General Discussion

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)

43. Hey, at least you admit you can't support your own argument.

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:25 AM

Sep 2012

You: "We can bring our currency back by stronger regulation on the federal reserve."
Me: "Show us the regulations that will stop the dollar from devaluing. You can't."
You: "There is none, that's the problem"

Once again you fail basic economics and also science.

Once again I will repeat to you: we have passed peak oil. Oil prices are going to go up, regardless.

Furthermore, the COST of using oil goes far beyond the price at the pump. I'm sure that you got out at some point and heard about the drought? That's called global warming, and it's caused by our burning of fossil fuels. You do know this, right?

You do know that our use of fossil fuels means we're filling the oceans with carbon dioxide and making the ocean more acidic, which is killing plankton, right?

Our use of oil is our undoing. Your crying and whining about oil going up in price MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when our use of oil is destroying our crops!

We
Need
To
Stop
USING
OIL!!!

Do you get it yet?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

159 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all] Zalatix Sep 2012 OP

On an individual level - no one would make a bad bargain. xchrom Sep 2012 #1

For the American people it is a bad bargain. But not for Global Corporations sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #78

I know the argument is increase tariffs former-republican Sep 2012 #2

It would also create jobs, which offset the higher prices. Zalatix Sep 2012 #4

tell me how it would create jobs? former-republican Sep 2012 #5

Ah, so you totally ignore my OP but I am required to answer your questions? Zalatix Sep 2012 #8

That's not a fact that our dollar will eventually devalue more. former-republican Sep 2012 #14

That is absolutely wrong. No amount of regulation of the Federal Reserve will stop that. Zalatix Sep 2012 #21

FACT former-republican Sep 2012 #26

FACT!!! 250 BILLION of that deficit is imported non-oil goods. Zalatix Sep 2012 #31

Are you in 3rd grade? former-republican Sep 2012 #38

Did you even MAKE it to third grade? Zalatix Sep 2012 #42

Show us the regulations that will stop the dollar from devaluing. Can you answer that? Zalatix Sep 2012 #36

There is none, that's the problem former-republican Sep 2012 #40

Hey, at least you admit you can't support your own argument. Zalatix Sep 2012 #43

Yea let the federal reserve run wild. former-republican Sep 2012 #51

Similarly, the high dollar policy that the United States has pursued since the Clinton years HiPointDem Sep 2012 #53

He doesn't care about jobs, or American workers. Zalatix Sep 2012 #58

You are getting very confused. Let's recap what you said. Zalatix Sep 2012 #57

Let me asking a very simple question former-republican Sep 2012 #63

Why not bring up the Von Mises Institute? They're correct about the dollar/trade relationship. Zalatix Sep 2012 #68

that's fine former-republican Sep 2012 #70

Of course I do. If you don't like tariffs, you will get devaluation instead. Zalatix Sep 2012 #74

It's not about liking or disliking former-republican Sep 2012 #77

Like I said, if we don't do tariffs, we will see devaluation instead. Zalatix Sep 2012 #81

good , now that we have that out of the way former-republican Sep 2012 #84

But which would you choose? Devaluation or tariffs? Zalatix Sep 2012 #87

Do you have any idea how long a plan like that takes to implement? former-republican Sep 2012 #90

Cheap labor is the biggest factor. Zalatix Sep 2012 #91

Wage is a small part of it former-republican Sep 2012 #92

You've got to be kidding me, that is not just inaccurate, it's CRAZY inaccurate. Zalatix Sep 2012 #93

Yearly not Monthly former-republican Sep 2012 #104

holy cow former-republican Sep 2012 #106

Holy cow back at you. Zalatix Sep 2012 #107

It is clear to me you have no understanding of the automobile industry former-republican Sep 2012 #125

It is clear that you get your facts from an alternative universe. Zalatix Sep 2012 #126

huge tarrif on finished goods.. subsidy for imported raw matierials RedRocco Sep 2012 #95

His whole argument is faulty, and it's self-destructive, too. Zalatix Sep 2012 #128

Both of you should be ashamed tkmorris Sep 2012 #136

Wasn't a TOTAL waste of time for me. Zalatix Sep 2012 #138

Simple abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #23

Our productivity will take care of the difference there. Zalatix Sep 2012 #24

Not to mention abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #28

Wrong--Goods would become MORE affordable for American workers unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #54

Except if the US has a strong (overvalued) dollar, that means it's able to buy up other countries' HiPointDem Sep 2012 #64

No..no..they'd never throw up retaliatory tariffs. davidpdx Sep 2012 #98

Let them hit us with retaliatory tariffs. Zalatix Sep 2012 #113

Amen unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #131

So what? unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #130

You have your facts wrong. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #132

Exactly. The math cannot be beaten. Zalatix Sep 2012 #112

Free traitors have sold us out. Lasher Sep 2012 #3

Smoot-Hawley was just the last of 3 republican tariff increases from 1921-1930. FDR opposed it. pampango Sep 2012 #18

Your arguments completely ignore basic facts that I posted in the OP. Zalatix Sep 2012 #22

FDR thought that Smoot-Hawley was bad for the US. If you disagree with him that is your right. pampango Sep 2012 #39

History disagrees with the claim that Smoot-Hawley was bad for America. Zalatix Sep 2012 #44

FDR disagreed with your version of history that Smoot-Hawley was not bad for America. pampango Sep 2012 #102

History is more credible than FDR. History disagrees with FDR. Zalatix Sep 2012 #110

I disagree with your interpretation of history and will continue to side with FDR, not the repubs. pampango Sep 2012 #117

You'll continue to side with the US Chamber of Commerce, not the working class or history. Zalatix Sep 2012 #123

As I said in #115: "I will not ask you to say hi to your 'friends' in certain conservative groups pampango Sep 2012 #140

Oh I know these countries don't have laws against moving factories overseas. Zalatix Sep 2012 #142

And yet they have strong and widespread unions and a strong middle class. pampango Sep 2012 #144

You are STILL trying to argue that S/H hampered the recovery. It is STILL wrong. Zalatix Sep 2012 #145

You certainly portray yourself as a committed "us vs them" adherent. pampango Sep 2012 #147

And you certainly are committed to "throw US under the bus". Zalatix Sep 2012 #149

"So you admit there was no correlation between S/H and the lack of a recovery." - No. pampango Sep 2012 #150

Your S/H "correlation" is weak, tenuous, and that's being generous. Zalatix Sep 2012 #153

You said that trade and the economy went up together and down together. That's correlation by pampango Sep 2012 #156

other way redonaire0013 Sep 2012 #151

You didn't actually list a fact that Smoot-Hawley didn't harm trade. You stated an opinion mythology Sep 2012 #129

The Smoot Hawley Zealots have not shown any evidence to support their claims. Zalatix Sep 2012 #133

Hoover opposed the bill. Lasher Sep 2012 #27

Pampango refuses to recognize the fact that Smoot Hawley didn't even occur under the same situation. Zalatix Sep 2012 #34

Hoover signed the bill. His opposition must have been pretty weak. n/t pampango Sep 2012 #37

Read the Wikipedia article you linked upthread. Lasher Sep 2012 #41

Both Presidents had to sign legislature they initially disliked. Zalatix Sep 2012 #45

FDR also viewed Smoot-Hawley as "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" AND he opposed it. pampango Sep 2012 #100

So Smoot-Hawley was not strictly a Republican bill Lasher Sep 2012 #114

FDR opposed it. Almost exclusively republican congressmen passed it. It was signed by a republican pampango Sep 2012 #118

Hoover expressed his opposition. Lasher Sep 2012 #120

Actions speak louder than words. FDR expressed his opposition to S/H and followed it up with action. pampango Sep 2012 #121

Actions do speak louder than words. Lasher Sep 2012 #122

Plenty of Presidents have caved just like Hoover did. Zalatix Sep 2012 #127

BTW China used trade barriers bigger than Smoot-Hawley and they were successful for them. Zalatix Sep 2012 #143

Like Obama and closing Gitmo, He signed the bill preventing such. TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #152

FDR was a CLASSICAL Liberal until the day he died. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #29

Indeed he was. I have never read that he "worshiped Free Trade as if it were a god" but he did pampango Sep 2012 #105

I take it you do not include the USA as one of the world's progressive countries. Lasher Sep 2012 #116

You are correct. We have become less progressive in the last 30 years. pampango Sep 2012 #119

They also have barriers against imports, too. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134

Not the "VAT as a tariff" argument again. pampango Sep 2012 #139

I didn't say "tariff", I said TRADE BARRIERS. Zalatix Sep 2012 #141

All countries should agree that pollution should be punished. Of course, the US creates 3 1/2 times pampango Sep 2012 #146

To hell with treaties. Zalatix Sep 2012 #155

That's what Bush's attitude was. To hell with treaties or what any other country wants. pampango Sep 2012 #157

I never said for the world to live by my rules. Zalatix Sep 2012 #158

How much of that is oil? dkf Sep 2012 #6

Fossil fuel tax? That's nuts. Zalatix Sep 2012 #7

Here's where we get our oil. dkf Sep 2012 #10

We need to stop using fossil fuels. Zalatix Sep 2012 #13

You want to guarantee republicans stay in power former-republican Sep 2012 #9

Well that is what the OP is proposing by talking up tariffs dkf Sep 2012 #11

I don't either , tax credits for converting to solar , wind former-republican Sep 2012 #17

So we instead choose to hit them with droughts, acidic oceans and wars over oil? Zalatix Sep 2012 #20

You keep intentionally ignoring a critical point in my OP. Zalatix Sep 2012 #12

I'm avoiding nothing former-republican Sep 2012 #16

You did avoid it. You're avoiding it now. Zalatix Sep 2012 #19

Still waiting for a response. You haven't addressed the OP argument at all. Zalatix Sep 2012 #35

Now included in the 2012 Democratic platform: The Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement woo me with science Sep 2012 #15

We must beat the TPP to death at the grass roots, like we did SOPA/PIPA. Zalatix Sep 2012 #25

There has never been a country that has industrialized under low tariffs Odin2005 Sep 2012 #30

You mean TARIFFS saved America after the Civil War? What ever will the tariff-hating crowd say? Zalatix Sep 2012 #32

But the 1% are getting filthy rich upi402 Sep 2012 #33

I vehemently agree Populist_Prole Sep 2012 #46

us has a strong dollar policy, which is the ultimate source of our deficit in trade and budgets. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #47

Yup, look what a strong currency did to Japan. Zalatix Sep 2012 #48

what? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #49

My point was that Japan's strong yen hurt their exports and made offshoring explode. Zalatix Sep 2012 #50

ok, i get it. i thought you were being sarcastic. yeah, japan's boom years were weak-yen. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #52

a strong dollar AND tariffs? doesn't compute. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #55

Next, tell 'em about competitive devaluation. Zalatix Sep 2012 #59

i don't get your drift. and i think you missed my addendum: HiPointDem Sep 2012 #62

Competitive devaluation Zalatix Sep 2012 #66

i understand the meaning, i just don't see your point. china intentionally keeps the yuan WEAK. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #69

China used to have high tariffs against the US, along with a weak Yuan. Zalatix Sep 2012 #73

as is typically the case with developing economies and makes perfect economic sense. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #75

True, but why should China be bothered by being a platform for foreign capital? Zalatix Sep 2012 #79

their workers aren't suffering? what? of course they are, in multiple ways. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #82

I'd rather have a job in China than be homeless and jobless here. Zalatix Sep 2012 #85

Spikes Under Chinese Overpasses To Prevent Sleeping Homeless? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #89

So you'd rather be a jobless worker here? Zalatix Sep 2012 #94

the point being there are homeless in china -- & everywhere. what i'd rather is to end the beggar HiPointDem Sep 2012 #96

No, what I believe is that being jobless sucks way too much Zalatix Sep 2012 #97

The point is this: abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #56

Basic. Fact. Of. ECONOMICS. Zalatix Sep 2012 #60

who is 'us' in this sentence? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #61

us = US abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #65

huh? it could lead to war versus china, and it would have a major effect on americans. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #67

Eventually we will devolve back into a decentralized society. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #71

no time soon. the signs point in the other direction: an increasingly centralized global society HiPointDem Sep 2012 #72

Capitalism is already limited to its home territory - Earth. Zalatix Sep 2012 #76

ah, yes, but it hasn't as yes marketized every available niche. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #80

Hasn't China been building up its military with its weaker currency? Zalatix Sep 2012 #83

china reportedly spends 2% of its gdp on its military. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #86

How much do we spend on plundering resources from other nations? Zalatix Sep 2012 #88

So you are essentially saying we should bail on the WTO and all free-trade agreements davidpdx Sep 2012 #99

Either that or let the FTA's sink our currency. Zalatix Sep 2012 #101

Don't know about the poster you are responding to but that is certainly what the teabaggers and pampango Sep 2012 #103

You should get tired of that inaccurate poll getting smacked down, over and over again: Zalatix Sep 2012 #108

I've decided to keep posting Pew polls even though you judge them to be 'inaccurate'. pampango Sep 2012 #109

I've decided to keep responding to you with polls that reflect reality. Zalatix Sep 2012 #111

I have not asked you to stop posting the polls. Nor will I disparage them unless they come from a RW pampango Sep 2012 #115

The OP pretty much indicated that was what he/she was advocating davidpdx Sep 2012 #124

The WTO & GATT have undermined the United States on the environment. Case in point: Zalatix Sep 2012 #135

I agree the environmental standards need to be improved worldwide davidpdx Sep 2012 #137

It shouldn't be that hard to come up with an approximate value 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #148

I bet Obama could do that and beat them in the WTO. Zalatix Sep 2012 #159

Was going to respond to post, but then saw the long arguments..... northoftheborder Sep 2012 #154