Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Oh dear (Score 1) 742

Yes, shame on me for admitting that, much like you, I don't have in-depth knowledge of a complex subject like international commerce.

You first reply to me was quote "You really have no idea how economies and trade wars work, do you? If you think that it's simply a matter of "net money", I have some very sad news for you my friend."

Looking back on it, do you think that statement was honest? It implied that you knew what you're talking about, that you understood it beyond the simple matter of net money. It stated explicitly that I don't know what I'm talking about. Turns out you were just being arrogant while hoping you wouldn't be called on it, because you actually have no clue.

That's what you should be ashamed of.

There's no point continuing the original discussion. I think you probably know less than I do about the economy based on what you've said so far, and apparently you don't have time anyway.

Comment Re: All-out trade war (Score 1) 742

You totally missed the point.

Yes, food is the answer to "livelihood" as in "how you live" -- you need to eat to live.

In an all out global trade war, the countries that can feed themselves have a tremendous advantage over those that cannot feed themselves. I'm not sure how significant that would be for China... I believe they produce almost all of their rice for instance. I remember an NPR article a few years back that China imported a huge amount of soybean from the US and from Brazil, but I don't know how important that is as a dietary staple.

It could certainly be a factor in coercing other countries to join our side in a trade war. China may not be very dependent on food imports (I really don't know) but they aren't a huge food exporter either. The US is. That means there are some countries out there that actually need trade with the US to live. That means they don't have a choice about who to side with in a trade war.

Of course when a trade war starts getting into starvation territory, it would probably turn into real war pretty fast so I dunno how important it all is.

Comment Re: It's the transition team, people. (Score 1) 820

Like I said, "not fit for discussion" means that he considers himself not really a public figure and/or that sexuality in general is a private matter that some people aren't comfortable having discussed by strangers. That's also the link between Thiel and Hulk Hogan... notice he didn't choose to fund a lawsuit about some random libel that Gawker may have done... it was specifically another example of them invading someone's privacy over a sex matter.

You didn't respond at all to my example that by your standard, I'm an "in the closet" heterosexual, and you may be too. Does that make sense? No it doesn't. Being comfortable with your own sexuality is not the same as having no qualms about your sex life being discussed by strangers on various websites. I mean are you married? Do you feel comfortable telling me, here and now, all the details of your sex life with your wife? Tell me about the last time you tried anal with her and how she felt about it. Do you ever think about threesomes with people you know? What are their names? Hey after all, if you're heterosexual you must be comfortable discussing all of this with strangers right? Remember to use real names, you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

Comment Re:Fake stories like... (Score 1) 470

The reason is that when it gets busy (like mornings, lunch break, and after work) there can be significant waiting times getting in to vote. If you're in a state that was thought to be a battleground state, and it looks like your candidate is losing badly in other battleground states that have already voted, you might think "Eh the line is an hour long, we're losing anyway, I'm going home."

But yeah obviously you're right and I'm glad most people think that way, because in fact Trump continued to do well in central and western battleground states, despite the fake news showing Clinton way in the lead early on.

Comment Re: Oh dear (Score 1) 742

I have better things to do

Yeah, okay lol. You have better things to do, like come and make vapid comments explaining how you don't have time to make comments.

With that said, you're free to deny the reality of my statement

You've already admitted you don't know much about it. Let me think how much your statements and your version of "reality" are worth...

Comment Re:Fake stories like... (Score 2) 470

That could go either way. Maybe the media was trying to demoralize Trump supporters by showing that their vote was useless.

I know that at 7:45pm or so (EST), I turned on the news and say that Clinton was winning North Carolina (where I live), and I thought oh shit, why did I even bother going to vote today, they were right and this is going to be a landslide for Clinton.

You know something very odd? I checked the official NC election results website, which was updated pretty often (maybe once a minute), and pretty quickly it showed Trump leading by about 5%. Guess what. They didn't update the results on news sites for about 45 minutes. Why is that? I'm not usually keen on conspiracy theories, but the only thing that makes sense to me is they wanted Trump voters in the central and western US to give up and go home, while Clinton supporters would be happy to cast their celebratory vote. MSNBC was running this just absolutely blatant pro-Clinton interstitial (I was watching MSNBC online, not sure if it was on TV) about "celebrating your vote" by showing tweets and photos from Clinton voters proud to vote for the first female candidate, while also showing Clinton ahead in results even though she was actually behind. Why?

Comment Re: Oh dear (Score 1) 742

I see some handwaving, but no actual pertinent remarks. Yes, you're right, I don't know how economies and trade wars work. Give me a brief overview. If you can't, then you're probably not an expert either so join me in handwaving.

2013 figures: US GDP is $16.7 trillion, Chinese GDP is $9.2 trillion
2013 US exports to China $122 billion, Chinese exports to US $440 billion

In the event of a 100% trade embargo, explain to me how if China loses a bigger percentage of their GDP and a net surplus of money they actually come out ahead? I'd like to see the math.

Comment Re:Oh dear (Score 1) 742

And if automation were cheaper than Chinese labor, business would have already gone that route

Well, businesses are going that route, but it's a long process. I think it's pretty obvious that the speed is directly proportional to the potential market. Look at restaurants... when activists and politicians started making noise about a $15 minimum wage nationwide, in a short time you got development of ordering/checkout tablets at restaurants, even though the minimum wage hike hasn't happened outside of a few places. Restaurants could have automated 10 years ago.. the technology was there. It just wasn't packaged up as an off the shelf product for restaurants. So Red Lobster would have had to say "Hey Company X, could you develop this for us?" and it would have cost a million bucks. Now, the market is there waiting for innovators, so Company X went ahead and did the development for free and lots of restaurants are buying it.

If an industry was facing a mandate to move back to the US or face huge tariffs, you'd see a big increase in investment towards automation for the same reason... right now there's no market for "machine to automatically manufacture hammers", but if there are suddenly 20 hammer manufacturers that come back to the US, there will be.

That means not all of the jobs come back, obviously... but if we can take 10 million Chinese jobs and trade them in for 1 million more expensive US jobs (so 90% automation), that's still a big win for our economy.

They will not be competitive in an international market where folks can continue to get cheaply made items from other countries.

It's not quite that simple.. if you want an iPhone you have to buy it from Apple, you can't say "Oh I'll get this cheaper iPhone from China." But yeah, for generic products you're right. Theoretically that will result in devaluing the US dollar to make our goods more competitive. Right now you have countries like China that have a massive trade surplus with us, but they take any excess dollars and just invest them in Treasurys, taking them off the market, which props up our currency. In a trade war that would go away... even if they didn't redeem their existing assets they would at least stop.

There won't be a lot of motivation left for anyone to sell us the raw materials we need to make any of our high quality goods

You'll have to elaborate on that. I don't get it. Why would Peru stop exporting zinc to us because we stopped buying Chinese goods?

Comment Re:China's Mistake (Score 1) 742

If dumping fails to eliminate some competitors, then yes. If it does, then no. Simple as that.

When the dumper has the support of a government like China that is willing to reallocate resources to protect an industry of strategic interest, the chances that you'll outlast them without some government intervention of your own are zero.

Comment Re: All-out trade war (Score 1) 742

We have more leverage right now to do something positive than we will if we endure another 20-30 years of steady erosion and status quo because we're afraid of starting a trade war.

Realistically, we can impose tariffs on China and start recalibrating our manufacturing industries without triggering a trade war. It will probably have to include some things that we've been philosophically opposed to in the past, like state support of industry.... just like China has done for decades to give themselves a competitive advantage.

Comment Re: All-out trade war (Score 2) 742

Keep saying they're poor. While they destroy our economy.

You're the one who wants to let them destroy our economy by putting our heads in the sand and not reacting. You CANNOT sustain a $365 billion trade deficit. It will destroy your economy.

If China wants, they can replace the $X worth of goods we send them with local manufacturing. If we do the same, our prices double. Theirs won't.

Guess what, even without a trade war, China IS replacing that $X of goods with local manufacturing, slowly but surely. That's why their manufacturing increases every year. They do more and more stuff. That's why our trade deficit with China grows every year. And they're transitioning from manufacturing cheap crap to more complex stuff.

Your "down side" to a trade war is already happening. I mean open your eyes. Check out this article http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...

The American 1880s electric components manufacturer is turning to China. Even if that requires partnering with their nuclear scientists who may one day eat Westinghouse’s lunch not only in China, but in the U.S. and the rest of the world too.

[...]

In 2008-09 it signed a technology transfer agreement with the State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC) to build the AP1000 and its Chinese spin-off called the CAP1400.

According to the World Nuclear Association, that tech agreement is what got them the contract to build the reactors in China, the latest and greatest in Westinghouse nuclear technology.

[...]

Jack Allen, then president of Westinghouse for Asia, told the Financial Times in 2010 that the company had no guarantees of its role in China after the four AP1000s were built with their Chinese partners. That was the year they handed over 75,000 documents to SNPTC, which might as well have been titled How to Build an American Nuclear Power Plant.

“We don’t know what will happen. We don’t expect to walk away after the completion of those units and not participate in (China’s) nuclear program,” Allen says. “But there are no guarantees.”

So please, tell me more about how we have a wonderful mutually beneficial trading arrangement with China currently, and only a loony trade war will ever make China produce the stuff that we currently produce. Please.

Comment Re:It was bound to happen. (Score 1) 106

Are you suggesting that "repeal and replace" means Trump is obligated to come up with something that has absolutely nothing in common with Obamacare, or that is the exact opposite of Obamacare somehow? To me that seems silly. Obviously if there are things about Obamacare he likes, then those provisions will remain afterwards. And some stuff like making family plans last until age 26 are popular.

Comment Re: All-out trade war (Score 4, Informative) 742

China doesn't have the people to replace purchases either, at least not at the same price. They are poor remember? And they are too frugal to spend any amount of money on most of the cheap disposable crap we buy from them.

Look the math is simple and incontrovertible. We send $X worth of goods to China. China sends $(X + 365,000,000,000) worth of goods to the US.

A trade war hurts China more than it hurts us. Can you tell me what specifically you're disagreeing with? I really just don't understand. Give me some numbers to show that the US would be hurt more.

Comment Re:Oh dear (Score 1) 742

We can manufacture all the cheap shit they do, too, we just need to give up clean air, clean water, spacious homes, etc...

Well, two other options.. raise the prices, or use more automation.

any increase in employment here will be offset by an increased cost of living as we pay for much more expensive labor than we had been

That really depends on how well the locally produced goods continue to compete internationally. Apple sells phones all over the world, not just here. Because of current tax structure they don't bring back the money from international sales to the US, nor do they pay taxes on it. If they suddenly produced all their phones here, they would have to pay taxes on every single one sold around the world. (Their current argument and legal basis is that "a company in China makes the phones, a Greek company ships them to Germany, a German retail company sells them to Germans.. the US division of Apple isn't even involved..." that would obviously no longer work.)

Even ignoring the taxes, we wouldn't just be bringing back "$X that used to go to China." It would be bringing back "$X that used to go to China from the US, plus $Y that used to go to China from the rest of the world."

Of course if iPhones can no longer be sold internationally that would fail. But it just doesn't seem likely to me.. after all there are LG phones made in South Korea and HTC phones made in Taiwan and they have comparable hardware to an iPhone but don't cost 2-3 times as much.

Slashdot Top Deals

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...