The Trump Economy

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, TPS said:

Haha! Thanks for bringing Japan into this...who do you think holds the majority of their government's debt?

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

More details: 

 

[TPS]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

 

 

If you consider the Bank of Japan an alien....

Japan's debt/gdp ratio is 240%, and the BoJ holds about half of that debt.  To compare, if the FED held that much debt relative to the size of the US economy it would hold $26 trillion in treasuries....

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[GG]

15 hours ago, TPS said:

Apparently you just aren't reading my posts very carefully, because I said it (all countries are NOT the same) long ago...

The reserve accounting EXPLAINS WHY QE DID NOT LEAD TO INFLATION.

 

A deficit occurs when spending exceeds tax revenue.  Here's where we differ: I believe It's the size of the deficit that matters (and of course the state of the economy when they occur); you believe it's more important whether they are caused by spending increases or tax cuts.  You believe that larger deficits caused by tax cuts lead to stronger growth than deficits caused by spending increases, but this supply side religion has never worked in practice--the evidence does not support it.  

 

Haha! Thanks for bringing Japan into this...who do you think holds the majority of their government's debt?

 

It's astounding that you can't see the contradiction in your view that while you admit that not all countries are the same, you still cling to the thought that an accounting gimmick is the reason that investors slough off the Fed creating $2.7 trillion of assets out of thin air. 

 

You seem to think that the Fed is the puppeteer of the global bond, stock and currency markets, when in reality the relationship is much more symbiotic, and markets behave as expected as long as there are no surprises.  That's why central banks are useless in preventing financial calamities.  The banks are good in helping clean up the mess, but can't stand in the way of runaway trains that are asset bubbles.

 

 

[Tiberius]

Major American farm groups sounded an alarm Monday after China halted U.S. agriculture imports, signaling a key Republican political constituency is losing patience with President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war.

 

 

Zippy Duvall, president of the the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest and most influential general farm organization, called China’s import cut-off “a body blow to thousands of farmers and ranchers who are already struggling to get by.”

 

 

Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, the nation’s second-largest general farm group, said Trump’s “strategy of constant escalation and antagonism” has “just made things worse.” America’s family farmers and ranchers “can’t withstand this kind of pressure much longer.”

 

 

China halted purchases of U.S. farm imports over the weekend after Trump threatened a wider expansion of tariffs on Chinese goods amid stalled trade talks. Along with the ripple effects in the agricultural industry, the worsening trade war stoked fears in financial markets as U.S. stocks plunged the most in the year.

 

 

Duvall said the tariff war is worsening the plight of a farm sector already reeling from low commodity prices and bad weather. U.S farm exports to China had already fallen $1.3 billion during the first half of the year, he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/farm-groups-sound-alarm-over-trump-s-china-trade-war-escalation?srnd=politics-vp

[Tiberius]

This should scare everyone! 

 

Trump is increasingly relying on himself — not his aides — in trade war with China

The Treasury Department’s formal announcement that it had labeled China a “currency manipulator” came six hours after President Trump did it himself, on social media.

• By Damian Paletta
• 2 hours ago

[TPS]

44 minutes ago, GG said:

 

It's astounding that you can't see the contradiction in your view that while you admit that not all countries are the same, you still cling to the thought that an accounting gimmick is the reason that investors slough off the Fed creating $2.7 trillion of assets out of thin air. 

 

You seem to think that the Fed is the puppeteer of the global bond, stock and currency markets, when in reality the relationship is much more symbiotic, and markets behave as expected as long as there are no surprises.  That's why central banks are useless in preventing financial calamities.  The banks are good in helping clean up the mess, but can't stand in the way of runaway trains that are asset bubbles.

 

 

What's astounding is you don't understand what causes inflation. 

About 75% of what the Fed  bought was from banks and stayed on bank balance sheets as an interest earning asset--deposits held with a Fed bank. Bank managers decide this, not investors.

 

So let's look at the amount bought from investors. The initial impact is a decrease in treasuries or mbs in their portfolios and an increase in demand deposits. When QE2 was announced in late 2010, many investors believed it would cause inflation and moved funds into gold and commodities (I made the argument here that a spike in oil prices was driven by investors piling into oil futures). This is also when many of the conservatives on PPP said it would cause hyperinflation. I said it would not. bill Gross famously stated he was dumping his fixed rate treasuries for the same reason.  These action did have an initial impact on commodity prices (including gold) and the 10-year treasury yield. However, 6 months later the bubble burst, as oil future prices dropped the maximum allowable that May, and treasury yields fell back below 2%. 

QE did not lead to a significant increase in inflation because 1) most of the funds sat as dead assets on bank balance sheets; 2) investor decisions do not cause a rise in the general level of prices.   Inflation is influenced by Generalized excess demand for products, factors that influence production costs, and the degree of market competition. 

 

Btw, since you brought up, care to comment on how Japan can get away with a public debt to GDP ratio of 240% with the BoJ holding half of that AND why there's no inflation?

Edited August 6, 2019 by TPS

[SoCal Deek]

In hopes of veering off the standard they’re  right and they’re wrong path I’d love to hear people’s opinion on the following:

The country is currently at one of those interesting academic/economic test case points. We are at full employment. We have no inflation. Interest rates are stable if not low on average. And yet...we’re still running a deficit?  We can’t have any more people working than right now, and we can’t have any less people drawing unemployment than right now. If this doesn’t PROVE that the country is way too dependent on a certain small sect to keep funding the government I don’t know what does?  And if these conditions don’t  also PROVE that we have a spending problem, I don’t know what does. In these times of plenty we need more people paying into the system in order to stash away corn into the storehouse rather than less people paying more and more. My two cents.

[RochesterRob]

33 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Major American farm groups sounded an alarm Monday after China halted U.S. agriculture imports, signaling a key Republican political constituency is losing patience with President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war.

 

 

Zippy Duvall, president of the the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest and most influential general farm organization, called China’s import cut-off “a body blow to thousands of farmers and ranchers who are already struggling to get by.”

 

 

Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, the nation’s second-largest general farm group, said Trump’s “strategy of constant escalation and antagonism” has “just made things worse.” America’s family farmers and ranchers “can’t withstand this kind of pressure much longer.”

 

 

China halted purchases of U.S. farm imports over the weekend after Trump threatened a wider expansion of tariffs on Chinese goods amid stalled trade talks. Along with the ripple effects in the agricultural industry, the worsening trade war stoked fears in financial markets as U.S. stocks plunged the most in the year.

 

 

Duvall said the tariff war is worsening the plight of a farm sector already reeling from low commodity prices and bad weather. U.S farm exports to China had already fallen $1.3 billion during the first half of the year, he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/farm-groups-sound-alarm-over-trump-s-china-trade-war-escalation?srnd=politics-vp

  Given its history in recent times China should never be considered a reliable trade partner.  While I empathize with farmers they have a habit of being their own worst enemies.  They use boom periods in their industry to expand which has the side effect of being inflationary such as purchasing land.  The price of land has been been uncoupled from historic measures to determine value such as productivity relative to a short term return or payment schedule.  Return used to be figured on the net profit of growing a crop or raising livestock on a per acre basis with repayment along with RIO considered acceptable if accomplished within the career of one farm operator.  Channeled foreign investment through US businessmen along incremental purchasing by farmers have elevated farmland prices where repayment would have to happen over two or more generations.  Long term this will destabilize the industry and run the risk of of inadequate production possibly leading to political instability.  While creating short term pain Trump's measures might have the benefit of cooling inflation of land prices.  The most recent bout having started several years back when the Ukrainian wheat crop suffered extreme drought.

[plenzmd1]

10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Given its history in recent times China should never be considered a reliable trade partner.  

umm, second biggest economy in the world and 6% growth..better damn well figure out a way to make them a trade partner

[TPS]

35 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

In hopes of veering off the standard they’re  right and they’re wrong path I’d love to hear people’s opinion on the following:

The country is currently at one of those interesting academic/economic test case points. We are at full employment. We have no inflation. Interest rates are stable if not low on average. And yet...we’re still running a deficit?  We can’t have any more people working than right now, and we can’t have any less people drawing unemployment than right now. If this doesn’t PROVE that the country is way too dependent on a certain small sect to keep funding the government I don’t know what does?  And if these conditions don’t  also PROVE that we have a spending problem, I don’t know what does. In these times of plenty we need more people paying into the system in order to stash away corn into the storehouse rather than less people paying more and more. My two cents.

Go back about 10 pages and start reading the posts related to your 2 cents. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, TPS said:

Go back about 10 pages and start reading the posts related to your 2 cents. 

Oh brother 

Sorry dude...I’m out here busting my hump working to pay my fair share! Maybe you can recap? 

[RochesterRob]

4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

umm, second biggest economy in the world and 6% growth..better damn well figure out a way to make them a trade partner

  Anybody that has been in business any length of time will tell you some individuals are just not worth the time to cultivate because the return is not there and such is the situation with China.  Even before the electronic information age China has had issues in terms of copyright and patent infringement.  China opened the doors to Western development for the sole purpose of pirating technology of companies who set up manufacturing  there.  Trading works best when a high degree of ethics by all partners is employed.  On a small scale China is the problematic customer that sucks profits away from a business.  The kind of customer that works the complaint counter of a small business to get a free appliance, lawn mower, or automobile on a periodic basis to the benefit of themselves and the detriment of the business they deal with.

[keepthefaith]

27 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

umm, second biggest economy in the world and 6% growth..better damn well figure out a way to make them a trade partner

 

Agree and there is more at stake than just trade.  A friendly and cooperative relationship with China will provide benefits in other areas as well.  We don't want another cold war and it would be a plus if we can also convince them to clean up their environmental act a bit. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by keepthefaith

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Anybody that has been in business any length of time will tell you some individuals are just not worth the time to cultivate because the return is not there and such is the situation with China.  Even before the electronic information age China has had issues in terms of copyright and patent infringement.  China opened the doors to Western development for the sole purpose of pirating technology of companies who set up manufacturing  there.  Trading works best when a high degree of ethics by all partners is employed.  On a small scale China is the problematic customer that sucks profits away from a business.  The kind of customer that works the complaint counter of a small business to get a free appliance, lawn mower, or automobile on a periodic basis to the benefit of themselves and the detriment of the business they deal with.

well, tell that to the 1000s of businesses that have growth in APAC, specifically China, as a major strategic driver of revenue growth in the next 5 years.1 BILLION consumers, in a world economy that is driven by consumer spending, is way to0 big to just say "screw it". Trump is learning he does not hold all the cards as he did most times in his private business and his simple tactic of saying " i will walk away" unless i get my way does not work when dealing with authortarian regimes that do not need to be elected. He is finding that out with Xi ,Kim and MBS...

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Oh brother 

Sorry dude...I’m out here busting my hump working to pay my fair share! Maybe you can recap? 

Maybe you can educate yourself, no excuses. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Maybe you can educate yourself, no excuses. 

Every one of your posts proves my point. I’m already sufficiently educated.

[Tiberius]

33 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Given its history in recent times China should never be considered a reliable trade partner.  While I empathize with farmers they have a habit of being their own worst enemies.  They use boom periods in their industry to expand which has the side effect of being inflationary such as purchasing land.  The price of land has been been uncoupled from historic measures to determine value such as productivity relative to a short term return or payment schedule.  Return used to be figured on the net profit of growing a crop or raising livestock on a per acre basis with repayment along with RIO considered acceptable if accomplished within the career of one farm operator.  Channeled foreign investment through US businessmen along incremental purchasing by farmers have elevated farmland prices where repayment would have to happen over two or more generations.  Long term this will destabilize the industry and run the risk of of inadequate production possibly leading to political instability.  While creating short term pain Trump's measures might have the benefit of cooling inflation of land prices.  The most recent bout having started several years back when the Ukrainian wheat crop suffered extreme drought.

Woo! You are admitting Trumps policies will devalue farmers land?!? Ok! Cooling inflation means farmers get f***ked 

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Every one of your posts proves my point. I’m already sufficiently educated.

In your ignorant mind, possibly. I'm not the one asking people to repeat themselves though. 

[keepthefaith]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, tell that to the 1000s of businesses that have growth in APAC, specifically China, as a major strategic driver of revenue growth in the next 5 years.1 BILLION consumers, in a world economy that is driven by consumer spending, is way to0 big to just say "screw it". Trump is learning he does not hold all the cards as he did most times in his private business and his simple tactic of saying " i will walk away" unless i get my way does not work when dealing with authortarian regimes that do not need to be elected. He is finding that out with Xi ,Kim and MBS...

 

Yes but I have to give Trump high marks for making the effort to solve some things.  Other Presidents just let ***** fester and kicked the can down the road.  Trump is at least taking on some issues.

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, tell that to the 1000s of businesses that have growth in APAC, specifically China, as a major strategic driver of revenue growth in the next 5 years.1 BILLION consumers, in a world economy that is driven by consumer spending, is way to0 big to just say "screw it". Trump is learning he does not hold all the cards as he did most times in his private business and his simple tactic of saying " i will walk away" unless i get my way does not work when dealing with authortarian regimes that do not need to be elected. He is finding that out with Xi ,Kim and MBS...

  Authortarian regimes also do not have loyalty and ethics dictated to them.  No amount of goodwill is going to change them on this front.  They are the Joe Dirt on the world stage of trade partners.  A billion customers of who?  Who says that China is bound to trade with the US?  Go back nearly two generations when Japan chucked the US as a major trade partner for commodities.  Japan found different sources for agricultural commodities such as soybeans such as buying from South American countries.  Further, Japan used its own capital to solidify trade on agricultural products by purchasing inputs or financing inputs for these agriculturalists.  China could follow a similar route by obtaining agricultural products from suppliers other than the US.  

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Authortarian regimes also do not have loyalty and ethics dictated to them.  No amount of goodwill is going to change them on this front.  They are the Joe Dirt on the world stage of trade partners.  A billion customers of who?  Who says that China is bound to trade with the US?  Go back nearly two generations when Japan chucked the US as a major trade partner for commodities.  Japan found different sources for agricultural commodities such as soybeans such as buying from South American countries.  Further, Japan used its own capital to solidify trade on agricultural products by purchasing inputs or financing inputs for these agriculturalists.  China could follow a similar route by obtaining agricultural products from suppliers other than the US.  

The real point here is that the best time to push back against China (or anyone else) is when the US is in a position of strength....like right now.  You can't do it during a recession or in the middle of a war.  We may not completely level the playing field, but this is the moment to tip it a little.

[RochesterRob]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Woo! You are admitting Trumps policies will devalue farmers land?!? Ok! Cooling inflation means farmers get f***ked 

In your ignorant mind, possibly. I'm not the one asking people to repeat themselves though. 

  Farmers were employing strategies that would lead and will lead to corrections in land values among other things.  This happened long before Trump and will happen long after Trump is no longer POTUS.  Further, other Presidents have used US agriculture as a foreign policy tool such as Carter with the Soviet grain embargo back in 1980.  Some such as Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon used the "carrot" approach to guide foreign policy such as subsidizing grain sales which put inflationary pressure on agriculture which can be harmful.

[plenzmd1]

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Authortarian regimes also do not have loyalty and ethics dictated to them.  No amount of goodwill is going to change them on this front.  They are the Joe Dirt on the world stage of trade partners.  A billion customers of who?  Who says that China is bound to trade with the US?  Go back nearly two generations when Japan chucked the US as a major trade partner for commodities.  Japan found different sources for agricultural commodities such as soybeans such as buying from South American countries.  Further, Japan used its own capital to solidify trade on agricultural products by purchasing inputs or financing inputs for these agriculturalists.  China could follow a similar route by obtaining agricultural products from suppliers other than the US.  

So..not quite sure what we ar arguing. Agreed China can go elsewhere..and that is the danger. OTOH, they dont wan't to give up trading woth the #1 Economy in the world...something to lose for each party.

 

I have said in this thread going back 18 months or whenever this whole tariff mess started with them...Trump has more to lose than Xi...Xi can push his people into bad times, Trump cannot, he has an election to worry about. Trump is learning what it is like to make a deal when you do not have all the leverage..and in fact may be on the short side of things due to the election.

[RochesterRob]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

So..not quite sure what we ar arguing. Agreed China can go elsewhere..and that is the danger. OTOH, they dont wan't to give up trading woth the #1 Economy in the world...something to lose for each party.

 

I have said in this thread going back 18 months or whenever this whole tariff mess started with them...Trump has more to lose than Xi...Xi can push his people into bad times, Trump cannot, he has an election to worry about. Trump is learning what it is like to make a deal when you do not have all the leverage..and in fact may be on the short side of things due to the election.

  The difference is you are looking at it from the short term while I am looking at it from the long term which does not include the 2020 election.  China can not be counted upon for endless quarters of growth for US businesses.  Everybody wants to emulate the US of the post WWII era where they can be a huge net exporter of product and net importer of currency.  Trouble is as it applies to US-China trade only one party can prevail in terms of those goals to the current extremes.  

[Tiberius]

21 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Yes but I have to give Trump high marks for making the effort to solve some things.  Other Presidents just let ***** fester and kicked the can down the road.  Trump is at least taking on some issues.

What problem is he attempting to solve? 

16 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Farmers were employing strategies that would lead and will lead to corrections in land values among other things.  This happened long before Trump and will happen long after Trump is no longer POTUS.  Further, other Presidents have used US agriculture as a foreign policy tool such as Carter with the Soviet grain embargo back in 1980.  Some such as Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon used the "carrot" approach to guide foreign policy such as subsidizing grain sales which put inflationary pressure on agriculture which can be harmful.

A strategy like selling to markets that want to buy their goods? That's gone now. Those markets may never come back. Trump is literally ruining farmers. 

Ya, Trump and Carter, a pair of one termers 

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What problem is he attempting to solve? 

A strategy like selling to markets that want to buy their goods? That's gone now. Those markets may never come back. Trump is literally ruining farmers. 

Ya, Trump and Carter, a pair of one termers 

  Shrinking markets have always been a risk of farming.  Any devastation to come out of a China close out would be pale compared to what happened after WWI.  US exports of wheat reached unimaginable heights due to WWI with major producers such as the low countries and France laying in ruin.  US farmers bought lots of land at historically high prices and often used credit to do it.  By 1920-21 European agriculture was pretty much back on its own feet so the need for US imports was no longer there.  This had a devastating effect on US farmers and agribusinesses.  Wheat prices dropped pushing many farmers into bankruptcy and forced many layoffs of employees who worked for large agribusinesses.  These layoffs were far from inconsequential as companies such as International Harvester were major cogs in the US economy with IH being a component of the DJIA back then.  As I said before there are past examples of the President using agriculture as a foreign policy tool with the side effects being far more harmful.  If Woodrow Wilson was truly visionary he would have advised Americans to temper their efforts in ramping up US wheat production.

[jrober38]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

A strategy like selling to markets that want to buy their goods? That's gone now. Those markets may never come back. Trump is literally ruining farmers. 

Ya, Trump and Carter, a pair of one termers 

 

I agree with this.

 

Trump has shown a major lack of understanding on how global commodity markets work.

 

China will now secure the purchase of food from other suppliers around the world. When those connections are made, they'll no longer need the US, and that market might be gone entirely for US farmers.

 

Global trade decisions aren't made on a whim like Trump suggests they are. These networks are extremely complicated, and if a country like China is going to rework how they feed their people, they're not going to do it with an outlook of only a few months, or until the trade war ends sometime

 

China is going to rework their food supply network indefinitely, and it's not going to involve US Farmers. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by jrober38

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Shrinking markets have always been a risk of farming.  Any devastation to come out of a China close out would be pale compared to what happened after WWI.  US exports of wheat reached unimaginable heights due to WWI with major producers such as the low countries and France laying in ruin.  US farmers bought lots of land at historically high prices and often used credit to do it.  By 1920-21 European agriculture was pretty much back on its own feet so the need for US imports was no longer there.  This had a devastating effect on US farmers and agribusinesses.  Wheat prices dropped pushing many farmers into bankruptcy and forced many layoffs of employees who worked for large agribusinesses.  These layoffs were far from inconsequential as companies such as International Harvester were major cogs in the US economy with IH being a component of the DJIA back then.  As I said before there are past examples of the President using agriculture as a foreign policy tool with the side effects being far more harmful.  If Woodrow Wilson was truly visionary he would have advised Americans to temper their efforts in ramping up US wheat production.

This isn't the 1920's man. Closing off markets is stupid. Trump's trade war is just stupid. Taxes on consumers, welfare for farmers and lost markets. When a recession comes, Trump will be to blame. 

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I agree with this.

 

Trump has shown a major lack of understanding on how global commodity markets work.

 

China will now secure the purchase of food from other suppliers around the world. When those connections are made, they'll no longer need the US, and that market might be gone entirely for US farmers.

 

Global trade decisions aren't made on a whim like Trump suggests they are. These networks are extremely complicated, and if a country like China is going to rework how they feed their people, they're not going to do it with an outlook of only a few months, or until the trade war ends somtime

 

China is going to rework their food supply network indefinitely, and it's not going to involve US Farmers. 

  Since China and the US are competing military powers a rework of their food supply line was going to happen at some point.  I think that you fail to understand how the human mind works.  

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This isn't the 1920's man. Closing off markets is stupid. Trump's trade war is just stupid. Taxes on consumers, welfare for farmers and lost markets. When a recession comes, Trump will be to blame. 

  Some behavior of human beings is timeless whether in a positive or negative sense.

[jrober38]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Since China and the US are competing military powers a rework of their food supply line was going to happen at some point.  I think that you fail to understand how the human mind works.  

 

It didn't have to happen.

 

Instead the US soybean farmer was essentially just put out of business yesterday. 

[RochesterRob]

27 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

It didn't have to happen.

 

Instead the US soybean farmer was essentially just put out of business yesterday. 

  Far from out of business.  The best areas of the world are already being used for agriculture with existing outlets for product.  What remains is problematic due to politics or climate (or in the case of the Ukraine both).  Droughts, untimely frost, and disease will still plague agriculture meaning that China from time to time will have to turn to somewhat more stable suppliers such as the US.  Further, much research is happening for uses of soybeans other than feeding to livestock such as extracting its oils for industrial and personal uses.  These uses now include the development of plastics for structural material.  Far better markets in the long term than a fickle trade partner.

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Far from out of business.  The best areas of the world are already being used for agriculture with existing outlets for product.  What remains is problematic due to politics or climate (or in the case of the Ukraine both).  Droughts, untimely frost, and disease will still plague agriculture meaning that China from time to time will have to turn to somewhat more stable suppliers such as the US.  Further, much research is happening for uses of soybeans other than feeding to livestock such as extracting its oils for industrial and personal uses.  These uses now include the development of plastics for structural material.  Far better markets in the long term than a fickle trade partner.

Lol, ya, sure they will. Soybean farmers will be cashing Trumps welfare checks. He's created a new dependency class and guess who is paying for it? 

[RochesterRob]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, ya, sure they will. Soybean farmers will be cashing Trumps welfare checks. He's created a new dependency class and guess who is paying for it? 

  Why do you hate your brain so much that you refuse to use it?  As far as who is paying for anything that certainly does not include you.  I'm sure that your pay at the laundromat and cubicle farm is such that in the end you owe no tax.  Most minimum wage jobs are that way.  At least you are working.  Kudos, I think?

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

This isn't the 1920's man. Closing off markets is stupid. Trump's trade war is just stupid. Taxes on consumers, welfare for farmers and lost markets. When a recession comes, Trump will be to blame. 

 

Wanting more equitable trade between the 2 nations is stupid? 

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Wanting more equitable trade between the 2 nations is stupid? 

  Tibs is very used to being bent over and reamed so he assumes that everybody else feels the same way.

Edited August 6, 2019 by RochesterRob

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Wanting more equitable trade between the 2 nations is stupid? 

Seemed to be working fine before Trump start monkeying around with the system. Killing trade is really stupid. 

 

Maybe Trump should be trying to promote human rights instead of just trying to bully people who are not going to be bullied. 

10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Tibs is very used to being bent over and reamed so he assumes that everybody else feels the same way.

Get up off your knees 

[GG]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

It didn't have to happen.

 

Instead the US soybean farmer was essentially just put out of business yesterday. 

 

What do you think there were strategic implications of US designating Brazil as an important non-NATO military ally?

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Seemed to be working fine before Trump start monkeying around with the system. Killing trade is really stupid. 

 

Maybe Trump should be trying to promote human rights instead of just trying to bully people who are not going to be bullied. 

Get up off your knees 

  But somebody has to pray for your salvation.  Why would anyone else be on their knees I can't answer.  I surely know that in my case it is to offer prayer and nothing else.  Leave your own sexual desires to your own bedroom and don't involve me.  Please.  

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  But somebody has to pray for your salvation.  Why would anyone else be on their knees I can't answer.  I surely know that in my case it is to offer prayer and nothing else.  Leave your own sexual desires to your own bedroom and don't involve me.  Please.  

Sex? Not even referring to that. You are your knees before Trump, like a cultist.