http://www.aei.org/publication/some-deal-making-advice-for-trump-on-china-never-interfere-with-a-trading-partner-when-they-are-doing-you-a-favor/
Why does Trump want to lower our standard of living by over 40%?
>>55472456
>>55472456
to increase supply of goods for the rich.
>>55472456
>globalist shills mad a Trump
Wow it's nothing
>>55472860
I suppose that's what protectionists want.. the suffering of the common man (by over 40%) to benefit the politicians and big corporations in charge.
>>55472456
Trump is showing that he doesn't have what it takes to be president. If he was president I imagine him just surround himself with a bunch of people who have been in DC for fifty years, claiming that he has a team of terrific people who know their shit, then we just go back to business as usual.
The idea that him negotiating business deals was proof that he could be the chief executive was ludicrous medwestern neckbeard logic from the beginning.
>>55472919
if by 'shill', you mean 'deep analytical thought'... sure!
How can you refute that a strong U.S. dollar is bad for the consumer?
>>55473149
erm "argue that"* sorry for the double negative
>>55473149
Ask your foolish self, why would china want to devalue its currency via manipulation? Isn't there an advantage? FFS
>>55473149
>china hopes to make a world bank and will reach it's goal but making it's strongest competitors currency even stronger
'kay
>>55473537
>China wants to be globalist
Countries with half the world's population aiming at hegemony don't want to play house in NGOs
>>55473428
Obviously, it's a huge subsidy to the American consumer to buy goods from Chinese manufacturers. The idea is that this subsidy allows the Chinese manufacturers to remain in business, but that's a fallacy.
Without such a subsidy (and the Chinese currency strengthened), the Chinese consumers would simply replace the American consumers when they see their dispensable income increase so dramatically. And this will be accomplished with just a slight restructuring in their manufacturing sector.
The American consumer, on the other hand, would be shit out of luck, and be forced to pay nearly double for all essential goods.
TL;DR (start at 2:05):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJR3TRG8zwA
>>55473149
They won't have any of those strong dollars to spend except the welfare stolen from the middle class for them by the rich. If strong currency is so great why doesn't everybody want strong currency?
>>55473149
wages have been stagnant for decades
use your brain
what do you think people are complaining about?
>>55473892
>>55474007
Who wouldn't want a strong currency?
Wall Street, of course. Stocks valuation can move a lot quicker when there's fresh money pumped into it.
Cruz slamming our weak currency as it leads to wealth stagnation for the working class:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr3HZmcSFaI
>>55472456
and yet, it increases our dependence on plastic bullshit as well as our debt
aei is a neo-con outfit. it's time to balance our books. they're going to be balanced one way or another; we can do it the easy way or the hard way. who's kidding who tho; it will be done the hard way
>>55474290
I'd rather have a gold standard & free trade, government instituted protection and bailouts of banks & corporations.
The balancing act is something the federal government must do if we're ever to transition to a sound money system.
>>55472456
Meh, this economist is not wrong but there's another side to the argument. There's a reason that currency competition aka competitive devaluation aka currency war refers to countries trying to weaken their own currencies relative to others to bolster their exports.
A strong currency favors consumers but harms export industry. I'm more in favor of a strong currency but an economist should be a bit more even handed when discussing these issues.
China only wants to strengthen the dollar so we don't inflate our currency to pay off our debt.
>>55473149
>How can you refute that a strong U.S. dollar is bad for the consumer?
Because exchange rate policy isn't the end-all be-all of consumer well-being. Wage stagnation and joblessness caused by declining competitiveness is strangling the middle class.
And I'm an economist with a degree. The AEI is a shill-tank
>>55472456
Actual economist here currency manipulatation helps america only because china uses the USD to back its own currency but the moment they stop it would immediately fuck us over, none the less our currency would be just as strong if we supported it internally instead of using a chinese pyramid scam to make imports cheaper that will topple eventually.
>>55475597
Our government wants a weak currency so that it's easier to pay off our debt, too. The people that lose are the ones earning income (i.e. stagnant real wages)... all to finance government deficits
>>55472456
got a pastebin familial member?
>>55475735
>china uses the USD to back its own currency
Are you referring to the fact that their currency is pegged to the dollar, or the fact that they hold a lot of dollar-denominated assets (i.e. U.S. treasury bonds)?
>>55475692
But isn't productivity and the low cost of consumer goods what created the middle class? I fail to see how raising the cost of consumer goods will benefit anyone, in anyway.
Our factories and workers are going to always target that which it can produce the most efficiently for the most amount of profit, which may not coalesce or compete with Chinese firms (and usually does not). If Chinese factories want to churn out consumable goods that we're too skilled to make, why should we punish American consumers by making these goods artificially costly?
>>55476150
>I fail to see how raising the cost of consumer goods will benefit anyone, in anyway.
Domestic unions like a combination of tariffs and a weak currency because it makes it harder for businesses to off-shore their manufacturing operations, which gives them more bargaining power.
As others have said, debtor nations (like the USA) like having a weak currency because it allows them to repay their debts more cheaply.
>>55472456
>Economics
>Anything more than shrugging and saying, well, this seems to work out, and we can only assume that our luck will never change
>No, seriously, I'm not being hyperbolic, go look up Say's Law. I'll wait
>>55476324
Say's Law is a tautology / accounting identity.
>>55476302
by 'anyone' I meant the people that matters ... 'workers'.
they'd benefit a lot more from cheaper goods than they would from the government paying its creditors (which isn't going to happen, anyways).
>>55472456
Lower living standards are an acceptable price to pay for protecting our sovereignty and economic independence.
Furthermore, it wouldn't actually be 40% because American businesses would step in and take advantage of the new opportunities.
>>55476537
I agree with you, but the other side of the argument is that we might have more manufacturing jobs if we had a weaker currency.
As far as the government not paying it's creditors goes we've never missed a payment so far. I think it's more likely than not that we'll try to inflate away some of the debt.
