Actually they, and not the actual trade $ impact, are the largest potential collateral damage currently as all eyes are on dealing with the scale of tariff conversations elsewhere.
Reagan on tariffs and free trade
- Thread starter hawkeyetraveler
- Start date
Make no mistake, we are telling the world we have learned our lesson from getting in bed with china. They, the world, can now pick a partner. I hold firm that anyone that picks china is destined for a one time use lifestyle, which is very expensive.
We were increasingly using more disposable products made in China which only increased our dependency on more cheap made Chinese products.
No we are telling the world we don't have a clearly defined goal with tariffs. If we did USMCA would have been good enough, and we would have leveraged all efforts as a bloc of 3 nations against either oceans collective tariffs. We ripped it up telling any negotiations now are temporary, because this white house will change opinions on a whim if for no other reason than it stretched it's capabilities to evaluate deals too thin due to the sheer volume of negotiations with countries. Foreign companies are not able to have confidence the playing field rules or boundaries are worthy of infrastructure investment just yet. This delays any meaningful gains, and prolongs short term work around bandaids.
So throw tariffs on the rest of the world? That actually seems pretty counterproductive to what you are saying.
Last edited:
We are completely dependent on the masses understanding of trade appropriate complexity. Nothing is immune to a tipping point, and actually is more reactive to them. Inaction amongst the global order is how people will behave, while headlines will be dominated by laughable progress claims.
"Capitalism sows the seeds of it's own destruction." Karl Marx
Capitalism is in its global phase so naturally it is in late stage. You start to run into issues like needing imperialism to increase capital or exploiting more people to increase capital. With Trump looking to have some imperialist goals with expansion into Greenland or mineral rights in Ukraine it certainly seems like Marx was on the mark for the imperialist mechanism. With his tariff maneuvers is he looking to bring exploitation home? The system needs continuous growth to prop itself up if it intends to stay a capitalist system.
Currently he is battling with global tariffs, killing trust, destroying partnerships, and making nations decide how they move away from dependence on the US. He may pick up a few tariff deals which change the numbers meagerly between nations, but that will not be enough to increase capital as the tariffs between us and the nations we trade with were already pretty favorable.
So it makes you wonder, is it all about capitalism? I propose it is something more nefarious, something like a move to a more techno-fascist and neo-feudalist society in which the oligarchs leverage desperation for jobs with worse conditions and an overall lowering of the standard of living in the US with insane wealth consolidation by those already on the top. Historically, it was not that long ago where desperate men and women lined up outside of unsafe factories, meat processing plants, etc to get a poor paying and unsafe job. All while life expectancy was in the 40s in a large part do to living and work conditions.
When I am spouting my progressive ideals they are to oppose the exploitation mentioned above. I do not believe the model of perpetual consumption is sustainable therefore we need protections from capitalism when the time comes.
I think you have this one a bit backwards. China were victims of Japan cruelty in WW2 and it cost China 20 million people or so. Prior to that China was pretty isolated, and the Japanese incursion is one of the reasons China modernized. The other would be US companies looking to increase capital with exploitation. It has the unfortunate side effect of losing a lot of the US manufacturing base. China didn't do that to us though, US business magnates did with the help of normalized trade relations with China by the government started under Clinton but with talks going back into the 80s.
China hasn't really been actively scheming as much as companies saw an opportunity to make more money by using China, but now China is the enemy because while we used them to increase profit they naturally increased influence.
Well you obviously didn’t understand a lot of stuff. George sr and Barbara were pro choice.
It's not idealizing - at least not for me. It is to point out hypocrisy, and to ask someone to reconcile his/her MAGA beliefs with Reagan's beliefs, and compare and contrast how those beliefs line up with non-MAGA beliefs. And then, we get to someone like Romney who was mocked mercilessly for "binders full of women," and I like to point out to democrats guys like him weren't so bad in retrospect...
I don't understand why you're referencing the Bushes when I point out that Reagan saw an unborn child as a human being, while people have argued with me on this board that it is not.
June 8, 1988
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit for your immediate and favorable consideration the "President's Pro-Life Act of 1988.'' This important legislation carries out my commitment to protect the rights of unborn children by prohibiting any Federal dollars from being used to fund abortion unless a mother's life would be physically endangered by carrying the fetus to term.
Since the legalization of abortion on demand in 1973, there have been an estimated 21 million abortions in this country. The bill I am sending you has been named the "President's Pro-Life Act of 1988'' to emphasize the urgent need to reduce the number of abortions in this country and to reaffirm life's sacred position in our Nation.
The findings that would underlie the mandate of the statute point out that abortion takes the life of a living human being, that there is no right to abortion secured by the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court erred in its decision in Roe v. Wade in failing to recognize the humanity of the unborn child.
Trolley problem is easy when you declare the 'thing' on the other tracks isn't even human. Untermensch, if you will.
People who are very comfortable are often the ones willing to take the risks.
I still don’t understand what people mean by this. Dying a slow death? If I’m dying slowly, but still am the largest economy in the world, please don’t just shoot me in the head.
I said what I said based upon face to face conversations with the Bushes. End of story.
Cool. Still has nothing to do with Reagan's view that an unborn child is a human being.
By this time, one should understand that politicians often adopt stances in order to appeal to a larger group of people.
Under Reagan there was no attempt to ban abortion. There was a 12 week law. That’s the way it was.
I am not going to discuss this subject with you. There is no point.
My father was a big Reagan supporter and from his era. There were many family discussions. You probably wouldn’t have liked them. I think you might be surprised at how people Reagan’s age felt.
I simply pointed out Reagan made clear his opinion that an unborn child is a human being.
You brought up unrelated anecdotes about talking to Barbara Bush and your dad, but that doesn’t indicate that Reagan ever had the opinion that an unborn child is not a human being.
In your head, what was the point of bringing them up?
Ok, but what does that have to do with Reagan’s opinion that an unborn child is a human being?
Ok, but what does that have to do with Reagan’s opinion that an unborn child is a human being?
What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Was he against tariffs on obstetrics?
Incorrect.
Capital comes from unconsumed production.
You merely need savings to create more capital. That’s only a problem when the government steals all of society’s savings through taxation and deficit spending.
Capitalism doesn’t require continuous growth. The people requiring continuous growth are those who insist on funding this year’s government with next year’s earnings. That would require economic growth to satisfy current and prior demand.
There’s nothing about capitalism that dictates growth, it’s just the common byproduct of people freely producing, trading and consuming. In their natural thirst for abundance they want more than they have now, and under a capitalist system can make more for themselves to enjoy.
People are not naturally motivated to make more for their neighbor than themselves, Marx’s egalitarianism missed this simple observation of human nature and built a system confounded by it.
We have to produce in order that we may consume. Capital formation requires production to exceed consumption. The enormous value of NVIDIA is in the value others assign to what they produce, and invading Greenland doesn’t change that, or augment it. Imperialism is at its core simply property violations between nations. Theft is a zero sum game, but capitalism ain’t.
Back on page one:
I replied: Nah, he considered abortion the taking of a human life. The 'woke liberal nut bags' won't even acknowledge it is human.
to which bcherod responded:
Not sure what she thinks I misunderstood that Reagan said and wrote regarding the fact an unborn child is a human being, or why she brought up meeting the Bushes.
I provided an example of Reagan’s pronouncement on the subject, affirming what I had said.
Then she replied:
If you know why she is talking about the Bushes maybe you could explain it to me, because I’m not sure myself.
Reagan was a RINO!
He’s not even in the same universe as Trump when it comes to best U.S. presidents.
He’s not even in the same universe as Trump when it comes to best U.S. presidents.
Regardless, how does this have something to do with the premise of the OP? You are a master of deflection.
Last edited:
I've literally provided you the post I responded to. Sometimes people respond to posts other than the OP.
You don't need to white knight bcherod for her nonsensical responses.
Do you know any 'woke liberal nut bag these days' that think an unborn child is a human being?
Does this sound like a RINO Wokester proclamation to your ears?
One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America's unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million infants before birth; the pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.
We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told that we may not "impose our morality'' on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before birth; yet no one calls it "imposing morality'' to prohibit the taking of life after people are born. We are told as well that there exists a "right'' to end the lives of unborn children; yet no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark contradiction of each person's fundamental right to life.
That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm. That we have killed the unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor could any number of killings ever do so. The unalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality -- that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology.
You, as a man, have no right to dictate to women.
Unless you walk a mile in a woman’s shoes, you don’t have the right to judge.
I don’t care what you try to dig up. We are equal to men. We make our own decisions, you don’t have the right to make them for us.
You wouldn’t even be on the planet were it not for a woman.
I feel sorry for your wife if you have one.
Reagan was the right guy at that time. Trump is the right guy at this time. It's not complicated
What if I identify as a woman? That makes me a woman according to the wokester logic, right?
Should being a birthing person confer on you to the right to kill another human being for your convenience?
You have no clue, zero understanding.
I feel even more sorry for any female that hooks up with you.
You speak in absolutes. There are no absolutes. Every situation is different.
If at that point it isn’t human, what is it?
Someone having a terminal condition, or being in a terminal circumstance, doesn’t make them subhuman does it?
Zoologically, where on the phylum tree would you place it if it’s not human?
