Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    23 Jun '18 13:53
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    The same might have been said about Reagan in the early part of his Presidency, however we still hear the term Reaganomics.

    The principal difference of course is that Reagan knew how to act like a President.
    Reagan was pretty clueless as well, true. But the party around him had a more or less coherent ideology, with a dedicated team trying to implement it.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80182
    23 Jun '18 14:12
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Reagan's views might not have been all that well-formed, but his basic philosophy was consistent with his economic advisers'.

    I think it is reasonably clear that the Donald's are not at least regarding tariffs and other protectionist measures.
    I think you're right about Reagan.

    On the one hand, the image Trump emits is of someone who would think he knows better than his advisors, on the other it seems unlikely that they're all completely averse to some level of protectionism.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jun '18 18:042 edits
    Originally posted by @kmax87
    Call me whatever, but, Trump against all indicators to the contrary is setting up America to be the capstone of a new world economy, where pragmatism and business interests will lead America to become a mirror image of China, except for a concession on freedom to speak, freedom to bear arms and the freedom to practice religion.

    To facilitate this end game ...[text shortened]... and has created an international arena, where all eyes are on his every next move.

    Discuss.
    "...will lead America to become a mirror image of China...except for... the freedom to practice religion."
    --Kmax87

    I doubt that the Americans ever will be as good as the Chinese in table tennis (joke).

    The Chinese traditionally have been less religious than Americans or, putting it another way,
    traditional Chinese religion (a fusion of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism) has been
    more syncretic and more relaxed than the dominant forms of Christianity in the USA.
    In short, the Chinese traditionally don't care as much about religion (except as ritual) as Americans.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_China

    "Freedom of religion in China is provided for in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China,[1]
    with an important caveat: the government protects what it calls "normal religious activity,"
    defined in practice as activities that take place within government-sanctioned religious
    organizations and registered places of worship."

    "Unregistered religious groups—including house churches, Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists,
    underground Catholics, and Uyghur Muslims—face varying degrees [of repression]."

    One should note that there has been violence between different religious groups in China.
    China's government defends its repression of some religious groups as its effort to oppose such violence.

    "New Tibetan [Buddhist] -Muslim violence broke out after China engaged in liberalization.
    Riots broke out between Muslims and Tibetans over incidents such as bones in soups
    and prices of balloons, and Tibetans accused Muslims of being cannibals who cooked
    humans in their soup and of contaminating food with urine. Tibetans attacked Muslim
    restaurants. Fires set by Tibetans which burned the apartments and shops of Muslims
    resulted in Muslim families being killed and wounded in the 2008 mid-March riots ...
    The repression of Tibetan separatism by the Chinese government is supported by Hui Muslims."

    China's government would assert that violent clashes between Tibetan Buddhists and
    Hui Muslims (a minority in Tibet) would become worse if the Chinese authorities did not intervene.

    By the way, I was somewhat surprised when a Hong Kong newspaper reported that
    a Chinese aircraft carrier prepares special meals for the devout Muslims in its crew.
    It's a sign that China has changed since the time of Mao.

    To what extent should China allow more religious freedom?
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jun '18 18:101 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought to KazetNagorra
    The same might have been said about Reagan in the early part of his Presidency, however we still hear the term Reaganomics.

    The principal difference of course is that Reagan knew how to act like a President.
    President Reagan's economic policies were criticized by some as 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economics.

    Ronald Reagan was better acting in movies than Donald Trump was in reality television.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    23 Jun '18 18:15
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    President Reagan's economic policies were criticized by some as 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economics.

    Ronald Reagan was better acting in movies than Donald Trump was in reality television.
    At one point Reagan thought if he launched ICBM's and if he had a change of heart he could recall them....
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jun '18 19:13
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    At one point Reagan thought if he launched ICBM's and if he had a change of heart he could recall them....
    That happened with US SAC bombers (not ICBMs) in this Hollywood film:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

    "The computer, now tied into the nuclear weapons control system and unable to tell the
    difference between simulation and reality, attempts to start World War III."
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    23 Jun '18 20:01
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    I think you're right about Reagan.

    On the one hand, the image Trump emits is of someone who would think he knows better than his advisors, on the other it seems unlikely that they're all completely averse to some level of protectionism.
    He seems to have two advisers in positions of power who are avid protectionists: Wilbur Ross at Commerce and Peter Navarro at the WH National Trade Council. Ross is a banker with zero training in economics; Navarro is way out of the mainstream. The rest of Trump's economic team holds pretty orthodox if conservative economic views .
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    23 Jun '18 20:04
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Donald Trump has, at best, a middle schooler's mastery of economics. There is no such thing as a Trump economic doctrine; he lacks the know-how to be able to formulate one. Consequently, there can't be any long-term thought process behind Trump's statements relating to economic policy. What does influence U.S. economic policy? A hodgepodge of various a ...[text shortened]... genda, interspersed with Trump's own bizarre ideas about trade and trade deficits in particular.
    Are you saying Trump does not listen to his economic advisors? If it was important that the POTUS be educated in economics to the American people don't you think we would be electing people with economics degrees? We don't, so what is your point?
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    23 Jun '18 20:08
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Are you saying Trump does not listen to his economic advisors? If it was important that the POTUS be educated in economics to the American people don't you think we would be electing people with economics degrees? We don't, so what is your point?
    There is no such thing as ANY Trump doctrine since such 'decrees' seldom last over a week.
  10. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    24 Jun '18 00:06
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Reagan's views might not have been all that well-formed, but his basic philosophy was consistent with his economic advisers'.

    I think it is reasonably clear that the Donald's are not at least regarding tariffs and other protectionist measures.
    You don't think that the tariff trade war is just Mr Bombastic's way of renegotiation? Whether it ends up being a better deal, will be for history to decide, but I will bet that the new set of winners and losers in the deal will make sense to the Donald's 'people'.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    24 Jun '18 00:11
    Originally posted by @kmax87
    You don't think that the tariff trade war is just Mr Bombastic's way of renegotiation? Whether it ends up being a better deal, will be for history to decide, but I will bet that the new set of winners and losers in the deal will make sense to the Donald's 'people'.
    It's his way to attempt renegotiation but he simply hasn't been able to get it into his head that he is not in a negotiation for Central Park front property in Manhattan. He's not anywhere near any deals and has become frustrated with that reality, so he's piling on more tariffs and forcing retaliation. And since he's shown no ability to actually cut deals with other countries, I see a trade war or sudden capitulation by the Donald as far more likely than any "megadeals".
  12. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    24 Jun '18 00:281 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "...will lead America to become a mirror image of China...except for... the freedom to practice religion."
    --Kmax87

    "Freedom of religion in China is provided for in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China,[1]
    with an important caveat: the government protects what it calls "normal religious activity,"....
    By the way, I was somewhat surpr ...[text shortened]... has changed since the time of Mao.

    To what extent should China allow more religious freedom?
    My comment was more about how the American political system, in the absence of serious campaign finance reform tends towards government of the corporations by and for the corporations. We know how Wall St heavily influences the Bills that get written and passed in Washington, (and how other important sectors like energy, agriculture and transport do likewise) so apart from the appearance of political choice, how is the American Congress not converging towards a one party State in practice, thereby reflecting a mirror image of the Chinese Corporate Communist political system?
  13. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    24 Jun '18 00:40
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    It's his way to attempt renegotiation but he simply hasn't been able to get it into his head that he is not in a negotiation for Central Park front property in Manhattan. He's not anywhere near any deals and has become frustrated with that reality, so he's piling on more tariffs and forcing retaliation. And since he's shown no ability to actually cut de ...[text shortened]... I see a trade war or sudden capitulation by the Donald as far more likely than any "megadeals".
    Look the only strategy that I can see that Trump employs is to take a crapshoot on the outcome of him blowing up whatever has been in place and scrambling to cobble a deal together on however the chips may fall. He is Mr Chaos. But he has been doing it longer than most and still staying front and centre in the picture, and that's his edge!
  14. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    139080
    24 Jun '18 01:04
    Originally posted by @kmax87
    You don't think that the tariff trade war is just Mr Bombastic's way of renegotiation? Whether it ends up being a better deal, will be for history to decide, but I will bet that the new set of winners and losers in the deal will make sense to the Donald's 'people'.
    Trump threatens tariffs because he is insulted or disrespected.
    I'm not sure what kind of doctrine that falls under.
  15. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    24 Jun '18 05:11
    Originally posted by @mghrn55
    Trump threatens tariffs because he is insulted or disrespected.
    I'm not sure what kind of doctrine that falls under.
    Trump refers to himself in the third person. To what extent the private Donald is actually personally invested in these public spats, or the degree to which he finds it helpful to put on a WWF character and play a thin skinned narcissist is not so clear cut. And I think this is his true edge. He gets underestimated a lot. Sure he overestimates and gets burned, but I would argue that it's more important for him to be in the game win or lose, and if gets the numbers wrong ( like not realise he was overcapitalized in Atlantic City and that there was not enough additional capacity for his gambling foray) it just doesn't matter to him. He wins or you lose!
Back to Top