Free Trade

Trump's Anti-China Trade Advisor Invented a Fake Economist To Sell His Protectionist Views

Peter Navarro also said Americans wouldn't pay the costs of Trump's tariffs, a claim that seems to be equally fabricated.

|

"Only the Chinese can turn a leather sofa into an acid bath, a baby crib into a lethal weapon, and a cellphone battery into heart-piercing shrapnel," warns Ron Vara in the pages of Death by China, a 2011 book coauthored by Peter Navarro.

"The manufacturing Dragon is voracious. The Colonial Dragon is relentless. The American Eagle is asleep at the wheel," Vara opines later in the book—the same book that reportedly convinced Jared Kushner to ask Navarro to become Trump's top economic advisor back in 2016. Navarro is now director of the White House's National Trade Council.

And Vara? He's a Sinophobic stock broker, a military vet, and a Harvard alum. He pops up in several of Navarro's supposedly nonfiction books dating back at least to the 1990s. And he is not a real person, as Navarro admitted this week to Tom Bartlett, a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Bartlett discovered this after getting a tip from the Australian economist Tessa Morris-Suzuki, who noticed some inconsistencies in Vara's story and emailed some colleagues at Harvard to see if Vara ever studied there.

In a statement to the Chronicle, Navarro said Ron Vara (an anagram of "Navarro") was a "whimsical device and pen name I've used throughout the years for opinions and purely entertainment value, not as a source of fact." He compared Vara's role in the books to how Alfred Hitchcock used to make cameo appearances in his own films.

But Hitchcock was making fictional films. Navarro was writing allegedly nonfiction books about economics and foreign affairs, and he was using Vara as a xenophobic mouthpiece. And Navarro's co-authors don't seem to have been in on the joke. When contacted by the Chronicle, two people who worked with Navarro on books in which Vara appears said they had no idea he wasn't a real person. I wonder if Hitchcock's camera operators would have been similarly surprised? Probably not.

It does make a sort of sense, though. Of course Navarro made things up in his economic books. After all, he's been making things up while advising the White House too.

Take what he told Fox Business in March 2018, just a day after the Trump administration announced new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. "I don't believe any country in the world is going to retaliate," Navarro said.

Well, they did. And the administration has now spent more than $25 billion to bail out farmers hurt by the retaliation that Navarro said wouldn't happen.

Or think about Navarro's oft-repeated claims that Americans are not paying the cost of the tariffs. That's simply a lie. Study after study (after study after study) have confirmed that, yes, of course Americans are paying for the tariffs. Because tariffs are a tax on imports, and their singular purpose is to make it more expensive to purchase imported items.

This is not news, unless you're "a White House economist who never learned economics," which is how actual economist Deirdre McCloskey described Navarro in the April Reason.

The closer you look at Navarro's track record, the more you might start to suspect he's just been making everything up this entire time. A significant portion of the administration's rationale for starting a trade war in the first place was the idea that America's trade deficit with China is a serious problem. Who was pushing that idea? Navarro, who claims trade deficits—the difference between the value of goods a country imports from another country and the value of goods it exports to that same country—reduce jobs and wages.

"Because imports don't contribute to gross domestic product, unfair trade reduces growth, and narrowing the trade deficit through higher exports and lower imports boosts growth," Navarro wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this year.

That's about as real as Ron Vara. Navarro is apparently ignorant about how imports affect gross domestic product calculations—read Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok explain that exact error if you want to get into the technical nitty-gritty—and he's also implying a correlation where none exists. The size of a country's trade deficit (or surplus) has no connection to how quickly or slowly that country's economy grows.

As Benn Steil illustrated it in Business Insider last year:

Even when Navarro isn't making it all up, he has a tendency to get sloppy. National Review's Kevin Williamson called him out in 2017 over a history of plagiarism and misleading citations. Among the problems Williamson identified: Navarro had cited a 25-year-old study that claimed China was helping Iran develop nuclear weapons without noting that the study was 25 years old—or that subsequent studies by the same authors had concluded China was no longer engaged with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The revelation that Navarro planted his very own Tyler Durden inside several of his books doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know about Navarro's propensity for fabricating reality. But it does provide another excellent reason not to take him seriously. Inventing a fictional alter ego doesn't, on its own, disqualify Navarro from being Trump's top economic advisor—but the other things he's done while serving in that capacity certainly should.

The White House might as well replace Navarro with Ron Vara. Vara may be fictional, but his understanding of economics couldn't be any worse.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Wishes Russia Luck in Syria as U.S. Bombs Its Own Bases and Erdogan Scoffs at Trump's Attempt to Make a Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fictional eeckinimics expurt “Vara” is varatabelly the one and the same (a “Gnome Dee-Plumed”) of our own resident eeckinimics expurt, JesseAz!!!

    All admire and congratulate JesseAZ!!!

    1. Spend more time on your skin flute

    2. Okay who let the crazy in?

  2. have confirmed that, yes, of course Americans are paying for the tariffs. Because tariffs are a tax on imports, and their singular purpose is to make it more expensive to purchase imported items.

    No, sorry, that statement is false. China tariffs are a tax on imports from China intended to make it more expensive to purchase imported items from China. The objective is to create an incentive for China to change its behavior or risk supply chains moving somewhere else.

    Furthermore, it is false to say that “Americans are paying the tariffs”. First of all, due to elasticity of demand, part of the tariffs are born by Chinese manufacturers; they can’t pass them all on to customers. More importantly, the money the tariffs raises goes to the US government and simply goes to reducing the deficit compared to what it would be without the tariffs, so it benefits Americans. And to the degree that it is a tax, it’s a tax on consumption, which is far preferable to taxes on productive activities.

    Or think about Navarro’s oft-repeated claims that Americans are not paying the cost of the tariffs. That’s simply a lie. Study after study (after study after study)

    NYT and Fortune articles aren’t “studies”. The NBER study has errors and its conclusion is wrong.

    1. This is like being “detained” v/s “arrested”. Ask the officer if you are free to go. If not, then you have been arrested! Time to ask “what for, under what law, and where is my access to a lawyer”? What it is CALLED don’t mean shit!

      If I am not paying for tariffs, then can I arrange with my importer to NOT pay the tariffs? So I can get my stuff for cheaper? I guess the answer is “no”, right? Do you have the slightest bit of economic or socio-political knowledge COUPLED WITH HONESTY? I guess the answer is “no”!!!

      1. If I am not paying for tariffs, then can I arrange with my importer to NOT pay the tariffs? So I can get my stuff for cheaper?

        Sure: buy from a source other than China.

        If you buy from China, you personally pay somewhat higher prices on the goods you buy from there, but all of that, plus the portion the Chinese manufacturer eats goes to the US government. So, while you are worse off if you still choose to buy from China, “Americans” as a whole are not worse off.

        1. One of many-many problems with what you say here is this: The very instance that The Donald raises tariffs on Chinese-made washing machines, American washing-machine makes raise THEIR prices… Because they can! Competition USED to keep them honest… Now the reason to stay honest has been removed!!! This is EXACTLY what has happened here!

          Protectionism doesn’t work for the common good, no matter HOW many ignoramuses deny the facts!

          1. In your bizarro world, the only two countries that manufacture washing machines are America and China?

            1. In my bizarro world, assholes like you will NEVER stop justifying the meddling of Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Minions, whenever they think up yet ANOTHER way to fuck up my like, and meddle in just about everything I want to do!

              1. Well, fortunately, adults are holding China accountable for its violations of international trade rules and ignorant little children with their infantile little insults don’t get to set the rules.

            2. IN YOUR FUCKED UP WORLD … COMPETITIVE MARKETS DO NOT EXIST? YOU’VE ALREADY BRAGGED THAT TRUMP’S TARIFFS ….

              1) WILL NOT INCREASE US JOBS.

              2) ARE INTENDED TO INCREASE GERMAN IMPORTS!

              https://reason.com/2019/10/17/trumps-anti-china-trade-advisor-invented-a-fake-economist-to-sell-his-protectionist-trade-views/#comment-7975875

    2. Another economics ignoramus. Import taxes are paid by the importer. The Chinese exporter may well have lowered their prices somewhat; the Chinese government may even be stupid enough to subsidize some of the exports to make up the difference; but the tariff is paid by the importer, and since the entire purpose of exports is to earn money to buy imports, the Chinese would be even worse financial idiots to lose money on their exports just to maintain market share.

      Your idiologic also ignores the entire point of tariffs — their stated, definitional purpose — of raising foreign prices so much that Americans buy domestic products instead. Trump at least understands that, even as he lies about everything else Economic.

      Why the dickens would anybody raise tariffs to discourage buying imports and then claim that import prices have not risen?

      1. of raising foreign prices so much that Americans buy domestic products instead.

        ONLY if imports from other countries are higher priced than US production … which, essentially, requires China to be the only exporter of … whatever.

        Trump at least understands that,

        Ummm, nope. His string of screwups and blunders remains unbroken!

      2. Your “logic” is total bunk. What kind of moron could think that imposing a cost burden on Chinese exporters is inconsistent with discouraging American importers from buying their products (as opposed to not just domestic products but any of a hundred other countries in the world)? The two are entirely consistent. The claim isn’t that “import prices have not risen,” it’s that Chinese exporters either eat a significant portion of the tariff costs or simply lose the business to competitors. Import prices overall are not the same thing as Chinese import prices.

        1. Plenty of Trumpistas claim prices haven’t risen in the US, that tariffs are not taxes, and all sorts of hogwash. All you have to do is read comments here to see that.

        2. Unfortunately, what happens is that when tarriffs hit a specific group of producers- especially the cheapest ones- overall prices go up. Because there is less competitive pressure to keep prices low.

          I bought a grill from a company that only uses american steel. They still had to raise the price of that grill due to tariffs, because those american suppliers had more demand. So I had to pay for the tariffs even though I didn’t even buy from a chinese supplier.

        3. The cost burden is placed on IMPORTERS in THIS country.

          One more time”

          Import prices overall are not the same thing as Chinese import prices.

          Which is WHY you’re wrong and refuse to see it.

          1) Reduced sales of Chinese goods ARE NOT offset by more sales of US-made goods.

          2) If I switch from Chinese to German I will pay a higher price for the German — higher because of the tariffs.

          1. “One more time”

            Repeating it wont makes you less refuted loser.

      3. the Chinese would be even worse financial idiots to lose money on their exports just to maintain market share.

        They would. But they actually do it to maximize profits, due to elasticity of demand.

        Your idiologic also ignores the entire point of tariffs — their stated, definitional purpose — of raising foreign prices so much that Americans buy domestic products instead.

        You could have tariffs on all imports of a certain class of goods. But that’s not what we have. Trump’s tariffs aren’t on all foreign goods, they are only on Chinese goods. Their stated purpose is to force China to comply. Tariffs have no “definitional purpose”.

        Why the dickens would anybody raise tariffs to discourage buying imports and then claim that import prices have not risen?

        Prices have risen. But the deficit has been reduced accordingly. Therefore, while you may be worse off in the short term, Americans as a whole are not.

        Another economics ignoramus.

        You should make that your nickname.

        1. NOYB2 now says … the Chinese lose money INTENTIONALLY to …… wait for it ….. MAXIMIZE PROFITS!! 🙂

          the Chinese would be even worse financial idiots to lose money on their exports just to maintain market share.,

          They would. But they actually do it to maximize profits, due to elasticity of demand.

          The more they lose … the greater their profits!!!
          Why not GIVE AWAY their goods!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

          As if his screwups on Elasticity of Demand weren’t wacky enough!!!

          1. NOYB2 now says … the Chinese lose money INTENTIONALLY to …… wait for it ….. MAXIMIZE PROFITS!!

            No, they don’t “lose money intentionally”, they simply reduce their profit margins in order to maximize profits. Total profits are the product of profit margin and sales. Due to elasticity of demand, the product of profit margin and sales may increase when you decrease the profit margin.

            You’re welcome for this brief Economics 101 lesson.

            1. Your words are just above.
              I quoted you directly.
              You are SUCH a psycho liar.
              (Is he Trump???)

              HE REPEATS HIS DUMBFUCKERY!!!

              No, they don’t “lose money intentionally”,

              YOU SAID THEY DID!!!

              the Chinese would be even worse financial idiots to lose money on their exports just to maintain market share.

              They would.

              “They would” lose money. Your own words. LIAR!!

              But they actually do it to maximize profits, due to elasticity of demand.

              “… just to maintain market share.”

              ….. The Chinese do this …. ACCIDENTALLY!!!! (not intentionally)

              It’s not nice to ridicule the mentally disabled. So, I’ll stop.

              P.S. Trumptard AGAIN admits the FAILURE of Trump’s tariffs … 1) first, FAILURE to increase sales of US-made goods (Chinese goods replaced by German-made )

              2) now, FAILS to reduce Chinese imports.

              1. YOU SAID THEY DID!!! “They would” lose money. Your own words.

                Indeed, my own words “they would lose money if they intentionally lost money”, followed by “But they actually“.

                I’m sorry, I forgot that you are reading at an elementary school level. A subjunctive is obviously beyond your reading level.

                1. Posted in defense of AN EVEN CRAZIER LIE BY THE PSYCHO TRUMPBOT!
                  WATCH NOYB2’S QUOTATION MARKS, then vomit (sneer)

                  YOU SAID THEY DID!!! “They would” lose money. Your own words.

                  Indeed, my own words “they would lose money if they intentionally lost money”, followed by “But they actually

                  THAT’S EVEN CRAZIER!!! FROM THE WRONG COMMENT OMFG

                  The ACTUAL words … and context by this lying sack of shit … AGAIN

                  the Chinese would be even worse financial idiots to lose money on their exports just to maintain market share.

                  They would. But they actually do it to maximize profits, due to elasticity of demand.

                  TRUMPTARD SAYS
                  THEY DON’T LOSE MONEY TO MAINTAIN MARKET SHARE
                  THEY “ACTUALLY” LOSE MONEY TO …… MAXIMIZE PROFITS
                  The more money they lose, the more profit they make!
                  Is THIS why Trump had over a dozen business FAILURES (6 of which were bankruptcies)???

                  Are rumpsters as psycho as Trump is, when HE gets caught?

                  As I type this. Trump CAVED on Doral for G-7 … which would have GUARANTEED impeachment (even more)

    3. Agile Cyborg is back! And apparently he’s switched to PCP, because that’s a pretty fucked-up rant even by AC’s standards.

      Quotes Argument A
      Asserts Argument A is wrong
      Offers Argument A as a counterargument to Argument A

      I don’t know in what alternate reality saying the exact same thing is saying the opposite, but it ain’t in this reality.

      1. Please don’t besmirch Agile Cyborg’s good name. His prose was a fountain of vigorous rainbow jism from a cosmic phallus going supernova, obliterating pretentious untruths from impotent mouths with superstring vaginas gyrating in eleven dimensions.

        1. Although you might be confusing him with the adventures of Warty, penned by SugarFree. I don’t remember AC being that sexualized.

        2. Agile Cyborg was (is?) awesome. Writing like a tesseract.

          1. Was. He perished under a collapsed mountain of empty Rolling Rock bottles and tape measures in his garage.

    4. The tariffs are indeed collected from US residents at the point of entry into the US. Because the jurisdiction of the US ends at the border to the US. China is NOT paying the tariffs, the importers (those people at the customs house within the US) are paying the tariffs.

      For some goods, my company literally pays the tariffs because it’s my company that is importing them. Just parts for our manufacturing, but still imported. And it’s a cost that we eventually have to pass on to the domestic consumer. We’re trying to look for other sources, but they’re highly specialized parts and a factory in China is already tooled up to produce them. For some parts we’ve resorted to extremely expensive 3D printing, but we can’t do that for everything. Meanwhile we don’t import enough of them for a domestic manufacturer to retool just for us.

      And so you are wrong again. Not only is it a tax, it’s a tax on PRODUCTION! As these are our inputs to production!

      1. Who pays technically and who pays economically are two different questions. Everyone knows that these tariffs cause American importers some pain if they are buying from China. But that’s nothing compared to the devastating effect on China.

        “We’re trying to look for other sources, but . . a factory in China is already tooled up. . .”

        Try harder, lazy bum!

        1. Everyone knows you EVADED the lack of a balanced effect on American jobs, (China is not the only nation selling here cheaper than our goods!)

          But that’s nothing compared to the devastating effect on China.

          And to our farmers. The folks you refuse to see.

            1. BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!
              (SNEER)

              1. Ahahahah the idiot thinks its a argument ahahahahaja

                “TheLibertyTruthTeller
                October.17.2019 at 2:37 pm
                (ridicule)”

                BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!
                (SNEER)

                1. NOW the dumbass ridicules …. HIS OWN COMMENT.

                  Ahahahah the idiot thinks its a argument ahahahahaja

                  Actually, I ridiculed your comment (SNEER)

                  Now your total lack of literacy

          1. The trade war isn’t about directly creating American jobs. The trade war is about getting China to comply with international trade rules.

            1. MOAR psycho bullshit

              1) Trump LIED … for over three years … that restoring our industrial base was his purpose.

              2) Trump LIED about America First and opposing globalism … instead, he has appointed himself the enforcer of “international trade rules.”

              (For any other clueless ones, US industrial jobs are the very core which unites both imports and immigration … by rednecks whio screech about cheap imports and cheap labor)

              Technically, not unusual from Trumptards. They invent dumbass excuses … that make NO sense … just like The Donald.

              Plus, they are now scared shitless, just like Trump, as Trump’s own words and staff cause increasing support for … impeach and remove.

              1. 1) Trump LIED … for over three years … that restoring our industrial base was his purpose.

                That is his purpose. He wants to restore our industrial base by getting China to conform to international trade rules. It’s your problem that you are too dumb to make the distinction between protectionist tariffs (which logically would have to be on all imports) and punitive tariffs (targeted on China).

                2) Trump LIED about America First and opposing globalism … instead, he has appointed himself the enforcer of “international trade rules.”

                Under current US treaties, that’s all Trump can do: hold other countries to the international trade rules they have agreed to. He’s sticking to the limits of his executive power and doing what he can within those bounds. You know, like a president should.

        2. Note that Brandybuck is not even true “technically”, since many of the importers that literally “pay the tax” aren’t Americans.

          1. THEY’RE AMERICAN BUSINESSES … NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND NOBODY ON EARTH IS DUMB ENOUGH TO ASSUME OTHERWISE
            Except you, on the entire planet.

            Trumptards = the new Rednecks.

            1. Many importers into America are not “American businesses” either.

              Geez, you can’t even get your straw men correct.

              1. SAME FUCKUP … DIFFERENT ACCENT!!!.

                First, claims that “American businessnesses means … NATIONALITY

                Called out as .. stupid … now IGNORANT that “American businesses” …. on trade matters … means HAVING A PRESENCE HERE … as importers … to counter the Trump and Trumptard BULLSHIT that the tariffs are paid by CHINESE BUSINESSES!!!

                But thanks for PROVING how crazy Trump’s trade war is!!

                1. Oh you poor little man.

      2. The tariffs are indeed collected from US residents at the point of entry into the US. Because the jurisdiction of the US ends at the border to the US. China is NOT paying the tariffs, the importers (those people at the customs house within the US) are paying the tariffs.

        The importers can be any nationality; they often aren’t American. But you know full well that in this context, “paying the tariffs” means “bear the cost of the tariffs”.

        And so you are wrong again.

        You’re wrong both in your absurd literal meaning of the term “paying the tariffs” as well as in the “bearing the cost”.

        Not only is it a tax, it’s a tax on PRODUCTION! As these are our inputs to production!

        No, it’s not. It’s a tax on certain goods imported from China. Most of the goods are consumer goods.

        In other words: stop lying and equivocating.

        1. The importers can be any nationality; they often aren’t American.

          THEY’RE AMERICAN BUSINESSES.
          Nobody thinks that means nationality … except you.
          Ad even if you were NOT bat-shit crazy … HOW WOULD NATIONALITY AFFECT ANYTHING?

          Trumptards be crazy.

          1. Why would they be “American businesses”? There are plenty of foreign businesses importing into the US.

    5. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.
      NOYB2 … FAILS to know WHO pays the tariffs! … IT AIN’T CHINA. … WE CANNOT TAX FOREIGN BUSINESSES OR GOVERNMENTS!!!! The tariff is paid directly by the US IMPORTER!!!
      DUH.

      The next blunder is to ASS-ume the China tariffs MAGICALLY cause US-made products to become the cheapest!!! Instead of … another foreign supplier. So also ignorant of worldwide price competition. So … misapplies “elasticity of demand” … based on ignorance of competitive prices. Also ass-umes US producers can even increase production to offset the decline of Chinese imports!

      SAYS IT’S OKAY TO ADD A SALES TAX ON CONSUMERS … TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT …. UNDER … THE … WORST … PRESIDENT … ON …. DEBT …. EVER!

      Just another Trumpster reciting memorized slogans, about which they know nothing!
      Left – Right – Zero
      Trump’s Bots = Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s.
      All scurrying around, like cockroaches, infecting everything they touch.

      Now … watch for even wackier Trumpsterisms ……

      1. Are you typing with your dick, TLTT? Dude.

        1. Yes, I am.
          And you’re “thinking” with yours.

          1. Obviously you are. On a Blackberry keyboard!

            1. You’ve heard of the worlds smallest violin, meet the worlds smallest keyboard!

        1. I’ll take the win, that you FAIL to challenge a single word.
          Just whining.

          1. No man, you can’t even see when someone is giving you a compliment.

            What a huge loss you just took llololo

            1. That was ridicule, chump, and often repeated.
              Or HE fucked up. And yours is bigger. But keep giggling.

                1. NOW the psycho says it’s “crying” to SHOW he’s full of shit.

                  1. Actually all your crying says that lololoo

                    Cry more L eater ahahajaaaj

                    “TheLibertyTruthTeller
                    October.17.2019 at 2:37 pm
                    (ridicule)”

                    BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!
                    (SNEER)

                    1. HOW psycho are they?
                      CORRECTING THE PSYCHO LIE

                      https://reason.com/2019/10/17/trumps-anti-china-trade-advisor-invented-a-fake-economist-to-sell-his-protectionist-trade-views/#comment-7975368

                      Mike “chemjeff” Laursen
                      October.17.2019 at 2:41 pm
                      You lost.

                      TheLibertyTruthTeller
                      October.17.2019 at 3:38 pm
                      BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!
                      (SNEER)

                      “You lost’ is not an argument.
                      Called out as a psycho … to PUT UP OR SHUT UP …He REFUSES to “argue his case,” five times so far …the COWARDLY psycho
                      (SNEER)
                      (SNEER)
                      (Now a double sneer)

      2. Okay who let another crazy in?

        1. Whoever logged you in.

      3. Hihn, the little fascist, is off his meds again.

    6. FAKE NEWS

      the NBER study has errors and its conclusion is wrong.

      In what way? And what is your source?

      The National Bureau of Economic Research is THE premier source of INDEPENDENT economic research and analysis in America. SO reliable that THEY define the dates of our business cycles, when recessions begin and end, under contract with the Labor Department (for only about 80 years now), with no objection by either party,

      Now please remind us of your qualifications.

      1. “THE premier source”

        Ooooh credentialism!!!

        “Now please remind us of your qualifications.”

        Ooooh more credentialism!!!!

        1. TWO fuckups (so far)

          SO reliable that THEY define the dates of our business cycles, when recessions begin and end, under contract with the Labor Department (for only about 80 years now), with no objection by either party,

          https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

          Even wackier

          <blockquote“Now please remind us of your qualifications.”

          Ooooh more credentialism!!!!(sneer)
          The PRECISE opposite, chump.

          1. AHAHAHHA HE DOUBLED DOWN ON CREDENTIALISM AHAHAHAHAHAAJAJ

            I WIN AGAIN LOLOLOL

            1. Retard says that PROVING something true is …. credentialism.

              1. Ahahahah he thinks him proving he is a credentialist isnt proof of him being a credentilist hahahahahaj

                Yes you sure proved youre an idiot ahahaahahahaj

                “TheLibertyTruthTeller
                October.17.2019 at 2:37 pm
                (ridicule)”

                BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!
                (SNEER)

      2. Hihn, Hihn, seriously buddy……..

        Just kill yourself. Really.

        1. Cowardly evasion.

    7. Sure the intention isn’t to make meager paychecks able to buy less stuff due to imports being more expensive, but that is the result.

      Just as the intention of minimum wage hikes isn’t to make the unskilled unemployable, but that is the result.

      1. Sure the intention isn’t to make meager paychecks able to buy less stuff due to imports being more expensive, but that is the result.

        Imports aren’t more expensive; imports from China are.

        And Americans with meager paychecks aren’t paying enough in taxes, sorry. And, take it from an immigrant, even Americans with “meager paychecks” are rich beyond compare to most of the rest of the world.

        1. HeRp dErp we only import from China, and that’s a good thing!

    8. There are also studies that show the incidence of the tariffs fall primarily on China. Of course Reason sophists ignore this and everything else.

      1. (lol) Link to them. Until you put up … which you cannot do … we’ll keep laughing at you.

        1. Who is Paying for the Trade War with China?
          In this analysis we show that, contrary to public opinion, the greatest share of the tariff burden falls not on American consumers or firms, but on Chinese exporters.
          https://www.econpol.eu/publications/policy_brief_11

          Now, what else would you like to know about this topic? Shall I continue to make you look foolish? Before I will engage you further, please read the Adam Smith link below and respond to it intelligently, point by point. Until you do that I will assume (correctly) that you are not worth my time.

          1. (ridicule)

            1. Ahahahahahah I am so prescient

              TheLibertyTruthTeller
              October.17.2019 at 2:14 pm
              (lol) Link to them

              Mike “chemjeff” Laursen
              October.17.2019 at 2:13 pm
              “LINK YOUR DATA.”

              You’d ignore and shit up the thread

              TheLibertyTruthTeller
              October.17.2019 at 2:37 pm
              (ridicule)

              Ahahahaahaha i win ahahahahahahahah

          2. To be clear, that NBER study you criticize is a response to the policy brief you posted above. The econpol study is an economic model, not an observation, and its model assumes that the tariffs are on easily substitutable imports. In some cases like steel, this may well be so, but the NBER report notes many exports are not.

            Actual observations in the followup studdies show that exporters in most cases did NOT lower their prices to counter tariffs.

            1. BINGO!

  3. I call bullshit on this “Ron Vara is a fake persona” story – I called the White House and talked to a guy named John Barron who assured me it was wrong. Being careful to double-check my sources, an additional White House source named John Miller confirmed the information.

  4. An attack on Navarro is an attack on Trump! Trump’s appointments are always the greatest! Trump has never erred! Only traitors call Navarro a liar!

    1. I heard Trump called James Mattis the most over-rated general in the history of the world. I’m sure somebody can explain why Trump is absolutely 100% correct in his assessment, complete with an explanation as to why Trump appointed Mattis his Secretary of Defense despite knowing that Mattis was the most over-rated general in the history of the world.

      1. STOP MAKING SENSE. WHICH IS NOW A FEDERAL CRIME!!

        1. “STOP MAKING SENSE”

          No one is surprised that hurts your brain.

      2. Frankly, I thought that was stupid, and asinine = POTUS Trump calling James Mattis the most over-rated general in the history of the world.

        1. So who’s the most over-rated President (by a shrinking minority)?

          1. No kne has any desire to converse with you then get a wall of bolded shit spewed at them Hihn

            You’d think you would realize you only ever get mocked by now.

          2. It’s true Hihn. No one here is interested in a dialogue with you. You burned that bridge ages ago. You’re a lying psycho that everyone hates.

            That’s saying a lot too. People here, even me, will converse with the likes of Tony. At least he can carry in what resembles a civil discussion some of the time.

            You might try to learn from that. Just go elsewhere. This bridge is burned.

            1. FUCK OFF, THUGS

      3. “an explanation as to why Trump appointed Mattis”

        Wasn’t it John Bolton’s idea?

  5. The NYT has a fake economist named “Paul Krugman.”

    1. Amen to that!

      In editorials for the public, Krugman would claim that unemployment compensation does NOT increase unemployment.

      In his textbooks for economics students, he would say the exact opposite (he’d have to admit the factual truth).

      1. Remember, the economy was totally ruined when Trump won, just like Krugman said.

        1. Markets imploding!

    2. He was a great economist in the 90s.

      1. But then he took an arrow to the knee.

      2. He had one decent trade theory paper that his current views on economics strongly rebukes.

    3. Even “fake economist” is an overstatement.
      Krugman actually says we had a”postwar boom with 91% tax rates.” Then again, Nick Gillespie also says we had a postwar boom — but his delusion is that a prox 50% cut in federal spending provided “stimulus” for the boom.

      See it? The spending cuts and tax rates are true. So … Gillespie says we had an explosive economic boom, with 91% tax rates!!
      And Krugman says we had a massive boom, despite a roughly 50% cut in federal spending!!

      They can’t both be correct. But they can both be wrong
      There was no postwar boom! We had five back-to-back recessions, 1944- 1957, and fell from the only industrial base on earth to “near the bottom in economic growth.” (JFK SOTU, 1961)

      Point being: Krugman ain’t the only propagandist. We’re now literally surrounded by them! On our left side and our right side.

    4. Earth has a fake human named “Paulie Krugnuts.”

  6. So Navarro and Vara make shit up, know nothing about the topic they direct, and may or may not have any verifiable history.

    Perfect for the Trump administration.

    1. To his supporters, Donald John Trump is what they imagine a successful businessman looks like. Sure, DJT was staked with tens of millions several times by his daddy – and failed over and over. Sure, Trump left a trail of bankruptcies, bungled business ventures, defaults, and petty scams in his wake. None of that matters. Trump supporters saw him play a successful businessman on TV, and they were looking for reality-TV entertainment in a President anyway, so perfect fit.

      I found likewise when I checked to see how DJT’s supporters reacted to that cringe-worthy letter to Erdogan. Everyone else saw sweaty desperation, meaningless bluster, and embarrassing obsequious pleas – bound together by a Fifth-Grader’s best writing style. Trump’s supporters? “That’s what manly resolution looks like”, they proudly insisted.

      So I don’t doubt they’ll fully endorse an imaginary economist. Events have shown their imagination is up for anything….

      1. We need more true business giants like Barack Obama directing our economy. What would someone with a string of successes and failures in real estate speculation who has a 5 billion dollar fortune having inherited about 100 million dollars possibly know about business? Checkmate RepubliCANTs!

        1. First thing, Ms Zoe, you don’t have the slightest clue what Trump’s fortune is and it’s kinda pathetic (sad!) you pretend otherwise. None of us know; DJT is too guilty-embarrassed-criminal to release his financial records.

          One hint of what we’ll find? Anytime anyone has closely looked at anything Trump – such as his “university” or his “foundation” – they’ve always discovered massive fraud.

          A second clue is Trump’s documented habit of calling financial reporters using a fake name to lie about the size of his ….. fortune. For several years he used the name “John Barron” to weasel his way on the Forbes 400. Now, what do you think that suggests? Even a psychopathic liar like DJT would probably do it honestly if honestly was possible.

          Speaking of clues, let’s discuss the clueless – which is you. You might want to compare actual numbers under Obama and Trump before yammering. Last thirty months BHO vs first thirty months DJT :

          Job growth : 220K, Obama vs 191K Trump : Advantage Obama
          GDP : 2.4%, Obama vs 2.6% Trump : Small edge Trump

          Deficit : Obama took inherited a 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit and cut it by plus sixty percent. Trump then managed to double that in just half of one term. Massive colossal fail on Donald John Trump. And that, RZ, is a real honest-to-god checkmate. (in three moves, no less; doable only if your opponent is an total idiot)

          1. GRB, don’t ever attempt to lecture anyone about their ignorance. As you are the most ignorant shitsack here.

            1. (snort)

          2. Trump’s entire “fortune” was financed by Deutsche Bank, a convicted Russian money launderer.

            That’s how money laundering works, goobers.
            1) $2 billion in CASH loans (unsecured) to one of the worst credit risks on earth — when NO OTHER BANK WOULD MAKE EVEN SECURED MORTGAGE LOANS. (Goobers don’t know the difference between secured and unsecured loans!)

            2) Purchasing property from Trump Organization … at a 100-200% profit to Trump … AFTER ONE YEAR

            3) Campaigning on a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF — and the richest 3% owners of family businesses. He’s have been a billionaire paying a TOP income tax rate of 15% What’s YOUR marginal rate, suckers? SO CORRUPT THAT HIS OWN PARTY REFUSED TO PASS IT.

            4) The ONLY President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement, FOR FRAUD, while IN OFFICE! (OMFG)
            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/04/10/trump-university-settlement-judge-finalized/502387002/

            Are brainwashed Trumptards the biggest suckers ON EARTH?
            Or in the entire Universe?

  7. ONLY if imports from other countries are higher priced than US production … Motivational Whatsapp Status

    1. Elementary school math.
      Restricting or discouraging Chinese imports will do virtually nothing to increase sales of US-made products, unless our products then become the cheapest. If, say, German products then become the best buy, all we’ve done is replace Chinese imports with German ones.

      Anything else?

      1. Lolol you didn’t even understand his point Hihn ahahaahajaja

        “all we’ve done is replace Chinese imports with German ones.”

        Ahahahahah which is highly desirable because Germany is A FREE DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY AHAHAHAHAHAJ

        “Anything else?”

        Yes, I’m gonna laugh at how stupid you are soem more Ahahahahahahah HE MADE THE OTHER GUYS POINT FOR HIM HAhahahahjajajaajahahaaj. WHIHNY IS SO STUPID AHAHAHAHAHAHAJA

        1. Lying sack of shit, coward

          What I actually said:

          Restricting or discouraging Chinese imports will do virtually nothing to increase sales of US-made products, unless our products then become the cheapest. If, say, German products then become the best buy, all we’ve done is replace Chinese imports with German ones.

          What the psycho Trumptard did

          “all we’ve done is replace Chinese imports with German ones.”

          Ahahahahah which is highly desirable because Germany is A FREE DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY AHAHAHAHAHAJ

          WHAT ABOUT US JOBS? (SNEER)

          1. Hey Hihn, you’re at a point now where you can’t differentiate a spam bot from the comment that the spam bot copied its text from. Is this really what you want? What are you clinging to? Save yourself further humiliation, save your family some dignity and save the taxpayers a fortune in keeping your decrepit obsolete old ass alive.

            1. He embarrassed them his entire life, he isnt going to figure it out now.

            2. You’re even crazier than he is

              1. Oh Hihn, did you forget that you outed this sock literally like 2 and a half years ago? You’re not seriously going to try to pretend we don’t know, right? Or are you finally that far gone in your disease? I mean, you did after all reply to a spambot with copied text from elsewhere on this very page.

                1. Lolol he’s fucking demented, he literally argued for and against credentialism in this thread, and then, when accused of stupidly shitting up threads… HE DID EXACTLY THAT AHAHHAAHAH

          2. “TheLibertyTruthTeller
            October.17.2019 at 2:45 pm
            Lying sack of shit, coward”

            I’m surprised you’d admit that about yourself.

            “WHAT ABOUT US JOBS? (SNEER)”

            What about Germnay being fred market economy and China being a 3rd world dictatorship?

            Oh right, you have to ignore that and (SNEER) becausecyou cant refute it.

            I win again.

          3. What I actually said: “Restricting or discouraging Chinese imports will do virtually nothing to increase sales of US-made products,”

            Which is entirely correct. The point of the tariffs is not to “increase sales of US-made products”. The point of the tariffs is to get China to agree to terms of trade that will increase sales of US-made products after the trade war is over.

            The tariffs are imposed to hurt China right now, not to increase sales of anything.

            1. EVEN CRAZIER!

              Original plus revised lie

              The point of the tariffs is not to “increase sales of US-made products

              terms of trade that will increase sales of US-made products after the trade war is over.

      2. Holy fucking shit Hihn, congratulations your mind has deteriorated to the point that you’re replying to fucking spambots that pulled a quote from somewhere on the page and inserted a link. What fucking point is there in prolonging your horrible life man? Do the fucking dignified thing for the first time in your worthless existence and end it.

      3. Restricting or discouraging Chinese imports will do virtually nothing to increase sales of US-made products, unless our products then become the cheapest. If, say, German products then become the best buy, all we’ve done is replace Chinese imports with German ones.

        And that is the point of having these tariffs on Chinese imports: to get people to replace Chinese imports with goods made elsewhere. That’s why we are having a trade war with China rather than the entire rest of the world.

        Congratulations for figuring it out! Took you long enough!

        1. Now NOYB2 ADMITS Trump’s trade war
          1) Will NOT restore American jobs.
          2) Is INTENDED to create jobs in …. GERMANY!

          . If, say, German products then become the best buy, all we’ve done is replace Chinese imports with German ones.

          And that is the point of having these tariffs on Chinese imports: to get people to replace Chinese imports with goods made elsewhere.

          They’re ALL this retarded. CHECK THE PAGE! America’s new Redneck Goobers

          1. Now NOYB2 ADMITS Trump’s trade war

            There is no “now” about it. I have been consistently saying that the point of Trump’s trade war is to get China to change its behavior, nothing else.

            1) Will NOT restore American jobs.

            Yes, the trade war will not restore American jobs (at 3.5% unemployment, what’s there to “restore”). What it will do is force China to change its behavior, and THAT will be beneficial to America.

            2) Is INTENDED to create jobs in …. GERMANY!

            It’s not “intended” to create jobs anywhere. It’s intended to hurt China and force them to change their behavior. That’s why it’s called a trade war: we expend resources to hurt another country in order to force them to do something. That’s how wars work.

            They’re ALL this retarded. CHECK THE PAGE! America’s new Redneck Goobers

            Well, honey, being a gay immigrant and independent, I’m none of those things. But keep wrecking that senile, creaky, shrunken littler brain of yours, and maybe you’ll figure all this stuff out before you die.

  8. The web serial Worm has at least portions of this as an element, Sad Status

  9. Trump is absolutely 100% correct in his assessment, Success Status

  10. They can’t both be correct. But they can both be wrong Alone Status-

    1. THAT link is even wackier of you. If possible.

      Educate yourself on the official dates of our business cycles here, since the 1850s. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

      Recessions start when the economy has “peaked,” so look under the “Peak” column to see these dates. Roman numerals are the quarter.,
      February 1945(I)
      November 1948(IV)
      July 1953(II)
      August 1957(III)
      April 1960(II)

      I count five.

      Even worse, for you, is your refusal to accept President Kennedy’s 1961 State of the Union.

      Ready?

      1. Jesus Christ Hihn. IT’S THE SAME FUCKING SPAMBOT. IT IS LITERALLY AN AUTOMATED SCRIPT THAT PULLS TEXT FROM THIS PAGE AND THEN ADDS A LINK. To be fair you versus a fucking perl script is probably a fair battle of wits.

        My god buddy.

    2. JFK’s own voice and words, start at 6:30 in this YouTube video.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK-oJlUure4

      “The present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, 3-1/2 years of slack, 7 years of diminished economic growth, and 9 years of falling farm income.

      “Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the Great Depression … Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history … Skilled and unskilled workers, laid off in such important industries as metal, machinery, automobiles and apparel ..

      “In short, the American economy is in trouble. The most resourceful industrialized country on earth ranks among the last in the rate of economic growth.”
      -President John F Kennedy, first SOTU, January, 1961

      Does that look like a boom to you? It does to Krugman and Gillespie. (Nick’s used fraudulent data from Mercatus.)

      When you were typing, were you giggling?

      1. Oh shit you’re becoming unhinged because you know you’re wrong again.

        1. Oh shit you’re becoming unhinged because you know you’re wrong again.

          Any readers who don’t ALREADY know he’s a crazed psycho
          1) Click the youtube link
          2) Move the slider to 6:30
          3) Listen to JFK, as you read what I quoted.
          4) Decide for yourself if the stalking cyber-bully is a psycho.
          5) Do a page search for his handle. Did he log on for the sole purpose of aggression and bullying?

          Does the Authoritarian Right = the Authoritarian Left?
          (the lefties don’t laugh as manically)

          1. Becoming more unhinged because youre wrong will totally convince people whihny.

      2. “It does to Krugman”

        But he has more credentials than you.

        Or, did you suddenly decide qualifications DON’T count whihny lololo

        1. Not when he’s PROVEN wrong. chump.
          WHY DO YOU GRANT A PROVEN PSYCHO PROGRESSIVE MORE CREDIBILITY THAN JOHN F KENNEDY … WHOSE TAX CUTS WERE IDENTICAL TO REAGANS, LEFTY

          1. Ah so you’re flip flopping on credentialism.

            I win.

          2. Crazy shit right here. Chortle.

      3. You’re replying to a script Hihn. Let that sink in. Your mind is so fucked up that you cannot differentiate a fucking SCRIPT from a HUMAN BEING. What the fuck could possibly be the point of continuing this kind of existence? Ranting in all-caps and bolt copying and pasting the same shit over and over again in reply to a FUCKING SCRIPT? Deep down you know the right thing to do. So do it. End this pitiful excuse for an existence.

  11. Not only is it a tax, it’s a tax on PRODUCTION! As these are our inputs to production! Friendship Status-

    1. Its a Tax on FOREIGN Goods – stop trying to twist it into a definition it doesn’t fit.

  12. What is the deal with Boeing? It may be America’s most significant remaining manufacturer and its days may be numbered. We might rejoice here as Boeing workers are Hillary voters, but I think it’s safe to say China has had nothing to do with Boeing’s troubles.

  13. >>And Navarro’s co-authors don’t seem to have been in on the joke.

    paychex > due diligence

  14. “Peter Navarro also said Americans wouldn’t pay the costs of Trump’s tariffs, a claim that seems to be equally fabricated.”

    Show us the increased cost of goods in the inflationary signal Boehm. Hint, they just lowered rates since costs went down. Most of the tariffs are being eaten by the corporation. Stop relying on theory and look at actual data. You know, like a real economist. You post model after model but refuse to actually analyze data. Are you a fucking Keynesian?

    1. Stop relying on theory and look at actual data

      Stop relying on bullshit and LINK YOUR DATA.

      Are you a fucking Keynesian?

      (smirk)
      You’ve also fucked up on Keynes. Confusing him with Hayek, von Mises, Friedman and 99% of the free-market economists who ever lived. Keyne’s promoted YOUR nonsense on trade balances (an originator of it)

      Oh, it’s you …

      1. “LINK YOUR DATA.”

        You’d ignore and shit up the thread with bolded whining and stupid baseless claims of aggression lololol you act like we haven’t met you lololol

          1. “Mike “chemjeff” Laursen
            October.17.2019 at 2:13 pm
            “LINK YOUR DATA.”

            You’d ignore and shit up the thread with bolded whining and stupid baseless claims of aggression”

            “TheLibertyTruthTeller
            October.17.2019 at 3:00 pm
            Is that why your aggression”

            AAHAHAHAHH THANK YOU I WIN

        1. You do realize that we are almost certainly the closest things to friends that Hihn has, right?

          He’s that fucking pathetic.

          1. STILL no link to proof!
            MULTIPLE punishments for DARING to ask.
            Cyber-terrorism, assaults, aggression

    2. Probably some T-Shirt at Wal-Mart went up in price by 0.9 cents.

      THE SKY IS FALLING!

      This is like when some folks said that corn subsidies were making America fat and unhealthy by economically forcing them to drink sugary soft drinks . . . when actually the impact on the price of a soft drink could not have been even as much as one penny. And then there was also the pesky scientific fact that they can’t show any health difference between corn sugar and cane sugar.

      1. NOW he ADMITS the tariffs increased the price of a T-Shirt by … LESS THAN A PENNY!!!

        WOW! TRUMP IS A FREAKING GENIUS!!

        1. Ahahahhaahahaha its a different poster AHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

          YOURE SO STUPID AHAHAHAJ YOU CANT EVEN READ SCREENNAMES JAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

          1. The poor motherfucker is literally carrying on what he thinks is a discussion with a spambot that copied some text from one of his posts and reposted it with a spam link appended.

            1. I’m personally enjoying the fuck out of watching it lololol

            2. THIS is what I replied to (smirk)
              https://reason.com/2019/10/17/trumps-anti-china-trade-advisor-invented-a-fake-economist-to-sell-his-protectionist-trade-views/#comment-7975326

              ****HOW MANY CRAZED RIGHT-WINGERS ****
              ****CAN ONE LIBERTARIAN ENRAGE ****
              ****WITH A SINGLE COMMENT? ****
              ****OR A SINGLE LINK … TO INCONVENIENT PROOF?****
              ***FEEL THE TRUMPIAN HATRED AND RETARDATION!***

              *****SHUT DOWN REASON.COM COMMENTS *****
              ****NOW KISSY-ASS TO THE ALT-RIGHT – A DISGRACE****
              **** TO LIBERTARIAN VALUES AND STANDING. ONE ****REASON THE LIBERTARIAN LABEL IS REJECTED****
              ****BY 91% OF LIBERTARIANS ****
              *** (per Cato survey)***

  15. No he didn’t. He said it was a joke, and the passages read like a joke.

    The braindead media of course twists it to impugn good trade policy, and Reason parrots this.

    But the level of pure derangement and stupidity at Reason over trade seems unparalleled.

    1. I’ve got an idea! Let’s cherry pick a few paragraphs while otherwise ignoring the rest of the book! Oh, wait. The guy in your link already did.

      1. I don’t ignore the rest of the book. These passages stand on their own in making several important and valid points.

        Now, please (1) clarify if you agree or disagree with each of the points made in that link, and (2) explain in one sentence how you think the “rest of the book” should inform this discussion.

        1. I will let another economist do it for me because that person can explain it much better.

          https://triblive.com/opinion/donald-boudreaux-an-interview-with-adam-smith/

          1. If you can’t put something in your own words off the cuff, that means you don’t understand it.

            1. Sarcasmic is a troll. His first response

              “I’ve got an idea! Let’s cherry pick a few paragraphs while otherwise ignoring the rest of the book!”

              should have made that exceedingly clear.

              This isn’t an article about getting drunk and losing your kid, or being a bitch to a cop and retelling the story for decades because you’re still super butthurt about it, so sarcasmic isn’t going to be able to discuss it in any depth.

              1. Well, regardless, looking at his link, I of course agree with everything Adam Smith wrote in those quotes. But the use of them in the article is embarrassingly bad, whereas the use of Adam Smith quotes at my link was brilliant and on point. I’ll give an example:

                Interviewer: Whoa! Tell us what you really think! Moving on, don’t you agree with President Trump that American firms need protection from the competition of cheap imports?

                Smith: To give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or a hurtful regulation.

                This is just awful.

                President Trump doesn’t say that US firms need protection from cheap imports. He says they need a level playing field.

                President Trump doesn’t propose to give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry. He proposes to stop giving the monopoly of the home market to the produce of foreign industry, which is effectively what we have been doing by smothering domestic industry with unequal taxes and regulations while opening the doors wide open for foreign industry to flood our markets, completely free of any similar burden. It’s PURE INSANITY, and it is nothing short of a total sellout of our country’s future and the American people by rapacious elites.

                1. “whereas the use of Adam Smith quotes at my link was brilliant and on point”

                  Oh ok you’re a regular doing a different troll thing, I will leave you to it

                  1. That was a bit of intentional troll-ishness for fun, since that seems to be a thing here, but it’s also true in my opinion.

                    1. Tommy lee jones in the fugitive.jpeg

                2. “He proposes to stop giving the monopoly of the home market to the produce of foreign industry, which is effectively what we have been doing by smothering domestic industry with unequal taxes and regulations while opening the doors wide open for foreign industry to flood our markets, completely free of any similar burden. It’s PURE INSANITY, and it is nothing short of a total sellout of our country’s future and the American people by rapacious elites.”

                  Exactly this.
                  But religious dogmatism make themselves useful idiots for the would-be master caste

            2. Why put it into my own words when I can cite someone else who can do it better?

              1. Why prove you know the arguments when you can just not.

              2. And, for future reference, thats not a citation, its a link. They get used interchangeably, but it doesnt mean the same thing.

    2. THIS Trumptard says Trump was known to ADAM SMITH … 200 years ago.

      Then again, TRUMP says he was supported and befriended by Jesus Christ …. 2 CENTURIES AGO!

      Was Trump on Noah’s Ark?

    1. FTA:
      American consumers don’t pay 10 percent more for toasters—they pay just 1.15 percent more.

      That’s 1.15 percent more than a penny.

      1. You forgot to read the rest of the article.

        1. He’ll be linking to the article and telling you that the author can explain it better any minute now.

          1. When did you become a dick?

                1. It is dumbass. Wait, YOU THOUGHT I WAS TRYING TO HIDE IT? LOOK ATVTHE THREAD LOLOLLL

                  AHAHAHAHAHAAAHYOU SAD THIN SKINNED IDIOT AHAHAHAHAAJ YOU TOTALLY CLOWNED YOURSELF

                  1. (note to self, sarcasmic is so stupid and out of touch that he thinks i still make attempts to hide my identity)

                    Sorry drunky, but a lot has changed since you left and no one cared.

                    1. “smells like Tulpa”

                      Ahaahahha I LOVE this so much, you discovered something obvious to everyone that i wasnt trying to hide ahahahhahahahha

                      Great job dummy ahahahahahahah

                      Im going to be laugihing at you all day ahahahahhaahaha

                    2. Sheesh, I leave for a few days and now Tulpa is trying to impersonate me?

                      This is nuts. Tulpa, get help.

                    3. Pedo Jeffy, no one actually thought it was you. Mainly because the comments weren’t whiney bullshit.

  16. We’ve gotta introduce this Vara guy to T-Bone. And to that conservative cowboy “Barry” who assaulted Lena Dunham in college. They can write a book together.

    1. Corn Pop feels left out.

  17. Can they at least get some fake depression video by driving around Detroit with a camera?

  18. Welcome to the new reality.
    Remember one thing.
    “Plants crave electrolytes.”

  19. lol… Boehm calling Navarro a scam artist while —

    1) “Well, they did. And the administration has now spent more than $25 billion to bail out farmers hurt by the retaliation that Navarro said wouldn’t happen.”

    The Farm Bill was a RENEWAL bill started by the Obama Administration. The GOP majority was going to throw it out and the GOP voted to throw it out more so than the DNC.

    2) Using a money “Balance” sheet of a GDP RATIO and comparing it to “Manufacturing Jobs”.. LMAO!!!

    And ladies and gentlemen — That is how propaganda is done…

    1. MOAR Trumptard propaganda (the polite word for SHAMELESS BULLSHIT

      The Farm Bill was a RENEWAL bill started by the Obama Administration.

      LIAR
      … plus STOOPID

      Pay attention. I’ll TRY dumbing it down to your level.
      1) OBAMA’S PASSED, like 99% OF THEM … every five years or so … since 1933.

      2) EVERY Farm Bill is a “renewal” of the original one, for the past 86 years.

      3) The most recent farm bill (pre-Trump) passed in 2014, but parts of it had expired in Sept 2018.

      “What’s the stoopid part?”
      TJJ2000 is TOTALLY IGNORANT that EVERY farm bill “renews” with subsidies to agriculture/farmers.

      And ladies and gentlemen — That is how propaganda is done…

      Pulling shit out of your ass — like Trump does … which neither Trump nor TJJ2000 give a shit that it’s a lie.
      “Whatever Works”
      “Get used to it.”

      Remember, Trump’s base are BIRTHERS

      The GOP majority was going to throw it out and the GOP voted to throw it out more so than the DNC.

      Is that why it PASSED? DID TRUMP SIGN IT?
      IS TRUMP (STILL) A DEMOCRAT

      TWO WHATABOUTISMS!!!
      And ZERO conscience

      1. Usually a rebuttal comment consists of some sort of rebuttal instead of a slew of agreements and name calling. Your one of those people who likes to hear themselves talk aren’t you – no matter what’s being said so long as you’re flapping your yap – your happy.

        1. HOW DID YOU MISS ALL THE PROOF, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.

          1. The proof that everything I stated was true? You’re a psychopath; do you not even realize everything you said was just a repeat of what I said? You basically repeated me and then called me a Liar sack of shit.. I think you need to seek mental help.

  20. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do ………

    ……. Read More

  21. People seem to no longer remember that trade is first and foremost NOT supposed to harm it’s own citizens. These so called “free trade” agreements have devastated our local industries. Millions of jobs have been shipped to China and Mexico and in return we get low quality cheap plastic garbage. We USED to have what were called “trade barrier” Presidents. Those presidents protected local industry at all costs and Americans prospered under those presidents.

    We do not NEED to trade ANYTHING with China or any other nation for that matter and in fact never used to trade much at all, and certainly nothing that our nation was 100% dependent upon. The system that’s been set up intentionally made all nations dependent upon one another and made an elite few very very rich. The US was one of a very few nations fortunate enough to have the natural resources necessary to produce ALL it’s own goods and farm land plenty. What’s been done to our nation and her people is a travesty. Hopefully Americans will get their heads out of their asses soon, before it’s ALL gone. Hell it may be too late, our resources have been being sold off since the 80’s.

    1. People seem to no longer remember that trade is first and foremost NOT supposed to harm it’s own citizens.

      TELL US HOW CONSUMERS ARE HARMED BY … GETTING THE HIGHEST VALUE FOR OUR DOLLARS?

      HOW ARE WE DAMAGED BY PAYING LESS TO GET THE SAME OR
      GREATER VALUE???

      The US waS one of a very few nations fortunate enough to have the natural resources necessary to produce ALL it’s own goods and farm land plenty.

      FUCK CONSUMERS says the Trumpian Brownshirt.

      We do not NEED to trade ANYTHING with China or any other nation

      Okay, THAT’s true!
      American consumers and manufacturers don’t NEED to seek the best value for OUR DOLLARS!!!
      So why do we?
      And why do you DESPISE free markets and individual liberty?

      Why do you Trumptards now even TALK like Bolsheviks!!

      The system that’s been set up intentionally made all nations dependent upon one another and made an elite few very very rich.

      CONSPIRACY
      THE SKY IS FALLING
      THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED FOR THE RICH
      OBAMA IS A MUSLIM FROM KENYA

      SEEKING THE BEST VALUE FOR OUR DOLLARS MEANS … BEING DEPENDENT ON THE LOWEST PRICE SUPPLIER???
      REALLY?

      (LOL) WHEN PURCHASING DECISIONS ARE BASED ON PRICE AND VALUE, THAT’S … CONSUMERS BEING IN CONTROL … NOT PRODUCERS IN CONTROL! …. WE CALL THAT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY …. AND YOU an uneducated Trumpian

      How’s the weather on your gulag?

Please to post comments