Didn't know there was a St. Louis Missouri in Iraq. ;)

Missouri is just like Iraq, only less culturally diverse and more segregated.

And now I gotta ask you the same thing I asked rt: How is that relevant? You two don't seem to understand, I'm not arguing whether or not his plan is good, or whether or not he is a good candidate. The two of you are trying to make this into a subjective political discussion when it's not.

I'm arguing the facts. His is a long term plan which, even if it does eventually succeed, will have initial adverse effects on the economy on the short to medium term. That is why banks support his adversary. It's that simple, opinions really don't come into it.

Would you be so kind as to refrain youself from calling me "you two". I prefer to be me and no one else. I speak for myself only and it's my right to speak whatever nonsense I like. Meaning that every word you see from Cadaver747 is my responsibility only.

Now please point me to some of my statement(s) and elaborate to me what exactly was irrelevant. I'm not that smart as I wanted to be that's why I'm asking your help here. You criteria of relevance would be highly appreciated.

I though that we were discussing taxes, you even provided me a good source where Trump indeed mentioned 35/45% offboard tax. So what went wrong?

Now you mentioned that Trump's plan will be a downhill for US economy in short or medium term. It's your opinion. If you want mine, I don't feel that raising taxes is a good solution. But I think that creating more working places in US is better for US people.

You want facts, let's talk facts if you really like, give me some and I'll try to comply as best as I can (mediocre really).

I don't name Trump as my favorite and Clinton as an arch nemesis of all humankind (you may check my other statements as proof if you like). But I would love to hear your part without simply insinuating that "we two trying to make this into a subjective political discussion when it's not". Also correct me if I am wrong but I though that Clinton & Trump election campaings are part of political discussion, is it not?
Also please forgive me my English, it's grammar is killing me.

This is your problem. You don't understand anything.

HE can not. He could suggest it to the legal system, and it would be up to them to decide if they want to repel this treaty. (I did extra read up on it, hence my little bit later reply.)

making inside the US:
JUST as one example:
electronics:
Have you ever heard about rare earths?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
Don't read at all ;) just look where it is coming from. And please post your find ;)
The problem is (and I used electronics for purpose), IF somebody suggests something like that, it is plain and simple stupid. I know it sounds harsh ;)
BUT one problem nowadays is that you can not longer have a self reliable country, as simple as this. Even Russia, which has far more resources at its disposable can not do it.
And again, just use your own logic:
You had those jobs, Chicago, right? (cars)
They are gone. Gone for good, UNLESS companies would come back. But purely capitalistic speaking, WHY shall they come back? HOW do you want to make them come back?
Even if the 30% whatever would be put onto a product, they would say: And what? We move to another country, or they will just export to country Z and than import to US. (nice example for this practice weapons).

Your last part is actually the 'most' interesting one ;)
One problem nowadays with the stock market IS:
a.) shares do not reflect anymore the value of a company (as a lot of it is pure speculation or unreal money as in licenses, patents or similar)
b.) that companies (hedge fonds to name the worst) are aloud to speculate just on a trend.

The second part is the worst. You can make BETs on how the stock market will react. BUT funny enough no state till now has invoked its right to deny this gambling. You know that in most states world wide gambling is illegal or under state control, or?

So, why is it still allowed? Yes, they are speculating, no gambling.
What happened in the old days you were speculating on a real outcome. Like, yes I believe that IBM will further increase their sales, hence making the company more valuable. (no problem with it, ore or less ;) )
But placing bets on that even whole areas of a stock market will dive (example) is just gambling. And that was also part of the housing bubble.

Placing a bot of politics in here: Guess who of those two candidates did profit more from it? ;)

This brings us back again to making stuff:
Your idea sounds good, BUT it only works with family own businesses (let's call them like that ;) )
Big corporations do not play by the same rules. They are by default involved in the above mentioned part.
This brings us also back to a part which you mentioned shortly: expensive
Again, just one example:
You do know that the US was for loooong time the so called bread basket of the world? What happened?
And this was before clever marketing gags of a certain company.....
The US went for a lot of things from an exporter to an importer nation. And you would be REALLY surprised how bad it would turn back to the US with such a politic suggested (tariffs)
National debts: according to any normal standard the US is bankrupt. (as a lot of states in the world :( )

No, it's not a discussion on taxes. It's a discussion on this:

If you want to discuss taxes with someone, fine do it with someone else, but that is not what I've been arguing for the past two pages. I argued against the idea that the banks' support of Hillary is in any way curious. Here "curious" being code for nefarious and corrupt.


No it's not. It's a fact. Tariffs stifle trades between the countries affected, so companies that rely on doing business with these countries will see their shares fall. It's not just about favouring domestic manufacture over foreign ones, production costs will rise, even American manufactures that rely on imported raw materials, like a juice company that imports oranges from Mexico, or a Steel Mill that imports iron ore from China, they will also see their stock prices fall. These things have a cascading effect on stock prices and the economy. Given time supply chains can be rebuilt, and the market will normalize, but until then, in the short to medium term, the economy will take a hit. That's just how economies work. Just look at the Brexit, it hasn't even been implemented yet and the UK's economy is already hurting, and the pound is falling, merely in anticipation of what might happen when it is implemented.


A political discussion would argue whether or not, like austerity measures, it's worth to tighten the belt in the short term in an attempt to ensure a healthier economy in the long term. But I'm not arguing politics.


The argument I've been making this whole time is that the banks support Hillary because she represents the status quo, hence their safest choice to ensure their continued short term profits. Therefore there is no reason to rely on conspiracy theories to explain something when just plain logic will suffice.

First of all thank you for indulging me into the world of economy laws, it was entertaining. Brexit as an example of investors concerns was quite good. True that US dollar as well as share prices might collapse. Anyway I see your point and I can assure you that we are more or less on the same page here. Still it doesn't make it a fact: very solid assertion yes, but fact no.

Yet again you statet a weighty argument, but it's not a fact. I'm not sure you are interested in my opinion but here it is:
1.Status quo will not save USA, it's external debt will eventually "kill" US dollar, share prices and global economy. China may stop the WWIII (hope we'll never see it) simply by selling all its US treasury bonds.
2.Banks support Hillary Clinton for different reasons: continuing conflicts (e.g. Afganistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria). For some reason lending money to war machine creates more debt and power. I don't see any consiracy theory. US banks sponsored Germany, Soviet Union, China during world war conflicts. And this is a fact. But you are right in one thing, you may call it a "status quo" ;)

Please prove me wrong and point me where I stated any consiracy theory.

1. Status quo means money right now, and if you read my previous posts you'll see I mentioned the 2008 financial crisis as an example as to how banks are only interested in what will make them money right now.

2. If your argument is that she will continue the status quo here as well, then I have no disagreements.

You didn't state any conspiracy theories before because you jumped into an existing conversation I was having with rt making unrelated arguments. Frankly, I don't blame you, rt himself was trying to steer the conversation away from his conspiracy theories by making unrelated inflammatory remarks. If now you start implying that Hillary promised banks WW3 in exchange for support, then you will start veering into conspiracy territory, same as him, and I will definitely disagree with you.

I'm implying that Hillary not "promised" by "complied" to provide a politic of continuing US aggression. This may or may not lead to WWIII, the latter is a pure speculation which I surely will not back with "facts".

Please tell me what you think of this "fact":
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."
- JFK

link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx

Then tell me what you think of 9/11 and Patriot Act.

You may call it whatever you want, but it's UNJUST!

I think it's stupid enough to even discuss how the "shadow government" is trying to take away people freedom.
December 23, 1913 - end of US freedom
December 12, 1993 - end of Russia freedom

There is no conspiracy there is only ignorance...

Fine. That's a logical statement. I don't disagree that Hillary will continue to intervene in the middle east, nor that this will remain lucrative for the involved businesses. Although Trump has promised to "carpet bomb" Isis, so if military contracts is what you're looking for, both candidates will provide them just the same.

My complaint was with rt's illogical accusations. Like pointing to a business supporting the candidate that best represents their interests, say it's "curious" and imply it's proof of overt corruption. Or just a few pages earlier, point to a mistake in a report about an engine fire that kept a plane from lifting off, that was later corrected, say it's "interesting" and claim it was a failed assassination attempt.

I'm sorry you got dragged into this.

EDIT: I'm not sorry anymore. You belong here. If you actually read the speech that comes from you'll see he was talking about the soviets.

P.S.: Al-Qaeda did 9/11.

Don't be, I'll not post anything here from now on

EDIT:
He was talking about the soviets and 9/11 did Al-Qaeda - both answers are right. Then ask youself who funded them and think. That's all I ask.

"Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks."
link:
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY6BZVmnWVI

P.S. US people worst enemies are: sugar, ignorance and Federal Reserve

That JFK quote was a bit odd in the conversation, as it was clearly about the Soviets and JFK angry at the media reporting too much (talk about hilarity given their subservience to power). But thank you for it anyway. It's interesting to see the similarities between "blame everything on the Soviets" then to "blame everything on the Russians (and terrorists)" now.

JFK