ot- books on china trade policy?

[patrick]

Please recommend books that deal with china trade policy. Speaking for the western perspective. You guys seem to have a breadth of knowledge that would produce some interesting reading material! Thanks, Pat

[slto...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:53:51 AM UTC-8, patrick wrote:
> Please recommend books that deal with china trade policy. Speaking for the western perspective. You guys seem to have a breadth of knowledge that would produce some interesting reading material! Thanks, Pat

The China trade policies were originated to try to force China and the US closer together by allowing China for import large quantities of cheaply manufactured good into this country without any form of taxation while they blocked US exports to China.

This was not a bad policy until China advanced to the point where they could outproduce the US and US tax policies effectively destroyed these sorts of companies in the USA.

For instance - the steel produced in China supposedly under international standards for the greater part are not even near those standards. The worst part of this is that because the steel industry in the US has been effectively destroyed, they would have to come up to speed to be able to do anything better than the Chinese.

This goes for everything from heavy industry to agricultural goods. While there may have been a reason initially for bad trade policies they have been held onto for far too long because too many people were making too much money off of these bad trade policies.

[jbeattie]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 8:25:35 AM UTC-8, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:53:51 AM UTC-8, patrick wrote:
> > Please recommend books that deal with china trade policy. Speaking for the western perspective. You guys seem to have a breadth of knowledge that would produce some interesting reading material! Thanks, Pat
>
> The China trade policies were originated to try to force China and the US closer together by allowing China for import large quantities of cheaply manufactured good into this country without any form of taxation while they blocked US exports to China.

Not correct. China was given most favored nation status. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/ That made their products subject to the standard tariff rates -- which are generally low, subject to dramatically higher rates for certain commodities (e.g. textiles, small trucks) Chinese products are/were tariff-free only to that there is/was no standard tariff for a particular product or product category. https://usitc.gov/tata/hts/index.htm

> This was not a bad policy until China advanced to the point where they could outproduce the US and US tax policies effectively destroyed these sorts of companies in the USA.
>
> For instance - the steel produced in China supposedly under international standards for the greater part are not even near those standards. The worst part of this is that because the steel industry in the US has been effectively destroyed, they would have to come up to speed to be able to do anything better than the Chinese.
>
> This goes for everything from heavy industry to agricultural goods. While there may have been a reason initially for bad trade policies they have been held onto for far too long because too many people were making too much money off of these bad trade policies.

China was placed on the same footing as other nations and simply under-priced US goods, even with shipping costs. China continues to import high value US products and agricultural products, subject to standard tariffs in China which, on average/blended basis are higher than the US. Read this: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-China-Report-to-Congress.pdf
China also values its currency in a way that keeps it low, which reduces the price of its goods and increases the price of foreign goods. In any event, China has been more vigorous in protecting its domestic manufacturers/producers, although the US has done the same thing with certain industries and indirectly with crop subsidies that make our products cheaper. https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/851-the-impact-of-united-states-agricultural-subsidies The US has been working on China trade policy through and along with the WTO for decades.

-- Jay Beattie.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Jay - You are purposely refraining from mentioning the political factors behind that move by Bill Clinton. And the great increasing it under Obama. Most common American trademarks were bought by China and substandard products were pumped into the American marketplace by these immoral measures in which American manufacturers ended up with little to no access to Chinese markets.

[John B. Slocomb]

The Chinese did nothing different from every other developing nation.
they initially produced cheap stuff for the low priced market and
slowly developed their manufacturing potential until they could
compete in the high price market.

Japan, after WW II, is a classic example. Initially "Made in Japan"
was interpreted as "Cheap Stuff" and little by little quality improved
until now "Made in Japan" is a synonym for "High Quality".

As long as 20 years ago Cummins started making diesel engines in China
and some years ago I looked into re-engining a boat and was checking
prices of various brands. The Caterpillar people suggested that I
check the China made Cummins and I did. Much cheaper then the U.S.
made and with exactly the same guarantee.

The Made in China label is the most recognizable label in the world
today, as the country is the largest exporter in the world.

In 2018 China exported the highest value of computer sales, at $142.2
billion, or 40.9 percent of all computer exports.

In 2017, China shipped $26.8 billion in solar powered diodes and
semiconductors.

China makes 109 billion air conditioners annually, which is around 80
percent of the world's total. In 2017, they exported $14.7 billion
worth of air conditioners, 33.7 percent of all air conditioners
exported that year.

They shipped $21.6 billion worth of rubber and plastic footwear in
2017, up 0.8 percent from the year before. They even exported over $1
billion more over second place Italy in leather shoes, a leader in the
high-end bespoke market.

China manufactured $580 million worth of cement in 2017, or 6.6
percent of the overall market and continues to be the world leader in
cement manufacturing.

China dominates the small- and medium-sized ships building market with
over 34 percent of the market share (versus 22 percent for South
Korea).

They rank No. 1 in global textile exports, accounting for nearly 30
percent of the market.

China has been the world's top producer of coal for the last three
decades.

This is hardly esoteric or secret information and is freely available
on the web.... Tom has no excuse except ignorance for not being
informed of the facts.

cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Buying 3/4 quality for half price is funding four super
carriers whose keels are laid already.

Not a bargain in my book. YMMV.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

From Sheldon Brown's site, at
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/shimano333.html

"Older Shimano 3-speed hubs -- Uh Uh.

Background: The International Bicycle Cycle
Those of us who have been in the bike industry for a while have observed
a cyclical phenomenon with imported bicycles and bicycle parts. It was
first noticeable in Japan in the years following WW2. Here's how it goes:

Stage 1: Underdeveloped country of [insert name here] uses cheap
labor to make cheap, low-end products. Reputation for making cheap,
inferior copies.
Stage 2: Developing country of [insert name here] decides to move
into higher-quality, higher-value production. Quality control and design
improve, often benefiting from the advice of partners in more developed
countries.
Stage 3: [insert name here]'s improved product quality is noticed,
[insert name here]'s reputation rises.
Stage 4: [insert name here]'s high wages and shifting exchange
rates begin to erode the competitive pricing advantage formerly enjoyed.
Stage 5: Increasing quality and pricing make [insert name here]'s
products un-competitive with lower-wage developing [Other Developing
Country]'s output. [Insert name here] establishes partnerships in [Other
Developing Country], builds factories, teaches them how to improve their
quality.
Stage 6: [Insert name here] can no longer manufacture bicycle parts
at a competitive price, more and more manufacturing for export is
shifted to [Other Developing Country]. Some high-end production for the
domestic market may continue.

By this time, [Other Developing Country] has hit stage 2 and will go
through the same sequence over a period of years.

Japan was the prototype for this sequence. Reached stage 2 in the late
1970s, stage 3 in the early 1980s, stage 4 in the mid 1980s, Stage 5 in
the late 1980s and stage 6 by the early 1990s. Japanese bicycles have
not been imported to the U.S. in significant number since then, though
high-end, high-value Japanese-made parts are still somewhat available.

The next country in this sequence was Taiwan, which hit stage 3 in the
mid-late 1990s and is currently in stage 5.

Following behind Taiwan is mainland China, currently (2006) in stage 3.

Singapore is also in the game, for parts but not for complete bikes.
Singapore has no important independent bicycle parts manufacturers, but
Japanese parent companies, especially Shimano, own extensive production
facilities there.

Major bicycle producing countries still stuck in stage 1 include India
and South Korea. Whenever India gets ready to move up, it is expected to
be a very important player.

Major Western European countries hit stage 6 in the late '70s, just as
Japan was moving into stage 3."

...

>>
>> China dominates the small- and medium-sized ships building market with
>> over 34 percent of the market share (versus 22 percent for South
>> Korea).
>>
>> They rank No. 1 in global textile exports, accounting for nearly 30
>> percent of the market.
>>
>> China has been the world's top producer of coal for the last three
>> decades.
>>
>> This is hardly esoteric or secret information and is freely available
>> on the web.... Tom has no excuse except ignorance for not being
>> informed of the facts.
>
>
> Buying 3/4 quality for half price is funding four super carriers whose
> keels are laid already.
>
> Not a bargain in my book. YMMV.

Agreed, their military ambitions are worrisome.

All we have to do is convince Middle America that they should spend more
money to buy American made goods. That should be easy - assuming we can
find some American made goods.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Russia has been doing this without even selling us the cheap shirts. We're not China's only trading partner. Those keels would be laid without us, although China would only see 3-4% annual growth in GDP instead of 7-14% (just guessing). We would also get Chinese products through the back door as components of products manufactured in bro-countries like Japan or Korea. Goods always find their way into markets.

Anyway, treaties are the usual avenue for arms control, unless you can just bully the other country -- and there is no way that you could do that with China unless you got all of its trading partners to fall in line with us (supposedly like everyone falls in line with our Iran embargoes).
Right now, other countries are kind of happy about the US trade wars because they get to sell more shit to China -- or act as backdoor sellers of Chinese shit -- although world markets don't like the uncertainty. It would make me angry, however, if the keels were based on stolen IP or technology. That's really where we should be retaliating. The WTO is working on that along with the US and others -- even before His Magnificence took office. It's not like any of this is new news.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

What do you suggest? Ceasing all trade with China?

cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

Don't forget Malaysia. Years behind Singapore but nearly all the
Shimano parts I've bought in the past couple of years were marked
"Made in Malaysia".

>Major bicycle producing countries still stuck in stage 1 include India
>and South Korea. Whenever India gets ready to move up, it is expected to
>be a very important player.
>
>Major Western European countries hit stage 6 in the late '70s, just as
>Japan was moving into stage 3."
>
>...
>>>
>>> China dominates the small- and medium-sized ships building market with
>>> over 34 percent of the market share (versus 22 percent for South
>>> Korea).
>>>
>>> They rank No. 1 in global textile exports, accounting for nearly 30
>>> percent of the market.
>>>
>>> China has been the world's top producer of coal for the last three
>>> decades.
>>>
>>> This is hardly esoteric or secret information and is freely available
>>> on the web.... Tom has no excuse except ignorance for not being
>>> informed of the facts.
>>
>>
>> Buying 3/4 quality for half price is funding four super carriers whose
>> keels are laid already.
>>
>> Not a bargain in my book. YMMV.
>
>Agreed, their military ambitions are worrisome.
>
>All we have to do is convince Middle America that they should spend more
>money to buy American made goods. That should be easy - assuming we can
>find some American made goods.

cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 1/10/2019 8:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 6:07:59 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/10/2019 8:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2019 7:25 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:57:06 -0800 (PST), slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:02:47 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 8:25:35 AM UTC-8, slto...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:53:51 AM UTC-8, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please recommend books that deal with china trade policy. Speaking
>>>>>>>> for the western perspective. You guys seem to have a breadth of
>>>>>>>> knowledge that would produce some interesting reading material!
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Pat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The China trade policies were originated to try to force China and
>>>>>>> the US closer together by allowing China for import large
>>>>>>> quantities of cheaply manufactured good into this country without
>>>>>>> any form of taxation while they blocked US exports to China.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not correct. China was given most favored nation status.

>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/Â That made

>>>>>> their products subject to the standard tariff rates -- which are
>>>>>> generally low, subject to dramatically higher rates for certain

>>>>>> commodities (e.g. textiles, small trucks)Â Chinese products are/were

>>>>>> tariff-free only to that there is/was no standard tariff for a
>>>>>> particular product or product category.
>>>>>> https://usitc.gov/tata/hts/index.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was not a bad policy until China advanced to the point where
>>>>>>> they could outproduce the US and US tax policies effectively
>>>>>>> destroyed these sorts of companies in the USA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance - the steel produced in China supposedly under
>>>>>>> international standards for the greater part are not even near
>>>>>>> those standards. The worst part of this is that because the steel
>>>>>>> industry in the US has been effectively destroyed, they would have
>>>>>>> to come up to speed to be able to do anything better than the Chinese.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This goes for everything from heavy industry to agricultural goods.
>>>>>>> While there may have been a reason initially for bad trade policies
>>>>>>> they have been held onto for far too long because too many people
>>>>>>> were making too much money off of these bad trade policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> China was placed on the same footing as other nations and simply

>>>>>> under-priced US goods, even with shipping costs. China continues to

>>>>>> import high value US products and agricultural products, subject to
>>>>>> standard tariffs in China which, on average/blended basis are higher
>>>>>> than the US. Read this:
>>>>>> https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-China-Report-to-Congress.pdf
>>>>>> China also values its currency in a way that keeps it low, which
>>>>>> reduces the price of its goods and increases the price of foreign

>>>>>> goods. In any event, China has been more vigorous in protecting its

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/us/politics/china-hack-navy-contractor-.html

and also
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-railgun-warship-sea-electromagnetic-weapon-us-weibo-haiyang-shan-hypersonic-a8709396.html

The thing about super carriers is that there's only one
adversary against whom they might be useful. Russia has 0.5
(the hulk is under tow more often than on mission) England
zero and so on. With one prototype used now for pilot
training, four more of these are a major capital project.

They could be used for goodwill port calls, to the joy of
sailors and whorehouses, but that's not the goal.

[John B. Slocomb]

If I'm not mistaken the Chinese bought two Russian and one Australian
built aircraft carrier, as de-commissioned hulls. The HMAS Melbourne
in February 1985 and the Soviet Kiev-class aircraft carriers Minsk in
1995 and Kiev in 2000 and the 67,500 ton ex-Soviet aircraft carrier
Varyag (Kuznetsov class), which was only 70% completed and floating in
Ukraine, was purchased in 1998. China commissioned the rebuilt Varyag
as the Liaoning, in 2012. A second carrier was launched in 2017 and
expected to be commissioned in 2023.

cheers,

John B.

[news18]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:57:06 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

> Jay - You are purposely refraining from mentioning the political factors
> behind that move by Bill Clinton. And the great increasing it under
> Obama. Most common American trademarks were bought by China and
> substandard products were pumped into the American marketplace by these
> immoral measures in which American manufacturers ended up with little to
> no access to Chinese markets.

As some one who is not a citizen of the USA, I derive great mirth when a
citizen of the USA complains about other countries doing back to the USA,
that which the USA has been doing globally for over a century.

The "Chinese" didn't decide to flood your country with cheap crap. It was
the directors of American companies that decided to compete only on price
and started branding cheap ChInese junk with their brands.

If you have problem with quality, then go socialist and get your
gumminent to parse consumer legislation, but then that would require you
to change your attitude to co-operation rather than screw the weakest.
good luck.

[John B. Slocomb]

Quite a lot of countries have aircraft carriers (there are a total of
20 carriers, in service, world wide). India, for example, has one
commissioned in 2013, one possibly commissioned in 2018 and one more
under construction. Italy has two commissioned and one under
construction, Spain has one in service, Turkey has one under
construction, China has one commissioned and two more in the
construction stages while the U.S. has 11 commissioned, 2 under
construction and 7 more in the planning stages.

Given that Italy has more active carriers than any other country,
except possibly India, and of course the U.S., should we be worried
about the Italian's goal? Or India's?

cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Helicopter carriers, jump jet carriers, pocket carriers,
fast attack carriers and the like are of a different class.
Supercarriers can support major air squadron operations.

[slto...@gmail.com]

While I'm not making any judgements concerning the quality of a Chinese made Cummins engine a warranty means little to nothing.

[John B. Slocomb]

In heavy equipment terms it generally does. Or perhaps I should say,
it did when I was in the business. Probably because the competition
between the major equipment makers is really fierce.

cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

China was given "most favored trade" status under carter, and has been extended by every US president since, you idiot.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Yes! we can all look to the wonderful example of trump, who has all his MAGA gear made in china!

[slto...@gmail.com]

My niece works for Caterpillar one mile from my home. The union drove wages up so high that they moved production completely out of California. Now the remaining workers are afraid that the same will happen to them because California and their insane regulations. They now do nothing but repair work on Caterpillar heavy equipment and Cummins engines. That is what is keeping them in business. They have heavy equipment that waits for engine parts from China for 2 or 3 months. That's OK with Caterpillar since companies have to buy 2 times the number of heavy equipment to be able to meet their contracts.

[slto...@gmail.com]

And yet more ignorance. Most countries have "Most Favored Trade" agreement moron.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

JEsus christ you're fucking stupid. So what if most countries have MFN? we were talking about china specifically, and you seem to think Clinton and obama let them get away with something. The U.S. china trade relation problems have been going on ever since nixon normalized relations. ronald reagan and both Bushes did absolutely nothing to mitigate chinese abuses, even to the point of turning a blind eye to their currency manipulation and human rights abuses. What was bush the youngers response to chinese efforts to annex taiwan? empty threats, continued MFN status, and no sanctions for intellectual property theft.

Your GOP are the biggest bunch of inept greedy hypocrites since stalin.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Explain to us all what you think that Most Favored Trading Partners means.

[Zen Cycle]

Again, you should have paid more attention when you mother was doing your homework for you.

"Most Favored Nation status is an economic position in which a country enjoys the best trade terms given by its trading partner. That means it receives the lowest tariffs, the fewest trade barriers, and the highest import quotas (or none at all)."

https://www.thebalance.com/most-favored-nation-status-3305840

[slto...@gmail.com]

You really should have paid a little attention to the English they were teaching you in school. Because WE give China the lowest tariffs doesn't mean that they reciprocate.

Or did you miss Trump making a new treaty with China after threatening them to put the same tariffs on Chinese goods as they were putting on us?

Just how old are you? Do you work for a living? If so what in the hell do you do that you don't understand anything about the world around you?

[jbeattie]

There is no new treaty with China. Congressional approval is necessary for any treaty -- including the new NAFTA 2.0. Fast-track approval is available under certain circumstances, but those would never apply to Trump because they require the commander in chief to stick to a strict script.

Under the WTO rules, MFN goes both ways -- but being treated like everyone else doesn't mean being treated well. Even under US tariff laws, MFN gets you staggering duties on textile products -- along with the legendary chicken tax. China protects certain industries, too, but its major evils are compelled technology transfers and IP theft. Both China and USA have monetary policies that can be called "manipulation." Both nations subsidize industries/agriculture that makes the price of subsidized goods artificially low. The USA, however, does not have a national policy of taking or stealing IP and technology. It may happen on a private basis, but it is not baked into our trade laws.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Zen Cycle]

English class wouldn't have had much to say about international trade policy, and at no time did I say china was treating us failry. In fact, I stated the exact opposite. You asked what I understood MFN status to be, and I answered it, correctly. China's behaviour is a different issue.

>
> Or did you miss Trump making a new treaty with China after threatening them to put the same tariffs on Chinese goods as they were putting on us?

We don't have a new treaty with china you fucking idiot. All we have are trump-imposed tariffs that are hurting american workers and the american economy. If trump was so fucking pro-america, he wouldn't be having his MAGA hats made in china, you deluded fool.

> Just how old are you?

Old enough to see through your bullshit.

> Do you work for a living?

I've worked full-time continuously since 1979, with two small vacations I didn't ask for (laid off for a total of 4 months).

> If so what in the hell do you do that you don't understand
> anything about the world around you?

The fact that you think trump is doing _any_ thing good for the economy proves your're the one operating under an orange delusion., fucking half-wit.

[slto...@gmail.com]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-china-to-reduce-and-remove-tariffs-on-american-cars-1543811957

Why do morons like you even come on this group? Surely you're not a sports bicyclist.

[slto...@gmail.com]

So you're near retirement age and frightened silly of what is going to happen to you huh? From your comments you've been joe nothing and you're afraid that there won't be a socialist state to support you. Why is that? Like my ex-wife, blew it all when it was there?

[Zen Cycle]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:36:10 AM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The fact that you think trump is doing _any_ thing good for the economy proves your're the one operating under an orange delusion., fucking half-wit.
>
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-china-to-reduce-and-remove-tariffs-on-american-cars-1543811957

And again, you stop reading when you see what you want:

"Removing tariffs on American cars won't save ailing US plants."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/03/business/china-auto-tariffs/index.html

And:

"A Win on China Car Tariffs Is Irrelevant for Automakers"

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-05/china-car-tariff-win-would-be-irrelevant-for-u-s-automakers

Again, you should have paid more attention when your mother was doing your

> Why do morons like you even come on this group? Surely you're not a
> sports bicyclist.

1) This is rec.bicycles.tech...See that last part of the pointer? it says "tech". Not racing, not sports. Whether or not I'm a 'sports' rider is irrelevant, you fucking moron.

2) I got my USCF license in 1987. I've been racing consistently for over 30 years. This past year, I only raced in 6 events. I did pretty lousy due to health issues, but I raced nonetheless.

3) I turned a wrench part time at two different shops in the 80's and 90's (while I was working full time as an EE). I was also the mechanic for a RAAM competitor, done neutral support at a few dozen races over the past 30 years, promoted a few dozen races over the past 30 years, and organized cycling merit badge classes for the Boy Scouts. I currently own 9 ridable bikes, have two unbuilt frames, and 30 years of accumulated racing level parts in my basement.

You're the halfwit who claims to have worked on power systems at lawrence livermore, yet couldn't figure out that his chain was binding because he didn't lubricate it. You're the idiot that doesn't belong here, clueless twat.

[Zen Cycle]

I'm not worried at all. I've planed my retirement investments to account for the fact that the GOP is going to rob social security.

> From your comments you've been joe nothing and you're afraid that there
> won't be a socialist state to support you. Why is that?

Your leaps of fantasy are nothing less than laughable. As I wrote earlier, you should write fiction for a living, but you'll need a good editor because your writing skills are on an ESL class level.

> Like my ex-wife, blew it all when it was there?

I'm not interested in your ex-wifes sex life, but maybe if you were she wouldn't have left you.

[slto...@gmail.com]

I worked on power systems at Lawrence Berkeley. I worked for military projects at Lawrence Livermore. The Berkeley project was short-lived. The Military project lasted for about a year.

The chain WAS lubricated. It was rusting apparently because the wet weather and the light chain lube didn't go together. You say that you were a wrench at shops and couldn't understand that? Or did you simply want to take a cheap shot?

[slto...@gmail.com]

"The GOP is going to rob SS". I see you're a real economist. Obama doubled the national debt in 3 years and spent the entire SS trust fund and you're blaming it on the Republicans. I don't believe you were ever an EE. In order to be an engineer you have to be capable of analysis and that statement alone showed you incapable of analyzing what the hell is going on in the national economy.

[Zen Cycle]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:39:20 AM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "The GOP is going to rob SS". I see you're a real economist. Obama
> doubled the national debt in 3 years and spent the entire SS trust
> fund and you're blaming it on the Republicans.

Talk about being clueless about the world around you:

https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

"The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. "

And if you had even half the intellectual versatility you claim to have, you'd know the debt isn't the problem. It's the deficit, stupid. Obama cut the deficit to half of what it was at its peak (as a result of Obama digging us out of the bush/cheney recession), and trump has already doubled it.

> I don't believe you were ever an EE. In order to be an engineer you
> have to be capable of analysis and that statement alone showed you
> incapable of analyzing what the hell is going on in the national
> economy.

That's funny coming from a guy that thinks Obama caused a recession that started before he was even elected, let alone took office.

[slto...@gmail.com]

In case you are unaware of it the Democrats started every war since the WW I. So don't pretend that the fund was opened to be used for other things when it was the Democrats that instead of putting money in as the bill was supposed to do, took money out. The Democrats and mainly Obama spent every single penny in the Trust Funds and you can see it in Obama's monetary records. They are entirely available from the Department of the Treasury.

[slto...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:39:20 AM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> That's funny coming from a guy that thinks Obama caused a recession that started before he was even elected, let alone took office.

I am curious as to this recession that started before Obama was elected. Which one was that and by all means show us the Treasury records that prove it.

In the second to last year of the Bush administration there was a real estate crash due to Bill Clinton's bill that took the GI home owners guaranteed mortgage plan and extended it to ALL Americans. So the banks with a loans totally backed by the government loaned money to anyone that walked in the door. It finally caught up to them in 2007. This was NOT a recession since the defini8tion of a recession is a negative GDP for two quarters and that did not occur. This was a "correction" and the Congress hurriedly removed those loan guarantees and things went back to normal.

By the way, 2007 was when the Democrat Congress was elected. They could not spend any money since they were trapped in the budget from the previous Republican controlled Congress. You can see the dive in 2008 as the Democrat budget was enacted.
The DAY that Obama was elected the Great Recession began.

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/5d/Pers-income.jpg

But you have my permission to continue showing that you don't bother to know the world around you before you start talking.

[Zen Cycle]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 1:38:04 PM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:39:20 AM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > That's funny coming from a guy that thinks Obama caused a recession that started before he was even elected, let alone took office.
>
> I am curious as to this recession that started before Obama was elected. Which one was that and by all means show us the Treasury records that prove it.

How can one person be so embarrassingly stupid?

"The Great Recession is a term that represents the sharp decline in economic activity during the late 2000s, which is considered the most significant downturn since the Great Depression. "

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/great-recession.asp

>
> In the second to last year of the Bush administration there was a real
> estate crash due to Bill Clinton's bill that took the GI home owners
> guaranteed mortgage plan and extended it to ALL Americans.

I'd love to know where you got that info.....

> So the banks with a loans totally backed by the government loaned money
> to anyone that walked in the door.

Yeah, I suppose you never heard of lehman brothers and mortgage backed securities.

> It finally caught up to them in 2007. This was NOT a recession since
> the defini8tion of a recession is a negative GDP for two quarters and
> that did not occur.

Sooo, embarrassingly stupid. from http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter:

GDP growth from december '08 to september '09

Sep 30, 2009 -2.80%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.06%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.75%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.83%


I'm not sure what planet you were on in 2009, but McCain suspended his presidential campaign to go work with congress to structure a bailout, and both obama and mcain met with bush structure a bipartisan solution You can read about it here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

> This was a "correction" and the Congress hurriedly removed those
> loan guarantees and things went back to normal.

Yeah, the economy was "normal" when obama took office, right....

> The DAY that Obama was elected the Great Recession began.
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/5d/Pers-income.jpg

Obama was elected in december of 2007?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_the_United_States

"The Great Recession in the United States was a severe financial crisis combined with a deep recession. While the recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, it took several years for the economy to recover to pre-crisis levels of employment and output. "

Read that middle part again, jackass...."the recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009"

Oh, and here's this handy chart from the CBO, showing what _would_ have happened if Obama didn't sign the recovery act of 2009:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_the_United_States

And you talk about others not knowing the world around them.

> But you have my permission to continue showing that you don't bother to
> know the world around you before you start talking.

I'm sure anyone reading this has a good idea who's full of shit.

I am so done here.

<mic drop>

[Zen Cycle]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 1:21:30 PM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 9:08:46 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 11:39:20 AM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > "The GOP is going to rob SS". I see you're a real economist. Obama
> > > doubled the national debt in 3 years and spent the entire SS trust
> > > fund and you're blaming it on the Republicans.
> >
> > Talk about being clueless about the world around you:
> >
> > https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/
> >
> > "The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. "
> >
> > And if you had even half the intellectual versatility you claim to have, you'd know the debt isn't the problem. It's the deficit, stupid. Obama cut the deficit to half of what it was at its peak (as a result of Obama digging us out of the bush/cheney recession), and trump has already doubled it.
> >
> > > I don't believe you were ever an EE. In order to be an engineer you
> > > have to be capable of analysis and that statement alone showed you
> > > incapable of analyzing what the hell is going on in the national
> > > economy.
> >
> > That's funny coming from a guy that thinks Obama caused a recession that started before he was even elected, let alone took office.
>
> In case you are unaware of it the Democrats started every war since the WW I.

A), not even close to true
B), completely irrelevant

> So don't pretend that the fund was opened to be used for other things when
> it was the Democrats that instead of putting money in as the bill was
> supposed to do, took money out.

You clearly have no idea what a trust fund is.

> The Democrats and mainly Obama spent every single penny in the
> Trust Funds and you can see it in Obama's monetary records.
> They are entirely available from the Department of the Treasury.

Sooo embarrassingly stupid:

from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#32f08b641917

"President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President. The Great Recession is probably the biggest of them as can be seen in the yearly deficit numbers. "

Reagan was the spending fool champion, increasing the debt by 178%, with bush the younger in second place at 93%, obama was third (since reagan) at 78%, and clinton not only had the smallest increase, but also balanced the budget, which held until bush passed his budget:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/

You're beginning to bore me with your stupidity.

[news18]

How long have you been riding a bike that you didn't know that?

[Good Soldier Schweik]

You don't stand a chance. You are arguing with a fool who has a
lifetime of experience.


Cheers,

Schweik