SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (141197)5/4/2018 7:25:45 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218589
 
let's wait and see



To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (141197)5/4/2018 7:35:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Respond to of 218589
 
It might be cheaper to fight climate change rather than fight trade imbalances. And also more useful because electric cars and charging infrastructure would be developed.

It's ridiculous to fight trade imbalances because countries don't need exactly the same quantity of things from each other.

China sells USA consumer goods USA sells Saudi Arabia military equipment Saudi Arabia sells China oil. That would be a hundred percent trade imbalances but the money would go round perfectly.

Mqurice



To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (141197)5/5/2018 6:36:33 AM
From: stsimon  Respond to of 218589
 
If one is to use tariffs, the time to do so is before the jobs have left the country. In this case, the U.S. is trying to close the barn door after the horse has left. Not only is the horse not in the barn, it has lived a full life and died of natural causes. The cost of closing the barn door may be high relative to the benefits, except for the politicians hoping to be re-elected...


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News