The Trump Presidency VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
I think Tofu's point is that you can't post a single thing Obama has done that is good, instead "your side" makes huge lists of things that he has done that was good for the country.....;)
Click to expand...

I guess I miss the point and still do.
 
I hope that all this blathering about trade and tariffs can turn into something that sheds light on all the subsidies, alleged dumping, actual dumping ... something in short that educates the public enough to allow people to draw their own conclusions about the fairness or lack thereof, rather than the Trump-centric coverage of controversies. It's easier to report on those controversies than it is to get to the bottom of the competing claims, which I find quite frustrating.

Maybe those stories are being written and I'm just not looking in the right places. The Wall Street Journal I would trust to some extent, though it is a Murdoch property; but so far the paywall has put me off. The Economist is highly regarded but a bit over my head at times. The New Yorker does do in-depth stuff yet it biases are sometimes a little too apparent.

It's also possible John Q. Public just finds those topics BOR-ing ... and it's possible that financial journalists don't understand the topic very well themselves.

The reporting generates a lot of heat; not much light. If anyone does know some decent articles/books on these issues I'd be interested in learning more.
 
Minoosh said:
I hope that all this blathering about trade and tariffs can turn into something that sheds light on all the subsidies, alleged dumping, actual dumping ... something in short that educates the public enough to allow people to draw their own conclusions about the fairness or lack thereof, rather than the Trump-centric coverage of controversies. It's easier to report on those controversies than it is to get to the bottom of the competing claims, which I find quite frustrating.

Maybe those stories are being written and I'm just not looking in the right places. The Wall Street Journal I would trust to some extent, though it is a Murdoch property; but so far the paywall has put me off. The Economist is highly regarded but a bit over my head at times. The New Yorker does do in-depth stuff yet it biases are sometimes a little too apparent.

It's also possible John Q. Public just finds those topics BOR-ing ... and it's possible that financial journalists don't understand the topic very well themselves.

The reporting generates a lot of heat; not much light. If anyone does know some decent articles/books on these issues I'd be interested in learning more.
Click to expand...

I think even if you do find an article that sheds light on these matters in a way that a layperson can understand, very few will actually take the time to enlighten themselves. Still, it did occur to me that if anything good can come from all this trumpeting about tariffs, it will be that more people will have a better understanding of it than there previously were.

I half believe that Trump dislikes these kinds of events because he's out of his depth. He doesn't understand how all the pieces fit together and feels inadequate in the company of other leaders who do, hence his lashing out at all and sundry. He knows how to make the soundbites reflect poorly on his targets and he knows if he repeats them often enough, that people will swallow it. I noticed that in his comments about free trade at the end of the G7 summit included 'ending tariffs and subsidies', which suggests to me that people have pointed out the canadian dairy farmer problem to him. Not that I expect those subsidies to evaporate, but I can imagine the US dairy farmers are feeling a little nervous about how this is all going to turn out.

I've said this before, but I find The Atlantic articles the most informative, even if generally a bit longer than the ones people usually read.
 
Last edited:
TofuFighter said:
I think even if you do find an article that sheds light on these matters in a way that a layperson can understand, very few will actually take the time to enlighten themselves. Still, it did occur to me that if anything good can come from all this trumpeting about tariffs, it will be that more people will have a better understanding of it than there previously were.
Click to expand...
I have the same hope. Thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree he sometimes lashes out because he feels in over his head.

TofuFighter said:
I've said this before, but I find "url="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/tariffs-can-workbut-not-stupid-ones/561854/"]The Atlantic[/url] articles the most informative, even if generally a bit longer than the ones people usually read.
Click to expand...
Yes, in general I find The Atlantic to be very thoughtful and informative.

Just Googled and found this by the Washington Post. It seemed fairly evenhanded and judging by the first few comments this is more than a slap-fest. It's nice to know the articles are out there, I just was relying too much on CNN's headlines which definitely play up the controversy vs. informative analysis. I understand some of the thinking behind their wall-to-wall Trump coverage but they'd be more credible IMO if laid off a bit, keeping articles/columns but having a more balanced presentation on their home page.
 
TofuFighter said:
I think even if you do find an article that sheds light on these matters in a way that a layperson can understand, very few will actually take the time to enlighten themselves. Still, it did occur to me that if anything good can come from all this trumpeting about tariffs, it will be that more people will have a better understanding of it than there previously were.
Click to expand...

It's complicated and if the last Presidential election showed, a large section of the US electorate prefer a simple if inaccurate catchphrase over a more accurate but far more complicated policy. This is exacerbated by the fact that all countries tend to think that they are in the right, and the US is a world leader in this regard. Any attempt to explain that, for example, US dairy subsidies are actually unfair on Canada will fall on deaf ears.

TofuFighter said:
I half believe that Trump dislikes these kinds of events because he's out of his depth. He doesn't understand how all the pieces fit together and feels inadequate in the company of other leaders who do, hence his lashing out at all and sundry.
Click to expand...

He so wants to belong, as posters have repeatedly pointed out, whether it is to New York high society (which has snubbed him for decades) or at the international big-boy table. Smart world leaders will butter him up to keep him onside but will not allow him a full seat at the table because they can see that he's not up to scratch.

TofuFighter said:
He knows how to make the soundbites reflect poorly on his targets and he knows if he repeats them often enough, that people will swallow it. I noticed that in his comments about free trade at the end of the G7 summit included 'ending tariffs and subsidies', which suggests to me that people have pointed out the canadian dairy farmer problem to him. Not that I expect those subsidies to evaporate, but I can imagine the US dairy farmers are feeling a little nervous about how this is all going to turn out.
Click to expand...

Possibly but IMO he doesn't care about free trade, he cares about his own personal popularity and "winning". If he keeps the dairy subsidies in place, he will be cheered to the rafters at his rallies in the dairy states. He won't risk that IMO but I agree that he is so impulsive that maybe the dairy farmers should be concerned in case he gets rid of the subsidies almost by accident.
 
The Don said:
It's complicated and if the last Presidential election showed, a large section of the US electorate prefer a simple if inaccurate catchphrase over a more accurate but far more complicated policy. This is exacerbated by the fact that all countries tend to think that they are in the right, and the US is a world leader in this regard. Any attempt to explain that, for example, US dairy subsidies are actually unfair on Canada will fall on deaf ears.
Click to expand...

The electorate is happy to vote for sheer pie in the sky fantasy. Eg. Making Mexico pau for the wall.
 
Minoosh said:
I have the same hope. Thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree he sometimes lashes out because he feels in over his head.

Yes, in general I find The Atlantic to be very thoughtful and informative.

Just Googled and found this by the Washington Post. It seemed fairly evenhanded and judging by the first few comments this is more than a slap-fest. It's nice to know the articles are out there, I just was relying too much on CNN's headlines which definitely play up the controversy vs. informative analysis. I understand some of the thinking behind their wall-to-wall Trump coverage but they'd be more credible IMO if laid off a bit, keeping articles/columns but having a more balanced presentation on their home page.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Post article. :thumbsup: (i've been avoiding Post articles recently since the incognito window exploit isn't working anymore)
The tariff comparatives are interesting, but they don't really mention the underlying logic behind the tariffs, and I think that's probably important to know. It struck me that the heavier US tariff cases (tobacco/sugar) look like Obama initiatives. I'll try confirm that.
 
The Don said:
It's complicated and if the last Presidential election showed, a large section of the US electorate prefer a simple if inaccurate catchphrase over a more accurate but far more complicated policy. This is exacerbated by the fact that all countries tend to think that they are in the right, and the US is a world leader in this regard. Any attempt to explain that, for example, US dairy subsidies are actually unfair on Canada will fall on deaf ears.

Possibly but IMO he doesn't care about free trade, he cares about his own personal popularity and "winning". If he keeps the dairy subsidies in place, he will be cheered to the rafters at his rallies in the dairy states. He won't risk that IMO but I agree that he is so impulsive that maybe the dairy farmers should be concerned in case he gets rid of the subsidies almost by accident.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you're wrong about this. I suspect that he has moments of convincing himself that his intentions are good and for the benefit of the states that voted for him, but the reality is that he identifies voting blocs, then makes an unholy racket appearing to champion their cause in order to secure their votes. He's routinely kicking the can of accountability down the road, pretty much until it rolls into storm drain.
 
TofuFighter said:
Thanks for the Post article. :thumbsup: (i've been avoiding Post articles recently since the incognito window exploit isn't working anymore)
The tariff comparatives are interesting, but they don't really mention the underlying logic behind the tariffs, and I think that's probably important to know. It struck me that the heavier US tariff cases (tobacco/sugar) look like Obama initiatives. I'll try confirm that.
Click to expand...

The US sugar tariffs have been an issue here since I was a teenager, and I am almost at retirement age....
So blaming it on Obama seems a bit of a stretch....
 
Dabop said:
The US sugar tariffs have been an issue here since I was a teenager, and I am almost at retirement age....
So blaming it on Obama seems a bit of a stretch....
Click to expand...

I'm not assigning any kind of blame at all. Imo blame is entirely the wrong word to use since these are traditionally economic tools, not purely punitive measures as the current news cycle might lead you to believe.

I'm still looking up sugar tariff history, but you are quite right about the roots of it being in the "Farm Bill", a 70's issue enacted in 1990.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/rolandparis/status/1005593544629760000

Big tough guy once he’s back on his airplane. Can’t do it in person, and knows it, which makes him feel week. So he projects these feelings onto Trudeau and then lashes out at him. You don’t need to be Freud. He’s a pathetic little man-child.
Click to expand...

That's Trudeau's former foreign policy adviser.
Click to expand...


Not all that surprising. He's a professional politician.

That's why he held back like that. You can't expect him to say what he really thinks in a public venue like Twitter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom