Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Yes of course. Great attention to detail. Of course we already see the hand wringing and smug delight on social feeds and by the MSM as they note the bump in the unemployment number.
They also revised, upward, May’s numbers:
This is a great jobs report as it shows the economy isn’t overheating. Maybe the fed will forgo immediate rate hikes.
In my last job I was forced to work with statistics (that is not why I became a lawyer, but I was managing legal processes more than actually being a lawyer). Doing so, I learned about the importance of the denominator in fractional calculations. That learning coincided with the years in which the Obama administration bragged about low unemployment rates. But, with my learning, I realized that some of that was affected removing many people from the denominator – the number of people working or looking for work, by transferring them to “disability” or other mechanisms by which they ceased to be counted in the labor force. In response, I learned the importance of the workforce participation rate.
Ah, fun with statistics! Don’t just believe the first number in the headline! In my last job, I had to keep my boss from making significant decisions based on a single statistic that might capture his attention.
0bama was replacing working with welfare. I’m almost positive that all of those “no longer seeking work” numbers were receiving government cash to no work. Just the rise in “disability” cases alone would cover it.
And, yet, the law never actually changed, so how was the big 0 able to transfer so much cash to new people?
I kid, I kid. We all know that 0bama considered himself above the law except when he could use it as a chance to chastise Republicans.
This is wonderful news, @ekosj! I remember in a post a month or two back you expressed concern about those who appeared to have given up. I’m glad they’re coming back! Thanks for updating us.
It’s good news, but the recession will still be here soon. Sorry, it’s not Trump’s fault; it’s just the laws of economics. You can’t repeal the business cycle. Let’s just pray the recession is short and mild.
Nah. This time it’s different!
Actually, you are probably right. Only I doubt it will be short and mild. Too much debt. Too little savings. Too many businesses surviving on ultra low interest rates. Too many stock prices buoyed by share buy-backs. Too many firms create nothing but fluff and puff. I’m seeing those house-flipper shows on TV again. Car lots are bursting at the seams with unsold inventory. We need a coupl’a more good years before we are ready to withstand another storm.
A trade war isn’t going to help.
Like any investment, you forego some current consumption in the hope of better returns in the future. Sometimes it doesn’t work out. There is always risk. But no risk no rewards.
Tariffs are a tax not an investment.
That depends what you are trying to accomplish. Trump’s goal is freer, fairer trade. In my opinion, they are an investment … deferred consumption designed to yield returns in the future.
I would be lying if I said I’m not a little nervous about just that. On the other hand, if we can make it to election day and hold serve, the recession’ll probably start the next day. That’ll be perfect, and with this guy’s luck, that’s probably what’ll happen. Fortune favors the bold, and this president is nothing if not bold. Remember: He. said. he. would. do. this.
The Democrats goal is a freer and more equitable society. I still reject their logic when they want to raise my taxes.
I also doubt that Trump really cares about freer trade. He sees trade as zero sum: one party always screws the other party. His goal is to somehow flip this in the US favor by taxing IS citizens. Tarrifs are not only bad policy, they fail to achieve their primary policy goals and just make everyone poorer.
Nah, we’ll be fine.
If one was imposing tariffs on a system of already existing free trade you’d be right. But we don’t have that. We have a system of ‘managed’ trade. And in many instances the terms of that managed trade are unfavorable to the US. How to deal with that? How to deal with theft of intellectual property? How to deal with artificially low / government subsidized prices designed to drive US companies out of business? Or does none of that matter? As long as you can buy cheap stuff from overseas, stolen property or not, you are willing to see your neighbors out of work?
A few things are certain: the President ran on this policy; he is keeping his promise; and he’s standing up to China’s unfair trade and domestic business practices. He knows that this policy is hurting some of his supporters in an election year, but he’s willing to face those supporters on a weekly basis and explain his policy. That takes cohones. I respect cohones, and I’m willing to bet that even those Trump supporters who are hurt by this policy respect cohones too.
And the left thinks these good numbers are “reckless” . . .
I see what you did there 😊
How do you figure? Are you going to argue that the EPA makes us freer, and affirmative action makes society more equitable?
“Free” trade and “fair” trade are opposites.
Freedom and equality are also opposites.
Situation 1: China has 25% tariffs and the US 5%.
Situation 2: China has 5% tariffs and the US 5%.
2 is freer and fairer than 1.
Of course not, but that has no bearing on their goal. The fact that their proposed solutions are counter productive doesn’t change their intentions.
This is the problem with modern politics: we cast those on the other side as evil people with the intention of enslaving us and making things worse. Both sides do it and it makes engagement impossible.
It depends on what you mean by equality. Freedom is required for true equality imo.
That would be true if the tariffs were the only factor. When debating about “fairness,” what is usually mentioned is labor costs. Then there’s the regulatory burden, price supports, farm subsidies, copyright protection, commodity prices, transaction and transportation costs, and etc., etc., etc. That’s why trade agreements are so complex. (That’s also why I put quotations on “free” and “fair.“) Unfortunately, the tariffs are usually only a blunt instrument used in response to these complexities.
My favorite quote about freedom goes something like this:
”You cannot be both free and equal, for when freedom is given full rein the inequities multiply.”
(I can’t remember where I read this quote and have been unable to find it. If anyone knows who said this, I would very much appreciate the information.)
Of course they are not true opposites since it possible to be unfree and unequal. (As any socialist state and most college campuses demonstrate.)
How does what you say not make Trump’s case even stronger vis a vis most of the trade issues we have with China? I concur that we need to force other countries to get rid of their non-tariff barriers as well.
You do highlight a relevant point, we have allowed the term “free trade” to be abused to describe a system of very unfree trade. Rather than fight to reclaim the term, Trump et al. end up using another term that creates its own baggage.
This hinges on the difference between equality of opportunity and outcome.
And the progressives mostly believe in equality of outcome (for the plebes, I mean).