[ckaihatsu]

Also:

Since the 1980s, Trump had advocated tariffs to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit and promote domestic manufacturing, saying the country was being "ripped off" by its trading partners; imposing tariffs became a major plank of his presidential campaign.[6] Most economists do not believe trade deficits pose a significant problem for the American economy.[7] Nearly all economists who responded to surveys conducted by the Associated Press and Reuters said Trump's tariffs would do more harm than good to the American economy,[8][9] and some economists advocated alternate means to address trade deficits with China.[7][10][11][12][13]

Donald Trump's first noted advocacy for tariffs was prompted by Japanese economic success in the 1980s, arguing that the U.S. trade deficit was a burden and that tariffs would promote domestic manufacturing that would keep the United States from being "ripped off" by its trading partners.[35][36] Imposing tariffs was subsequently a major plank of his successful 2016 presidential campaign.[37][38][39] In early 2011, he stated that because China has manipulated their currency, "it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies."[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2% ... _trade_war

[Steve_American]

Here's what happened last time around they tried that, though:

The system snipped the quote, that saud that several stock markets around the world fell 1 or 2% in a dat or 2 when the Fed. raised interest rates by 0.25%age points.

OK.
So what?

The stock market is in a bubble now and reducing it is a good thing, IMHO.

But, I'm no expert, and I don't own any stocks, and I don't carry water for the rich.
.

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu,
The system here will snip your quotes.

Again, so what?
AFAIK, Pres. Biden has retained the tariffs on China.
The majority of economists do not have any respect in my eyes. they base their opinions on a theory that is based on deductive reasoning using false assumptions that they assumed to be true.
The pandemic has shown the folly of moving the factories to make PPP, face masks, etc. medical related to China, or overseas.

Waren Mossler, a founder of MMT, argues that buying stuff from overseas with paper money is a benefit to the US; and that selling the stuff we have made in the US overseas is a cost for the US.
[IMO, this is based on the world being off the gold standard, and it ignores any nefarious deeds that the foreign holders of US dollars (dollars and US bonds here are exactly the same thing) could do to US interests with them.
As long as gold could be demanded, it was a real cost to import and a real benefit to export.
I favor much less world trade, people should buy local and only import what they can't made or extract form their own resources, and not consume energy moving stuff half-way around the worlld.]
.

[ckaihatsu]

The system snipped the quote, that saud that several stock markets around the world fell 1 or 2% in a dat or 2 when the Fed. raised interest rates by 0.25%age points.

OK.
So what?

The stock market is in a bubble now and reducing it is a good thing, IMHO.

But, I'm no expert, and I don't own any stocks, and I don't carry water for the rich.
.

I'm not a professional either, I have no conflicting material interests, and I'm not culturally or politically pro-rich.

You're showing that you have *nationalist* interests, though, such as for 'non-bubble' / 'stable' stock markets.

I think the information speaks for itself -- the empirical factors are far past the control of the Fed, and there will be sharper and greater-magnitude downturns requiring ever-greater interventions in the economy, which the Fed simply *can't* do now, because it's already lowered the interest rate as low as it can go, basically, meaning that there's no leverage left to leverage.

Here's GDP growth within the past decade:





---

@ckaihatsu,
The system here will snip your quotes.

Again, so what?
AFAIK, Pres. Biden has retained the tariffs on China.
The majority of economists do not have any respect in my eyes. they base their opinions on a theory that is based on deductive reasoning using false assumptions that they assumed to be true.

Okay.

The pandemic has shown the folly of moving the factories to make PPP, face masks, etc. medical related to China, or overseas.

Well how is this any different from *electronics*, or anything else, though, these days? China has been the First World's sweatshop *colony* for the past 30 years, and only recently has it been coming into its own, economically, with its own burgeoning 'middle class'.

Waren Mossler, a founder of MMT, argues that buying stuff from overseas with paper money is a benefit to the US; and that selling the stuff we have made in the US overseas is a cost for the US.

The U.S. is known internationally for its *armaments*, and that's the kind of trade that turned things around for the U.S. economy in World War II and afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_indu ... _exporters

---

[IMO, this is based on the world being off the gold standard, and it ignores any nefarious deeds that the foreign holders of US dollars (dollars and US bonds here are exactly the same thing) could do to US interests with them.
As long as gold could be demanded, it was a real cost to import and a real benefit to export.
I favor much less world trade, people should buy local and only import what they can't made or extract form their own resources, and not consume energy moving stuff half-way around the worlld.]
.

So you're concerned about *pollution*, then? Is that it?

Electric vehicles are beginning to transform the *entire* transportation landscape, including even potentially for trans-oceanic shipping lines -- I'm sure there will be 'green', 'non-polluting' trade routes soon enough.

[Steve_American]

I'm not a professional either, I have no conflicting material interests, and I'm not culturally or politically pro-rich.

You're showing that you have *nationalist* interests, though, such as for 'non-bubble' / 'stable' stock markets.

I think the information speaks for itself -- the empirical factors are far past the control of the Fed, and there will be sharper and greater-magnitude downturns requiring ever-greater interventions in the economy, which the Fed simply *can't* do now, because it's already lowered the interest rate as low as it can go, basically, meaning that there's no leverage left to leverage.

Here's GDP growth within the past decade:





---

My reply --- Sir, you seem to have missed it where I talked about MMTers' take on monetary policy v fiscal policy for 'regulating' the economy. The MMTer, Prof. Dr. Bill Mitchell, says that his annalysis of the economic history is that there is very little coorelation between interest rate changes and GDP growth or changes in inflation. He flatly states, that monetary policy has never worked. MS economists just claim that it worked for a while. Since, they don't need evidence to support their claims, the media and so the leaders and people believe them.
To be clear, MMTers say that the Gov. needs to *always* use fiscal policy (taxes, tax rates, and more or less deficit spending) to 'regulate' the economy.



Okay.

My reply --- OK.



Well how is this any different from *electronics*, or anything else, though, these days? China has been the First World's sweatshop *colony* for the past 30 years, and only recently has it been coming into its own, economically, with its own burgeoning 'middle class'.

My reply --- I just used those as examples, there are other examples. Like your electronics.



The U.S. is known internationally for its *armaments*, and that's the kind of trade that turned things around for the U.S. economy in World War II and afterwards.


[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Biggest_arms_sales_2013.png/270px-Biggest_arms_sales_%%20202013.png[/img]

My reply --- AFAIK, a huge chunk of US arms sales are paid for with US dollars that are given as foreign aid to the foreign nation if and only if it is used in the US to buy arms. This seems like a giveaway to US corps. that make arms. It is good for the workers who get paid, and even better for the stockholders and management.

Warren Mossler's point is that US workers do the work, the US provides most of the natural resources but all the real beneit goes overseas, because foreigners get to use the stuff. He is thinking that if we want the workers who make the stuff being exported to have more money, the US Gov. can find easier and better ways to transfer $$ to them.


---


So you're concerned about *pollution*, then? Is that it?

Electric vehicles are beginning to transform the *entire* transportation landscape, including even potentially for trans-oceanic shipping lines -- I'm sure there will be 'green', 'non-polluting' trade routes soon enough.

My reply --- I'm concerned about ACC, aka AGW. I'm concerned about what is best or the comon people of the US. I'm not concerned for the American rich because they will do fine in very case, unless a French Rev. type head chopping off thing happens. I'm concerned about future American people, so we export food which is "eating" American topsoil. Nobody cares anout topsoil loss and groundwater depletion enough to do even the tinyest little thing about it.
. . . MS econ. theory ignores all such things. It ignores all effects that happen in the natural world. This is killing us.

Well, yes, we can go back to sailing ships.
. . . Have you seen the new info about using the wind to drive propellers that drive the wheeles of a car and the car moves faster than the tailwind? It is likely that this can be used to use wind turbines to drive propellers on ships to push the ship through the water faster than the tailwind. I'm thinking huge twin hulled ships that are very wide like an outrigger canoe, only huge.
. . . Maybe batteries and solar panels can someday move ships, but not anytime in the next 30 years. And it is these 30 years that will decide if civiization will survive ACC.

[ckaihatsu]

My reply --- Sir, you seem to have missed it where I talked about MMTers' take on monetary policy v fiscal policy for 'regulating' the economy. The MMTer, Prof. Dr. Bill Mitchell, says that his annalysis of the economic history is that there is very little coorelation between interest rate changes and GDP growth or changes in inflation. He flatly states, that monetary policy has never worked. MS economists just claim that it worked for a while. Since, they don't need evidence to support their claims, the media and so the leaders and people believe them.
To be clear, MMTers say that the Gov. needs to *always* use fiscal policy (taxes, tax rates, and more or less deficit spending) to 'regulate' the economy.

Okay, this sounds like a 'politicization' of economics, instead of leaving it to the current pretense of it being 'scientific' and 'objective'.

I've been noticing that -- ironically -- there's no current application of 'supply-and-demand' when it comes to the present-day supply of *goods*, versus monetary and organic *demand*. Capitalism's industrialization and mass production has produced a tremendous *surfeit* of goods, which, in terms of supply-and-demand, means that we'd expect prices to be low because of availability outstripping demand, and that *is* the current situation.

My reply --- AFAIK, a huge chunk of US arms sales are paid for with US dollars that are given as foreign aid to the foreign nation if and only if it is used in the US to buy arms. This seems like a giveaway to US corps. that make arms. It is good for the workers who get paid, and even better for the stockholders and management.

Warren Mossler's point is that US workers do the work, the US provides most of the natural resources but all the real beneit goes overseas, because foreigners get to use the stuff. He is thinking that if we want the workers who make the stuff being exported to have more money, the US Gov. can find easier and better ways to transfer $$ to them.

Are you implying that the U.S. is beginning to resemble a colony itself?

My reply --- I'm concerned about ACC, aka AGW. I'm concerned about what is best or the comon people of the US. I'm not concerned for the American rich because they will do fine in very case, unless a French Rev. type head chopping off thing happens. I'm concerned about future American people, so we export food which is "eating" American topsoil. Nobody cares anout topsoil loss and groundwater depletion enough to do even the tinyest little thing about it.
. . . MS econ. theory ignores all such things. It ignores all effects that happen in the natural world. This is killing us.

Well, yes, we can go back to sailing ships.
. . . Have you seen the new info about using the wind to drive propellers that drive the wheeles of a car and the car moves faster than the tailwind? It is likely that this can be used to use wind turbines to drive propellers on ships to push the ship through the water faster than the tailwind. I'm thinking huge twin hulled ships that are very wide like an outrigger canoe, only huge.
. . . Maybe batteries and solar panels can someday move ships, but not anytime in the next 30 years. And it is these 30 years that will decide if civiization will survive ACC.

Yeah, I did see that video -- interesting.

Here's from a recent article:

The scope of the disasters also exposes the bankruptcy of capitalism and its complete inability to deal in any meaningful way with the ongoing climate crisis.

In a 1982 internal memo that was “given wide circulation to Exxon management,” it was made clear that global temperatures would increase sharply as more CO2 was released into the atmosphere. The memo at the time predicted an increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases and global temperatures seen today and also predicted that global temperatures would exceed an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius before the middle of this century and 2 degrees Celsius sometime around 2060.

[...]

More recently, the 2017 Carbon Majors report showed that just 100 corporations worldwide now produce about 90 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions each year, and are responsible about half of all greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity since the industrial revolution. That same presentation also noted that if the trend in fossil fuel extraction and release continues for the next quarter century, global average temperatures would be on track to reach an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... s-a23.html

[ckaihatsu]

[C]entral bankers seem “hard pressed to explain why continuing the asset buying program, known as quantitative easing, is necessary.” He said there was “broad consensus” that the injections of financial liquidity after 2008 and in 2020 prevented an economic collapse but claims that QE “would boost gross domestic product are less convincing.”

In fact, they have no validity whatsoever. The initial claim was that the lowering of interest rates would encourage a search for profits through investment in the real economy. Nothing of the sort took place as the cheap money was not used to finance productive activities but to promote speculation through ever more arcane forms of “financial engineering.”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... k-a25.html

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu,
Dr. (Prof.) Bill Mitchell and other MMTers keep asserting that the justicication for QE in 2008, and later, was (and is) based on the false theory that banks lend reserves.
So, the Fed. gave them more reserves. However (MMTers say and it has been proved by an experiment in 2014), banks create new money with each loan and are constrained, not by a lack of money to lend, but instead by a lack of credit worthy borrowers who want to borrow.
. . . This is another example of false ME economic conclusions based on false assumptions, leading to the wrong action by the Gov. [MMTers also assert that the Fed. is an arm of the Gov. because over 97% of the Fed's *revenues* are paid to the US Treasury (this is true in the UK too), and the chairman is appointed by the Pres.]

MMTers say now that the Gov. has in the covid crisis tried giving cash to the people, and this *DID* support the GDP in the covid crisis. So, we have seen that QE for banks doesn't work, but QE for the people does work, go figure.
. . . This just another nail in the coffin of the neo-liberal economic theory. We need to bury it and not let it be exhumed ever agian.
.