are booming), or reskilling them to other areas.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    6. Re:Protectionism is fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Source please.

      Jesus, when are ACs going to learn better than to challenge me? Here is the source, from 9 days ago:

      >"The average hourly wage paid to a key group of American workers has fallen from last year when accounting for inflation, as an economy that appears strong by several measures continues to fail to create bigger paychecks, the federal government said Tuesday.

      For workers in "production and nonsupervisory" positions, the value of the average paycheck has actually declined in the past year. "

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

      Source please

      There you go again. This is from 4 days ago:

      "Trump and other Republicans claimed that giving corporations huge tax breaks would help workers, going so far as to guarantee them a $4,000 pay raise. Unfortunately, only 4% of American workers are getting any kind of payout tied to the corporate tax cuts."

      https://augustafreepress.com/f...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Protectionism is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would say that it's stunning that a person can be as uninformed as you, but given who's in the White House, I fully expect it.

      Go read some news -- real news, not State TV. Alternative facts are bad for you.

      CAPTCHA: ruined

    8. Re:Protectionism is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They would move production to Europe to avoid the retaliatory tariffs the Europeans levied upon them, as likely Europe would exempt Harley-Davidson from the tariffs if they produced locally. Tariffs are taxes on imports collected in the importing country, causing the overall price of the product under tariff to rise.

      Additionally, Harley-Davidson is presumably a major consumer of steel, so tariffs on steel within the US raise the price they have to pay for that steel. Raising the price of steel through tariffs helps local steel producers at the expense of local steel consumers.

    9. Re:Protectionism is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are moving production of motorcycles destined for the EU (and some destined for the rest of the world, I think), into the EU itself, to work around the EU's _retaliatory_ tariffs.

    10. Re:Protectionism is fine by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

      They weren't ignored. And indeed, a lot of jobs were recovered after the GFC losses. But they've been declining steadily since 1980, so that's unlikely to change much soon.

      As for "having nothing to lose", we've already seen how e.g. Trump's steel tariffs can actually damage local manufacturing by dramatically raising their costs, so I very much doubt that's true. The decline in those jobs might be slowed a little, but at the cost of making other sectors less competitive - and workers in construction and auto manufacturing are major parts of Trump's base too. And that's before we get into the impact of retaliatory tariffs on completely different sectors like farming.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    11. Re:Protectionism is fine by Zorpheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well. I am not really a Trump supporter, but his point is: A trade war will reduce both import and export. But since The USA is importing more than it is exporting, he thinks the country will win more than it loses in the long run.
      This is why China can't keep raising tariffs matching the US. But the US makes a lot of money by investments, which is partly compensating the trade deficit with China, and more than compensating the one with Europe. Also China was the biggest buyer of American state bonds. And a lot of trade in the world is done in dollars, which forces people to accumulate dollars and is part of what allows the huge American deficit.
      So the retaliations on Trump's trade war will soon have to target the financial sector.
      I don't know if this will be good or bad for the US in the long run. It could shift the US economy away from making income through investments, which only goes to a few people, back to making income through production, which can benefit more people. It could also put the world into chaos, just making everyone lose. It could also be just a threat, trying to force others to make concessions. But I think both Europe and China don't respond too well to such threats. They would never give in, because it would mean that the US could enforce other things afterwards, without a limit.

    12. Re:Protectionism is fine by gtall · · Score: 1

      I see, so American companies hollowed out the U.S. economy while everyone was down at Wally World stocking up on the cheap toilet paper. You want the White House to run the economy. See the Soviet Union and how well that worked out for them.

    13. Re: Protectionism is fine by chill · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I did mean "from the US to Europe".

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    14. Re: Protectionism is fine by chill · · Score: 2

      I think part of what he forgets is that the United States, by dollars, is the largest exporter in the world. We may Imports a lot, but our economy is heavily dependent on exports as well.

      While a lot of the trade around the world is conducted it in US dollars, that can easily be changed. Trade could be conducted in Euros without difficulty. We've already started to see some of that change in oil trading.

      He also doesn't grasp the concept of soft power. The fact that everyone does trade in US dollars, and we'rr so interdependent, gives the United States a lot of leverage in places where we otherwise might not have it. Petro-dollar trading is one of those areas.

      Trump seems to see trade as a zero sum game, and it isn't. The idea that there are other measures and other benefits to trade relationships besides simple cash value seems beyond him.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    15. Re: Protectionism is fine by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Yes, and what I also don't get is, why does he start a trade war with everyone at once? Maybe the US would have had a chance if it started a trade war just with China. Probably or could have pulled others on its side on some aspects. But now it starts a trade war with everyone.
      Everyone will just keep trading with each other, losing only a fraction of their total trade, allowing them to continue like before. The US on the other hand will lose trade with everyone, and will have to go through huge economic changes to compensate the lost trade, resulting in enormous costs.

    16. Re:Protectionism is fine by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 3

      China has leverage because we've let them take over virtually all our manufacturing.

      Technology (cheap easy communication and transport) unleashed Globalisation and no amount of complaining will get that genie back in the bottle. The smart move is to deal with the new environment we are all in and try and make it work in your favour, the dumb move is to pretend you can wish the world back to the 1950's.
      Trump is firmly in the latter camp, and it can't possibly work.

      If you don't want desperate people destabilizing the world then you need to do something about their desperation.

      Agree 100%

    17. Re: Protectionism is fine by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I think part of what he forgets is that the United States, by dollars, is the largest exporter in the world. We may Imports a lot, but our economy is heavily dependent on exports as well.

      You have to remember though that a lot of US exports aren't commodity, consumer goods. They are high dollar items like heavy machinery, aircraft, farming equipment, cars, etc.

      According to wikipedia, there are 46 passenger airlines (sidenote: calling your airline "Okay Airways" is probably not the best branding) in China. Almost every major city government in China has some kind of ownership stake in an airline. By 2025 it is estimated that there will be 4000 commercial aircraft operated by Chinese airlines as opposed to 1500 in 2010. A lot of those 2500 could be Boeing aircraft. A 737NG costs around $100 million currently. Even if they only buy 500 of them, that's $50 billion in orders. Trump gets us into a trade war with China, they slap a 25% tariff on that and it adds over $12 billion to the cost. So instead of buying 737s, those airlines wait a little bit, maybe lease some older aircraft, and by Chinese produced Comac 919s for half the price of the 737s.

      We get into a trade war with China, the US loses in the short term and the long term

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    18. Re: Protectionism is fine by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Or they buy A319's

    19. Re: Protectionism is fine by modecx · · Score: 1

      They were planning on outsourcing production of bikes destined to parts outside the US, at least since they introduced the Street 500 and 700 series of water-cooled bikes, way back in 2013, at least. These were the bikes made in Kansa City (the plant closing) for the US market, and which basically flopped hard in the local market. For one, they were designed for people of typical Asian stature, or smaller Caucasian women. As a beginner bike, 6 foot tall men can't comfortably ride them.

      These bikes are already being made in part in India, Brazil, and Thailand for the global market. It only makes sense to invest in production of their larger bikes for these extra-US markets, in whole or in part. The tariff thing only accelerated the attractiveness of this idea. So, it's a bit disingenuous to blame this all on Trump.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  5. The big picture. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Protectionist trade policy is the knee-jerk reaction of the weak. Retaliation by not just the Chinese, but America's traditional allies in Europe, Canada, and Mexico will cost US jobs, not create them.

    There were originally 6 good reasons for the tariffs:

    1) Chinese manufacturers take our designs, make extras, and sell counterfeits as if they were original(*)
    2) Chinese manufacturers steal our IP and trade secrets for other products
    3) The Chinese violate licensing agreements (ie - hacked copies of software) and the government does nothing about it.
    4) Chinese working in the US commit industrial espionage and send the information back to China
    5) The Chinese government subsidizes certain industries so that they can sell goods under cost, driving industries from other countries out of business
    6) (I forgot what the 6th big item was. Maybe allowing companies to do business with N. Korea?)

    On #5 above, China has been subsidizing their steel production, pushing US foundries out of business. The US has only one foundry left that can make the steel plates needed for ships, so this is a national security risk. You can't make battleships without steel plates. See Canadian Aluminum subsidies.

    Everyone who has taken Econ 101 will parrot the old saw "trade sanctions are bad", and everyone will wail and moan about how the sanctions have hurt *them* (so they must be bad - ya!).

    China violates their trade agreements in every possible way, so much so that it would *almost* be better to not trade with China at all.

    Note that for the first time in ever we have a businessman leading the country. This was not a capricious decision, it came from a long history of abuse. It's intended to fix the many and long-term existing problems, it's good for the majority of domestic businesses, and it was a campaign promise.

    Take the long view.

    (*) This has happened so frequently, it's a meme. Make your monitor or VCR or other electronic device in China, and see eBay flooded with counterfeit copies overnight. Does no one remember that?

    1. Re:The big picture. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Does not matter if your points 1) to 6) are true or false.
      US tariffs on Chinese companies/products change nothing on that ... go figure.

      China violates their trade agreements in every possible way, so much so that it would *almost* be better to not trade with China at all.
      Citation needed :D
      What kind of trade agreements do you even have with China?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:The big picture. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      On #5 above, China has been subsidizing their steel production, pushing US foundries out of business.

      That's the big one, and it seems to be one f the Chinese government's strategies. I don't really see that tarriffs in such an area are a bad idea. Funny thing is David Cameron used it t odrum up anti-EU sentiment prior to justifying the Brexit referendum: evil EU won't allow us to support our steel industry with local tarriffs or government support. Of coure they won't it's supposed to be an EU wide thing, and guess who was the major dissenting voice for steel tarriffs?

      Note that for the first time in ever we have a businessman leading the country. ...

      A "businessman" with record of bankruptcy and inheriting vast amounts of real-eastate just prior to a massive boom.

      No what you have is a TV personality with delusions of grandeur fueled by a lucky start in life.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:The big picture. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) Chinese manufacturers take our designs, make extras, and sell counterfeits as if they were original(*)
      2) Chinese manufacturers steal our IP and trade secrets for other products
      3) The Chinese violate licensing agreements (ie - hacked copies of software) and the government does nothing about it.
      4) Chinese working in the US commit industrial espionage and send the information back to China

      How to trade tariffs fix any of that? At best they might make it harder to sell those products in the US, but not the rest of the world.

      On the one hand, US companies want the cheapest possible manufacturing. On the other hand, they want extreme loyalty and security. And the solution to this predicament is apparently is apparently trade tariffs.

      Seems like a bit of a non-sequitur.

      How about Apple then? They make all their crap in China. It doesn't get counterfeited really - you get a few similar looking phones but none run iOS or have knock-off Apple CPUs in them or anything like that. And a lot of companies just resell OEM Chinese stuff anyway, and somehow do okay because people trust US brands to at least provide some support and warranty coverage.

      Trade tariffs are the wrong tool.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:The big picture. by dwater · · Score: 1

      I suspect the Chinese position on #2 (and #4?) might be that the US IP laws are excessive and unfair (to society) and actually hurt the innovation and progress they were designed to promote.

      --
      Max.
    5. Re:The big picture. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It (Apple) doesn't get counterfeited really
      It gets counterfeited. I saw an fake iPhone 5, backside with Apple logo, FC number, "designed in Cupertino" etc. in gold letters.
      Starting it showed a typical iPhone screen with Safari and Mail etc. icons, but all the apps where Androids with replaced icons. Was funny.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:The big picture. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are loads of fake Apple stores in China, but they sell genuine Apple phones. They are kinda funny, they have the standard Apple wooden tables and fake-titanium decor. I asked about it and they don't really regard them as fake as such, as in no-one mistakes them for actual Apple stores, it's just a kind of advertising or "trade dress" to differentiate them from the shops that sell other brands of phone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:The big picture. by shilly · · Score: 1

      Note that for the first time in ever we have a businessman leading the country.

      Here's the heart of the problem for you and a lot of your fellow travellers. You think Trump is a business man who is somehow representative of how business operates, who can bring the skills of business with him. But Trump runs a two-bit real estate operation. His business has none of the complexity of a Boeing, FedEx, Pfizer etc; his decision-making is a million miles from how decisions are made at actual MNCs. He's a dumbshit person's idea of what a businessman is. He's just been spending Pappy's bucks all these years, and not very well at that.

    8. Re:The big picture. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      1) Chinese manufacturers take our designs, make extras, and sell counterfeits as if they were original(*) 2) Chinese manufacturers steal our IP and trade secrets for other products 3) The Chinese violate licensing agreements (ie - hacked copies of software) and the government does nothing about it. 4) Chinese working in the US commit industrial espionage and send the information back to China

      How to trade tariffs fix any of that?

      Well, it doesn't. That is what TPP and the NAFTA renewal were supposed to do, create a group of singaturees to band together against Chinese counterfitting of IP. However, we dropped out of TPP and are not really interested in NAFTA anymore.

    9. Re: The big picture. by orlanz · · Score: 1

      There is nothing that prevents our armed forces from buying USA steel only. Even if it means they pay extra. Even if it means they need to float the industry.

      Oh wait, that's pretty much what they do today; before the tariffs. Pretty much every federally funded agency has directives to buy Made in USA. Even if it costs more. Heck the IT consulting firms aren't even allowed to have off shore teams working on certain projects at some agencies!

      Even the states do this all the time. They only buy locally and set up the bidding requirements as such.

      Also, the US domestically produced more steel and aluminum than the armed forces can ever buy. For that market there is actually over production.

      If anything the tariffs hurt downstream US businesses and makes it more expensive for the tax payers when those same armed forces buy spoons, knives, belts, etc. Now they are using more money to prop up more businesses than before.

  6. Re:Let's go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not with that attitude!

  7. When will US companies steal Tech from China? by Streetlight · · Score: 2

    For sometime China has been sending students to study at US and European universities, obtaining bachelors and higher degrees. Some have brought this expertise back to China and established world class university programs in STEM areas and now produce outstanding home grown graduates. Eventually, if not now, these folks will develop home grown technology which may be as good as that being developed in western universities and private corporations. Sure, it might be easier and cheaper to steal needed tech from elsewhere, but restrictions on exports may turn the tables resulting in China becoming a technology power house. How long will this take? Time will tell.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why do you think that if we share our technology with China that the reverse would also occur and China would share the other direction? Your arguement is it may lock the US out not to share but assume they would share and some would consider it highly likely that they wouldn't.

      Part of the problem and things that people are concerned about is that China appears to see economy not as something that brings people together and creates interdependence but something that can be "won". That their end goal is to acquire all this technology and then shut out foreign competition. They've already done it in too many industries to count where expertise was sold then the Chinese company displaced the American company with copies of their product.

      The problem is Trump approached this completely the wrong direction. He started a war with everyone instead of working with out allies. He could have arranged an agreement with every Western country to take China on in this area and demand change. He could have united the world and forced China to stop the unfair trade practices at the threat of losing all market access in the west, instead Trump started a trade war with all our allies and drove them to make deals with Russia and China at our expense. China and Russia are laughing all the way to the bank while we've destroyed the goodwill and soft power it took this country a century and millions of lives to build and one guy trashed it in 18 months. It's a staggering achievement.

    2. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by perlface · · Score: 1

      EU would not cooperate they are happy to work with China against the USA's interests.

    3. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote. By locking out China, and incidentally others, China and other western countries, can lock out the US from its tech advances as well as access to non tech markets for manufactured goods. Others could develop equivalent or better tech and marketable products than the US. The Harley-Davidson example may indicate another option. There are likely to be no winners in a trade war. Which country will be the biggest loser? It might be the US.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    4. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by youngone · · Score: 2

      EU would not cooperate they are happy to work with China against the USA's interests.

      Why would the EU work for the USA's interests? I would expect the EU to look to their own interests.
      I would also like an example of the EU working in China's interest please.

    5. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not really an answer to you, Rahvin, I just quote you.
      Your arguement is it may lock the US out not to share but assume they would share and some would consider it highly likely that they wouldn't.
      What technology does the USA actually have to share? Intel processors ... hm, now let me think ... an iPhone is not really "technology", neither is a laptop ... they can build nukes, so can China ... hm ... an Aircraft Carrier, China bought their only one from Russia, hm ... actually I have a really hard time to think about anything that the USA has the rest of the world, particularly China, has not.
      Well, now some pharmaceutic companies come to mind, but that is more a money and "we buy what we can" thing than technology or innovation.
      So: what actually is it that China is "stealing" from the US?
      I can not really imagine any US product being interesting for me, well an Apple Laptop, made in Ireland, or an iPhone made in China or Taiwan, or a Harley Davidson, made in Thailand ... what exactly is it, the US is making and gets stolen by Chinese companies?
      Sure, I could buy an US car ... but as I live without a car and use my bicycle ... why would I? A vietnamese, korean, or russian car is cheaper (got for bid an Indian one). Any other car, like from Europe or Scandinavia is better. Ah, a Tesla would perhaps be an exception.

      So again: what exactly is the US producing that is worth to be stolen?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just give China Micro$oft, Tesla, and The Red Hen eatery. The country will then BSOD, crash into the great wall, and get diarrhea.

    7. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The EU has offered the US to cooperate with handling the trade problems with China but got no reply.

    8. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That their end goal is to acquire all this technology and then shut out foreign competition.

      Isn't that Trump's policy too?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by gtall · · Score: 1

      And there are a lot of Chinese students who stayed in the U.S., became scientists and engineers, and are happily increasing the industrial and scientific might of the U.S.

    10. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      My hometown, Karlsruhe, Germany, is overrun with Chinese students.
      Mostly studying electric and mechanical engineering.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Yeah I married one of these. Their culture is anti innovation.

    12. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just out of the goodness of your heart. It was In exchange for much of the British gold reserve and military basing rights all over the world. The USSR shipped billions in gold, platinum and diamonds to the US. It was pure "cash and carry" until March 1941

    13. Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      Really Ivan?

  8. The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Whether it's "logical" to accept trade imbalances is moot in politics. Large imbalances will often be blamed for various problems, such as the shrinkage of various local industries. Whether such is fair blame or not doesn't matter: it makes a great political scapegoat and eventually somebody will use it for political gain. You have to work with humans as they are, not as they should be.

    Therefore, it's best to avoid large imbalances. I propose the WTO change their approach such that countries be able to raise tariffs to correct aggregate balances.

    Each nation will probably end up protecting certain industries, but it will more or less balance out over time as each give and take until an equilibrium is reached. The US may protect 30% and China may protect 30%, for example. It's a civilized compromise.

    However, the rule should gradually kick in rather than all at once to avoid shocking the markets. Trump doesn't do "gradually" very well.

    There are too many ways to "micro-cheat" such that the current way of bringing up complaints of artificial barriers to WTO is not practical. Suppose each city in China gives red tape to outside firms out of nationalistic feelings or subtle pressure from the central gov't. One would have collect data from almost every cheating city when presenting evidence to the WTO court (or whatever they call it). That's not practical. An aggregate trade number is easier to monitor. Not perfect, but better than micro-monitoring and micro-suing.

    1. Re: The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if trade balances are 100% neutral Trump will just invent facts to suit his narrative. US is running a trade surplus with Canada. Does not matter at all.

    2. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The markets had plenty of warning. Trump is doing what he promised to do during the campaign some 2 years ago.

      But he's flip-floppy, or at least has a very uneven pace. For example, it looked like he privately negotiated with China to skip larger tariffs if China would help with North Korea and if T wouldn't make new noise about Taiwan. Thus, he mostly ignored China trade for many months, perhaps due to apparent progress with NK.

      Now it's a "big thing" again. He tends to mix national security with trade issues more so than other presidents, confusing the markets. Financial experts are not military experts.

    3. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whether it's "logical" to accept trade imbalances is moot in politics. Large imbalances will often be blamed for various problems, such as the shrinkage of various local industries. Whether such is fair blame or not doesn't matter: it makes a great political scapegoat and eventually somebody will use it for political gain.

      Doesn't matter. There are two major countries where the USA has a trade surplus: Canada and the UK.

      Doesn't stop Trump from slapping duties on Canadian steel saying that Canada is a national security threat to the USA

      (Seriously? A national security threat?
      1. Canada and the USA have been friends for a very very long time.
      2. If push comes to shove, the USA could invade Canada, and it would take 2 weeks or less for the USA to win.)

    4. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      There are two major countries where the USA has a trade surplus: Canada and the UK.

      Canada heavily protects their dairy and maple syrup markets; there's no disputing that. Also, there are different ways to measure trade balances such that a case can be made against the surplus claim.

      But I agree it's silly to get snotty over such, though. Small problems should be quietly negotiated. T lacks a sense of proportion: it's "calling wolf".

    5. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Canada protects their dairy markets because the US subsidizes theirs to the tune of something like $40 billion+ per annum. They were never on equal footing to begin with.

    6. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I was referring to "The markets had plenty of warning."

    7. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by derrickn · · Score: 1

      They do no such thing. Lumber companies in Canada (domestic and foreign) buy licences on tree stands on large tracts of government land instead of privately owned land as in America. The average price of those licences is considerably lower than what private land owners in the States will sell for. The Canadian government never went out and expropriated that land from private owners to sell the trees at a lower price, though. They just never sold it to middle-men and the lumber companies benefit by buying at "wholesale" prices. Is that a subsidy?

    8. Re: The NON-ham-handed way to do it by shilly · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Sources please

    9. Re:The NON-ham-handed way to do it by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 2

      Canada does not subsidize its softwood lumber industry, and the WTO has agreed with this assessment time and time again. It's just that the lumber industry in Canada operates under a very different model. Most forestry takes place on Crown Land in Canada (except on Vancouver Island), companies are charged stumpage fees and required to restore the land once they are done. This means the whole capital structure of Canadian lumber companies is totally different from those in the US.

  9. Fiscal heaven by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    rules that would block firms with at least 25 percent Chinese ownership from buying companies

    What if the official owner is in a fiscal heaven where the real owner is completely hidden?

  10. Re:Fuck Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What is wrong with protecting US jobs?

    Why is it a good thing to transfer all of our technology to the Chinese Communist Party?

    How is the average non-college educated US citizen better off after 20 years of globalism?

    Try to think bigger than the price of your iPad.

  11. Um... you do know the economy doesn't move by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    that fast, right? These people lost ground for 8 years under Obama, 8 years under Bush and 8 years under Clinton. The older ones lost ground before that too. These trends have been going on for over 40 years. They've been ignored that long. There was a brief respite during the .com boom and an even briefer one during the housing boom.

    It's kinda hard to shoot yourself in the foot when somebody else already cut you off at the knees.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  12. I should add by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not saying what they're doing is going to help, but I _am_ saying it's not likely to make things much worse for them. You're underestimating how bad off 40% of America is. Like the man said, what have you got to lose? For a lot of people there really isn't anything. That's what 40 years of declining wages means.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I should add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cry me a fucking river. That 40% is still 1000x better than half the fucking world.

    2. Re:I should add by FFOMelchior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cry me a fucking river. That 40% is still 1000x better than half the fucking world.

      "At least we're better off than 3rd world countries!"
      - New Trumper motto, apparently.

    3. Re:I should add by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not an argument.

      That's like saying you shouldn't bitch when someone breaks your arm, because the next person in line got a broken leg.

      Fallacious reasoning, plain and simple.

    4. Re:I should add by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Not an argument.

      It actually is. Nature abhors a vacuum, and once global trade became easy, thanks to improved comms and transport technology, then the only possible outcome is a rebalancing of wealth from the extreme rich (on a global scale) to everyone else.
      To give you an idea, what is an unskilled labour salary in the US, $13/hour? In Indonesia it's $10/day. You simply cannot compete with that, so the only option is to find something else to do that can't be exported easily.

      It may be that the $13/hour labourer was facing a decline to $12/hour and thought they had nothing to lose, but only because you don't fully grasp that it could easily be $6/hour. Under Trump's trade war that is now a possibility.

      The point here, is that thinking there is nothing to lose is a trap. Especially when you live in the richest country in the world. It's a long way down from the top, be careful what you wish for.

    5. Re:I should add by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      This too is bullshit since keeping the higher paid jobs here in the USA spreads the wealth to local service industry which creates more customers that can afford airpods and other imported chinese garbage. You think poor Chinese or Indonesian workers are buying Harley Davidson? No, USA factory and service workers are.

    6. Re:I should add by houghi · · Score: 1

      "At least we're better off than some 3rd world countries!"
      FTFY

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:I should add by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      This too is bullshit since keeping the higher paid jobs here in the USA spreads the wealth to local service industry which creates more customers that can afford airpods and other imported chinese garbage. You think poor Chinese or Indonesian workers are buying Harley Davidson? No, USA factory and service workers are.

      I've actually been in a Harley Davidson dealer in Indonesia, so someone there is buying them.
      Size of US Market: 320M
      Size of Global Market: 7500M
      There are now more billionaires in Asia than the US
      Do the maths

    8. Re:I should add by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      5 total in Indonesia. That's how many HD stores that there are within 30 miles of me in Indiana :)

    9. Re:I should add by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      5 total in Indonesia. That's how many HD stores that there are within 30 miles of me in Indiana :)

      Cool, so you admit that people are buying Harleys in Indonesia now? And that Harley Davidson is better off by having access to international markets?
      Nearly 40% of HD sales are international. Or do you think HD would be better off with a 40% drop in sales?
      How about Boeing? Or Apple? Or Caterpillar?

    10. Re:I should add by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      This is about production in the USA. They planned to move it out of the USA even before the tariffs. I'm perfectly happy if they sell the bikes in Indonesia that they build in Indonesia. I don't want any country to suffer less employment opportunities. USA dwarfs any other place on the map as far as sales. If you move production away from USA you'll hurt sales in USA. It shouldn't be about saving a % here and there. It should be about supporting the economy.. which is why a lot of people who buy HD also buy "Made in USA."

    11. Re:I should add by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      I'm perfectly happy if they sell the bikes in Indonesia that they build in Indonesia.

      A quick history lesson for you. Thousands of years ago people discovered that trading with people outside their specific group brought benefits to both parties. The trade didn't have to be 50:50 to be a net gain for everyone, all you need is for one side to receive something they want in exchange for something they don't need as much of. 'Hey we have lots of rice that we don't need, those guys over there have lots of coffee, let's trade so we both get some rice and some coffee etc
      Fast forward thousands of years, a motorcycle is made of thousands of parts sourced from hundreds or suppliers in dozens of different places. Your Harley dealer in Indiana isn't just selling you a Harley manufactured entirely for Indiana labour.
      To use Indiana as an example, if every part of every product available in Indiana had to be made in Indiana, do you think you'd be better off?
      The answer is no. You are better off by trading goods with others. That is why global trade is a thing. The bigger and more open the markets the more potential for growth overall. This is a key principle of free market economics that is central to the conservative agenda.

      I don't want any country to suffer less employment opportunities. USA dwarfs any other place on the map as far as sales. If you move production away from USA you'll hurt sales in USA. It shouldn't be about saving a % here and there. It should be about supporting the economy.. which is why a lot of people who buy HD also buy "Made in USA."

      Made in USA using imported parts. This is why tariffs won't work. If all those components are sourced locally they cost more, meaning the price of your Harley will go up, meaning less people will buy Harleys, meaning Harley makes less money, meaning they hire less people, meaning lees people with income to buy more Harleys. Do you see how that works?
      If you want to improve the US economy, there are other ways to achieve this. Tariffs is not one of them.

    12. Re:I should add by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      China undercuts the USA on steel and other parts. They print money for suppliers to use to offset costs so they are cheaper so they don't lose the production. I'm not saying bring production back to Indiana (but actually a lot of car parts are made in Indiana funny enough), but the USA in general. Tariffs are matching what other countries are already doing to us. It's one thing to have free global trade for stuff some countries are better at doing and it's another to lose 95% of production capacity because it just happens to be artificially free to produce steel in China. Free trade is like socialism, it's great in theory and then goes to hell in a hand basket when applied to communistic and dictatorship countries. We end up giving them tons of money and lose entire industries to them and have to deal with the pain later for short term profit gains. Meanwhile entire cities here in the USA are losing factory after factory and closing down small stores and restaurants which in turn reduces tax payers, etc. Global trade is only good short term. The longer term answer is to suffer the higher costs of localized/national production and increase local competition to reduce those costs. That way we do not lose the know how and become stronger as a country in producing everything we need. Self contained eco systems are something a lot of liberal people love to tote. I'm not even sure why anyone promotes self deprecating globalism. I don't want lower price tags in the USA, in fact I want the opposite. Higher price tags and more people who can afford those higher price tags. You don't get that by losing jobs to chop shop/kid labor overseas. We can export our industries then and build USA led businesses in the other countries without being forced to open up our IP or have less than 50% share. Let other countries fail in the meantime due to their poorly ran economies not succeed because they are just cheap since they have no laws on pollution or are 300% government subsidized.

    13. Re:I should add by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Tariffs are matching what other countries are already doing to us.

      So your solution is escalation? We've already done that remember and it didn't turn out well.

      Free trade is like socialism,

      Oh dear. Free trade is actually capitalism. This is how stupid American politics has become, the far right are backing a leftist agenda then criticising the left for trying to be more right.

      . Meanwhile entire cities here in the USA are losing factory after factory and closing down small stores and restaurants which in turn reduces tax payers, etc.

      So you solution is to make that worse? Like how Trump said he would drain the swamp when in fact in just made the swap larger?

      I don't want lower price tags in the USA, in fact I want the opposite. Higher price tags and more people who can afford those higher price tags.

      Which is fine, I agree that paying a higher ticket price to ensure some level of quality is a good thing overall. But this is not a capitalist ideal. It seems with Trump the Republicans have thrown every ideal they had out the window because winning is more important than being sticking with your beliefs

      You don't get that by losing jobs to chop shop/kid labor overseas.

      Well you can if you play it right. America is in decline because it didn't adapt quickly enough to globalisation. Globalisation means some jobs will no longer be cost effective, while others will be more profitable If you cling to the old way and just expect things to work you'e in for a surprise.
      Trumps policies are clinging to the odd way. There is no vision or plan of how this will lead America to a brighter future. Tariffs don't work and everyone knows it

  13. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was good for Bezos and Jobs and all the other tech robber barrons.

    I notice you don't want to blame the Waltons and Walmart for any of our country's ills. Not only did they help flood the market with cheap chinese crap for decades, they helped gut wages at the low end, shifted the cost of feeding their employees to the rest of us, while filling their own pockets. Now they hide in gated communities where they don't have to deal with results of their handiwork.

    But sure, blame Bezos and Jobs. Amazon and Apple employ 10s of thousands of highly compensated employees who don't need "food stamps" in order to eat. Can you say the same for Walmart?

    And Trump won't even pay Americans. His resorts bring in hundreds of foreign workers on temp visas because they'll work for even less than Americans. That's #MAGA for you.

    (Not sure who the barrons are. Did you mean robber barons?)

  14. Re:Trump has cost me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EigIujKxDcE

  15. True, Trump is all about grand proportions by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Small problems can be quietly negotiated. T lacks a sense of proportion

    I've kept an eye on Trump for 20 years, and I'd say that's a fundamental part of his personality, his psyche. Parodies of him always have him talking about "yuge" because that's Trump, he always wants to go big, the biggest.

    There is good and bad about "go big or go home" in a president.

  16. We need to De-Trump... by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    IP theft is a problem, but if Trump wants to confront China effectively, he would need Europe and the rest of the world on our side to confront China as a unified block. Any trade expert would advise Trump the same and Trump may even know this. But I don't think Trump cares about results. He's more interested in motivating his base to turn out in November. So this is really a non-event. I just wish the media would finally wise up that 99% of Trump is hot air and stop covering him or his antics. We need to De-Trump our selves.

  17. Re:Fuck Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's not protecting jobs. Metal transformation jobs are now leaving: Harley Davidson moving manufacturing, Mid Continent Nail Corporation shutting down and dozens more to come. Don't worry, the rest of the world is more than happy about it! We'll gladly take your jobs!

  18. Russia vs. China proxy war by edi_guy · · Score: 1
    I wonder how this all plays out in Russian and Chinese relations. The Russians are said to be more than happy to see the USA chaotically, fumble through world affairs. A failure in the US economy would be equally welcome given the small trade between the two countries.

    The Chinese however have a vested, large monetary interest in a stable and prosperous USA. The failure of the US economy will have a huge detrimental effect on China. One could see Xi Jinping phoning Putin to tell him to knock it off, lest Russia face a combined Chinese+American block...

    1. Re:Russia vs. China proxy war by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      Unlike the US, China is capable of long-range planning. Yes, in the short term, it would damage the Chinese economy if the US economy tanked.

      However, if the ultimate result was to make the world turn its back on the US dollar as the "Global Currency", China would rejoice. And if the US dollar was demoted to third place as the IMF's World Reserve Currency behind the euro and the yuan, China would be equally pleased.

      Last year, the banks of Japan, Germany, France and the UK held more liabilities denominated in dollars than in their own currencies. Imagine the opportunities for China, both economically and in terms of international prestige, if those debts were held in yuan.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    2. Re:Russia vs. China proxy war by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      China has always played games with its currency. So has the US, for that matter. Do you seriously believe China's only action would be to unpeg its currency or link it with the euro?

      Not likely

      If they chose to make such a move, they'd likely do it at the same time they started screwing around with their US debt holdings. China holds over a trillion dollars of US debt, which gives them a nice, firm hold on Uncle Sam's balls.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  19. that is a stupid remark by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People don't compare to folk half the world away, they compare to their immediate neighbors. That is why they elect fascist populist politician : because they want to get a better living and see the other 60% getting it. Not saying they are right, but simply that your remark is stupid.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  20. Re:Can We Target India Too? by johnsie · · Score: 1

    Indians and Chinese are smart and hard working enough to come up with their own tech.

  21. Re:Ignoring the Obvious by johnsie · · Score: 1

    China can still cheap goods outside the US. The rest of the world will always favor cheap Chinese products over overpriced American products.

  22. Tariffs almost never help by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.

    You and I will. That much is self evident. Tariffs pretty much always benefit a few at the expense of the many. Trump is doing nothing more than pandering to a political base and costing all of us in the process. If he really wanted to solve trade issues he's going about it entirely backwards.

  23. Re:Ignoring the Obvious by keithdowsett · · Score: 1

    China has a much bigger stick than not buying US bonds.. they could sell some.

    The Bank of China has something like 3 trillion US dollars in reserves. Imagine what would happen if they announced that they were going to sell ten billion dollars of US government treasury bills every month until the tariffs were rescinded.

  24. It's not rebalancing from the extreme rich by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's from the working class of one country to another. The extremely rich are still extremely rich. Even more so now. Having reliable access to food, shelter, healthcare, education and transportation as well as retirement when you're too old to work does _not_ make you "extremely rich". It makes you Middle Class. The ground is being lost by the American Middle Class. Also, the losses the American Middle class have suffered are nearly 1 to 1 gains for the top 1%.

    The American working class doesn't have to give ground so the rest of the world can be lifted out of poverty. That's one way to do it, but not the _only_ way. We could just as easily take it from the extremely rich. If we were willing to, that is.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not rebalancing from the extreme rich by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      The American working class doesn't have to give ground so the rest of the world can be lifted out of poverty. That's one way to do it, but not the _only_ way.

      I agree, but that seems to be the way the American conservatives prefer it to go. Convince the voters that foreigners are the enemy in order to manipulate them into giving themselves more power and wealth.
      As I said, the happy path lies in accepting globalisation as an unstoppable force of nature, and tweak your economy to take advantage of it rather than wasting energy fighting an unwinnable battle

      We could just as easily take it from the extremely rich. If we were willing to, that is.

      For some reason the rich have convinced the poor and middle class that this a bad idea. The US is the only place I know of where this has happened, so it's a interesting case study into how such a crazy situation like that can occur.
      In 1980 in both Europe and the US, the top 1% took in 10% of their respective incomes. Today the top 1% in Europe take in 12% while in the US it's 20%. So inequality is getting much worse in the US and the disadvantaged somehow keep voting in the people keep the cycle going. It really is nuts.

      The richest 3 people in the US have more wealth than the bottom 50%. Why don't you simply confiscate their wealth and double the wealth of half the country overnight? It sounds unjust on the surface, but in a country where over 500,000 people die each year from poverty, isn't it better to sacrifice 3 people for the sake of 160 million? And the flow on effect from that one action would trickle up to the other 160 million within weeks.
      If we're ok with sacrificing conscripts in wars, why aren't we ok with sacrificing a handful of conscripts to save the economy and millions of lives? We don't even have to kill them, just strip them of all their assets and leave them on a median wage to live on for the rest of their lives.

  25. Made in China 2025 by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Read the Reuters article https://www.reuters.com/articl...

    "Under Made in China 2025, unveiled by China’s State Council in 2015, China wants to catch up with rivals in sectors including robotics, aerospace, clean-energy cars and advanced basic materials. "

    "The strategy is at the core of China’s efforts to move up the value chain and achieve Xi’s vision of turning the country into a global superpower by 2050. "

    "Under the plan, Beijing wants Chinese suppliers to capture 70 percent of market share by 2025 for “basic core components and important basic materials” in strategic industries."

    "Other targets endorsed by senior Chinese officials include ensuring 40 percent of smartphone chips are domestically made by 2025. "

  26. Re:It's about time we caught up by shilly · · Score: 1

    Bending over while suckling and being stabbed in the back -- all at the same time! You Trumpkins certainly have a penchant for vivid imagery. Albeit stolen without attribution from Nazi predecessors sore about losing WWI. Your spiritual, political and moral predecessors too.

  27. On a related note... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What is the best way to survive the eminent Trump recession? Will the recession happen in time to affect his re-election in 2020?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  28. Re:Fuck Trump by khandom08 · · Score: 1

    More importantly, fuck all the people who say fuck you about anything. Fuck you!

    Better stop or you'll go blind.

  29. I don't think it's just a better life by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're looking to maintain. To hang on. Remember 40% don't have $400 in the bank. They're one car accident or one health problem away from disaster and they know it. 40 years of declining wages means we've got millions of people on the edge.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Re:Not protectionism, its distractionism by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

    It also highlights the main issue, how can you have a rationale discourse and negotiate a workable agreement, when the other side is willing to just make shit up. At the core of negotiations is the concept of "meeting of minds" to understand and discuss interests. If one side is telling you that the sky is red and clouds are orange, and that yes means no and no means yes where do you go? You can't negotiate with crazy

  31. Re:Trump has cost me by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I don't quite understand that, they claim to love America, yet they want it to fail, and they're cheering it on it seems..

  32. Re:Trump has cost me by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I don't quite understand that, they claim to love America, yet they want it to fail, and they're cheering it on it seems..

    Deception. Lies. If they came right out and said - we want to destroy America, do you think they'd get far? Yes, we want to increase your debt as much as possible so we can ruin your country and everything it stands for... probably wouldn't be that many takers. How did Hitler do it? I'm going to make Germany rise out our ashes. We're going to be something again! How did Stalin and the Russians do it? Same way. Hell, how did Castro do it? Same way. He was a buddy of the US until he got power. He was a vicious killer. So was Che Guevara. It is kind of funny that Obama was like a movie villain. Telling us what he wanted to do before hand.

    So look at what Obama did. He more than doubled our debt from 7 to 21 T and set entitlements up to around 100T. Nobody can pay that off. That's more than all the money in the world. Civil strife. When GW Bush left office, sure we had a shooting here, incident there, mostly nothing. After he left we had Trayvon Martin - a kid that tried to kill a man and was a known local thug and was killed. He sent people down to stir things up. It kept happening. He started packing ideologues into judges jobs, prosecutors, etc. Sotomayer - yea, she shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. That was a payback. Then there is what Obama did to other countries. Took out Libya and kicked countries below it so they crapped many thousands of next to no education Muslims that looked like an invading army sans the military gear into Europe. By law they were supposed to be taken back to Africa, not Italy. He tried to topple Egypt and fortunately they stood up and put the muslim brotherhood mad dogs down. He hurt us big internationally to the point China snubbed him and Greece rioted when he showed up on his farewell tour. Hardly a word of any of this in the press. He tried to tie everything up in regulations. Thousands and thousands of them that would have meant he wouldn't have been re-elected if they saw the light of day before 2012. Every day he tried to find a new way to screw us.

    Then there's Europe. Where you can't tell what the muslims are doing in Germany or your somehow racist. England has gone nuts bashing their own citizens to cater to muslims. Hear about the nazi saluting dog? You can't make this stuff up. Hitler himself didn't have a problem when it was done during his time, yet England found a guy guilty of making fun, of Nazis. Really. You have to read it to believe it.

    It's like - WTF happened to sensible people? Did electronics turn all of our heads into mush? Seems like for a large portion of the world the answer is yes.

    I have to wonder, maybe 2012 was the wrong end of the world date. Maybe it's really 2022.

  33. Re:Trump has cost me by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Lots of interesting stuff you said there. Too bad you keep getting modded down to telling the truth. Can't talk bad about their lord and savior obama. You however bring up one really interesting question.

    It's like - WTF happened to sensible people? Did electronics turn all of our heads into mush? Seems like for a large portion of the world the answer is yes.

    I often wonder if the internet has ruined people as a group. It turns people toxic, the worst part is so many people buy into things said on the internet like it has to be true. Just like how TV used to be, before the internet.. I grew up at the same time the internet did, I started on it in the mid 90's as a kid thanks to my father, and it quickly became my favorite "toy" because I could learn things, and I could make things!! The internet was a wonderful place then... And then in 2000 it started to go down hill, computers were becoming more common, and easier to afford. The large influx of "common" people helped ruin the internet. That's when companies saw the flow of money the internet produced and they worked hard to dumb it down. But I guess that's just like, my opinion man..

  34. Re:Trump has cost me by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I often wonder if the internet has ruined people as a group. It turns people toxic, the worst part is so many people buy into things said on the internet like it has to be true. Just like how TV used to be, before the internet.. I grew up at the same time the internet did, I started on it in the mid 90's as a kid thanks to my father, and it quickly became my favorite "toy" because I could learn things, and I could make things!! The internet was a wonderful place then... And then in 2000 it started to go down hill, computers were becoming more common, and easier to afford. The large influx of "common" people helped ruin the internet. That's when companies saw the flow of money the internet produced and they worked hard to dumb it down. But I guess that's just like, my opinion man..

    I go way back. 1970s. Modems, bbs, computers I had to dial into. I remember when they merged a whole bunch of networks into the internet. In college we had network news. We had what we called the flame. Someone would say something and someone else would pound them, being a jerk. That's where Godwins law came in. Seemed like everything ended up - you're a nazi. It was just how fast that happened. "I fixed the bug in Make. It wasn't written that well right here. It works well now" -> "You're an asshole, I wrote that code and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about! Why don't you go back to your mama you Neanderthal." If you were female, it could get a lot worse.
    Professionally e-mail could be a problem. You don't know if the person is joking or really did call you an ass. I remember a woman in England wrote a letter that I thought I was going to get fired over. I checked in code that had a bug in it. OMG she ripped me. We called up and she said - no big deal, just wanted you to know there was a bug in it, honey! My boss and I looked at each other like WTF? Ok, thanks, good bye. One of her people did the same thing a week later. Bill simply changed the names and sent it back to her. It was 1992, just before George HW Bush signed the internet over to the public. Since then we see more stupid people on the net. Now any one, even an idiot can get on. I know because I know someone that really is an idiot IQ wise and they're online. Facebook mostly and of course they're liberal. Insert joke here. Look it up sometime. There really is a definition of idiot, imbecile, moron. I know people that are actually diagnosed as crazy, they're on as well.

    Being modded troll gets me sometimes. I think there is one individual doing it, mostly. Bad part of /. You can look for posts from certain people and persecute them. I try to just mod up. Sometimes when I see someone really is a troll, have to mark them as a troll. I used to worry about it. However my karma is still good. So troll away... I wish more people would tell the truth. We really need to do that. Don't let them win because people will believe them. Lincoln used to say a lie is already around the world when the truth is still putting on its shoes.