Recession is upon us - disastrous economic data

[The Frankish Reich]

The trade-weighted tariff average goes from 1.5% to 25.8%

Does that look like a 64% rise to you like Fordney-McCumber 1922 was?

Economic illiteracy? Math illiteracy? Both?

 

EDIT: @Big Blitz - are you still struggling with the math?

Here's a cheat:

 

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percentage-increase-calculator.php

 

The answer: 1520% increase.

 

So your argument is this: a 64% increase in the average tariff rate in 1922 didn't cause an immediate recession; hence, a 1520% tariff increase in 2025 is nothing to worry about. Color me unconvinced.

Edited Thursday at 05:04 PM by The Frankish Reich

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't know who is feeding you these links (I suspect it's one of your Twitter feeds), but it would do you good to actually read the cited article before reposting an unrepresentative clip from it. I spotted this right away because CATO - a libertarian think tank - would never suggest tariffs are benign.

Do you know by what percentage Trump's tariffs increased the average tariff rate?

I'll give you some time to look it up.

EDIT: Time's up.

 

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

he's dumb.

 

in other news, poor people are buying less junk food.  this is a mixed report:  maga's will save some money and potentially lose some blubber.  but realistically they won't.  spam, bologna and vienna sausage sales will surely skyrocket.

 

https://www.wsj.com/business/hospitality/mcdonalds-mcd-q1-earnings-report-2025-76b4d394-9b782952

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

That's actual legislation that would have to passed through Congress.  There's already lawsuits in states and businesses across the country challenging whether Trump isn't abusing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act with his tariffs.  The stock market could see a lot of volatility based on the results of these lawsuits.  

With respect to taxes, yes, of course.  It always seems to me that lefties like Andy take issue with businesses and individuals up a notch on the income scale, are perfectly willing to suggest they carry more of the burden, and whistle past the tax issue like it's a sacred cow.  In this case, his concern is the $3000-5000 per year that people may be forced to pay due to the Trump tariff.  Meanwhile, the hole in the back of the income/savings bucket is massive and they seem completely unfazed by that.  

 

Disclaimer--paying tax is important and necessary in civil society, and I have no problem with it conceptually.  However, a little tweaking now and again, a bit of fiscal responsibility and maybe the odd year where spending is reduced wouldn't suck:

 

https://www.self.inc/info/life-of-tax/

 

The average American will pay $524,625 in taxes throughout their lifetime — that’s a third (34.7%) of all estimated lifetime earnings ($1,494,986) spent on taxes.

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

he's dumb.

 

in other news, poor people are buying less junk food.  this is a mixed report:  maga's will save some money and potentially lose some blubber.  but realistically they won't.  spam, bologna and vienna sausage sales will surely skyrocket.

 

https://www.wsj.com/business/hospitality/mcdonalds-mcd-q1-earnings-report-2025-76b4d394-9b782952

Well, that's another possible explanation. 

But I prefer the illiteracy one. It means you can be educated.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

With respect to taxes, yes, of course.  It always seems to me that lefties like Andy take issue with businesses and individuals up a notch on the income scale, are perfectly willing to suggest they carry more of the burden, and whistle past the tax issue like it's a sacred cow.  In this case, his concern is the $3000-5000 per year that people may be forced to pay due to the Trump tariff.  Meanwhile, the hole in the back of the income/savings bucket is massive and they seem completely unfazed by that.  

 

Disclaimer--paying tax is important and necessary in civil society, and I have no problem with it conceptually.  However, a little tweaking now and again, a bit of fiscal responsibility and maybe the odd year where spending is reduced wouldn't suck:

 

https://www.self.inc/info/life-of-tax/

 

The average American will pay $524,625 in taxes throughout their lifetime — that’s a third (34.7%) of all estimated lifetime earnings ($1,494,986) spent on taxes.

average income is a bs metric.  the wealthy are  very heavily overrepresented.  Median income would be much more meaningful.  this is virtually meaningless.  A very large percentage pay no federal tax at all

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said:

average income is a bs metric.  the wealthy are  very heavily overrepresented.  Median income would be much more meaningful.  this is virtually meaningless.  A very large percentage pay no federal tax at all

Spoken like Mitt Romney. He had a point.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Spoken like Mitt Romney. He had a point.

old article but still true .  well presented imo

https://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

average income is a bs metric.  the wealthy are  very heavily overrepresented.  Median income would be much more meaningful.  this is virtually meaningless.  A very large percentage pay no federal tax at all

Federal income tax is only one form of taxation, Gato gordo. 

[LDD]

57 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

I want the IRS abolished.  The tax code reformed.  Under 200K pay no taxes.  Deregulate everything imaginable.  Cut corporate taxes.  
 

Tax imports.  Because we should be able to make what we need here.  Not outsourced to the CCP.  Which ultimately, should be the goal.  Not be at the mercy of Communist China.   

 

Not sure how the IRS gets abolished and we still have a military.  Tax reformation good...love the under 200k bit...deregulation is a slippery slope, tried that in the post depression, WWII era manufacturing boom and it resulted in burning rivers and love canals so I'm not a fan there.  If you mean deregulating the markets then I'm more of a fan.  F corporations so no...and the last bit I'm mostly on board with.  My real issue is with the way Trump is doing it.  He's f-ing it all up.  He could literally have everyone on board if he eased into his approach and incentivized "Buy American, Build American" but he has to make everything a "my D is bigger contest"...

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Federal income tax is only one form of taxation, Gato gordo. 

yes, but in the US, the largest source of government revenue and to the top 47%, the largest tax burden.  Once again, illustrating to class struggle that trump is  parlaying into power.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

Because we should be able to make what we need here.

At what cost?

Should we be growing coffee in huge greenhouses so we don't have to import it? Should we go back to the cottage industry days of a craftsman making wooden toys, so families can pay $150 for a bespoke doll instead of $25 for the plastic one the kid actually wants? 

All so we can feel better about ourselves and our "greatness?" I call that stupidity, which in my day was not a great thing.

20 minutes ago, LDD said:

but he has to make everything a "my D is bigger contest"...

Which is typically a tell that it isn't ...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

yes, but in the US, the largest source of government revenue and to the top 47%, the largest tax burden.  Once again, illustrating to class struggle that trump is  parlaying into power.

When the commentary shifts to the tax burden of the 47%, we can discuss that (and how folks like Andy typically want the people above them to pay more, always). 

 

For now, I'm extraordinarily comfortable in stating that things like sales tax are real, and impact the money available to the typical American family in a substantial way.  

[Doc Brown]

35 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

With respect to taxes, yes, of course.  It always seems to me that lefties like Andy take issue with businesses and individuals up a notch on the income scale, are perfectly willing to suggest they carry more of the burden, and whistle past the tax issue like it's a sacred cow.  In this case, his concern is the $3000-5000 per year that people may be forced to pay due to the Trump tariff.  Meanwhile, the hole in the back of the income/savings bucket is massive and they seem completely unfazed by that.  

Correct.  I've always just wanted a simple flat tax system but that won't happen.  It would be prudent of Republicans to use their majority to tweak the TCJA of 2017 tax legislation that reduced taxes across the board.  Lowering the corporate tax rate makes a lot more sense to me than tariffs if you want to incentive businesses to invest in America and create more jobs and economic growth..  They lowered it to 21% from 35% with the TCJA and Trump was pushing for 15%.  Maybe they can meet in the middle.  That's the best tactic imo if you want to relying less on foreign imports as companies will be secure in investing here knowing there's actual legislation that simply can't be changed by the whims of one  person.

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The trade-weighted tariff average goes from 1.5% to 25.8%

Does that look like a 64% rise to you like Fordney-McCumber 1922 was?

Economic illiteracy? Math illiteracy? Both?

 

EDIT: @Big Blitz - are you still struggling with the math?

Here's a cheat:

 

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percentage-increase-calculator.php

 

The answer: 1520% increase.

 

So your argument is this: a 64% increase in the average tariff rate in 1922 didn't cause an immediate recession; hence, a 1520% tariff increase in 2025 is nothing to worry about. Color me unconvinced.

 

An increase from 30 percent to 50 percent almost led to secession in 1832.  
 

The increase in the 1922 was significant.  
 

Still a shock.  No economic meltdown.  
 

I posted an article from my own research who’s a far more informed expert then the Frankish Reich or Big Blitz on an Internet forum.  
 

You can belittle the info and try and puncture all the holes you want in his argument.  
 

That if ALL tariffs (now there’s a percentage threshold you’ve created) are bad isn’t true.  And doesn’t mean economic disaster.  
 

Especially if the vast amount of goods we need are elastic.  
 

 

 

And it’s 10 percent.  Not 25%.  Unless you’re the CCP and it’s 2 satellite states - Canada and Mexico.   

[Doc Brown]

18 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

An increase from 30 percent to 50 percent almost led to secession in 1832.  
 

The increase in the 1922 was significant.  
 

Still a shock.  No economic meltdown.  
 

I posted an article from my own research who’s a far more informed expert then the Frankish Reich or Big Blitz on an Internet forum.  
 

You can belittle the info and try and puncture all the holes you want in his argument.  
 

That if ALL tariffs (now there’s a percentage threshold you’ve created) are bad isn’t true.  And doesn’t mean economic disaster.  
 

Especially if the vast amount of goods we need are elastic.  
 

 

 

And it’s 10 percent.  Not 25%.  Unless you’re the CCP and it’s 2 satellite states - Canada and Mexico.   

You're at a point where you're arguing how a crappy tariff act wasn't the main driver of the Great Depression.  You're right by the way but implementing universal tariffs is still just an awful  policy.

[Big Blitz]

44 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You're at a point where you're arguing how a crappy tariff act wasn't the main driver of the Great Depression.  You're right by the way but implementing universal tariffs is still just an awful  policy.

 

Im not making that argument.  He is:

But Douglas Irwin’s new book, Peddling Protectionism, has convinced me that Smoot-Hawley, though bad, was even less important than I had thought.

https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2011/book-review-peddling-protectionism-smoot-hawley-great-depression

 

 

I’m open - due to all the wrong people saying the exact same thing about Trump and tariffs - absolutely open to multiple perspectives on this especially the people behind Trump and Trump himself who’s been consistent on tariffs for 40 years. 
 

Why in the world give all the “group think” on tariffs and the political risks that come with that is Trump so adamant we need them?  
 

It’s fascinating.  To immediately brush it off as insane - that’s insane to me.   

And btw, just like Smoot was in no way responsible for the depression and its impact debatable, do I think tariffs are some magic elixir.  Lots of other things have to happen.  

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Im not making that argument.  He is:

But Douglas Irwin’s new book, Peddling Protectionism, has convinced me that Smoot-Hawley, though bad, was even less important than I had thought.

https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2011/book-review-peddling-protectionism-smoot-hawley-great-depression

 

 

I’m open - due to all the wrong people saying the exact same thing about Trump and tariffs - absolutely open to multiple perspectives on this especially the people behind Trump and Trump himself who’s been consistent on tariffs for 40 years. 
 

Why in the world give all the “group think” on tariffs and the political risks that come with that is Trump so adamant we need them?  
 

It’s fascinating.  To immediately brush it off as insane - that’s insane to me.   

If you read insane people on a regular basis you yourself become insane.

Edited Thursday at 06:50 PM by Doc Brown

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

When the commentary shifts to the tax burden of the 47%, we can discuss that (and how folks like Andy typically want the people above them to pay more, always). 

 

For now, I'm extraordinarily comfortable in stating that things like sales tax are real, and impact the money available to the typical American family in a substantial way.  

the median income pays no where near the lifetime tax amount you posted.  it's purposefully misleading like so many maga narrative`.  the majority of tax revenue is provided by the top 10%

 

from my link above

For example, the top 20 percent of Americans earn 52 percent of the total U.S. income, but pay 87 percent of total income tax [source: Saunders]

Edited Thursday at 07:10 PM by Joe Ferguson forever

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

the median income pays no where near the lifetime tax amount you posted.  it's purposefully misleading like so many maga narrative`.  the majority of tax revenue is provided by the top 10%

 

from my link above

For example, the top 20 percent of Americans earn 52 percent of the total U.S. income, but pay 87 percent of total income tax [source: Saunders]

Tax impacts the household budget and represents a significant out-of-pocket for American families. 

 

For example, a family purchases a new minivan, and the cost is $35,000.  Round numbers... if the tax on said purchase was 8%, the tax payment would be $2,800.  If the tax was 5%, the tax payment would be $1,750.  If the tax was 1%, the tax payment would be $350.

 

In this example, $2,800 represents a higher out of pocket than $1,750, which represents a higher out of pocket than $350.  

 

I am not intentionally trying to mislead you, but the math is the math.  I used the font feature to draw your attention to important words. 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Tax impacts the household budget and represents a significant out-of-pocket for American families. 

 

For example, a family purchases a new minivan, and the cost is $35,000.  Round numbers... if the tax on said purchase was 8%, the tax payment would be $2,800.  If the tax was 5%, the tax payment would be $1,750.  If the tax was 1%, the tax payment would be $350.

 

In this example, $2,800 represents a higher out of pocket than $1,750, which represents a higher out of pocket than $350.  

 

I am not intentionally trying to mislead you, but the math is the math.  I used the font feature to draw your attention to important words. 

 

 

so a family would need to buy and pay 8% tax on roughly 200 minivans to accumulate your posted lifetime tax burden of $525k.  keep digging....