islander wrote:

As economist Justin Wolfers keeps pointing out, why would businesses invest in new manufacturing facilities if they can't be sure that tariffs (and thus increased prices) are here to stay? Those kind of investments call for 50-100 year forecasts according to Wolfers. 

So this tariff tango dance isn't driving manufacturing back to the US. 

 islander wrote:
Taco Time
“It’s always been Aug. 1. That’s all, paying it. A statement was being put out today, and I put it out just to make it clear. It wasn’t a change. It was Aug. 1,” Trump said, despite having to sign a new executive order Monday to extend the July 9 deadline.

 R_P wrote:

Jesus, even the headline - "

Trump says new tariff deadline 'not 100 percent firm'

"

why would anyone bother with a trade deal?  The R is pretty questionable, but the rest of this century is going to belong to the balance of that acronym.

Incentivize BRICS membership
Trump slaps allies Japan, South Korea with 25% tariffs

So the real race is on....

Get the BBB through Congress and into law before the shit-show that will be the US economy this fall hits.

The USD experienced it's largest devaluation during the first 6 months of a year since 1973.

The US shed jobs in June (down 33k) vs. an expectation of gaining (^115K).

Prices everywhere are about to climb.  Amazon, Walmart, and every other company on the planet is looking at higher costs.  My electricity just jumped 16% this month.  Every company around me is going to have to pass that on.

All of the stupidity of the Trump Tariff's are about to slam the US.  Trump's goal is to rush through a tax cut for the rich while reducing services for the most needy ASAP... 'cause the shit is about to get real for a lot of his base (and half of the country).

Any Republican in the house who wants to hold onto their seats next fall had better think long and hard.... Cause the BBB is about to destroy your chances.  The anger by next summer is going to be huge, when everyone realizes that Trump has destroyed the country by selling "great again" while stealing everything he could get his hands on.

This is on Fox Business (found link on FoxNews)...   If you want to read something amusing... read the comments.  The MAGA cult won't even accept facts from Fox when they don't support the cult narrative.

Consumers are paying the costs for Trump's tariffs: New York Fed

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently released a survey that found businesses are passing some or all of the cost of higher tariffs onto consumers through higher prices.

...

Manufacturers estimated the average tariff rate they paid on their imports was about 35%, an increase of about 25 percentage points from six months ago; service firms reported an average tariff rate of 26%, up 17 points in the last six months. Most of those firms have raised prices on customers by passing through some or all of the cost of higher tariffs.

"About three-quarters of businesses facing tariff-induced cost increases in both the manufacturing and service sectors passed along at least some of these higher costs to their customers by raising prices," the New York Fed wrote.

 islander wrote:
... when there's a Democratic administration.

Simple easy to understand discussion of deficits/debt. The problem and answer are both simple...
When Does the National Debt Become Genuinely Bad?

The U.S. national debt is nearly $30 trillion — but is that bad? WSJ explains how the debt affects everyone and when it becomes unsustainable. Photo Illustration: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

https://archive.ph/DVrT4

and another on trade deficits

Trump Is Waging War on the U.S. Trade Deficit—But Does It Need Fixing?
President Trump’s broad tariff rollout takes aim at the U.S. trade deficit, which he calls a “national emergency.” Here’s how the trade deficit works, how tariffs affect it—and why economists say it isn't necessarily bad for the economy. Illustration: Madeline Marshal

https://archive.ph/2oH6N

 black321 wrote:

Party of fiscal responsibility...  

 black321 wrote:  
not funny, I guess. 

As a result, OBBBA would not only keep spending levels high, but would also add $3 trillion to already high levels of national debt – or $5 trillion if extended. With debt already approaching record levels, this additional borrowing could prove very harmful. The Senate should work to improve the bill to expand the spending reductions, limit the revenue reductions, and ensure the bill reduces rather than adds to the national debt.

"How did you go bankrupt?" "Gradually, then suddenly."

Look at the cuts/additions chart at the bottom...WTF!? 

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/hou...

Why the Left Should REJECT Ezra Klein's "Abundance" Garbage

Mentioned: The Real Path to Abundance

Trade Court Invalidates Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs; Have We Reached Peak Trump?

 rgio wrote:

PM has had some really good takes on all of this. Typical for them. Planet money is included in the NPR+ bundle of podcast extras for $100/year. $8/mo is worth it for PM alone, plus you get a lot of other content. The Divided Dial has been a really informative listen from On the Media lately. And since they are likely to lose a portion of their funding due to stupidity at the government level it's good to chip in for extra support.

Here is a good summary of how tariffs are about to kill American businesses across every industry... all based on a fantasy that anything can be made in America.

NPR Planet Money - The 145% Tariff

 black321 wrote:
Welfare queens. Odd because I think they have bootstraps to pull. 

It's big, but about as beautiful as chubby's ass.

• House Republicans advanced Sunday night a tax-and-spending bill that would increase projected budget deficits by nearly $3 trillion.
• The bill extends tax cuts and increases spending, offset by cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance, but analysts warn it worsens the U.S. fiscal outlook.
• The GOP plan includes $1.6 trillion in spending cuts but also increases spending on border security, defense and support for farmers.

Wall Street Journal:

"President Trump attacked Walmart on social media Saturday, after the retail giant became the biggest company so far to signal that tariff-related price increases are coming for American shoppers.

"Trump said Walmart shouldn’t blame its price increases on tariffs.

"'Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year,' he wrote in a post Saturday on Truth Social. 'Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, ‘EAT THE TARIFFS,’ and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!'

"Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon last month was among a small group of retail CEOs who met with Trump and warned him that tariffs would result in higher prices for American consumers, according to people familiar with the meeting."

Have I misunderstood a basic precept of Republicanism? Or what Capitalism is all about?

"Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected."

Does that mean that there are limits on what companies should make? That once you've gone over a certain level, that you've achieved exceptional profits, you're really not allowed to make anymore? That at that point, you should just turn those extra profits over to shoppers? Or maybe (wait for it) the Internal Revenue Service? (Does the IRS even exist anymore?)

This is not what I thought was the definition of American Exceptionalism.

In its coverage, the Washington Post makes two salient points:

• "In the opening months of his second term, Trump has taken an unusually direct and high-profile role in attempting to manage the sprawling American economy — an approach that could bring him enormous benefits if it thrives or danger if it stumbles. It’s a departure from decades of Republican orthodoxy and arguably from Trump’s own history; during the 2024 campaign, he called Democrat Kamala Harris a communist and a Marxist because her vow to tackle price gouging could have led to price controls … Few Republicans have challenged Trump on his highly personal style, despite its clear departure from traditional free-market economics. Nor have they taken issue with the overlaps between his personal interests and the nation’s."

• "Trump’s view of his role was reflected in his recent comparison of the U.S. economy to a department store. 'It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there,' he told Time magazine last month. 'And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.'

"Conservative economists tend to frown on decision-making that is too centralized, let alone spearheaded by a single individual. Republicans have long railed against 'picking winners and losers'."

And yet...

Furthermore, I am confused. The suggestion in the social media posting is that Walmart should absorb the costs of tariffs so that customers won't have to. Which sort of goes against the argument being made by the administration that it would be foreign countries and foreign companies paying the tariffs.

In fact, the Associated Press reports that "Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged Sunday that Walmart, the largest US retailer, may pass along some of the costs from President Trump’s tariffs to its shoppers through higher prices."

I'm just confused.

I actually think this would be a good moment for Walmart to do what Amazon wouldn't do - delineate the costs of tariffs in every price. Do it online. Do it in the aisles.

Advocate for shoppers. Make it clear that in a free market economy, it is the consumer who picks winners and losers.

I'll accept this premise as stated by the President: Customers, indeed, will be watching.

https://morningnewsbeat.com/#f...

 R_P wrote:
Yeah, most of us have already starved to death and are living in cardboard boxes in the middle of the road in the mean time.