- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 10,789
- Reaction score
- 13,458
I am fleshing out a theory right now. Jordan Peterson argues that the biggest determinatior of violence in a society is economic inequality. This is measured by something called the Gini Coefficent. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Based on this model, it explains why Scandavian countries with less restrictive gun laws have far less violence than England and France that have more restrictive gun laws yet they are all in Europe. Why England has far more income inequality that Norway and Denmark.
@Trotsky one of our most liberal posters agrees with him.
Correct me if I am wrong but tarrifs tend to make it more expensive to produce goods overseas. Thus, it incentives having those jobs in the U.S. Adam Smith himself was a proponent of tariffs.
Why because it helps the workers in developed countries compete with third world countries that can pay their workers 10 cents an hour due to many factors including a lack of labor laws.
On the other hand it makes the very rich less rich because this cuts into their bottom line.
So assuming trickle down economic is not true and the rich tend to amass wealth rather than let it trickle down to the working class, tarriffs are a good thing for the working class. Isn't true that the working class will have more work and the rich will take a hit?
If so and assuming Jordan Peterson is right along with Trotsky isn't imposing tarrifs a way to end gun violence? Thus, Donald Trump's trade policy is actually solving the problem of gun violence with out taking a single gun If so shouldn't this added benefit to Trump's trade be part of the conversation when discussing whether Trump raising tarrifs on China is a good idea? Discuss
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-through-on-threat-to-impose-china-tariffs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Based on this model, it explains why Scandavian countries with less restrictive gun laws have far less violence than England and France that have more restrictive gun laws yet they are all in Europe. Why England has far more income inequality that Norway and Denmark.
@Trotsky one of our most liberal posters agrees with him.
Correct me if I am wrong but tarrifs tend to make it more expensive to produce goods overseas. Thus, it incentives having those jobs in the U.S. Adam Smith himself was a proponent of tariffs.
Why because it helps the workers in developed countries compete with third world countries that can pay their workers 10 cents an hour due to many factors including a lack of labor laws.
On the other hand it makes the very rich less rich because this cuts into their bottom line.
So assuming trickle down economic is not true and the rich tend to amass wealth rather than let it trickle down to the working class, tarriffs are a good thing for the working class. Isn't true that the working class will have more work and the rich will take a hit?
If so and assuming Jordan Peterson is right along with Trotsky isn't imposing tarrifs a way to end gun violence? Thus, Donald Trump's trade policy is actually solving the problem of gun violence with out taking a single gun If so shouldn't this added benefit to Trump's trade be part of the conversation when discussing whether Trump raising tarrifs on China is a good idea? Discuss
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-through-on-threat-to-impose-china-tariffs
President Donald Trump will probably impose some of the tariffs he has threatened to slap on Chinese imports, though the broad impact on the world’s two largest economies will be negligible, according to a survey of economists.
However, economists do expect some reduction in America’s $375 billion trade deficit in merchandise with China, which would let Trump potentially claim a degree of success. Respondents see the gap narrowing to $350 billion next year and $300 billion in 2020, according to median estimates in the Bloomberg News poll conducted May 14-17.
Half of the 22 economists polled by Bloomberg expect Trump to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods this year. Such forecasts indicate skepticism that this week’s visit to Washington by Liu He, President Xi Jinping’s top economic adviser, will produce a lasting truce in talks with Trump or his administration.
Trump said Thursday he doubts the two nations can come to an agreement over trade, arguing that China has become “very spoiled” by the economic advantages it enjoys. The president met with Liu Thursday after Bloomberg News conducted the survey.
Trump is likely to follow through on at least some of his tariff threats to satisfy his political base of supporters in the lead-up to the midterm congressional elections in November, said Gregory Daco, U.S. chief economist at Oxford Economics.
“Looking at the political landscape, I think there will be some tariffs imposed on China, which will be followed by retaliation, but the U.S. tariffs will be very calculated so they don’t hurt the economy,” he said by phone.
Daco expects the effect of the tariffs on U.S. growth and inflation to be “barely noticeable.” That’s in line with the median estimates in the Bloomberg survey for $50 billion in tariffs to produce a drag on economic growth of 0.1 percentage point and a similar boost to inflation. Still, Daco sees tensions between Beijing and Washington persisting, creating uncertainty for investors.
In China, the government will offset the drag from tariffs through measures such as fiscal spending or credit expansion, in order to meet the official growth target of about 6.5 percent, said Ding Shuang, head of Greater China economic research at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong.
concluded the Asian nation violates American intellectual property in a variety of ways, including by forcing U.S. companies to transfer technology. Last month, after Beijing promised to respond in kind, the president instructed his officials to consider tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese products.
None of the economists surveyed predict the Trump administration will impose tariffs on the full $150 billion under consideration. One respondent predicted the U.S. will apply duties to $100 billion in imports, while five economists don’t expect any new tariffs against China.
ZTE Lifeline
Trump raised eyebrows this week when he instructed his officials to extend a lifeline to Chinese telecom-equipment maker ZTE Corp., after the U.S. cut off the firm from its American suppliers for allegedly lying to the U.S. government. The move raised hopes that the two countries will avoid a trade war.
Trump has repeatedly complained about the U.S. trade deficit, arguing that other countries have taken advantage of America’s relatively open markets. Prominent economists from Lawrence Summers to Gregory Mankiw have criticized Trump’s preoccupation with cutting the U.S. trade gap, arguing the deficit isn’t the best indicator of economic health.
On a recent trip to Beijing, senior Trump administration officials presented a list of demands to their Chinese counterparts, including that the U.S. trade gap be reduced by $200 billion over the next two years.
Last edited: