He still does not understand (2 Viewers)

[NauticalGent]

Essentially both candidates have enjoyed a 4 year term, but which one would you rehire based on work performed?

As I stated already, if I had to "rehire" either, it would be Trump. But most folks here would not understand WHY and would only assume that I am entangled in the bi-partisan BS that they find themselves in.

The game is rigged, the table is tilted and I just wont allow myself to get sucked into the vortex like I did back in 2008 and 2012. I will say this about Trump, he IS an idiot when it comes to acting in a "stately" manner. But he pisses off BOTH sides of the aisle which means he is viewed as a threat to the status quo.

The only other President that I can recall that had a similar character is none other than Andrew Jackson. Trump is no Andrew Jackson, but I do enjoy the turbulence he causes. IMHO, we could come up with a better candidate and I will not be voting for him (or her). I will be casting my vote for a different candidate - wasting my vote as some will say, but that is the beauty of the USA (for now anyway).

 

[jpl458]

I, or none of my friends blame Biden or Harris, so that is not everyone.

Pat,once again you do not answer the question asked. Once again I ask, who pays the tarrifs, the exporter, as Trump claims, or does the importer pay then pass that cost on to us, the consumers. I know for certain that it is the latter. Just answer that one question, who pays the tarrif? No more, no less.
I don't think you can answer the question, because that would be an admission that Trump is wrong on this one issue.

As I stated already, if I had to "rehire" either, it would be Trump. But most folks here would not understand WHY and would only assume that I am entangled in the bi-partisan BS that they find themselves in.

The game is rigged, the table is tilted and I just wont allow myself to get sucked into the vortex like I did back in 2008 and 2012. I will say this about Trump, he IS an idiot when it comes to acting in a "stately" manner. But he pisses off BOTH sides of the aisle which means he is viewed as a threat to the status quo.

The only other President that I can recall that had a similar character is none other than Andrew Jackson. Trump is no Andrew Jackson, but I do enjoy the turbulence he causes. IMHO, we could come up with a better candidate and I will not be voting for him (or her). I will be casting my vote for a different candidate - wasting my vote as some will say, but that is the beauty of the USA (for now anyway).

Nicely stated, Access. But Ihave but one question, how is the game rigged.

 

[NauticalGent]

how is the game rigged.

The fact that 99% of the US feels they HAVE to choose either side of a shitty coin - or a shit sandwich if you will. They have convinced us that the only "selection" available IS a shit sandwich and the only choice we have is the side to take a bite from. What is worse is that we all pretend we don't taste the shit and the only defense we have is the side we have taken a bite from does not taste worse than the other side.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I, or none of my friends blame Biden or Harris, so that is not everyone.

I know.

There's literally no one else to blame. The current administration has a problem with the "perceived" rise in crime, inflation, immigration, etc etc. You want to deflect and talk about tariffs, a bipartisan issue that both sides agree on. It's a non-issue.

 

[jpl458]

The fact that 99% of the US feels they HAVE to choose either side of a shitty coin - or a shit sandwich if you will. They have convinced us that the only "selection" available IS a shit sandwich and the only choice we have is the side to take a bite from. What is worse is that we all pretend we don't taste the shit and the only defense we have is the side we have taken a bite from does not taste worse than the other side.

Who is this mysterious "they" entity, specifically. Or is it some secret cabal that dresses in robes, and has mastered mind control.

 

[NauticalGent]

Who is this mysterious "they" entity, specifically. Or is some secret cabal that dresses in robes, and has mastered mind control.

And this is why I do not engage and regret chiming in. Not going down this rabbit hole, take care.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Damn, it was just starting to get interesting

 

[Steve R.]

Who is this mysterious "they" entity, specifically. Or is it some secret cabal that dresses in robes, and has mastered mind control.

As a knowledgeable person, it is surprising that you don't who "they" are.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat,once again you do not answer the question asked.

This is idiotic. I gave you an answer. You didn't like it. Do you think you will get a different answer? Please review my hundred previous answers. You're acting like a 4 year old. Mommy's answer is the same as it always was. The exporter absorbs the tariffs by lowering his sale price so that the sale price to the customer remains at a level the customer is willing to pay. Clearly, if the sale price + the tariff doesn't price the item out of the market, then the customer will end up paying the tariff because the exporter will have no reason to eat the tariff himself. What about that is hard to understand?

You are assuming that the customer does not have free will. You are assuming that he must buy the item regardless of the price. We're not talking about milk and medicine here. We're talking about cars and wine and choochkies. There would never be oppressive tariffs on necessities.

 

[Pat Hartman]

He cannot put a coherent sentence together of more than 3 words.
I'm sure you don't need me to point to any examples, they are myriad.

There is a difference if you choose to see it. I have said many times that Trump is not a good speaker. He is also not a politician. He doesn't spend hours in front of a mirror every day practicing answers to questions he thinks people might ask. But, to his credit, he ALWAYS tries to answer the question even if sometimes he starts a little shaky. Personally, I think he should probably just say. "I don't have a firm answer for you. I need more facts." I'll be ready next time with an answer for you. Harris doesn't want to answer the hard questions because she knows her answers, if truthful, will be as unacceptable to the public now as they were in 2020. Therefore, she evades and pulls up sometimes random talking points. Her go to filler these days starts with " i was raised as a middle class kid"

Think about your personal experiences. Have you ever been on the spot and been asked an important question but one on which you don't have a firm opinion and so you start off sort of weak and wobbly.

Trump answers hard questions by the dozens every day. Harris isn't allowed out by her handlers except on rare occasions and only if they think the interviewer won't eat her for lunch. She didn't do a single interview during the first 6 weeks of her candidacy because she can't answer the hard questions. She's gotten a whole lot better, I'll give her that. I haven't heard her famous cackle since they let her start speaking publicly after the debate with Trump. Remember the cackle. That used to be her go to response when she couldn't answer a question. She would just start laughing hysterically and often inappropriately. Usually the interviewer didn't press the issue and moved on.

 

[GaP42]

It would be good if some here could do a little investigation to answer the question about what evidence is there to show the effectiveness of tariffs.

One such analysis reports;

• A tariff is a tax on foreign goods that raises revenue for the imposing government. Motivations for imposing tariffs range from revitalizing local industries to addressing unfair trade.
• Importers legally pay US tariffs, but their economic burden (i.e., who really pays) depends: It can be borne by American consumers, businesses, and exporters, by foreigners exporting to the United States, or by some combination of these groups.
• Economists use a variety of methods to analyze how tariffs affect protected companies, consumers, importing firms, exporters, and our economy overall. They generally find that tariffs benefit some but hurt far more others, thus lowering overall living standards and economic growth. Tariff-protected industries also rarely (if ever) become stronger.
• Recent empirical evidence indicates the new US tariffs imposed in 2018 and 2019 were almost entirely passed on to US consumers, resulting in higher prices and reduced export growth.
• Tariffs often lead to cascading protectionism and create a fertile ground for corruption. The 2018–2019 tariffs on China led to a complex process of exclusion requests, lobbying, and retaliatory tariffs, demonstrating the multifaceted harms of protectionist measures.
  
  My emphasis
  
  Tariffs are protectionist measures that do not encourage efficiency / improvement in domestic production.

 

[Steve R.]

@GaP42: As usual, you make biased misstatements. Yes, tariff are protectionist measures and will result in the consumer paying more for products. What you are apparently leaving out is that many US trading partners are using tariffs to game international trade in their favor. Then there are also cases were a foreign country "dumps" its products into the US economy below their cost of production. So what are you supposed to do when foreign countries cheat in conducting international trade?

You need to also look at the use of tariffs as an economic policy tactic. The US is dependent on many products made in China. The Chinese, in producing many of those products have "destroyed" US manufacturing capabilities. Trade deficits also mean that the US is exporting its wealth. That makes the US poorer. So tariffs can be used as a (an anti-capitalistic) tool to "force" production back into the US. To a degree, tariffs can be considered an aspect of US national security. (Do you want China to be the sole supplier of parts for an F-35?)

You also stated that: "They generally find that tariffs benefit some but hurt far more others, thus lowering overall living standards and economic growth." While that statement is "true", if you don't think deeply about it. It ignores other "truths" based on capitalism. Any program that you implement will hurt some and benefit others, so that is a pointless remark.

As for lowering the standard of living, while true; it also implies that US workers are too expensive. If the US is to be competitive economically it has to lower production costs to match what others are able to sell their product for. From the perspective of capitalism, the wages (plus other costs including productivity concerns) paid to US workers must be competitive with what other nations pay their workers. That of course is a "truth" that many in the US refuse to accept. Companies move to areas where they can produce their products cheaply to maximize profits.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The real issue is the United States went from a manufacturing powerhouse to a consumer-based economy in span of 60 years. US products became increasingly more expensive to produce (labor) we ended up outsourcing everything and in the end hosing ourselves.

 

[GaP42]

It is funny that you accuse me of bias yet you clearly are so one-eyed yourself. Perfectly balanced.

Tariffs are used by many countries to protect specific industries/ sectors of their economy – and what effect does that have on them? Higher costs to the consumers of those goods to their own people. A response – the US raises tariffs on those same goods, or other goods from that country. How will they then respond – raise more tariffs?
Trading with other nations is not simple. The US has entered into negotiations in the past to establish trade agreements – to reduce barriers to trade – such as tariffs. Do you raise tariffs so you have a bargaining position – perhaps. Do you raise tariffs to make those items cheaper to purchase – don’t think that is how it works. Do you raise tariffs to help your industry able to produce the goods more cheaply – evidence does not show that they do become more efficient. Do you raise tariffs to protect these jobs – well perhaps – but who pays the higher cost of protecting those jobs - you (effectively subsidise those costs).
There are a range of actions – raise tariffs, impose quotas, subsidise, negotiate (perhaps more – but which of these is the most palatable?). But the fundamental was that TRUMP put forward the idea of imposing tariffs and that the exporting country pays the tariffs. That is clearly a serious misunderstanding by Trump, and generally reflects on his lack of capacity for logical thinking and shrinking capacity to think.

It ignores other "truths" based on capitalism. Any program that you implement will hurt some and benefit others, so that is a pointless remark.

That is laughable – that is the idea that all economic actions are essentially a zero-sum game – but not everything should be viewed through the lens of economics. There are impacts beyond the local impact – raising tariffs generally has the effect of causing the local price for those goods to be higher than before. Protectionist measures shelter the local producer and do not encourage efficiency – but perhaps a sunset-style regulation for the tariff could encourage action (good luck with that from a political perspective). These measures then open up avenues for exploitation – lobbying and quid pro quo. Pointless – that is capitalism I suppose in your view. It hurts far more people than it benefits economically - zero sum - yes but what is better?

Companies move to areas where they can produce their products cheaply to maximize profits.

• Yes they do, look at how those big companies minimize their tax by moving HQ offshore to tax havens. Look to ways in which fair tax might be paid
• But are you suggesting US workers have to work just as hard for less? Are you/ or would you be willing to lead the charge? Or do you sit at the top of the heap and do not face such a threat (not a worker earning a wage).
• Lower production casts can be addressed through a far greater range of productivity improvements than simply lowering workers wages. Perhaps those workers can rely on tipping instead!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That is laughable – that is the idea that all economic actions are essentially a zero-sum game

As a matter of fact, at the micro level, all economic transactions ARE a zero sum game. You have no more money between seller and buyer after the transaction than you had before. It is only when government starts printing money by fiat that the sum is no longer exactly zero. The "money in circulation" + "money in savings" + a couple of other monetary numbers ARE the sum. The only real way to make the sum bigger than its original components is if you can work to add value to your product or service over and above its original value. Otherwise, it IS a zero sum situation.