45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

[Hugo a Gogo]

why would you want to import that low-value employment?

[Stickyfinger]

p1stonhead said:

Not sure how this relates to Trump's promises to bring everything back to the USA (are you as Trump would put it, a 'standard retard'?) when he himself is benefiting from the cheap labour but;

No. The USA couldnt bring all manufacturing in house without being uncompetative on a global level.

No. Modern China would probably collapse without the worlds manufacturing going on there.

Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 18th January 09:21

You think the US internal market would suffer due to increased internal employment and internal sales to a multi million $$ market and suffer .....err, what is the US/China trade deficit figures atm ?

So China is exposed massively to then.

So he can do it. It would increase US internal market trade and employment. He could use US economic power to protect low paid US jobs and production for the USA and its massive internal trade then.

Thanks.

[scherzkeks]

It is highly amusing to watch snowflakes go into cognitive dissonance over globalism and economics. Undocumented workers, sweatshops, consumer awareness, and offshoring are both good and bad depending on whether a statement sounds anti- or pro-Trump.

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

scherzkeks said:

Page 99. I figured you wouldn't get it.

Not at all. I "got" that, at least as far as it's possible to get any of your posts.

I just wondered if you'd responded to my point about whether Politifact is still "biased liberal MSM" when it points out where HRC has lied? I'm guessing not.

I wondered about this, so I went to look for an example. I think I found one.

The statement is:

Politifact said:

"Ted Cruz tried to ban contraception" five times.
— Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 in a post on her campaign website

Their rating is "Mostly False".

They admit that:

Politifact said:

The post’s fine print includes more nuanced language than the headline lets on -- that Cruz is "trying to limit access to contraception," "tried to make it harder for women to get birth control," and is pursuing policies that "could ban some forms of birth control.

Their justification for a "Mostly False" is -

1. 1 - "Cruz signed a "personhood affirmation" circulated by Georgia Right to Life this summer that commits him to a "human life amendment" to the U.S. Constitution that would define life as beginning at fertilization.".

Some scholars/medical organisations say that giving a fertilised egg the rights of a person could make some contraceptives illegal. Depending on how the courts interpret.

1. 2 - "He was willing to shut down the government to cut funding from Planned Parenthood"

Withdrawing funding from PP is not banning contraception.

1. 3 - "The time he called for the Supreme Court to turn women’s personal health decisions over to their employers by striking down the Obamacare birth control co-pay provision"

Whether or not a business funds its employees birth control is not banning contraception.

1. 4 -"The time he tried to get rid of a law that made it so women couldn’t be fired for their personal reproductive decisions (including birth control)."

This is not a ban on contraceptives.

1. 5 - "And the time he used a medically and scientifically incorrect argument to try to ban emergency contraception."

This is an argument on emergency contraceptives that end pregnancy vs emergency contraceptives that prevent pregnancy.


---

The claim is not "Mostly False", it is completely unfounded. If the statement "Ted Cruz tried to ban contraception five times" is mostly false, logically it must be partially true. I therefore expect their justification to show me that he tried to ban at least some contraception, at least once. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.

I this this is a good enough example of "still "biased liberal MSM" when it points out where HRC has lied?"

Full article here - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

Happy to hear your views

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

p1stonhead said:

Not sure how this relates to Trump's promises to bring everything back to the USA (are you as Trump would put it, a 'standard retard'?) when he himself is benefiting from the cheap labour but;

No. The USA couldnt bring all manufacturing in house without being uncompetative on a global level.

No. Modern China would probably collapse without the worlds manufacturing going on there.

Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 18th January 09:21

You think the US internal market would suffer due to increased internal employment and internal sales to a multi million $$ market and suffer .....err, what is the US/China trade deficit figures atm ?

So China is exposed massively to then.

So he can do it. It would increase US internal market trade and employment. He could use US economic power to protect low paid US jobs and production for the USA and its massive internal trade then.

Thanks.

Im not saying its right. things SHOULD be made in the US absolutely. There is horrible exploitation in Asia by Western Companies.

BUT..

You think the USA can manufacture things as cheaply as Asia can? Why havent they been doing it until now then? You know the sole aim of a business is to make profits right? You think American companies will be willing to lose money they are currently making just to satisfy an isolationist President's ramblings?

Do you know that Apple has hundreds of billions outside of the USA due to taxes which would be imposed if they brought it back? There are presumably hundreds more like it. Shareholders dont give a st where the products of the companies they invest in make their products - they care about profits.

[Stickyfinger]

Right or wrong, he can do it can't he.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[jmorgan]

Not forgetting that the buyer is very fickle. Cheap t shirts or expensive ones?

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Stickyfinger said:

p1stonhead said:

Not sure how this relates to Trump's promises to bring everything back to the USA (are you as Trump would put it, a 'standard retard'?) when he himself is benefiting from the cheap labour but;

No. The USA couldnt bring all manufacturing in house without being uncompetative on a global level.

No. Modern China would probably collapse without the worlds manufacturing going on there.

Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 18th January 09:21

You think the US internal market would suffer due to increased internal employment and internal sales to a multi million $$ market and suffer .....err, what is the US/China trade deficit figures atm ?

So China is exposed massively to then.

So he can do it. It would increase US internal market trade and employment. He could use US economic power to protect low paid US jobs and production for the USA and its massive internal trade then.

Thanks.

Im not saying its right. things SHOULD be made in the US absolutely. There is horrible exploitation in Asia by Western Companies.

BUT..

You think the USA can manufacture things as cheaply as Asia can? Why havent they been doing it until now then? You know the sole aim of a business is to make profits right? You think American companies will be willing to lose money they are currently making just to satisfy an isolationist President's ramblings?

Do you know that Apple has hundreds of billions outside of the USA due to taxes which would be imposed if they brought it back? There are presumably hundreds more like it. Shareholders dont give a st where the products of the companies they invest in make their products - they care about profits.

One of Trumps policies will be a change to corporation tax to bring all that money parked abroad back to the USA. Companies have been waiting for this moment for years.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Not sure how this relates to Trump's promises to bring everything back to the USA (are you as Trump would put it, a 'standard retard'?) when he himself is benefiting from the cheap labour

Trump, like all the larger businesses in the USA has been playing the game by the rules.

He is now in a position to change the rules, so could change the game if he chose to.

[walm]

B'stard Child said:

I contribute to that thread and I don't think I've ever said any of that.....

I agree.

[scherzkeks]

jsf said:

p1stonhead said:

Not sure how this relates to Trump's promises to bring everything back to the USA (are you as Trump would put it, a 'standard retard'?) when he himself is benefiting from the cheap labour

Trump, like all the larger businesses in the USA has been playing the game by the rules.

He is now in a position to change the rules, so could change the game if he chose to.

Indeed, will be interesting to see just how far he plans to or even can go.

[walm]

Stickyfinger said:

Still avoiding the questions then, I will ask again

Do you think the USA has a significant internal market that would allow them the freedom to do it ?
Do you think China has such a market, one that would support its billions without falling apart like Russia has ?

I hope I am not a complete idiot but these questions make absolutely no sense to me.
Internal market to do what?
Do you mean can China survive without exports? What are you getting at?

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

Right or wrong, he can do it can't he.

Thank you for clearing that up.

He can try. Doesnt mean it wont be stupid but I would expect nothing less from him.

It would destroy hundreds of American companies and cost a lot of people their jobs instantly.

I dont think for one second he can change it enough to make it economically viable. His slogan should be 'Make America Uncompetative Again'.

Your argument this whole time was that even if he is a fking moron for suggesting it, all that matters is that its techincally possible? Jesus you are a child.

Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 18th January 10:00

[walm]

Stickyfinger said:

Right or wrong, he can do it can't he.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Yes he could do it.
It would be economically devastating.

It would drive up prices dramatically and crush demand. That isn't sensible. Which is why the trend historically has been going the other way.

[scherzkeks]

jmorgan said:

Not forgetting that the buyer is very fickle. Cheap t shirts or expensive ones?

In the West, this is largely an issue of what one is accustomed to. The economics of globalization have provided a wealth of cheap products at cheap prices (cheap initial cost and cheap for the manufacturer, but high-cost in many other ways).

If you buy quality products at a higher price, the economics for the end consumer can work out even more favorably. As quality products last longer and perform better. Higher initial invest, but greater returns. For those who truly cannot afford new, second-hand has always been an option. It is an option for many who can afford new, as well.

The current model is not sustainable anyways, as it is based on a false growth paradigm that is ecologically and socially unsustainable.

[p1stonhead]

scherzkeks said:

jmorgan said:

Not forgetting that the buyer is very fickle. Cheap t shirts or expensive ones?

In the West, this is largely an issue of what one is accustomed to. The economics of globalization have provided a dearth of cheap products at cheap prices (cheap initial cost and cheap for the manufacturer, but high-cost in many other ways).

If you buy quality products at a higher price, the economics for the end consumer can work out even more favorably. As quality products last longer and perform better. Higher initial invest, but greater returns. For those who truly cannot afford new, second-hand has always been an option. It is an option for many who can afford new, as well.

The current model is not sustainable anyways, as it is based on a false growth paradigm that is ecologically and socially unsustainable.

This is often true. But people wont do it. They never have. Cheapest up front always wins for most people.

[johnxjsc1985]

p1stonhead said:

This is often true. But people wont do it. They never have. Cheapest up front always wins for most people.

South Wales used to make a lot of Televisions back in the 80/90's but a good TV back then would cost you £600 plus today you can get the same TV for under £200. We are all hypocritical when it comes to buying stuff.

[Stickyfinger]

p1stonhead said:

This is often true. But people wont do it. They never have. Cheapest up front always wins for most people.

False.

[p1stonhead]

johnxjsc1985 said:

p1stonhead said:

This is often true. But people wont do it. They never have. Cheapest up front always wins for most people.

South Wales used to make a lot of Televisions back in the 80/90's but a good TV back then would cost you £600 plus today you can get the same TV for under £200. We are all hypocritical when it comes to buying stuff.

Yep and hence why the 'rust belt' of America has been decimated.

For Trump to claim its all coming back is just a horrible economy destroying lie to tell the poor people who have been holding out for such a thing. Its an awful thing to do to them.

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

p1stonhead said:

This is often true. But people wont do it. They never have. Cheapest up front always wins for most people.

False.

The setup of the world economy differs with your opinion.