B-Man Posted Monday at 11:58 PM Posted Monday at 11:58 PM 3 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Ignorance display it is.
Roundybout Posted Tuesday at 12:07 AM Posted Tuesday at 12:07 AM 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: Ignorance display it is. Who pays the tariff?
B-Man Posted Tuesday at 12:20 AM Posted Tuesday at 12:20 AM 8 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Who pays the tariff? No. Do not bother You are not honest with your answers. Unlike you I can remember back a few months ago with the 'temporary' raising of tariffs on China, Canada and the EU (50. 60. 90 %) caused the "crash" of the economy" and Wall Street. Oh wait, that lasted all of one week. Remember that ? Go back 40 pages and look, You were trying the same childishness then 1
The Frankish Reich Posted Tuesday at 12:27 AM Author Posted Tuesday at 12:27 AM 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: Unlike you I can remember back a few months ago with the 'temporary' raising of tariffs on China, Canada and the EU (50. 60. 90 %) caused the "crash" of the economy" and Wall Street Well, it most certainly caused the markets to go down more than 10%, which is nothing to sneeze at. And then the Trump TACO play most certainly caused it to rebound. And now we go again. 1
ChiGoose Posted Tuesday at 12:32 AM Posted Tuesday at 12:32 AM 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Well, it most certainly caused the markets to go down more than 10%, which is nothing to sneeze at. And then the Trump TACO play most certainly caused it to rebound. And now we go again. Personally, I wonder how much of what stability the market has shown is due to investors not believing we’d be stupid enough to keep doing this. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Tuesday at 12:36 AM Posted Tuesday at 12:36 AM On 7/2/2025 at 9:45 PM, The Frankish Reich said: Hah! I have no need for store-bought tomatoes until mid-October. I just picked the first ripe ones of the year. Community garden?
Roundybout Posted Tuesday at 02:02 AM Posted Tuesday at 02:02 AM 1 hour ago, B-Man said: No. Do not bother You are not honest with your answers. Unlike you I can remember back a few months ago with the 'temporary' raising of tariffs on China, Canada and the EU (50. 60. 90 %) caused the "crash" of the economy" and Wall Street. Oh wait, that lasted all of one week. Remember that ? Go back 40 pages and look, You were trying the same childishness then Yeah that’s why the tariffs have been postponed a million times. It just happened again. I am not being dishonest. I have held the same position that the American people bear the brunt of tariff charges. It’s simple economics. It’s an absolute miracle the economy has chugged along. Firms did a very good job preordering goods to stock up. Even then, we saw goods with “tariff surcharges” tacked on. 1 1
SectionC3 Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago On 7/7/2025 at 8:32 PM, ChiGoose said: Personally, I wonder how much of what stability the market has shown is due to investors not believing we’d be stupid enough to keep doing this. That’s where I’m at. I learned during the first go round with this goof to stay the course. So that’s where I’m at. Horde some cash for sure, and be judicious about buys, but don’t sell a thing,
Roundybout Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 10 hours ago, B-Man said: How on earth do tariffs make the “world subservient to us?” The consumer pays for the costs. Firms in other countries then stop marketing their goods here because people are less likely to buy something more expensive, especially if they’re elastic goods. It’s just baffling how MAGA happily accepts it with no critical thinking.
B-Man Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 hour ago, Roundybout said: How on earth do tariffs make the “world subservient to us?” The consumer pays for the costs. Firms in other countries then stop marketing their goods here because people are less likely to buy something more expensive, especially if they’re elastic goods. It’s just baffling how MAGA happily accepts it with no critical thinking. On 7/7/2025 at 7:58 PM, B-Man said: Ignorance display it is.
Big Blitz Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 33 minutes ago, Roundybout said: The consumer pays for the costs. We always do. When you raise minimum wage. When you impose regulations. Etc. The horror stories of “ugh, you idiots are now going to pay 80% more for an iPhone” are just ridiculous. It’s not 1929 anymore. How many times have we said this. And like he says here and I agree - they’re neither a panacea nor a poison. The manufacturing long run goals are true; so is the desire for revenue and increasing leverage with competitors. https://fortune.com/2025/01/05/tariffs-donald-trump-us-economy-jobs-wages-producers-consumers/ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/different-now-tariffs-boost-u-205119631.html In a column in Foreign Affairs late last month, he argued that today's U.S. economy is much different from the one that was crushed by disastrous tariffs in the 1930s. The key difference is that America now has excessively high consumption, while it had low consumption and excess savings when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed in 1930…. …But Pettis cautioned that tariffs are neither a panacea nor poison, because their impact varies depending on what the economic circumstances are. In the case of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, they went into effect during the Great Depression, when demand was crashing as other countries were taking similar steps on trade. The U.S. also had the world's largest trade surplus and top global exporters with production outstripping domestic demand. Fast-forward to today: The economy is nearly the total opposite and is no longer producing far more than it can consume, Pettis noted. While tariffs act as a tax on consumers, they also essentially subsidize domestic producers, who can add jobs and raise wages that eventually lead to more consumption, he explained. But if U.S. firms were facing weak domestic demand, tariffs would make matters worse. And if the global economy couldn't absorb more U.S. exports, then tariffs would depress domestic production. "In this case, tariffs (properly implemented) would have the opposite effect of Smoot-Hawley," Pettis added. "By taxing consumption to subsidize production, modern-day tariffs would redirect a portion of U.S. demand toward increasing the total amount of goods and services produced at home. That would lead U.S. GDP to rise, resulting in higher employment, higher wages, and less debt." Since Americans are the world's consumers of last resort, tariffs would serve another purpose too: U.S. producers would no longer have to accommodate the needs of foreign rivals, he said. Rather than aiming to protect certain sectors or businesses, tariffs could counter the economy's "pro-consumption and antiproduction" stance. "In the end, tariffs are simply one among many tools that can improve economic outcomes under some conditions and depress them under others," Pettis pointed out. "In an economy suffering from excess consumption, low savings, and a declining manufacturing share of GDP, the focus of economists should be on the causes of these conditions and the policies that might reverse them." Manufacturing as a share of GDP has gone from roughly 30 percent in the 1920s to less then 10 percent today. https://prosperousamerica.org/u-s-manufacturings-shrinking-share-of-gdp-and-how-to-catch-up/
JFKjr Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago On 7/7/2025 at 10:02 PM, Roundybout said: Yeah that’s why the tariffs have been postponed a million times. It just happened again. I am not being dishonest. I have held the same position that the American people bear the brunt of tariff charges. It’s simple economics. It’s an absolute miracle the economy has chugged along. Firms did a very good job preordering goods to stock up. Even then, we saw goods with “tariff surcharges” tacked on. Your understanding of economics certainly IS "simple."
Recommended Posts