The Political Discussion Thread

[Chaka-Z0]

Correct.
I did not say it was easy, I am saying what it would take.

Fair enough.

Actually, I think both Asia and Russia would jump at the chance to replace the USD with their currency being the international standard. Swapping the standard to the CAD (so, I'm talking your country specifically here) would do economic marvels for Canada, it would suddenly become the international trading hub of the world, and businesses would flock to you as the place to grow and develop and create jobs and wealth, same if they switched it to the AUD for me.

I have absolutely no knowledge of Australia's economy so I'll go with the others.

China

Spoiler:

is a low-currency hyper-inflation economic model. The low currency ensures their survival and the attractiveness of cheap labor workforce for mass production. This would be disastrous for them, they literally buy real estate all over the world, leaving the buildings empty, just to artificially induce their economy at ever increasing rates.

Russia, simply put,

Spoiler:

has the profits of all its industries vacuumed back to Putin directly through corruption of his closed circle of 20-30ish businessmen. Did you know it is estimated that Putin has so much dirty money its now impossible for him to launder it all in his lifetime? He can only spend it on ''off the record'' stuff such as secret facilities. His private palace has an interior made entirely out of marble, walls, floors ceilings. Currency does not have a huge impact on Russia since their ''economy'' is mostly bs. Respectable investors stay MILES away from Russian corporations. Ever heard the saying, in Moscou they kill you?

As for Canada

Spoiler:

that would be a disaster scenario as well. Our economy is one of exportation of natural resources, our principal trade partner is the US with the vast majority of our exports. A low CAD is favorable for exportation, a low currency is key to increase sales overseas. Why would you buy Canada beef if its more expensive than your own local beef? We do not produce goods much, we provide the raw materials. That is also why Trump's trade policies are so bad here, we almost only trade with Americans, we are completely at their mercy. They stop buying our wood or metal, we are SCREWED. Why do you think Trump called our PM ''Weak''? Because Trudeau's hands are tied, if he doesn't pet Trump the right way he's going to bring us down with a punch below the belt. An angry Trump could tear our economy apart in one stroke.

It is not as simple as you make it GF. Countries are mostly stuck in certain models due to their history, and changing an economy takes a very long time, often wars, and effort and money and that can't be done in a few years. India is a great example, they are transitioning to an economy of technology and knowledge and have been for many years now, but they are a very long way from having something stable. The living conditions are still terrible .

Why?
If the USA can abandon the Iran deal, the Paris accords, NAFTA, the TPP and so on unilaterally, the other signatories can just cut the USA out of the signing process.

Two different concepts GF. Trade happens without trade deals, its just less profitable. Not many countries actually have official trade conventions. What Coco suggested is complete isolation of the US, not breaking trade agreements.

I doubt it.
The Western core of the EU stands strong, and while the Eastern former USSR states may crumble, they should already have had a glimpse into what that would look like via Brexit.

Yea as I said it's just a shot in the dark, we can come back 15 years from now on this thread and see who was right, that'd be fun. I base mine on the premise that there's a major sh*t storm of refugees crisis, dictators, terrorists and pseudo democratic leaders (Vladi-boy) brewing in continental Europe. The extremists from the political-right jump in and feed on this very aspect, isolate the country and Bam, EU pops like a balloon. I'm telling you that if one more major EU player of the stature of the UK leaves, all of them will.

How is it an act of war?
I don't disagree it would be dangerous, but exactly HOW is doing it an act of war? I mean, I find the Muslim ban a crappy idea, but I would not elevate it to "act of war".
Trade war, sure.
Act of war is a legally recognized reason to kill people.

On military terms, yes, absolutely. That would be the ''official'' war, which will never happen again on a grand scale such as WW1 and WW2 simply because there is no such thing as a possible escape scenario of that outcome with the level of destruction our weapons are capable of. Wars have shifted to undeclared hostilities. Did Putin declare war on the UK when he used a deadly poison on British soil? That would fit your definition right? Did the US declare war on Russia after they literally messed up their elections? Nope. But you bet they don't stay idle either, we just don't know about it.

What do you think happened after Obama's sanctions against Russia? Waves and waves of cyber attacks in Canada and the US, maybe Australia too since you guys are part of the Big 5. Guess the origin of these attacks? Mostly from Russia and China, these two countries are like brothers that hate each others, not true allies but can partner up if their goals are aligned and a big one of theirs is: their distaste for democracies.

[Annoyed]

Much like the Republicans of today are not the same, but you still vote for them.

You mean it asked people to ADVANCE and BE BETTER?

That's progressive, not conservative. You want to actually ADVANCE the world built on progressive notions, then lets have the debate on advancing things. You want to kick it back to the 60's after 50 years of advancement, then you are no believer in the 60's, or the 70's, you just want it to sit in a stagnant state because without the counter culture of the 60's and 70's, you would have never been great at all.

You missed the point entirely. The modern era Democratic party doesn't encourage people to be better and take care of themselves, improving their lot in life by their own efforts, as it did in Kennedy's era.

Today's Democratic party encourages people to demand more freebies from government. You know, free health care, free room and board, free cell phones, the list goes on.

SOMEBODY has to pay for all that shiznit, and being that I'm just a lower end working stiff, without the financial and legal means to shield my income from taxation, that someone is me.

[Chaka-Z0]

Unfounded fears. We're doing it and living just fine?

[Gatefan1976]

Fair enough.

I have absolutely no knowledge of Australia's economy so I'll go with the others.

It's much like yours. If there are two nations on the planet that are "easy comparisons" It's Australia and Canada. Basically, remove the French aspect of cultural identification and replace it with English, and you are pretty much done dude

China

Spoiler:

is a low-currency hyper-inflation economic model. The low currency ensures their survival and the attractiveness of cheap labor workforce for mass production. This would be disastrous for them, they literally buy real estate all over the world, leaving the buildings empty, just to artificially induce their economy at ever increasing rates.

Except, they have the sheer population to maintain those two separate worlds, they even do it now. Half a billion people living in poverty so the other half billion can be part of the lower class to 1% will still make China have a viable path to maintaining a manufacturing slave labour class and a tech driven rest of the country. Hell, India does that now.

Russia, simply put,

Spoiler:

has the profits of all its industries vacuumed back to Putin directly through corruption of his closed circle of 20-30ish businessmen. Did you know it is estimated that Putin has so much dirty money its now impossible for him to launder it all in his lifetime? He can only spend it on ''off the record'' stuff such as secret facilities. His private palace has an interior made entirely out of marble, walls, floors ceilings. Currency does not have a huge impact on Russia since their ''economy'' is mostly bs. Respectable investors stay MILES away from Russian corporations. Ever heard the saying, in Moscou they kill you?

Sure. Russia is a look into what the USA could become. But replacing the USD with the Russian Ruble, a greedy dictator and his plutocracy would have even more money and power, and corrupt regimes love money and power.

As for Canada

Spoiler:

that would be a disaster scenario as well. Our economy is one of exportation of natural resources, our principal trade partner is the US with the vast majority of our exports. A low CAD is favorable for exportation, a low currency is key to increase sales overseas. Why would you buy Canada beef if its more expensive than your own local beef? We do not produce goods much, we provide the raw materials. That is also why Trump's trade policies are so bad here, we almost only trade with Americans, we are completely at their mercy. They stop buying our wood or metal, we are SCREWED. Why do you think Trump called our PM ''Weak''? Because Trudeau's hands are tied, if he doesn't pet Trump the right way he's going to bring us down with a punch below the belt. An angry Trump could tear our economy apart in one stroke.

Man, you severely underestimate the power of being the worldwide currency, and you severely underestimate Canada's own resilience. Other countries would gratefully have Canadian raw materials, and if you were the trading value standard you would boost, not hinder your ability to trade as a major player on the world stage.
You trade to the USA because it is cheap and convenient, but you also trade with them because it is their dollar that all trade revolves around. I get what you are saying, when the AUD surpassed the USD a few years ago and we got "cheap American stuff", everyone thought it was great because they were too short-sighted to see that the dip in the official world currency was anything but "good for them".
All of this hinges on WHO is the official trade currency.
If the AUD was the world currency, of course countries would want to keep their value below the AUD for advantageous trade, but by merely being the trade standard, there are a HELL of a lot of advantages to offset that cost.

It is not as simple as you make it GF. Countries are mostly stuck in certain models due to their history, and changing an economy takes a very long time, often wars, and effort and money and that can't be done in a few years. India is a great example, they are transitioning to an economy of technology and knowledge and have been for many years now, but they are a very long way from having something stable. The living conditions are still terrible .

I never said it was easy, or simple, and both you and Annoyed have quoted me on that. India however, like China -could- create a dual system of slave caste and poor to rich simply because of population numbers and indeed they both do. Strangely enough, both countries have a historical caste based system rather than a merit based one.
In fact, it is only modern nations that embrace a merit based system for the general population AND maintain a minimal standard for all members of said population. Older nations have embraced this notion of minimal standards, but only after aforementioned wars.

Two different concepts GF. Trade happens without trade deals, its just less profitable. Not many countries actually have official trade conventions. What Coco suggested is complete isolation of the US, not breaking trade agreements.

And yet, I still maintain that the world would run just fine without some 350 million consumers in a world of 7 billion, at least economically.

Yea as I said it's just a shot in the dark, we can come back 15 years from now on this thread and see who was right, that'd be fun. I base mine on the premise that there's a major sh*t storm of refugees crisis, dictators, terrorists and pseudo democratic leaders (Vladi-boy) brewing in continental Europe. The extremists from the political-right jump in and feed on this very aspect, isolate the country and Bam, EU pops like a balloon. I'm telling you that if one more major EU player of the stature of the UK leaves, all of them will.

Why do you think the EU is not copping any UK crap from this? The EU did not isolate the UK, they CHOSE to go down this path and the EU NEEDS to prove them wrong, and show just how stupid leaving a system such as the EU is. It's not about "punishing citizens" it's about making players in the EU to think long and hard about a peace that has taken literal CENTURIES to create after literal CENTURIES of bloodshed.

On military terms, yes, absolutely. That would be the ''official'' war, which will never happen again on a grand scale such as WW1 and WW2 simply because there is no such thing as a possible escape scenario of that outcome with the level of destruction our weapons are capable of. Wars have shifted to undeclared hostilities. Did Putin declare war on the UK when he used a deadly poison on British soil? That would fit your definition right? Did the US declare war on Russia after they literally messed up their elections? Nope. But you bet they don't stay idle either, we just don't know about it.

They are not acts of war, they are warlike acts, or acting with impunity knowing the victim on a state or nation level will not retaliate in a warlike manner.

What do you think happened after Obama's sanctions against Russia? Waves and waves of cyber attacks in Canada and the US, maybe Australia too since you guys are part of the Big 5. Guess the origin of these attacks? Mostly from Russia and China, these two countries are like brothers that hate each others, not true allies but can partner up if their goals are aligned and a big one of theirs is: their distaste for democracies.

What is your point here?

[Annoyed]

Unfounded fears. We're doing it and living just fine?

Works out great for the leeches here, too. Not so great for us working stiffs that pay for it though:

[Gatefan1976]

You missed the point entirely. The modern era Democratic party doesn't encourage people to be better and take care of themselves, improving their lot in life by their own efforts, as it did in Kennedy's era.

And YOU miss the point that the republicans of your youth are not what they are now. I have often told you that there was a time I would have voted for the GOP, but you continue to consider them "the party of Lincoln" despite all evidence contrary. All modern democrats are really asking for is a shift in political spending, less on the military, and more on supporting your own people and infrastructure. Providing decent healthcare and education would cost far, far less to the US economy than a few billion dollars a year that gets thrown at the military, and it would help people, not corporations. If I had a million bucks to throw away, I'd be more inclined to give it to some poor bastard living on the street, or a family who's lost a parent in their prime than give it to buying a wing of a F-16 or 4 bombs.
Who would you give the money to?

Today's Democratic party encourages people to demand more freebies from government. You know, free health care, free room and board, free cell phones, the list goes on.

None of this is FREE and people KNOW that, it's paid via taxes. What they demand is that they take care of psychotic uncle annoyed rather than using that money to buy a freaking bomb, cause chances are, poor uncle annoyed has more right to live than the bomb targets deserve to die.
What they demand is corporations that garner billions of dollars of PROFIT, not revenue, PROFIT channel that back into the people that actually MAKE that profit so they never have to ASK the government for a handout or help because their wage or salary provides enough income for the government to tax them at a reasonable rate to provide services ALL people need, and they can still live, or save money from.
What they UNDERSTAND is that no one lives in a vacuum, and there are no red or blue people, just people and if you had bothered to learn anything from classic trek, you would know that as well.

SOMEBODY has to pay for all that shiznit, and being that I'm just a lower end working stiff, without the financial and legal means to shield my income from taxation, that someone is me.

Who ASKED you to pay for it?
Let me guess, the peoples state of NY?
Guess what, the ONLY reason the PSoNY asks you to pay for it is because the people living in the free states of WVA would rather sit on their arse and complain about an evolving work market demanding money from the Gubment that took their jobs cause edumacation is a liberal trap.

The fact that the coasts which are liberal strongholds PAY for the heartland flyover states to ***** and complain about them is a neverending source of amusement, because without them, the heartland would have stopped beating decades ago.
The people do not WANT your government subsidied corn crop to make High fructose corn starch to jam into every food product you make, Nor do they want power that costs them more for using coal when they have to foot the bill for the medical expenses for the poor bastard stuck in a hole breathing toxic fumes day in and day out and have to pay for WVA's "black lung" relief, cause that's just another tax some other bastard has to pay for.

[Chaka-Z0]

It's much like yours. If there are two nations on the planet that are "easy comparisons" It's Australia and Canada. Basically, remove the French aspect of cultural identification and replace it with English, and you are pretty much done dude

Yea true, only difference is that we have the language duality here pretty much, and no ''nopes'' in our backyards, but we got insanely cold winter so that compensates

Sorry for long post but I can't help it.

I realized how much our respective countries are close and basically twin countries. We're both British colonies that were seeking independence and recognition, and sadly during the most part of WW1 we were left to keep the bench warm. But guess who saved the Allied collective butts? That's right, Canadians and Australians WON the war for the Allied. More specifically, General Sir Arthur William Currie (Canadian) and Australian's John Monash. They were the ONLY commanders that actually went to the front and fought with their soldiers side by side while the elite military class from another era were smoking cigars looking at maps in a cozy room, thinking about cavalry charges.

Australia and Canada single-highhandedly broke the German advances that led to the final 100 days of the war. Generals from the old Empires were a bunch of old proud men that weren't able to work together, constantly arguing and unable to form a unified front. They were allies alright, but they fought their own solo wars.

We (Aus + CAD) brought the ''Total Arms Warfare'' tactics to life. (Battle of Amiens)

1- Planes (which were deemed useless by Britain) scouts enemy positions and transmit coordinates by Morse code
2- A barrage of artillery shells are launched to create a ''curtain of steel''
3- Infantry stay real close to the barrage, mere feet away from the explosions
4- Once the carpet bombing is over, tanks move in to be the ''meat shield''
5- Infantry takes cover behind tanks and charge the trenches, finishing them off in close quarter combat

Canadian soldiers were feared by all German soldiers, they were known for their fearlessness and for ''popping out of nowhere''. Currie knew that, and was clever enough to use it to its advantage. Before the final offensive, Currie and Monash moved all their troops North in broad daylight so the Germans Intelligence would think Canadians were elsewhere. Then, during the night, they stealthily moved them ALL back to where they were before and attacked the next day, to the immense surprise of Germany. Currie famously said to his officers ''If I see one match lighting up, its court marshal.''

Our countries also brought new tech (such as sound triangulation to seek and destroy German artillery before charging), tanks which were believed useless in a trench war, and a unified front using all arms available simultaneously. Honestly the tank operators were the bravest of all, stuck in a overheated tin-can-target only waiting to be blown apart by artillery.

Man, you severely underestimate the power of being the worldwide currency, and you severely underestimate Canada's own resilience. (...)
If the AUD was the world currency, of course countries would want to keep their value below the AUD for advantageous trade, but by merely being the trade standard, there are a HELL of a lot of advantages to offset that cost.

This topic we're discussing is so theoretical and improbable that nobody can say for certain what would happen. Again, we don't fully know how the economy would react and both our points have merit I guess.

And yet, I still maintain that the world would run just fine without some 350 million consumers in a world of 7 billion, at least economically.

This figure is irrelevant. Fact: approximately half of the world population lives with less than 2.50$ a day. The 350 million of the US, every single person, is a potential customer. Would the world run anyway? Sure, but it wouldn't be as rich as it is now.

They are not acts of war, they are warlike acts, or acting with impunity knowing the victim on a state or nation level will not retaliate in a warlike manner.

Semantics, perhaps me employing ''act of war'' was a wrong choice of term. I think we can both agree on that.

What is your point here?

Just to show you that what I call ''act of war'' translates in actual battles, only in a different fashion and covertly.

[Annoyed]

And YOU miss the point that the republicans of your youth are not what they are now. I have often told you that there was a time I would have voted for the GOP, but you continue to consider them "the party of Lincoln" despite all evidence contrary. All modern democrats are really asking for is a shift in political spending, less on the military, and more on supporting your own people and infrastructure. Providing decent healthcare and education would cost far, far less to the US economy than a few billion dollars a year that gets thrown at the military, and it would help people, not corporations. If I had a million bucks to throw away, I'd be more inclined to give it to some poor bastard living on the street, or a family who's lost a parent in their prime than give it to buying a wing of a F-16 or 4 bombs.
Who would you give the money to?

I advocate the strongest military that we can possibly field, because if you don't have that, you don't get to make all the other choices. Put another way, the most expensive army in the world is the one that comes in 2nd place. Only through being strong enough so that no one will dare challenge us can we have peace and freedom at the same time.

Today, a great deal of the cost of that military is high-tech, whiz-bang toys that improve the odds of our servicemen living through it; Drones so they don't have enter the danger zone at all, precision weapons, armor and such. I have no problem spending taxpayer dollars to improve the odds for our servicepeople.

None of this is FREE and people KNOW that, it's paid via taxes. What they demand is that they take care of psychotic uncle annoyed rather than using that money to buy a freaking bomb, cause chances are, poor uncle annoyed has more right to live than the bomb targets deserve to die.
What they demand is corporations that garner billions of dollars of PROFIT, not revenue, PROFIT channel that back into the people that actually MAKE that profit so they never have to ASK the government for a handout or help because their wage or salary provides enough income for the government to tax them at a reasonable rate to provide services ALL people need, and they can still live, or save money from.
What they UNDERSTAND is that no one lives in a vacuum, and there are no red or blue people, just people and if you had bothered to learn anything from classic trek, you would know that as well.

Psychotic uncle Annoyed takes care of himself just fine, thank you.

More seriously, why do you think I favor protectionist trade policies?

For example, Democrats want to mandate $ 15/Hr. min wage. With "free trade", what is to stop employers from moving those jobs out of the jurisdiction?

Here's a micro example. Government mandates on small businesses have been driving pizza franchises out of the area around here. Pizza Hut? Gone. Papa John's ? Gone. Within delivery range of my home, there is only one decent Pizza joint still in operation. My choice as a consumer is limited to that place. What happened to the jobs of all the employees of the places that decided that govt. was too onerous here and closed?

Blow that up to a larger scale. If the govt. mandates unsustainable wage rates and the companies affected can move production to a lower cost nation, they will. We've seen this over and over.

But, if you require that the products sold here be made here, they can't do that. Requiring domestic production will use market forces (supply and demand) to force wages up, as employers have to compete for workers. The people who benefit the most from free trade are the well-off. Which, just coincidentally are the people who finance the political campaigns of both Democrats and conventional Republicans.

Whereas Trump alone advocates protectionism.

Who ASKED you to pay for it?
Let me guess, the peoples state of NY?
Guess what, the ONLY reason the PSoNY asks you to pay for it is because the people living in the free states of WVA would rather sit on their arse and complain about an evolving work market demanding money from the Gubment that took their jobs cause edumacation is a liberal trap.

The idea of The People's Republic of NY not giving the farm away in the first place, and therefore not having to having damned near the highest taxes in the country never enters your mind, does it?

[Chaka-Z0]

If you really believe taxes will go down in a protectionist economy, you are gravely mistaken my friend. Every single thing/product/resources/necessities that were outsourced/imported now has to be locally made, at a much higher price. Say goodbye to Wal-Marts, say goodbye to all these big chains.

For instance, Québec provides most of NY electricity demands (hydroelectricity) at a ridiculously low price, so low that we actually LOSE money. Many administration here tried to change without avail. The price was set in an outdated treaty that forces Hydro-Québec to sell its electricity for peanuts.

What do you think's going to happen when you go full protectionist? Do you know how hungry in terms of resources NYC is? If every major cities were like NYC, we would need 2 earths to satisfy the demand.

[Annoyed]

If you really believe taxes will go down in a protectionist economy, you are gravely mistaken my friend. Every single thing/product/resources/necessities that were outsourced/imported now has to be locally made, at a much higher price. Say goodbye to Wal-Marts, say goodbye to all these big chains.

For instance, Québec provides most of NY electricity demands (hydroelectricity) at a ridiculously low price, so low that we actually LOSE money. Many administration here tried to change without avail. The price was set in an outdated treaty that forces Hydro-Québec to sell its electricity for peanuts.

What do you think's going to happen when you go full protectionist? Do you know how hungry in terms of resources NYC is? If every major cities were like NYC, we would need 2 earths to satisfy the demand.

NYC can fall into the sea with California for all I care.

Many people in NY would like to split off from the state to escape the political stranglehold NYC has on the rest of the state.

[Chaka-Z0]

NYC can fall into the sea with California for all I care.

Many people in NY would like to split off from the state to escape the political stranglehold NYC has on the rest of the state.

Okay let's suppose NYC phases out into a parallel universe right now. Still doesn't change anything, protectionism has one single arvantage: survival in times of depression or economic crisis and even then, this is an old school theory that's not used anymore. A good way to get out of a crisis is to invest massively in immobilisations to create more jobs and more capital.

Have you thought that maybe ther reason why Trump is alone advocating this is due to the fact that he has no clue how the economy works? Also Trump didn't push for full protectionism.

[Annoyed]

Okay let's suppose NYC phases out into a parallel universe right now. Still doesn't change anything, protectionism has one single arvantage: survival in times of depression or economic crisis and even then, this is an old school theory that's not used anymore. A good way to get out of a crisis is to invest massively in immobilisations to create more jobs and more capital.

Have you thought that maybe ther reason why Trump is alone advocating this is due to the fact that he has no clue how the economy works? Also Trump didn't push for full protectionism.

Having a starship's phasers level NYC, while being a good thing, wouldn't affect the protectionist topic at all. I just want to find a way to get rid of it and California.

Yes, I believe NYC gets power from the St. Lawrence, along with other sources. But if we didn't, we have more than enough energy resources to feed it on our own. Gas, Coal, Nuclear and some Hydro. If you guys refused to sell or we chose not to buy hydro power from you, it wouldn't matter so much.

And as far as Trump's understanding of the economy goes, have you looked at our economic numbers as of late? Lowest unemployment in a very long time and job market pressure is pushing wages up, among other positive signs.

I don't argue with what works. And puh-lease, don't try to claim this recovery is Obama's doing.

[Chaka-Z0]

I don't argue with what works. And puh-lease, don't try to claim this recovery is Obama's doing.

That's exactly what I am claiming. Do you even remember 2008? Guess who left the house in complete disorder? Good ol' jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams, remember the man?

The U.S. economy is currently emerging from a period of considerable turmoil. A mix of factors, including low interest rates, widespread mortgage lending, excessive risk taking in the financial sector, high consumer indebtedness and lax government regulation, led to a major recession that began in 2008. The housing market and several major banks collapsed and the U.S. economy proceeded to contract until the third quarter of 2009 in what was the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. The U.S. government intervened by using USD 700 billion to purchase troubled mortgage-related assets and propping up large floundering corporations in order to stabilize the financial system. It also introduced a stimulus package worth USD 831 billion to be spent across the following 10 years to boost the economy.

The economy has been recovering slowly yet unevenly since the depths of the recession in 2009. The economy has received further support through expansionary monetary policies. This includes not only holding interest rates at the lower bound, but also the unconventional practice of the government buying large amounts of financial assets to increase the money supply and hold down long term interest rates—a practice known as “quantitative easing”.

https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states

Go learn something new Annoyed, it never hurts.

[aretood2]

Having a starship's phasers level NYC, while being a good thing, wouldn't affect the protectionist topic at all. I just want to find a way to get rid of it and California.

Yes, I believe NYC gets power from the St. Lawrence, along with other sources. But if we didn't, we have more than enough energy resources to feed it on our own. Gas, Coal, Nuclear and some Hydro. If you guys refused to sell or we chose not to buy hydro power from you, it wouldn't matter so much.

And as far as Trump's understanding of the economy goes, have you looked at our economic numbers as of late? Lowest unemployment in a very long time and job market pressure is pushing wages up, among other positive signs.

Unemployment has been plummeting since Obama's re election so how exactly is that to Trump's credit? What has changed under Trump is the plummeting stock market, and given that he took credit for its initial spike the first few months of his administration, then he too has to "take credit" for its fall and if it keeps falling without abetting we will be entering into another recession.

You complain about the wall street elites yet you fail to realize that they are the source of money for the companies and businesses that operate in the US that have also been still cutting jobs despite the amazing debt increasing tax cuts that targeted the wrong businesses. Instead of targeting small businesses and small to medium corporations, Trump's cuts targeted the large multinationals that didn't need anything in tax cuts and they haven't changed any of their plans...other than trying to pass off christmas bonuses as "pay raise" from the tax cuts of which you Trump worshippers fall for because anything that supports the messiah can't be questioned.

As for wage growth, it is barely outpacing inflation and that has been the case since Obama's administration...well actually under his administration it stopped growing below the rate of inflation iirc. Wages naturally grow, or they should at least.

Though I must point out one thing. Economics are also affected by Governors and state actions. So these small wage improvements and trends under either administration are really hard to ping on the actions of either Obama and Trump. It's easy for a president to take credit for things done by governors. That's one aspect I see a deficit in research when it comes to these sorts of numbers. For example, if California increases minimum wage, their huge population size will impact national wage earnings rates just from the increase in minimum wage. And if this is done today, Trump would look at that number and take the Credit and people like you would declare it a clear vindication of Trump's policies...even though it would have nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with governor Brown.

I don't argue with what works. And puh-lease, don't try to claim this recovery is Obama's doing.

So the wage increases and fall of unemployment and increase of the stock market under Obama wasn't his doing? Then whose doing was it? Putin? You could argue actions of state governors, but then that argument would still be true under Trump.

[Coco Pops]

True that. Has someone ever created a "never going to happen" thread? Theres more chances of us finding God hiding behind Trump's mask than this happening.

You can't severe ties with a country that controls most of the economy and that is one of the biggest consumer market in the world. That would also mean abandoning relations with every allied country to the US due to sanctions.

Yes but hypothetically what would happen if you did?