Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 7/17/2025 at 11:19 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

So maybe it would just be easier to pass a Washing Machine Excise Tax. Every washer has a $100 tax; we send all the proceeds to the residents of some random economically depressed area. It is the exact same thing. 

20 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Please don’t use “objective/non- ideological” for anything Krugman related. It’s hard to take seriously. 

Would you care to address the clear point here? Krugman's been wrong for sure (our "Enron Advisor"), but the facts are the facts. This is incoherent Trump policy.

Posted
12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So maybe it would just be easier to pass a Washing Machine Excise Tax. Every washer has a $100 tax; we send all the proceeds to the residents of some random economically depressed area. It is the exact same thing. 

Would you care to address the clear point here? Krugman's been wrong for sure (our "Enron Advisor"), but the facts are the facts. This is incoherent Trump policy.

I’m not debating the point. I’m incredulous that you would use “objective/non-ideological” in the same sentence as Krugman. It’s absurd. Why not just say “here’s Krugman take”?

  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted
1 minute ago, JDHillFan said:

I’m not debating the point. I’m incredulous that you would use “objective/non-ideological” in the same sentence as Krugman. It’s absurd. Why not just say “here’s Krugman take”?

Because he was citing a Fact. Two facts. A much higher tariff on imported Japanese steel than on imported Japanese automobiles.

These facts are objective. The conclusion is textbook economics.

Posted
57 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So maybe it would just be easier to pass a Washing Machine Excise Tax. Every washer has a $100 tax; we send all the proceeds to the residents of some random economically depressed area. It is the exact same thing. 

I'd rather have the job over the handout. 

41 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because he was citing a Fact. Two facts. A much higher tariff on imported Japanese steel than on imported Japanese automobiles.

These facts are objective. The conclusion is textbook economics.

Where will the US automakers source the steel they need if not Japan?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So what did I say that's wrong?

"ideologically crippled" = analytically solid?

 

 

 

Exhibit A...

 

Your misuse of the = sign...

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
7 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

More success.

 

 

“Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for U.S. beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase U.S. shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower.”

 

use you brain…it’s there somewhere 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted

 

 

 

The trade war that wasn’t

 

Huh. Who knew? From CNBC,

Even with high tariffs, Trump’s trade war suddenly is starting to look not so scary on Wall Street.

 

“Suddenly.” :D

 

Economists cite a strong global growth backdrop, a less-than-expected inflationary impact of the tariffs and a general easing in financial conditions

as reasons for why the landscape looks less dire.

 

 

“Economists” have been wrong every inch of the way so far, so guess we should take their word for it, now.

 

 

Meanwhile, Yahoo reports

 

US stocks eked out records Monday in relatively muted trading session as the US and European Union struck a trade pact…The S&P 500 rose just above the flatline to post a sixth consecutive day of record closes.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/07/the-trade-war-that-wasnt.php

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

donald%20trump.jpg

 

I was wrong about Trump’s tariffs. His economy is purring along 

Opinion By David Mastio July 30, 2025

 

 

In April, I wrote that I saw a recession on the way because “Trump has assembled the worst collection of ill-considered economic plans of any president since Richard Nixon birthed stagflation in the 1970s.” I still think a recession is a big risk in the months to come, but the news Wednesday is not what I expected. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. economy grew at 3% in the second quarter. That’s a solid performance achieved even in the headwinds of U.S. companies drawing down their inventories to avoid high tariffs.

 

There are three reasons that Trumponomics is delivering growth in the short term and might even be able to pull it off in the longer term.

 

  • Trump’s chaotic approach to trade deals, announcing brutal tariff rates and then fudging deadlines and backing away before sometimes coming to a deal both countries can live with has, weirdly, become predictable. Policy chaos can be as damaging to the economy as bad policies, but I did not forsee the way markets have been able to adapt.
  • Trump is coming through with some big deal agreements that are leveling the playing field in ways that his proponents predicted, but that I only had faint hopes he would achieve. This week’s deal for 15% tariffs on Europe and no European retaliation is a big deal. A week ago, Trump announced a similar agreement with Japan, another key ally and big trading partner
  • Trump got his One Big Beautiful Bill through Congress, and it has three big features that are good for growth. Two are long term and one is short term and could later blow up on us. In the long term, making Trump’s low income tax rates permanent takes uncertainty out of the economy and replaces it with strong incentives for growth. Another feature of the bill’s tax rules is a generous change to deductions for companies that make things in America and sell a lot overseas. That could bolster investment in the United States in ways that build on Trump’s trade deals.

 

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/david-mastio/article311518771.html

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

I don’t have a huge opinion either way on tariffs.

 

It sounds like a lot of economists that were against this are begrudgingly giving Trump respect now.

 

That said.. I see a lot of conservative accounts celebrating these trade deals. 
 

So what happens?

 

Where does all this money Trump is bringing in go?  Do we lower taxes further?  Pay down debt?  More job creation?   
 

Not asking condescendingly, honestly want to know what the end game is. 
 

We do know certain products will go up due to some of these tariffs.. so we incentivize buying American and building American or consumers eat price hikes.  
 

I think a lot of this sounds good.  It does seem like Trump has a lot of momentum economically currently.   
 

So how do we, the America citizens, benefit from all of this.  What are celebrating aside from Team Red big dubs and, conversely, Team Blue debasing themselves by hating all this when it’s quite literally a Democrat policy. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I don’t have a huge opinion either way on tariffs.

 

It sounds like a lot of economists that were against this are begrudgingly giving Trump respect now.

 

That said.. I see a lot of conservative accounts celebrating these trade deals. 
 

So what happens?

 

Where does all this money Trump is bringing in go?  Do we lower taxes further?  Pay down debt?  More job creation?   
 

Not asking condescendingly, honestly want to know what the end game is. 
 

We do know certain products will go up due to some of these tariffs.. so we incentivize buying American and building American or consumers eat price hikes.  
 

I think a lot of this sounds good.  It does seem like Trump has a lot of momentum economically currently.   
 

So how do we, the America citizens, benefit from all of this.  What are celebrating aside from Team Red big dubs and, conversely, Team Blue debasing themselves by hating all this when it’s quite literally a Democrat policy. 

 

Would prefer the monies raised from the tariffs go towards deficit reduction and if they were to ever get to a point where the budget is balanced (which we'll never get to and never actually did, not even when 42 had a "surplus" (that was due to SS receipts exceeding expenses, but those were already supposed to be allocated to be used exclusively for future SS expenses)) then reduce / eliminate personal income taxes.

 

Realistically, they'll be used to primarily increase spending and modestly reduce the deficit.

  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Would prefer the monies raised from the tariffs go towards deficit reduction and if they were to ever get to a point where the budget is balanced (which we'll never get to and never actually did, not even when 42 had a "surplus" (that was due to SS receipts exceeding expenses, but those were already supposed to be allocated to be used exclusively for future SS expenses)) then reduce / eliminate personal income taxes.

 

Realistically, they'll be used to primarily increase spending and modestly reduce the deficit.

Unfortunately, I think you are correct

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted


I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World. Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let’s keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...