Guys, I had an argument with a roommate trying to explain how

File: Art of teh Deal.png (600KB, 675x900px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 675x900px

>>1759190
Mexico is paying for the wall you idiot.

Do you really think they won't capitulate if Trump puts a tariff on?

American consumers won't pay more because **NO ONE WILL BUY THE PRODUCTS FROM MEXICO**, this will force businesses to relocate to the US (or other country without a tariff), this will create US jobs and provide more wages to US citizens. Also if all the businesses left Mexico post-tariff, think of all the jobs and investments that would flee Mexico, it would create political and economic turmoil in a country which is already poor. Also the US can pull foreign aid and other resources from Mexico.

Believe me, Trump is negotiating this well and Mexico WILL end up paying for the wall.

It's like you've never read the Art of the Deal.

File: your_tears.jpg (67KB, 734x760px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 734x760px

>>1759190

It's all just threats, anyway.

Trump is just saying, "Control your fucking populace! I'm sick of all these drug traffickers and refugees!" to Mexico.

Peña is saying, "I don't see any reason to do so."

Trump is saying, "You'd better fucking do it, or I'm going to tax the everloving shit out of your stuff so that no one will buy it. And with the taxes, we're going to build a giant middle finger out in the middle of the desert"

Peña is saying, "I don't want to be seen talking with you while I work on complying to your demands."

>>1759190
>goods and services have no inherent value, where as money does.

Is this a joke? Money has no value. trade deficits are good. let them have our fiat money, we'll take the cheap goods, which have real value.

>>1759207
While you make a convincing point, businesses relocating to America would charge higher prices, meaning the American people still pay higher prices for their goods and services. And if no one buys products from Mexico, you're either getting less stuff as a country, or buying more expensive goods from someone else. There's no way where you're actually better off by taxing yourself.

>>1759225
That was what I was saying, but he kept saying that goods from Mexico were worthless.

>>1759207
>People unironically believe protectionism is sound economics simply because President Meme supports it

>>1759269
His policy isn't pure protectionism though. He's also said he wants to reduce corporate taxes and deregulate quite a bit.

>>1759207
Actually the US does a lot of business through Mexico. Mexico has more FTAs than America, so Mexico is used as basically a port for American businesses to reach far flung markets

More like American companies will be hurt in the long run. Trump is not negotiating this well, his diplomatic teams are resigning in shame. Their replacments have vowed not to stay long either, so Trump is actually in a bad position. I'll give it a month before USTR staffers/managers start resigning too, cap this

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-state-department-senior-management-team-quit-resign-rex-tillerson-secretary-donald-trump-cabinet-a7547916.html

>>1759207
>>>>>>THIS
anon if that's you in the pic I want to marry you

>>1759300
You kind of expect these departments to purge themselves when the new boss is appointed. It was infested with Obama people who were probably very hostile to these changes regardless of whether or not they are beneficial.

>>1759306
>You kind of expect these departments to purge themselves when the new boss is appointed. It was infested with Obama people who were probably very hostile to these changes regardless of whether or not they are beneficial.

Most people in these departments serve through both Democrat and Republican administrations, if you read the article a lot of those people who resigned were originally appointed during the administration of George Bush.

This level of resignation is almost unprecedented and hasn't been seen before in recent US history

>>1759301
Yes, the famous British actress Emma Watson is posting on the /biz/ board of 4chan

>>1759300
>An article from 'The Independent' said bad things about Donald Trump.
Wow . Really firing up the ol' neurons over this one.
In other news, water is wet.

The 'team' was actually fired by Trump, a whole number of departments including, State, Intelligence agencies and even general politicians are going to have to be fired (or removed) by the incoming administration.

This is what people expect and want (see "Drain the Swamp" campaign promise). Lots of these "establishment" hacks will be axed and this is a good thing. Having them stay would only lead to them being hostile to Trump.

The concept that a trade deficit is bad is called Mercantilism, and people have been poking holes in the logic since the 1500's.

The thing is though, if your roommate is stupid enough to just blindly believe the idea, then he most definitely isn't smart enough to understand how currencies fluctuate in value in the real world, AND he also won't understand the concept of the time value of money.

>>1759207
It's like you haven't ever heard of what rich people do before.
Remember the Panama Papers? Elaborate proxying will just become more popular.
Producing in the US is too expensive with how high the minimum wage is.

>>1759190
>Any others have experiences with otherwise smart people not understanding economics?
no.
I don't talk economics with people, that would be absurd. I'm more likely to discuss the mouth morphology of bee parasites or the strategy behind digging wells deeper than your neighbors.

what kind of weirdos do you hang out with?

>>1759371
>Remember the Panama Papers? Elaborate proxying will just become more popular.
Theres a reason that the CEO's of Ford, VW and more went to Washington two days ago and proceeded to suck Trump's dick in front of every journalist in the world.

Trump effectively has the power to call for a national boycott of any company he chooses with just a tweet through what is known as jawboning.

If any company is found to be proxying to a significant standard and Trump singles them out, you can kiss their sweet company goodbye.

Theres a reason that he defied every other prediction and economist over the last year and still won.

>>1759371
>Producing in the US is too expensive with how high the minimum wage is.
Pretty sure there will still be competition between the states. Dem states with higher min wage will probably lose business to Rep states without.

You're also forgetting that if more people in the US get jobs then the overall purchasing power of the average US citizen rises, and that of the country too.

>>1759379
>Theres a reason that he defied every other prediction and economist over the last year and still won.
he lost the general election, so do please tell us why you think he won.

>>1759379
I can see some states getting the good side, but it still won't take out the fact you can pay an entire MONTH with a chink or mexican worker for what it takes to pay single american WEEK

>>1759380

The illegal voters won him the popular vote, you mean. Keep getting lost in MSM fantasy land, it's good for our pockets.

>>1759190
Holy shit, if your roommate thinks that, then he is fucking retarded. Like nigger level retarded.

>>1759225
A trade defecet (current account defecet) means other countries are holding more of your cash and with this cash (capital account inflows) they can buy long standing assets in your home country such as housing pipe lines power plants. So the money is not worthless your friend is just against forigen ownership.

In Australia we have a huge trade defecit with China and they are buying up all our houses in the capital cities, and our government lets them do it. So this pushes every regular Aussie out of the city because of forigen ownership or a capital account inflow. So that is an example where a trade defecit can hurt you.

I'd bet Trump's policies have to do with the people he's got around him. The people that would benefit the most from expensive goods (other than the government in order to fund his wall) would be the banks as it would make more people be in need to take out loans.

>>1759775
>buying up all our houses
build more houses. problem solved.

File: correct demand curve.png (47KB, 568x405px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 568x405px

>>1759190
>using an inelastic demand curve
>elastic would show the high incidence on supplier see the pic related
You're room mate sounds like a smug undergraduate who's taken his first macro economics class.
We're not talking tap water or gasoline OP (which have inelastic demand), we're talking common Mexican imports, the burden would be on the supplier. The graph he made is interpreted, for the most part, correctly but he is interpreting demand wrong.

>>1759207
Yes, they won't. They have already said they won't. Now even assuming their entire economy is held up by the USA, which it isn't, countries value their self respect as much as their economy. And third worlders care a lot less about economic turmoil. They're used to it. Subconsciously they think it's the default state of things.

>>1759227
This is all that needs to be said about the issue.

There's a reason goods are imported from Mexico. Either the goods come exclusively from Mexico in which case they still will, just more expensive. Or they come from Mexico because they're cheaper than domestic goods, in which case consumers will also have to pay more.

Sure, the loss of manufacturing jobs may hurt Mexico, but fucking their shit up will not enrich the US. Financially only US consumers will pay for the wall.

>>1759379
>Dem states with higher min wage will probably lose business to Rep states without.

Yeah, I see a lot of jobs going to Mississippi, the Vietnam of North America.

>>1759287
>wants to reduce corporate taxes and deregulate

We did that before under Reagan and all it did was make the rich and corporations richer while fucking shit up for everyone else.

>>1759380
>He lost the general election
AHAHAHAHA
>AHAHHAHAHAHA

Fuck off with that shit just learn to take an L tbqhwyfam

Eh, I'm not too worried. Republicans are pro-business and business leaders know tariffs are bullshit so the House and Senate won't cave in to this shit.

>>1759344
Holding an obviously photoshopped book, no less.

>>1760623
>Republicans are pro-business
they're pro-large business and anti-small business.

like most libertarians they're too retarded to understand free markets destroy competition naturally.

>>1760632

Hmmm. Good point. Now that I think about it, I don't recall Republicans advocating for small businesses.

I always found it strange how people making under $500,000 a year keep voting for the party that hurts them more financially. Since FDR, Democratic presidents resulted in the greatest income growth across all segments while income growth under Republicans was mostly concentrated in the top 10%. Oh well, it's a self-correcting problem as the US population under 35 is majority non-white. Each presidential election, the white population declines by 3%.

>>1760642
Value politics. People are too stupid to realize they're voting in assholes who want to take away shit like insurance companies not being able to drop your medical coverage citing a pre-existing condition, but hey, Trump hates Mexicans and Pence electrocutes gays!

>>1760642
>I don't recall Republicans advocating for small businesses.
they actively try to defund the SBA and other protections for small biz.

small business owners may not care, their end-game is usually being bought anyways. And most of them are easily in the top 10% of earners.

It's possible to be pro-business-owner while being anti-business.

>>1760648

Never understood this. I do find the sterotypical SJW's annoying but I vote based on my wallet. Why so many ignore their wallet and vote based on feelings instead of fact is beyond me.

>>1760649

Shit. A good 10% of my bank's loans are SBA 504 and 504 and 7a loans.

>>1760655
>Shit.
fortunately the GOP is largely ineffectual. They concentrate on battles they can't possibly win, that way they can pretend to represent the morons without having to prove how stupid their goals actually are.

>>1760642
>I always found it strange how people making under $500,000 a year keep voting for the party that hurts them more financially.

As far as I know this is something a bit particular to the US. It must be some difference in mindset - the going theory is that in the US people still believe in the American Dream. And if your own hard work can get you to the top, why would you want to make life harder for the top 10%? You'd be destroying your own future. And why bring down on people who "deserve" to be rich?

It seems like a delusion to outsiders, but there's also some positives to it. This optimism and willingness to work in pursuit of better conditions has turned the US into a powerhouse through-out the 20th century.

>>1760673
Are you dumb, some hick in the midwest is not voting republican because he's gonna be rich some day. He's voting republican because democrats are niggers, gays, and terrorist that are trying to destroy America.

>>1760673

I love Bill Maher; I remember a stand up routine he did when I was a kid:

>Republicans: You're going to get pissed on but one day it might be YOU doing the pissing.
>Democrats: You're going to get pissed on but here's an umbrella.

Sums it up perfectly. Sadly, most Americans hold out for the hope they will do the pissing.

>>1760683

My family is sadly from West Virginia. They voted Trump because he said he would bring "coal back." That's it; he didn't have a plan. Coal isn't coming back because natural gas and renewable energy sources are much cheaper even if you abolish coal regulations. Meanwhile Hillary had a 4,300 plan with $33 billion in total spending to retool the coal workers to new industries. Yet my family was cheering Trump and hissing at Hillary.

>>1760683
We're not talking about racial aspects, we're only talking about economic policy. And the fact of the matter is that poor Americans are disproportionately against redistribution of wealth compared to other parts of the world.

Name one other country where "Socialism" is considered an abominable fringe policy by large parts of the poor electorate.

>>1759864

Actually economist here. This guy is correct on OP's post. There are many substitutes to mexicos goods, that if were 20% more expensive would see a sharp decline in quantity sold to us since Americans would by the now cheapest compatible good, which maybe only be 1% more expensive than they are paying now for Mexican goods.

We have the leverage and trump knows this. He is using this as an example for the rest of the world to show them that we aren't going to get fucked in trade. We are going to fight for the best deals for he people now and this is gr first step in winning. The wall will be built and Mexico will pay for it.

>>1760732
Where did you get your degree?

>>1760732
>There are many substitutes to mexicos goods
which means their goods won't sell and he won't collect his 20%

on the other hand if the goods sell, it's US consumers that will pay the tax, not Mexican manufacturers.
>Actually economist here
you're a retard larping. probably underage.

>>1760691
>Meanwhile Hillary had a 4,300 plan with $33 billion in total spending to retool the coal workers to new industries. Yet my family was cheering Trump and hissing at Hillary.
You are clueless.

"Retool" them for what? To be CNAs?

>>1759314
Seems like the swamp is draining itself then.

>>1760745
it is.

but the swamp is better than the muck that it covers.

>>1760617
Pretty sure people were sucking his dick so hard they elected his proxy for a 3rd term.

>>1760749
Yeah I'd love to see the mess created by appointed yes-men occupying the same positions for 10+ years. Keeping them on for another 4 doesn't seem like a solution.

>>1760757
>Keeping them on for another 4 doesn't seem like a solution.
replacing them with even worse incompetents isn't the answer.

this will soon be clear. Conservatives have convinced themselves that things are so bad we'd be better off tearing it all down and starting over.

they haven't seen bad yet.

>>1760732
USA isn't even the biggest market. Good luck being the 'tough' guy negotiating the deals LOL

>>1760764
2 spooky

>>1759878
No, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

>third worlders care a lot less about economic turmoil

This isn't true, maybe in an African third world country where there is no sign of industrialization, economic growth, etc. But in Mexico (which is basically 2nd world), they are far enough along that if their economy fucked up they'd just lose there shit, riots, coups, etc.

Did you even see what happened when the price of fuel went up just 20% in Mexico. they were looting shops and protesting like crazy. Look it up.

That is just a drop in the ocean compared to what would happen if Trump decided to trade war them.

>>1760733
University of Washington

>>1760734
>which means their goods won't sell and he won't collect his 20%

Exactly. Which is why this hurts Mexico more than us and Trump now has bargaining powers to create a deal that will pay for the wall and Mexico is able to sell its goods to us without a 20% tax. Win win for both countries. Trump has a long track record of doing this.

>>1760810
I live in a second world country you idiot. When the recession hit we barely changed anything.

That protest was for government corruption retard.

>>1760823
>Win win for both countries.
he artificially creates a loss for the opponent and then removes the loss and retards like you call it a win.

but he's not dealing with retards like you anymore. To mexico, the wall is a loss and paying for the wall is a double loss.

or they can call his bluff and watch him go down in flames even if it hurts them. Which is what they're doing right now.

>>1760830

And a 20% tarrif is a bigger loss. Call his bluff. Mexicos economy had already gone down the shitter because of trump. They will drop to his knees and beg him to take the check for the wall.

>>1760832
>And a 20% tarrif is a bigger loss
sure, if he could do it. Chrysler would have him assassinated if we pretend he could even get the tariff past the supreme court.

Mexico doesn't care about their economy as much as they do their pride. El presidente tried to save the economy and his people demanded he act for their pride.

Trump is an imbecile, and mexico isn't going to pay for our wall.

>>1760775
The USA is BY FAR the world biggest market, not in terms of population, but in terms of purchasing power it 100% is.

I'll tell you why.
1,200,000,000 Chinese, but your average chinaman is actually very poor and chinese don't have the same culture of buying as americans, plus the wealthy ones all leave and go to places like canada, australia, USA, etc.
(its, the same with indians etc.)

300,000,000 Americans. But for all the cry of the 1%, most Americans can afford a car, to buy whatever they want, many have a house and even the poor can afford to spend some of their money on things they dont necessarily need due to social security safety nets.

The only thing that could maybe compete is the EU, but they have their own protectionist methods. The US is the number 1 destination for any seller of a marketable good or service, everybody knows this.

If Trump did start a trade war with China, they would be fucked, despite all their 'tough talk'.

If US stops buying from China, they literally lose maybe a quarter or a third of the total demand for their products AND jobs. now imagine that suddenly 200 million od Chinamen lose their jobs or a significant portion of their wages.

It would be civil war.

The US would also be hit, but would be able to recover, jobs would come back, etc.

None of this will happen though because Xi Jingping will bitch out, just like he'll bitch out over the South China Sea Islands. There's a reason that Xi, who presides over the least 'free' economy in the G20 was trying desperately to promote 'free' trade and globalization at Davos last week.

If Trump does what he says he'll do, China will be having some big league problems.

>>1760826
>I live in a second world country you idiot.
Which one

>>1760826
>When the recession hit we barely changed anything
LMAO if you think that a recession is anything like a trade war.
The recession hit the first world the most anyway. Most second world countries were not harmed much.
A trade war on a specific country would be MUCH worse than "the recession"

>>1759802
They bid up the prices of property in the city so people have to live half an hour out of the city so they have to catch a train into work which decreases happiness, foreign ownership is a huge deal in a low population country

>>1760836
That's not how the Supreme Court works though.

>>1760846
>A trade war on a specific country would be MUCH worse

>your poverty gives you unfair advantage!
>I'll make you even poorer!

they don't have that far to fall. Not like we do if they decide to jack up the price of oil or vegetables by 200%

File: Mexico-Trade-Partners-2014.jpg (72KB, 725x282px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 725x282px

>>1760775
Are you saying USA isn't Mexico's largest trade partner?

>>1760850
it is.

the president has the power to impose tariffs without congressional approval only in very specific situations. You can bet your ass it will wind up before the court if he tried it.

>>1760852
Dude Mexican were livid about us diverting corn to ethanol production because it spiked the price of tortillas. Lot of those people are sensitive to very small price shifts.

>>1760852
>>your poverty gives you unfair advantage!
>>I'll make you even poorer!
true, but if it gets bad enough their will be political turmoil too. This would put Nietos party out of existence forever and possibly see the country taken over by a coup or something which will lead to bigger problems for the country itself and its people (see Cuba).

>>1760855
Who do you think is in charge of congress?

>>1760859
>Lot of those people are sensitive to very small price shifts
they're even more sensitive to being insulted as a nation and as a people.

>>1760864
Hope they can eat their pride.

>>1760863
>Who do you think is in charge of congress?
lol
not sure if ignorant American or a foreigner that has no reason to know.

you tell me, who do YOU think is in charge of congress?

>>1760867
food is one thing they won't be running out of.
drugs would be another.
they also have plenty of oil.
and beaches where americans used to like to vacation.

>>1760869
I'm pretty sure Trump keeps Mitch and Paul in gimp suits under his bed.

>>1760836
So you've now conceded to all my points and agree with me. Now you're last childish grasp is to doubt lord emperor trump if he could do it. Haven't you learned not to doubt him after this past 1.5 years?

>>1760848
stop whining and get into the housing development business, fool.

>>1760873
maybe, but they also don't control congress.

>>1760874
I've conceded none of your 'points' and noted that Mexico is currently doing the opposite of what you predict. If their president caves in it will be the last thing he does in office.

>>1760877
Pretty sure you're retarded.

>>1760877
>maximum damage control.jpg

>>1760878
yes, that's one of the symptoms of dunning kruger effect.

if you were intelligent you'd first wonder if you're retarded.

be that as it may, congress controls congress. Which is why it doesn't do much of anything. The majority doesn't control it, the minority doesn't control it. The house doesn't control it, the senate doesn't control it. The majority and minority leaders don't control it. The president doesn't control it.

if there's anything like one single thing that controls congress it might be the bankers, or wall street, or the defense industry. But even they don't have full control.

>>1760881
it's a political stunt. Trump can afford to fail and move on better than Nieto can.

Nieto probably wants to pay for the wall and avoid conflict but his people don't. So even if he agreed to it he'd just be tossed out and the next regime would refuse payment.

Two questions that I've had about this subject:

1. If production does end up moving to the US, what is stopping the exploitation of workers? If we start manufacturing things here, what is stopping companies from abolishing the minimum wage/pulling a wal mart and totally fucking them over? Trump wants to deregulate, after all.

2. Food production from Mexico. So much of America's farmland has been overtaken by housing (I am from a farm state) and do we have enough land to produce enough food?

>>1760941
>do we have enough land to produce enough food?
the area of the land is less of a concern than the climate and quality. Most of our food is raised domestically, Mexico just does our fruits and vegetables. Some of our meat.

If you recall a few years back when we had a tomato shortage and everyone that eats fast food was bitching about not having their tomatoes on their cheap ass burgers... that's all that would happen. Except instead of just tomatoes it would be lettuce and peppers and onions and potatoes and pretty much every other fruit and vegetable.

they currently provide about 70% of our veggies and 40% of our fruits by weight. Also of course migrant workers from mexico harvest our own crops, so we could see the complete collapse of fruits and vegie farming here as well. At the very least the prices would skyrocket since americans can't afford to harvest strawberries for ten cents an hour.

>>1759207
Enforcin pre-existing laws about not employing illegals would do a lot more for blue collar workers than tarrifs will.

>>1760949
Woof. So basically, we'll be ingesting corn and meat (and meat that might not even be from the US, since the labeling laws are fucked now.)

But even corn is mostly used for fuel. Is Trump the greatest anti vegan ever?

File: image.png (25KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x363px

>>1760733
You had the chance to bern him tho

>>1760683
Where do you get your news?

>>1760836
>Mexico doesn't care about their economy as much as they do their pride

You have no idea what you are talking about. If they cared about their pride then they wouldn't be a laughing stock country ran by drug cartels

>>1760742
>"Retool" them for what? To be CNAs?

Medical, engineering, IT, etc. What do you expect? That the US can compete on a cast basis when the average Chinese manufacturing worker gets paid $8,000 a year to work 6 days a week for 12 hours a day in squalid conditions. Is that your vision of America?

>>1761008

*cost basis

>>1760842

>If Trump did start a trade war with China, they would be fucked, despite all their 'tough talk'.

The US would lose a trade war with China.

>hurr durr why?

Because the Chinese are an authoritarian government. They don't need voters. In a trade war, the US jacks up tariffs on Chinese products which make up a HUGE amount of the US marketplace. US voters aren't going to stand seeing their smartphone prices and TV prices double, triple, or quadruple.

>HURR DURR BUT MANUFACTURING COME BACK TO AMERICA

The Chinese need to last two (2) years for the next US election. Bringing back manufacturing will take considerable longer.

>DOUBLE HURR DURR MURR JOBS IN MURICA

US manufacturing is at a all time high yet US manufacturing peaked in 1979. Why your uneducated poorfag ass asks? Because of automation. US manufacturing has never been stronger yet the least amount of people are employed in manufacturing due to technological advances. Even if manufacturing was brought back to America, the employment impact would be negligible.

>>1760853

What's your point? Your graph clearly shows the US is beholden on Mexico for a vast amount of imports. It's like trying to boycott the only grocery store in town. You're just going to starve.

File: mex.png (20KB, 648x413px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 648x413px

>>1760832
>Mexicos economy had already gone down the shitter because of trump

???

>>1761015
>US manufacturing production is at a all time high yet US manufacturing employment peaked in 1979**

>>1761015
>The US would lose a trade war with China.
No. China has much more to lose in a trade war, which is why they are panicking slightly and trying to promote free trade.

What'll happen is that there'll be "growing pains" for a few months where iPhone prices increase but then they'll come back down because Apple will relocate from China to somewhere else in order to keep their business profitable and selling products.
The prices would never quadruple or triple or etc.

Next Presidential election is 4 years. Next congressional election in 2 years, republicans usually have an advantage in these elections and will probably do well.

automation will have a severe impact I agree, on every country though

>>1759207

>businesses relocate to the US
>(or other country without a tariff)
>this will create US jobs

>other country
>US jobs

OKAY.

>>1759344
thats not emma watson you dumbass

>>1759422
>Hillary Clinton gathered 3 million illegal votes but not 77,000 total in the states where it matters
Senpai she won the popular election because states like NY and CA gave an overwhelming majority to her despite anything over 51% not mattering at all

>>1760884
In other words you're confirmed retarded.

>>1761085
yes it is reverse search the picture

>faggots think it'll turn out any differently than literally every other tariff in history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

A developed nation has nothing to gain from tariffs, there's no further area for growth in the size of the domestic market of the US.

>>1761091
>you're confirmed retarded.
I have bad news for you.
I'm not the one that can't think of a rational argument.

>>1761022
> 1960

Wow. Trump has been after Mexico for a long time.

File: c41.gif (235KB, 276x268px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 276x268px

>>1761022
>I'll use a graph that spans back 60 years and any effect Trump may have had over the past few weeks is completely invisible

File: Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png (165KB, 1399x706px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1399x706px

>>1760810
>No, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
>Mexico (which is basically 2nd world)
It's painfully apparent that you don't know jack-shit either, since you're calling Mexico "basically a member of the Communist bloc". The three worlds model is a political division, not based on wealth or whatever you think it is. Learn some goddamn history, kiddo.

>>1761075
>republicans usually have an advantage in these elections
Where are you getting this from? Picture related. If anything, there might be an advantage for the oppositon party, if the president is a fuck-up. Clinton faced a very low turn-out and still won the popular vote. I wouldn't write off the Dems on mid-term election, especially if they can keep the outrage train up for another two years (which in turn might be the ticket for another Trump term, since being a lame duck he'd have an excuse).

>No. China has much more to lose in a trade war
I don't know. They're an authoritarian regime. Either they lose jobs, but can put up a strong man appearance against an external foe. Or they keep the money flowing but seem emasculated. I think they'll take the former. External enemies have been historically brilliant tools to distract from internal problems and so far Chinese state media has been ragging on Trump pretty hard, setting up the stage. If they call him "inexperienced" on national TV, they can hardly cave to him only weeks later.
Besides, they've been investing pretty hard in strenghening domestic demand in the last few years. They want off of the export train anyway.

>>1761075
>No. China has much more to lose in a trade war,
This is fair, but if I was representing China I would be thinking "we don't need to beat the US in a trade war, we just need to beat Trump." If the US is actively engaged in a trade war with China come 2020, you better believe that Trump is out with a shattered legacy and the Republicans are going to take a beating in the house/senate. All bullshit aside, Trump is in a politically precarious position as is (for a president, at least). The American public (especially Trump's base, who were largely driven by a desire to see greater economic prosperity) is going to be outraged if they have to go through any type of serious economic suffering over the next few years. The Chinese understand this, and they are going to use it as leverage.

>>1761288
>since you're calling Mexico "basically a member of the Communist bloc".
no one has used those terms to mean those things since the end of the cold war you absolute moron.
It has in fact come to mean DEVELOPED (first world), DEVELOPING (second world) and UNDEVELOPED (third world). Which, surprise, surprise, *is* in fact based on wealth, or "economic development".

>taking a graph of the last 200 years.
if you take it from the 90's (see 'recent history') republicans have dominated. Keep in mind that the political parties reshape themselves over time. Republicans used to support slavery, etc.
If you want to look at the latest trends of the modern version of the parties (which were set in the 80's 90s) then its probably a good idea to start there.

>China want off the export train, they have huge domestic demand
No they don't. You are honestly deluded if you think that chinese domestic demand can come close to that from the USA. Like you said they're an authoritarian regime and most of their people are quite poor.

Also, you shouldn't go around with phrases like "kiddo" when you are wrong about things

>>1761303
Democrats used to support slavery**

File: 1485592739359e.png (41KB, 402x575px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 402x575px

>>1761303
>you absolute moron.
Ah yes, the hallmark of a good argument - the ad hominem in the first sentence. And sure, can I make up the meaning of phrases as well and then claim that your meaning is used by "no one"? Sounds like a fun game.

>taking a graph of the last 200 years.
I'm sorry, I figured everyone would be capable of just looking at the recent years. Here, I've fixed the graph by taking out all those nasty confusing historical data points. I still see about half/half dominance, but this is beside the point if you're not attempting to move the goal posts. Your original argument was, "midterm elections are in two years, Republicans have an advantage in those". And that's simply not supported by data. 2006/7 in both houses the midterm election swung in favor of the Dems while under a Republican president (Bush jun.). Of course then, under Obama, the opposite happened, supporting my argument that in most recent years the opposition has had the advantage, not the Republicans in particular.

>they have huge domestic demand
Never said that. You're strawmanning now.

>Also, you shouldn't go around with phrases like "kiddo"
Probably. I honestly didn't realize that both posts were by you. The second is much more reasonable than the first and not deserving of "kiddo".

>>1761288
>Besides, they've been investing pretty hard in strenghening domestic demand in the last few years. They want off of the export train anyway.
>Never said that. You're strawmanning now.

Using terms like "ad hominem" and "strawmanning" doesn't look as smart as you think it does

>in most recent years the opposition has had the advantage, not the Republicans in particular.
true

>>1759207
looks like a cross between obama and emma watson

File: Cj4c-KVVEAANzrI.jpg large.jpg (122KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 960x1280px

>>1761372
it IS emma watson.

>>1759190
>because goods and services have no inherent value, where as money does.

????????????
!!!
?????
!!!
???

>>1761362
That's good, because I frankly don't care about how smart terms make me look. They should be descriptive first and foremost.

>they've been investing pretty hard in strenghening domestic demand
>they have huge domestic demand
If you don't pick up on the difference here, I don't really know what to say. You tried to construct opposition where there's none. I agree, they don't have huge domestic demand. But that's not what I claimed. I claimed they're *trying to build* domestic demand and they certainly are.
And I don't think it's deluded to think that a country of 1.35 billion people can "come close to the domestic demand from the USA", a country of 0.32 billion people. They would "only" have to uplift everyone to less than 1/4th of the standard of living of the US. It's not a short-term goal for sure, but it's doable. I'd argue that one has to be deluded to not recognize that long-term China and India will be the dominating markets of the world unless USA and EU form a trade bloc (which may or may not only postpone this development).

>>1761104
You're also the one who thinks there aren't a handful of powerful individuals in charge of the government who are all on the same page currently. Statements like 'congress controls congress' show just how desperate you are to not get wrecked by the party sledgehammer. Those 3 men I mentioned are going to ram through whatever they want.

>>1759207
So you'll have to pay American-tier wages to high school dropouts who can't even compete with third world levels of education? Sounds like a huge win for everyone who wasn't a lazy fuck as a teenager indeed.

>>1760732
Non-American economist here, who openly admits to not knowing much about US-Mexican economic relations. What exactly would be the overall strategy in this? There are two options:

1. Free trade. Import cheaper Mexican goods, make goods cheaper for all Americans and temporarily harm the working class.
2. Protectionism. Do not import Mexican goods, make Americans pay more for the goods in order to support the working class.

Let's say Trump forces Mexico into building the wall and agreeing to anything else he wants by giving them an ultimatum of protectionist policies. This still does not give him any options other than 1 and 2.

>Guys, I had an argument with a roommate trying to explain how an import tax on goods from Mexico actually means that American consumers are paying for a wall.
They are, but to a very diluted degree compared to the raising of the prices of commodities from the country, since the initial effect will be to make those with capital or productive machinery to produce at home instead of trade or buy goods from abroad.

You're right though, there is a deleterious effect overall.

>>1761528
There is a 3rd option where he's just using the threat of a tariff in order to get other concessions.

>>1761577
Sure, I conceded that in the last paragraph, but that ultimately does not solve the "they took our jobs" issue.

>>1761581
He's probably hoping reducing taxes and regulation dramatically and deporting however many undocumented workers along with whatever concessions he can get will be the winning ticket. These tariffs are not going to occur in a bubble.

>>1761595
Right, but that still does not solve the issue. Look, I am not a Trump hater—actually quite like the guy, just not necessarily his economic policy—but you can't make labour-intensive products in a high-wage country without the workers in capital-intensive industries effectively subsidising the working class. The only good way out of the situation and the most difficult one is finding jobs that Mexicans can't do at a better output-cost ratio.

>>1761615
Yeah I agree. We'll probably just see these companies open up facilities to produce their most difficult-to-manufacture products in order to test the waters or they'll use it as an excuse to automate production in the U.S.

Using low cost Mexican labor has a lot of the same economic implications that slavery did in the 1800's.

>>1759269
Some protectionism is good because it stabilized volatile industries.
A lot of it is bad, because those industries can still have bad periods, where export or commodity prices collapse.

>>1761615
>>1761528
The problem is that the flux of the statement can be simplified down to "USA lacks unskilled labor, so thats Illegal immigrants and newly immigrated", which could prove to be objectively false.

It could just lead to... effectivity of low wage increases, reducing the amount of people that can do those jobs, so wages rise slightly, and stuff stuff stuff

>>1759207
Buddy, I'm gunna need you to read up on the 1986 Plaza accord.

Then tell me "Americans won't buy Mexican products."

Fucking troglodytes.

>>1759306
They serve in their respective departments regardless of which party is in power.

>>1759207
What is to prevent large American manufacturers from moving slightly south into Central or South America and attempting to utilise the labour force there?

Major American corporations surely realise that they only need to survive the next 2-4 years while providing token investment in home-grown American industry to keep the administration on-side. There is no logical argument supporting the idea that American corporations will increase their cost of labour 6x in addition to cap-ex expenditure constructing plants and training high-school educated people.

Simultaneously, if the Federal Reserve is keen on its gradual monetary tightening policy, all we can expect is a more expensive US dollar which makes exports even more prohibitive to foreign buyers. In the meantime the Chinese will bide their time, continue to devalue their currency peg and wait for this entire house of cards to collapse on itself.

>>1759207
Fucking idiot, do you know HOW MUCH SHIT we get from Mexico? The rest of the world couldn't handle the sudden need we would have for decades.

>>1759207
He didn't even write the Fucking Art of the Deal. Had very little input at all.

>>1759219
Fucking uninformed idiots man. That's not what's happening at all. Trump made a laughable threat and Mexico's president told him to fuck off. Now Trump is crying because he got cancelled on.

>>1759349
The people weren't "fire from the White House". They're contractors whose contacts last through a 4 year term. The contacts were simply not renewed. This is how is works everytime a new president is appointed, you fucking idiot

>>1759207

This.

There are only 2 outcomes to the tariffs:

A) Some jobs return to the USA
B) The manufacturing moves to another 3rd world country like Guatemala or Honduras

Either way the USA wins. Not trying to shit on Mexico, it's just the truth. Trump is in the drivers seat and he absolutely knows it. Mexico will bow to our will or suffer.

Really I hope that Mexicans wise up, encourage capitalism, rebuild their country, end the cartels, and make Mexico great again.

>>1761739
Shipping costs, capital costs and having even a shittier labor force. If anything they'll move to Asia if Mexico isn't viable.

File: Bush face .gif (2MB, 513x337px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 513x337px

>>1759190
ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY FOR PRODUCE AND HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AT THE EXPENSE OF RETAINING OUR BORDER AND NATION????!!!!

OMG, SOMEBODY STOP TRUMP. THIS ISN'T WHY I VOTED FOR HIM. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS RIGHT NOW. I WOULD LITERALLY SHIT ON MY MOTHERS CULTURE IF IT MEANS I DON'T HAVE TO PAY 2$ MORE FOR MY AVOCADOS AND GUAC

File: Pence no.gif (1MB, 412x384px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 412x384px

>>1760642
>>1760655
>he thinks either party cares about small business or the little man
>he thinks Democrats are better for his wallet

Ok buddy, thank Jesus for Trump.

>>1760672
>concentrate on battles they can't possibly win

Wrong, they just suck at winning.

>mfw /biz/ talks politics

>>1761765
>A) Some jobs return to the USA
>B) The manufacturing moves to another 3rd world country like Guatemala or Honduras
>
>Either way the USA wins.

You really don't. Either way American consumer will have to pay more for the products, whether he has a new job in an international uncompetitive industry or not.

>>1761739
China hasn't devalued its currency in years, and is currently bleeding dollars in order to keep it high.

>>1761799
democrats founded the SBA and all it's programs to help small business. Republicans have tried over and over since its founding to get rid of it.

small business owners know who's on their side.

It's funny you think you know politics and don't even know this basic stuff. Who supports what. Fucking retards from /pol/ I guess.

>>1761496
>Those 3 men I mentioned are going to ram through whatever they want
democrats can do exactly what the GOP did-

filibuster budget bills and shut the government down indefinitely.

>>1761814

Jose I can't make this any simpler.

> Pay $3 per shirt made in Mexico
> Pay $3 per shirt made in Guatemala

Are you arguing that the changes will incur a few costs? Um okay wow, because businesses here have to make a few changes, maybe some goods go up by a penny or two. Wow such horror, such worry.

It really is the truth, this should be a wakeup call for Mexico, they only have themselves to build a great country with.

>>1762085
I would much rather have you make it less simple and more specific. It is difficult to argue anything when you discuss something as obscure as "some goods".

If you move labour-intensive jobs to the U.S., prices will rise considerably because American poorly educated labour costs more than Mexican poorly educated labour. It is the reason why you outsource to begin with. To say nothing of the fact that the U.S. has ridiculously low unemployment already. If you move it to a different country, prices will still increase since had it been cheaper you would be buying from the said country to begin with. This is disregarding the question of the costs passed on to the consumer for a gargantuan project such as moving a car assembly. That is ignoring the "few changes" that as you said will have to be made domestically to readjust for no longer being able to import from the third most important exporter to the U.S.

You can do it but any win you'll get from it will be much phyric. Trump's economic policy is easily his weakest point and I quite like the guy.

>>1761742
>>1761744
>>1761747
>>1761758
Typical CNN watching faggot. You probably also believe that Trump doesn't have the "temperament" to be president and that Russia hacked the US election

>>1761758
Not true. They've been in those positions for the last number of administrations (both rep and dem) and Trump not keeping them on is technically firing them

>>1761747
Trump forced the Mexican President into a corner. He has him exactly where he wants him.

>>1761744
He did have alot of input, he just didn't put the actual words on the page. Tony Schwartz had a hard-on for Hillary and campaigned for her, lying about the nature of his role.

>>1761742
This could very quickly be replaced and Mexico would be in big-league trouble

>>1762291
>>1762295
I like your posting pattern (not being ironic or anything). You're a faggot! Submit. Oh, here's also my response. Submit.

>>1762299
lol pretty much. i thought if I broke it down into two posts and many sections people would be more likely to read it

>>1761969
What is moving the trading peg on a daily basis you incompetent buffoon

>>1760842
China's the paper tiger. their nukes get rained on

>>1760853
If we stop buying Mexican imports, their economy would coming to a screeching halt. Ours won't. That's what the 20% tax is all about: it's a threat to destroy their economy so they better play ball and build wall. Trump is just flexing some muscle and using some leverage. It's not that hard to understand.

>>1759190
Why add tariffs when you can cut 400+ million annual federal aid.

>>1761015
Shill harder, Soros

>>1759190
>>1759207
how do you expect to take advantage of impoverished mexicans if there is a wall blocking them from sending finished goods over the border

>>1760876
Sorry not whining, I was meant to also reply to OP, just trying to get my point across that a trade defect isn't inherently good, also I guess I should note different nations have different goals, and different economies requiring different needs

>>1761022
We won't know until GDP growth per quarter comes out of mexico after the tariff comes through.

maybe even after that maybe six months later

>>1759802
ah yes, the old 'we need more housing supply but won't relax archaic zoning laws, ridiculously high immigration schemes (both il/legal) or tax concessions for real estate investors or hunt down laundering foreign investment that has led to our economy being almost solely weighted on mining exports and nonproductive FIRE investment'

>>1759190
>all of the political and not economic analysis going on in this thread

>>>/pol/

80% of Mexicos exports are headed to America. There are plenty of other third world shitholes that we can import from. Mexico will have to compete to stay alive, their peso drops, things normalize.

Mexico loses in the end. They can be replaced. They rely on exports and America is the largest importer of foreign goods.

The tax will normalize to zero by lowering the value of the peso in the long run.

>>1761742
>>1761747

I understand that you're stupid, but how can you be THAT stupid?

What happens in the USA if Mexican goods become too expensive for Americans to buy? Americans import goods from any of a score of countries just begging for American dollars. Probably a price increase in the short term.

What happens in Mexico if Mexican goods become too expensive for Americans to buy? A major economic crisis.


Trump knows this. The Mexican president knows this. The Huffington Post knows this, but would rather say bad things about Republicans. Maybe you should get your news from a variety of sources (CNN, Huffington Post, NPR, Ars Technica and New York Times don't count as "a variety")?