# How trade wars are fought. (China and the EU punish Trump states)



## notimp (May 17, 2019)

```
You get what you give

Why you should never start a trade war with an autocracy

Economists often argue that trade wars cannot be won. Yet they will be
among the few beneficiaries from America's barrage of tariffs. For
decades, rich countries’ sound trade policies denied academics cases of
tit-for-tat protectionism to study. But new American taxes on many goods
from China and metals from everywhere have produced the data set of
their dreams.

America's government seems unfazed by the damage its tariffs do to the
economy. One study by scholars at the Federal Reserve and Princeton and
Columbia Universities found that the new levies have raised costs for
consumers by $i.4bn per month.

However, Donald Trump is devoted to his voters. And his trading rivals
have retaliated where it hurts. A paper by Joseph Parilla and Max
Bouchet of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, estimated that 6i%
of jobs affected by retaliatory tariffs are in counties that voted for
Mr Trump.

Is this a coincidence? If a country’s imports from America already come
from mostly Republican areas, those regions will bear the brunt of a
trade war. However, a new paper by Thiemo Fetzer and Carlo Schwarz of
the University of Warwick finds that America's rivals probably did
consider politics when crafting their policies.

To test if recent tariffs were politically motivated, the authors needed
to compare them with alternatives that were not. They devised this
benchmark by creating at random 1,000 hypothetical bundles of targeted
goods for each trading partner, all worth the same as the actual trade
facing tariffs.

The authors then compared real-world policies with these alternatives.
First, they assessed the political impact of each plan, by measuring how
closely its targeted areas matched Republican gains when Mr Trump was
elected. Next, they estimated how much each policy would harm a
retaliating bloc's own economy, by counting the share of its imports of
the chosen goods that come from America. The more a country relies on
one supplier, the more switching to a less efficient source is likely to
hurt.

The study found that the eu prioritised minimising such damage. Its
tariffs deftly protected domestic consumers, causing less disruption
than 99% of alternatives. The bloc targeted Trump voters as well—its
tariffs matched the election of 2016 more closely than in 87% of
simulations—but not at the cost of upsetting its own citizens.

In contrast, China focused on punishing Trump voters. Its tariffs
tracked the election better than 99% of alternatives. They also
disrupted China's own economy more than in 99% of simulations. Even
among plans including soyabeans—one of China’s main imports, grown
mostly in Republican areas—China’s policy was just slightly more
politically targeted than similar options, but far worse for its
economy.

China's choice of tariffs seems designed to deter escalation at any
cost. Only regimes with no voters to satisfy can run that risk. The
lesson is clear: if you start a trade war, fight a democracy, not an
autocracy.
```
src: The Economist 27.04.2019

Plot:







Short summery: When coming up with tariffs - the voter states for the president responsible for the tariffs you are reacting to are targeted economically. EU did so while protecting their citizens from trade losses. China did so, while maximizing losses for the US, regardless of trade losses for their own citizens.

China don't give a f*ck. 

Fascinating stuff.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2019)

Piggybacking on this, Trump recently announced escalating tariffs on Mexico, set to reach up to 25% in October.  The result on consumers is effectively the biggest tax hike in nearly 30 years.  So again the impact is greater on American citizens and the stock market than it is on Mexico.  An apt metaphor for this administration's trade policies would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.


----------



## notimp (Jun 3, 2019)

China is expecting a fully fledged trade war by the US to "prevent their rise as an economic power."



> The leadership in peking expects a long lasting conflict. "China is open for negotiations but will fight to the end if it is necessary" it stated in a "White Book" publicly produced this weekend. As their newest weapon Peking will craft a list of "undependable" foreign companies. - derstandard.at/2000104238101/China-erwartet-Wirtschaftskrieg-Trumps-Wirtschaftsberater-geht



see also: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/business/china-trump-trade-fedex.html


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2019)

notimp said:


> China is expecting a fully fledged trade war by the US to "prevent their rise as an economic power."
> 
> 
> 
> see also: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/business/china-trump-trade-fedex.html


The worst part is knowing there's no endgame for the Trump administration in all this.  All they're doing is continuing to bluff their way into a deeper and deeper hole with only a pair of twos in hand.  Not only do Americans get hit with the higher cost of goods, we also get hit with the bill for farmer bailouts that are needed because of the trade war.


----------



## notimp (Jun 3, 2019)

The interesting part is a little further down the article - here, I'll translate:



> "it is regrettable and concerning how the USA have changed", the chinese newspaper "Global Times" commented. "The USA are changing from a founder to a saboteur of global morals, principles and order." The commentator found "A great rivalry between isolation and openness, unilateralism and multilateralism, free trade and protectionism, fraud and integrity, shallow mindedness and broad perspective". Regarding the trade disputes the newspaper saw "a strategy of the USA to first come out with "disproportionate demands", where it is clear that the chinese side cant except them, and then put the blame of failed talks on China in return. The commentator saw that as a trick "to find new excuses to engage in a trade war with China". "People would ask, if the USA would want to reduce their trade deficit with China, or suppress Chinas economic development." - derstandard.at/2000104238101/China-erwartet-Wirtschaftskrieg-Trumps-Wirtschaftsberater-geht



Also - in the meantime the US is redirecting packages of chinese companies - to be routed over the US. Please excuse our little mistake - said Fedex.

https://www.techradar.com/news/huawei-says-fedex-redirected-packages-to-the-us


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 3, 2019)

What is it with Trump and global trading? He came to power in a perfectly healthy economy. Why is he so hellbent on destroying that? 



Xzi said:


> So again the impact is greater on American citizens and the stock market than it is on Mexico.


That's kind of obvious: America is a lot richer than Mexico. But I'm not sure what the "again" is you're referring to. This probably happened with the last tariffs as well, but against China (which this thread is based around), I don't think that holds true. From what I understand, America can (and is busy) hit(ting) China a lot harder than vice versa. So even though Trump's audience feels the effect the most, I think the USA can weather the storm on that front.

Erm...that is to say: you can probably survive this if you don't go all out against everyone else. I don't get these extra tariffs against Mexico at all. Shouldn't he be glad that his failed border policy is getting less press coverage lately*?

*okay, he probably won't be because the calls for his impeachment now get more attention. but at least the media don't extend their airtime to brief on BOTH issues


----------



## Isakill (Jun 3, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> What is it with Trump and global trading? He came to power in a perfectly healthy economy. Why is he so hellbent on destroying that?



Simple answer?  Because Obama.  Trump and the conservatives that support him (Especially McConnel) are hell bent on destroying anything associated with #44.  I'll leave the speculation as to why up to you.




Taleweaver said:


> That's kind of obvious: America is a lot richer than Mexico. But I'm not sure what the "again" is you're referring to. This probably happened with the last tariffs as well, but against China (which this thread is based around), I don't think that holds true. From what I understand, America can (and is busy) hit(ting) China a lot harder than vice versa. So even though Trump's audience feels the effect the most, I think the USA can weather the storm on that front.



The "again" he's referring to, is that as with the Chinese tariffs, the cost of things is going up for the consumer. (many home appliances have been estimated to increase $100 or more than last year before the "trade war")  With mexico (Our largest trade partner) expect a LOT of food prices to go up.  Which means, many here in the US aren't going to be able to weather the storm as well as you seem to think.

As for the hitting?  Many soy bean farmers are going bankrupt because the price of beans have completely bottomed out as of May of this year (May 13th to be precise).  the only reason the prices have risen since then is because of Government subsidy. (Think back in the 80's with government cheese and the dairy industry)


----------



## slaphappygamer (Jun 3, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> What is it with Trump and global trading? He came to power in a perfectly healthy economy. Why is he so hellbent on destroying that?



I think he believes he can rule the world. I’m sure we will hear about some bullshit statue he wants to erect in his name. He’s got no idea what he is doing. Such an arrogant ass. 

Also, I think you can almost call them trump states. Sure doesn’t feel united. Perhaps he will like to go back to just 13 colonies. It’d be easier to rule.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 3, 2019)

Isakill said:


> Simple answer?  Because Obama.  Trump and the conservatives that support him (Especially McConnel) are hell bent on destroying anything associated with #44.  I'll leave the speculation as to why up to you.


Yeah, no. Sorry. I thought of making a joke off of it, but it'd be too easy. Perhaps Trump is dumb enough to pursue a blind vendetta against Obama (and TBH: it's a stretch...even for him), but surely the republican party as a whole isn't dumb enough to just drive the country off a cliff like this. There should be something in it for them. Some sort of end game.

Maybe I'm too cynic, but "re-election" would be a good speculation to me. Meaning: if tensions are high enough between the US and <insert self-created enemy>, then the population wouldn't want to change leadership to someone not the current leader. See also: W. Bush's re-election.



Isakill said:


> The "again" he's referring to, is that as with the Chinese tariffs, the cost of things is going up for the consumer. (many home appliances have been estimated to increase $100 or more than last year before the "trade war")  With mexico (Our largest trade partner) expect a LOT of food prices to go up.  Which means, many here in the US aren't going to be able to weather the storm as well as you seem to think.


I know all that. Tariffs almost by definition mean that prices go up. Which, in turn, almost by definition mean higher cost by the consumer. Okay...technically speaking, they only go up in the country you're taxing, but it's just a matter of time before Mexico responds in kind.

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer my question as to what the 'again' refers to. I still think that in the USA vs China, USA is the most benef...sorry: has the least disadvantage of the situation.

Simplified catan-like trade:
USA: I want sheep. I have stone to give.
China: nice. I'll take it. Oh, and...can I get some wood? I'll give ore.
USA: sure.
China: yeeey. Let's keep doing that. 
USA: okay. 
<later>
USA: I'm going to ask for a fee to import your ore. But I don't want the wood I give to change.
China: ...oh. Okay, then. Then we'll just do the same for our stone import
USA: don't you fucking DARE touch our stone-supply! 


Thus far the game modus... Because while this might look playful, it is really far, far, FAR from casual. When I said that you would be weathering the storm, I didn't mean "each and every individual". I meant the global economy of the US as a whole. The amount of trading in general, so to say. There will be a number of people that will feel serious repercussions of this situation. Heck...I'll even raise you: because wealth has become so polarized into the hands of a small percentage, it'll be even a disproportionately large percentage of US citizens that will suffer.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 3, 2019)

Prices go up for consumer not because Mexico will retaliate with it's own tariffs, but because industries don't just stop importing goods without a cheaper option of at least comparable quality.
They will keep on importing say steel, paying the import tariff and say 'well this car cost us 300 bucks more in materials than before. Let's add it to the pricetag!

The money the US car manufacturer pays in tariffs goes to the state, but since the car manufacturer gets that money back from US consumers, you're basically paying a tax equal to the currently in place tariffs.
+ Value added tax...

Basically, he's squeezing all you guys pretending to fight in your best interest.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2019)

Mexico looks like it’s already ceding to avoid Tariffs, since congress refuses to do its job handling the migrant crisis.

The tariffs are a work around to pressure Mexico to handle their immigration crisis better since congress can’t even properly enact immigration laws we have.


It’s gotten so bad that even leftist news outlets and Bill Maher are saying give Trump the border money he wants.



Trump has had success using tariffs to get what he wants.

Trump got the NAFTA overhaul.
Got German automotive to back down in around 24 hrs.


China had tariffs against us so Trump retaliated with Tariffs against them. Since U.S. believes in a free trade but China doesn’t, Trump is hoping that the Tariffs we put on them will get them to remove a few of their own tariffs so that we can have a more fair arrangement. And there is talks of the investor class begging the Chinese Government to stop and give Trump a little but of what he wants to ease things.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> From what I understand, America can (and is busy) hit(ting) China a lot harder than vice versa.


We simply don't have that kind of leverage with China.  They provide a lot more goods for us than we do for them.  Additionally, their leadership is no longer elected, so they don't have to worry about the impact on citizens coming back to bite them in the ass.



SG854 said:


> Trump has had success using tariffs to get what he wants.


Trump doesn't understand any part of how tariffs work.  He also has no exit strategy for the trade war.  The stock market has been tanking as they've slowly come to realize this.


----------



## cots (Jun 3, 2019)

I suppose Mexico will be paying for that wall after all. No, on a serious side. If we're getting taken advantage of in the global market by other countries and raising tariffs on goods from those other countries fixes the problem and also addresses the lack of stuff being produced in our own country and we start to produce our own stuff again then I have no problem paying a little extra for my avocados.


----------



## Fugelmir (Jun 3, 2019)

A huge bump in manufacturing for Canada.  Good on you, Mr. Trump.


----------



## kumikochan (Jun 3, 2019)

A short summary of all this is : Trump ain't that good in trade deals as he first thought he was


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2019)

cots said:


> If we're getting taken advantage of in the global market by other countries and raising tariffs on goods from those other countries fixes the problem and also addresses the lack of stuff being produced in our own country and we start to produce our own stuff again then I have no problem paying a little extra for my avocados.


That's the thing, the only way tariffs manage to accomplish these goals is if people stop buying products from China/Mexico.  But China's products are still cheaper than the competition no matter how many tariffs you put on them, and Wal-Mart isn't going anywhere.  Mexico produces more than just avocados, they mass produce parts for cars, parts which end up even in cars manufactured in America.  It's not like people can or would simply stop buying cars.

So you can see how the trade market is quite a bit more intricate and nuanced than the Trump administration gives it credit for.  Mexico is still a question mark right now, but China is absolutely prepared for the trade war to continue on for the long haul.  They know it's hurting the US Midwest a lot more than it's hurting their grasp on a capitalist dictatorship.


----------



## Isakill (Jun 4, 2019)

cots said:


> I suppose Mexico will be paying for that wall after all. No, on a serious side. If we're getting taken advantage of in the global market by other countries and raising tariffs on goods from those other countries fixes the problem and also addresses the lack of stuff being produced in our own country and we start to produce our own stuff again then I have no problem paying a little extra for my avocados.



Point of contention.  Avocados aren't the only thing we import from Mexico.  Like I said in my previous post, Mexico is (one of) our largest trade partner in many things.  Which means, damn near everything we consume will go up in price.  With China, Trump mostly targeted steel, while China targeted Soybeans.  With Mexico?  Beef, Pork, Chicken, Milk products, fruits and vegetables (where else do you think we get our off season produce?), cars, appliances (Hello Carrier anyone? Also a double whammy with China on these).

So, yeah.  This one could hurt more than that spankin new car or kitchen suite you don't really need.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jun 4, 2019)

For China, the most important issue is sovereignty. They don't accept foreign inspection and the outlawing of subsidies. Trump now giving subsidies to farmers is kind of ironic.

Subsidies are a problem, they distort the prices of goods, e.g. in Africa European chicken kills off any attempt of having their own chicken farms.
But if you think about it: any government subsidies for struggling families/individuals in Europe or the US also distortes markets indirectly*. And I don't think the Europeans are ready to give up their socialism either.

*example: Germany's Hartz4 system gives money to low-wage workers if their salary is too low - which is beneficial to the employer.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2019)

It’ll be bad if a trade war starts with Mexico but the migrant crisis has gotten so bad that news outlets are not saying it’s a manufactured crisis anymore. People are dying, diseases are coming in, we are getting record numbers of people.

Even New York Times said give Trump his border money.

Trump has abandoned his giant border wall and is now going under the recommendation of ICE to build fencing in select areas.



But Democrats are too busy playing politics with Trump trying to defund Trumps wall (which Dems just lost the legal battle in saying they can’t sue Trump), that they aren’t doing anything to handle this situation, they are just anti anything Trump making things more difficult then they should just to show their wokeness. Even Anti Trump Bill Maher defended Trumps merit based immigration plan.





Leftist media bias has gotten so bad that even leftist New York Times has banned its reporters from appearing on MSNBC and CNN. They’ve become crazy conspiracy theorists and it has cranked up to the max ever since the Mueller Report came out. Bias is so bad that even leftist media don’t trust each other.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/us.bla...ing-on-cnn-and-msnbc-shows-002923959.amp.html


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’ll be bad if a trade war starts with Mexico but the migrant crisis has gotten so bad that news outlets are not saying it’s a manufactured crisis anymore.


It'll always be a manufactured crisis.  The Trump administration cut off aid to all South American countries months ago, knowing full well the result would be tons more refugees.  They knew full well that Mexico wouldn't be able to handle that kind of influx on their own, too.  On top of which, Trump hasn't defined his parameters for Mexico's "success" in this matter.  Which means all we're left with is an escalating tax on Americans that isn't likely to go away until Trump is voted out of office or impeached.

Just more acts of bad faith and constant attempts to gaslight the American public.  If Trump wants to go to war with Venezuela, he just needs to get on with it already.  I think he's saving that boner for Iran, though.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It'll always be a manufactured crisis.  The Trump administration cut off aid to all South American countries months ago, knowing full well the result would be tons more refugees.  They knew full well that Mexico wouldn't be able to handle that kind of influx on their own, too.  On top of which, Trump hasn't defined his parameters for Mexico's "success" in this matter.  Which means all we're left with is an escalating tax on Americans that isn't likely to go away until Trump is voted out of office or impeached.
> 
> Just more acts of bad faith and constant attempts to gaslight the American public.  If Trump wants to go to war with Venezuela, he just needs to get on with it already.  I think he's saving that boner for Iran, though.


I was using manufactured crisis in that it was a fake made up crisis, that we don’t have a border problem. But we do. And media outlets are finally admitting.


Aid is a helping hand. One doesn’t have to give aid, but is a nice gesture when they do. It’s not the U.S. fault that Mexico has problems. And these problems existed before Trump became president.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And right here it says U.S. pledges $10.6 billion dollars in Aid to Central America and Southern Mexico.

https://www.apnews.com/0fcda32812024680ad98676379c47233


----------



## Xzi (Jun 5, 2019)

SG854 said:


> was using manufactured crisis in that it was a fake made up crisis, that we don’t have a border problem.


Not the same thing.  'Manufactured crisis' is exactly what it sounds like, a crisis that has been manufactured for someone's benefit.



SG854 said:


> Aid is a helping hand. One doesn’t have to give aid, but is a nice gesture when they do.


That's all good and fine, but cutting off aid to a country that's already in turmoil is going to have consequences.  That's pretty much common sense.  Then when those consequences finally arrive, Republicans do nothing but pass the blame around.  This crisis isn't Mexico's fault, it's the US government's.  Tariffs do nothing to help contain the flow of migrants from South America, they only add to the clusterfuck.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not the same thing.  'Manufactured crisis' is exactly what it sounds like, a crisis that has been manufactured for someone's benefit.
> 
> 
> That's all good and fine, but cutting off aid to a country that's already in turmoil is going to have consequences.  That's pretty much common sense.  Then when those consequences finally arrive, Republicans do nothing but pass the blame around.  This crisis isn't Mexico's fault, it's the US government's.  Tariffs do nothing to help contain the flow of migrants from South America, they only add to the clusterfuck.


I already explained how Manufactured Crisis was used by media so I won’t explain again.


I gave you a link that US pledges $10.6 billion specifically to help this migrant crisis problem.


I don’t see how Republicans devised a plan to create a crisis, a sinister plan to manufacture one so that migrants can come here in record numbers, when in fact Republicans are against illegal migrants and US is giving $10.6 billion in aid to help stop this problem.


South Americas problems was not created by the US. You are giving the US too much credit. The recent tariffs are only temporary till Mexico gets its act together. The crisis existed before the recent tariffs. They say they are trying but we are still getting record numbers. We are even getting migrants from Africa.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 5, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I already explained how Manufactured Crisis was used by media so I won’t explain again.


I never heard the media use that term once, actually.  They called it a fake emergency, which it was until South American refugees started arriving.  Throughout Trump's entire campaign you heard nothing but ragging on Mexico, not a peep about South America.  Now he's trying to move the goalposts while assuming we're all too stupid to notice.



SG854 said:


> I gave you a link that US pledges $10.6 billion specifically to help this migrant crisis problem.


Well, for one thing, according to that article you posted, this is less than half the amount of money that's estimated as necessary to secure the region.  For another, I'm not sure how much of that pledge was actually fulfilled before the Trump administration took a hardline stance in the other direction:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/02/7090...n-aid-could-worsen-migrant-crisis-experts-say



SG854 said:


> South Americas problems was not created by the US.


No, but their problems were worsened by the US government's actions.



SG854 said:


> We are even getting migrants from Africa.


So?  We're a country of nothing but migrants (except for the very small percentage of natives).  You might as well be complaining about Irish migrants.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I never heard the media use that term once, actually.  They called it a fake emergency, which it was until South American refugees started arriving.  Throughout Trump's entire campaign you heard nothing but ragging on Mexico, not a peep about South America.  Now he's trying to move the goalposts while assuming we're all too stupid to notice.
> 
> 
> Well, for one thing, according to that article you posted, this is less than half the amount of money that's estimated as necessary to secure the region.  For another, I'm not sure how much of that pledge was actually fulfilled before the Trump administration took a hardline stance in the other direction:
> ...


That’s exactly the sense I used manufactured crisis as a fake made emergency, that’s how I used it in my original post.

One of the definitions of Manufacture is invent or fabricate evidence or a story. Media accused of Republicans making up the crisis of migrant problems, a manufactured crisis. But now admit Republicans didn’t make up this crisis, so crisis isn’t manufactured. Which you admitted the media did early on. I have no idea what your arguing about on the use of the word and I’m not going to argue the use of the word anymore because I’m wasting my time explaining it.




In your article it says in El Salvador even after the cuts Migration dropped down by a little more then half, and say it might be too early to decide if the programs are working. Billions of dollars is a lot of money that we can’t freely throw around. And South America isn’t the only country US is aiding.


How much aid should be given? How much is too much that ends up not doing anything and we get diminishing returns? How much is too little? Should we give more aid like around triple or quadruple then even under Obama? They cut under the impression that it wasn’t doing anything and the money can be better spent elsewhere. El Salvador shows at least for now the cuts had no impact. There is critics in the article that the cut is a bad idea but need to hold the South American counties accountable for this problem.


I am not complaining about migration itself, I know we are a nation of immigrants. I’m just saying we have a migration problem as in illegal migration, which I thought was clear in my previous post and didn’t require me to repeat.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 5, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That’s exactly the sense I used manufactured crisis as a fake made emergency, that’s how I used it in my original post.


Right, but I've never heard the media refer to the emergency declaration as 'manufactured.'  I've only ever heard them call it 'fake.'  I call it manufactured myself because that's what it appears to be.



SG854 said:


> Billions of dollars is a lot of money that we can’t freely throw around.


Then the administration shouldn't have committed to it in the first place, rather than contradicting themselves just a couple months later.



SG854 said:


> I’m just saying we have a migration problem as in illegal migration, which I thought was clear in my previous post and didn’t require me to repeat.


Seems to me it would be extremely difficult to illegally immigrate to America from Africa.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 9, 2019)

I guess Trump felt like he really needed a win right now, because he's canceled the Mexico tariffs.  Of course, Mexico had already agreed to take border actions months ago, long before Trump even started threatening them.  In other words, this was all just theater, and bad theater at that.


----------



## CMDreamer (Jun 9, 2019)

Trumpet's trade war is a measure to uneffectively avoid U.S. downfall as the main global economy.

It will, on the opposite hand, affect themselves, as the U.S. dollar will not be anymore the main currency for economical trading, as it is being used as a way to pressure other countries, that at some point, will stop using it as a reference for their trading.


----------



## notimp (Jun 13, 2019)

Huawai is about to sue Verizon over 1 Billion USD in patent ownership charges on 230 accounts:
https://www.asianage.com/technology...-over-usd-1-billion-for-over-230-patents.html

"But what does this mean for my phone?!"


----------



## SG854 (Jun 26, 2019)

So they denied a southern border problem then later did a U turn admitting it’s a problem and finally gave Trump the 4.5 billion he wanted. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...n-on-calling-border-a-manufactured-crisis?amp



We had not proper funding for the boarder problem so conditions are horrible because of lack of funding. People are dying. Dems have been blocking Trump from getting his money then blame Trump for bad conditions.



I can’t believe I wasted my time on this thread arguing about the use of the word Manufactured Crisis and the denial/lack of simple internet search that Dems used that word which 1) the word I was not using incorrectly, and 2) Dems actually admitted that using that word was not the best thing to do. So they did use that word and it wasn’t something I just pulled out of my ass out of thin air to accuse them of, which they admitting to using it is in the above link I gave. 


This is why I’m annoyed with politics right now. And wanna spend less time arguing with people because I’m not making any progress and not learning anything from talking with stubborn people who won’t admit to simple facts they can quickly find in a google search. I end up being proven right every time not because I’m special or smarter but because they are simple facts people just straight up ignore. I was right about the use of the word.


The problem is people just arguing, instead of understanding the context, the context of how the word is being used to understand the argument the person is saying, they just twist shit using mental gymnastics in a way to try to have a winning argument. Just taking past each other with 2 different things, interpretations and uses being argued about instead of addressing the damn main argument. The goal is I wanna make this person or side look bad and do whatever twisting to reach that. And they end up being wrong because they never addressed the main argument to begin with. 

And the whole banning conservatives is not a conspiracy theory. Whistle blowers have leaked internal google documents of them targeting conservatives. Another thing that was clearly obvious. I’m done with this nonsense stupid politicking. It’s a waste of time.


----------



## notimp (Jun 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> We had not proper funding for the boarder problem so conditions are horrible because of lack of funding. People are dying. Dems have been blocking Trump from getting his money then blame Trump for bad conditions.


Partly true. Trump wanted a prestige project that doesnt work (wall), also conditions arent necessarily poor, only because of a lack of funding. Part of it is to detract others from coming.

But then - separating children from their parents, letting them sleep on the stone floor, not giving them toothbrushes - or medical attention, and then 'loosing' the paperwork that would make it possible to reunite them with their parents - serves what purpose exactly?

Giving press conferences where you openly gloat about having send of parts of people to senctury cities - who werent happy about it, serves what purpose exactly?

Having dudebro militias round up people at gunpoint, without any legal authority, for your concentration camps, serves what purpose exactly? (Concentration camps and death camps where 'different' (there was a distinction) back over in germany. I'm mentioning this, because I know the political discussion in the US, if the term can be used - because people would think of holocaust, as soon as you mention the word).

Face it - your outfits are run by morons. Part of the harm is done on purpose - part of it is done, because sick fucks get drawn in positions of perceived power as well.

You have failed states south of you border - part of the left and right would say, that thats your responsibility as well. (In Civilisations sometimes its better to barter with your neighbors, before military huntas take over. All you only ever did with south america was to wage wars for "stability".)


----------



## Xzi (Jun 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So they denied a southern border problem then later did a U turn admitting it’s a problem and finally gave Trump the 4.5 billion he wanted.


I'm concerned there aren't enough strings attached to this.  If Trump is handed a blank check, he's not going to spend a cent on improving conditions for children and other migrants.  Trump wanted this money for a stupid fucking wall, and that's exactly where he'll spend it given the chance.

Meanwhile, the acting CBP commissioner resigned today, seemingly over objections to how immigrants are being treated at detention centers.

Edit: guess I should have a little more faith.


			
				AP said:
			
		

> The bill contains more than $1 billion to shelter and feed migrants detained by the border patrol and almost $3 billion to care for unaccompanied migrant children who are turned over the Department of Health and Human Services. It seeks to mandate improved standards of care at HHS “influx shelters” that house children waiting to be placed with sponsors such as family members in the U.S.
> 
> Both House and Senate bills ensure funding could not be shifted to Trump’s border wall and would block information on sponsors of immigrant children from being used to deport them. Trump would be denied additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds.
> 
> “The President’s cruel immigration policies that tear apart families and terrorize communities demand the stringent safeguards in this bill to ensure these funds are used for humanitarian needs only — not for immigration raids, not detention beds, not a border wall,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.


https://apnews.com/1da70ca1789149a5a2aaf49a869c985c

Now the only issue is that Trump has threatened a veto because of these restrictions.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

Trade war from a moderate chinese perspective:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...-engagement-containment-by-minxin-pei-2019-07

None of what is urged for in the article is likely to happen. Likely cause for the tradewar is containment. Imho.


----------

