ADVERTISEMENT

I’ll Ask The Question Again

No, no, Ostatechi! Tariffs are a tax on your own people! Tariffs hurt the people they are supposed to protect. Tariffs raise prices on the consumer and reduce the options that are available to the consumer. All for the benefit of a well connected industry. When England imposes a tariff on American automobiles, for example, what it is doing is raising the price an English citizen has to pay in order to buy one. And it allows the English auto makers to raise their prices because the competition has been weakened. The English consumer is the loser. If the American government responds in kind all it is doing is making American consumers pay higher prices for English cars, and frees up American auto makers to raise prices because they have less competition. Tariffs are bad for the consumers.

Sure tariffs are bad for consumers. That isn't ALWAYS a bad thing or the incorrect action by a government. See my case of intellectual property theft or a government trying to influence another country by subsidizing an industry that is vital to that other country's national interest.

Let's say that the sugar cane industry is vital for Cuba's economy. But America fully subsidizes a sugar cane industry with the specific goal of then selling sugar cane to Cuba at such a reduced price that it kills the local sugar cane market. Then... America stops selling sugar cane to Cuba in order to collapse their economy. I would fully support Cuba's efforts to curb this activity.

This is exactly what is happens against America today.
 
1) Never called it a partisan divide. In fact, I'd argue I'd be more supportive of tariffs that were based on finished products rather than raw materials. I don't like Steel and Aluminum tariffs as they penalize the producers of good jobs who use those materials to create other items. I'd be a stronger supporter of finished goods (like Washing Machines & such) where the importation directly competes and eliminates good US jobs.

3) How many US jobs were shipped to Mexico by the auto industry 3 weeks after NAFTA was signed? You can't tell me that NAFTA didn't directly screw US workers out of GOOD jobs. As for being harmed by international tariffs, I say we have been. If it weren't for European tariffs, how many more Fords would there be in France? How many Chevy's would we sell in Germany. How many solid middle-class jobs are eliminated due to these international tariffs. Those countries institute tariffs to protect their own crappy manufacturers who are subject to absurd government regulations and taxes (beyond what even ours are) so as to protect its workers. Yet when we look at doing similar, WE are starting a trade war. But to answer your statement, yes, American's are impacted by foreign tariffs.

4) Automation is not equal to tariffs, although I have real concerns on automation as well. For one, automation allows for real gains in productivity. Also, automation creates alternate jobs in parallel to those it replaces, tariffs don't, whether that's robotics repair, computer service, programmers, etc...
In economics there is a principle known as Comparative Advantage. I posted a link to a Thomas Sowell essay explaining it in laymen terms. I would encourage you to read it. Mexico got those jobs because it had a comparative advantage over America. As I said earlier I do not support any state sponsored trade deal. I would point out that had there been a free market those jobs would very likely have gone to Mexico anyway because in that field it had a comparative advantage. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but freedom is messy and full of things like creative destruction. The American worker, who is more highly skilled and better educated would be freed up to pursue higher paying technical jobs that were available. They just had to be willing to do it. If you want them to be guaranteed a lifetime career in their existing job what you are asking for is stagnation and ultimately regression, probably under the auspices of a commanding government authority.
 
I want to know why these two tariffs will turn things very ugly very quickly when the previous 12,000 we just ignorantly live with.

This is media ratings driven and it’s because trump trump trump in my opinion. We were all outraged when Obama was subsidizing solyndra, right? We go nuts for the corn subsidies that have made family farms in Iowa multi millionaires in the last thirty years, right? Our economy is a twisted complicated hybrid and I appreciate the discussion but the nitpicking over this because of the man in the office and the new social media school of Fish mentality is over cooked. Pandora’s box is already open, this isnt just happening in 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poke2001
Sure tariffs are bad for consumers. That isn't ALWAYS a bad thing or the incorrect action by a government. See my case of intellectual property theft or a government trying to influence another country by subsidizing an industry that is vital to that other country's national interest.

Let's say that the sugar cane industry is vital for Cuba's economy. But America fully subsidizes a sugar cane industry with the specific goal of then selling sugar cane to Cuba at such a reduced price that it kills the local sugar cane market. Then... America stops selling sugar cane to Cuba in order to collapse their economy. I would fully support Cuba's efforts to curb this activity.

This is exactly what is happens against America today.
I’ve talked about the negative consequences of subsidies before. Subsidies are a tax on the citizens of the country whose government is providing the subsidy. China taxes its citizens in order to subsidize its steel industry. It give its steel manufacturers money to produce steel thus lowering the production cost to the manufacturer, making it easier for him to sell his steel at a lower price than the competition, That’s bad for the competition but great news for the consumer in America. But it is especially harmful to the people of China. They are the ones paying for the subsidy. Such a practice is not sustainable. The silk industry says what about us? The shoe manufacturers want their piece of the pie. It winds up impoverishing the people who are footing the bill for the subsidies. In the meantime the consumer is enjoying the largess. Everything that contains steel is cheaper to buy. The consumer is the only winner. But the consumer is totally neglected in the discussion, the negotiations. If the American government wants to subsidize the American sugar industry the American people should rise up in vehement protest. What the American government would be doing, basically, would be taxing us and giving it to the sugar industry. We should not only say no, but he’ll no.
 
I’ve talked about the negative consequences of subsidies before. Subsidies are a tax on the citizens of the country whose government is providing the subsidy. China taxes its citizens in order to subsidize its steel industry. It give its steel manufacturers money to produce steel thus lowering the production cost to the manufacturer, making it easier for him to sell his steel at a lower price than the competition, That’s bad for the competition but great news for the consumer in America. But it is especially harmful to the people of China. They are the ones paying for the subsidy. Such a practice is not sustainable. The silk industry says what about us? The shoe manufacturers want their piece of the pie. It winds up impoverishing the people who are footing the bill for the subsidies. In the meantime the consumer is enjoying the largess. Everything that contains steel is cheaper to buy. The consumer is the only winner. But the consumer is totally neglected in the discussion, the negotiations. If the American government wants to subsidize the American sugar industry the American people should rise up in vehement protest. What the American government would be doing, basically, would be taxing us and giving it to the sugar industry. We should not only say no, but he’ll no.

Again, you seem to be overlooking the idea that some countries use these as weapons. Having a defense against them is fine. I'm okay with paying a bit more money for steel if it means China has less influence in our national interests. War is politics by different means. Economic manipulation is the same thing.
 
I want to know why these two tariffs will turn things very ugly very quickly when the previous 12,000 we just ignorantly live with.

This is media ratings driven and it’s because trump trump trump in my opinion. We were all outraged when Obama was subsidizing solyndra, right? We go nuts for the corn subsidies that have made family farms in Iowa multi millionaires in the last thirty years, right? Our economy is a twisted complicated hybrid and I appreciate the discussion but the nitpicking over this because of the man in the office and the new social media school of Fish mentality is over cooked. Pandora’s box is already open, this isnt just happening in 2018.
This may turn ugly very quickly for a couple of reasons. One, Trump is acting unilaterally in defiance of even those within his administration. Two, steel is a material that is incorporated in countless products. Raise the price of steel and you raise the price of countless products. Those higher prices will eluminate that portion of the buying market that would have been stretched to the limit to buy at the old price. Lower sales in those industries will result in job layoffs in those industries. As has been reported many times when Bush put tariffs on steel to protect 140,000 steel jobs it resulted in 200,000 job losses in other industries. The downstream industries that use steel in their products are at great risk. There are an estimated 5.4 million jobs put at risk by Trump’s tariff to save 140K jobs, jobs that are not really at risk because of foreign competition. Three, if Trump follows through on his threat he will be imposing tariffs on many of our allies and trading partners. They have already said they would respond in kind. Harley Davidson products, American bourbon, and one other industry have been put on notice. This could result in an economic catastrophe. Like you, I don’t know what will happen. But I find it very upsetting that our shoot from the hip President is toying with our futures in such a cavalier manner. I understand some of you are loyal to Trump to the end. But you are mistaken if you think he’s the guy on the white horse that is going to drain the swamp by doing things like this.
 
Again, you seem to be overlooking the idea that some countries use these as weapons. Having a defense against them is fine. I'm okay with paying a bit more money for steel if it means China has less influence in our national interests. War is politics by different means. Economic manipulation is the same thing.
No I’m not overlooking that some countries won’t play by the rules, they’ll cheat. What I’m telling you is it won’t matter what they do as long as we maintain a free market on our side. Virtually every economist will tell you that. Open markets are a virtual guarantee of peace and prosperity for those who practice it. Your concern for Chinese domination is without merit. The more we are willing to trade with them, the more prosperous they become, the less likely they are to jeopardize that prosperity. Traders don’t fight! They trade!
 
No I’m not overlooking that some countries won’t play by the rules, they’ll cheat. What I’m telling you is it won’t matter what they do as long as we maintain a free market on our side. Virtually every economist will tell you that. Open markets are a virtual guarantee of peace and prosperity for those who practice it. Your concern for Chinese domination is without merit. The more we are willing to trade with them, the more prosperous they become, the less likely they are to jeopardize that prosperity. Traders don’t fight! They trade!
I agree with that in general.

I'm just saying there are times when I'm okay with a select tariff. For example to not reward IP theft. I know this because that's my job. To prevent this exact example we work with the FBI. The insulation example I gave was a real life example. That actually happened. If the Chinese company that got the stolen processes was allowed to sell that insulation back in America - regulators should be fired and politicians voted out of office.
 
For all of you going on about this impact on China and Chinese Steel, do any of you realize that China is not even in the Top 10 of Steel suppliers to the USA?

Canada's #1 as they supply 16% percent of US steel imports, Brazil- 13%, S Korea-10%, Mexico-9%, Russia-9%, Turkey-7%, Japan-5%, Taiwan-4%, German-3% and India-2%. (China is the source for less than 2% of US steel imports.)

Obama had already taken action against the Chinese for illegal trade actions for both aluminum and steel in 2016. So the increase in tariffs announced by Trump would have nearly zero impact on Chinese imports as it's already below the amount of tariffs and duties imposed by the Obama administration in 2016.

So for all you thinking this somehow is related to China or is going to have a positive impact on trade (in favor of the US) with China, you are completely barking up the wrong tree.
 
I agree with that in general.

I'm just saying there are times when I'm okay with a select tariff. For example to not reward IP theft. I know this because that's my job. To prevent this exact example we work with the FBI. The insulation example I gave was a real life example. That actually happened. If the Chinese company that got the stolen processes was allowed to sell that insulation back in America - regulators should be fired and politicians voted out of office.
Hard to argue with that! Only one point: banning a stolen product from entering the country is not the same thing as a tariff.
 
First day of trading Jan 2018: close at 24,824
Today: currently 24,800

Interesting. I guess I'm better than the market because I'm up 5% just this year, and my purchases made this year are up almost 15%, including the NetFlix purchase that I highlighted on this very forum a few weeks back. If you are down, maybe you should find a better advisor.
 
Interesting. I guess I'm better than the market because I'm up 5% just this year, and my purchases made this year are up almost 15%, including the NetFlix purchase that I highlighted on this very forum a few weeks back. If you are down, maybe you should find a better advisor.

1) At what point in my post did I question your personal ability to play the futures and make good moves?

2) Bonds for me now.
 
1) At what point in my post did I question your personal ability to play the futures and make good moves?

2) Bonds for me now.

Good luck with the Bonds. Can't see how they don't get slaughtered in the current environment.
 
Good luck with the Bonds. Can't see how they don't get slaughtered in the current environment.
There's a theme regarding why he is 34 and living with his parents. This is just part of that theme, one ornament if you will.
 
Looking for an answer from those supporting Trump’s proposed tariff war. If the purpose of Trump’s tariff is to “save jobs,” as he and the steel executives and the union leaders insist is the motive, should Trump, acting as a dictator, ban all automation in every industry that might cause a job loss? Should progress come to a halt because one politician decided it is his duty to save existing jobs? For example, should the restaurants in Trump’s hotels and resorts be required to remove all automatic dishwashers in order to save the jobs of humans that used to wash the dishes? If your answer is “no, progress should not be banned, automation is a good thing,” my question for you is what is the difference? If the principle behind the tariffs is to save jobs should that principle not also apply in every case? If the principle is to save existing jobs should not progress be brought to a screeching halt, immediately, and with no exceptions?

Assuming the automation gets rid of jobs is a bad starting point. Technology has made its greatest leaps in the last 50 years and yet the unemployment rate has remained essentially the same despite its growth. Some jobs go away, that is for sure, but other jobs replace them.
 
Long term view dude. Markets move on daily news. It’s also up bigly so any sort of “shock” will lead to more profit taking. Of course higher steel will lead to pass through costs (funny how liberals now believe this, but higher minimum wage won’t cause the same thing).
@CSCOTTOSUPOKES waiting for your answer here. What are your thoughts on minimum wage increases?
 
Assuming the automation gets rid of jobs is a bad starting point. Technology has made its greatest leaps in the last 50 years and yet the unemployment rate has remained essentially the same despite its growth. Some jobs go away, that is for sure, but other jobs replace them.
BINGO!!! And the same holds true for jobs lost because foreign companies can provide some products more efficiently or cheaply than American companies can. I ask my questions regarding automation because some people cannot comprehend that jobs come and go, and to be successful you have to be ready to roll with the tide. If the principle behind tariffs is "saving jobs" the same principle must hold regarding saving all jobs. In point of fact the principle is in error. That's my whole point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
BINGO!!! And the same holds true for jobs lost because foreign companies can provide some products more efficiently or cheaply than American companies can. I ask my questions regarding automation because some people cannot comprehend that jobs come and go, and to be successful you have to be ready to roll with the tide. If the principle behind tariffs is "saving jobs" the same principle must hold regarding saving all jobs. In point of fact the principle is in error. That's my whole point.

But you lose sight of the differences between jobs lost due to unfair global competition, and jobs lost due to technological innovation. The latter in essence generates new jobs of a different type. The former has no such impact. It also doesn't account for the weakening effect of a currency due to international trade imbalances.

As I stated before, I'm actually against the tariffs that Trump has proposed on Aluminum and Steel. I don't like tariffing raw materials because that has such a significant downstream impact on other industries. So while I supported his "washing machines" tariff, I disagree with him here. However, I do think the overall conversation on tariffs and their impact and the forthcoming global trade war has gone way overboard.
 
But you lose sight of the differences between jobs lost due to unfair global competition, and jobs lost due to technological innovation. The latter in essence generates new jobs of a different type. The former has no such impact. It also doesn't account for the weakening effect of a currency due to international trade imbalances.

As I stated before, I'm actually against the tariffs that Trump has proposed on Aluminum and Steel. I don't like tariffing raw materials because that has such a significant downstream impact on other industries. So while I supported his "washing machines" tariff, I disagree with him here. However, I do think the overall conversation on tariffs and their impact and the forthcoming global trade war has gone way overboard.

No, I haven't lost sight of the differences, because basically there is no difference. Comparative advantage favors the production of some products by foreign companies, and favors American companies in other products. It's a hard reality to accept, but it's reality whether we like it or not. American workers for the most part are well educated and highly skilled at tasks workers from other companies are not. An American auto worker, for example, who spends his day pushing a button on a machine that punches a hole in a fender is underutilized. The job is not worth $50/hour, or whatever the union has negotiated. Mexico has the comparative advantage because their workers, who are not skilled to handle more technical jobs, are a perfect fit for pushing a button, at a more realistic wage. The American worker who has lost his push-button job has been given an opportunity to move into a more demanding job requiring skills of which he is capable, at a wage appropriate for his skill level. He just has to be willing to do it. There are multitudes of unfilled jobs for highly skilled workers in technical fields. Jobs that are not as soul deadening as pushing the same button all day, that are much more fulfilling, and that pay as much or more than what he is accustomed to. The sad fact is he is going to lose the button-pushing job to automation eventually, if he hasn't already. A free market economy is dynamic, very fluid, often produces enormous short-term pain, but almost always delivers long tern satisfaction. I'm not asking you to believe me. Read about it on your own. There are scores of economic texts that can explain things much better than I can. I'm nothing more than a simple working man from Oklahoma. Go to www.cafehayek.com on a regular basis and learn what free markets - freedom in general - can accomplish!
 
But you lose sight of the differences between jobs lost due to unfair global competition, and jobs lost due to technological innovation. The latter in essence generates new jobs of a different type. The former has no such impact. It also doesn't account for the weakening effect of a currency due to international trade imbalances.

As I stated before, I'm actually against the tariffs that Trump has proposed on Aluminum and Steel. I don't like tariffing raw materials because that has such a significant downstream impact on other industries. So while I supported his "washing machines" tariff, I disagree with him here. However, I do think the overall conversation on tariffs and their impact and the forthcoming global trade war has gone way overboard.

I hope you are right about the overboard reaction. The fact that it has come from every faction, conservative, liberal, the business sector, our allies, libertarians certainly, economists of every persuasion, both the Austrian school and Keynsians, tells me this is serious. While driving home this evening I heard on the radio that Trump says he’ll not back down. That is cause for concern. Over the weekend he threatened to put tariffs on European cars if the Europeans respond to the steel tariffs with tariffs of their own. I’m sure his bully tactics have worked for him in business in the past. I’m not so sure they will play well on the international political stage. But, having said all that I repeat that I hope I’m wrong.
 



DV9MvrfVMAEuscF
 
Manipulation of data is a subject you need to learn about, sorely. I didn't have to read very far into that publication to quickly find some information that would lead to an "unbiased" conclusion, opinion, whatever you want to call it to make your point.
 
Manipulation of data is a subject you need to learn about, sorely. I didn't have to read very far into that publication to quickly find some information that would lead to an "unbiased" conclusion, opinion, whatever you want to call it to make your point.

Lol...now you’re just pouting. Tell-tale symptom of #losing
 
“Manipulation”

Doruk Cengiz University of Massachusetts Amherst
Arindrajit Dube University of Massachusetts Amherst and IZA
Attila Lindner University College London, CEP, IFS, IZA, MTA-KTI
Ben Zipperer Economic Policy Institute

Haha...love this board!
 
“Manipulation”

Doruk Cengiz University of Massachusetts Amherst
Arindrajit Dube University of Massachusetts Amherst and IZA
Attila Lindner University College London, CEP, IFS, IZA, MTA-KTI
Ben Zipperer Economic Policy Institute

Haha...love this board!
You REALLY need to try harder. You must have missed the part where I mentioned my wife is an economist. Being a professor does not qualify anyone as not having an opinion prior to any study. How was the data presented in their survey(s)? What did the raw data say? What conclusions did they come to based on how they wanted to see the data? Could that have been manipulated in the presentation? Could outside sources have an opinion on what they want this "study" to say. Having a wife who has published a ton helps me better understand the data, the process, the publication, all of it. So, if you think for one second just having those credentials means "no opinion at all" then you are as stupid as you look.
 
You REALLY need to try harder. You must have missed the part where I mentioned my wife is an economist. Being a professor does not qualify anyone as not having an opinion prior to any study. How was the data presented in their survey(s)? What did the raw data say? What conclusions did they come to based on how they wanted to see the data? Could that have been manipulated in the presentation? Could outside sources have an opinion on what they want this "study" to say. Having a wife who has published a ton helps me better understand the data, the process, the publication, all of it. So, if you think for one second just having those credentials means "no opinion at all" then you are as stupid as you look.

Lol...can’t wait for her to read the 5-year study and tell you “he’s #winning” haha.

Carry on
 
No, you're completely glossing over EVERYTHING I said by displaying some credentials of the authors like it is some end-all-be-all. Then your next post was useless as you hadn't even acknowledge what I had said, so it was a waste to even read. Arguing with you is like arguing with the Pet Rock. So, at this point, throwing my hands up and saying phuck it is the path of least resistance...

get back to pulling cable...
 
No, you're completely glossing over EVERYTHING I said by displaying some credentials of the authors like it is some end-all-be-all. Then your next post was useless as you hadn't even acknowledge what I had said, so it was a waste to even read. Arguing with you is like arguing with the Pet Rock. So, at this point, throwing my hands up and saying phuck it is the path of least resistance...

get back to pulling cable...


You’re saying “phuck it” because you’re losing lol. Do you want a bigger shovel for your hole? Haha...too easy
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT