Mark Levin: Trump's trade policies will harm America

Waco, Answering your question, by Dilbert's first definition, no, I'm not OK with unfair trade, where Japan effectively prohibits rice and beef imports.

With respect to his second definition, it would depend on the product. If it's advanced computer chips, I'm not OK with it. If it's something that involves thousands of women doing dull, repetitive, low skilled assembly line work to put some electronic gadget together, then I'm fine with a foreign government subsidizing that and us buying it at a low price. I'd rather Americans do higher skilled, higher paid work and leave the crap work to others. I'd rather pay less for what I buy.

Trump however is a dumb shit who doesn't make a distinction. Right now he's proposing to take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and subsidize farmers because he's ass fucking them with his trade war and figures that might cause him to lose the next election. Based on what you say about the Federal Reserve above, you appear to be a Ron Paul Republican. But he's got you, and 75% of other Republicans, thinking like Democrats on trade. He's a pied piper. He used to be a Democrat. If the Republicans lose the mid terms in both houses, look for him to cozy up with Schumer and Pelosi. I don't think you'll go all the way with him, but if you do it'll be interesting seeing you and Yssup in bed together. Figuratively speaking. Originally Posted by Tiny

Tiny, obviously you are due for a good relaxing vacation in Venezuela.

or you could read this. https://theconservativetreehouse.com...tract-farming/

or you could FU-self... then u and U-self could go to Russia for a honeymoon. K

Tiny, obviously you are due for a good relaxing vacation in Venezuela. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

No IIFFOFRDB, you are. Ron Johnson agrees with me. This is what he said today, in response to Trump's trade war and the agriculture subsidies,

“This is becoming more and more like a Soviet-type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told Politico on Tuesday. “I’m very exasperated. This is serious.”

japan is a good example of unfair trade. they send cars & electronics over under free trade but probibit U.S. rice & beef entering their market and those are marked up at high tarriff rates..

that is one form of unfair trade.

another one is one where a product is subsidized by the govt that is cheap enough to sell in foreign markets in an effort to dominate that market. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

2nd form is more common in agriculture.

I forgot a 3rd one it is a variation of the 2nd form.

In this case a foreign company manufactures a product below normal market cost, and dumps them at another unsuspecting market.

basically, this was how the american TV market was destroyed.

Out of 90 - 150 american TV manufactures, 3 companies remained active in 1980 (RCA, Sylvania, and Zenith)

by 1986, Zenith was the last TV manufacture left and was bought out by LG in 1995.

Trump says america doesn't make tvs anymore during 2016 campaign.
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/...e-tvs-anymore/

https://youtu.be/FG-nB9lLUIM Originally Posted by Tiny

for every economist, stock broker, financier, analyst or just an average joe you can find a point-counter point for every argument.

some are going to write what Trump is doing is great, others not so much. who is really right? let's see what the results are.

some are going to write what Trump is doing is great, others not so much. who is really right? let's see what the results are. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

It took 15 years after the election of Chavez for IIFFOFRDB's vacation paradise, Venezuela, to implode. Of course Chavez was helped by higher and higher oil prices. Anyway maybe we'll be able to see what the results are from the Trump trade policies and maybe we won't. Hopefully he won't be in office as long as Chavez. Best case is that he's giving back what the country gained from the corporate tax cuts and less regulation. Worst case is if history repeats itself and we have a worldwide depression created by Trump's trade war. Remember that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 played a large part in the great depression.

Tariffs are the greatest!
Donald J. Trump Tweet
July 24, 2018

It took 15 years after the election of Chavez for IIFFOFRDB's vacation paradise, Venezuela, to implode. Of course Chavez was helped by higher and higher oil prices. Anyway maybe we'll be able to see what the results are from the Trump trade policies and maybe we won't. Hopefully he won't be in office as long as Chavez. Best case is that he's giving back what the country gained from the corporate tax cuts and less regulation. Worst case is if history repeats itself and we have a worldwide depression created by Trump's trade war. Remember that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 played a large part in the great depression.

Tariffs are the greatest!
Donald J. Trump Tweet
July 24, 2018 Originally Posted by Tiny

comparing Trump and Chavez is like comparing George Washington and Vladimir Lenin. non sequitur.

on the topic of the "Great Depression" .. did FDR's "New Deal" end the Great Depression?

did FDR's "New Deal" end the Great Depression? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, World War II ended the Great Depression. FDR was a "command economy" Democrat, like Obama, and like Trump until he switched parties in 2009.

My point was not that Trump is like Chavez. Thankfully he's not. My point was that even under Chavez, who totally fucked up the Venezuelan economy, it took 15 years before his insanely stupid policies resulted in poor economic performance and then catastrophe. So it's not as simple as what you said, "Let's see what the results are."

No, World War II ended the Great Depression. FDR was a "command economy" Democrat, like Obama, and like Trump until he switched parties in 2009. Originally Posted by Tiny

Correct! and there is no direct sourcing for the "famous" quote by Admiral Yamamoto about awakening "The Sleeping Giant". yet having visited America as a junior officer in the 1920's, Yamamoto knew full well the scale of American industrial might. Japan is comparable to California. if you cut off Cali from the US, it does hurt to a degree. but not like Japan as California trying to compete with the rest of the US.

FDR was a failure in one respect, his "Big Government" solution to the Great Depression, which, to be fair, he inherited. he was also an excellent wartime Commander in Chief, because unlike Hitler, he knew he wasn't qualified to be a "Field General" so he let the real Generals and Admirals run the show, for the most part.

if you look at all the AXIS and ALLIED Leaders during WWII, only two were really prepared to lead from Military experience. Churchill and Tojo. that's one AXIS, one ALLIED. if you look at the rest of them, it's a net advantage to the ALLIES. FDR knew enough to allow the US Military leadership to handle the war. Mussolini didn't really do anything except align with Germany and Japan. Hitler fucked up almost daily by overriding his senior staff. no wonder they wanted to kill him. Stalin? all he did was drink Vodka and yell "Attack! NO Surrender!". and of course he backed that up with politico operatives willing to shoot any russki trying to retreat.

so if you give Hitler a double dumbass award for his many military mistakes, almost always against the recommendations of his own high command, the Allies had a major advantage over the Axis in terms of leadership.

couple that with the huge industrial might of the US driving the Allies untouched by the war, from one standpoint, Germany and Japan and lessor degree Italy didn't stand a chance.

yet even after Pearl Harbor, with the US now all in, there was three possibilities for the outcome. The ALLIES win, the AXIS win, a stalemate.

the Allies won both the war of attrition and the war as strategy. and one one thing won the war ...

we got there first. and used it.




i say that FDR had he lived, would have authorized using the atomic bombs on Japan. we know Truman did. but what he didn't do .. is tell Stalin to retreat back to pre-war Russia under threat of nuking Moscow.

of course you'd need to be ready to actually do it. but imagine a post WWII world were the Cold War never happened??

interesting!!

comparing Trump and Chavez is like comparing George Washington and Vladimir Lenin. non sequitur.

on the topic of the "Great Depression" .. did FDR's "New Deal" end the Great Depression? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Ingles por favor.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

Correct! and there is no direct sourcing for the "famous" quote by Admiral Yamamoto about awakening "The Sleeping Giant". yet having visited America as a junior officer in the 1920's, Yamamoto knew full well the scale of American industrial might. Japan is comparable to California. if you cut off Cali from the US, it does hurt to a degree. but not like Japan as California trying to compete with the rest of the US.

FDR was a failure in one respect, his "Big Government" solution to the Great Depression, which, to be fair, he inherited. he was also an excellent wartime Commander in Chief, because unlike Hitler, he knew he wasn't qualified to be a "Field General" so he let the real Generals and Admirals run the show, for the most part.

if you look at all the AXIS and ALLIED Leaders during WWII, only two were really prepared to lead from Military experience. Churchill and Tojo. that's one AXIS, one ALLIED. if you look at the rest of them, it's a net advantage to the ALLIES. FDR knew enough to allow the US Military leadership to handle the war. Mussolini didn't really do anything except align with Germany and Japan. Hitler fucked up almost daily by overriding his senior staff. no wonder they wanted to kill him. Stalin? all he did was drink Vodka and yell "Attack! NO Surrender!". and of course he backed that up with politico operatives willing to shoot any russki trying to retreat.

so if you give Hitler a double dumbass award for his many military mistakes, almost always against the recommendations of his own high command, the Allies had a major advantage over the Axis in terms of leadership.

couple that with the huge industrial might of the US driving the Allies untouched by the war, from one standpoint, Germany and Japan and lessor degree Italy didn't stand a chance.

yet even after Pearl Harbor, with the US now all in, there was three possibilities for the outcome. The ALLIES win, the AXIS win, a stalemate.

the Allies won both the war of attrition and the war as strategy. and one one thing won the war ...

we got there first. and used it.




i say that FDR had he lived, would have authorized using the atomic bombs on Japan. we know Truman did. but what he didn't do .. is tell Stalin to retreat back to pre-war Russia under threat of nuking Moscow.

of course you'd need to be ready to actually do it. but imagine a post WWII world were the Cold War never happened??

interesting!! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

FDR handed Stalin Eastern Europe, I doubt he would have nuked them.

for every economist, stock broker, financier, analyst or just an average joe you can find a point-counter point for every argument.

some are going to write what Trump is doing is great, others not so much. who is really right? let's see what the results are. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Very well said. The answer will come on November 8th. Get out and vote for the candidates of your choice.

FDR handed Stalin Eastern Europe, I doubt he would have nuked them. Originally Posted by bambino

It was Truman. Roosevelt was dead.

It was Truman. Roosevelt was dead. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The fate of Eastern Europe was sealed at Yalta. It was FDR you dumbass.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/josep...evil?_amp=true

unlike Hitler, he knew he wasn't qualified to be a "Field General" so he let the real Generals and Admirals run the show, for the most part.

if you look at all the AXIS and ALLIED Leaders during WWII, only two were really prepared to lead from Military experience. Churchill and Tojo. that's one AXIS, one ALLIED. if you look at the rest of them, it's a net advantage to the ALLIES. FDR knew enough to allow the US Military leadership to handle the war. Mussolini didn't really do anything except align with Germany and Japan. Hitler fucked up almost daily by overriding his senior staff. no wonder they wanted to kill him.

so if you give Hitler a double dumbass award for his many military mistakes, almost always against the recommendations of his own high command, the Allies had a major advantage over the Axis in terms of leadership.

couple that with the huge industrial might of the US driving the Allies untouched by the war, from one standpoint, Germany and Japan and lessor degree Italy didn't stand a chance.

yet even after Pearl Harbor, with the US now all in, there was three possibilities for the outcome. The ALLIES win, the AXIS win, a stalemate.

the Allies won both the war of attrition and the war as strategy. and one one thing won the war ...

we got there first. and used it.

i say that FDR had he lived, would have authorized using the atomic bombs on Japan. we know Truman did. but what he didn't do .. is tell Stalin to retreat back to pre-war Russia under threat of nuking Moscow.

of course you'd need to be ready to actually do it. but imagine a post WWII world were the Cold War never happened??

interesting!! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The notion that Hitler did not listen to his generals is propaganda spread by those generals that survived the war and wrote memoirs attempting to rehabilitate their reputations. Hitler's generals bucked him when he occupied Austria, and he got Austria very easily. Hitler's generals bucked him when he invaded France, and he got France with just a few weeks of war. Hitler's generals were completely on-board with Hitler when he invaded Poland and the U.S.S.R. And things went well for Hitler until Generals January and February took the field for the Soviets in 1942.

Wilson and David Lloyd George could have prevented WWII by nipping the Bolshevik Revolution in the bud. They had the assets and the manpower to do it, but they lacked the vision and the resolve to do what was necessary.

Without the scapegoat of the "Red Peril" in the East, Hitler would never have come to power.

The U.S. didn't have enough bombs to stop the U.S.S.R. The U.S. only had two A-bombs by August 1945, and those were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stalin knew that.

And where was he when everything was decided at Potsdam, EATLER?