Trump the economy-wrecker; cause and effect

He may know a thing or two about negotiating, but he doesn’t get economics, cause-and-effect.
Bernie Sanders didn’t win the presidency,
Brief joy, due to hope that a modicum of economic sanity may be retained.
Effect2: hope for social sanity, after the uprising of millennial whiners. (Not Trump’s fault, though)

Trump imposes tarriffs on steel and aluminium
Despair over the spirit of Sanders having entered Trump’s body.

Tarriffs on steel & aluminium.

Local suppliers don’t have to compete on price, because the competition’s price is kept artificially high (it already is higher due to the cost of transportation). So their product will remain needlessly expensive.
This means that users (eg manufacturers of trucks & cars) of steel and aluminium have no choice but to buy expensive inputs, resulting in higher prices of means of transportation, of people that want to go to work, and of goods shipped from factories to stores.
This accumulates and results in more expensive purchases. Add to that, that machines (e.g. agricultural machines) get more expensive on the other side of the chain, and the solution of emigration will present itself to many.
According to the above reasoning, weapons will become more expensive, therefore: so will war. Which will not stop the Fourth Reich. So they will just run up a much worse debt than Obama did: he started out with $6,000,000,000,000 (trillion) and ended with $17 trillion.
This 2.8333 fold increase, (to pay for 8 years of 7 wars) costs the average working age citizen (206,567,603.93200 per approx Feb 2018) $82,297 plus change. Now, imagine that thanks to the government’s CRA you already lost your home, what are you gonna mortgage to pay off the huge debt that your overlords imposed upon you? Your car? Sure, thanks to the tarriffs, they will get more expensive, so it’ll fetch a higher price, but then where are you going to sleep?

If we take Effect2 as a cause, then its effect will be: increased unemployment, meaning reduced tax income; more people donating more money to charity, to help the countless homeless, thus having less to spend themselves: reducing sales tax income, further empoverishing the US government. Ushering in an era of peace (presumably).


Preliminary overview of the Trump administration

Also watch:

There are positives and negatives to the Trump administration:
On the upside:
he has cut large amounts of regulations (not all equally impressive)
On the downside:
The economic boost that came from cutting regulation may not be enough compensate:

  • either the grave effects of the trade war he started.
  • or the spending on death and dedtruction; his foreign policy (wars) is just as bad as Obama’s. And thus makes America (& Europe) less safe and defendable.

Relying on the nobility of people

Ab activist group of doctors in Quebec (Canada) signed a petition to reduce a pay raise, because too many people in Canada (nurses, patients) were having a hard time of it, economically.
A system that relies on such noble sacrifices to keep costs down is shaky. Because: tomorrow, they may feel different about the matter, or they may have been succeeded by less noble people.

Yet: well done, Quebecois!


Trickle-up economics

One reason African dictators are subsidized by western economies, is because they buy Mercedes cars, supporting German jobs. So Germany has the entire European “union” indirectly subsidize German factories. Likewise, the Belgian FN gun factory (Fabrique Nationale) no doubt sells a share of guns to,fldictators, subsidized by the rest of the European so-called Union.
So not trickle down economics but trickle up (from the ductator’s victims to the European factory), similar to selling surplus food from European farms, bankrupting Afrivcan farners that cannot compete with the subsidized European food, dumped in that market. Instead of subsidizing the food, better to let the farms only produce what they can sell much less wasteful than subsidizing a milk puddle and butter mountain then either throw away the excess food, or dump it on unsuspecting foreign markets, bankrupting theocals, cauing them to need more aid.


Import tariffs don’t protect workers

#Domald #Trump is a fool for reintroducing the fallacy of #importTariffs. Here’s why:

Let’s follow this centuries-old argument, posited by the Frenchman Fréderic Bastiat (1801-1850).
Exonomics is not just about what is seen , but very much about what is not seen.

What is seen:

Factories in China produce cheaply and undercut western factories, so if we raise the price for Chinese products, western factories can compete more easily. So if Chinese sneakers that sell for $100 are artificially raised to $200, then the western sneaker factories that can’t produce as cheaply as Chinese factories (partly due to western labour laws and excise taxes), can now compete again.
Workers can spend their income on other goods and services. Their jobs are saved.

What is not seen:

The raised price makes customers worse off, and unable to spend the $100 on (say) a pair of jeans. Meaning that the workers in the jeans factory lose their jobs and are unable to buy the goods and services they used to. So, they end up on the street, and a politician that runs for election promises import tariffs on Chinese jeans, to protect the domestic jeans industry, which got crippled by the import duty on shoes, not by the cheap jeans-competition of Chinese factories. Ad infinitum.

In short:

Import tariffs are stupid and harmul. If you wish to improve the competitiveness of domestic businesses:l; remove taxes on workers and businesses. It’s those that artificially limit competitiveness of domestic businesses.


A common mental illness

This post is a (very) rough translation of the Dutch post
More specifically, I’d like to talk about Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy.
Or as I like to call it (slightly more accurately): howler monkeyism, is sadly a very common affliction on the left I’d even venture to call it a defining feature. The howler monkey (simia belzebub) is genetically preprogrammed to make hellish noises.
Munchhausen Syndrome (without proxy) is sometimes erroneously called “hospital addiction”. The variant with proxy is likewise explained as child abuse.
I disagree with both explanations, because they’re just expressions of an underlying illness: namely an overwhelming yearning to have attention, some channel this desire by learning how to compose and perform music, or become actors on film or stage, or become famous for being famous. Society may benefit from that, or simply ignore them, hopefully for them, they then either learn to cope with the failure, or keep deluding themselves that they do matter. Either way, those are not a huge problem for society as a whole. It’s the ones that have identified politics as the new rock arena, that pose a problem.

  • They invent illnesses for society, calling it racist for not being sufficiently anti-caucasian (it’s such an invented isdue, that they have to take it to such extremes to be able to make a fuss)
  • Or they invent an environmental illness, e.g. claim that the climate is in danger. And feign upset when not enough people fall for it, so make a second film, dispatch with the scientific pretense (they get the scientific bits entirely wrong anyway) and make the second monstrosity even more about themself (in so far as possible.)

How could society deal with that illness?

Prisons are unjust, and not a durable solution: similar to the #4thReich occupying Iraq: by killing one insurgent, they create ten more. Likewise: if you lock up one politician, you create ten more: because aggression breeds aggression.
Instead, disable (don’t enable) them, remove the platform they use to draw attention to themselves: remove centrally led politics.

In an anarchist society the problem of howler monkeyism will be handled fairly elegantly: people may choose to not do business with them, unless they (pseudo-voluntarily) seek treatment. This means they won’t be able to acquire food or buy sewage services etc.
This is beneficial for everyone, and a perfectly smooth, and unobtrusive way to deal with what in a statist world would lead to disaster.


Why socialism?

It is a bit tiresome that so many leftist arguments all revolve around the evil rich guy.
On top of that, it is disheartening, that their desire is, to make the situation worse, by growing the state/giving it more power. Thus making it a bigger lure for rich guys, that wish to get richer by having the junta throw contracts their way, or by having the junta make it harder for competitors to enter the field, by imposing regulations that established businesses can easily comply with, but that cost upstarts more money and effort.
So why exactly would anyone vote for socialists? Not to better the plight of the little guy, the big guy adores socialism, because it offers him such opportunities.
The richest people under socialism, in terms of not just money, but also the only real political currency (power) are the politicians, the people are poor as heck, not just monetarilly, but also power-wise.