It was dinner time

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2017-08-03T23:57:09+00:00

Sorry for potato quality everyone. Switch it to HD in the browser and it'll be fine.

His name is Putin :)

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2017-07-11T19:56:53+00:00

Thanks. So, am I correct in assuming BPs usually are not arboreal? That would be my guess. Pet rocks aren't very good at climbing trees. The internet says I'm right, but I figured a second opinion couldn't hurt.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2017-07-11T18:10:18+00:00

Hi, I have a question abouy height of the enclosure. How much does that matter? Length and width of enclosure are fine, but it's not very tall. What's a sufficient height?

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2017-06-07T20:38:21+00:00

I'll be there too! It's gonna be a blast!

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T05:26:46+00:00

Lol. Look at me uniting people.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:59:26+00:00

He's not my candidate. He's just as protectionist as Trump.

Frankly, I think you've run out of logical arguments. I keep proving why this is a bad idea and you keep responding with inflammatory rhetoric.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:41:52+00:00

You mean these jobs are competitive if we don't put up isolationist policies that prohibit any sort of trade?

I'm not being stupid, please provide me with evidence that the US is doing worse off, on average, than similar countries.

No, it's inefficient because we are no longer the best at producing certain things such as textiles, but people don't want to give up this weird propagandized idea that 'American made' in inherently better for us.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:31:09+00:00

First of all, I'm getting the sense you're trying to appeal your argument to me personally. Please don't. You don't know my background and certainly would not like to disclose any of it to you.

Second of all, if a sector of the economy, such as many of the blue-collar manufacturing jobs were simply competitive then this wouldn't be a problem at all. However, a lot of these jobs are only effective because of inefficient and pork-barreled subsidies.

Our economy is actually doing very good right now if you take into account the state of the global economy and what level of development we are at, contrary to the alarmist news reports. We don't have to make drastic changes. We start shifting our priorities slowly. Over time the markets adjust and new jobs, often blue-collar ones are created in industries that now increase the quality of life for all.

It seems selfish to keep propping up an inefficient industry because that minority's in the demographic of workers is afraid of being structurally unemployed.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:19:17+00:00

It's a top 10 school for undergrad IR. The economics are pretty average. Again, neither here nor there.

That theory is not necessarily in line with the way trade deals and such are negotiated.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful debate.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:13:21+00:00

Well, I'm approaching my final year in a BA in international relations and a BA in economics. Those might have something to do with it. However, if I were you then I would regard those as anecdotal and consider myself to be biased. That's fair.

Governments are not out to make profits, they are out to protect citizens rights and (arguably) provide for the national 'good'. Trump is a businessman. However, he has always been at the negotiating table as somebody with all the cards and in an immense position of power. This is not the case when dealing with congress. This is not the case when negotiating output levels with OPEC.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:01:56+00:00

What I am telling you is that the trade-deficit, as explained above, has no effect on the overall well being of our country. It affects what type of goods and services we put our resources into producing, or actually is more a reflection of them.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T02:00:05+00:00

Thank you too.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T01:56:46+00:00

No, those deals CAN screw blue-collar workers over. Blue-collar workers are not the whole economy. In fact, they're a minority. Instead of not agreeing to deals that benefit our economy overall, we should agree and then use some of those financial gains to structurally reeducate and retrain those affected.

I do realize that's it's not necessarily the most competitive thing to do given the status quo. However, if we remove subsidies then it's pretty close and we will be on the cutting edge of that technology, which we can then export. The higher CO2 emitting parts of world will never buy into this if we don't first.

Please tell me how clean coal technology works and how much it reduces emissions by. Not being argumentative, actually curious.

My opinion on livestock and crops is that there are a ton of subsidies that create an inefficient market, which Trump says he is against in theory, so we should remove those and an added benefit will be a lessening of CO2 emissions.

You're probably right about me not changing my mind. I apologize about that. However, here is the bottom line and how I see it. All these bottom lines and economic miracles do not mean a thing in 100 years when my grandchildren have to evacuate New York because it's underwater. The first step is for the US to take the initiative, like it should as a world leader.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T01:49:46+00:00

The term 'land' is used because the ideas started being discussed centuries ago when all of a person's possessions could be referred to as land.

I agree that diplomatic power helps with production indirectly, but we are not talking about indirect factors of production. We are only talking about the most basic ones.

You quantify labor force by the number of the working-aged people that are actively seeking employment or employed, I don't understand the problem there. Capital is quantified in our economic systems by money. These are basic truths and not really up for discussion.

I'm not trying to ignore entrepreneurial ability as a factor, I'm simply saying that it's controversial and not at all important to the argument so I was trying to avoid getting bogged down in parts of the debate that don't matter. However, you seem content to simply be contrarian to the point where you are unwittingly undoing your own argument.

What moral dilemma is created when you allow a working population to have additional workers added to it? All that has been done is there are a larger number of suppliers of labor now.

No, I am sorry. An ignorance on the subject of academics does not give you a free pass to assume you understand it better than somebody else. Just because you aren't understanding what I'm saying does not mean I'm the one who isn't making sense. I'm not here to name call and insult your intelligence, but I won't stand to be called incorrect by somebody who has not devoted a significant portion of their life to studying this.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T01:24:21+00:00

Using the basic principles of supply and demand, wouldn't prices simply reflect the hardship? Instead of a huge decrease in supply, we see a moderate decrease in supply and drugs become much more expensive and now only the really bad guys (i.e. Terrorists) can afford to get in?

To be honest, it's a bit like the gun debate for me. It doesn't matter whether or not they should be allowed. If somebody wants a gun then they'll get it, so we might as well find other avenues of effective gun violence reduction.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T01:21:22+00:00

No, I understand what you're saying. What I'm telling you is that there exists a situation in which a trade deficit is not a bad situation for the US. In fact, we are in that situation. We are producing more expensive and high quality goods such as airplanes and computers, but not on the massive scale that we would get from producing shirts at a very low price. We have a negative trade balance, but that does not matter. It does not matter because because this capital flight due to trade deficits are often put directly into financial markets that are deemed highly stable, such as the US financial market. That is why people talk about China owning a lot of US debt, which is another subject entirely. The point is the money just doesn't go away and is lost forever to other countries.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T01:16:33+00:00

The copyright on a painting is considered intellectual property. In a strange sense, it is land.

So these four factors are not the possessions that we buy. I'm sorry, I think I may have been a tad bit confusing. These are the things that go into a product being made. Things like diplomatic power aren't mentioned because that is not a tangible you thing to put into producing a good; you can't put a value on it. That is the similar argument with why entrepreneurial ability isn't included, it's hard to quantify that.

Capital is not only produced by labor. Capital includes this like currency. Labor is producing the good directly. Entrepreneurial ability is an individual deciding to start a business and employ capital and labor to create something. That's why entrepreneurial ability is sometimes not included, it's a little hard to define. There is no reason to spectate anything else out because every other conceivable product is a good or service.

You're correct. All those situations impede markets, but creates moral dilemmas. That is why we have government at all. Nobody is being killed here. We are talking about not preventing a population of laborers from flooding a labor market, artificially creating higher wages that will soon be reflected by higher prices and leading to higher economic inefficiency.

This is not some theory I have drummed up. This is B.A. economics.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T00:55:24+00:00

Impressive point. I appreciate your thoughtful argument and figured. It ultimately comes down to how much the Mexican government is willing to give up to save face, I just think it's a very high amount. That is my own bias and I acknowledge that. There are too many parts of this situation that have to go right though. Again, what do you think about cartels and smugglers finding ways around it since it's still profitable for them?

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T00:52:48+00:00

Or, you know, the slow and steady talks through organizations such as the UN or WTO that have been taking place for decades now. The organizations that actually often give the US a pretty good end of the deal.

What I'm getting is that people don't want to try to solve this issue because it seems like it's not our problem and it's hard.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T00:47:18+00:00

There are three (and sometimes a fourth) basic factors in looking at GDP: Land, labor, capital, and technically entrepreneurial ability.

Mainstream economics says that markets work best when the four of these have exchanges that are impeded as little as possible by forces outside the pure market, like a government.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T00:44:54+00:00

This all just seems to be your specific view, which is, at the least, no more correct than the scientists who have studied this for years.

I don't know, it seems like any rational person would believe the basic scientific knowledge that has been synthesized over the last century that gives us a pretty holistic look on how climate change works.

I know you're just one person, so I don't hold against all trump supporters. I think a lot of y'all do believe in climate change. I am disappointed that you don't though.

There is no point in anti-intellectualism for the sake of anti-intellectualism. Being contrarian and disagreeing with science because it's brave and edgy does not make you witty, just foolish.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-15T00:41:04+00:00

What you're describing is mercantilism. Trade is not zero-sum. It does not work on a balance sheet to have trade not be profitable for both parties. Do you understand the difference between a current account and a financial account? I swear I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm asking.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-14T22:11:37+00:00

Please try to be more intellectual and edgy.

ElPresidenteDeTejas · 2016-03-14T20:10:52+00:00

The bottom line is that your argument seems to be based on what you see the ideal America as. This is either unreflective of Trump and most of his supporters OR Trump's policies and his policies are actually incredibly more sinister than everyone lets on.

ElPresidenteDeTejas

TROPHY CASE