![www.breitbart.com](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.breitbart.com%2Fmedia%2F2025%2F01%2FAlexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-640x335.jpg&hash=e7a7c820c79c18b9a635f64b03a5db85&return_error=1)
Ocasio-Cortez Roasted over Take on Colombian Tariffs, Coffee Prices
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's take on how tariffs on Colombian goods may lead to higher coffee prices for Americans left a burnt and bitter aftertaste for many.
![www.breitbart.com](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ffavicon.png&hash=778cc838143164b400a9d52cb21ecf37&return_error=1)
Such a simpleton.She is almost certainly right that a 25% tariff on Colombian coffee would raise the price of Columbian coffee in America. And she is correct that the citizens of the country imposing tariffs are the ones who pay for them. But the price increase would probably be felt only by the most marginalized citizens, and nobody cares what happens to them.
Denying economic reality doesn't alter the reality.Such a simpleton.
If I read the article correctly it explain how rare it is for the consumer to bear all of the additional costs. Maybe you should read the article again.She is almost certainly right that a 25% tariff on Colombian coffee would raise the price of Columbian coffee in America. And she is correct that the citizens of the country imposing tariffs are the ones who pay for them. But the price increase would probably be felt only by the most marginalized citizens, and nobody cares what happens to them.
Denying economic reality doesn't alter the reality.
Fvck Starbucks.![]()
Ocasio-Cortez Roasted over Take on Colombian Tariffs, Coffee Prices
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's take on how tariffs on Colombian goods may lead to higher coffee prices for Americans left a burnt and bitter aftertaste for many.www.breitbart.com
Yer just mad about that 25% tariff Trump put on that junk you smoke Dan.Denying economic reality doesn't alter the reality.
You'll get no argument from me that the consumer doesn't always have to pay "all" the cost; oftentimes the seller eats some of the price increase in a desperate attempt to keep market share. I'm making an economic point, not a political one. And economics says the citizens of a country imposing tariffs pay the brunt of the cost. AOC is correct in making that economic point. As a politician she is seriously flawed.If I read the article correctly it explain how rare it is for the consumer to bear all of the additional costs. Maybe you should read the article again.
You and AOC are made for each other. Next thing you know you will be complaining about the price of eggs and why Trump hasn't solved that in a week.You'll get no argument from me that the consumer doesn't always have to pay "all" the cost; oftentimes the seller eats some of the price increase in a desperate attempt to keep market share. I'm making an economic point, not a political one. And economics says the citizens of a country imposing tariffs pay the brunt of the cost. AOC is correct in making that economic point. As a politician she is seriously flawed.
There is no need for the acrimony. Economic reality doesn’t play favorites based on which political team defies it. Anyone who thinks a 25% tariff on Columbian coffee would not cause a price increase in Colombian coffee is thinking incorrectly about the economics involved.You and AOC are made for each other. Next thing you know you will be complaining about the price of eggs and why Trump hasn't solved that in a week.
Have you looked into what illegal immigration is costing you from an economic standpoint?You'll get no argument from me that the consumer doesn't always have to pay "all" the cost; oftentimes the seller eats some of the price increase in a desperate attempt to keep market share. I'm making an economic point, not a political one. And economics says the citizens of a country imposing tariffs pay the brunt of the cost. AOC is correct in making that economic point. As a politician she is seriously flawed.
The point is the citizens rarely bear the brunt of tariffs. And your point about the marginalized is true. But the marginalized have always and will always be affected more.You'll get no argument from me that the consumer doesn't always have to pay "all" the cost; oftentimes the seller eats some of the price increase in a desperate attempt to keep market share. I'm making an economic point, not a political one. And economics says the citizens of a country imposing tariffs pay the brunt of the cost. AOC is correct in making that economic point. As a politician she is seriously flawed.
No. Have you?Have you looked into what illegal immigration is costing you from an economic standpoint?
Well, yes, of course it could be worse. In this case the tariffs were not imposed. The economic point (made by most economists) is the citizens almost always bear the brunt of tariffs. It’s absurd to think otherwise. The “political” point I have made frequently on this board is authoritarian policies almost always work until they don’t. Usually the point where they quit working comes hard and fast. And when that happens the generally accepted “political” conclusion is the policy quit working because it wasn’t authoritarian enough. Politicians love to have authority!The point is the citizens rarely bear the brunt of tariffs. And your point about the marginalized is true. But the marginalized have always and will always be affected more.
It could be worse. We could have an even more socialist economy and everyone would be marginalized.
Maybe AOC fer yer national economist chief Dan? 🤣There is no need for the acrimony. Economic reality doesn’t play favorites based on which political team defies it. Anyone who thinks a 25% tariff on Columbian coffee would not cause a price increase in Colombian coffee is thinking incorrectly about the economics involved.
What is the economic reality in this very situation Dan?There is no need for the acrimony. Economic reality doesn’t play favorites based on which political team defies it. Anyone who thinks a 25% tariff on Columbian coffee would not cause a price increase in Colombian coffee is thinking incorrectly about the economics involved.
The economic reality is nothing changed since the tariffs were not imposed.What is the economic reality in this very situation Dan?
Tighten yer seatbelt Dan. Yer about to experience some turbulence.The economic reality is nothing changed since the tariffs were not imposed.
The economic reality is nothing changed since the tariffs were not imposed.
Dan's hookah is his utopia. Hittin it hard before the knock on his door. The no knock "knock". 😁Are you starting to get it yet or still stuck in utopia?
My talk on this thread has been 100% about economics, not politics. Trump scored a wonderful political victory against a country that is considerably weaker than ours. Give him props for his victory. That doesn’t alter the reality that had Columbia not backed down and the tariffs had been imposed Columbian coffee would have cost more. For all her political miscues - and they are legendary - AOC was correct that a 25% tariff would have raised prices. All the hatred you can muster against AOC (and me) would not alter that outcome.Are you starting to get it yet or still stuck in utopia?
Why yes, Dan, I have. But I really don't have to look when the astronomical figures are regularly presented in the public forum. They kinda fall out of the interwebs these days. The latest figure I saw was $150 billion a year as a conservative estimate.No. Have you?
Weird. I wonder why Colombia spent no time deciding they didn't want to face the threatened tariffs...The economic reality is nothing changed since the tariffs were not imposed.
The others will follow Columbia's lead back to their rightful place.Why yes, Dan, I have. But I really don't have to look when the astronomical figures are regularly presented in the public forum. They kinda fall out of the interwebs these days. The latest figure I saw was $150 billion a year as a conservative estimate.
Weird. I wonder why Colombia spent no time deciding they didn't want to face the threatened tariffs...
I gather by your comments you think I’m in favor of open borders with an unlimited flow of illegal immigrants into this country. I have no idea where you came to that conclusion. I am as opposed to that as you are.Why yes, Dan, I have. But I really don't have to look when the astronomical figures are regularly presented in the public forum. They kinda fall out of the interwebs these days. The latest figure I saw was $150 billion a year as a conservative estimate.
Weird. I wonder why Colombia spent no time deciding they didn't want to face the threatened tariffs...
Columbia backed down because a US Prez with a sack is now in charge. The rest of the third world Central and South American countries will or should I say, have no choice but to follow suit. Homan is rounding up sleepy's guests by the thousands as we speak. Call it a "circumcision".I gather by your comments you think I’m in favor of open borders with an unlimited flow of illegal immigrants into this country. I have no idea where you came to that conclusion. I am as opposed to that as you are.
Why did Colombia back down so quickly? What would you do if a heavyweight champion challenged you to a fistfight? As I said earlier, Trump won a political victory. Props to him for his win.
No, Dan, stop gathering and creating your own conclusions. You're far off the mark.I gather by your comments you think I’m in favor of open borders with an unlimited flow of illegal immigrants into this country. I have no idea where you came to that conclusion. I am as opposed to that as you are.
Correct. There's no need to clutch your pearls at every mention of "tariff." Some of your clutching I'm actually on board with. Slapping the socialist dipshit in Colombia around so that he'll take his criminals back isn't in that some.Why did Colombia back down so quickly? What would you do if a heavyweight champion challenged you to a fistfight? As I said earlier, Trump won a political victory. Props to him for his win.
Yet the politics is also part of the economics.My talk on this thread has been 100% about economics, not politics. Trump scored a wonderful political victory against a country that is considerably weaker than ours. Give him props for his victory. That doesn’t alter the reality that had Columbia not backed down and the tariffs had been imposed Columbian coffee would have cost more. For all her political miscues - and they are legendary - AOC was correct that a 25% tariff would have raised prices. All the hatred you can muster against AOC (and me) would not alter that outcome.
It’s late and I’m tired so I’ll just respond to the second part of the conversation tonight, maybe tackle the first part tomorrow. We’re just talking past each other about it anyway, agree far more than disagree.No, Dan, stop gathering and creating your own conclusions. You're far off the mark.
I'm making the point that the costs of illegal immigration far outweigh the inconvenience of you having to spend a few more cents on Colombian coffee that you aren't required or obligated to purchase. You, just like me, have no choice when it comes to subsidizing illegal immigration monetarily, which is only one issue on the subject.
Correct. There's no need to clutch your pearls at every mention of "tariff." Some of your clutching I'm actually on board with. Slapping the socialist dipshit in Colombia around so that he'll take his criminals back isn't in that some.
Only to someone who cannot extract his political prejudices from economic reality. You cannot say “the tariffs worked” if they were never imposed.Yet the politics is also part of the economics.
Ok.It’s late and I’m tired so I’ll just respond to the second part of the conversation tonight, maybe tackle the first part tomorrow. We’re just talking past each other about it anyway, agree far more than disagree.
You jumped on the AOC bandwagon over the threat of a tariff. Sorry bro, that's pearl clutching.Nothing I have written on this thread represents pear clutching of any kind. Tariffs work until they don’t work, and when they don’t work they ruin some people’s livelihoods. Remember the farmers and small factories in the midwest who were driven to ruin by Trump’s tariffs the first time around? It was so bad he had to try and spin it into thanking them for their patriotic sacrifices, as though they had voluntarily sacrificed themselves. It is one factor that cost him reelection in ‘20, because they did not appreciate being sacrificial lambs for him. And tariffs on coffee is unlikely to ruin many American lives, but would have a great impact on Colombians. Which may have driven some of them into sneaking into America, who knows. But all of that is superficial to the economic argument that the tariff would have raised coffee prices. And that’s the only - completely non-pearl-clutching - argument I am making here. How many times do you want me to say it: Trump scored a significant political victory with his threat.
Only to someone who feels threatened by little loud mouthed AOC.Ok.
You jumped on the AOC bandwagon over the threat of a tariff. Sorry bro, that's pearl clutching.
Nobody here is threatened here by her Propaganda nor yours. We laugh at both of you not with you.Only to someone who feels threatened by little loud mouthed AOC.
No you don’t. You wouldn’t feel the need to say that if that’s how you truly felt.Nobody here is threatened here by her Propaganda nor yours. We laugh at both of you not with you.
Oh please explain to me how AOC crying over the threat of one country's coffee being a little more expensive is a threat to anyone. This should be good.Only to someone who feels threatened by little loud mouthed AOC.