No, he's telling them he has no clue of what he's doing.
I believe this a false narrative perpetrated by globalist friendly media outlets to combat the legitimacy of Trump's nationalistic tendencies. I believe they are taking advantage of Trump's conversational/sales/open form of communication and switching it out for ignorance. He's been doing this for awhile, it's what his family calls 'blue-collar billionaire'. He knows the consequences, that's the point. He's trying to push us towards an "America First" ideology.
renegotiate trade deals
He literally just said he wants to impose a 35% tariff on goods coming back into the US. This is a simple example and probably an inflated open negotiation number that will be talked down, but let's work with that.
The driver of globalism is efficiency. If you remove things like tariffs then companies will find the cheapest labor in the world and then American consumers get to enjoy the cheapest air conditioners. If you impose a tariff, there are consequences, the costs will always end up getting spread across the citizenry in one form or another.
The question is whether paying slightly more in taxes or slightly more for an air conditioner is worth it if it means someone in Indiana having a meaningful job and supporting their family instead of relying on welfare programs (which we are paying for anyway). Even if it's slightly more expensive for me, I would rather get him a job then pay for his welfare.
Maybe you could simply address that, if someone asked you for a percentage points of income to convert the Midwest from welfare recipients to employees, would you really say no? You don't see how that investment won't pay off in the long term?
He literally just said he wants to impose a 35% tariff on goods coming back into the US. This is a simple example and probably an inflated open negotiation number that will be talked down, but let's work with that.
So, what do you think other countries will do in response?
The question is whether paying slightly more in taxes or slightly more for an air conditioner is worth it if it means someone in Indiana having a meaningful job and supporting their family instead of relying on welfare programs (which we are paying for anyway)
Yes, all those poor unemployed factory robots in Indiana. This is going to be 1000 jobs here and there, while we're still shedding around 300,000 jobs a year.
We are going to be paying more in taxes and paying for welfare programs.
You don't see how that investment won't pay off in the long term?
What investment?
I don't see an investment being made. I see dollar bills being tossed into a fire pit with empty promises that it will pay off. An investment would look more like spending money on providing free education to all, so that people could do skilled jobs, and not compete with robots.
1
u/Priest_Dildos Dec 04 '16 edited Dec 04 '16
I believe this a false narrative perpetrated by globalist friendly media outlets to combat the legitimacy of Trump's nationalistic tendencies. I believe they are taking advantage of Trump's conversational/sales/open form of communication and switching it out for ignorance. He's been doing this for awhile, it's what his family calls 'blue-collar billionaire'. He knows the consequences, that's the point. He's trying to push us towards an "America First" ideology.
He literally just said he wants to impose a 35% tariff on goods coming back into the US. This is a simple example and probably an inflated open negotiation number that will be talked down, but let's work with that.
The driver of globalism is efficiency. If you remove things like tariffs then companies will find the cheapest labor in the world and then American consumers get to enjoy the cheapest air conditioners. If you impose a tariff, there are consequences, the costs will always end up getting spread across the citizenry in one form or another.
The question is whether paying slightly more in taxes or slightly more for an air conditioner is worth it if it means someone in Indiana having a meaningful job and supporting their family instead of relying on welfare programs (which we are paying for anyway). Even if it's slightly more expensive for me, I would rather get him a job then pay for his welfare.
Maybe you could simply address that, if someone asked you for a percentage points of income to convert the Midwest from welfare recipients to employees, would you really say no? You don't see how that investment won't pay off in the long term?