198 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

Boom! Who didn't see this coming? An exclusive trade deal between the US and the UK... gotta love Brexit. Rand Paul loves it.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/global-trade-economy/309547-brexit-leader-im-pushing-us-uk-trade-deal-to-trump

 

1) Yes a UK-US deal was in the making, that is what Brexit means, no more EU-based deals so the UK has to re-negotiate alot of deals if they want to keep their present EU-based deals and associated perks.

 

You are applauding someone for buying a new car while 1 week before they stated they will get rid of there present one. Self-fulfulling profecy much? What's next, you gonna applaud all those new GOP appointed governmental workers being hired? While just ignoring all the Democrat alligned ones being tossed on the side of the road on the 20th of January?

 

2) Farage is perhaps the Brexit poster boy, but he is FAR from being a UK spoke person on anything governmental related. Farage might aswell talk trade deal with you personally and get as much accomplished as when he talks to Trump.

[ccabal86]

What were they protecting the grain from, a meteorite strike?

They were obviously protecting it from the aliens, duh!

2) Farage is perhaps the Brexit poster boy, but he is FAR from being a UK spoke person on anything governmental related. Farage might aswell talk trade deal with you personally and get as much accomplished as when he talks to Trump.

That's what I was going to say. At present, as far as I know, Farage is essentially retired...

[Lysistrata]

While just ignoring all the Democrat alligned ones being tossed on the side of the road on the 20th of January?

That can't happen fast enough.

 

Hillary Clinton came out of her cave yesterday to give a speech at the long overdue Harry Reid Senate goodbye party... long overdue because that criminal has been a black stain on my state for decades. He can now move out of his taxpayer funded penthouse digs at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC... and slither back to his palace in Searchlight Nevada. The problem with that is I can smell him anytime he gets near Las Vegas. I have one final song for that piece of steaming shit...

 

Now back to Hillary... She droned on about "fake news"... like it cost her the election. The only fake news I heard that had any effect on her dismal campaign was the endless, fake, beating of the media drum that Donald Trump had no chance to win. News agencies had him at a 20% chance to win. It's absolute proof that the media is just spraying out propaganda. Denzel Washington, a Hollywood darling said it best. "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed... If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed". Could not have said it any better myself.

 

A word from my alter-ego...

 

Now to my main point here. These mindless fools spent over a year trying to make the world afraid of Donald Trump as President. Well, now that is a reality. Now they are just showing their real fear... they are terrified that he will be successful. Delicious tears.

[Niels]

the media drum that Donald Trump had no chance to win. News agencies had him at a 20% chance to win.

 

0%, 20%, same thing.
What are numbers, how do they work!?
 

The problem with that is I can smell him anytime he gets near Las Vegas.

You should try getting a better superpower. 

[onbekende]

People generally dislike unfavourable cronies who run aginst their favourable cronies.

 

Talking about "fake news", before that was the F** channel speciality, nowadays it seems they have been ouclassed by 1 man and his twitter account...

 

Basically every citizen the world over have politicians as #1 on "whom do you dislike?" lists. I fully understand you disliking Hillary and perhaps every Democrat alive presently, but I keep finding it funny that nobody on "your side" is without such dislike. The amount of "swamp" being shoveled into the perceived Democrat swamp in DC is mindbogling. Trumps latest pick is a known fossil fuel lobbyist for president of EPA? Perhaps you want a former gulag guard for Secretary of Work?

[Canik]

 

 Also I don't think you ever refuted my point that there may not be enough service jobs for us all.

Indeed, I did not, because I don't know if there are, and explicitly said as much.

 

As it stands it seems we have a shortage on jobs even with current manufacturing jobs included.

This is true - best I can find is that right now there are 1.4 unemployed pesons for every job opening.  This ratio is the about the lowest it has been since 2000 though, suggesting a reasonably good employment market without too many "surplus" would-be-employees.
For better or worse, we can probably expect significant retirements in the near future (Baby Boomers are reaching Social Security age right now by the hundreds-of-thousands per month).  Their positions may require replacement by younger workers, but their aging will require additional health and home-services positions in the coming years.  That will provide jobs for a number of people.

 

Should we let what factory jobs we have go without a fight? I'd say no to that as well. Not until we're sure there are replacement jobs available.

Maybe - depends on what the plan is:
Is it going to be giving out local or state tax cuts to specific profitable companies as Trump/Pence did?
Most people like having their town run a police department, fire services, and a school district, etc.  If you cut one company's taxes, the costs of these things need to be raised somewhere else.  Now suddenly the rest of the town has less spending money because we're all subsidizing those factory workers.
The hazard of companies threatening to leave in order to extort favorable tax conditions has not been addressed.
If one plant/company is chosen for tax preference and another is not, the latter will be less-competitive and likely to shed workers.  Result is just a transfer of the pain to different workers in a different town.

Are we going to just raise tariffs?
Yes, this will keep some jobs around, but it is an incentive toward automation, which ultimately will reduce the number of jobs in the future by attrition.  As an aside, the CEO of United Tech has already announced that the jobs kept at the Carrier plant are not going to last: "we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down".
Further, contrary to popular belief, the US has a lot of exports (2nd highest of any country).  Put up a tariff up to protect workers from imports?  Results in other countries establishing their own tariffs that will then decimate our exporting industries.  Again, just a transfer of pain from one set of employees to another.

Specific tariffs/fines for companies that move production overseas?  (A Trump idea as of 4 days ago)
In the short-term this might be better than general tariffs, since it is unlikely to result in retaliation that damages our own exports.
However, without the tariffs being general, a company that has always been foreign and thus isn't subject to these penalties will always be able to undercut the American-based one that would be subject to penalties if it tried to move to a lower labor cost area.  The foreign companies will gain market share and drive the American ones out of business.  This outcome is actually worse than letting the American companies offshore, since a greater proportion of the earnings are likely to end up in the hands of non-American shareholders at the end.

But, just so I can point out that I am not someone only able to criticize.
A good solution would be to make the US more competitive through adjustments to taxes and regulations in a revenue-neutral manner.
Decreasing corporate taxes probably won't have much of a positive effect - as I pointed out, Reagan's 1980s tax cuts were ineffective at changing trends - but they might a little.  The key is that they must not be allowed to explode the federal deficit, since that will make things much worse in the future in terms of decreased budget flexibility and increased need to raise revenue for GDP-sapping interest payments.

 

That 1.4 unemployed vs jobs chart says "job-seekers" meaning it's probably not including the millions and millions of people who have been out of work 6+ months. So it's probably even worse than that suggests.

All the other stuff about protectionism, yeah, I understand the probable pitfalls to it. However we've been going the opposite of protectionism a while now and a lot of people seem unsatisfied with it. Shouldn't hurt too much to switch it up for a bit, and if it does, then we'll all be so happy once we open up the flood gates of free trade again.

This reminds of something I learned, ironically, from a movie called Outsourced. About the Hindu god Shiva, God of Destruction (and also Creation/Regeneration). It's an interesting philosophical perspective, that sometimes destruction is needed to make room for new creation hopefully resulting is a better product than the original. America could probably use some help from Shiva.
 

[Lysistrata]

People generally dislike unfavourable cronies who run aginst their favourable cronies.

 

Talking about "fake news", before that was the F** channel speciality, nowadays it seems they have been ouclassed by 1 man and his twitter account...

 

Basically every citizen the world over have politicians as #1 on "whom do you dislike?" lists. I fully understand you disliking Hillary and perhaps every Democrat alive presently, but I keep finding it funny that nobody on "your side" is without such dislike. The amount of "swamp" being shoveled into the perceived Democrat swamp in DC is mindbogling. Trumps latest pick is a known fossil fuel lobbyist for president of EPA? Perhaps you want a former gulag guard for Secretary of Work?

So, I take it you don't like Trump's pick of Scott Pruitt for the EPA? Scott is the Attorney General of Oklahoma, not a "lobbyist". He, along with 27 other states Attorney's General, sued the EPA for overreach when they declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant. Which is insane. What's next? Oxygen? According to you guys, Barack Obama could appoint an EPA Administrator that worships at the altar of climate change, no problem there... but hell no, we can't have one that understands why the EPA was created. That's just not acceptable? The days of the zealot climate change collective are over... for now at least.

 

Obama famously said, "Elections Have Consequences" when cramming Obamacare down the throats of the nation, and after Cap and Trade failed... even when he had super majorities in both houses of Congress, he directed the EPA to enforce illegal regulations, in an attempt to change the way we power our country. Well, we had another election... and we the people directed our Government to change who is in power of our country. So, elections have consequences.

 

I don't hate all Democrats... I like Joe Manchin a lot. To get elected in 2010, Joe had to run an ad in West Virginia where he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill with a deer rifle. He should just run as a Republican. All the other moderates have evaporated. To you guys, anything that isn't covered by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or the New York Times... is fake news. Just because they don't say it, it doesn't mean it did not happen. Go Trump! Very proud to be one of those deplorables

[Lysistrata]

I found it!

[Niels]

That 1.4 unemployed vs jobs chart says "job-seekers" meaning it's probably not including the millions and millions of people who have been out of work 6+ months. So it's probably even worse than that suggests.

This is a fair point.  I did note that this was about the best ratio observed since 2000, so during both of the previous periods of economic growth (before the 2001 recession, and before the 2009 recession).  Of course, we have difficulty in determining how many of those long-term non-employed people really want to work.  One often reads about morons who claim "93 million people out of work" but that assumes that everyone age 16 or greater not working is "out of work."  The fact that that number includes kids in 10th grade who should not be working full time, and my 85 year old retired grandfather who doesn't need to work is why it is a stupid number to trot out.  Not that this is a criticism of your comment specifically, but one needs to be very careful about not just assuming too many millions of people from nothingness.
 

All the other stuff about protectionism, yeah, I understand the probable pitfalls to it. However we've been going the opposite of protectionism a while now and a lot of people seem unsatisfied with it. Shouldn't hurt too much to switch it up for a bit, and if it does, then we'll all be so happy once we open up the flood gates of free trade again.

Right, but purposely doing "something" for the sake of doing "something" is a silly way to go about making policy.  Especially if one acknowledges the probability that the new policy will have negative outcomes.  As I've pointed out, any attempt to force manufacturing back to the US will result in elevated investments in automation that will dissolve expected employment gains.  Since the US doesn't have access to all the raw materials needed for manufacturing (China has 97% of all rare-earth element production) we'll still be importing things.  Also, that capital for automation must be paid for, which raises the costs of things.  An analysis by the Council of Economic Advisors found that "Middle-class consumers gain an estimated 29% of their purchasing power from trade."
So there's why it is silly to do engage in change for change's sake: limited-to-no employment gains, limited effect on trade deficit, and a ~30% reduction in peoples' purchasing power, which will certainly make them feel a lot poorer.

I don't want to be made poorer.  I don't want other people to be made poorer.  And I certainly don't want us to waste 5 or 10 years "trying" something new so we can re-confirm that protectionism and mercantilism are bad economic policies.  Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (1776), and subsequent history should have taught us that already.  There's no reason to think re-trying these ideas will not "hurt too much."

 

This reminds of something I learned, ironically, from a movie called Outsourced. About the Hindu god Shiva, God of Destruction (and also Creation/Regeneration). It's an interesting philosophical perspective, that sometimes destruction is needed to make room for new creation hopefully resulting is a better product than the original. America could probably use some help from Shiva.  

 

 

This is an interesting idea.  I'll posit that it is being applied incorrectly here: protectionism is antithetical to creative destruction.  It protects that which already exists at the expense of what might be.
One of the hallmarks of open and free trade is that industries must advance to maintain a lead over competitors worldwide.  The fact that America has transformed from an industrial economy to one where intellectual outputs and ideas drive growth (see Silicon Valley as an example) has been demonstrative of Shiva's ideals.

I'll end with an example of protected markets resulting in decreased purchasing power as I mentioned earlier.  Here is an advertisement for a desktop computer from 1990: before we started significant trade with East Asian economies that now produce a large amount of our consumer electronics (but not the software that runs them; American firms mostly provide that).

In inflation-adjusted dollars, the lowest model there ($1498 in 1990) would cost $2770 today.  Skip over to Amazon and you can find perfectly acceptable computers for 1/5 and maybe even 1/10 of that price.  For this reason 84% of homes in the US have personal computers (data from 2014), and I'm sure the value is higher among younger households with children.  Households having these resources would never have been possible without free trade policies - the costs would have simply been too high, and we can thank trade for making it possible.

[onbekende]

So, I take it you don't like Trump's pick of Scott Pruitt for the EPA? Scott is the Attorney General of Oklahoma, not a "lobbyist". He, along with 27 other states Attorney's General, sued the EPA for overreach when they declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant. Which is insane. What's next? Oxygen? According to you guys, Barack Obama could appoint an EPA Administrator that worships at the altar of climate change, no problem there... but hell no, we can't have one that understands why the EPA was created. That's just not acceptable? The days of the zealot climate change collective are over... for now at least.

.
"Not liking" is correct, but not on a personal level. Your own proof of EPA overreach would be the very basis of my rebuke even. CO₂ is indeed a pollutant, and while indeed it is present in the natural cycle on Earth did doesn't stop it from being bad for the enviroment if a certain treshold is reached (or would you want some more CO₂ in your house's air?). Urine is a nautral product aswell, perhaps you want to start drinking it? Even oxygen can be dangerous (and is no doubt strictly regulated when it is 100%), heck even a slight increase above the normal 21% oxygen content will lead to dangerous effects of increased oxidation (from just common rust to wildfires being disaterous).

 

We don't need zealots of any cloth, what I thusfar have heared of Scott Pruitt is not showing me that he is a zealot even, which is excellent. What is reachingmy ear is that he consistently is choosing the fossil fuel business side when dealing with EPA and other enviromental issues. As Attorney General he should be protecting the people, not cooperations (nor government!).
.

Obama famously said, "Elections Have Consequences" when cramming Obamacare down the throats of the nation, and after Cap and Trade failed... even when he had super majorities in both houses of Congress, he directed the EPA to enforce illegal regulations, in an attempt to change the way we power our country. Well, we had another election... and we the people directed our Government to change who is in power of our country. So, elections have consequences.

.
You are sounding like one of our party leaders currently, who just came out stating that judges were against democracy when they applied the law. Yes the "powers that be" will change and I can life with that, what I find more difficult is the level of inane rethoric being employed by both sides just to annoy the other side and put roadblocks into any sense of cooperation across party platform.

 

The loss of moderates in any societal debate is a loss for the society as a whole.
.

I don't hate all Democrats... I like Joe Manchin a lot. To get elected in 2010, Joe had to run an ad in West Virginia where he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill with a deer rifle. He should just run as a Republican. All the other moderates have evaporated. To you guys, anything that isn't covered by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or the New York Times... is fake news. Just because they don't say it, it doesn't mean it did not happen. Go Trump! Very proud to be one of those deplorables

.

Grats to him I guess?

 

I occationally open CNN front page, this is to see US centered news. I also occationally open FOX front page, again to see US centered news. Funnely enough I tend to read alot more sides then your average american and that is where the issues of "fake news" and "bias newsagency" comes from. News should be facts sprinkeled with larger societal impact when required, it should be stripped of any personal commentary that usually entails "We like this because it is X, whom we like" or "We dislike this bacause it is Y, whom we dislike".

 

Stop making this a black/white affair while you guys are so near to eachothers positions you couldn't see the different shades of black or white.

[Lysistrata]

All that up there...

 

It's obvious that you and I will never agree on the issue of the EPA, or the overactive imaginations of those that worship at the altar of climate change... but since I live in the USA, and you live in Belgium, it's also obvious that basic geography makes all the difference. It's my country, it's my President, and it's my EPA. The score is 3-0 in my favor on what matters. I don't complain about anything the EU does. It's none of my business. You guys can pass all the laws you want on yourselves... I don't care. But as far as the EPA is concerned, you only have to read why it was created, it's purpose, and where power comes from. It's not under direction of the President... or is it an independent agency that makes up it's own agenda...

 

"The United States Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the Federal Government of the United States which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS"

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations based on the theory of climate change. It was brought up in Congress as the Cap and Trade Bill... and it died ugly. So in reality, until the American people see the sky is actually falling... nothing will be done about this.

[onbekende]

Well as american I would mind some EU shenanigans if they suddenly decide to for example go full Russia and throw all your military out together with all the good-will. All depends on which is a follower of the other really, I as an inhabitant of small Belgium do look with interest what happens in large USA. Sort of the same as you inhabitant of small neighbourhood look at whats happening in Washington.

 

well shortsightedness isn't in short supply these days around the globe

 

As for the EPA colouring within its lines according to law, just know that leniency in ability of interpretation is a good thing. Complete overstepping within the law itself is offcourse only rectified by changing the laws that govern. (aka, if lawsuits don't help, get politicians to do it).

[Canik]

This is a fair point. I did note that this was about the best ratio observed since 2000, so during both of the previous periods of economic growth (before the 2001 recession, and before the 2009 recession). Of course, we have difficulty in determining how many of those long-term non-employed people really want to work. One often reads about morons who claim "93 million people out of work" but that assumes that everyone age 16 or greater not working is "out of work." The fact that that number includes kids in 10th grade who should not be working full time, and my 85 year old retired grandfather who doesn't need to work is why it is a stupid number to trot out. Not that this is a criticism of your comment specifically, but one needs to be very careful about not just assuming too many millions of people from nothingness.

People should have a healthy dose of skepticism of all sources. It's not like the government is incapable of shady things.

My opinion is most heavily influenced by my life experience in the lower class. I've been to a lot of areas with a lot of unemployed, working age, people. Competition can get rather fierce for crappy low-wage jobs. Some of the worst was from the recession, granted, but things are still not very good for the lower class. Employers still have a clear advantage over employees. Workers compete for jobs rather than jobs competing for workers. It's not even close.

 

Right, but purposely doing "something" for the sake of doing "something" is a silly way to go about making policy. Especially if one acknowledges the probability that the new policy will have negative outcomes. As I've pointed out, any attempt to force manufacturing back to the US will result in elevated investments in automation that will dissolve expected employment gains. Since the US doesn't have access to all the raw materials needed for manufacturing (China has 97% of all rare-earth element production) we'll still be importing things. Also, that capital for automation must be paid for, which raises the costs of things. An analysis by the Council of Economic Advisors found that "Middle-class consumers gain an estimated 29% of their purchasing power from trade." So there's why it is silly to do engage in change for change's sake: limited-to-no employment gains, limited effect on trade deficit, and a ~30% reduction in peoples' purchasing power, which will certainly make them feel a lot poorer. I don't want to be made poorer. I don't want other people to be made poorer. And I certainly don't want us to waste 5 or 10 years "trying" something new so we can re-confirm that protectionism and mercantilism are bad economic policies. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (1776), and subsequent history should have taught us that already. There's no reason to think re-trying these ideas will not "hurt too much."

China may produce 97% but they only have 30% of the world's rare-earth elements so they aren't necessarily the only option. Probably the cheapest option because they're a rather ruthless authoritarian government, which may make them the best option but that also makes such open trade with them morally questionable. It was cheaper to have slaves do things too. Should we bring back slavery?

But yeah, we're still going to import things. We're still going to do a ton of trading. Virtually no one is for full-scale and long-term protectionism. Because of all the reasons you've listed.

That doesn't mean absolutely no good can come from flirting with it. Even if the good is simply the current generation getting first-hand context on why free trade is better than protectionism. I know it's far from the ideal way to learn it but yeah, every few hundred years we might need a reminder. What is good without bad to compare it too?

This is an interesting idea. I'll posit that it is being applied incorrectly here: protectionism is antithetical to creative destruction. It protects that which already exists at the expense of what might be. One of the hallmarks of open and free trade is that industries must advance to maintain a lead over competitors worldwide. The fact that America has transformed from an industrial economy to one where intellectual outputs and ideas drive growth (see Silicon Valley as an example) has been demonstrative of Shiva's ideals.

You're isolating the idea too much and acting too much like you have a crystal ball. You spoke earlier of what history has taught us, well, one thing it's taught us is it can be very difficult to predict the future and what consequences may come from our actions.

I'll end with an example of protected markets resulting in decreased purchasing power as I mentioned earlier. Here is an advertisement for a desktop computer from 1990: before we started significant trade with East Asian economies that now produce a large amount of our consumer electronics (but not the software that runs them; American firms mostly provide that).

I'm sure that did help decrease the price some but it may have lowered some on it's own with increasing demand and increased mass manufacturing in response. Just saying, I'm not sure free trade deserves all the credit.
 

[hilowe]

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

[Lysistrata]

It's clearly coming into focus what Donald Trump means by "draining the swamp". It's obvious he doesn't trust politicians, and never has it been so strongly demonstrated as it has during this time of choosing his administration. Those under the most limitation are politicians. Those favored, are military and private sector business. He meets with Carly Fiorina today, and if Trump continues on this road, we may very well see Carly in this mix. The "swamp" are politicians.

 

We have a President that will hold all politicians at arms length throughout his tenure, as if they smell bad, or will turn on him at any second. I have never seen this before in a President, and I am curious, encouraged, and excited about it... all at the same time.

[DeathMerchant]

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

 

Some of the stuff ATF attempts to regulate should really be put through Congress. It would decrease the chance of ending up with stupid regulations like the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. God forbid you choose to shoulder that brace because now your pistol is an illegal NFA weapon.

 

Heck the whole NFA should just be abolished. Reform the 1986 Machine Gun aspect by allowing an amnesty period, and then get rid of the short barreled and suppressor part. Good news is that the Hearing Protection Act (or another variation of it) stands good chance at passing once Trump is in office, so at least 1 part of the NFA will be going away.

[ccabal86]

It's clearly coming into focus what Donald Trump means by "draining the swamp". It's obvious he doesn't trust politicians, and never has it been so strongly demonstrated as it has during this time of choosing his administration. Those under the most limitation are politicians. Those favored, are military and private sector business. He meets with Carly Fiorina today, and if Trump continues on this road, we may very well see Carly in this mix. The "swamp" are politicians.
 
We have a President that will hold all politicians at arms length throughout his tenure, as if they smell bad, or will turn on him at any second. I have never seen this before in a President, and I am curious, encouraged, and excited about it... all at the same time.

This does seem to be true, and is as interesting experiment. We'll finally get and answer to the age old question whether businessmen would fare better in running a country than politicians.

[onbekende]

Not really seeing a big distinction between politicians or businessmen, both hold dear their nation(/party) // company and use policies/deals to further their ambitions. Only real difference is the amount of people either side has to "please", politicians having a rather "large" board of directors

[hilowe]

 

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

 

Some of the stuff ATF attempts to regulate should really be put through Congress. It would decrease the chance of ending up with stupid regulations like the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. God forbid you choose to shoulder that brace because now your pistol is an illegal NFA weapon.

 

Heck the whole NFA should just be abolished. Reform the 1986 Machine Gun aspect by allowing an amnesty period, and then get rid of the short barreled and suppressor part. Good news is that the Hearing Protection Act (or another variation of it) stands good chance at passing once Trump is in office, so at least 1 part of the NFA will be going away.

 

 

Completely agree with you on the Congress thing.  I find it funny that they originally said that brace was fine, then came out with new interpretation making it an NFA item.

 

I actually read that there was something in the 86 machine gun act (may have the wrong act, but swear it was this one) about the president being able to create a new 90 day amnesty period with the stroke of a pen.  So, the author was advocating just starting to implement amnesty periods two times a year.

[DeathMerchant]

 

 

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

 

Some of the stuff ATF attempts to regulate should really be put through Congress. It would decrease the chance of ending up with stupid regulations like the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. God forbid you choose to shoulder that brace because now your pistol is an illegal NFA weapon.

 

Heck the whole NFA should just be abolished. Reform the 1986 Machine Gun aspect by allowing an amnesty period, and then get rid of the short barreled and suppressor part. Good news is that the Hearing Protection Act (or another variation of it) stands good chance at passing once Trump is in office, so at least 1 part of the NFA will be going away.

 

 

Completely agree with you on the Congress thing.  I find it funny that they originally said that brace was fine, then came out with new interpretation making it an NFA item.

 

I actually read that there was something in the 86 machine gun act (may have the wrong act, but swear it was this one) about the president being able to create a new 90 day amnesty period with the stroke of a pen.  So, the author was advocating just starting to implement amnesty periods two times a year.

 

The President cannot open an Amnesty, but the Secretary of the Treasury can for up to a maximum of 90 days. And it wasn't the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (aka Machine Gun Act) which allowed for an Amnesty, it was the 1968 Gun Control Act. One Amnesty Period has already happened and it was in 1968 for I believe a total of 30 days. Doing a new Amnesty period would bring an insanely massive amount of new machine guns on the NFA record. It would allow Police departments to legally sell their stockpile of old Thompsons to Collectors/Dealers which would not only preserve history but would bring in a substantial amount of money for departments. Transferable examples fetch around $30,000-$38,000. You would also see a lot of people looking to make 'investments'. Buying a machine gun is indeed an investment as the civilian transferable stockpile (Post Dealer and Pre May Samples don't count as civilian transferable) is fixed (and slowly decreasing) and the demand keeps growing. As of February 24, 2016 the civilian transferable number sits at 175,977. 10 years ago that number was about 182,000. Some transferable weapons, depending on rarity can run beyond $100,000. Current prices for transferable full auto Colt M16/AR-15 are about $30,000-$40,000. Heckler and Koch rifles come in at close to $40,000. While Mac-11s come in at the cheapest at $8,000. If you had bought this prior to 1986 and had it registered. It is now worth about an insane amount more than what you paid for it. That is why so many people are trying to get into this limited market because the values keep increasing.

 

 

From PUBLIC LAW 90-619-OCT. 22, 1968, found on page 1236 of United States Statutes at Large Volume 82.djvu/1278:

(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in
the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to
establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case
of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such
period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of
this title. TITLE III — AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII O F THE OMNIB U S C R I M
E CONTROL A N D S A F E S T R E E T S ACT O F 1968

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/09/dean-weingarten/amnesty-administration-can-implement/

 

Here is another interesting piece of information. Take a guess how many homicides have been committed with a legal civilian transferable machine gun since 1934? Two. In 1988 Ohio, a cop murdered a police informant by using a Mac 11 chambered in .380. In 1992 a doctor killed another doctor who he had been stalking with a Mac 11, also chambered in .380. Everything else you hear on the news is an illegal unregistered machine gun. Either never registered in 1986 or an illegally converted semi to fire full auto.

 

There have been a couple times where machine actually have been used in self defense, although you can imagine the legal trouble they faced afterword. The 3 most famous cases of defensive machine gun use are twice by Harry Beckwith (1976 and 1990), and Gary Fadden (1984). Give them both a read as they are eye opening stories. The one part of the Gary Fadden incident always sticks out for me, in that drawing a weapon, and firing warning shots is no guarantee to make an attacker flee. If you draw a weapon, you must be mentally conditioned to use it.

 

Gary had never fired the Ruger. He knew how to disengage the safety, but was not sure which position the fire-control lever was set to, semi-automatic, three-shot burst, or fully automatic. He pointed the muzzle upward and fired a warning shot only to discover that the rifle was set on full auto. It ripped off nine shots before he could get his finger back off the trigger. Shockingly, this had no effect whatsoever. The bad guy kept closing. Fast. And he was carrying knives in both hands.

“F**k you and your high-powered rifle,” he yelled. “I’m gonna kill you motherf***er!”

 

Harry Beckwith

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

 

Gary Fadden

https://ymaa.com/articles/level-6-lethal-force

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19840918&id=eeJLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x4sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5238,2685423&hl=en