The Hunt

[TheDrake]

Violent criminals are invading your country!

That's not explicitly a call for a violent response, but it sure has played that way. Roll around on Breitbart and you'll see that there are quite a few that think border crossers should be shot dead.

You want to draw a similarity, I'll meet you there. You want to draw an equivalence? I just don't see it.

For a while, Democrats were talking about abolishing ICE.

We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion," Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said in a Medium post. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said on MSNBC on Wednesday that he also believed ICE should be abolished. “They are carrying out the policies of this administration, which I think has damaged not only their reputation but their credibility,” he said.

How do you see that as inciting violence against them?

[D.W.]

To play devil's advocate, even if I think the comparison is silly:
When you compare the detention camps to concentration camps, what does that make the ICE agents?  If you believe the guards are inhuman monsters hiding behind "just following orders", I could see someone justifying violence against them. 

People are capable of some extreme stuff when they believe they have the undeniable moral high ground and are fighting "evil". 

[Wayward Son]

Wayward, that wasn't what he said.  If the Dem's theory on Trump's responsibility for mass shootings is to hold water, then it must follow that attacks on ICE can be directly attributed to the anti-ICE rhetoric of the Dems.

Really?  I must have missed that.  Could you quote where Crunch actually said that?  Because I thought we were talking about "The Hunt."

[Seriati]

Violent criminals are invading your country!

That's not explicitly a call for a violent response, but it sure has played that way.

So I said, his comments are misrepresented and don't say what people claim they say, and you're response is an incediary paraphrase?  Or is that a quote of which I'm not aware?

You want to draw a similarity, I'll meet you there. You want to draw an equivalence? I just don't see it.

For a while, Democrats were talking about abolishing ICE.

I agree there's no equivalence, the words that Dems have actually used on ICE are more outrageous than Trump's.  Abolish ICE is the nicest thing they've said.  They've called for harrassing US agents and their families, and tried to draw parallels to them and the Nazis during the Holocaust.

We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion," Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said in a Medium post. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said on MSNBC on Wednesday that he also believed ICE should be abolished. “They are carrying out the policies of this administration, which I think has damaged not only their reputation but their credibility,” he said.

How do you see that as inciting violence against them?

I find you citing mild mannered versions to be offensive, especially after you paraphrased the media's version of Trump's position.  Why not cite the ones accusing them of being criminals, of dehumanizing illegal immigrants, of concentration camps, if you're making a serious case?

In any event, if you're to temporize on that it just proves that the accusation that there is a connection between one persons words and another persons actions is pure political convenience in your mind.

[TheDrake]

I'll give you the concentration camps analogy, that's a fair criticism. I can't think of any time a Democratic politician has talked about harassing the families of ICE agents.

Today, actor Peter Fonda demanded activists visit the homes of ICE agents to harass their families. He also urged his followers to surround their kids at school.

So, I guess you're attributing the same gravitas to things Trump and the administration say to some random actor, and I've never even heard that quote before and had to look it up? You want to blame Fonda for inciting violence equivalent to Trump? I'm happy to go along with no reservations.

I didn't think I had to actually find the Trump quotes that the paraphrase were about. He talks about an invasion incessantly, echoed by many others. He and others make constant references to gangs, rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals.

[TheDrake]

After further reading, I'll go along with the idea that the left certainly has a growing number of people who are willing to commit or accept violence against ICE. I think they tend to be a lot further left than most of Democratic politicians. Even so, those politicians are engaging in dangerous rhetoric. They fail to differentiate between ICE policy and the agents forced to carry it out. They do little to condemn the violence committed, and use it crassly to pivot to attacking Trump.

It's funny that I didn't spot more of this, despite using Breitbart as a counterpoint to other news sources. It seems even they are much more interested in talking about violence committed by immigrants than violence committed against ICE.

[Crunch]

Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball?

Do you know how this works? Seriously. Movie made, previews released, marketing materials, theatre release date set. Have you even been following this? Are you just pretending you don’t know all this?

[Crunch]

Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to the agency.

But yeah, it’s just a fantasy on my part. Right. Tell me again that this isn’t happening.

Waitaminute.  You're saying that a movie, that has not yet been released and only a few seconds of clips have been shown, has inspired someone to start shooting at his political opponents?  Seriously? 

So tell me, how do you think racist rhetoric from the President influence White Nationalists?  

No. I’m nit saying that. Please tell me you’re pretending to not understand. If you’re not pretending you may want to seek help.

[Wayward Son]

Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball?

Do you know how this works? Seriously. Movie made, previews released, marketing materials, theatre release date set. Have you even been following this? Are you just pretending you don’t know all this?

Oh, I understand the process, apparently better than you.  How often scripts get revised, even during production.  How the story can be changed even more during editing.  How you really don't know what the film will be until it is actually shown.

Which is why I am pointing out that you have no knowledge that these scenes are, or will be, in the movie.  So the whole basis of your argument in this thread is based on a pile of poop, which means your whole argument is poop, and every single accusation you've made against Democrats, liberals and people on this thread based on this movie is basically a pile of poop.  And, frankly, the stench is starting to offend me.

So why don't you just flush this whole thing like a decent person and realize you've been had again by the Conservative Media.  That they fooled you once again into believing something that just isn't true.  That this movie has nothing to do with what liberals and Democrats believe should be done with Trump Republicans.  That this is all a fantasy construct put together by deluded minds that you, unfortunately, swallowed hook, line and sinker.  Cut your loses, admit that this is based on nothing, and leave it be.

And please don't reply with another lame "are you pretending" B.S.  If you don't have an answer, admit it.  But don't try to say that I don't understand, that I'm pretending, that I'm the one who is not being honest and forthright here.  It's a silly game, and you're not fooling anyone.  It didn't work in the fourth grade, and it doesn't work now.

Got it?

[Wayward Son]

Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to the agency.

But yeah, it’s just a fantasy on my part. Right. Tell me again that this isn’t happening.

Waitaminute.  You're saying that a movie, that has not yet been released and only a few seconds of clips have been shown, has inspired someone to start shooting at his political opponents?  Seriously? 

So tell me, how do you think racist rhetoric from the President influence White Nationalists?  

No. I’m not saying that. Please tell me you’re pretending to not understand. If you’re not pretending you may want to seek help.

No, I don't understand.  I can only read what you wrote and make inferences from that.  I can't read your mind (not that I'd want to).  I can't guess about things you don't say.

May I suggest that a simple few sentences explaining yourself would be more productive than suggesting that I seek help?

[Seriati]

It's hard to see how the thread is "poop" in a world where you want to attribute third party actions to Trump's words.  If you've decided you were wrong about that all along, then so be it.  Otherwise, you can't have it both ways, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of speculation about the message of the movie based on what's actually been released.

[Fenring]

Wayward, you are way, *way* overstating your case. Of course it's true that you don't exactly know what's in a movie until you see it. But your position seems to be that we literally cannot make any comments about it of any kind before seeing it, which I think is silly. There is plenty you can say about a film prior to its release, which can include:

-What it wants to be seen as
-How it's marketed
-What the blurb says it's about
-Its title

Speaking of title, its original title was apparently "Red State vs. Blue State" but it was changed. I'm sure you can argue that it must have been changed due to so many rewrites that it no longer has the same story. Of course that's far less likely than the reverse, but it's true no one can be absolutely sure until it opens. The title alone doesn't exactly say what the story is, but it does seem that its self-description is that it's about red vs blue type people, with the reds (I guess) being hunted. It's true that Crunch is prone to jump the gun and cry "you see! they want to kill us!" but at the same time it's not clear that this an implausible guess about what it's about either.

With luck it will actually end up being about how the hunters are neither red nor blue but just rich jerks who think they own everything, while the hunted are more diverse than initially assumed and yet they realize they have a common goal. We can only hope.

[Crunch]

Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball?

Do you know how this works? Seriously. Movie made, previews released, marketing materials, theatre release date set. Have you even been following this? Are you just pretending you don’t know all this?

Oh, I understand the process, apparently better than you.  How often scripts get revised, even during production.  How the story can be changed even more during editing.  How you really don't know what the film will be until it is actually shown.

Which is why I am pointing out that you have no knowledge that these scenes are, or will be, in the movie.  So the whole basis of your argument in this thread is based on a pile of poop, which means your whole argument is poop, and every single accusation you've made against Democrats, liberals and people on this thread based on this movie is basically a pile of poop.  And, frankly, the stench is starting to offend me.

So why don't you just flush this whole thing like a decent person and realize you've been had again by the Conservative Media.  That they fooled you once again into believing something that just isn't true.  That this movie has nothing to do with what liberals and Democrats believe should be done with Trump Republicans.  That this is all a fantasy construct put together by deluded minds that you, unfortunately, swallowed hook, line and sinker.  Cut your loses, admit that this is based on nothing, and leave it be.

And please don't reply with another lame "are you pretending" B.S.  If you don't have an answer, admit it.  But don't try to say that I don't understand, that I'm pretending, that I'm the one who is not being honest and forthright here.  It's a silly game, and you're not fooling anyone.  It didn't work in the fourth grade, and it doesn't work now.

Got it?

I do have knowledge of these scenes. So do you. Stop pretending you don’t, this is perhaps the dumbest strawman I’ve ever seen.

[Crunch]

Variety as the same take as I:

tI end to be an absolutist when it comes to matters of censorship, and if the decision by Universal Pictures to cancel the Sept. 27 release of “The Hunt” was a case of censorship, pure and simple, then I’d be against it. But I believe, in this instance, that the word censorship would be misapplied. There is censorship and there is timing, and in the case of “The Hunt,” a politically charged thriller about a group of “globalist elites” who hunt down people for sport (it sounds, sight unseen, like a variation on the classic 1924 short story “The Most Dangerous Game”), you could argue that a movie studio got caught up in a perfect storm of disastrous timing that would have made the film’s release, as scheduled, seem less a provocation than a brazen act of insensitivity.

But there’s another factor that, in all likelihood, fed into the decision not to release “The Hunt,” and that factor is undeniably political (which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong).

We know essentially what this movie is and, as I keep saying, it should see release at some point in the relatively near future.  Just not at this moment.

[Wayward Son]

Fenring said:

It's true that Crunch is prone to jump the gun and cry "you see! they want to kill us!" but at the same time it's not clear that this an implausible guess about what it's about either.

And that's the thing.  Not only does he jump the gun and cry "They want to kill us!"  He jumps further and states that "If you disagree, that means you want to kill us, too!" 

All based on an unreleased movie that we've only seen snippets and heard rumors about. 

If that ain't poop, I don't know what is.

Crunch said:

We know essentially what this movie is...

Yes, we all do know what essentially this movie is.

It's essentially a remake of "The Most Dangerous Game," similar to their previous remakes: "The Purge," "The Purge, Election Day," "The First Purge," etc, ad nauseam.  It's a movie where someone decided to try to make it more "relevant" by putting a political twist to it, by having the two sides being Conservatives vs. Liberals.  And since making the gun-toting Conservatives being the hunters was too trite, someone decided to twist it around and have the Liberals being the hunters instead.  And, essentially, this is some stupid little horror/slasher movie that will have as much influence on society as every Halloween, Jason, Saw, Scream, Elm Street, etc. movie that has come before.

What we also all know is that this thread is essentially a hit-piece, an attempt to slander every opponent of Trump and Conservatism.  To state or imply that they would gladly kill the opposition, just like the characters in the movie.  That it is really the fantasy of everyone who dislikes Trump and what he's done to this country.

I'm not saying this is the intention of everyone who has written on this thread.  Just Crunch, who started it.  Crunch, who makes vague excuses like this is "the dumbest strawman" or "stop pretending," because he knows that, if he had to clearly spell out his objections, that he would reveal his irrationality and biased hatred of everything that doesn't fit in his little universe.  How he has overblown the trailers to make it seem that the movie is inspiring people to shoot at ICE offices.  That a stupid little horror movie is indicative of an entire movement of millions of people.  A movie even he hasn't seen yet, but because of his biases and prejudices, believes he knows inside-out already.  And believes that everyone else knows already, too.  And anyone who denies it is "pretending."

Don't worry, Crunch.  Everyone knows the essentials about this movie--and you.

[OrneryMod]

Crunch: Your email on record does not appear to be functioning. Please update your email address and contact me at OrneryModerator@hotmail.com. -OrneryMod

[Crunch]

Fenring said:

It's true that Crunch is prone to jump the gun and cry "you see! they want to kill us!" but at the same time it's not clear that this an implausible guess about what it's about either.

And that's the thing.  Not only does he jump the gun and cry "They want to kill us!"  He jumps further and states that "If you disagree, that means you want to kill us, too!" 

All based on an unreleased movie that we've only seen snippets and heard rumors about. 

If that ain't poop, I don't know what is.

Crunch said:

We know essentially what this movie is...

Yes, we all do know what essentially this movie is.

It's essentially a remake of "The Most Dangerous Game," similar to their previous remakes: "The Purge," "The Purge, Election Day," "The First Purge," etc, ad nauseam.  It's a movie where someone decided to try to make it more "relevant" by putting a political twist to it, by having the two sides being Conservatives vs. Liberals.  And since making the gun-toting Conservatives being the hunters was too trite, someone decided to twist it around and have the Liberals being the hunters instead.  And, essentially, this is some stupid little horror/slasher movie that will have as much influence on society as every Halloween, Jason, Saw, Scream, Elm Street, etc. movie that has come before.

What we also all know is that this thread is essentially a hit-piece, an attempt to slander every opponent of Trump and Conservatism.  To state or imply that they would gladly kill the opposition, just like the characters in the movie.  That it is really the fantasy of everyone who dislikes Trump and what he's done to this country.

I'm not saying this is the intention of everyone who has written on this thread.  Just Crunch, who started it.  Crunch, who makes vague excuses like this is "the dumbest strawman" or "stop pretending," because he knows that, if he had to clearly spell out his objections, that he would reveal his irrationality and biased hatred of everything that doesn't fit in his little universe.  How he has overblown the trailers to make it seem that the movie is inspiring people to shoot at ICE offices.  That a stupid little horror movie is indicative of an entire movement of millions of people.  A movie even he hasn't seen yet, but because of his biases and prejudices, believes he knows inside-out already.  And believes that everyone else knows already, too.  And anyone who denies it is "pretending."

Don't worry, Crunch.  Everyone knows the essentials about this movie--and you.

I’m glad to see you finally admit that we do know what this movie is about. We all did, from the very beginning.

You are completely mischaracterizing my position to continue with your strawman though. I’m pointing out the politically motivated violence that’s already occurring on a regular basis right now. Not saying this movie has caused it. I’m saying it’s a bad idea to have a movie portraying more politically motivated violence.  I’m also saying that this movie should be released but the timing is wrong and perhaps some time later would be better, just like Variety does.

You’re completely making up a position for me then attacking that position. It’s a strawman argument.

[Crunch]

Crunch: Your email on record does not appear to be functioning. Please update your email address and contact me at OrneryModerator@hotmail.com. -OrneryMod

Tried a few times, keep getting this:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of
its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
failed:

OrneryModerator@hotmail.com:
SMTP error from remote server for MAIL FROM command, host: hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com (104.47.37.33) reason: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable, Client host [82.165.159.131] blocked using
Spamhaus. To request removal from this list see https://www.spamhaus.o
rg/query/ip/82.165.159.131 (AS3130). [CY1NAM02FT021.eop-nam02.prod.pro
tection.outlook.com]

I use that email quite a bit, never had it flagged spam before. I’ll create a new address and try it.

[Wayward Son]

You are completely mischaracterizing my position to continue with your strawman though. I’m pointing out the politically motivated violence that’s already occurring on a regular basis right now. Not saying this movie has caused it. I’m saying it’s a bad idea to have a movie portraying more politically motivated violence.  I’m also saying that this movie should be released but the timing is wrong and perhaps some time later would be better, just like Variety does.

A reasonable position, worth discussing.  If that were all it was.  But, starting with your initial post:

I guess the only question left is if it will win a Golden Globe or even an Oscar. I suppose it depends on the body count it can inspire across the nation. What’s the over/under? 10? 20?

Presuming that this movie will win top awards moves your position into one where you are saying the Hollywood establishment endorses portraying politically motivated violence.  And I think we all know who the Hollywood establishment are associated with.  Hint—it ain’t Conservatives.
From there, it is not hard to find instances where you seem to be saying that Liberals (or at least those who disagree with you) are inclined to agree with the idea of politically motivated violence.  E.g.

So you love the idea of killing MAGA types. You’re cool with this. Ok

(That was in response to my challenging your assumption of how influential such a movie, when released, would be.)

I don’t think it matters who was heroic and who was the villain or who was portrayed as the victim. But, so many of you seem to really dig this fantasy of killing your political opponents so you try to go through the mental gymnastics to accept it.
And you’re probably wondering why the second amendment even exists.

(That was in response to scifibum challenging the idea that the scenes would be used to inspire violence.)

And while you do mention that 15 percent of Republicans thought it was a “good idea” to eliminate their political opponents, you stated that 5 percent more of Democrats thought it was a “good idea,” too.

Based on those quotes, along with your detailed descriptions of scenes of a movie that hasn’t been released yet, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that you are also arguing that Democrats, Liberals, and the Liberal-Elites are actually quite OK with this, if not actively supporting it.  So I wouldn’t call it a “complete mischaracterization.”

[Crunch]

smh

[Crunch]

Good news:

Universal Pictures said Tuesday that it will release the social satire “The Hunt,” a film it canceled in the wake of criticism about its premise of “elites” hunting people for sport in red states.

A trailer announcing the film’s March 13 release date presents the “elites” hunting regular people for sport in red states.

I like the timing of this a lot better now. This’ll be great.

[rightleft22]

Everyday Crunch you either make me laugh or cry

The word 'elites' has lost its meaning. Only in the world of athletic's is being a elite sought after, for the rest we prefer idiots 

[Crunch]

Au contraire, when we say “elites” in a political context we all know exactly who we’re talking about. The meaning is clearer now than ever before.

[TheDrake]

It's the Deep State! Mwah hah hah.

[wmLambert]

TheDrake, you can't play this both ways.  Trump's "rhetoric" often is not accurately described and never directly calls for violence, yet the Dem's want to make the hard attribution, they can't walk back the language they've used on ICE and have any consistency in not being responsible here.

Totally agree. What shocked me about this film was the reversal of roles. History shows the Progressives are violent hatemongers, in general, yet the projection is out there for all to see, as they blame their victims as predators and reverse the way things are. For example The KKK was midwifed by Woodrow Wilson, and the victims of those hangings in the South were mostly all Civil Rights activists in the GOP; yet they attempt to project their own perfidy onto the Right.. The point is that the violent ones routinely project their own intolerance onto their victims and Hollywood is entirely a part of that paradigm. As an example the Jussie Smollett hypocrisy was totally accepted by the Leftist elites. Wearing a MAGA hat is not antagonistic, but the Left sold it. How the Media remained silent after CNN settled the Covington lawsuit with Nick Sandmann is representational of how the Left doesn't even attempt to cover news fairly.

Now this film seems like something a decent filmmaker might produce, yet it is too violent for their tastes. So is it a mockumentary?

[Crunch]

It's the Deep State! Mwah hah hah.

It’s Sanders, AOC, Pelosi, Schiff, the DNC media, Hollywood celebrities, et al. How can anyone not know this?

[rightleft22]

Au contraire, when we say “elites” in a political context we all know exactly who we’re talking about. The meaning is clearer now than ever before.

The world elite is applied to anyone who has educational and employment experience but disagrees with what you think and "know"
A word that become derogatory in the continued attempt to undermines education which is very much what some segment of the population wants.

So maybe your right we we all 'know' exactly what is being referred to when we use the word.
 

[TheDrake]

It's the Deep State! Mwah hah hah.

It’s Sanders, AOC, Pelosi, Schiff, the DNC media, Hollywood celebrities, et al. How can anyone not know this?

You're leaving out a bunch and have a few on the list that don't apply.

The elite include lots of Republican globalists, almost all career politicians, almost anyone with a graduate degree....

Senator Hawley put it this way:

Today’s society benefits those who shaped it, and it has been shaped not by working men and women, but by the new aristocratic elite. Big banks, big tech, big multi-national corporations, along with their allies in the academy and the media—these are the aristocrats of our age. They live in the United States, but they consider themselves citizens of the world.

They operate businesses or run universities here, but their primary loyalty is to their own agenda for a more unified, progressive—and profitable—global order. These modern aristocrats often claim to be a meritocracy. And many of them truly believe they are. What they don’t see, or won’t acknowledge, is that the society they have built works mainly for themselves. They’ve effectively run this country for decades. And their legacy is national division and national decline.

In a prior time, people would have referred to the elite as "The Man".

[Crunch]

Au contraire, when we say “elites” in a political context we all know exactly who we’re talking about. The meaning is clearer now than ever before.

The world elite is applied to anyone who has educational and employment experience but disagrees with what you think and "know"
A word that become derogatory in the continued attempt to undermines education which is very much what some segment of the population wants.

So maybe your right we we all 'know' exactly what is being referred to when we use the word.
 

Wrong. The elite are people that insist their smarter and better educated than the rubes in “flyover country” or the hillbillies in the south. They insist that their education gives them special privileges to rule over their lessers as they know what’s better for them than they themselves do. They signal their virtue like wearing free range gold and gems (or whatever it was Fonda did) and oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness.

[DonaldD]

Debating definitions is rarely worthwhile - one almost invariable gets to the point of of stating "what you meant when you wrote 'X' is actually 'Y'" without any understanding of the unintentional irony.

Of course, sometimes people do this consciously in order to obfuscate, but nobody here would do that...

[TheDrake]

oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness

I wonder why the elite might think you are a rube.

[Crunch]

oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness

I wonder why the elite might think you are a rube.

Exactly what I’m talking about, perfect example. I could not have scripted it any better.

[TheDrake]

Sometimes people think they know more because they do know more. Like which state the Kansas City Chiefs play in. Or how a tariff actually works (hint, the originating country doesn't pay it).

[Seriati]

Sometimes people think they know more because they do know more. Like which state the Kansas City Chiefs play in. Or how a tariff actually works (hint, the originating country doesn't pay it).

No strong comment on the Chiefs, I'd forgotten that they're in Missouri as well.  Pretty sure, given they're the only team in the area that they have a bunch of fans in Kansas as well (not that it makes his comment make "sense"). 

But I think Trump may in fact understand tariffs better than you and those who keep playing out of the econ 101 playbook.  That playbook is arguing things from a "model" environment, where things are simplified and have to play out in set ways.  The way Trump is using them wasn't what was modeled.

I haven't seen the econ model that tried to determine the value of tariffs on certain products to redress trade imbalances across an economy.  When you add in the potential impact they have on the balance of trade, particularly, where one is the major consumer of the world and their's an unfair balance, you could probably see that the "costs" borne by consumers on the tariffs (which are less than they appear in the simple models) are actually far less than the overall benefits to the economy that are shared back to those same consumers.

[yossarian22c]

I haven't seen the econ model that tried to determine the value of tariffs on certain products to redress trade imbalances across an economy.  When you add in the potential impact they have on the balance of trade, particularly, where one is the major consumer of the world and their's an unfair balance, you could probably see that the "costs" borne by consumers on the tariffs (which are less than they appear in the simple models) are actually far less than the overall benefits to the economy that are shared back to those same consumers.

But the tariffs are paid in the US.

That said the trade war with China (before he backed off in the election year without getting the structural changes needed) was probably Trump's best policy. I still think it was executed poorly (isolationist instead of getting global pressure) but a good policy to be extremely tough on China with trade. They have been using their intelligence services for years, along with other pressures, to steal IP from the rest of the world.

[TheDrake]

Seriati, I'm not arguing the policy of tariffs. I'm talking about the mechanism.

"Tariffs are NOW being paid to the United States by China of 25% on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods & products. These massive payments go directly to the Treasury of the U.S." — tweet Friday.

Neither Chinese companies nor the Chinese government pay tariffs. Importers pay tariffs, and often pass to consumers. That's just a straight up fact. But the dumb version plays well with the ignorantgensia, who also don't know any better.

Should the average person know this? Probably not. But the people who do have a more valuable opinion on tariffs than the jokers who don't.

[TheDeamon]

But I think Trump may in fact understand tariffs better than you and those who keep playing out of the econ 101 playbook.  That playbook is arguing things from a "model" environment, where things are simplified and have to play out in set ways.  The way Trump is using them wasn't what was modeled.

I'd tend to argue more the opposite. That trump's use of Tariffs is something the model environment does attempt to address. What the models fail to adequately address, and where Trump's use becomes an edge-case, is in respect to China's abuse of said economic models through China's manipulation of the markets. So where things go out the window is that Trump is using Tariffs to leverage a large national entity(China) into ceasing to manipulate and distort markets like they have been doing. Which isn't anything close to the standard scenario envisioned.

[rightleft22]

Wrong. The elite are people that insist their smarter and better educated than the rubes in “flyover country” or the hillbillies in the south. They insist that their education gives them special privileges to rule over their lessers as they know what’s better for them than they themselves do. They signal their virtue like wearing free range gold and gems (or whatever it was Fonda did) and oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness.

Ah its a confusion between the word 'elite' and a 'elitist'.  Not all elite's are elitist. Any elitist would, IMO, be disqualified as being a elite in their field.
What you describe above I would label as 'ass hats' which exist across the political spectrum. And I agree the 'wokeness' of purity politics is absurd and those that ascribe to it are 'ass hats' the opposite of being a elite.

The purposeful misusing the world 'elite' intent is to disparage education and the dumbing down of the population making them easier to manipulate. Get the people to distrust science and anyone of authority.... and you can gas light them so they question their own reality.

Democracy relies on trust. Trust that even when those you disagree with our in power they aren't out to do you intentional harm.  Undermine trust and you undermine Democracy. Which maybe just was some political parties want.

[ScottF]

Democracy relies on trust. Trust that even when those you disagree with our in power they aren't out to do you intentional harm.  Undermine trust and you undermine Democracy. Which maybe just was some political parties want.

I agree with this premise.

Do you think Trump's current opponents and the media operate in a way that generally assumes he isn't out to do intentional harm?

[TheDeamon]

Do you think Trump's current opponents and the media operate in a way that generally assumes he isn't out to do intentional harm?

Obviously not, a lot of them use rhetoric which makes it very plain as day they feel Trump is harmful to the country, and very likely to be deliberately so.

The left-wits are even worse when you get the claims that Trump is trying to establish a monarchy with his family heading it.

[Seriati]

I said the econ 101 answer isn't enough, and the response is the econ 101 answer?  if this is as rock solid as you believe, then wouldn't you also oppose any corporate taxes, since the consumers ultimately pay those as well?

The tariffs "get paid" in the US, but only if they get paid. China's got an active state manipulation of its markets going on, it deliberately props them up with subsidies so that it can undercut  production in other countries and gain market share, effectively acting like a monopolist trying to drive it's competition under.  If the tariffs undo some of that price manipulation and put them on a level playing field again are they bad for consumers?

If you think so, then you must also rationally oppose laws against many monopolistic practices as beneficial to consumers.  After all, prices can't be better than when they are below cost to drive a competitor out of business.

You'd probably have to believe the corporate tax rates should drop to zero as well, since those are nothing but a cost on consumers.

Tariffs are part of a solution to unfair practices by state actors designed to hurt our economy on an overall basis.

Are we not better off, if an artificially low price generated by a Chinese company with state support both directly with cash and in deliberately low environmental and health standards, is brought up to the level that other companies can match, companies that pay their employees the "living wages" that you guys support, companies that provide health care and that operate in environmentally friendly ways?  Are those not exactly the things you guys say you want?  Why then would you think tariffs on goods that undermine those goals are bad? 

Is it really true that the "costs" of those tariffs are paid here?  When in fact the costs of not having those tariffs are also paid here and may be greater?  Every job lost to China over decades is one of those costs.  Every bit of technology stolen by the Chinese is a net loss.  The massive increase in carbon and pollution from those "cheaper" Chinese goods are a massive cost - and one you guys literally support taxing people in the US to mitigate - is it not cheaper to reduce demand for those polluting goods with a tariff than to add a carbon tax (and better for the environment)?  And that's before you even consider that to the extent the tariffs cause pressure that triggers a better trade deal the tariff costs are just a tiny fraction of the benefits received.  Or that reduced demand on the tariffed products means less of them are purchased (maybe none if the tariff is very high) in which case all you're talking about is an opportunity cost - which its clear you're ignoring since you've ignored the massive opportunity costs of the current system.

So are the "costs" paid here?  Or does the almost certainty that the "net" cost is negative mean that what you're complaining about miss the boat?

[TheDrake]

Seriati, that's a lot of interesting theory about the effectiveness and time value of a tariff. It doesn't change the simple fact of who pays the tariff. Do you think Trump or anyone else who thinks China is paying the US tariff money could construct or understand the arguments you just made?

[rightleft22]

Do you think Trump's current opponents and the media operate in a way that generally assumes he isn't out to do intentional harm?

No. The assumption I think most opponents have is that Trump (And now the GOP) is intentionally out to do harm and that the media reporting on this response/concern echoes it, distorting perception. This works to Trump advantage but undermines the system which also works to the administrations advantage reinforcing the fear and distrust which as it feeds itself.

We tend to create what we fear and the DNC is doing a great job. That said Trump rhetoric also comes from a place of fear and negativity towards the 'other'. (His rally performances tend to be mostly negative unless he's talking about himself)  So sometimes its difficult to discern which is creating which.

Personally I think that only a fool would trust a man like Trump however I can separate that from viewing policy and such.
For example I think the administrations policies favor the wealthy which may eventually harm me. However that's a difference of opinion of economic theory, not one of trust, as in the administration is out to get me.   

[Seriati]

Seriati, that's a lot of interesting theory about the effectiveness and time value of a tariff. It doesn't change the simple fact of who pays the tariff. Do you think Trump or anyone else who thinks China is paying the US tariff money could construct or understand the arguments you just made?

Yes, in fact I do.  That's why Trump used the tariffs in the first place, even though virtually everyone was against them.  And in fact, those are the results we've gotten, more US factories re-opening (which are far more environmentally friendly), more US job growth, real wage increases, and even new and better trade deals with multiple parties.

Why wouldn't I think this was the intent, when Trump said this would be the result of "winning" a trade war, and they in fact turn out to be the results?  Now imagine how much better it could have been if everyone had gotten behind him instead of trying to undermine him.

[TheDrake]

I suspect Trump mostly just wanted to hurt China, and naively assumed that the jobs would come here rather than going to Mexico, Vietnam, or some other foreign source. I'm not going to research to what degree we can actually attribute job growth to Chinese tariffs, but I'm not trying to make this point.

My point is that Trump's understanding and many others is simplistic and naive.

Thousands of economists weighed in on the tariffs - negatively. But hey there just globalist elitists. No reason to listen to them with their Doctorate degrees.

I know you can trot out tons of anecdotes about this business or that. But I see your anecdotes and raise you actual academic studies. I can quote the CBO that talks about the negative effects. I can quote the Federal Reserve. But that's just elitist of me. I should probably ask the guy who just got a job making forks for Williams Sonoma's new US factory to lay his analysis on me.

I won't quote any of those for you here, because my point isn't to say whether tariffs are good or bad. It is to say who I'd rather listen to on the subject, and it ain't a garlic farmer or a guy doing upholstery work.

Elitist swine.

[Pete at Home]

And it’s all being handled through an elitist swineflu:)

[cherrypoptart]

I would add that the elite are the people who tell you that you have to live a certain way but do not live that way themselves.

Obama is a good example.

"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership".

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/a30169311/barack-michelle-obama-buy-marthas-vineyard-house/

Obama talked a lot but one picture of that house says it all.

"Situated on 29.3 waterfront acres near the Edgartown Great Pond, the impressive estate, which was built in 2001, features seven bedrooms, eight bathrooms, and a powder room. It also boasts an elegant master suite complete with a fireplace, as well as two guest wings, a two-car garage, a sun deck, boathouse, and a pool.

With these standout features, there is no doubt that Barack and Michelle Obama, along with their children, Sasha and Malia, will continue to enjoy memorable stays on Martha's Vineyard for years to come."

That's elite.

I mean it's nice that the guy went to Washington to do good and did very well indeed. He could at least come back out now and say, "You know all that stuff I said about the AC and the SUV and using up a lot of energy, well nevermind."

[Seriati]

I suspect Trump mostly just wanted to hurt China, and naively assumed that the jobs would come here rather than going to Mexico, Vietnam, or some other foreign source. I'm not going to research to what degree we can actually attribute job growth to Chinese tariffs, but I'm not trying to make this point.

My point is that Trump's understanding and many others is simplistic and naive.

That's not a point.  Fact is, Trump told you what he was doing and why, and got the results he told you he would get.  I think that means those who continue to pretend he didn't know what he was doing are the ones with the simplistic and naive understanding.

Thousands of economists weighed in on the tariffs - negatively. But hey there just globalist elitists. No reason to listen to them with their Doctorate degrees.

That's an interesting argument.  You seem to believe that a doctorate made them an expert in real world application of business principals, rather than recognizing that a real world business person saw things in a way that apparently didn't show up in the text books all those doctors learned from.

I mean seriously, what percentage of new companies have as a founder a phd in economics?  Some, but far far less than should be the case if that doctorate actually translated to real world success.

I'm going to give you this link on PHDs in economics even though it's not the clearest, because I absolutely love the line where they're describing the pro's of the degree and practically fawning over how it's a great door into academia and policy roles, as the last and least of the "pros":  "Backup options in the corporate sector."  I think that says it all about what the degree is intended to do.

https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/economics-phd/

I know you can trot out tons of anecdotes about this business or that. But I see your anecdotes and raise you actual academic studies. I can quote the CBO that talks about the negative effects. I can quote the Federal Reserve. But that's just elitist of me.

What that is, is ivory tower thinking.  If it doesn't come from a professor it can't be real.  If the real world disagrees then the real world is wrong.

Those academics told you free trade was the highest ideal, and that tariffs and protectionism have no benefits and only hurt the country that imposes them.  But they left out a lot of real world consequences.  They left out how ignoring the sovereign policies of countries that don't have to respond to their citizens to any great extent (e.g. China and most of the countries in the world), ignores the primary factor that is pushing the economic model (i.e., that tariffs cost consumers more - China doesn't give two figs about first world products, they shut down completely - and it's to the benefit of their regime to do so - never mind that it hurts the standard of living for their serfs).  That because the academics ignored government market manipulation by autocrats their dream of free flow of production and resources has NEVER ACTUALLY happened.  Jobs left the US not because China was actually a better place to do the work, but because they could undercut expenses that the people in the US deemed vital - like environmental and safety expenses - and pay not price for doing so.  Those deals have been net terrible for the world.

They have no solution to fix China.  They said, bring China into the WTO and open trade and it will make them more responsible.  They were so wrong about that its laughable.

Economic models that rely on consumer decisions don't account well for autocrats that make the decisions for their consumers.

I won't quote any of those for you here, because my point isn't to say whether tariffs are good or bad. It is to say who I'd rather listen to on the subject, and it ain't a garlic farmer or a guy doing upholstery work.

Elitist swine.

The funny thing is, 20 years from now, when - free from TDS - new economists get their degrees there're going to be repeating back the lessons that TRUMP taught them.  Are you going to listen to them at that point?  Will it magically make reality legit that 20 years after the fact they catch up?

If the book learning don't match the facts on the ground, it's kind of ridiculous to double down on it.

[Crunch]

This ^
 
It’s unfortunate I can like that only once. 

[yossarian22c]

The funny thing is, 20 years from now, when - free from TDS - new economists get their degrees there're going to be repeating back the lessons that TRUMP taught them.  Are you going to listen to them at that point?  Will it magically make reality legit that 20 years after the fact they catch up?

If the book learning don't match the facts on the ground, it's kind of ridiculous to double down on it.

Going to call BS on this. Trump signed a deal to get China to agree to buy a little more stuff but did nothing to address all of your valid and spot on analysis about Chinese trade practices. If Trump had gotten that deal, one that got China to legitimize their trade practices I would be impressed. Would still probably vote against him but I would view it as his signature achievement and likely one only he could have pulled off for various reasons. A democrat could have never kept the support of farm states and other republicans would have had issues handing out cash to farmers to cushion the impact of the dispute on them.

But honestly I'm for tariffs against all countries based off of income level, worker protections, and environmental regulations. We shouldn't lose businesses to overseas labor if the conditions are barely better than slavery, toxic waste is being dumped into rivers, or as in the case of China they do those things and additionally prop up certain businesses and sell things at below value to harm overseas competitors.

Tariffs that are set up to protect against abuses instead of just protectionism need to be part of a healthy global economy.