Re: Ian Bremmer
 

Why are you arguing whether protectionism works with me? Argue that with Trump. I agree with you.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

Could be technology, but there are also arguments that it's (1) government policy that's be hyper-focused on upward redistribution of wealth, and (2) employer monopsony power, among other things.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

It's a number of things. Both of the things you note I agree are parts of it, and both are enhanced by tech.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

We have not for a very long time. Which is part of why I have a hard time seeing the medium term future as a crisis. It's a continuation of a long term problem that isn't going to be as acute as it is currently popular to predict.

We will wind up needing UBI or other forms of redistribution. We should be able to afford them given that we're talking about a world with sharply increasing productivity (btw, not exactly what we've seen in the medium term past, at least as measured). The question will be whether we have to political will to require it of the winners.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

Not sure it has been clear to some people here that you have been explaining what protectionists argue, per that book, rather than relating your own views.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

Am I on ignore?

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

It was true then and is still true now.

I would say that just because advocates of protectionism argue something, it doesn't mean they believe it. Many people said the tax cuts would unleash all sorts of economic awesomeness. I suspect that few believed it.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

I can only speak for me- for gwinky I only read "I fucked a stranger" posts {sniff} For adder i only read "I tried to charm these girls who blew me off" posts {sniff} For you I look at " Waitress's new hairdo" posts. {keep em coming}

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

How many times do I have to write, "I do not think protectionism works"? I think I've also called it stupid, misguided, and a few other things.

I understand some here wish to lump me in with Trump supporters because I dare to suggest he (and every other President) be assessed policy by policy, rather than in the "All Evil or All Good?" manner that appears to be fashionable. I couldn't care less about a mischaracterization of my position, but Bremmer does not deserve that. So, for the record:

Any suggestion Ian Bremmer supports or countenances protectionism is 100% incorrect. He is, as I think GGG noted, 100% in favor of free trade. His book, Us v. Them: The Failure of Globalism, indicts some elements of globalism, but in no way endorses tariffs, or anything else Trump has done in regard to global trade. In fact, its most scathing indictments are of Trump.

Everyone should buy a copy and give it to his or her Trumpkin relatives and friends. It explains perhaps more concisely than any other book Why They Are Fucking Themselves.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

I don't know what Trump believes, but from conversations with people close to his administration, I think there's an actual belief they can win a trade war.

I don't know how that's done, but I surmise (total conjecture) that Trump thinks he can force them to the table in the same manner he can shake down a contractor for a discount on change orders. I don't think he understands that the Chinese are better at his game than he is. They'll sign whatever he likes if it comes to that, cheat on the deal from day one, and then rip it up publicly when he's out of office.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

To the extent that he thinks he can "win," I think, it's because he thinks he can shrink the trade deficit and that is somehow a "win" and not, in fact, making both countries poorer, the U.S. less influential in the world and China moreso.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

He might think that China is in a more precarious position, and if he torpedoes their economy, he'll damage them far more than we'll be damaged in that mutually destructive effort. Otherwise stated, in a collapse, the richest and most developed nations would be hurt, but not as much as the less developed and emerging nations. In this sort of thinking, one would measure the difference in harm as an newly gained advantage to the developed and rich nations. Kind of like what happened after 2008, where the collapse destroyed the middle class and poor, but provided a pile of investing opportunities and an amazing bull market to the affluent.

Trump on Anything
 

I find it highly amusing that you guys are discussing Trump's decisions like there is any thought at all behind anything he does. He has a child's understanding of the economy, global politics, trade, security, the budget--hell, he doesn't understand the concept of fucking repercussions. He is completely clueless on absolutely everything, including New York real estate. He is a total fucking fraud with an IQ of like 90. He knows nothing. He's interested in learning nothing. He has the capacity to understand nothing.

TM

Re: Trump on Anything
 

Holy shit: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html

Re: Trump on Anything
 

The 25th Amendment should be exercised. This man is clearly completely incompetent. He doesn't even have the trust of his own fucking people. It's why it's there. Jesus.

TM