/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>1635114
There's no hope in educating /v/

I really don't wanna go back there and talk about basic income.

>>1635145
Whats your opinion on basic income, just to be curious

>>1635114

>weeks ago
>trying to explain to college educated family member's that Trump's economic plans are shit and the jobs we lost overseas aren't coming back
>b..but muh tariffs
>explain that if we slap tariffs on another country like China they're not just going to sit there and take it
>b..but we can win a trade war with China
>explain how we can't since their cost basis is substantially lower due to low wages and lax regulations unless they want US employees to make less than $10,000 a year with almost no safety and environmental regulations
>y..you're wrong
>how so?
>y..you just are, now let's talk about something else

I have problem getting college educated people to listen to economic realities in real life let alone on fucking /v/

>>1635195
In truth, having some of those jobs by would be nice domestically. But we'll need to do one thing before we get them back: remove min wage.

>>1635195
start reading them the Wikipedia page on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

>>1635195

>>explain that if we slap tariffs on another country like China they're not just going to sit there and take it

This is what's pissed me off the most. Smart people buying this shit that we could bully other countries and they wouldn't react with their own measures that would hurt us. Fucking boomers grew up in a world where the US was basically the only major industrial country not ravaged by the second world war and thus had a economic advantage. Yet they don't realize that the rest of the world has/is reaching parity and we're never going back.

>>1635204
You have literally no clue what you are talking about. You don't even know who the boomers are. You are retarded.

>>1635195
You are wrong though.

>>1635195
Fuck off ctr
Or would you rather have ww3
Sage

>>1635195

China's not going to take it, and do what? Magically get someone else to buy their shit? I mean, do you know who their say, top 5 trading partners are without looking at a wiki?

>b..but muh family members coudn't answer my questions

Obviously it's going to hurt us, and we are not going to get all of our manufacturing jobs.

>China's not just going to sit there and take it

But we are supposed to? the lulz.

>>1635338
>>1635338

>China's not going to take it, and do what?

If I were the Chinese premier? Immediately cease the sale of all rare earth metals to the US crucial for modern electronic components which China mines the most of. Then sit back and let your citizens complain why their goods have skyrocketed in price and wait for the opposition party to sweep the midterms since the election will come before you can retool and reship manufacturing at a sufficient level back to the US.

EZ-PZ

>>1635479

Hmmm. That would hurt Chinese exporters but since China is an autocratic government they can easily hold out for the next American election. Well played.

>>1635338

>But we are supposed to? the lulz.

The difference between America and China is that China is much closer to an actual nation-state, with the pride, self-interest, and culture that accompanies that.

America, by contrast, is essentially a giant, soulless shopping mall. Its residents aren't citizens, just customers who expect a certain level of service but aren't willing to make sacrifices to achieve said level.

The whole idea that the American government should have to levy tariffs on imported goods in order to "make America great again" is ludicrous. If access to foreign markets is causing economic upheaval in your nation, then you don't have a nation. You have a shopping mall.

The truth is that this "problem" can only be solved through the collective effort of a nation (not a state). The government shouldn't have to artificially raise the price of imported goods to convince its residents to favor domestic goods. The residents should voluntarily buy the domestic goods, and voluntarily snub the foreign goods, with the understanding that the possibility of paying a higher price is offset by the benefits of helping one's neighbor, one's cousin, one's fellow national.

It's nuances like these that demonstrate why the concept of a proposition nation, and America in particular, is doomed to failure.

>>1635146
Assuming he's not retarded - it's obviously a moronic concept. Exactly the type of idea economically clueless /v/ lurkers would have.

>>1635195
Obviously a tradewar with China is going to mean a rebuttal like the Europe-Russia one. But -like Russa- china is mostly an exporter, not an importer in this relation, so they suffer the most from a tradewar. It's devastating for some industries and a free market in general, but - as long as you combine it with an abolishment/lowering of minimal wage it is most definitely going to create more jobs. It's also probably going to raise prices somewhat, but I think that's a pretty good tradeoff.