General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts)

109. I've decided to keep posting Pew polls even though you judge them to be 'inaccurate'.

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:29 AM

Sep 2012

And you are the only one who "smacks it down" by saying that you dont' accept it. I am hoping that the Pew organization can recover from their disappointment at your refusal to accept their poll.

I'm glad to know that the Alliance for American Manufacturing has a better methodology for their polling in your opinion. (Or is it that you just like their results better? ) I think Pew has a pretty good reputation too. I try to 'accept' polls that are done well whether I agree with their results of not.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

159 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all] Zalatix Sep 2012 OP

On an individual level - no one would make a bad bargain. xchrom Sep 2012 #1

For the American people it is a bad bargain. But not for Global Corporations sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #78

I know the argument is increase tariffs former-republican Sep 2012 #2

It would also create jobs, which offset the higher prices. Zalatix Sep 2012 #4

tell me how it would create jobs? former-republican Sep 2012 #5

Ah, so you totally ignore my OP but I am required to answer your questions? Zalatix Sep 2012 #8

That's not a fact that our dollar will eventually devalue more. former-republican Sep 2012 #14

That is absolutely wrong. No amount of regulation of the Federal Reserve will stop that. Zalatix Sep 2012 #21

FACT former-republican Sep 2012 #26

FACT!!! 250 BILLION of that deficit is imported non-oil goods. Zalatix Sep 2012 #31

Are you in 3rd grade? former-republican Sep 2012 #38

Did you even MAKE it to third grade? Zalatix Sep 2012 #42

Show us the regulations that will stop the dollar from devaluing. Can you answer that? Zalatix Sep 2012 #36

There is none, that's the problem former-republican Sep 2012 #40

Hey, at least you admit you can't support your own argument. Zalatix Sep 2012 #43

Yea let the federal reserve run wild. former-republican Sep 2012 #51

Similarly, the high dollar policy that the United States has pursued since the Clinton years HiPointDem Sep 2012 #53

He doesn't care about jobs, or American workers. Zalatix Sep 2012 #58

You are getting very confused. Let's recap what you said. Zalatix Sep 2012 #57

Let me asking a very simple question former-republican Sep 2012 #63

Why not bring up the Von Mises Institute? They're correct about the dollar/trade relationship. Zalatix Sep 2012 #68

that's fine former-republican Sep 2012 #70

Of course I do. If you don't like tariffs, you will get devaluation instead. Zalatix Sep 2012 #74

It's not about liking or disliking former-republican Sep 2012 #77

Like I said, if we don't do tariffs, we will see devaluation instead. Zalatix Sep 2012 #81

good , now that we have that out of the way former-republican Sep 2012 #84

But which would you choose? Devaluation or tariffs? Zalatix Sep 2012 #87

Do you have any idea how long a plan like that takes to implement? former-republican Sep 2012 #90

Cheap labor is the biggest factor. Zalatix Sep 2012 #91

Wage is a small part of it former-republican Sep 2012 #92

You've got to be kidding me, that is not just inaccurate, it's CRAZY inaccurate. Zalatix Sep 2012 #93

Yearly not Monthly former-republican Sep 2012 #104

holy cow former-republican Sep 2012 #106

Holy cow back at you. Zalatix Sep 2012 #107

It is clear to me you have no understanding of the automobile industry former-republican Sep 2012 #125

It is clear that you get your facts from an alternative universe. Zalatix Sep 2012 #126

huge tarrif on finished goods.. subsidy for imported raw matierials RedRocco Sep 2012 #95

His whole argument is faulty, and it's self-destructive, too. Zalatix Sep 2012 #128

Both of you should be ashamed tkmorris Sep 2012 #136

Wasn't a TOTAL waste of time for me. Zalatix Sep 2012 #138

Simple abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #23

Our productivity will take care of the difference there. Zalatix Sep 2012 #24

Not to mention abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #28

Wrong--Goods would become MORE affordable for American workers unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #54

Except if the US has a strong (overvalued) dollar, that means it's able to buy up other countries' HiPointDem Sep 2012 #64

No..no..they'd never throw up retaliatory tariffs. davidpdx Sep 2012 #98

Let them hit us with retaliatory tariffs. Zalatix Sep 2012 #113

Amen unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #131

So what? unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #130

You have your facts wrong. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #132

Exactly. The math cannot be beaten. Zalatix Sep 2012 #112

Free traitors have sold us out. Lasher Sep 2012 #3

Smoot-Hawley was just the last of 3 republican tariff increases from 1921-1930. FDR opposed it. pampango Sep 2012 #18

Your arguments completely ignore basic facts that I posted in the OP. Zalatix Sep 2012 #22

FDR thought that Smoot-Hawley was bad for the US. If you disagree with him that is your right. pampango Sep 2012 #39

History disagrees with the claim that Smoot-Hawley was bad for America. Zalatix Sep 2012 #44

FDR disagreed with your version of history that Smoot-Hawley was not bad for America. pampango Sep 2012 #102

History is more credible than FDR. History disagrees with FDR. Zalatix Sep 2012 #110

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

Oh I know these countries don't have laws against moving factories overseas. Zalatix Sep 2012 #142

And yet they have strong and widespread unions and a strong middle class. pampango Sep 2012 #144

You are STILL trying to argue that S/H hampered the recovery. It is STILL wrong. Zalatix Sep 2012 #145

You certainly portray yourself as a committed "us vs them" adherent. pampango Sep 2012 #147

And you certainly are committed to "throw US under the bus". Zalatix Sep 2012 #149

"So you admit there was no correlation between S/H and the lack of a recovery." - No. pampango Sep 2012 #150

Your S/H "correlation" is weak, tenuous, and that's being generous. Zalatix Sep 2012 #153

You said that trade and the economy went up together and down together. That's correlation by pampango Sep 2012 #156

other way redonaire0013 Sep 2012 #151

You didn't actually list a fact that Smoot-Hawley didn't harm trade. You stated an opinion mythology Sep 2012 #129

The Smoot Hawley Zealots have not shown any evidence to support their claims. Zalatix Sep 2012 #133

Hoover opposed the bill. Lasher Sep 2012 #27

Pampango refuses to recognize the fact that Smoot Hawley didn't even occur under the same situation. Zalatix Sep 2012 #34

Hoover signed the bill. His opposition must have been pretty weak. n/t pampango Sep 2012 #37

Read the Wikipedia article you linked upthread. Lasher Sep 2012 #41

Both Presidents had to sign legislature they initially disliked. Zalatix Sep 2012 #45

FDR also viewed Smoot-Hawley as "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" AND he opposed it. pampango Sep 2012 #100

So Smoot-Hawley was not strictly a Republican bill Lasher Sep 2012 #114

FDR opposed it. Almost exclusively republican congressmen passed it. It was signed by a republican pampango Sep 2012 #118

Hoover expressed his opposition. Lasher Sep 2012 #120

Actions speak louder than words. FDR expressed his opposition to S/H and followed it up with action. pampango Sep 2012 #121

Actions do speak louder than words. Lasher Sep 2012 #122

Plenty of Presidents have caved just like Hoover did. Zalatix Sep 2012 #127

BTW China used trade barriers bigger than Smoot-Hawley and they were successful for them. Zalatix Sep 2012 #143

Like Obama and closing Gitmo, He signed the bill preventing such. TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #152

FDR was a CLASSICAL Liberal until the day he died. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #29

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

You are correct. We have become less progressive in the last 30 years. pampango Sep 2012 #119

They also have barriers against imports, too. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134

Not the "VAT as a tariff" argument again. pampango Sep 2012 #139

I didn't say "tariff", I said TRADE BARRIERS. Zalatix Sep 2012 #141

All countries should agree that pollution should be punished. Of course, the US creates 3 1/2 times pampango Sep 2012 #146

To hell with treaties. Zalatix Sep 2012 #155

That's what Bush's attitude was. To hell with treaties or what any other country wants. pampango Sep 2012 #157

I never said for the world to live by my rules. Zalatix Sep 2012 #158

How much of that is oil? dkf Sep 2012 #6

Fossil fuel tax? That's nuts. Zalatix Sep 2012 #7

Here's where we get our oil. dkf Sep 2012 #10

We need to stop using fossil fuels. Zalatix Sep 2012 #13

You want to guarantee republicans stay in power former-republican Sep 2012 #9

Well that is what the OP is proposing by talking up tariffs dkf Sep 2012 #11

I don't either , tax credits for converting to solar , wind former-republican Sep 2012 #17

So we instead choose to hit them with droughts, acidic oceans and wars over oil? Zalatix Sep 2012 #20

You keep intentionally ignoring a critical point in my OP. Zalatix Sep 2012 #12

I'm avoiding nothing former-republican Sep 2012 #16

You did avoid it. You're avoiding it now. Zalatix Sep 2012 #19

Still waiting for a response. You haven't addressed the OP argument at all. Zalatix Sep 2012 #35

Now included in the 2012 Democratic platform: The Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement woo me with science Sep 2012 #15

We must beat the TPP to death at the grass roots, like we did SOPA/PIPA. Zalatix Sep 2012 #25

There has never been a country that has industrialized under low tariffs Odin2005 Sep 2012 #30

You mean TARIFFS saved America after the Civil War? What ever will the tariff-hating crowd say? Zalatix Sep 2012 #32

But the 1% are getting filthy rich upi402 Sep 2012 #33

I vehemently agree Populist_Prole Sep 2012 #46

us has a strong dollar policy, which is the ultimate source of our deficit in trade and budgets. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #47

Yup, look what a strong currency did to Japan. Zalatix Sep 2012 #48

what? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #49

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

a strong dollar AND tariffs? doesn't compute. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #55

Next, tell 'em about competitive devaluation. Zalatix Sep 2012 #59

i don't get your drift. and i think you missed my addendum: HiPointDem Sep 2012 #62

Competitive devaluation Zalatix Sep 2012 #66

i understand the meaning, i just don't see your point. china intentionally keeps the yuan WEAK. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #69

China used to have high tariffs against the US, along with a weak Yuan. Zalatix Sep 2012 #73

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

their workers aren't suffering? what? of course they are, in multiple ways. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #82

I'd rather have a job in China than be homeless and jobless here. Zalatix Sep 2012 #85

Spikes Under Chinese Overpasses To Prevent Sleeping Homeless? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #89

So you'd rather be a jobless worker here? Zalatix Sep 2012 #94

the point being there are homeless in china -- & everywhere. what i'd rather is to end the beggar HiPointDem Sep 2012 #96

No, what I believe is that being jobless sucks way too much Zalatix Sep 2012 #97

The point is this: abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #56

Basic. Fact. Of. ECONOMICS. Zalatix Sep 2012 #60

who is 'us' in this sentence? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #61

us = US abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #65

huh? it could lead to war versus china, and it would have a major effect on americans. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #67

Eventually we will devolve back into a decentralized society. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #71

no time soon. the signs point in the other direction: an increasingly centralized global society HiPointDem Sep 2012 #72

Capitalism is already limited to its home territory - Earth. Zalatix Sep 2012 #76

ah, yes, but it hasn't as yes marketized every available niche. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #80

Hasn't China been building up its military with its weaker currency? Zalatix Sep 2012 #83

china reportedly spends 2% of its gdp on its military. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #86

How much do we spend on plundering resources from other nations? Zalatix Sep 2012 #88

So you are essentially saying we should bail on the WTO and all free-trade agreements davidpdx Sep 2012 #99

Either that or let the FTA's sink our currency. Zalatix Sep 2012 #101

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've decided to keep responding to you with polls that reflect reality. Zalatix Sep 2012 #111

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 OP pretty much indicated that was what he/she was advocating davidpdx Sep 2012 #124

The WTO & GATT have undermined the United States on the environment. Case in point: Zalatix Sep 2012 #135

I agree the environmental standards need to be improved worldwide davidpdx Sep 2012 #137

It shouldn't be that hard to come up with an approximate value 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #148

I bet Obama could do that and beat them in the WTO. Zalatix Sep 2012 #159

Was going to respond to post, but then saw the long arguments..... northoftheborder Sep 2012 #154