The irony is mind-numbing. Focusing primarily on finance/tariffs...
To make America great again (ignoring our prosperity, low unemployment, and relatively low inflation again), we're going to take our relationships with allies (no need to punish Russia any further), and piss them away while fighting with Indonesia, Vietnam, and China for the jobs their labor force will do for 10%-20% of US wages.
There are certain instances of national security that should be addressed and managed (see CHIPS Act). Oh...wait...Trump wants that canceled because it's too expensive? Trump hates the successes of others (see: Obamacare), and will destroy something he says is critical so he can somehow "save the day". It's pathetic.
One of the main problems with all of the MAGA logic on manufacturing is that they see it as an employment engine, when most of what they would describe as a manufacturing job is now or soon to be automated. These changes happen over decades, not an afternoon.
It is a simplistic view of the world that relies on the easy answer.
Whataboutism works with countries, too - and seems to be just as inaccurate as it is when he applies it to people!
The irony is mind-numbing. Focusing primarily on finance/tariffs...
To make America great again (ignoring our prosperity, low unemployment, and relatively low inflation again), we're going to take our relationships with allies (no need to punish Russia any further), and piss them away while fighting with Indonesia, Vietnam, and China for the jobs their labor force will do for 10%-20% of US wages.
There are certain instances of national security that should be addressed and managed (see CHIPS Act). Oh...wait...Trump wants that canceled because it's too expensive? Trump hates the successes of others (see: Obamacare), and will destroy something he says is critical so he can somehow "save the day". It's pathetic.
One of the main problems with all of the MAGA logic on manufacturing is that they see it as an employment engine, when most of what they would describe as a manufacturing job is now or soon to be automated. These changes happen over decades, not an afternoon.
Excerpt from today's NYT, column by Ana Swanson, explains this complex issue succinctly.
âTotally Silly.â Trumpâs Focus on Trade Deficit Bewilders Economists.
"Nearly all economists say that focusing on imbalances from country to country can be highly misleading. Last year, for example, the United States ran bilateral trade surpluses with 116 countries globally. It ran bilateral trade deficits with 114 countries, according to World Bank data.
Often these relationships just follow the flow of trade, without suggesting much about a countryâs trade practices overall. Matthew Klein, who writes about economics for The Overshoot, points out that: the United States runs a trade surplus with Australia because it sends out lots of machinery, transportation equipment and chemicals.
Australia runs a trade surplus with China, sending it iron ore, natural gas and gold.
And China runs a trade surplus with the United States by sending it car parts, electronics and batteries.
The United States also has substantial trade surpluses with the Netherlands and Singapore, as well, but thatâs not because Dutch and Singaporean people consume so many more American products than other nations. Itâs because those countries are home to major ports that import American goods.The Netherlands unloads U.S. goods in its ports and sends them throughout Europe to other consumers, while Singapore does something similar for Asia.But the trade balance is calculated based on the country the goods reaches first, not its ultimate destination. Trumpâs tariffs calculations boil down to dividing the trade deficit the U.S. runs with each country by the value of goods the U.S. imports from it. That formula means that, until U.S. imports from and exports to every country balance out, other countries will face additional tariffs, whether the nation provides the United States with advanced technology, toys, cocoa beans or corn.
The calculation ignores the idea that some countries might be better at making certain products than others, or that importing certain products could benefit Americans."
It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade". A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.
I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways. First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us. Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end. Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity. I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately. Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.
We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation. Then we can figure out what to do next. Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole. Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation. The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows. Same with energy. Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.
Well then you are looking at the wrong problem, eg tariffs. Yes. our tariffs were perhaps a point or two below some others, except for those we had free trade agreements.
The trade imbalance is a problem. It is a function of manufacturers over the last 40 years moving production to cost countries, which helped keep inflation in check over those decades.
You could argue this is good - we kept inflation in check - or bad - we lost US jobs especially for essential goods likes pharmaceuticals.
But this is clearly the wrong answer/approach to perhaps a good question. I would encourage you to go watch this video from NoEnz. What especially doesnt make sense is how we are going at this alone, by attacking our allies and how it actually ignores your point about "trade fairness" and unintended consequences. Operating on a brain tumor with a brick" was the quote I think that is appropriate
It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade". A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.
I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways. First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us. Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end. Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity. I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately. Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.
We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation. Then we can figure out what to do next. Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole. Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation. The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows. Same with energy. Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.
So you couldn't afford the Biden inflation of 3%, but if it means we can level the playing field on 80 years of foreign "abuse" (during which time the US became unimaginably wealthy), you can afford 10% increases on nearly everything?
"I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately", but tariffs are taxes that are paid by the consumer? They are regressive taxes.
As for energy...the US has been a net exporter since 2019. Money is coming into the US, and if you keep increasing production you'll drive down prices and lower your ROI.
Do you ever get tired of justifying Trump's foolishness to yourself?
It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade". A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.
I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways. First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us. Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end. Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity. I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately. Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.
We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation. Then we can figure out what to do next. Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole. Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation. The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows. Same with energy. Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.
Believing in the ideal of "free trade" is as naive as believing in the Communist ideal of common ownership.
Back to the current issue...the trump tariffs are making an already bad situation worse...running the economy into the ground while deficits balloon.
It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade". A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.
I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways. First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us. Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end. Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity. I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately. Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.
We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation. Then we can figure out what to do next. Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole. Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation. The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows. Same with energy. Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.
Not true in general, and a bit of a cop out. Electoral College and gerrymandering put the government in other people's hands. Taking away the input of the majority of the people means you can't blame them for any of this.
Don't forget private money in the electoral process.
Ultimately, that's it. The people get the gov they deserve.
Not true in general, and a bit of a cop out. Electoral College and gerrymandering put the government in other people's hands. Taking away the input of the majority of the people means you can't blame them for any of this.
and the democrats propped up Harris after all the bubble wrap (lazy8) fell off biden.
Knowing trump was likely to win the primary, they have themselves to blame.
and no, time has come to stop all the nonsense and for the grown ups to return to the room.
I'm just not with you on making this the democrats problem. Sure they could have done better, but so could all of the voters. Was biden problematic, sure. Was Harris - Sure. Was it plain to anyone being the slightest bit honest that either was a far better choice for governance - yes.
The democrats have tried appeasement for years. It doesn't work. Time to let the kids touch the stove. trump is doing exactly as he said he would. The blame all falls on those that voted for him regardless if they believed him or not. I voted for an adult, the slimmest of margins (0.015%) would have swung this the other way. There is no mandate. Our electoral system is as botched as our political one. Kurtster actually does have a point that we need some major institutional restructuring. But there are ways to do it without harming people. Sure, get some grown ups in there. I'm not sure what method you are going to use, but I'm for that. But the method we have for 'putting people in the room' is elections. And right now a lot of people are voting for people who are not serious about governing. Until that changes, not much else will.
