Trump Moves In

First topic message reminder :

Okay, so the American Election thread has run its course and it has been proven in a bombshell wikileak today that all Intelligence agencies involved (American, Russian, British, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Australian and Brazilian) are now in total agreement that the election was above board, clean, non-contentious, valid and entertaining.

So onto the special day.  What a celebration we're all going to have tomorrow as the most popular President in the history of Illuminati Conspiracy Theory stands on a half filled podium and puts his hand on the book - that cannot be named lest it offend some of the sensitive Satanist protesters present - and swears allegiance to his family, his business empire, his twitter account and Alex Jones.

I believe he intends to make a conciliatory speech whereby he'll pledge to continue the war on terrorism by suppressing Rosie O'Donnell's freedom of movement and methods of funding.  He might even declare sanctions on Meryl Streep but he secretly loves her so....well, the CIA better keep an eye on that one.  Trump might be caught fraternising with the enemy yet again if she ever accepts the dove's feather of peace and attends one of his many planned orgies at Trump House.

We all waited impatiently for this day and now it's upon us.  Let's hope the marksman is off to the right a little.  Let's hope the bomb fails to go off.  Let's hope the protesters keep away from matches and keep their bras on.  But apart from all that, lets' discuss the bright future ahead under Donald Trump.

There's a difference between a 1 letter typo and blind ignorance Trussy my boy.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about a Dutch based Brit clearly having more intelligence about the US electoral/governmental system than you...?!

The caps weren't actually made in China, it was fake on that one...

But there's a number of clothing items that he sells that are made in China. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/26/how-many-trump-products-were-made-overseas-heres-the-complete-list/?client=ms-android-samsung

I was in NYC just before Thanksgiving. The MAGA caps on sale then definitely said Made in China.

Not sure why anyone is surprised, Trump has never been about anything more than personal profit.

There's plenty of unofficial ones that are made in China. The official ones weren't though.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-hat-china/

If "touch me and I'll sue" litigator in chief did nothing about it then I barely see the relevance.

Hero wrote:http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-hat-china/

The snopes report is for a different hat/photo.

The recent one - 20th Jan - was posted by a Democrat congresswoman, whose photo was (she claimed) of the hat of a Republican colleague. Probably the Republican bought a cheap knock-off, or perhaps wanted to support Chinese workers.

True but being as that story broke a while I'd be then very surprised if Trump was that stupid to then have official merchandise for MAGA made in China.

Actually I wouldn't be that surprised.

TopHat24/7 wrote:There's a difference between a 1 letter typo and blind ignorance Trussy my boy.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about a Dutch based Brit clearly having more intelligence about the US electoral/governmental system than you...?!

A lot of people know more than me on a variety of subjects. .

You'll eventually come across one...

I see the wall is estimated at 25 billion..Take a lot of paying by a Country that takes in less revenue than the Netherlands..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:There's a difference between a 1 letter typo and blind ignorance Trussy my boy.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about a Dutch based Brit clearly having more intelligence about the US electoral/governmental system than you...?!

A lot of people know more than me on a variety of subjects. .

You'll eventually come across one...

I see the wall is estimated at 25 billion..Take a lot of paying by a Country that takes in less revenue than the Netherlands..

It'll be more the $25bn at the end of the day and if Trump thinks Mexico is actually going to pay for it, he's more barmy than even I gave him credit for. Someone needs to do some formal cognition etc tests on him to confirm he's going gaga. At least Reagan had the good sense to lose it after being POTUS. Can someone be 'sectioned' in the States?

I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

Washington Post estimation...What's 25 billion between friends anyway??.

Pancho is paying...So only the best will do..

"Trump you bastardo..We no pay for no f**kin wall !!"

I think it's fair enough to have strong feelings about protecting your border. But given the fact that there are now a myriad of ways to border cross (and that barring a man every five feet on the wall 24/7 you still can't defeat a trusty rope no matter how hard you try), would a wall be anything more than an extremely expensive exercise in pageantry??

Trump repeats his support for reintroducing waterboarding, ie torture.  Unclear whether/when it will happen since he says it will be down to the heads of Agencies as to whether they think its a good idea.

kingraf wrote:I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

Mexicans send home $20 billion a year from the US. Therefore the Mexican government encourages people to go to the US. They're not so welcoming of Guaetemalans crossing their southern border though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncURb3SK_IY

Stop them coming would mean more jobs for Americans. You'd have tax money coming in instead of paying them welfare and not to mention less money sent across the border.

Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

kingraf wrote:I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

It's amazing how precise the World's Best Businessman™ is with those financial estimates. Surely he'd get it right first time?

profitius wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

Mexicans send home $20 billion a year from the US. Therefore the Mexican government encourages people to go to the US. They're not so welcoming of Guaetemalans crossing their southern border though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncURb3SK_IY

Stop them coming would mean more jobs for Americans. You'd have tax money coming in instead of paying them welfare and not to mention less money sent across the border.

Are you suggesting that all Mexican nationals in the U.S. are 'illegals' then? I imagine a huge number are there entirely legitimately and are, therefore, paying tax. Unlike the President himself I might add.

Does anyone think it's slightly odd that:

1) Trump decried the view that Russian agencies might have hacked various U.S. systems and used info gained to selectively leak the stuff that damaged the Democrat campaign. This even though that view was, apparently, supported by all the intelligence agencies with all the resources that they have access to.

2) Decry utterly unsubstantiated voter 'irregularities' (Democrat voters only of course) as true and claim that without this, he would have won the popular vote, even though there is not a shred of credible evidence to support that view?


Picture the scene in the not too distant future. Trump get's impeached before or is voted out (assuming he stands again) in 2020. Can you imagine the nonsensical diatribes on Twitter about how he was robbed, the 'people' have been 'cheated' and it's the liberal pinkos what done it etc. Think of all those guns (especially those guns), the fact that (apparently) so many wackos already think their neighbour's a traitor, the alt-right wing nuts, 'alternative facts' (), 'fake news' and 'post-truth', the increased anger and dichotomy of the U.S. electorate etc etc. Scary don't you think? Wouldn't take much of a spark in that sort of tinderbox to cause serious upheavals.

This man is a fruit loop. Hopefully, enough GOP Senators and Representatives are quickly having the scales removed from their eyes.

In fairness the Russian hacking was hardly an issue when Clinton was busy picking the White house curtains...

It's all politics......If it's a sensitive subject you try to brush it away or poo poo it.

In fairness to your second point......Democrats have a long history of bringing up the dead and voter fraud.. (same as Labour has over here in places like Bethnal Green and Hackney).......Republicans have been crying out for tighter Voter registration laws for years....

.....Kansas City was voted the dead capital of the USA in the thirties....."The Pendergast Machine".....President Harry Truman benefitted from that when he became a Senator..

The GOP however tend to use tactics like cutting down the number of polling booths in poor Urban areas......So voters get timed out on election day or can't be arsed making the trip......

It's all bollox.......No one side is better than the other..

These two old bullschidt parties have the system so stage managed into keeping both of them the Main Story of each election that the only real solution to all the age-old skulduggery is to forcefully ban both parties now.  
They've had it far too good between themselves for far too long.  They are the coyote and the road runner - a double act whereby they pretend to hate each other and yet depend on each other to keep their profits and influence rolling in.
There are no losers in their ritual titanic (and often largely orchestrated) struggles no matter which side actually goes into office.  No matter how 'badly' things go for one, the narrative of the next game down the line has already been set.  A rematch football game is already scheduled.  Everyone is already feverishly buying their tickets to that event.  

Will the Democrats fight back?  The intrigue, the fantastic cast of cinematic characters, the media feeding the beast and earning a fortune on the bout and the grand pantomime Oohs and aahs....  

Just ban both Parties under anti-Cartel rules.  Rottweiler Trump....over to you.

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

Mexicans send home $20 billion a year from the US. Therefore the Mexican government encourages people to go to the US. They're not so welcoming of Guaetemalans crossing their southern border though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncURb3SK_IY

Stop them coming would mean more jobs for Americans. You'd have tax money coming in instead of paying them welfare and not to mention less money sent across the border.

Are you suggesting that all Mexican nationals in the U.S. are 'illegals' then? I imagine a huge number are there entirely legitimately and are, therefore, paying tax. Unlike the President himself I might add.

Where did I suggest that?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

secretfly might have found a friend.....

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

kingraf wrote:I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

Mexicans send home $20 billion a year from the US. Therefore the Mexican government encourages people to go to the US. They're not so welcoming of Guaetemalans crossing their southern border though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncURb3SK_IY

Stop them coming would mean more jobs for Americans. You'd have tax money coming in instead of paying them welfare and not to mention less money sent across the border.

Are you suggesting that all Mexican nationals in the U.S. are 'illegals' then? I imagine a huge number are there entirely legitimately and are, therefore, paying tax. Unlike the President himself I might add.

Where did I suggest that?

You implied it. Why would U.S. Government not have tax coming in if it's Mexicans doing jobs? If they're 'illegal', then that would make sense as they'd be doing work under the tax radar, presumably. If not, then it makes no sense. The U.S. Government should be making the tax regardless of whether Mexicans or U.S. citizens are doing the work.
I wasn't commenting on your claim of more jobs/welfare payment for U.S. citizens; just the tax.

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

navyblueshorts wrote: If they're 'illegal', then that would make sense as they'd be doing work under the tax radar, presumably. If not, then it makes no sense.

I think the ones up for 'repatriation' are the ones without the documentation that says they are legal.... and an extra caveat, they have documentation that says they've committed a crime or a few.

Legal is legal. Legal is provable. Legal that's provable would be a nice incentive for the many money happy lawyers that populate the fair US of A. So I'm sure the courts will be kept in good business as the lawyers seek to prove their clients have the legal documents that prove they can't be just dumped onto a plane and sent home.

Therefore, why does everyone want to claim that Trump is intent on sending back even multi-millionaire animated wonder Speedy Gonzales across the border?

BTW; the wall - that's so comical to the frowning indignant classes - how come it already exists on many stretches of that border? And who built those stretches?

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

If the cost is passed on to the end user then that's 318M people that are less capable of purchasing than before. So the products are dearer, they're backed up in warehouses, workers still have to be paid to make them to keep the businesses going (even in dirt cheap labour cost China) and the Chinese purchasers themselves can't take up the slack - and it's even questionable whether great swathes of their society even want to.
Americans are still perhaps the greatest consumerists on the planet and coughing yourself righteously out of that market because you're annoyed at the protectionist policies is only lighting the torch even more for the concept that America takes back the manufacturing onto itself to meet the cultural demands of their people for more and more.

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

If the cost is passed on to the end user then that's 318M people that are less capable of purchasing than before.  So the products are dearer, they're backed up in warehouses, workers still have to be paid to make them to keep the businesses going (even in dirt cheap labour cost China) and the Chinese purchasers themselves can't take up the slack - and it's even questionable whether great swathes of their society even want to.  
Americans are still perhaps the greatest consumerists on the planet and coughing yourself righteously out of that market because you're annoyed at the protectionist policies is only lighting the torch even more for the concept that America takes back the manufacturing onto itself to meet the cultural demands of their people for more and more.

Indeed theres a massive trade imbalance between the USA and China. They can thank the Clintons for that.

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

I'm not sure 'free-trade' == 'companies p!ss off to less developed countries to use cheap labour'. Movement of labour is, I would say, another issue. Valid maybe, but not a lot to do with free trade. The option is retain manufacturing in the 'host' country. That's fine, if you in fact can and if the locals are happy to pay increased prices for the same goods. The evidence suggests they aren't happy to pay a lot more. You can do what you like, but there are consequences and the consequences for protectionist policies will be increased prices (to fund 1st world salaries) and eventually, rubbish goods due to loss of competition.
All this is a balancing act at the end of the day isn't it? I think I'd agree it's probably gone too far in pursuit of cheap manufacturing costs in order to fund cheap goods and big money for companies. How much more are you willing to pay for your clothes etc?

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

If the cost is passed on to the end user then that's 318M people that are less capable of purchasing than before.  So the products are dearer, they're backed up in warehouses, workers still have to be paid to make them to keep the businesses going (even in dirt cheap labour cost China) and the Chinese purchasers themselves can't take up the slack - and it's even questionable whether great swathes of their society even want to.  
Americans are still perhaps the greatest consumerists on the planet and coughing yourself righteously out of that market because you're annoyed at the protectionist policies is only lighting the torch even more for the concept that America takes back the manufacturing onto itself to meet the cultural demands of their people for more and more.

Of course if ~300m people can't now afford something that makes them less well off and undoubtedly causes problems at the manufacturing end. It's surely a natural reaction of suddenly finding you now have an extra tariff, to put the costs up though.
It's fine if America wants to and thinks it can take up/back manufacturing that its 'lost'. I think it's dumb, incredibly naive, will lead to price hikes in any case, will create poor quality goods and will cause huge problems for U.S. companies that actually want to sell to the RoTW. Up to them though. Trump can do what he likes, but there are consequences and he doesn't think there are any. Actually, maybe he thinks if he bankrupts the country he can just shaft the workers/creditors (in this case, his own country) and get get a 'do over' (maybe with Rusky cash?) like he's apparently done a number of times with his own business?

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly Trump is taking an isolationist view....Like the Monroe doctrine reborn..especially with this UN talk...Not been an isolationist government since Coolidge close to a century ago...

and I don't like it.

I do like it. Bring back good old fashioned tariffs at the borders. The wealthy elite won't like that idea - which is why they're against him - but you would see a job explosion for the poor.

So, trade with whom then? Presumably if you put, say, a 40% trade tariff on an item, the source nation will just hike costs by 40%, or maybe more. That'll work well. What about, say, the use of rare earth elements? China has an enormous chunk of global production and, presumably, either make the components that require them (say, batteries for electric vehicles) or sell the material to those that do. The price of those sorts of things to the U.S. will jump, with the costs passed on to the end users.
In addition, you can almost guarantee t.i.t-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods going the other way. Great for U.S. manufacturers and all those mythical jobs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

Massive? Aren't both the US and UK sub-5%? Which is pretty close to NAIRU......

Pretty sure unemployment was higher pre the take off of globalisation.

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Just checked, since that Nostradamus interview in 1993, unemployment in the UK down-trended consistently until the GFC. Linear trendline has a multipler of -0.09.

Even including the GFC, unemployment has still reduced over the period from that prophesy to now, just by a smaller muiltiple (-0.02).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pretty sure unemployment was higher pre the take off of globalisation.

Do a run down on the kinds of employment offered (terms/security/hours etc) ...to aid bolstering those politically sensitive 'Unemployment figures'.

Creative Job declarations are about as savvy as Creative Accounting, and we all know how creative that gets.

There was a scheme here in Ireland (not sure if it's still up and running) where 'hard-pressed' businesses got workers virtually given to them off the dole queues, whereby their only contribution was 50 quid a week for at least 30 hours work.  The 'workers' still received money from the government to top up their weekly income but more importantly their names no longer appeared on the unemployment list.
So private businesses were allowed operate on an artificially produced competitiveness level (they benefitted from the 30 hours labour but didn't incur the full costs that a business down the road from them - and not on the scheme - had to incur) - plus 50 euros a week for 30 hours could have been described as many things (slavery?)..... but gainful employment certainly wasn't one of them.

The comfortable are comfortable and look at the unemployment figures to ease their guilt - but the struggling know how hard the struggle is and they know what the word employment means.

Lol the classic conspiracy theorist response.

FAKE NEWS!!

TopHat24/7 wrote:Lol the classic conspiracy theorist response.

FAKE NEWS!!

Oh Dear...TopHat is annoyed by the word 'Creative'. Ouch!

Not annoyed at all. Pleased in fact, as it's so easy to laugh at idiot conspiracy theorists like you when you are so predictable.

Point is, there is NO EVIDENCE that the prophesised mass 1st world unemployment (massaged stats or not) has occured over the period of sustain globalisation.

But go, feel free to just shout FAKE NEWS like Trump and his nutjob press-lackey when the pictures of empty fields were published.

kingraf wrote:I could have sworn he said it was $6 billion. Then he said its $14 billion but if you know what you're doing (like him) it's $10 billion. Then it became $16 billion. Is $25 billion the final final offer?

Also, does anybody know if there's been any development on how the wall will defeat mankind's second invention: rope?

Meh. I had visions of hordes of Mexicans flying over the wall, catapulted by medieval siege weapons

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not annoyed at all. Pleased in fact, as it's so easy to laugh at idiot conspiracy theorists like you when you are so predictable.

Point is, there is NO EVIDENCE that the prophesised mass 1st world unemployment (massaged stats or not) has occured over the period of sustain globalisation.

But go, feel free to just shout FAKE NEWS like Trump and his nutjob press-lackey when the pictures of empty fields were published.

Employment is employment and unemployment is unemployment. It is a FACT that governments across the world use intensive creative measures to bathe correct unemployment figures under cloaks of well placed thick smoke. That's politics, Top - the story is as old as civilisation. You might say it's the very cog on which the system of party politics operates.

So you keep to your lists and your stat (proofs) and Trump will ignore them and just forge ahead with his overview that America was being screwed as China was being tickled.

So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise. You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top. But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.

You quote your 'facts and figures'. It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen. Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise.  You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top.  But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.  

You quote your 'facts and figures'.  It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen.  Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.    

You're not entirely correct......Online polls predicted Brexit but myself included thought the phone polls were more accurate after Cameron v Miliband..

As for the White house... "Vote share" the pollsters were strikingly accurate..............Clinton won by 48% to 45.9% (Clinton got 3 million votes more)and pollsters like Rasmussen gave it to her by 2 points and the others were pretty much in the margin of error..

Where they were terribly wrong was in the bellwether polling.........Which showed clinton 5/6 points ahead in places like Michigan......and all bar the LA Times picked Clinton to win.

They were right about the Clinton vote just not right about where it was !!!..........

Undecideds on election day voted for the guy who could be arsed visiting their State....I imagine. Pressing the flesh works..

Worth pointing these things out for balance..

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise.  You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top.  But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.  

You quote your 'facts and figures'.  It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen.  Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.    

How could detailed facts tell us Brexit and Trump wouldn't happen? Facts are ex-post, not ex-ante.

Best bit is, despite being a clear dimwit, you revel in self-appointed glory of ignorance. Like denying there's been any change in unemployment in 24 years........all those millions of unemployed westerners must be hiding somewhere very crafty indeed!!

I don't know a lot on this matter so I wondered if those of who know more on the subject could pass on their wisdom, the wall...
First how many Mexicans 'sneak' over the border compared to those have travel visas and work for 6 months yet then fail to return?
How many Mexicans travel by other means rather than just hop over the border (plane/train/boat) and therefore a wall doesn't really do anything?
How many Mexicans that take part currently in circular migration and therefore return regularly to Mexico will now more than likely just remain in the US for fear of not being able to return again?

I can answer the first question......Approximately 3/4 million illegals cross the border a year.....

Approximately 43% will return.....

Approximately 150,000 Mexicans are deported each year with criminal convictions..(DHS figures)

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise.  You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top.  But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.  

You quote your 'facts and figures'.  It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen.  Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.    

How could detailed facts tell us Brexit and Trump wouldn't happen? Facts are ex-post, not ex-ante.

Best bit is, despite being a clear dimwit, you revel in self-appointed glory of ignorance. Like denying there's been any change in unemployment in 24 years........all those millions of unemployed westerners must be hiding somewhere very crafty indeed!!

Oh they're not hiding..... didn't many of them just upset your hearty breakfast every morning now for the last seven or eight months?  Haven't you been having indigestion at all the commoner loons coming out of their holes and having the temerity to think their vote should lord it over the justly guidance of yonder Etonian boys from Planet Westminster?

Still driving around your roundabout wondering which exit to take to keep the shine on your pomp, Top.  Good man, no wonder you're dizzy.

ex-post, ex-ante?  Ex-relevant - that's your figure boys - ex-relevant.  But I'm sure their stats say I'm wrong

Hero wrote:I don't know a lot on this matter so I wondered if those of who know more on the subject could pass on their wisdom, the wall...
First how many Mexicans 'sneak' over the border compared to those have travel visas and work for 6 months yet then fail to return?
How many Mexicans travel by other means rather than just hop over the border (plane/train/boat) and therefore a wall doesn't really do anything?
How many Mexicans that take part currently in circular migration and therefore return regularly to Mexico will now more than likely just remain in the US for fear of not being able to return again?

And why does the 'Wall' already exist for good stretches yet nobody seems to know about it?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I can answer the first question......Approximately 3/4 million illegals cross the border a year.....

Approximately 43% will return.....

Approximately 150,000 Mexicans are deported each year with criminal convictions..(DHS figures)

Is that three quarters of a million or 3 to 4 million? If the latter it would account for the US' entire population growth rate!!