leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 8 Posted July 8 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 July 8 Posted July 8 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 July 10 Posted July 10 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 July 10 Posted July 10 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 July 10 Posted July 10 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 July 10 Posted July 10 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/ 1
JFKjr Posted July 10 Posted July 10 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." 2
TH3 Posted July 10 Posted July 10 Some maga tell us how dt tariffs on Brazil ain’t effed. We have a TRADE SURPLUS with them and DT is imposing tariffs demanding that trial of ex pres be stopped. He is on trial for trying to overturn last election. So our exporters get hammered so DT can try to influence a countries internal legal system in a trial similar to his own treason?🤪
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 Any of the “law and order” MAGA types willing to admit that the tariffs are illegal? Or is that whole “law and order” thing more of pick and choose sorta deal? Trump’s plans to impose 50% tariffs on Brazil Highlights Illegal and Harmful nature of his policy Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 11 Posted July 11 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Any of the “law and order” MAGA types willing to admit that the tariffs are illegal? Or is that whole “law and order” thing more of pick and choose sorta deal? Trump’s plans to impose 50% tariffs on Brazil Highlights Illegal and Harmful nature of his policy Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal How's that impending financial collapse going? Just now, AlBUNDY4TDS said: How's that impending financial collapse going? How many countries put tariffs on us? But when Trump does it? Orange man bad.
TH3 Posted July 11 Posted July 11 6 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: How's that impending financial collapse going? How many countries put tariffs on us? But when Trump does it? Orange man bad. You quoted your own post ?
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 11 Posted July 11 12 minutes ago, TH3 said: You quoted your own post ? Yes the second one. Look at you following along!
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 11 Posted July 11 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice. So the economy is doing good......thanks!
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 Just now, ChiGoose said: Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice. The ruling of illegality had been stayed, has it not? The Supreme Court will be weighing in later this year, correct? I’m going to wait and see what they say. At least what 8/9 say. We already know how one justice will rule. Do you think that’s ok or should I get riled up because that’s what you are doing? Either way.
ChiGoose Posted July 11 Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: So the economy is doing good......thanks! The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. 4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: The ruling of illegality had been stayed, has it not? The Supreme Court will be weighing in later this year, correct? I’m going to wait and see what they say. At least what 8/9 say. We already know how one justice will rule. Do you think that’s ok or should I get riled up because that’s what you are doing? Either way. It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you. But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point.
JDHillFan Posted July 11 Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you. But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point. Makes you wonder why the one court stayed the ruling. Sounds like a slam dunk according to you. I’m sure if the Supreme Court says otherwise you’ll have an explanation for why you are right anyway. Looking forward to it. If you ever have any time, maybe you could tell us all why you were right with your thoughts about the border situation. Most of your prior posts on the topic make it seem like you couldn’t have been more wrong, but I’m sure there’s an explanation.
Recommended Posts