Train Wreck. Clown Show.

[atmafola]

They are not problems for libs like you, but for those who lose their jobs because of unfair trade practices they are a real problem - not that you would find that concerning.

You will never find me arguing it is not a problem for those who lost their jobs and way of life. That is true. It is a problem for them. And for to long, their complaints were not taken seriously enough.
That's why I pointed to the agriculture example, in moving from agriculture to manufacturing, many people lost their jobs too. I doubt the solution was like lets go back to days of "everyone is a farmer"

Yes free trade collectively makes us all better. Goods become massively cheaper, just about anything that isn't services that require direct US labor became much much cheaper. But you are right there are people adversely affected.

The textbook solution is not tarriff eveybody and protect local manufacturing. The textbook solution is tax the winners and use that money to re-train and subsidize affected people. But well politically, that's a challenge, some people have convinced the rest of everyone esle that taxing winners is wrong.

 

[atmafola]

Then why is there a long and growing list of companies planning to build/expand in the US instead of in Mexico or other low-wage countries? Do they not understand that they are working against their own best interests? Should they be listening to you and DG for advice?

Good questions. Outside of propaganda, there are indeed good non-economic reasons to want to encourage manufacturing back (e.g. national security interest where you want to retain ability to do something quickly in case you ever need it for wars). agriculture has gone from 95% employment to 5% employment, and didn't disappear. In fact, our agricultural output kept increasing, despite the industry employing less people..
There are ways to be strategically reshoring some manufacturing, again ECON 101, find your areas of comparative advantage and double down on it. For US, it likely looks like niche industries where automation, using less labor, high quality output allows us to put out products that are competitive in a global market. Heck if you look at manufacturing as a percentage of the economy, (both in workers employed, and total output), it has been slowly increasing a bit since lows of early naughts. But we are never going back to the 50s and 60s.

The inevitable future for manufacturing is like agriculture, it never completely disappears, we are able to produce more with less in niche areas, and then use that trade with others for low-value things that are just not worth producing here.

 

[Riveting-]

Good questions. Outside of propaganda, there are indeed good non-economic reasons to want to encourage manufacturing back (e.g. national security interest where you want to retain ability to do something quickly in case you ever need it for wars). agriculture has gone from 95% employment to 5% employment, and didn't disappear. In fact, our agricultural output kept increasing, despite the industry employing less people..
There are ways to be strategically reshoring some manufacturing, again ECON 101, find your areas of comparative advantage and double down on it. For US, it likely looks like niche industries where automation, using less labor, high quality output allows us to put out products that are competitive in a global market. Heck if you look at manufacturing as a percentage of the economy, (both in workers employed, and total output), it has been slowly increasing a bit since lows of early naughts. But we are never going back to the 50s and 60s.

The inevitable future for manufacturing is like agriculture, it never completely disappears, we are able to produce more with less in niche areas, and then use that trade with others for low-value things that are just not worth producing here.

My question was, why are those manufacturers planning to build/expand in the US.

Might avoiding tariffs have something to do with it?

 

[atmafola]

My question was, why are those manufacturers planning to build/expand in the US.

Might avoiding tariffs have something to do with it?

Tarrifs especially broadly applied ones like yesterday is a terribly blunt tool.

Effectively, if it works perfectly, it becomes you are pretty much taxing everybody in US to incentivize US produce in-house sub-optimal and overpriced goods and makes us over time poorer relative to the rest of the world. It's effectively import substitution, which has been tried and failed many places.

A better option is to find areas you have a comparative advantage (or for national securities), narrowly tariff or subsidize those areas. It's effectively what we did with agriculture. For instance, for national security reasons, we pay above global market rates in order to keep farmers in the US producing some things so that we are not totally dependent on foreigners to feed ourselves. But we are able to afford those subsidies because we allowed our economy to grow so much that paying a little tax to subsidize agriculture is chicken change.

Unsurprisingly, there's a Purdue connection to that story. It was a Purdue agric-econ professor that was behind that national policy.

 

[DG Boiler]

My question was, why are those manufacturers planning to build/expand in the US.

Might avoiding tariffs have something to do with it?

Of course avoiding tariffs has something to do with it. That doesn't mean broadly applied tariffs are a good idea. Prices are going to skyrocket. And guess what: they generally do not come down. So unless companies start paying more, we're in for a really tough economic situation. More jobs are created, yay! Yeah, but they are generally going to be unskilled labor (operators) that are hard to find. I suppose that when a ton of white collar workers lose their jobs due to these terrible economic policies, they can get jobs assembling iPhones in Alabama.

 

[Quix0te]

national debt is not a real problem.

There ya go. I'm not being nasty here. This goofus actually believes that national debt isn't a problem.

 

[Riveting-]

Of course avoiding tariffs has something to do with it. That doesn't mean broadly applied tariffs are a good idea. Prices are going to skyrocket. And guess what: they generally do not come down. So unless companies start paying more, we're in for a really tough economic situation. More jobs are created, yay! Yeah, but they are generally going to be unskilled labor (operators) that are hard to find. I suppose that when a ton of white collar workers lose their jobs due to these terrible economic policies, they can get jobs assembling iPhones in Alabama.

Tarrifs especially broadly applied ones like yesterday is a terribly blunt tool.

Effectively, if it works perfectly, it becomes you are pretty much taxing everybody in US to incentivize US produce in-house sub-optimal and overpriced goods and makes us over time poorer relative to the rest of the world. It's effectively import substitution, which has been tried and failed many places.

A better option is to find areas you have a comparative advantage (or for national securities), narrowly tariff or subsidize those areas. It's effectively what we did with agriculture. For instance, for national security reasons, we pay above global market rates in order to keep farmers in the US producing some things so that we are not totally dependent on foreigners to feed ourselves. But we are able to afford those subsidies because we allowed our economy to grow so much that paying a little tax to subsidize agriculture is chicken change.

Unsurprisingly, there's a Purdue connection to that story. It was a Purdue agric-econ professor that was behind that national policy.

Here then are four key benefits of tariffs in some applications:

1. Counter police state IP theft, use of slave labor, and other unfair and unethical trade practices. Do you object to tariffs in these cases such as China?

2. Squeeze outlaw countries like Iran and Russia that work to subvert the US and other democracies. Do you object to tariffs in these cases.

3. To induce companies to build/expand in the US, creating jobs and contributing to local tax bases.

4. To induce critical industries to build/expand in the US, including semiconductors, pharma, key materials, etc, making us more resistant to police states that would destroy us if they could.

Each one of those on its own can or in combination can be valuable to this nation in the right application.

I fully believe China is the right application - as are Iran and Russia. I bet you think that as well. For Trump's application to other countries I don't know yet - and for now will not pretend I do.

 

[DG Boiler]

There ya go. I'm not being nasty here. This goofus actually believes that national debt isn't a problem.

How does it directly affect you?

 

[DG Boiler]

Here then are four key benefits of tariffs in some applications:

1. Counter police state IP theft, use of slave labor, and other unfair and unethical trade practices. Do you object to tariffs in these cases such as China?

2. Squeeze outlaw countries like Iran and Russia that work to subvert the US and other democracies. Do you object to tariffs in these cases.

3. To induce companies to build/expand in the US, creating jobs and contributing to local tax bases.

4. To induce critical industries to build/expand in the US, including semiconductors, pharma, key materials, etc, making us more resistant to police states that would destroy us if they could.

Each one of those on its own can or in combination can be valuable to this nation in the right application.

I fully believe China is the right application - as are Iran and Russia. I bet you think that as well. For Trump's application to other countries I don't know yet - and for now will not pretend I do.

How much does the US import from Russia? That's not even a blip on the radar at this point, as they're heavily sanctioned anyway. I understand your unhealthy obsession with China, but it's absolutely not the right application to just indiscriminately apply a historically high, across-the-board tariff and assume it's not going to be a massive issue. Finally, having a 10% tariff on all goods from foreign countries, including UNINHABITED countries, is dumbfounding.

If you think this is going to benefit the country, I have beachfront property in Phoenix I'll sell you really cheaply.

 

[BB62]

national debt is not a real problem. Republican voters may not know it. But their leaders do. You haven't noticed that every Republican President since Reagan (except GHW Bush) intentionally blows up the debts. Every single one of them.

• Reagan came and trippled our debts.
• GWB met a surplus, immediately passed a massive tax cuts that led to deficits and added to debt, and then left us with GFC and massive deficits
• Trump came and immediately passed a tax cuts that made things worse, and then on the way out in the name of dealing with COVID ran massive massive deficits (by the way that was the right economic call)
• Trump II is immediately angling for more tax cuts that will add 5T to debts.

national economics is not indivual economics. the national debt is mostly a political issue not an economic one. And if you watch the actions of politicians that yell about it it the most, you wil notice their actions are not in line with actually getting the debt down. They are more in line with spending the money they way they prefer.

But I don't how you can argue the interest on the debt is political. It's real tax dollars that could be spent on something else or given back.
Gonna be a trillion dollars next year.

 

[atmafola]

But I don't how you can argue the interest on the debt is political. It's real tax dollars that could be spent on something else or given back.
Gonna be a trillion dollars next year.

if it wasn't political, why do the people who rail about it the most never actually do anything about it when they have the power to do so. i gave multiple examples. you tell me. why don't they. Rather they focus on shifting away spending from the other party's priorities to their own priorities.

 

[BB62]

In other words, you have no ideas about how to counter China trade/business unfair practices.

A 10% tariff on Moldova should help.

 

[BB62]

No, it isn't what happened BEFORE the mission happened. You have been duped by the rabid woke news media. It was a real time description as it occurred and if you read the actual messages that I provided in a link above, it is obvious that is true.

Since you're asking my 'stance', here it is. This was a one-time accidental security breach that caused no harm whatsoever and obviously it will not happen again, but nonetheless the Dems have gone frothmouth ballistic over a nothingburger. Hillary's emails were thousands of intentional security breaches over four years, God only knows what was hacked and the damage they caused, and the Dems think this was a nothingburger.

"Rabid woke News media". You're like trump. Every time you open your mouth.

Goldberg received the text and sat in a Safeway parking lot waiting for it to happen. Read something.

 

[BoilerJS]

Exactly.

Which leaves us as the service-based/corporate ownership, low unemployment, high standard of living epicenter of the world. And it has left the masses in those countries as the low wage factory workers.

Then they need to figure out how to compete in a world wide level trading field.
The US doesn’t need to defend AND subsidize the word and go broke doing so!

 

[BB62]

if it wasn't political, why do the people who rail about it the most never actually do anything about it when they have the power to do so. i gave multiple examples. you tell me. why don't they. Rather they focus on shifting away spending from the other party's priorities to their own priorities.

Ok. Call it political.........because the reason they won't make the tough choices necessary to eliminate the debt would mean they would lose their job.

You said it's not an economic problem. It certainly is. If your argument is the reason the debt problem doesn't get addressed or fixed is political..........from the standpoint of wanting to be re-elected, then I agree.

 

[BB62]

My question was, why are those manufacturers planning to build/expand in the US.

Might avoiding tariffs have something to do with it?

Well let's see if it happens. You think it's possible these companies are saying what trump wants to hear so they will keep off his sh/t list?

The reality is by the time new plants are built, trump will be long gone. The next admin could reverse the tariffs with the stroke of a pen. Companies aren't going to invest tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars on a policy that likely won't be around long. Hell, trump could change his mind tomorrow. You think they are gonna invest huge sums of money with that kind of uncertainty?

But I guess if they think he could get a third term.......which he's already talking about and I've been saying would happen, the investment might pay off.

Btw, is his talk about a third term just more talk we should dismiss until he does it?

 

[Katscratch]

Then they need to figure out how to compete in a world wide level trading field.
The US doesn’t need to defend AND subsidize the word and go broke doing so!

Generally we’re not subsidizing the world.

Our economy has kicked the rest of the world’s ass, largely because as you said we defend a good part of the world, but also because we subsidize with enough aid to get very favorable market treatment and conditions. The only task was not to screw up a very good thing while using foreign aid as a dangling carrot.

The past few months have very much screwed up our very good thing.

 

[atmafola]

Ok. Call it political.........because the reason they won't make the tough choices necessary to eliminate the debt would mean they would lose their job.

You said it's not an economic problem. It certainly is. If your argument is the reason the debt problem doesn't get addressed or fixed is political..........from the standpoint of wanting to be re-elected, then I agree.

my argument is US national debt is just not the economic problem politicians tout it to be. Its debt in our own currency. It's largely an artificial problem. The loud noise made about it is just politics. They only make the loud noise because people like you care about it and that saying they will do something about it is how to get your votes. They themselves know it is mostly meaningless. That's why when they get in power, they immediately and consistently start blowing the debt up.

Debt in currency you don't control is whole other problem. That's real. It can torpedo your economy. But debt in your own currency. The babble is just political noise to get people angry and drum up votes. I agree it feels really wrong that debt shouldn't matter. It goes against our intuition and how we live our lives. It feels like it should matter. Afterall, we are paying real dollars in interest on those debts. I hear how you feel. I get it. But microeconomics is not macroeconomics.

Should we then always borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow? Absolutely not. At the end of the day, what a government should care about is full employment, keeping inflation stable but slightly higher than 0, human welfare, improving standard of living, opportunities to grow the economic productivity via innovation. Those are real things! Tweak your deficits levels to always optimize for those. The debts in your currency. meh they don't really matter. its just 0s and 1s that you can create more off anytime. Our politicians mostly use it as an opportunity to argue for their own vision of what government should be spending money on.

 

[atmafola]

Generally we’re not subsidizing the world.

Our economy has kicked the rest of the world’s ass, largely because as you said we defend a good part of the world, but also because we subsidize with enough aid to get very favorable market treatment and conditions. The only task was not to screw up a very good thing while using foreign aid as a dangling carrot.

The past few months have very much screwed up our very good thing.

This!

People like him don't see or understand all intangible benefits we get from the way America was positioned in the global economy. We pretty much had a quasi-empire that included Canada & Mexico, without explicity saying so on paper. Trump fundamentally just does not understand win-win interactions. In his mind, if someone else is winning means I am losing. So he upsets the balance and makes everyone worse.

People see how much we spend on defending Europe and complain that we are subsidizing everyone else. No we are creating an environment that lets US companies reap profit from around the globe, and americans enjoy goods cheaply made, while maintaining our high standard of living. It's not by accident that coming out of GFC in 2008, US did better than most other European countries, and similarly coming covid.

Oh well, people have different personalities and see the world differently. To some people, only concretely tangible things are real. So soft power US was weilding via alliances does not feel real to them.

 

[atmafola]

Here then are four key benefits of tariffs in some applications:

1. Counter police state IP theft, use of slave labor, and other unfair and unethical trade practices. Do you object to tariffs in these cases such as China?

2. Squeeze outlaw countries like Iran and Russia that work to subvert the US and other democracies. Do you object to tariffs in these cases.

3. To induce companies to build/expand in the US, creating jobs and contributing to local tax bases.

4. To induce critical industries to build/expand in the US, including semiconductors, pharma, key materials, etc, making us more resistant to police states that would destroy us if they could.

Each one of those on its own can or in combination can be valuable to this nation in the right application.

I fully believe China is the right application - as are Iran and Russia. I bet you think that as well. For Trump's application to other countries I don't know yet - and for now will not pretend I do.

1. we might differ. I think a signed agreement with strong enforcement and punishments is better solution there. and I am happy to include threats of tariffs as enforcement mechanisms. (That's what TPP was. Guess who cancelled it and replaced it with nothing because he fundamentally doesn't get multi-lateral agreements. And now we are trying to achieve the same aim in a less effective/efficient way.)

2. Absolutely, we can use tariffs as an enforcement tool for international politics. I like sanctions better, and being able to build a broad coalition of allies to similarly enforce those sanctions. (Guess who is breaking up with our friends and making harder to get a broad coalition to bear. And now is trying to achieve the same aim in a costlier, less-effective way.)

3. meh, like I said before. I don't believe this is optimal economically. National security reasons are valid concerns. But besides that. meh.

in each of these cases, we are agreeing to make ourselves slightly worse economically with targeted tarrifs, in other to further some other non-economic objectives. And in my opinion, a fair government should be helping out the citizens disproportionately affected by the effects of those targeted tar

Yesterdays broad tarrifs aren't that. They are neither targeted nor effective towards those aims, and they are very very regressive. It is essentially a tax increase for everyone and a massive tax increase for lower income folks.

 

[Quix0te]

"Rabid woke News media". You're like trump. Every time you open your mouth.

Goldberg received the text and sat in a Safeway parking lot waiting for it to happen. Read something.

So he emailed the Houthis from a Safeway parking lot?

 

[DG Boiler]

So he emailed the Houthis from a Safeway parking lot?

You and this "Riveting" dude certainly don't come off as the best and brightest. I'm guessing you two didn't get into the engineering school, if you ever actually attended Purdue at all.

 

[BB62]

So he emailed the Houthis from a Safeway parking lot?

I guess you're not serious about this.

 

[BoilerJS]

my argument is US national debt is just not the economic problem politicians tout it to be. Its debt in our own currency. It's largely an artificial problem. The loud noise made about it is just politics. They only make the loud noise because people like you care about it and that saying they will do something about it is how to get your votes. They themselves know it is mostly meaningless. That's why when they get in power, they immediately and consistently start blowing the debt up.

Debt in currency you don't control is whole other problem. That's real. It can torpedo your economy. But debt in your own currency. The babble is just political noise to get people angry and drum up votes. I agree it feels really wrong that debt shouldn't matter. It goes against our intuition and how we live our lives. It feels like it should matter. Afterall, we are paying real dollars in interest on those debts. I hear how you feel. I get it. But microeconomics is not macroeconomics.

Should we then always borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow? Absolutely not. At the end of the day, what a government should care about is full employment, keeping inflation stable but slightly higher than 0, human welfare, improving standard of living, opportunities to grow the economic productivity via innovation. Those are real things! Tweak your deficits levels to always optimize for those. The debts in your currency. meh they don't really matter. its just 0s and 1s that you can create more off anytime. Our politicians mostly use it as an opportunity to argue for their own vision of what government should be spending money on.

But, But, But, Foreign Countries own our debt!!

5 Foreign Countries That Own the Most U.S. Debt

The list of names and amounts of U.S. debt held by the five foreign countries that own the most and why.

www.investopedia.com

NOt a large % but still.

 

[Riveting-]

You and this "Riveting" dude certainly don't come off as the best and brightest. I'm guessing you two didn't get into the engineering school, if you ever actually attended Purdue at all.

Bad guess.

Off course we may not come off that way to those who the dim and dimmest.

 

[Riveting-]

Generally we’re not subsidizing the world.

Our economy has kicked the rest of the world’s ass, largely because as you said we defend a good part of the world,

These two statements are contradictory. Can you see that?

The second statement makes no sense. Can you explain it?

 

[Quix0te]

I guess you're not serious about this.

Am I serious about a trivial. inadvertant security leak that caused no harm but has the Democrats' panties up in a HUGE wad after they invited and enabled millions of unvetted illegal immigrants coming into our country for four years? It was undoubtedly the most massive and egregious security breach in the history of our nation. Let's be realistic. You're the one who isn't serious about national security.

 

[Katscratch]

These two statements are contradictory. Can you see that?

The second statement makes no sense. Can you explain it?

.
I can explain:

1. You accurately quoted two portions of my post without the context of the rest of the post. No problem, but...
2. The context is; by defending a fair part of the world, we generate built in market advantages.
   1. So we give military assurances that on a rolling basis never largely materialize as actual expenses, and
   2. We get market advantages that largely do materialize as actual economic engines and advantages.

.

 

[Katscratch]

Am I serious about a trivial. inadvertant security leak that caused no harm but has the Democrats' panties up in a HUGE wad after they invited and enabled millions of unvetted illegal immigrants coming into our country for four years? It was undoubtedly the most massive and egregious security breach in the history of our nation. Let's be realistic. You're the one who isn't serious about national security.

.
Mike Waltz routinely used the Signal app and Gmail to communicate national defense strategies and plans.

Mike Waltz has proven to be a national security risk.
Hegseth and Gabbard's biggest problem is blatant, deliberate, lying about Mike Waltz's misconduct in sworn Congressional testimony.
.

 

[Riveting-]

.
I can explain:

1. You accurately quoted two portions of my post without the context of the rest of the post. No problem, but...
2. The context is; by defending a fair part of the world, we generate built in market advantages.
   1. So we give military assurances that on a rolling basis never largely materialize as actual expenses, and
   2. We get market advantages that largely do materialize as actual economic engines and advantages.

.

Our vast military expenses in and for Europe never largely materialize as actual expenses? You think they are imaginary expenses?

 

[Riveting-]

Am I serious about a trivial. inadvertant security leak that caused no harm but has the Democrats' panties up in a HUGE wad after they invited and enabled millions of unvetted illegal immigrants coming into our country for four years? It was undoubtedly the most massive and egregious security breach in the history of our nation. Let's be realistic. You're the one who isn't serious about national security.

But Bob is very serious about Ukraine's national security.

 

[DG Boiler]

Bad guess.

Off course we may not come off that way to those who the dim and dimmest.

Hilariously stated with multiple grammar and spelling errors ....

 

[DG Boiler]

Am I serious about a trivial. inadvertant security leak that caused no harm but has the Democrats' panties up in a HUGE wad after they invited and enabled millions of unvetted illegal immigrants coming into our country for four years? It was undoubtedly the most massive and egregious security breach in the history of our nation. Let's be realistic. You're the one who isn't serious about national security.

Come on, stop with this nonsense. If Democrats did this, your be losing it. Hillary's emails were not worse than this, despite your previous disingenuous comments. It's a massive security leak that you are sweeping under the rug. When team MAGA does something egregious, you all wave it off as no big deal.

 

[DG Boiler]

Our vast military expenses in and for Europe never largely materialize as actual expenses? You think they are imaginary expenses?

Get it through your immensely thick skull that the US protecting allies gives the US power. If we retreat to this isolationist stance, we lose lose that standing in the world. You don't understand this, do you?

 

[Katscratch]

Our vast military expenses in and for Europe never largely materialize as actual expenses? You think they are imaginary expenses?

.
"Largely never materialize" as in 'we aren't sending troops and full-scale military equipment into battle.' And therefore, the return in economic advantages is overwhelmingly worth it.

There is a difference between 'largely' and 'not at all'. But you knew that. Instead of discussing the substance of the point, you decided to play 'pick apart word meanings' for the sake of argument. Because that is how you are, and is one of the reasons why your posts are incredibly annoying.
.

 

[Riveting-]

Come on, stop with this nonsense. If Democrats did this, your be losing it.

Hilarious.

 

[Riveting-]

Get it through your immensely thick skull that the US protecting allies gives the US power. If we retreat to this isolationist stance, we lose lose that standing in the world.

Would that be a double negative loss, or a gain in standing?

Get it through your thin, shallow skull that the US paying for the defense of wealthy allies weakens the US by having to use taxpayers' money for deadbeat 'allies' with expansive social welfare systems - and could draw us into wars (but from your viewpoint, that would be good for our economy despite the death and destruction, right?).

 

[Riveting-]

.
"Largely never materialize" as in 'we aren't sending troops and full-scale military equipment into battle.' And therefore, the return in economic advantages is overwhelmingly worth it.

There is a difference between 'largely' and 'not at all'. But you knew that. Instead of discussing the substance of the point, you decided to play 'pick apart word meanings' for the sake of argument. Because that is how you are, and is one of the reasons why your posts are incredibly annoying.
.

We have military bases all over Europe - and US taxpayers are funding billions in military equipment (and corruption) for Ukraine. Wake up.

 

[Katscratch]

We have military bases all over Europe - and US taxpayers are funding billions in military equipment (and corruption) for Ukraine. Wake up.

My point is; it's well-worth it. It's a massive undertaking and can be re-examined and improved, but the proof has been in our astounding economic success when we are not an isolationist nation.

 

[Katscratch]

.

The day that dumb-ass Trump was inaugurated, the Dow was at 44,000.

There's another market meltdown happening this morning and the Dow now sits at 39,000.

That's about a 12% loss in the value of the entirety of American corporate value, due to Trump's incompetence, in ten weeks.

To say that isolationism and Trump are a complete disaster is an understatement.

.