I'm not very well versed in economics, but why isn't free trade just a universal thing? — Michael
Understanding how economics works. Trade barriers will cause the local economy to start up once again, which means both increased investment and increased consumption (more wages paid in the economy). Trade barriers will make products more expensive, but that isn't a concern when it comes to GDP growth.Trump's trade war will boost GDP in the long term? According to what economic model? According to what evidence? — Baden
Well, no, I'm not ready to make quantitative claims about the growth rate. I think it will be very good, but even a 3.5% growth would be very good for the US.if by the end of the year overall growth is four per cent or more I'll post a picture of myself here in this discussion wearing a MAGA hat. If it falls more than half a per cent short of that, you post a picture of yourself with an "I Love Hillary" speech bubble coming out of your mouth. OK? Or is this just hot air? — Baden
Bootstrapping, savings, private investors, government subsidies/funding programs. Like that.They just need to be properly regulated. Where are the funds for entrepreneurship going to come from if not banks? — Baden
Well, I only sell to other businessmen, so...Of course the rub is that when inflation outpaces wages growth for long enough due to this randonomics type approach, Agu's wage slaves won't be able to buy his stuff any more. — Baden
I disagree that democracy can distribute resources and benefits rationally and fairly for the greater good. The way I see it, central authority is needed to set the economic AND social agenda of society in order to have stability. Democracy is, by its very nature, unstable, and always falls victim to mediocrity, and the fickle nature of "the public". Resources are to be used for the public good, but they must be managed by those who are capable of managing them to deliver the best results.They are simply players in a system that can either distribute its benefits rationally for the greater good, as democratic socialists would like, or that can feed the avarice that you and those of your political ilk would espouse. — Baden
No, I haven't conceded the point. Trump didn't say that they will be 4% for certain. If you listen to the speech you will see that he also claimed the results will be very strong, could be over 4% even. That's also my claim.You've conceded the point then. Trump's policies won't lead to a sustainable level of four per cent growth as he claimed, so I was right to say that his claim was false. It's either an exaggeration or another deliberate lie. — Baden
What does "less competitive" mean? How do you quantify that? If companies which buy steel, say auto manufacturers, end up paying 30% more for steel, and they raise their prices by 15% let's say, who is to say that they become less competitive? That depends on whether the demand for cars is elastic or inelastic.And his brand of protectionism will not lead to more growth in the long term compared to free trade because, for a start, it makes the US less competitive. — Baden
Yes, until investments kick in, the economy does need some support.Trump has already had to pencil in twelve billion dollars to pay farmers who have lost their markets because of retaliatory moves by other countries, notably China. — Baden
And so they will suffer as well. They will need to negotiate.Protectionism may be necessary in limited circumstances but Trump's trade war tarriffs won't work now because other countries won't let them work (I'll try to find the source but the figure I saw was they would in a best case scenario lead to a moderate reduction in GDP of a quarter of a per cent per year or so). — Baden
But he is right that America is on track for 3%+ GDP growth. — Agustino
Op-Ed Columnist
Why One Quarter’s Growth Tells Us Nothing
The idea was to increase the economy’s capacity. There’s no sign that’s happening.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
July 28, 2018
The Rules for Beating Donald Trump
Don’t argue with 4.1 percent growth.
By BRET STEPHENS
July 28, 2018
Previously undisclosed evidence in the possession of Special Counsel Robert Mueller—including highly confidential White House records and testimony by some of President Trump’s own top aides—provides some of the strongest evidence to date implicating the president of the United States in an obstruction of justice. Several people who have reviewed a portion of this evidence say that, based on what they know, they believe it is now all but inevitable that the special counsel will complete a confidential report presenting evidence that President Trump violated the law.
The assumption that Trump is not impeachable because of a Republican majority is tenuous IMO. — Rank Amateur
Yeah, it'll be "Presidents can't be indicted" followed by the Republicans in Congress with "we're not going to impeach him because it looks bad on us" and then Republican voters with "I don't give a shit because he's on my team". — Michael
A Yahoo Finance/SurveyMonkey poll released Tuesday finds that 11 percent of Republican or GOP-leaning Americans surveyed said it is "appropriate" for Russia to try to help Republicans, while 29 percent said it's "not appropriate, but wouldn't be a big deal."
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.