You can strive to make trade as fair as possible while trying to keep the government's finger off the scale as much as possible. Unchecked capitalism is 1 global monopoly that dominates every single market. No one wants that.
The UAW killed the auto industry by putting the short term best interest of the union ahead of the long term best interest of the union. And they certainly never gave a damn about the best interest of the auto industry itself.
Capitalism has many flaws but it's still far and away better for more people than any other system out there.
Again, you can't square nationalism with the basic logic of capitalism. No one can. You're in or you're out. One will always undermine the other.
nonsense.
take the current example of the US government spending billions to subsidize chips to be made in the US rather than just Taiwan. In case China does invade Taiwan or force Taiwan to stop selling to the US.
This is using a nationalistic move with government help to assist the longer term health of capitalism by securing the supply of chips, even if it doesn't make immediate capitalist sense. I'm sure the Taiwanese are better at chip making than we are...but national defense requires we not reply on free trade to meet our chip demand.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
tariffs are a cheap temporary way to paper over an uncompetitive economy.
in the end, the US cannot and should not compete on low-margin widgets from low-wage, low education countries. We'll just get poorer and poorer if we do that, while giving companies less incentive to innovate and come up with strong new products.
US real wages have stagnated since 1980. T
this is simply not true
US incomes and living standards are far higher than they were in the 1980, invalidating your entire argument.
I suspect you have your heels dug in on this, but it's just ridiculous. I'm 60 so I've lived through that period. People have far more income now.
Agree. You seem like one of the rare ones here who can see the big picture sensibly.
Tariffs are actually a socialist economic policy. When a country is as rich as the US is, it can afford to do some wealth redistribution to make sure that its poorest lowest-skilled people are protected at the cost of people who are better off. Tariffs are a sound economic instrument for that goal provided they are wielded carefully.
tariffs are a cheap temporary way to paper over an uncompetitive economy.
in the end, the US cannot and should not compete on low-margin widgets from low-wage, low education countries. We'll just get poorer and poorer if we do that, while giving companies less incentive to innovate and come up with strong new products.
I will agree that there has been one time when tariffs would have been useful: when China really started moving into western markets, we really didn't understand what a huge impact it would have. The china shock, it's called. We should have taken steps to protect the parts of the American economy that got decimated by china. Just slowed down the damage a bit to give capital a shot.
But that time is over - companies are fleeing china and it isn't so cheap there anymore.
Now we need to make sure US companies allocate capital well...not try to make low-margin widgets. No future in that anymore. The damage is done - won't get much worse.
And of course punishing Canada and Mexico with tariffs for...the drug trade and immigration...well that's just trumpian stupidity.
"The China shock (or China trade shock) is the impact of rising Chinese exports on manufacturing employment in the United States and Europe after China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001.[1][2] Studies have estimated that the China trade shock reduced U.S. manufacturing employment by 550,000 (explaining about 16% of the total decline in manufacturing employment in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007),[3] 1.8-2.0 million,[4] and 2.0-2.4 million.[5] Losses in manufacturing employment have also been observed in Norway,[6] Spain,[7] and Germany.[8] Studies have shown that there was "higher unemployment, lower labor force participation, and reduced wages in local labor markets" in U.S. regions that have industries that competed with Chinese industries.[9]"
If you consider 40+ years 'temporary' then I agree. If the US is an uncompetitive economy it is only so due to government regulation, red tape, and overreach. I am completely against your idea to "make sure US companies allocate capital well". Deciding how a company or citizen chooses to invest is not the role or the right of anyone but the owners of that company. Companies and people are benefit driven with the primary benefit being profit. If it is beneficial to make things here then companies will do it. The government and leftist Karens need to shut their mouths and get out of the way.
Dear lord, this is getting silly. I meant “low-skilled” wages of course as that was the entire context. Here is ChatGPT:
Have low skilled US real wages stagnated since around 1980?
Yes, real wages for low-skilled workers in the U.S. have largely stagnated since around 1980. Several studies and economic analyses show that while overall economic productivity and GDP have grown substantially, the wages of low-skilled and middle-income workers have not kept pace with this growth. Here’s a summary of key trends and contributing factors: 1. Stagnation in Low-Skilled Wages • Real wages for low-skilled workers (often defined as those with a high school education or less) have been relatively stagnant since the 1970s and 1980s, after adjusting for inflation. A 2019 report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) showed that wages for the bottom 90% of earners in the U.S. have only grown modestly, with the most stagnant wages found in the bottom 10% of earners. EPI notes that from 1979 to 2018, the wages for the bottom 90% grew by only 13%, while those for the top 1% grew by over 150%. • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also confirmed similar patterns in a 2019 analysis, indicating that while productivity has increased by 60% from 1979 to 2017, real wages for workers in the lower deciles have not seen comparable increasesnce of Globalization and Automation** • Globalization and trade policies, especially since China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, have contributed to wage pressures on low-skilled U.S. workers. Manufacturing jobs, many of which traditionally offered higher wages to lower-skilled workers, have been outsourced to countries with cheaper labor, thereby reducing demand for such labor in the U.S. . • Automationological advancements in industries like manufacturing have also led to job displacement for many low-skilled workers, further contributing to wage stagnation . 3. Declining Unioip • The decline of labor unions since the 1980s has also played a role in stagnating wages. Unions historically negotiated higher wages and better working conditions for low-skilled workers. As union membership has fallen from about 35% of the workforce in the 1950s to around 10% today, there has been less upward pressure on
Dear lord, this is getting silly. I meant “low-skilled” wages of course as that was the entire context. Here is ChatGPT:
Have low skilled US real wages stagnated since around 1980?
Yes, real wages for low-skilled workers in the U.S. have largely stagnated since around 1980. Several studies and economic analyses show that while overall economic productivity and GDP have grown substantially, the wages of low-skilled and middle-income workers have not kept pace with this growth. Here’s a summary of key trends and contributing factors: 1. Stagnation in Low-Skilled Wages • Real wages for low-skilled workers (often defined as those with a high school education or less) have been relatively stagnant since the 1970s and 1980s, after adjusting for inflation. A 2019 report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) showed that wages for the bottom 90% of earners in the U.S. have only grown modestly, with the most stagnant wages found in the bottom 10% of earners. EPI notes that from 1979 to 2018, the wages for the bottom 90% grew by only 13%, while those for the top 1% grew by over 150%. • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also confirmed similar patterns in a 2019 analysis, indicating that while productivity has increased by 60% from 1979 to 2017, real wages for workers in the lower deciles have not seen comparable increasesnce of Globalization and Automation** • Globalization and trade policies, especially since China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, have contributed to wage pressures on low-skilled U.S. workers. Manufacturing jobs, many of which traditionally offered higher wages to lower-skilled workers, have been outsourced to countries with cheaper labor, thereby reducing demand for such labor in the U.S. . • Automationological advancements in industries like manufacturing have also led to job displacement for many low-skilled workers, further contributing to wage stagnation . 3. Declining Unioip • The decline of labor unions since the 1980s has also played a role in stagnating wages. Unions historically negotiated higher wages and better working conditions for low-skilled workers. As union membership has fallen from about 35% of the workforce in the 1950s to around 10% today, there has been less upward pressure on
If you prefer the video format. Also look up former labor secretary Robert Reich who has extensively written, spoken, and made documentary films about this.
Robert Bernard Reich (; born June 24, 1946) is an American professor, author, lawyer, and political commentator. He worked in the administrations of presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and served as Secretary of Labor fr...
The WSJ article doesn’t care about low-skilled workers in particular at all. Of course, the averages have improved in accordance with GDP. So has inequity. These are just facts.
Please tell me how you plan to square “free global markets” with taking care of our dumbest here at home. Give me your strongest simple argument. You don’t have the option to change their intelligence.
The WSJ article doesn’t care about low-skilled workers in particular at all. Of course, the averages have improved in accordance with GDP. So has inequity. These are just facts.
Please tell me how you plan to square “free global markets” with taking care of our dumbest here at home. Give me your strongest simple argument. You don’t have the option to change their intelligence.
your view is this:
1) some workers are low wage and their wages have not increased as much as most.
2) so we should encourage more low wage jobs by protecting and subsidizing low wage workers.
Do I have that right? Not exactly sure what you are saying, but seems to me you are saying we should guide policy to make more low wage jobs via tariffs.
Seems to me we should NOT try to make more low wage workers by subsidizing low margin US industry that can't compete globally. But that's what trump is apparently going to try to do.
Honestly, there isn't much we can do to help people who don't get the education they need to get good jobs, are addicted or lazy. We can subsidize health care...we can improve education...we can try retraining but that doesn't seem to work...we can raise the minimum wage but that doesn't affect many adults. Clearly we should get back to a war on drugs mentality to stop the addictions that are destroying low wage americans.
but trying to have MORE low wage, low margin jobs that can't compete globally via tariffs? Nah that's not a great idea. Not a long term strategy.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
If you consider 40+ years 'temporary' then I agree. If the US is an uncompetitive economy it is only so due to government regulation, red tape, and overreach. I am completely against your idea to "make sure US companies allocate capital well". Deciding how a company or citizen chooses to invest is not the role or the right of anyone but the owners of that company. Companies and people are benefit driven with the primary benefit being profit. If it is beneficial to make things here then companies will do it. The government and leftist Karens need to shut their mouths and get out of the way.
I assume that the above position is anti-tariffs. Is it? Without government intervention and with globally open competitive markets, the lowest skilled people here will have to tough it out against the average person worldwide. These people can’t afford healthcare, can’t afford education, and don’t have jobs paying well because some Rwandan can do it cheaper and better. What then? We just let them suffer or indulge in some protectionist deviations from capitalist ideals?
The WSJ article doesn’t care about low-skilled workers in particular at all. Of course, the averages have improved in accordance with GDP. So has inequity. These are just facts.
Please tell me how you plan to square “free global markets” with taking care of our dumbest here at home. Give me your strongest simple argument. You don’t have the option to change their intelligence.
your view is this:
1) some workers are low wage and their wages have not increased as much as most.
2) so we should encourage more low wage jobs by protecting and subsidizing low wage workers.
Do I have that right? Not exactly sure what you are saying, but seems to me you are saying we should guide policy to make more low wage jobs via tariffs.
Seems to me we should NOT try to make more low wage workers by subsidizing low margin US industry that can't compete globally. But that's what trump is apparently going to try to do.
Honestly, there isn't much we can do to help people who don't get the education they need to get good jobs, are addicted or lazy. We can subsidize health care...we can improve education...we can try retraining but that doesn't seem to work...we can raise the minimum wage but that doesn't affect many adults. Clearly we should get back to a war on drugs mentality to stop the addictions that are destroying low wage americans.
but trying to have MORE low wage, low margin jobs that can't compete globally via tariffs? Nah that's not a great idea. Not a long term strategy.
I didn’t say we should make more low-wage jobs. That sounds idiotic. I did imply the opposite in #160 on your rant against “low-margin widgets”.
You are conflating protectionist policies with more low-margin, low-wage jobs. That is a false choice. You can incentivize paying human car makers or robot makers or others who work with their hands in the manufacturing sector decent living wages by using tariffs effectively to disincentivize outsourcing of their jobs.
The part in the bold makes clear your apathy and where we differ. We don’t have public healthcare or public higher ed like in Europe, yet you expect the poorest in society to be somehow competitive globally? Why should the US not protect its own? The workers in Detroit understand tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA, and Trump spoke to them a language no one else did, which is partly why he won in both 2016 and now.
As for the rest fair trade is the objective not just free trade.
And no one wants unchecked capitalism.
We'll see just how much Americans are willing to pay for the "common sense" of economic nationalism (or any other kind, for that matter).
There's no fair or unfair trade. Trade is either free or its fettered. Again, capitalism: You're in or you're out. Capital has no nation, by definition.
Lots of people want unchecked capitalism-- but only when they think it will benefit them (e.g. companies want free labor markets but also subsidies and other protections, like tariffs). The politics start over who or what is doing the "checking". The UAW wants "checked" capitalism that favors higher wages (but you think this "killed" the auto industry), whereas US steel producers want capitalism "checked" in ways that protect it from competition from foreign firms.
Again, there is no way out of this bind but to call capitalism itself into question. "National capitalism" is an explosive contradiction. It leads to world wars-- the violent abrogation of all economic rationality.
Your concept of being "in or out" is applicable and counterintuitive to the Republican core philosophy of LEAVE BIG GOVERNMENT OUT. If Republicans truly follow that then why do they want government to step in and impose tariffs? What ever happened to letting the free market decide. Sounds more like Democrats asking government for help.
But Democrats cannot impose ridiculous high taxes on businesses to be uncompetitive. Spending needs to looked at but not to the extent of shutting down entire branches of Gov.
Bottom line is inflation today is about 4% and corporations are making huge profits. With the 30% tax cuts corporations will be making even more ridiculous profits. The lower wage worker will again get screwed.
Its the French Revolution all over again.
Trump is a Casino con man good at the art of deception and skillfully playing people.
Hats off to the Mercer family and Steven Bannon finding their "barker".
1) some workers are low wage and their wages have not increased as much as most.
2) so we should encourage more low wage jobs by protecting and subsidizing low wage workers.
Do I have that right? Not exactly sure what you are saying, but seems to me you are saying we should guide policy to make more low wage jobs via tariffs.
Seems to me we should NOT try to make more low wage workers by subsidizing low margin US industry that can't compete globally. But that's what trump is apparently going to try to do.
Honestly, there isn't much we can do to help people who don't get the education they need to get good jobs, are addicted or lazy. We can subsidize health care...we can improve education...we can try retraining but that doesn't seem to work...we can raise the minimum wage but that doesn't affect many adults. Clearly we should get back to a war on drugs mentality to stop the addictions that are destroying low wage americans.
but trying to have MORE low wage, low margin jobs that can't compete globally via tariffs? Nah that's not a great idea. Not a long term strategy.
I didn’t say we should make more low-wage jobs. That sounds idiotic. I did imply the opposite in #160 on your rant against “low-margin widgets”.
You are conflating protectionist policies with more low-margin, low-wage jobs. That is a false choice. You can incentivize paying human car makers or robot makers or others who work with their hands in the manufacturing sector decent living wages by using tariffs effectively to disincentivize outsourcing of their jobs.
The part in the bold makes clear your apathy and where we differ. We don’t have public healthcare or public higher ed like in Europe, yet you expect the poorest in society to be somehow competitive globally? Why should the US not protect its own? The workers in Detroit understand tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA, and Trump spoke to them a language no one else did, which is partly why he won in both 2016 and now.
heck, you called them dumb. You were a lot meaner than I was.
the whole point of tariffs is to make more low-margin jobs in the US. So yeah you did say that. Or at least imply it.
Anyway, clearly the future of high wage work is in using your brain to do stuff. Even in Asia, with cheaper labor, manufacturing is not a way for nations to raise themselves up anymore. Not like it used to be. Look at emerging markets stocks...underperforming for a decade because manufacturing is no longer as value-added. They don't know yet how to do the high margin stuff the US can do.
We don't need more metal banging in this country. Ford stock has a zero return for 10 years. GE 2% per year for 10 years. those companies are not competitive and the country should not spend much money protecting them.
We do sort of have public health, until the Rs kill it off again this admin - obamacare subsidies, medicaid, medicare...all those are governmetn paid or government subsidized healthcare. Not like Europe, but it's there.
How do I expect the poorest in the country to be competitive? Fight addictions, improve the food situation, use junior colleges as training centers, make the military into pre-professional work, support high end companies like Biden is doing with the CHIPS act. Honestly, use government jobs to break poverty cycles.
But it's tough...I don't see much success happening honestly. The blue areas will continue to get richer and the rural red areas will lag. They'll still get richer than they are now, living off the fat of the land, but yeah the culture is bad out there.
Don't waste money on Ford and the metal bangers. Hopeless, those.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
We'll see just how much Americans are willing to pay for the "common sense" of economic nationalism (or any other kind, for that matter).
There's no fair or unfair trade. Trade is either free or its fettered. Again, capitalism: You're in or you're out. Capital has no nation, by definition.
Lots of people want unchecked capitalism-- but only when they think it will benefit them (e.g. companies want free labor markets but also subsidies and other protections, like tariffs). The politics start over who or what is doing the "checking". The UAW wants "checked" capitalism that favors higher wages (but you think this "killed" the auto industry), whereas US steel producers want capitalism "checked" in ways that protect it from competition from foreign firms.
Again, there is no way out of this bind but to call capitalism itself into question. "National capitalism" is an explosive contradiction. It leads to world wars-- the violent abrogation of all economic rationality.
Your concept of being "in or out" is applicable and counterintuitive to the Republican core philosophy of LEAVE BIG GOVERNMENT OUT. If Republicans truly follow that then why do they want government to step in and impose tariffs? What ever happened to letting the free market decide. Sounds more like Democrats asking government for help.
But Democrats cannot impose ridiculous high taxes on businesses to be uncompetitive. Spending needs to looked at but not to the extent of shutting down entire branches of Gov.
Bottom line is inflation today is about 4% and corporations are making huge profits. With the 30% tax cuts corporations will be making even more ridiculous profits. The lower wage worker will again get screwed.
Its the French Revolution all over again.
Trump is a Casino con man good at the art of deception and skillfully playing people.
Hats off to the Mercer family and Steven Bannon finding their "barker".
If you consider 40+ years 'temporary' then I agree. If the US is an uncompetitive economy it is only so due to government regulation, red tape, and overreach. I am completely against your idea to "make sure US companies allocate capital well". Deciding how a company or citizen chooses to invest is not the role or the right of anyone but the owners of that company. Companies and people are benefit driven with the primary benefit being profit. If it is beneficial to make things here then companies will do it. The government and leftist Karens need to shut their mouths and get out of the way.
I assume that the above position is anti-tariffs. Is it? Without government intervention and with globally open competitive markets, the lowest skilled people here will have to tough it out against the average person worldwide. These people can’t afford healthcare, can’t afford education, and don’t have jobs paying well because some Rwandan can do it cheaper and better. What then? We just let them suffer or indulge in some protectionist deviations from capitalist ideals?
I am pro-tariff. Asian countries, without exception, have lower cost of doing business and lower cost of living (lower labor rates). If they didn't, we wouldn't be importing anything but durian fruit from them. Governments need to protect the citizens they represent with tariffs while removing government imposed costs and barriers at home. Tariffs + DOGE. It will be difficult to listen to liberal morons whine while Trump makes America significantly better than it has been under swamp rule.
Your concept of being "in or out" is applicable and counterintuitive to the Republican core philosophy of LEAVE BIG GOVERNMENT OUT. If Republicans truly follow that then why do they want government to step in and impose tariffs? What ever happened to letting the free market decide. Sounds more like Democrats asking government for help.
But Democrats cannot impose ridiculous high taxes on businesses to be uncompetitive. Spending needs to looked at but not to the extent of shutting down entire branches of Gov.
Bottom line is inflation today is about 4% and corporations are making huge profits. With the 30% tax cuts corporations will be making even more ridiculous profits. The lower wage worker will again get screwed.
Its the French Revolution all over again.
Trump is a Casino con man good at the art of deception and skillfully playing people.
Hats off to the Mercer family and Steven Bannon finding their "barker".
You can strive to make trade as fair as possible while trying to keep the government's finger off the scale as much as possible. Unchecked capitalism is 1 global monopoly that dominates every single market. No one wants that.
The UAW killed the auto industry by putting the short term best interest of the union ahead of the long term best interest of the union. And they certainly never gave a damn about the best interest of the auto industry itself.
Capitalism has many flaws but it's still far and away better for more people than any other system out there.
Capitalism has a pretty clear and simple logic. It's not one that's compatible with settled human life, but its rules are easily discernible.
"Unchecked" capitalism is the opposite of the system of total monopoly (one producer controlling everything). It is a situation in which there is ceaseless competition between many owners of productive assets for the greatest return. Capitalism is "checked" when price competition is interfered with in the name of extra-economic considerations (e.g. national well being).
Again, what is "fair" trade? Please define. Things are either exchanged at their relative values (i.e. freely) or there's some extra-economic barrier introduced that fetters this exchange (e.g. a tariff or quota). Once begun, where does this fettering of trade end, and how are the rules of capitalist competition maintained in the process?
Why should an auto worker care about the long term interests of the auto industry when the normal, rational development of that industry includes the elimination of human labor from the process? How exactly do you think auto companies compete with one another for market share and profit? Workers are most rational when the organize to get as much as they can from the employer when the can, absent any other provisions for their economic welfare.
You argue that capitalism is the best possible system while also defending a policy regime which promises to adulterate its logic by interfering in the rational formation of relative prices across the entire economic space.
Again, you can't square nationalism with the basic logic of capitalism. No one can. You're in or you're out. One will always undermine the other.
Capitalism has done more to promote human flourishing than anything else ever has.
You seem to hate capitalism but you don't seem to have any understanding of what the alternatives are.
Nationalism is putting your nation's best interest above everyone else's. It's just common sense. Much like putting your own oxygen mask on in an airplane before helping others.
China is a communist country. Chinese companies subsidized by the Chinese government for the express purpose of destroying the non-Chinese non-communist competition are not engaged in capitalism or fair trade. Putting tariffs on companies which enable these practices isn't anti-capitalism it's pro free trade.
I don’t care or need to explain why, but urge you to learn to read and quote my precise and specific sentences like I instructed you earlier in post #70. The above is a good example of lazy reading. It’s not something I claimed.
Please show me where I claimed I am not “interested in Trump’s position”. Then go get an actual education.
Re "making a foreign country pay": This is completely false. He is not "making a foreign country pay". That's the point of the original post. He's making AMERICAN COMPANIES pay. That's literally what tariffs are.
I’ve explained how he is making the foreign country pay clearly enough over several posts. At the end of the day, US tariffs result in China getting less tax revenue and US getting more tariff and tax revenue, all else being equal. This is indisputable economics and practically the same as China paying US. What part of the italicized claim do you disagree with? It’s not inconsistent with some American consumers paying more for some goods, nor does it rule out many other side effects.
I didn’t say we should make more low-wage jobs. That sounds idiotic. I did imply the opposite in #160 on your rant against “low-margin widgets”.
You are conflating protectionist policies with more low-margin, low-wage jobs. That is a false choice. You can incentivize paying human car makers or robot makers or others who work with their hands in the manufacturing sector decent living wages by using tariffs effectively to disincentivize outsourcing of their jobs.
The part in the bold makes clear your apathy and where we differ. We don’t have public healthcare or public higher ed like in Europe, yet you expect the poorest in society to be somehow competitive globally? Why should the US not protect its own? The workers in Detroit understand tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA, and Trump spoke to them a language no one else did, which is partly why he won in both 2016 and now.
heck, you called them dumb. You were a lot meaner than I was.
the whole point of tariffs is to make more low-margin jobs in the US. So yeah you did say that. Or at least imply it.
Yes, they have lower general intelligence. That’s just the truth. I don’t care if you think that’s mean. Every population has them. I do care about taking care of them unlike you.
The part in bold you are attributing to me now just reflects your lack of reading comprehension. Or senility. Please quote a sentence of mine saying as much. I have already pointed you twice to clearly saying the opposite.
I assume that the above position is anti-tariffs. Is it? Without government intervention and with globally open competitive markets, the lowest skilled people here will have to tough it out against the average person worldwide. These people can’t afford healthcare, can’t afford education, and don’t have jobs paying well because some Rwandan can do it cheaper and better. What then? We just let them suffer or indulge in some protectionist deviations from capitalist ideals?
I am pro-tariff. Asian countries, without exception, have lower cost of doing business and lower cost of living (lower labor rates). If they didn't, we wouldn't be importing anything but durian fruit from them. Governments need to protect the citizens they represent with tariffs while removing government imposed costs and barriers at home. Tariffs + DOGE. It will be difficult to listen to liberal morons whine while Trump makes America significantly better than it has been under swamp rule.
you don't quite seem to understand that tariffs are a band aid. You can't protect bad companies for very long.
and countries decay and die when they can't compete.
THe only only long strategy is to get your country as competitive as possible, so immigrants keep starting companies like Nvidia and Tesla.
America, for all its faults, can MFing compete. We have vanquished every country that tries to take our crown. And we did it by innovation and science, not tariffs and protectionism.
I’ve explained how he is making the foreign country pay clearly enough over several posts. At the end of the day, US tariffs result in China getting less tax revenue and US getting more tariff and tax revenue, all else being equal. This is indisputable economics and practically the same as China paying US. What part of the italicized claim do you disagree with? It’s not inconsistent with some American consumers paying more for some goods, nor does it rule out many other side effects.
lolz^^^^
what it 'the US' in this paragraph?
tariffs mean the US companies are paying higher taxes to the US government. Just a passage of money from one american hand to another american hand..
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.
