Quote:

On Friday, continuing to labor under the (now fully debunked) assumption that trade wars are “good” and “easy to win,” Donald Trump announced tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports, with the first $34 billion going into effect July 6. Predictably, China announced a plan to retaliate, saying it would “immediately introduce the same scale and equal taxation measures,” and that “all economic and trade achievements reached by the two sides will be invalidated.” At this point, small children across the world could tell you that Beijing will hit back in kind every time the U.S. ratchets up its tariffs. But the current administration, perpetually slow on the uptake, was seemingly surprised by the move. Because on Monday night, by way of payback, President Twitter threatened to impose an additional 10-percent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports. And you can probably guess how that went over:

Beijing warned it would retaliate, in a rapid escalation of the trade conflict between the world’s two biggest economies.

In a statement, China’s commerce ministry said the nation will fight back with both “qualitative” and “quantitative” measures if the Trump administration follows through on last night’s threat, saying “such a practice of extreme pressure and blackmailing deviates from the consensus reached by both sides on multiple occasions.” He added: “The United States has initiated a trade war and violated market regulations, and is harming the interests of not just the people of China and the U.S., but of the world.”

The back-and-forth sent global markets sliding, with the S&P 500 falling for a third day straight and the Cboe Volatility Index rising the most in three weeks. “The degree of both rhetoric and substance behind the proposals that have gone back and forth recently is worrisome,” Mark Howard, a senior multi-asset specialist at BNP Paribas, told Bloomberg TV. “This has caused a bit of a risk-off trade today, and it’s a cause of caution by major investors.” The nosedive was so severe, in fact, that it managed to do this:

Of course, China isn’t the only one Trump has pissed off with his economic “policies” as of late. He spent much of late May flipping off the U.S.’s closest economic (and political) allies, going full throttle on his aluminum and steel tariffs, which European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called “unjustified,” and to which the E.U. will respond with tariffs of its own on U.S. goods staring in July. Mexico is on its way to imposing $3 billion worth of its own tariffs, and Canada, equally unenthused about Trump’s tactics, responded with duties on $16.6 billion in U.S.-made products. But it’s on the China front that an all-out trade war seems most inevitable. So far, that’s all well and good with Trump’s base, but these happy days could very well come to a screeching halt. “Trump’s biggest crisis will come if the trade wars cause a slowdown in the economy,” one Republican told Axios. “The boom is giving him a cushion against the impact of his policies, personal behavior, and impetuous decision-making. No boom, no cushion. Political collapse.”

---

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

Who said I am siding with anyone? You really assume a lot...

Literally just read and posted an article, you can interpret it how you want

musiclover420 said:

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

Who said I am siding with anyone? You really assume a lot...

Literally just read and posted an article, you can interpret it how you want

---

Ok Vanityfair.

qman said:

Ok Vanityfair.

---

Yes and I'm sure you always pay attention to your sources and only use reliable info right? OH wait I can't even remember you ever bothering to include sources for your claims

I doubt CNN is any better for you but here's another similar article: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/14/news/economy/trade-war-economic-cost/index.html

Quote:

A full-blown trade war would erase any economic benefits from the Republican tax cuts passed last year, according to an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania.

---

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

Is higher priced goods helping main street?


Lol this is what i love about capitalists, they think big business will just throw up their hands and say "welp! guess we'll take that loss, you sure got us Donald," when in reality the costs will just be passed on to the consumer.

---

Stonehenge said:

Oh golly did the stock market dip a little bit? It has never done that before has it? lol Trump did the right thing hitting china and china will end up giving ground watch and see.

---

Yeah 150k lost jobs is just a "dip", want to tell all those out of work people yourself? "don't worry guys it's just a dip, trade wars are totally easy to win , MAGA!"

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

Is higher priced goods helping main street?


Lol this is what i love about capitalists, they think big business will just throw up their hands and say "welp! guess we'll take that loss, you sure got us Donald," when in reality the costs will just be passed on to the consumer.

---

musiclover420 said:

qman said:

Ok Vanityfair.

---

Yes and I'm sure you always pay attention to your sources and only use reliable info right? OH wait I can't even remember you ever bothering to include sources for your claims

I doubt CNN is any better for you but here's another similar article: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/14/news/economy/trade-war-economic-cost/index.html

Quote:

A full-blown trade war would erase any economic benefits from the Republican tax cuts passed last year, according to an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania.

---

Doesn't seem like the tax cuts led to many benefits (for the lower class at least) So this could put us in the red...

---

musiclover420 said:

Stonehenge said:

Oh golly did the stock market dip a little bit? It has never done that before has it? lol Trump did the right thing hitting china and china will end up giving ground watch and see.

---

Yeah 150k lost jobs is just a "dip", want to tell all those out of work people yourself? "don't worry guys it's just a dip, trade wars are totally easy to win , MAGA!"

---

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

qman said:

musiclover420 said:

Stonehenge said:

Oh golly did the stock market dip a little bit? It has never done that before has it? lol Trump did the right thing hitting china and china will end up giving ground watch and see.

---

Yeah 150k lost jobs is just a "dip", want to tell all those out of work people yourself? "don't worry guys it's just a dip, trade wars are totally easy to win , MAGA!"

---

You do realize economic tariffs create dislocations that cost some US jobs, while creating more elsewhere? 

---

Alright please show us these new jobs then?... By elsewhere do you mean other countries? Because that is what happened, plants got shut down here and moved overseas thanks to the trade war.

Quote:

And that economic tariffs hurt companies that try to sell things into the US, which ultimately leads them to producing the goods here?

---

Alright then show us these companies that trump "lead to producing goods here" with his tariffs...

Quote:

Let me guess, you really don't understand how this whole game works and just lick up BS from the corporate media.

---

At least I am not blindly making assumptions that my dear leader will somehow pull through in the end, despite turning everything he touches into a bigger mess

qman said:

musiclover420 said:

Stonehenge said:

Oh golly did the stock market dip a little bit? It has never done that before has it? lol Trump did the right thing hitting china and china will end up giving ground watch and see.

---

Yeah 150k lost jobs is just a "dip", want to tell all those out of work people yourself? "don't worry guys it's just a dip, trade wars are totally easy to win , MAGA!"

---

You do realize economic tariffs create dislocations that cost some US jobs, while creating more elsewhere? 

And that economic tariffs hurt companies that try to sell things into the US, which ultimately leads them to producing the goods here?  Let me guess, you really don't understand how this whole game works and just lick up BS from the corporate media.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

What's good for Main Street sometimes isn't good for Wall Street, why are you siding with the Fat Cats instead of Joe Six-Pack? 

I thought "liberals" wanted to stick it to Wall Street one day? Oh let me guess, it's not cool if Trump is doing it. 

---

Is higher priced goods helping main street?


Lol this is what i love about capitalists, they think big business will just throw up their hands and say "welp! guess we'll take that loss, you sure got us Donald," when in reality the costs will just be passed on to the consumer.

---

So you take issue with Bernie and his position on US trade agreements and the massive trade deficit?

---

Kryptos said:

Gonna double post cause I'm on a phone. Are 12k steel jobs more important than 146k steel consuming jobs?

Same shit as coal. You're costing tens of millions to save thousands, who were left behind by the free market. Quit subsidizing, you commie. Let capitalism fluorish.

---