Boom. You can't out tariff us. Period. This Trump knows.

[Swordsmyth]

No it's based on a history of your posts. You check all the boxes.


-Frequently criticize the republican party while never criticize the democratic party.

-Think tariffs are just as bad as progressive taxation.

-Got pissed off at the idea that tax cuts for the rich are not the same as giving money to the rich. Argued that tax cuts for the rich adds to the deficit (spending is what adds to the deficit).

-Claimed that the economy was good under Obama and that there won't be any negative consequences from borrowing 10 trillion and keeping rates at 0% for 8 years.

-Claimed the stock market rise under Obama was not related to the trillions in stimulus.

-Wasn't worried about the economy under Obama but now is worried it's a bubble.

-Mock Peter Schiff (a Ron Paul advocate with almost identical views).

-Argued that the US was not free because we had slavery.

-Evade simple questions like "Are you against the minimum wage?" or "Are you against discrimination laws?"

-In favor of unrestricted democracy. Against any sort of limits on voting privileges like limiting welfare recipients.

You must spread some reputation around.....

[Zippyjuan]

Got pissed off at the idea that tax cuts for the rich are not the same as giving money to the rich.

Technically, you are taking away less of their money if you give them a tax cut, but the net effect is that they get more of it than they had before the tax reduction. How is the tax cut funded? More borrowing? That is taking money from somebody else so you can give more to the wealthy.

Argued that tax cuts for the rich adds to the deficit (spending is what adds to the deficit).

Tax cuts do add to deficits. Unless you offset them with spending cuts and these weren't. A deficit is the difference between what you spend and what you take in. Yes, if you spend more money (with the same taxes) the deficit does go up. And if you cut taxes (reduce revenues) and keep spending the same your deficit goes up.

Mock Peter Schiff (a Ron Paul advocate with almost identical views).

Wasn't he that guy who said almost every year since 2009 that the next recession was almost here and it would be even worse then the Great Recession and that we would have hyperinflation and gold would soar past $5000 an ounce? Said the Fed could never end Quantitative Easing? How has all that worked out?

Think tariffs are just as bad as progressive taxation.

Tariffs must be better. They protect government selected industries at the expense of consumers (higher prices, fewer jobs) and competing industries. A steel tariff for example makes costs higher for everybody who makes things using steel.

If you would like to balance our spending just using tariffs to raise revues at current spending levels we need a 200% tariff on everything we import. That means triple their current prices. (but that would cause our levels of imports to drop significantly so we would need an even HIGHER tariff). $80 a barrel of oil would be $240 a barrel. Prices on everything would be a lot higher- and that hits the average American (and poor) since they currently don't pay net income taxes. It would cost millions of jobs in exporting companies (other countries would respond to our tariffs). Companies who need imported parts to produce their goods would have to significantly raise prices or go out of business costing many many more jobs.

Yep- tariffs would be a wonderful thing!

[Swordsmyth]

Technically, you are taking away less of their money if you give them a tax cut, but the net effect is that they get more of it than they had before the tax reduction. How is the tax cut funded? More borrowing? That is taking money from somebody else so you can give more to the wealthy.

Tax cuts are not funded, spending is funded.

Tax cuts do add to deficits. Unless you offset them with spending cuts and these weren't. A deficit is the difference between what you spend and what you take in. Yes, if you spend more money (with the same taxes) the deficit does go up. And if you cut taxes (reduce revenues) and keep spending the same your deficit goes up.

Again spending is the problem, unless we ever reach a point where we aren't spending too much tax cuts are always good and the lack of spending cuts is the problem.

Tariffs must be better. They protect government selected industries at the expense of consumers (higher prices, fewer jobs) and competing industries. A steel tariff for example makes costs higher for everybody who makes things using steel.

Tariffs are better because they can be avoided by not spending and because they protect strategic industries and keep us from being dependent on hostile foreigners, ideally they should be across the board but even targeted tariffs are better than an income tax which is also manipulated to pick winners and losers but doesn't have any of the benefits of tariffs.

If you would like to balance our spending just using tariffs to raise revues at current spending levels we need a 200% tariff on everything we import. That means triple their current prices. (but that would cause our levels of imports to drop significantly so we would need an even HIGHER tariff). $80 a barrel of oil would be $240 a barrel. Prices on everything would be a lot higher- and that hits the average American (and poor) since they currently don't pay net income taxes. It would cost millions of jobs in exporting companies (other countries would respond to our tariffs). Companies who need imported parts to produce their goods would have to significantly raise prices or go out of business costing many many more jobs.

Yep- tariffs would be a wonderful thing!

Just think how bad it is to remove all that money from people through an income tax that they can't avoid, we would be better of if all of it was shifted to tariffs even without the vital spending cuts.

[Madison320]

Technically, you are taking away less of their money if you give them a tax cut, but the net effect is that they get more of it than they had before the tax reduction. How is the tax cut funded? More borrowing? That is taking money from somebody else so you can give more to the wealthy.

Stealing less money<> giving money.

Tax cuts do add to deficits. Unless you offset them with spending cuts and these weren't. A deficit is the difference between what you spend and what you take in. Yes, if you spend more money (with the same taxes) the deficit does go up. And if you cut taxes (reduce revenues) and keep spending the same your deficit goes up.

No. Spending adds to the deficits. Tax cuts "don't reduce" the deficit, but they don't "add" to it. Suppose you owe 10K on your credit card. I could pay it off for you, but I won't. Did I "add" to your credit card debt? No. It was your spending that added to it.

Wasn't he that guy who said almost every year since 2009 that the next recession was almost here and it would be even worse then the Great Recession and that we would have hyperinflation and gold would soar past $5000 an ounce? Said the Fed could never end Quantitative Easing? How has all that worked out?

Ron Paul has said similar things and they're both right. It's just taking longer that expected. Remember that rates are still under 2% which incredibly low historically and the fed balance sheet has not been reduced, and the debt is at 21.5T and rising.

Tariffs must be better. They protect government selected industries at the expense of consumers (higher prices, fewer jobs) and competing industries. A steel tariff for example makes costs higher for everybody who makes things using steel.

Tariffs are not as immoral as progressive taxation because they are levied on everyone, they are more avoidable and due to the previous reasons they are much, much lower. The average citizen pays well under 1% of their income to all the tariffs combined. Many people pay almost 40% income tax and there's no way to escape it or you go to jail. That's hundreds of times more than all the tariffs combined. All taxes are bad but comparing tariffs to the progressive income tax is like comparing shoplifting to armed bank robbery.

[Zippyjuan]

No. Spending adds to the deficits. Tax cuts "don't reduce" the deficit, but they don't "add" to it. Suppose you owe 10K on your credit card. I could pay it off for you, but I won't. Did I "add" to your credit card debt? No. It was your spending that added to it.

Suppose we spent $100 billion and took in $50 billion in taxes. Our deficit would be $50 billion. The government must borrow $50 billion to cover that shortfall.

Now lets cut taxes so we only take in $25 billion. Our spending is still $100 billion. Is our deficit still only $50 billion? No, it is now $75 billion. The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts. The tax cuts increased the deficit. They have to borrow $25 billion more than without the tax cuts ($75 billion vs $50 billion).

Suppose you owe 10K on your credit card. I could pay it off for you, but I won't. Did I "add" to your credit card debt? No.

Since you didn't do anything or give me anything, you had zero impact on my debt. You did not impact my borrowing or my assets. I still owe 10k. If you gave me $5k, then you would be helping reduce my debt.

[Madison320]

Suppose we spent $100 billion and took in $50 billion in taxes. Our deficit would be $50 billion. The government must borrow $50 billion to cover that shortfall.

Now lets cut taxes so we only take in $25 billion. Our spending is still $100 billion. Is our deficit still only $50 billion? No, it is now $75 billion. The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts. The tax cuts increased the deficit. They have to borrow $25 billion more than without the tax cuts ($75 billion vs $50 billion).



Since you didn't do anything or give me anything, you had zero impact on my debt. You did not impact my borrowing or my assets. I still owe 10k. If you gave me $5k, then you would be helping reduce my debt.

There's the clue.

[Zippyjuan]

There's the clue.

That is totally irrelevant to tax cuts increasing the deficit. My borrowing did not increase so my debt did not increase. In my example, borrowing did increase so the deficit increased.

But you also seem to have two term confused- deficit and debt. The deficit is how short you are this year- the difference between what you spend and you take in. You borrow the difference and that becomes your debt. The debt is the total accumulated borrowing.

If you are short the same amount the next year, the deficit for that year is the same as the year before but that year's deficit gets added to the total debt. In our example, the first year deficit was $50 billion. That meant we had to borrow $50 billion and our debt was now $50 billion. Second year- keeping spending and taxation the same. Deficit is still $50 billion but now we have to borrow another $50 billion so the debt is now $100 billion. Debt is higher.

Third year- lets institute our tax cuts. We spend $100 billion same as always but now only get $25 billion in taxes. Our deficit -being the difference- is now $75 billion- more than before the tax cuts. The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts- $25 billion. Our debt is increasing faster now. Instead of adding $50 billion we are adding $75 billion in borrowing so the debt is now $175 billion. The tax cuts increased BOTH the debt and the deficit.

[specsaregood]

One of the stocks I've about doubled my money on this year...

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/...ses-2018-09-14

US iron miner helps launch ad campaign to sing tariff praises

NEW YORK – Some US companies have reacted to the divisive issue of metal tariffs by saying as little as possible. Cleveland-Cliffs, on the other hand, has not only publicly backed the levies, now it’s putting up money to sing their praises.

The US iron-ore producer says it’s deploying a promotional campaign with other companies that touts the benefits of President Donald Trump’s steel tariffs.
Targeting voters in iron- or steel-producing states including Minnesota, Michigan and Ohio, the ads will begin to run this month and through October, ahead of the November 6 midterm elections, spokeswoman Patricia Persico said by phone. The ads will run as banners on media websites directing people to the campaign site Keep America Steel Strong.

“We’re not going to be even talking about the tariffs, we’re going to talk about the jobs that they generate,” Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves said in an interview. “This is a campaign explaining to the public that we’re not an industry of the past, but an industry of the present.”

The decision to launch the ad campaign comes amid criticism that Trump’s 25% tariffs on steel imports are hurting the makers of products that use the raw material. Opponents have said the import barriers may raise costs, lower earnings or force employers to lay off workers or move operations offshore.

Proponents have been working to protect the tariffs, publicly and behind the scenes. Cliffs said that the proposed digital ads are the second part of a campaign under the “Keep America Steel Strong” banner. The first phase targeted members of Congress and their staff to garner support for the US trade policies. Persico declined to comment on how much they are spending on the campaign, or which other companies are involved -- though an ad on the website says it’s paid for by “American steel producers".

[Madison320]

That is totally irrelevant to tax cuts increasing the deficit. My borrowing did not increase so my debt did not increase. In my example, borrowing did increase so the deficit increased.

But if you run up your credit card debt your deficit would increase and the fact that I didn't help pay it down doesn't make me responsible for the increase. In most cases the most productive citizens are not the ones spending tax money. Just like I didn't add to your credit card debt. The people responsible for the national debt are the ones that SPEND the money not the ones who are forced to pay it down.

On a side note has anyone ever seen Zippy and TheCount in the same room? Kinda like Clark Kent and Superman?

[Swordsmyth]

Trump defended his policies in an early-morning tweet on Monday, writing: "Tariffs have put the U.S. in a very strong bargaining position, with Billions of Dollars, and Jobs, flowing into our Country - and yet cost increases have thus far been almost unnoticeable. If countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be 'Tariffed!'"

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...104704050.html

[EBounding]

Trump defended his policies in an early-morning tweet on Monday, writing: "Tariffs have put the U.S. in a very strong bargaining position, with Billions of Dollars, and Jobs, flowing into our Country - and yet cost increases have thus far been almost unnoticeable. If countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be 'Tariffed!'"

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...104704050.html

[TheCount]

...

-Evade simple questions...

...

Have you ever trained a puppy? If you pay attention to a puppy when it's begging for your attention inappropriately, you'll only encourage its poor behavior. And so, if you puppydog after me demanding that I give you head pats and attention in order to derail entirely unrelated threads, you'll be ignored in just the same way that I ignore other posters who act similarly.

[RJB]

Have you ever trained a puppy? If you pay attention to a puppy when it's begging for your attention inappropriately, you'll only encourage its poor behavior. And so, if you puppydog after me demanding that I give you head pats and attention in order to derail entirely unrelated threads, you'll be ignored in just the same way that I ignore other posters who act similarly.

That's an interesting excuse for evading simple questions that would expose your true political beliefs.

[nobody's_hero]

Suppose we spent $100 billion and took in $50 billion in taxes. Our deficit would be $50 billion. The government must borrow $50 billion to cover that shortfall.

Now lets cut taxes so we only take in $25 billion. Our spending is still $100 billion. Is our deficit still only $50 billion? No, it is now $75 billion. The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts. The tax cuts increased the deficit. They have to borrow $25 billion more than without the tax cuts ($75 billion vs $50 billion).



Since you didn't do anything or give me anything, you had zero impact on my debt. You did not impact my borrowing or my assets. I still owe 10k. If you gave me $5k, then you would be helping reduce my debt.

I've seen lefties get upset about tax cuts before but, let me ask you a question:

If taxes weren't cut, maybe, even increased, do you honestly think the government would:

A) Make a conscious and determined effort to pay off the debt

or

B) Say, "Oh man look at all the tax revenue! let's spend it on stupid sh*t."

The ONLY time I've ever seen liberals show a shred of concern about the debt is when someone tries to cut taxes.

Do they really expect us to believe that they're genuinely concerned about that debt, and that they'd pay it off if only they had that extra tax money? Get f'king real, zippy.

[Madison320]

That's an interesting excuse for evading simple questions that would expose your true political beliefs.

He doesn't need to define his political positions (on a political forum!), he's superior to us.

[Zippyjuan]

I've seen lefties get upset about tax cuts before but, let me ask you a question:

If taxes weren't cut, maybe, even increased, do you honestly think the government would:

A) Make a conscious and determined effort to pay off the debt

or

B) Say, "Oh man look at all the tax revenue! let's spend it on stupid sh*t."

The ONLY time I've ever seen liberals show a shred of concern about the debt is when someone tries to cut taxes.

Do they really expect us to believe that they're genuinely concerned about that debt, and that they'd pay it off if only they had that extra tax money? Get f'king real, zippy.

On the other hand, Republicans call for a Balanced Budget Amendment while at the same time spending more money and cutting taxes which takes us even farther away from their alleged goal (which was only stated to try to win votes). Both parties are tax and spend and want to spend even more. Democrats are more likely to at least try to pay for their spending. Bush came into office with a basically balanced budget and then he started cutting taxes and started two wars and by the time he left, we were running a shortfall of $1 trillion a year. (with Republican control of Congress). Neither is "fiscally responsible".

[Swordsmyth]

China will levy tariffs on about $60 billion worth of U.S. goods in retaliation for the latest round of U.S. tariffs on Chinese products, as previously planned, but has reduced the level of tariffs that it will collect on the products.The tit-for-tat measures are the latest escalation in an increasingly protracted trade dispute between the world's two largest economies.
On Monday, the U.S. administration said it will begin to levy new tariffs of 10 percent on $200 billion of Chinese products on Sept. 24, with the tariffs to go up to 25 percent by the end of 2018.
Previously, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to hit those goods with 25 percent tariffs immediately.
"China is forced to respond to U.S. unilateralism and trade protectionism, and has no choice but to respond with its own tariffs," the Finance Ministry said in a statement on its website late on Tuesday.
China will levy tariffs on a total of 5,207 U.S. products, at 5 and 10 percent, instead of the previously proposed rates of 5, 10, 20 and 25 percent, even as the products remain unchanged from the previous plan, the finance ministry said.
China will impose a 10 percent tariff on U.S. products it previously designated for a rate of 20 and 25 percent, and 5 percent tariffs on goods previously under the 5 and 10 percent rates.
Items previously designated to be hit by 20 or 25 percent tariffs included products ranging from liquefied natural gas and mineral ores to coffee and various types of edible oil. Those goods will now be taxed 10 percent.
Goods previously marked under the 10 percent category included products such as frozen vegetables, cocoa powder and chemical products. Those products will now be taxed 5 percent.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china...-business.html

Their fragile government run economy can't stand much more and they know it, right now they are trying to bluff until Trump is thrown out of office like they have been promised but that won't happen, they will come to terms or collapse.

[Swordsmyth]

President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs on about $200 billion worth of imports from China has made headlines across the globe — but not in China.
Print, online and television news outlets in China have largely stayed silent following Trump’s Monday evening announcement because of government censorship. People’s Daily, the state-run media mouthpiece for the Chinese government, didn’t dedicate any coverage to the major development. At 7 p.m. Tuesday local time in Beijing, Xinwen Lianbo, a flagship daily news program produced by China Central Television with a viewership of over 100 million, thoroughly covered President Xi Jinping’s whereabouts but made no mention of Trump’s tariffs and China’s plan to retaliate.
“Don’t touch the issue,” the government told other domestic media, Yahoo Finance learned. They have also been ordered to avoid writing about the recent market meltdown and other issues that suggest an economic recession.

“About the trade war — no one mainstream Chinese media has reported… what happened on earth?” one user asked on Weibo, China’s Twitter. Some users complained they were not able to post content containing the word “trade war.” For social media accounts operated by foreign news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, the comment and repost feature for any trade-related posts have been disabled.

The media silence doesn’t stop China’s market from feeling the pinch from the escalating trade war. The Shanghai Composite Index fell to its lowest close in nearly four years Monday after trade threats. And the exchange rate of the Chinese currency renminbi, weakened 45 basis points against the U.S. dollar on Tuesday.

So far, China hasn’t dropped plans to negotiate with the U.S later this month, despite Trump’s tariffs.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china...185859742.html

[TheCount]

That's an interesting excuse for evading simple questions that would expose your true political beliefs.

It might have been, had I not created a thread expressly for the purpose of answering his questions. Strangely, he seems to have no interest in engaging with me there and instead persisted in posting in this thread. Why do you suppose that might be? I'm left to conclude that his actual intent, as I said in the post that you quoted, is to derail the discussion in particular threads which he finds undesirable, rather than to get answers to his questions or to discuss anything of merit.

[RJB]

Strangely, he seems to have no interest in engaging with me there

It's probably because at this point, everyone here is aware that you are full of $#@!.

Just a wild guess.

[TheCount]

It's probably because at this point, everyone here is aware that you are full of $#@!.

Just a wild guess.

Oh, of course. Now that that's settled, we can leave this thread to the not-full-of-$#@! tariffistas and their new conservative gospel of "fair" economic intervention by government.

[Swordsmyth]

China plans to reduce the average tariff rate on imports from most of its trading partners as soon as October, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday.In July, China cut import tariffs on almost 1,500 consumer products ranging from cosmetics to home appliances as part of efforts to open up its economy, the world's second biggest.
The move was in line with Beijing's pledge to its trading partners - including the United States - that it would take measures to further increase imports.
The Bloomberg report did not specify the countries that could enjoy lower Chinese tariffs.
At the World Economic Forum in the northern port city of Tianjin, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Wednesday that the government will continue to lower import tariffs on some goods. He did not elaborate.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china...-business.html

They are feeling pain and trying to relieve it but they refuse to make a decent deal with us because we are their primary target for destruction, they will make a fair deal with us or collapse anyway.

[r3volution 3.0]

The Bloomberg report did not specify the countries that could enjoy lower Chinese tariffs.

Not the US, I'd assume.

It looks to me like less of a white flag than a middle-finger (look US, we don't need you nearly as much as you think, we have the world).

...which is true.

[Swordsmyth]

Not the US, I'd assume.

That is probable.

It looks to me like less of a white flag than a middle-finger

It looks more like a bluff combined with an attempt to relieve the economic pain they are experiencing.

(look US, we don't need you nearly as much as you think, we have the world).

...which is true.

Which is absolutely false, their system is built on never ending or slowing growth like a Ponzi scheme, they need us far more than we need them but they are used to us "relaxing and enjoying" the economic rape and they have been told Trump will be gone soon so they think they can hold out long enough for some RINO or Demoncrat to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[r3volution 3.0]

Which is absolutely false, their system is built on never ending or slowing growth like a Ponzi scheme, they need us far more than we need them but they are used to us "relaxing and enjoying" the economic rape and they have been told Trump will be gone soon so they think they can hold out long enough for some RINO or Demoncrat to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Get back to me in 20 years.

[devil21]

Get back to me in 20 years.

Swordsmyth will be licking Mr. Yang's nuts for his daily bread in 20 years.

Trump will be dead, most Americans will be dead and while Swordsmyth's mouth is full of Mr. Yang, he will be wondering if all the shilling was worth it.

[Swordsmyth]

Swordsmyth will be licking Mr. Yang's nuts for his daily bread in 20 years.

Trump will be dead, most Americans will be dead and while Swordsmyth's mouth is full of Mr. Yang, he will be wondering if all the shilling was worth it.

[r3volution 3.0]

When CNBC and the like talk about the comparative importance of economies, they almost always use nominal GDP. This is a measure of the total output of an economy priced in USD, using the exchange rate to convert from local to USD prices. It's often wildly misleading because it doesn't take into account differences in the cost of living, not reflected in exchange rates (which wouldn't be very large in a global free market where capital/goods/services can move freely, but we obviously don't have a global free market).

PPP (purchasing power power) GDP, taking into account those difference, is often a better measure, especially for countries less dependent on imports. For example, Russian nominal GDP has collapsed by a staggering amount since the sanctions, but this is not felt on the street in Russia. They've suffered, to be sure, but the nominal GDP figure essentially assumes that everything they buy is imported, purchased in USD. This isn't the case, obviously. Russia PPP GDP is much more reflective of reality.

The same is true with China, which has a huge internal market and a very different cost of living than the US.

Here's a chart showing nominal GDP for the leading economies in 2018:




And the same using PPP GDP:




That might give we Americans something to ponder before wagging our dicks around too vigorously in the international arena.

[devil21]

When CNBC and the like talk about the comparative importance of economies, they almost always use nominal GDP. This is a measure of the total output of an economy priced in USD, using the exchange rate to convert from local to USD prices. It's often wildly misleading because it doesn't take into account differences in the cost of living, not reflected in exchange rates (which wouldn't be very large in a global free market where capital/goods/services can move freely, but we obviously don't have a global free market).

PPP (purchasing power power) GDP, taking into account those difference, is often a better measure, especially for countries less dependent on imports. For example, Russian nominal GDP has collapsed by a staggering amount since the sanctions, but this is not felt on the street in Russia. They've suffered, to be sure, but the nominal GDP figure essentially assumes that everything they buy is imported, purchased in USD. This isn't the case, obviously. Russia PPP GDP is much more reflective of reality.

The same is true with China, which has a huge internal market and a very different cost of living than the US.

Here's a chart showing nominal GDP for the leading economies in 2018:




And the same using PPP GDP:




That might give we Americans something to ponder before wagging our dicks around too vigorously in the international arena.

Very smart post +rep. There's been lots of stuff in financial news lately about the Turkish lira crashing, the Argentine peso crashing, Iranian rial crashing, the yuan crashing, ruble crashing, etc but the "crash" is always measured against the dollar, instead of citing actual devaluation of the currencies themselves, which would translate to skyrocketing prices in their national currencies. That part is always absent, because, as you point out, the relative values of the currencies don't matter if they aren't using dollars for imports. There's no mayhem on the streets of Turkey, Argentina, Iran, China or Russia, among others with "crashing" currencies. They've already abandoned the dollar for trade...

[CCTelander]

When CNBC and the like talk about the comparative importance of economies, they almost always use nominal GDP. This is a measure of the total output of an economy priced in USD, using the exchange rate to convert from local to USD prices. It's often wildly misleading because it doesn't take into account differences in the cost of living, not reflected in exchange rates (which wouldn't be very large in a global free market where capital/goods/services can move freely, but we obviously don't have a global free market).

PPP (purchasing power power) GDP, taking into account those difference, is often a better measure, especially for countries less dependent on imports. For example, Russian nominal GDP has collapsed by a staggering amount since the sanctions, but this is not felt on the street in Russia. They've suffered, to be sure, but the nominal GDP figure essentially assumes that everything they buy is imported, purchased in USD. This isn't the case, obviously. Russia PPP GDP is much more reflective of reality.

The same is true with China, which has a huge internal market and a very different cost of living than the US.

Here's a chart showing nominal GDP for the leading economies in 2018:




And the same using PPP GDP:




That might give we Americans something to ponder before wagging our dicks around too vigorously in the international arena.

Come on now, man. This is Trump and his acolytes we're talking about here. I predict there will be much vigorous dick wagging and very little well informed careful consideration.