Here’s how hard the escalating tariff fight will hit the economy

[kevindavis007]

How is this hurting the American consumer more than say....when how many american jobs have been lost over the years so China could sell cheap shit to stupid Americans?

More jobs are going to be lost due to Automation
Should we stop that as well?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The graph below clearly shows that the US suffers.  I really don't give a damn what it does to China.  Envy is for Democrats.

Then you have never played poker.

This is about winning the hand over a weaker opponent. 
We can see his losing hand already.

To win, you must throw some chips onto the table.

[aligncare]

Then you have never played poker.

This is about winning the hand over a weaker opponent. 
We can see his losing hand already.

To win, you must throw some chips onto the table.

Yes, that’s the correct analogy. Poker.

Just a wild guess, Trump knows a little bit about that game.

[Hoodat]

More jobs are going to be lost due to Automation
Should we stop that as well?

Bite your tongue, Luddite.  I work in automation.  Are you trying to put me out of a job?

[Hoodat]

Then you have never played poker.

This is about winning the hand over a weaker opponent. 
We can see his losing hand already.

To win, you must throw some chips onto the table.

So basically, Trump is bluffing hoping that China will fold.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes, that’s the correct analogy. Poker.

Just a wild guess, Trump knows a little bit about that game.

you must know how to strategize, as one does in the analogy of poker.

Correctly playing poker is not about luck. It is about risk assessments based on your hand and what seems to be in the opponent's hand.

One must undertake risk in order to play

If no risk, you cannot play.

Politics is strategized the same way.

[Sanguine]

If we want to reset the China/US/Global trade situation, there will be some pain.  We all need to grow up and understand that.

[edpc]

If we want to reset the China/US/Global trade situation, there will be some pain.  We all need to grow up and understand that.

That does not include accepting lies like ‘China is paying’ the tariffs. It also doesn’t include changing the rules, meaning that taxpayer bailouts and tariff funded purchases of crops used for humanitarian aid is really commerce.

[libertybele]

So basically, Trump is bluffing hoping that China will fold.

"Trump playing "a game of chicken" on China trade, economists say
While Trump will “100 percent see how far he can take it,” one of the only ways he keeps his seat in the next election is if the economy is doing really well, global trade analysts point out."

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-playing-game-chicken-china-trade-economists-say-n1005421

[Sanguine]

That does not include accepting lies like ‘China is paying’ the tariffs. It also doesn’t include changing the rules, meaning that taxpayer bailouts and tariff funded purchases of crops used for humanitarian aid is really commerce.

It doesn't matter how you parse what he says; it matters whether it works or not.

[libertybele]

Interesting how years ago, Dr. Ron Paul, spoke of the trade imbalance...he then went on to say; "True free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders.  Organization like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade....Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning that politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the market place...."

[edpc]

It doesn't matter how you parse what he says; it matters whether it works or not.

Keynesian economics under the last admin ‘worked,’ because artificially low interest rates and printing money kept certain sectors flowing. It’s still a lie. When did pointing out a blatant inaccuracy become ‘parsing’....?

FFS.   

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Keynesian economics under the last admin ‘worked,’ because artificially low interest rates and printing money kept certain sectors flowing. It’s still a lie. When did pointing out a blatant inaccuracy become ‘parsing’....?

FFS.   

Well...  Keynesian economics was not practiced during the last administration.  If it had been, government spending would have been reduced when consumer demand increased. 

Keynes did NOT advocate constant government stimulus.  He did advocate using the timing of government spending to compensate for the cyclical nature of consumer demand.  When you consider that the fed gov't was a tiny portion of GNP in his day, and that economists were obsessed with "aggregate demand" as the be all end all for the "problem" of the business cycle, his theory was pretty reasonable.  Pretty reasonable, but impractical as the business cycle moves faster than economic data can be collected and processed and then acted upon by Congress (who will also use any spending increase yesterday to argue against spending reductions today).

[Hoodat]

That does not include accepting lies like ‘China is paying’ the tariffs.

Word.