Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all]HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)52. ok, i get it. i thought you were being sarcastic. yeah, japan's boom years were weak-yen.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
159 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all]
Zalatix
Sep 2012
OP
That is absolutely wrong. No amount of regulation of the Federal Reserve will stop that.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#21
Show us the regulations that will stop the dollar from devaluing. Can you answer that?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#36
Similarly, the high dollar policy that the United States has pursued since the Clinton years
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#53
Why not bring up the Von Mises Institute? They're correct about the dollar/trade relationship.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#68
You've got to be kidding me, that is not just inaccurate, it's CRAZY inaccurate.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#93
It is clear to me you have no understanding of the automobile industry
former-republican
Sep 2012
#125
Except if the US has a strong (overvalued) dollar, that means it's able to buy up other countries'
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#64
Smoot-Hawley was just the last of 3 republican tariff increases from 1921-1930. FDR opposed it.
pampango
Sep 2012
#18
FDR thought that Smoot-Hawley was bad for the US. If you disagree with him that is your right.
pampango
Sep 2012
#39
FDR disagreed with your version of history that Smoot-Hawley was not bad for America.
pampango
Sep 2012
#102
I disagree with your interpretation of history and will continue to side with FDR, not the repubs.
pampango
Sep 2012
#117
You'll continue to side with the US Chamber of Commerce, not the working class or history.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#123
As I said in #115: "I will not ask you to say hi to your 'friends' in certain conservative groups
pampango
Sep 2012
#140
You are STILL trying to argue that S/H hampered the recovery. It is STILL wrong.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#145
"So you admit there was no correlation between S/H and the lack of a recovery." - No.
pampango
Sep 2012
#150
You said that trade and the economy went up together and down together. That's correlation by
pampango
Sep 2012
#156
You didn't actually list a fact that Smoot-Hawley didn't harm trade. You stated an opinion
mythology
Sep 2012
#129
Pampango refuses to recognize the fact that Smoot Hawley didn't even occur under the same situation.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#34
FDR also viewed Smoot-Hawley as "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" AND he opposed it.
pampango
Sep 2012
#100
FDR opposed it. Almost exclusively republican congressmen passed it. It was signed by a republican
pampango
Sep 2012
#118
Actions speak louder than words. FDR expressed his opposition to S/H and followed it up with action.
pampango
Sep 2012
#121
BTW China used trade barriers bigger than Smoot-Hawley and they were successful for them.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#143
Indeed he was. I have never read that he "worshiped Free Trade as if it were a god" but he did
pampango
Sep 2012
#105
I take it you do not include the USA as one of the world's progressive countries.
Lasher
Sep 2012
#116
All countries should agree that pollution should be punished. Of course, the US creates 3 1/2 times
pampango
Sep 2012
#146
That's what Bush's attitude was. To hell with treaties or what any other country wants.
pampango
Sep 2012
#157
So we instead choose to hit them with droughts, acidic oceans and wars over oil?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#20
Now included in the 2012 Democratic platform: The Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement
woo me with science
Sep 2012
#15
You mean TARIFFS saved America after the Civil War? What ever will the tariff-hating crowd say?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#32
us has a strong dollar policy, which is the ultimate source of our deficit in trade and budgets.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#47
My point was that Japan's strong yen hurt their exports and made offshoring explode.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#50
ok, i get it. i thought you were being sarcastic. yeah, japan's boom years were weak-yen.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#52
i understand the meaning, i just don't see your point. china intentionally keeps the yuan WEAK.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#69
as is typically the case with developing economies and makes perfect economic sense.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#75
True, but why should China be bothered by being a platform for foreign capital?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#79
the point being there are homeless in china -- & everywhere. what i'd rather is to end the beggar
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#96
huh? it could lead to war versus china, and it would have a major effect on americans.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#67
no time soon. the signs point in the other direction: an increasingly centralized global society
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#72
So you are essentially saying we should bail on the WTO and all free-trade agreements
davidpdx
Sep 2012
#99
Don't know about the poster you are responding to but that is certainly what the teabaggers and
pampango
Sep 2012
#103
You should get tired of that inaccurate poll getting smacked down, over and over again:
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#108
I've decided to keep posting Pew polls even though you judge them to be 'inaccurate'.
pampango
Sep 2012
#109
I have not asked you to stop posting the polls. Nor will I disparage them unless they come from a RW
pampango
Sep 2012
#115
The WTO & GATT have undermined the United States on the environment. Case in point:
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#135