THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

It's a fallacy that you just engaged in. Are we supposed to just nod our heads and pretend like this particular fallacy doesn't count??

It's not, but so what. It doesn't affect my entertainment in watching you and most of this board jabber out "stawwwwman" everytime you get your doors blown off. Keep on truckin'.

Dude, you just made up some stupid shit to take down and attributed it to me. That's literally a straw man fallacy.

Go to any description and before it says "see Fife", it will state the definition, which is exactly what you did.

[Fife]

It's a fallacy that you just engaged in. Are we supposed to just nod our heads and pretend like this particular fallacy doesn't count??

It's not, but so what. It doesn't affect my entertainment in watching you and most of this board jabber out "stawwwwman" everytime you get your doors blown off. Keep on truckin'.

Dude, you just made up some stupid shit to take down and attributed it to me. That's literally a straw man fallacy.

You're literally full of shit; as I did no such thing.

You morons and your "stawwwwwman mommy" are still funny though.

[Heraclius]

Consider the situation if our currency were still valued in gold. The current trade deficit with China (it's actually an economic war we are badly losing) results in the steady depletion of our nation's gold reserves. That would certainly be a problem!

But we have a fiat system. We can just print more money, right?? We do. And what ends up happening is that our currency is devalued, and because a fiat currency is actually based on DEBT, we are exporting our sovereign debt to China now instead gold.

To make up for the trade deficit with China, we literally have to print more money, and that means the capital we send to China to pay for all this shit is synonymous with debt. Meanwhile, the fuckers are actually buying up our treasury instruments. They are playing us at both ends. It's warfare.

Your ideas of national economic policy seem to be based on 18th century protectionism.

LOL, what?

I mean you literally are saying "imagine if we were losing our accumulated gold to China, that would be bad" in order to get people to realize how bad the fiat situation is. Thinking this is some major issue is, like, literally mercantilism. This isn't an "us vs them" situation. Everyone is made better off by the trade deficit. The Chinese are gaining more exports in their industry and we are able to increase our consumption. Both of our GDPs are increasing.

This is the sort of thinking that most intro to macro classes are devoted to demolishing.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your ideas of national economic policy seem to be based on 18th century protectionism.

LOL, what?

I mean you literally are saying "imagine if we were losing our accumulated gold to China, that would be bad" in order to get people to realize how bad the fiat situation is. Thinking this is some major issue is, like, literally mercantilism. This isn't an "us vs them" situation. Everyone is made better off by the trade deficit. The Chinese are gaining more exports in their industry and we are able to increase our consumption. Both of our GDPs are increasing.

This is the sort of thinking that most intro to macro classes are devoted to demolishing.

Dude, I am literally talking about the ancient days of late 1980s here, not the 18th century. LOL

I used the gold analogy to explain how a trade deficit results in devaluing of one's currency and an increase in sovereign debt. When everybody is thinking "magic money", it doesn't seem to matter so much, even though it matters even more when you realize that "magic money" means DEBT.

[GloryofGreece]

Also interested in hearing what school of economics has a different interpretation of tariffs.

Perhaps the ever well-reputed Austrian school?

What different "interpretation" do you think the Austrians have?

I'm really interested to see where the controversy exists among actual economists on this *extremely* mundane issue.

We're in Flat-Earther territory here.

Most economists agree on the micro part of economics. That tends to be the least controversial but also the "boring" area away from all of the spicy issues that excite the freshmen going into the major. Everyone wants to go into economics in order to solve issues of brain drains or deficits but the macro area is where you can pick 10 economists and get 12 opinions. At least that's how my professors always explained it.

Austrian school is the black sheep of the economics community and will always be the butt of the joke. They are basically the English major sitting at a table of STEM kids and having to deal with everyone mocking them. The Austrian school isn't a big fan of mathematically proving their ideas and so it is kind of impossible for most serious economists to really have an actual conversation about the ideas. They are kind of a call-back to the old Adam Smith way of economics which looked at the field as more of a philosophy rather than the modern approach which is trying to develop it into a hard science.

Free trade is the global warming of economics. 9/10 scientists agree but the 1/10 that don't get all the attention.

The English major is more interesting and should be more articulate, so there's that...
Economics will never be a "hard science" same as Psychology. Those fields deal with people, and people are fundamentally irrational, emotional, and unpredictable enough. Adam Smith was more interesting than any "economist" I've seen interviewed. Everything doesn't have to be a "STEM" thing /career...nor should it be. Economics is a joke, same as psychology. At least English has the potential to be both practical and beautiful.

[Penner]

France, Britain, and the US are striking Syria:

President Donald Trump confirmed "precision strikes" had been ordered on targets associated with the Syrian government's chemical weapons programme.

In a televised address from the White House, Mr Trump said: "A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad."

Mr Trump said the military action was a "combined operation" with the armed forces of the UK and France.

Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed she had ordered British armed forces to conduct "co-ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deter their use".

She said: "This is the first time as Prime Minister that I have had to take the decision to commit our armed forces in combat - and it is not a decision I have taken lightly.

"I have done so because I judge this action to be in Britain's national interest.

"We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised - within Syria, on the streets of the UK, or anywhere else in our world."

The Ministry of Defence said British forces joined the allied strikes on Syria at 2am UK time.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-uk-launch ... a-11329796

[Smitty-48]

Mega Cuck 9000

[Fife]

Well, at least the Iranians and Norks will now immediately and forever dismantle all their nuclear programs.

That was a close one. Thanks Bolton!

:goteam: :drunk:

[Smitty-48]

Well, at least the Iranians and Norks will now immediately and forever dismantle all their nuclear programs.

That was a close one. Thanks Bolton!

:goteam: :drunk:

Lulz. Exactly. These pussy faggot low collateral damage cucked air strikes don't scare nobody.

[Zlaxer]

So much for the Ruskies shooting down our missiles.....either Russian tech sucks, or there was a deal.....