Many of those arguments have appeared on this board.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/03/addressing-the-pro-tariff-arguments.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/03/addressing-the-pro-tariff-arguments.html
A Polite Discussion Addressing the Pro Tariff Arguments
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I don’t claim to be an expert on anything especially this, but I damn sure wouldn’t want to be on this guys side of anything.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Ironic isn't it. Boudreaux and Krugman on the same side of an issue. One of things that should give all of us pause.
What about all the Republicans who think Trump tariffs are garbage? Are they wrong too? As Paul Ryan said...unintended consequences.
republicans suck. who cares why they think that?
the tariffs I believe have exemptions for canada and mexico and everyone else will be healthy with on a case by case basis.
your real concern should be the fact that the steel union will be naming their children donald.
No clue but what hansolo said, republicans are garbage.
I do know for a fact Paul krugman is one disposable human being and doesn’t know jack about a trumpconomy. Trademarked.
They’re cucks who sold out American workers (who pay their salaries) to unaccountable foreign governments — yes they’re wrong.
#MAGA
It is my understand from reading the works of economists in whom I hold in high regard that the Paul Krugman that won the Nobel Prize was a fine economist, notwithstanding he is a Keynesian. The problem as they see it is he parlayed the Prize into becoming a celebrity, and with his NY Times gig he became a partisan and is no longer viewed as a serious economist. I'm sure the Keynesians will howl in protest over this depiction of him. However, on this issue he is absolutely correct. All tariffs, no matter how "targeted," no matter how benign they appear, are harmful to an economy. Tariffs are taxes on consumers. Every penny spent on the tariffs that the American public has to fork over is a penny that cannot be spent on other products. The negative consequences are widely dispersed over millions of people, so the damage done to the economy is not seen by the public. That a can of soup cost 5 cents more is not noticed, and is defended by the protectionists thusly. But when you factor that millions of cans of soup are sold every month that 5 cents/can adds up. Will it crush the economy on its own? Of course not. But that loss of money will be felt in some other sector of the economy, and no one will know why. Maybe some guy that manufactures bicycle spokes will have to close shop. Maybe a local donut shop will have to let an employee go, and no one will understand the rise in the cost of soup had anything to do with it. What's the saying? Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. In this instance Krugman hits the nail on the head.
Here's another thought I had, and I'm curious how people on this board will respond. Trump and his team instisted there would be no exceptions to the steel/aluminum tariffs, it would be across the board. They pretty much held fast to that claim right up to the very end. Their reasons for the tariffs, they said, was to protect American factory jobs. Trump is the defender of the working man, and the steel jobs were so important that the tariffs would apply across the board. At the end he relented and excused Canada and Mexico from the tariffs, because he had pressured them into renegotiating NAFTA. Am I correctly understanding the argument he makes? So is it safe to say he threw the steel workers under the bus? The tariffs are only going to apply to companies from countries that do not represent that high a portion of the imported steel and aluminum. So how are those jobs being protected? Should we assume he played the steel workers for suckers, that their jobs weren't really that important to him, that he only used them as pawns or leverage in his more important NAFTA negotiations? Is this another example of Trump lying to the American people?
I’ll raise you by 1 million.
There are few things more delicious than watching celebrated “leftists” championing trade policies written by multinational corporations, for multinational corporations.
It seems like only yesterday that leftists were leading Occupy Wall Street (protesting unaccountable corporations), rioting against the WTO in Seattle, and supporting local businesses (lower carbon footprint).
How quickly we forget...
you are correct - as i told you among others - that the tariffs would be modified and that it was being used primarily as a powerful negotiating tool, but as to throwing them under the bus? nah.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/us-...-bringing-back-jobs-ceo-on-trump-tariffs.html
So you’re willing to sacrifice many other industries for one. Brilliant...that’s a truly historical #winning philosophy. Oh wait...it isn’t.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/409835002
“The nation’s largest trade group for the construction industry says nearly 30,000 jobs could be lost in the building trades from the steel and aluminum tariffs President Donald Trump is imposing.
Associated General Contractors of America says rising steel and aluminum prices will make some construction projects unaffordable and, as a result, thousands of jobs tied to those projects will be jeopardized.”
https://www.cfr.org/blog/trump-stee...o-jobs-equal-nearly-one-third-steel-workforce
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/03/09/trumps-tariff-plan-puts-jobs-at-risk.html
“But economists and researchers say that despite gains in steel jobs, losses will be seen in other sectors that will more than cancel out any new job creation. A report from global research firm Trade Partnership Worldwide finds that while some 33,000 jobs will be added within steel and aluminum due to the tariffs, the broader U.S. economy, including manufacturing and energy, will see losses of nearly 180,000 jobs, for a net loss of nearly 146,000 jobs. For every one job created as a result of the tariffs, five will be lost, the report finds. The study does not take into account any retaliation against the tariffs, only the tariffs themselves.”
“The nation’s largest trade group for the construction industry says nearly 30,000 jobs could be lost in the building trades from the steel and aluminum tariffs President Donald Trump is imposing.
Associated General Contractors of America says rising steel and aluminum prices will make some construction projects unaffordable and, as a result, thousands of jobs tied to those projects will be jeopardized.”
https://www.cfr.org/blog/trump-stee...o-jobs-equal-nearly-one-third-steel-workforce
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/03/09/trumps-tariff-plan-puts-jobs-at-risk.html
“But economists and researchers say that despite gains in steel jobs, losses will be seen in other sectors that will more than cancel out any new job creation. A report from global research firm Trade Partnership Worldwide finds that while some 33,000 jobs will be added within steel and aluminum due to the tariffs, the broader U.S. economy, including manufacturing and energy, will see losses of nearly 180,000 jobs, for a net loss of nearly 146,000 jobs. For every one job created as a result of the tariffs, five will be lost, the report finds. The study does not take into account any retaliation against the tariffs, only the tariffs themselves.”
You recognized that it was all just a negotiating ploy, good for you! Do you suppose the Pennsylvania union steel workers understood they were just a prop? If they had bought into Trump's insistence that he was it for their sake, for their job security, what do you suppose they are thinking now? The steel workers' jobs are in the same jeopardy they were in a month ago, wouldn't you agree? What would you be thinking if you were one of them?
i'm willing not to believe you know wtf you are talking about when it comes to economy. nor do your commie sources.
so now, a week later, you are flipping on exactly what the problem is you are bitching about? is it the tariffs or the jobs?
Triggered, can’t stand the #facts when they’re not in your corner (usual case lol), resorts to identity politics calling sources such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel commies haha.
Carry on.
The two aren’t truly mutually exclusive, despite your feeble attempt to claim otherwise.
Has anyone that's bitching brokered a deal? How's the hell do you guys do it? I wrong foot the hell out of the other party to cause movement, then start dealing, on my terms. That's all that's going down. I'd love to play cards with some of you stiffs.
milwaukee journal sentinel was your source for what again? i don't usually read your full posts.
No shit Sherlock lol.....
“https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/409835002
“The nation’s largest trade group for the construction industry says nearly 30,000 jobs could be lost in the building trades from the steel and aluminum tariffs President Donald Trump is imposing.
Associated General Contractors of America says rising steel and aluminum prices will make some construction projects unaffordable and, as a result, thousands of jobs tied to those projects will be jeopardized.”
What you call “bitching” many reasonable people would call exposing bad ideas for what they are haha.
Carry on.
You lost me with that one. What are you thinking I’m flipping on? I have been opposed to the tariffs because they will be bad for consumers. I haven’t deviated from that. I’m pointing out that Trump and his team insisted the tariffs would not be targeted because he wanted to protect jobs. Then he targeted the tariffs. So my question is: what happens to the jobs he was going to protect? It looks to me like he either turned his back on the workers he claimed to be protecting, or, as you seemed to understand from the beginning, he was lying to the steel workers, he always intended to target the tariffs because what he was really doing was setting the table for NAFTA negotiations. The steel workers were just a hook to suck in the other companies to negotiate. The steel workers were not important to him at all. If you were a steel worker who had hung your hat on his claim to protect your job by not targeting the tariffs how would you feel about it today? Again, I’m not clear on what you think I flipped on.
You’re making a job report post pre-tariffs to try to make a point that tariffs are #winning. Lol...unreal. As if this has any relevance to outcomes post-tariffs. Solid haha
I don't know/care whoTF you're addressing, but I'm all in on this douche-rag being my go to news source.
The idea that tariffs are passed on to consumers is Sean Hannity silly. Not tax or tariffs are ever passed on to consumers. If you believe that you are in fantasy land.
For someone to believe that you have to believe that corporations are not interested in extracting maximum profits. They are. They charge the very maximum they think the public will accept. Right now.
Right now.
An increase in their business expense has no calculation on that amount.
For someone to believe that you have to believe that corporations are not interested in extracting maximum profits. They are. They charge the very maximum they think the public will accept. Right now.
Right now.
An increase in their business expense has no calculation on that amount.
