Justin Amash is the anti-Ron Paul

[enhanced_deficit]

He appears more anti Deep-Zionism.

He is not perfect and bit too purist against globalism... but still appears far more principled than globalist GOP-Adelson which likes of Bannon saw as GOP-Democrats. With neocons-funded pro-war democrats masquerading as 'conservatives' pushing debt financed big gummit spending and globalist wars agenda, it is puzzling why rest of so called Republicans and Conservatives are not speaking up?
He may have been bit too purist this week but if his principles guided him to leave party of 'small minded' neocons, that's his prerogative. Freedom can be messy sometimes.

Pragmatically, GOP-MAGA wing looks to be finished after 2020 with high risk of its funding drying up, does GOP have alternate leadership ready or independents like Amash/new faces will rise up to take charge of what can be salvaged of left-wing neocons ravaged GOP?

 

[Cleaner44]

It was Democrats that Elected Trump..

I spoke to several Democrat Wheat Farmers in oregon at the time..

they voted trump because they could not stand Hillary..
Hillary Got Trump Elected..

Clearly that was a big part of it. Trump also won over mid-western union types.

 

[devil21]

Its not the "using the GOP".. that is a problem..

It is the Being used by the GOP that is a problem...

ongoing and continuous.

Yep, just a few weeks ago the NCGOP establishment used electronic voting shenanigans to install their chosen candidate into the State Chair, over the grassroots supported candidate. This is only a couple months after the outgoing Chair was indicted for bribery.

They want your money and your votes but not your candidates who may change their grifting business model.

 

[Ender]

Trade is win-win. It only happens if both side benefit. So anything that reduces win-win situations makes people poorer. If China makes something cheaper and the US consumer chooses it, then that is what should happen. It logically has to make the US wealthier. It can't be any other way.




You come pretty close and I am not going to spend ten hours looking for the post but you actually did say something to the effect. Your whole thing is about how important it is for the US to manufacture more stuff. Pat Buchanan certainly says that garbage and I see people praising him in this thread. Regardless, using tariffs to prop up uncompetitive industries is welfare and reduces US productivity.

WHOA. Somebody still on the forum who understands real capitalism- thank you!!!

 

[UWDude]

WHOA. Somebody still on the forum who understands real capitalism- thank you!!!

China subsidizing their industries and putting tariffs on American imports is "real capitalism" now.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

China subsidizing their industries and putting tariffs on American imports is "real capitalism" now.

What does that have to do with buying things more cheaply?

 

[Swordsmyth]

What does that have to do with buying things more cheaply?

You are accepting welfare from a communist government that is engaging in economic warfare against your country in order to turn it into a communist hellhole full of welfare bums.

 

[jmdrake]

Ex 1. Trump says the govt is shut down until I get wall in budget. A month later Trump approves budget with no wall funds.

Ex 2. Trump says I'm leaving Syria asap. Retracts/qualifies statement, and 6 months later still in Syria

Ex. 3 Trump campaigns on Afgh/Iraq being mistakes. Appoints John Bolton...

I could go on, but these are examples of Trump's 45% pragmatism 55% idealism, and the majority of everyone here (maybe not Swordsmyth) has been pissed when he's done it.

Ex 4. Iran downs drone, Trump does not retaliate with force even though it was advised.

Trump possibly went 100% idealism with that. Everyone loved it.

I was with you until Ex 4. Trump wiggling his way out of an Iran strike was a boss move. And everyone here knows I'm not a Trump fan. But I will give credit where credit is due and this is an example. First by saying "I'm sure someone in Iran made a mistake" he offered a face saving way out for everyone. Iran just had to keep their mouths shut, which they did, and Trump could say "See? They didn't mean it. If they did they would have said something."

This is my Ex 4: He said he supported the 2nd amendment then he did the bumpfire stock ban and hinted that he would support Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You are accepting welfare from a communist government that is engaging in economic warfare against your country in order to turn it into a communist hellhole full of welfare bums.

That's a bit of a stretch.

It makes no difference if another country is subsidizing a particular industry or industry in general. The US purchasing items for cheaper than it would cost to manufacture here is ALWAYS an economic positive.

You see the industries here which might be affected or become unprofitable due to as much. It is still an economic positive even if said industry cannot compete whatsoever.

Why? Because that industry or those workers within that industry could be doing Something Else. That is to say, they could be pursuing things that are more economically sensible.

What you are really calling for is socialist like protectionist policies and welfarism which prop up American industries..... thus..... working towards turning this country into a communist hellhole full of welfare bums.

 

[shakey1]

I was located in Oregon at the time of the election.

Democrats Voted for Trump..

a whole lot of Republicans did not.

So, a whole lot of republicans did not vote?

 

[Mach]

Amash is just stunting, because he is planning on running as an Independent in 2020.

Anybody that wants open borders is for the end of borders and individual countries.... snewrldrdr....

https://reason.com/2019/07/04/justin-amash-declares-independence-from-republican-party/#comments

 

[Swordsmyth]

That's a bit of a stretch.

It makes no difference if another country is subsidizing a particular industry or industry in general. The US purchasing items for cheaper than it would cost to manufacture here is ALWAYS an economic positive.

You see the industries here which might be affected or become unprofitable due to as much. It is still an economic positive even if said industry cannot compete whatsoever.

Why? Because that industry or those workers within that industry could be doing Something Else. That is to say, they could be pursuing things that are more economically sensible.

What you are really calling for is socialist like protectionist policies and welfarism which prop up American industries..... thus..... working towards turning this country into a communist hellhole full of welfare bums.

You could say the same thing about our government and you would be wrong just like you are about a foreign government, government intervention from any government sends false signals to the market and causes misallocation of resources that makes everyone poorer, when it it targeted as part of economic warfare it can destroy the country it is aimed at.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You could say the same thing about our government and you would be wrong just like you are about a foreign government, government intervention from any government sends false signals to the market and causes misallocation of resources that makes everyone poorer, when it it targeted as part of economic warfare it can destroy the country it is aimed at.

You could argue that the misallocation of resources makes that country poorer, or that the world economy as a whole is less prosperous, but it does not follow that the US economy in particular is worse off due to cheaper products being made available through a foreign country.

What I assume you are getting at is that if all of the production of a particular item is made cheaply (even artificially) in one country overseas ensuring that investment or opportunity to produce said product here is not realized, that then the foreign country could cease trading with the United States and 'we' could be crippled by the lack of said item (say precious mineral refinement).

There are a couple of points I'd make on that topic.

First, what incentive would they have to arbitrarily stop trading absent their government's interference?

Really, none.

If they exhausted their depositories or failed due to central planning, are we not better off by having acquired said minerals etc. for the lower cost while it lasted?

So then I would move to say, "And what if their government does interfere?" Or what if they fail or are suddenly unable to provide said good or service?

There will be a correction, of sorts, where capital allocation would shift to fill the void of said product not being readily made within our own borders. Prices would rise to entice new market entry and once an equilibrium was reached, prices would stabilize and life would continue as normal. It does not make economic sense to pay more for an item now on the possibility that said item will be made unavailable due to nefarious actors or poor business decisions in the future.

You capitalize on the lower product costs and make products or provide services which make the most economic sense.

That is to say, the best (cheapest while maintaining quality controls) person (or country) for the job ought to do the job.

Economic warfarism is sanctions and blockades. Not "flooding" a country with cheap products.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You could argue that the misallocation of resources makes that country poorer, or that the world economy as a whole is less prosperous, but it does not follow that the US economy in particular is worse off due to cheaper products being made available through a foreign country.

What I assume you are getting at is that if all of the production of a particular item is made cheaply (even artificially) in one country overseas ensuring that investment or opportunity to produce said product here is not realized, that then the foreign country could cease trading with the United States and 'we' could be crippled by the lack of said item (say precious mineral refinement).

There are a couple of points I'd make on that topic.

First, what incentive would they have to arbitrarily stop trading absent their government's interference?

Really, none.

If they exhausted their depositories or failed due to central planning, are we not better off by having acquired said minerals etc. for the lower cost while it lasted?

So then I would move to say, "And what if their government does interfere?" Or what if they fail or are suddenly unable to provide said good or service?

There will be a correction, of sorts, where capital allocation would shift to fill the void of said product not being readily made within our own borders. Prices would rise to entice new market entry and once an equilibrium was reached, prices would stabilize and life would continue as normal. It does not make economic sense to pay more for an item now on the possibility that said item will be made unavailable due to nefarious actors or poor business decisions in the future.

You capitalize on the lower product costs and make products or provide services which make the most economic sense.

That is to say, the best (cheapest while maintaining quality controls) person (or country) for the job ought to do the job.

Economic warfarism is sanctions and blockades. Not "flooding" a country with cheap products.

If you have been de-industrialized you can't just switch back to making the things you need and what's worse your people may have become dependent on government for their needs and created a socialist/communist system that is bad for your economy.

You can most certainly use dumping for economic warfare and China does sanction and blockade our exports to China as part of their campaign.

Government interference in the marketplace is never good, not even when it is a foreign government, the benefits to a few don't make up for the damage to everyone else that takes place both when the subsidization takes places and when it stops due to deliberate action or because the foreign government collapses due to its communism.

You are also accepting stolen goods and that is wrong.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If you have been de-industrialized you can't just switch back to making the things you need and what's worse your people may have become dependent on government for their needs and created a socialist/communist system that is bad for your economy.

There would be a correction period of sorts but people are resilient and I have no doubt production would shift to meet needs rather quickly. Look at the war production which occurred during WWII. Perhaps apples and oranges but in my opinion it tells a larger story. If it is the difference between, at its extreme, starving, or, (and forgive my language) figuring it the fuck out, I would be willing to bet that "they" (the market, or rather certain market actors) "figure it the fuck out." It can be an uncomfortable realization that we all rely on each other but really it is not all that unpredictable.

It also does not follow that a country's business or governmental practices creates a socialist or communist system here (or even that people will become dependent on government).

First, if the incentive wasn't there, the pervasiveness of such things would not exist.

Second, what you advocate for, by a strict or honest definition of socialism, is socialist. It certainly doesn't make us less socialist to take from all to prop up given industry. It is almost like the excuse is the rule (they subsidize farmers or tax/restrict import of agriculture so then 'we' socialize the cost of keeping the farmer above water). And to be clear, the farmers have been subsidized since.... FDR?

You can most certainly use dumping for economic warfare and China does sanction and blockade our exports to China as part of their campaign.

There are other countries which will accept the products.

Government interference in the marketplace is never good, not even when it is a foreign government, the benefits to a few don't make up for the damage to everyone else that takes place both when the subsidization takes places and when it stops due to deliberate action or because the foreign government collapses due to its communism.

I agree. What 'we' control (but not really) is the US. We ought to start here as far as removing government interference from the marketplace.

You are also accepting stolen goods and that is wrong.

Copied software or counterfeit goods? I'm not too sure what you are referring to.

 

[Swordsmyth]

There would be a correction period of sorts but people are resilient and I have no doubt production would shift to meet needs rather quickly. Look at the war production which occurred during WWII. Perhaps apples and oranges but in my opinion it tells a larger story. If it is the difference between, at its extreme, starving, or, (and forgive my language) figuring it the $#@! out, I would be willing to bet that "they" (the market, or rather certain market actors) "figure it the $#@! out." It can be an uncomfortable realization that we all rely on each other but really it is not all that unpredictable.

We had the industrial capacity to expand our industrial capacity quickly back then, there is no comparison.
And you could be collapsed/conquered during the aftermath of being cut off not to mention the damage that was done to your citizens both when the foreign goods were subsidized and when they were cut off.

It also does not follow that a country's business or governmental practices creates a socialist or communist system here (or even that people will become dependent on government).

Yes it does, welfare (and that's what government subsidization is even if it is coming from a foreign government) creates dependency, we see it in the slums and we see it in America as the trade war has destroyed jobs.

First, if the incentive wasn't there, the pervasiveness of such things would not exist.

Poverty caused by economic warfare creates the incentive.

Second, what you advocate for, by a strict or honest definition of socialism, is socialist. It certainly doesn't make us less socialist to take from all to prop up given industry.

I don't advocate for that, I advocate for getting China to play fair, countering China's interventions in the market or having a free market without them.

It is almost like the excuse is the rule (they subsidize farmers or tax/restrict import of agriculture so then 'we' socialize the cost of keeping the farmer above water). And to be clear, the farmers have been subsidized since.... FDR?

We should not subsidize our farmers.

There are other countries which will accept the products.

Those countries would already be buying our products, at a minimum they have stolen American marketshare without paying for it with the marketshare our industries should have in China and they may have stolen our marketshare in other countries by subsidizing their own sales to them.

I agree. What 'we' control (but not really) is the US. We ought to start here as far as removing government interference from the marketplace.

We can control Chinese interference in our market and we should attack on all fronts at once to remove government interference.

Copied software or counterfeit goods? I'm not too sure what you are referring to.

I'm not talking about IP theft, the foreign government stole money from its people and from our industries to subsidize its exports and undermine our economy, accepting the subsidy is accepting stolen goods, no good can come of it.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

We had the industrial capacity to expand our industrial capacity quickly back then, there is no comparison.
And you could be collapsed/conquered during the aftermath of being cut off not to mention the damage that was done to your citizens both when the foreign goods were subsidized and when they were cut off.

These sound like non-issues to me. The country isn't going to be conquered, absent the collectivists who have conquered it. Having to spend more to purchase like American made items is only going to lead to more calls for socialism. Many are barely surviving now. The tariffs have consequences and one of them is, the most unable to pay these tariffs are baring the brunt of the policy. Their inclination more often than not is going to be to call for more government interference, i.e socialism.

Yes it does, welfare (and that's what government subsidization is even if it is coming from a foreign government) creates dependency, we see it in the slums and we see it in America as the trade war has destroyed jobs.

Government interference creates (or rather exasperates) dependency. You are calling for further government interference.

The jobs that were destroyed were destroyed by government interference i.e the trade war.

But they are going to fix it?

By how?

They are going to make the least able to pay, that much worse off by having to pay more for products they want to purchase?

And this will not lead to the DSSA?

Poverty caused by economic warfare creates the incentive.

What do you think of deficit spending as it compares to shady business practices of foreign government and overseas businesses?

Do you feel that spending a trillion dollars a year more than you bring in is more or less 'productive' as it relates to bringing about a populist socialist uprising than trade imbalances?

I don't advocate for that, I advocate for getting China to play fair, countering China's interventions in the market or having a free market without them.

Fair enough. And could I purchase from China if I wanted to? Or have my betters in Washington and elsewhere determined that I am incapable of transacting without their seal of approval? I might get ripped off, you know.

We should not subsidize our farmers.

Even in a trade war? If they go under and their equipment is not maintained, what are we to do if a country or countries stop trading agriculture to us?

Those countries would already be buying our products, at a minimum they have stolen American marketshare without paying for it with the marketshare our industries should have in China and they may have stolen our marketshare in other countries by subsidizing their own sales to them.

Sounds pretty communist to me.

We can control Chinese interference in our market and we should attack on all fronts at once to remove government interference.

You are not satisfied with simply not purchasing Chinese made goods? Everyone should be restricted?

Sounds pretty communist to me.

I'm not talking about IP theft, the foreign government stole money from its people and from our industries to subsidize its exports and undermine our economy, accepting the subsidy is accepting stolen goods, no good can come of it.

I wonder if the Chinese say the same things about our products?

Seems like there is an unneeded and common denominator between both scenarios.

 

[Swordsmyth]

These sound like non-issues to me. The country isn't going to be conquered, absent the collectivists who have conquered it.

It could collapse and it could be conquered by a communist revolution with foreign help.

Having to spend more to purchase like American made items is only going to lead to more calls for socialism. Many are barely surviving now. The tariffs have consequences and one of them is, the most unable to pay these tariffs are baring the brunt of the policy. Their inclination more often than not is going to be to call for more government interference, i.e socialism.

Getting decent jobs will cure what little there is of that but continuing to allow our economy to be hollowed out will guarantee poverty and communism in the long run.

You are saying that we shouldn't harm the patient by cutting him open to remove the cancerous tumor.

Government interference creates (or rather exasperates) dependency. You are calling for further government interference.

No, I am not, government action to counter enemy government interference reduce government interference.

The jobs that were destroyed were destroyed by government interference i.e the trade war.

But they are going to fix it?

By how?

They are going to make the least able to pay, that much worse off by having to pay more for products they want to purchase?

And this will not lead to the DSSA?

Eliminating the foreign government interference will reverse the damage done and we will be able to afford American made products and have wealth to spare as we did before the trade war.

What do you think of deficit spending as it compares to shady business practices of foreign government and overseas businesses?

Do you feel that spending a trillion dollars a year more than you bring in is more or less 'productive' as it relates to bringing about a populist socialist uprising than trade imbalances?

I am opposed to deficit spending but the Chinese do much more of it than we do.

Fair enough. And could I purchase from China if I wanted to? Or have my betters in Washington and elsewhere determined that I am incapable of transacting without their seal of approval? I might get ripped off, you know.

I prefer to negotiate an end to the trade war but if they refuse we can choose between countering their manipulations with tariffs (my 2nd preference) or banning trade with China in order to have a free market without their government intervention.

Even in a trade war? If they go under and their equipment is not maintained, what are we to do if a country or countries stop trading agriculture to us?

Our market will sustain enough agriculture to feed itself and if there was a problem we could enact strategic tariffs on food to preserve our independence so that we couldn't be blackmailed into giving up our rights by globalists.

Sounds pretty communist to me.

Then you don't know the meaning of the word.

You are not satisfied with simply not purchasing Chinese made goods? Everyone should be restricted?

Sounds pretty communist to me.

Proof you don't know the meaning of the word, war is always a collective endeavor because no individual can protect his rights by fighting one alone but it is not communist.

I wonder if the Chinese say the same things about our products?

Seems like there is an unneeded and common denominator between both scenarios.

We should indeed cease to subsidize any industries that we subsidize but the Chinese do far more of it than we do so it is not balanced out on both sides.

 

[TheTexan]

These sound like non-issues to me. The country isn't going to be conquered, absent the collectivists who have conquered it. Having to spend more to purchase like American made items is only going to lead to more calls for socialism. Many are barely surviving now. The tariffs have consequences and one of them is, the most unable to pay these tariffs are baring the brunt of the policy. Their inclination more often than not is going to be to call for more government interference, i.e socialism.


Government interference creates (or rather exasperates) dependency. You are calling for further government interference.

The jobs that were destroyed were destroyed by government interference i.e the trade war.

But they are going to fix it?

By how?

They are going to make the least able to pay, that much worse off by having to pay more for products they want to purchase?

And this will not lead to the DSSA?


What do you think of deficit spending as it compares to shady business practices of foreign government and overseas businesses?

Do you feel that spending a trillion dollars a year more than you bring in is more or less 'productive' as it relates to bringing about a populist socialist uprising than trade imbalances?


Fair enough. And could I purchase from China if I wanted to? Or have my betters in Washington and elsewhere determined that I am incapable of transacting without their seal of approval? I might get ripped off, you know.


Even in a trade war? If they go under and their equipment is not maintained, what are we to do if a country or countries stop trading agriculture to us?


Sounds pretty communist to me.


You are not satisfied with simply not purchasing Chinese made goods? Everyone should be restricted?

Sounds pretty communist to me.


I wonder if the Chinese say the same things about our products?

Seems like there is an unneeded and common denominator between both scenarios.

China is making our country weaker by selling us things for cheaper than it's really worth.

This is the same reason why I don't accept free samples at the grocery store. I only buy brands that are NOT giving away free samples, because their unfair tricks & marketing practices are unsustainable and I would be harming only myself by supporting them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

China is making our country weaker by selling us things for cheaper than it's really worth.

This is the same reason why I don't accept free samples at the grocery store. I only buy brands that are NOT giving away free samples, because their unfair tricks & marketing practices are unsustainable and I would be harming only myself by supporting them.

If you quit your job and went on welfare you would be much weaker and dependent, that's what is happening to America, we are getting long term welfare from China and losing our productive employment.