The wealth gap and the destruction of the US manufacturing base isn't an "imaginary problem".
Not one of you has any idea how this will turn out.
The wealth gap is only going to be closed by large taxes on the wealthy. There are few alternatives to that if your objective is to reduce inequality.
Increasing manufacturing is completely reasonable and can be achieved by government spending to jump start the industry.
it was beyond frustrating seeing that Teamsters member yesterday saying he voted for Reagan and then saw his industry collapse, but still couldn't connect the two events.
Tariffs are the opposite of capitalism. They need to go away. If someone else has something at a good price that you want, get it from them. If not, get it yourself or somewhere else. No need for tariffs unless you get too reliant on someone else for something. You could argue we're there, sort of, but not for important things.
I largely agree, but when foreign sellers are subsidized by their governments, that's a situation where I think tariffs are entirely justified.
Of course, government subsidies themselves are the opposite of capitalism.
Tariffs are the opposite of capitalism. They need to go away. If someone else has something at a good price that you want, get it from them. If not, get it yourself or somewhere else. No need for tariffs unless you get too reliant on someone else for something. You could argue we're there, sort of, but not for important things.
I largely agree, but when foreign sellers are subsidized by their governments, that's a situation where I think tariffs are entirely justified.
Of course, government subsidies themselves are the opposite of capitalism.
Unchecked capitalism isn't any better for humanity than communism.
You don’t need to rely on my reasoning ability. Make it idiot-proof. You made an assertion that you should be able to support with facts.
Help out any onlookers who might be interested in seeing that you don’t rely on lies to make your points.
You claim that “media would have you believe 100% of these tariffs are being levied on countries with no existing tariffs.”
So just provide examples of media doing exactly that. As a matter of fact, I’ll give you some leeway: Instead of ensuring that they say exactly what”100% of these tariffs are ..,” you can just show how overwhelmingly their rhetoric strongly implies that it’s 100% and that it’s even extremely close to “no existing tariffs” rather than exactly “no existing tariffs.”
The articles I'm seeing do not mention the tariff imbalance already in existence.
They focus exclusively on the Trump tariffs because the focus is political not economic and intended to be entirely negative.
what tariff imbalance? we're in NAFTA and WTO. the number by definition should be 0 incoming and outgoing. and is supposed to be reciprocal.
methinks you are confusing tariffs with "trade imbalance." that just means we buy more abroad than from here, in sum. that's a choice in the market.
example: i tend to buy foreign cars, think a lot of vehicles we make are lower build quality. i'd argue that rather than seeking equal terms, we are actually trying to force me to make consumer decisions against my quality or price assessment, so that one of trump's buddies makes more money for making mediocre or bad stuff.
Not one of you has any idea how this will turn out.
It's true that no one has any idea (or at least that hardly anyone has even a slim idea based on probability). It's also true that such a statement is a weak defense of apparently bad policy, no matter who pitches the policy.
The LFPR was over 66% for 15 years (from 1988 to 2003), then hovered around 66% (but frequently dipped under) for the next 5 years. So, hardly "decades".
Then the rate dropped like a rock, as boomers retired (as I said in my post and you agreed with). Changing national demographics continue to influence the LFPR, independent of any government policy, which is why it's not a great metric on its own.
If 10 million people lose their jobs, the LFPR doesn't change (as long as they're looking for jobs), but their economic situation is much worse.
The LFPR captures those 10 million whether they are looking for work or not.
The unemployment number ignores them.
That was my point and why the LFPR is a more useful metric.
What do you mean by "captures" them?
Whether they're employed or looking for work but not employed, they're in the labor force. But, in one case they're bringing home a paycheck and in the other case they're not.
They were completely stupid in Trump's first term. Something like 90% of the revenue on tariffs with China was given as aid farmers. It was a f*cking disaster.
Tariffs are the opposite of capitalism. They need to go away. If someone else has something at a good price that you want, get it from them. If not, get it yourself or somewhere else. No need for tariffs unless you get too reliant on someone else for something. You could argue we're there, sort of, but not for important things.
I largely agree, but when foreign sellers are subsidized by their governments, that's a situation where I think tariffs are entirely justified.
Of course, government subsidies themselves are the opposite of capitalism.
you're a tourist. there have been anti-dumping laws on the books for decades, with tariffs and other penalties attached. we have used them on various foreign goods selectively since at least reagan. when we can prove something. in the precise amount we think they are subsidizing.
per usual with trump, you are waving in the direction of something that exists, but not using it. trump is too lazy to fact find. trump is too vindictive to precisely penalize. trump just wants to punish some country, perhaps for something unrelated, so he mentions dumping then hits them with some big, round number tariff that ensures it has nothing to do with the subsidy.
you think you invent all wheels. trade policy has existed for centuries. i took a class in it. and you're not the slightest bit precise or disciplined about it.
IMO the whole point to all this is bust NAFTA and the WTO without congress ever voting that happens.
Not one of you has any idea how this will turn out.
It's true that no one has any idea (or at least that hardly anyone has even a slim idea based on probability). It's also true that such a statement is a weak defense of apparently bad policy, no matter who pitches the policy.
I'm not defending defending the policy I'm defending the intent of the policy.
I have no idea how it will turn out. Neither do the people here who are claiming they do with certainty.
The LFPR captures those 10 million whether they are looking for work or not.
The unemployment number ignores them.
That was my point and why the LFPR is a more useful metric.
What do you mean by "captures" them?
Whether they're employed or looking for work but not employed, they're in the labor force. But, in one case they're bringing home a paycheck and in the other case they're not.
Yes.. but if they aren't looking for work they are excluded from the unemployment calculation.
The articles I'm seeing do not mention the tariff imbalance already in existence.
They focus exclusively on the Trump tariffs because the focus is political not economic and intended to be entirely negative.
what tariff imbalance? we're in NAFTA and WTO. the number by definition should be 0 incoming and outgoing. and is supposed to be reciprocal.
methinks you are confusing tariffs with "trade imbalance." that just means we buy more abroad than from here, in sum. that's a choice in the market.
example: i tend to buy foreign cars, think a lot of vehicles we make are lower build quality. i'd argue that rather than seeking equal terms, we are actually trying to force me to make consumer decisions against my quality or price assessment, so that one of trump's buddies makes more money for making mediocre or bad stuff.
you want me to buy your stuff, make it better.
Trump's tariff chart was a fiction. The left hand column was not each of the respective country's tariff on US goods, it was a number relating to trade deficit. Trump is dumb enough to think that if we have a trade deficit with a country we are getting screwed by the other country. That isn't the case.
And just as important, that approach leaves nothing for the other country to negotiate. The other country hasn't imposed a trade barrier, so there is no barrier they can remove. The country simply produces goods US residents want to buy (and that are too expensive to produce in the US or are not in sufficient demand in the US to make domestic production feasible).
Whether they're employed or looking for work but not employed, they're in the labor force. But, in one case they're bringing home a paycheck and in the other case they're not.
Yes.. but if they aren't looking for work they are excluded from the unemployment calculation.
Right. But whether someone is receiving a paycheck or simply wants to receive a paycheck is ignored in the LFPR calculation, when it has a material impact on their well-being (and the health of the economy).
what tariff imbalance? we're in NAFTA and WTO. the number by definition should be 0 incoming and outgoing. and is supposed to be reciprocal.
methinks you are confusing tariffs with "trade imbalance." that just means we buy more abroad than from here, in sum. that's a choice in the market.
example: i tend to buy foreign cars, think a lot of vehicles we make are lower build quality. i'd argue that rather than seeking equal terms, we are actually trying to force me to make consumer decisions against my quality or price assessment, so that one of trump's buddies makes more money for making mediocre or bad stuff.
you want me to buy your stuff, make it better.
Trump's tariff chart was a fiction. The left hand column was not each of the respective country's tariff on US goods, it was a number relating to trade deficit. Trump is dumb enough to think that if we have a trade deficit with a country we are getting screwed by the other country. That isn't the case.
And just as important, that approach leaves nothing for the other country to negotiate. The other country hasn't imposed a trade barrier, so there is no barrier they can remove. The country simply produces goods US residents want to buy (and that are too expensive to produce in the US or are not in sufficient demand in the US to make domestic production feasible).
It was a visual aid not a breakdown of the logic behind the policy...
It's true that no one has any idea (or at least that hardly anyone has even a slim idea based on probability). It's also true that such a statement is a weak defense of apparently bad policy, no matter who pitches the policy.
I'm not defending defending the policy I'm defending the intent of the policy.
I have no idea how it will turn out. Neither do the people here who are claiming they do with certainty.
I could have defended the intent of a lot of criminal justice policy in California and homeless/drug policy through a lot of PNW for a long time. And I couldn't say for certain I'd know how things would turn out. But I'd have an idea that I'd base on my best understanding of the information at hand, and that would lead me, regardless of whatever intent I saw, to consider it a pretty bad policy. And I'd never presume to make that claim "with certainty."
The road to H-E-double-hockey-sticks is paved with you know what.
It's true that no one has any idea (or at least that hardly anyone has even a slim idea based on probability). It's also true that such a statement is a weak defense of apparently bad policy, no matter who pitches the policy.
I'm not defending defending the policy I'm defending the intent of the policy.
I have no idea how it will turn out. Neither do the people here who are claiming they do with certainty.
no, actually it's pretty easy to predict what happens short term if you fire a ton of federal employees who don't necessarily have some obvious private sector analogue for what they do, and then throw tariffs on stuff we buy from a long list of countries. short term that's longer unemployment lines, that's people unable to pay bills or getting foreclosed on, and that's either paying the inflationary tariff for my favorite things. the idea is long term i either give up on buying foreign or you build a plant here. until the plant is built, we have the short term consequence. unless you have the widgets already made and i just accept the situation.
another way this plays out is we gut the minimum wage until it heads towards china or vietnam so we become competitive again. china pays a fraction of our wages. you're then supposed to survive on less income at the uncompetitive and inflated american good prices.
the people arguing against world trade often don't grasp how much things would cost if we had to buy domestic. and it's the same people who just cried about inflation all biden's term.
Yes.. but if they aren't looking for work they are excluded from the unemployment calculation.
Right. But whether someone is receiving a paycheck or simply wants to receive a paycheck is ignored in the LFPR calculation, when it has a material impact on their well-being (and the health of the economy).
The LFPR includes the total working age population.
The unemployment rate ignores working age people who aren't looking for work.
I'm not defending defending the policy I'm defending the intent of the policy.
I have no idea how it will turn out. Neither do the people here who are claiming they do with certainty.
I could have defended the intent of a lot of criminal justice policy in California and homeless/drug policy through a lot of PNW for a long time. And I couldn't say for certain I'd know how things would turn out. But I'd have an idea that I'd base on my best understanding of the information at hand, and that would lead me, regardless of whatever intent I saw, to consider it a pretty bad policy. And I'd never presume to make that claim "with certainty."
The road to H-E-double-hockey-sticks is paved with you know what.
the deal is a lot of those shoplifting policies are being rolled back. it was an experiment. it has been monitored sincerely. they don't like the results, either practically or politically.
as we saw with covid, trump's game is not to come to grips with reality and adjust, but rather deny deny deny.
I'm not defending defending the policy I'm defending the intent of the policy.
I have no idea how it will turn out. Neither do the people here who are claiming they do with certainty.
I could have defended the intent of a lot of criminal justice policy in California and homeless/drug policy through a lot of PNW for a long time. And I couldn't say for certain I'd know how things would turn out. But I'd have an idea that I'd base on my best understanding of the information at hand, and that would lead me, regardless of whatever intent I saw, to consider it a pretty bad policy. And I'd never presume to make that claim "with certainty."
The road to H-E-double-hockey-sticks is paved with you know what.
We're already on the road to hell. Demanding we not change course seems like a silly plan.
It's true that no one has any idea (or at least that hardly anyone has even a slim idea based on probability). It's also true that such a statement is a weak defense of apparently bad policy, no matter who pitches the policy.
I'm not defending defending the policy I'm defending the intent of the policy.
I have no idea how it will turn out. Neither do the people here who are claiming they do with certainty.
Wrong actually. Completely wrong. We have decades of historical evidence and quite literally EVERY SINGLE academic and financial expert screaming this tariff nonsense is lunacy. You're so blinded by your trump worship you can't see him completely screwing you and everyone else over.
Show us any evidence at all this isn't economic suicide for the US. I'll wait for your sources providing data driven analysis that proves this is good for the economy.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.