It’s hard to say if the president truly knows what he’s doing. But there is a precedent for the US causing short-term chaos and reaping long-term gain, says economist James Meadway
I did. You ignored it. That’s why I am doing this alternate approach.
I actually specifically addressed the characterization of what I said as “Orange man bad,” by way of a contrasting example with some pro-Trump stuff I would agree with.
If you’re not really able to read and comprehend, or get offended at the suggestion that it might be important that you do so, then I think I don’t care what your opinion is on these economic theories or these world events. It might be filtered through whatever conceptual blinkers are making it so hard for you to comprehend what I am saying here and causing you to default back to just repeating what you wanted to say.
Okay so clearly the time I spent actually explaining clearly where I was coming from, why I was sort of being a jerk and and what my concern was, and pointing you to the specific messages to read because it was kind of unreasonable to tell you just to go hunting through my profile at unspecified length, was wasted.
Again: If I explain it a few times, and you either can’t or won’t pick it up after that, I don’t feel like just making the attempt repeatedly forever. Sorry if that gives offense.
Wait, are you saying THIS is what you are calling your “explanation”?
have explained elsewhere, look in my profile. In short, it is normalizing Trump’s sharpie-on-the-weather-map idiocy and making it sound like it’s part of a coherent plan that might “work” when it clearly is not.
You read the place where I said I’ve already addressed it, and failed to notice that part, and only noticed the part where I quickly touched on the TLDR of what I’d already addressed in more detail previously. Is that what happened?
This definitely sounds like a reading comprehension issue. Slow down. Read! It is good for you.
I’ve read all 19 of your comments in the two threads. Apart from the points about Treasury Bills and manufacturing capacity, you keep saying you have another analysis there but the rest of us are not smart enough to see it. It’s incredibly obviously a naked emperor.
I’m fine with many many points of view, including pro-Trump ones if they make sense (one random example from recently being that he seems genuinely surprised and angry that Russia broke the cease-fire instantly). My complaint with this article is not that it’s pro-Trump, it’s that it is horseshit.
There’s also this:
He literally thinks (or thought, at one point, I don’t know if he still does) that the country doing the exporting pays the tariff. He put 50% tariffs on Lethoso. That’s not underestimating, that’s just facts.
Other more coherent people have written about his motivations, the source of his tariff ideas, all kinds of stuff. You can do analysis of any of his ideas and the goals (if any) behind them without agreeing with any of it. But this article’s thesis is more or less “he’s trying to devalue the dollar to set right the balance of trade, and it might work” and that is a bunch of sanewashing and horseshit with some additional fantasies about how well Reagan’s stuff worked out thrown in for good measure.
You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.
Mate stop wasting my time and say your point.
I did. You ignored it. That’s why I am doing this alternate approach.
I actually specifically addressed the characterization of what I said as “Orange man bad,” by way of a contrasting example with some pro-Trump stuff I would agree with.
If you’re not really able to read and comprehend, or get offended at the suggestion that it might be important that you do so, then I think I don’t care what your opinion is on these economic theories or these world events. It might be filtered through whatever conceptual blinkers are making it so hard for you to comprehend what I am saying here and causing you to default back to just repeating what you wanted to say.
uh-huh uh-huh, now get to the point
What was your criticism of connecting this particular economic framework to current world events in the real world?
Okay so clearly the time I spent actually explaining clearly where I was coming from, why I was sort of being a jerk and and what my concern was, and pointing you to the specific messages to read because it was kind of unreasonable to tell you just to go hunting through my profile at unspecified length, was wasted.
Again: If I explain it a few times, and you either can’t or won’t pick it up after that, I don’t feel like just making the attempt repeatedly forever. Sorry if that gives offense.
Wait, are you saying THIS is what you are calling your “explanation”?
So it won’t work because Orange Man Bad.
Lol
You read the place where I said I’ve already addressed it, and failed to notice that part, and only noticed the part where I quickly touched on the TLDR of what I’d already addressed in more detail previously. Is that what happened?
This definitely sounds like a reading comprehension issue. Slow down. Read! It is good for you.
I’ve read all 19 of your comments in the two threads. Apart from the points about Treasury Bills and manufacturing capacity, you keep saying you have another analysis there but the rest of us are not smart enough to see it. It’s incredibly obviously a naked emperor.
There’s also this:
You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.
That wasnt so hard was it??