ADVERTISEMENT

Are Trump's beautiful tariffs

I call BS on gradually eroding our competitiveness. It will hurt U.S. consumption, but will make them more competitive.

That's not true. The Chinese EV are already better than Tesla and cheaper. There are over 100 EV car companies in China. The competition is cutthroat.

FYI. 55% of all new cars there are either hybrids or electric. And its twice the size of the US car market.

BYD is already outselling Teslas despite their head start.
 
That's not true. The Chinese EV are already better than Tesla and cheaper. There are over 100 EV car companies in China. The competition is cutthroat.

FYI. 55% of all new cars there are either hybrids or electric. And its twice the size of the US car market.

BYD is already outselling Teslas despite their head start.
The U.S. is 26% of total GDP. If we stopped buying everyone's stuff, they're not going to be able to sell to other countries at current prices. The prediction was beyond stupid.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DANC
The U.S. is 26% of total GDP. If we stopped buying everyone's stuff, they're not going to be able to sell to other countries at current prices. The prediction was beyond stupid.

Who's not going to sell to other countries? They are everywhere in the world.

The prices are the same as in china with an uplift for shipping charges and local tariffs. Their prices range from 18k to 60k for the top of the range models.

There must be at least 10 Chinese EV brands here where I live. They have better range than Teslas. Offering 10 years warranty on the battery. Tesla only offers 4 years warranty. Paint choices comes free unlike Teslas.

That's competition for you.
 
🔥 🔥 🔥

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

There's a reason Batya is a former Democrat -- and opinions like this is why. This argument she's making sounds exactly like the argument that Democrats used to commonly make back when it was still a union dominated political party battling free trade policies.

She's pitting this as a struggle between the rich and the working class. Sound familiar?

The problem is that people in the working class not only work to earn a living (as most people do...we're not all trust-fund babies), they also consume goods and services (as all people do).

Even if we assume that protectionist trade policies are a boon for jobs and wages in the American working class (they aren't, but let's assume they are), any gains they get from that are going to fly right out of their other pocket in the form of higher costs for goods and services.
 
Last edited:
The US should not be making t shirts. In fact, the US won’t be making t shirts. Bangladesh does however make t shirts. They do so cheaply and we import a lot of those t shirts. The t shirts will now just be more expensive and the US will continue not making t shirts.
Many of the countries are big in textiles. Bangladesh. Vietnam. Philippines. Pakistan etc. they most certainly will continue to be made there and more expensive here
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
You did that so much better than I was about to. Tariffs are a shift in taxes to the working poor so Elon and the president can get bigger tax cuts. It doesn't take an economic genius to see it, anyone not a DTS (Deranged Trump Sycophant) can see it
Just like inflation was a tax (fck semantics) on the poor under Biden. The poor and honestly middle classes are going to have 8 straight years of getting hammered. And tax cuts won’t help them. They don’t pay shit in taxes to begin with
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
You did that so much better than I was about to. Tariffs are a shift in taxes to the working poor so Elon and the president can get bigger tax cuts. It doesn't take an economic genius to see it, anyone not a DTS (Deranged Trump Sycophant) can see it

I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

Unless I've been misinformed, the tax cuts they're pursuing are mostly an extension of the current tax rates. The only reason they can be called "tax cuts" is because current law has a lot (not all) of them set to expire after this year. The only additional cuts being pursued are the suspension of taxes on tips, overtime, and SS benefits.

If they dropped this tariff nonsense today, or if they don't, I doubt either of those developments would have the slightest impact on the fate of the TCJA extension.

No, I think the article that @hoot1 linked yesterday makes more sense. Trump has long believed that the US is the whipping boy of the global economy and the way to address that is with protectionist trade policies. The fact that they've gauged the tariff amounts to trade deficits -- which is otherwise senseless -- lends credence to that view.
 
I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

Unless I've been misinformed, the tax cuts they're pursuing are just an extension of the current tax rates. The only reason they can be called "tax cuts" is because current law has a lot (not all) of them set to expire after this year. The only additional cuts being pursued are the suspension of taxes on tips, overtime, and SS benefits.

If they dropped this tariff nonsense today, or if they don't, I doubt either of those developments would have the slightest impact on the fate of the TCJA extension.

No, I think the article that @hoot1 linked yesterday makes more sense. Trump has long believed that the US is the whipping boy of the global economy and the way to address that is with protectionist trade policies. The fact that they've gauged the tariff amounts to trade deficits -- which is otherwise senseless -- lends credence to that view.
They’ve pitched tariffs as a mechanism to offset tax revenue
 
I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

Unless I've been misinformed, the tax cuts they're pursuing are mostly an extension of the current tax rates. The only reason they can be called "tax cuts" is because current law has a lot (not all) of them set to expire after this year. The only additional cuts being pursued are the suspension of taxes on tips, overtime, and SS benefits.

If they dropped this tariff nonsense today, or if they don't, I doubt either of those developments would have the slightest impact on the fate of the TCJA extension.

No, I think the article that @hoot1 linked yesterday makes more sense. Trump has long believed that the US is the whipping boy of the global economy and the way to address that is with protectionist trade policies. The fact that they've gauged the tariff amounts to trade deficits -- which is otherwise senseless -- lends credence to that view.
If we have a surplus with the UK, doesn't their tariff prove it isn't just us being tired of being a whipping boy?

To extend the tax cuts they are going to show it will not cost us revenue. You do not think they will use the tariffs?
 
The fact that they've gauged the tariff amounts to trade deficits -- which is otherwise senseless -- lends credence to that view.

As an aside to this, it's way past time that more people understood what a current account ("trade") deficit is...and what it isn't.

Years ago, when I first heard about this, I reacted the way a lot of people do to it. I wouldn't say I was outraged by it. But I was taken aback. "So we buy $1.1 trillion more from everybody else than they buy from us? They're looting us! They're going to take our wealth! How long can we sustain this?"

It wasn't until I took Macro in college that I learned how this works -- and how it's paired with a Capital account that resembles a balance sheet. I remember having a lot of questions for the professor, because I was so sure this was an extraction of wealth by them from us. I can still picture his little grin when I challenged him on it.
 
They’ve pitched tariffs as a mechanism to offset tax revenue

I know they have.

But what happens with this will still have no bearing on what happens with the extension. So, really, it's almost the other way around. They're openly claiming this, but it isn't actually the case....unless he comes out and handcuffs the two to each other. Basically: take your pick.

I suppose he could do that. But I would be very surprised if he did.
 
Sometimes I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

There's a reason Batya is a former Democrat -- and opinions like this is why. This argument she's making sounds exactly like the argument that Democrats used to commonly make back when it was still a union dominated political party battling free trade policies.

She's pitting this as a struggle between the rich and the working class. Sound familiar?

The problem is that people in the working class not only work to earn a living (as most people do...we're not all trust-fund babies), it also consumes goods and services (as all people do).

Even if we assume that protectionist trade policies are a boon for jobs and wages in the American working class (they aren't, but let's assume they are), any gains they get from that are going to fly right out of their other pocket in the form of higher costs for goods and services.
If you're an advocate for the current monetary control system, someone needs to come up with a solution for the middle and working classes. They've given up one parent working homes, children, and decent paying jobs. They're now in the process of struggling or giving up affordable housing, healthcare, and education. They've been the comparative losers the past 50+ years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
As an aside to this, it's way past time that more people understood what a current account ("trade") deficit is...and what it isn't.

Years ago, when I first heard about this, I reacted the way a lot of people do to it. I wouldn't say I was outraged by it. But I was taken aback. "So we buy $1.1 trillion more from everybody else than they buy from us? They're looting us! They're going to take our wealth! How long can we sustain this?"

It wasn't until I took Macro in college that I learned how this works -- and how it's paired with a Capital account that resembles a balance sheet. I remember having a lot of questions for the professor, because I was so sure this was an extraction of wealth by them from us. I can still picture his little grin when I challenged him on it.
This notion that trade needs to be equal is simply wrong headed. It needs to beneficial. That may mean that we import much more from country X but export more to country Y. I’m not sure how we became so stupid.
 
I know they have.

But what happens with this will still have no bearing on what happens with the extension. So, really, it's almost the other way around. They're openly claiming this, but it isn't actually the case....unless he comes out and handcuffs the two to each other. Basically: take your pick.

I suppose he could do that. But I would be very surprised if he did.
I haven’t paid close attn but I don’t think it’s tethered to the extension. I think it’s a future promise that things will be so grand (don’t use that word when chasing younger chicks. It’s a big turn off) from tariff revenue pouring in that we’ll be able to reduce and one day eliminate income taxes. It’s fairy dust but I think that’s the pitch. Not just the extension
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
If we have a surplus with the UK, doesn't their tariff prove it isn't just us being tired of being a whipping boy?

To extend the tax cuts they are going to show it will not cost us revenue. You do not think they will use the tariffs?
Rhetorically, maybe. But not in reality. I think they're grasping for any kind of defense they can find for this sophistry.

Now, if he comes out and says "Folks, you can either have the TCJA extension and the tariffs....or you can have no tariffs and no TCJA extension," then I'll agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
What is the actual argument... Why are we not supposed to match the tariffs other countries put on American goods?
You shouldn't match some made-up / fabricated / false total of tariffs that some doofus put out there, just to misrepresent reality and appeal to the gullible, like you.
 
Rhetorically, maybe. But not in reality. I think they're grasping for any kind of defense they can find for this sophistry.

Now, if he comes out and says "Folks, you can either have the TCJA extension and the tariffs....or you can have no tariffs and no TCJA extension," then I'll agree with you.
How about the first half, the working poor and middle class will pay a disproportionate share of a tariff tax?
 
Of course that is a lie, Noodle has already shown it has nothing to do with existing tariffs. And I posted this Wiki article showing we have a higher tariff than countries we announced tariffs on.

Yeah, they seem to have calculated these based on a formula using trade deficits.

Honestly, I wouldn't have any issue with a targeted and concerted effort to lower foreign tariffs by pegging our rates to theirs. It couldn't be done on a good-by-good basis....as it will always be the case that some countries are better than others at producing X, Y, or Z. And any trade policy that doesn't recognize this would be foolish.

And it couldn't really be done on a dollar-for-dollar basis either. Because we are always going to be running trade deficits with some countries -- for good reason.

But they could be pegged on a %GDP by %GDP basis. If Country X sets a 75% baseline import tariff on a good that either represents ~0.1% of our GDP or ~0.1% of our exports, then we'd set a 75% tariff on a good of roughly equal relative value to them.

I think doing this would cause tariffs to come down all over the globe.
 
What is the actual argument Dems and RINOs? I'm genuinely curious. Why are we not supposed to match the tariffs other countries put on American goods?

Why would anyone waste time explaining anything to you. You're incapable of understanding an explanation. Everything you think you "know" and every opinion you have comes from moronic Twitter Twits.
 
That's not true. The Chinese EV are already better than Tesla and cheaper. There are over 100 EV car companies in China. The competition is cutthroat.

FYI. 55% of all new cars there are either hybrids or electric. And its twice the size of the US car market.

BYD is already outselling Teslas despite their head start.

Out of those 100, how many produce actual cars and not glorified golf carts? And of the ones that actually make cars, how many of those would pass European and American standards for safety?
 
Out of those 100, how many produce actual cars and not glorified golf carts? And of the ones that actually make cars, how many of those would pass European and American standards for safety?
from what i've seen and read they look amazing from a tech standpoint. chinese tech in numerous industries is incredible.
 
You are really a stubborn mule

Enjoy running a company that imports anything and let's pretend you aren't taxed

@crazed_hoosier2 maybe you can talk sense into this world class moron about how business really works.
I love to see you guys lose your shit over a word.

It's a tax if I have to pay it. I don't have to pay a tax on imported goods unless I want to.

Sorry your pea brain gets so confused by the whole thing.
 
from what i've seen and read they look amazing from a tech standpoint. chinese tech in numerous industries is incredible.

Granted for the ones to have hit European Markets, they would have to meet their guidelines for safety. That said, when I hear a claim they have "100 EV car companies" I have to believe that the majority are producing those micro turds.
 
from what i've seen and read they look amazing from a tech standpoint. chinese tech in numerous industries is incredible.

I know a guy who owns a plant in China and is there every couple months. He thinks their EVs are fantastic.

In fact, he said their level of tech adoption on a number of things surpasses ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT