Trump's Dumb Economics - Page 76 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15051172
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Sounds like we need to increase tariffs on China and Mexico.


2) That's nothing that Ukraine didn't do to Trump, or Obama during the recent Canadian elections, Brexit, or against Likud. Would it be appropriate for other countries to sanction Obama?


3) What safeguards? Bailing out superrich banks?


4) That will be after the 2020 elections.





1) Tariffs are a lose/lose proposition. The cost will fall on American consumers, which is a negative for the economy.

2) If Obama was an international criminal like Deripaska, sure. While you are arguing badly, it is interesting you are arguing for something Putin wants badly.

3) We passed the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which wasn't strong enough, and has been weakened. You really ought to know something about an issue if you are going to discuss it. This is basic stuff.

4) Which tells me what you care about is it's impact on politics. You lack an interest in governance.
#15051176
late wrote:1) Tariffs are a lose/lose proposition. The cost will fall on American consumers, which is a negative for the economy.

Tariffs that fall only on China force a substitution effect and incentivize production elsewhere.

late wrote:2) If Obama was an international criminal like Deripaska, sure. While you are arguing badly, it is interesting you are arguing for something Putin wants badly.

Well that's an interesting assertion. Derispaska hasn't been charged with any crime in the US, has he? Arguing that Deripaska should be sanctioned because of interfering in elections is a bit rich considering what the US did to the Ukraine, and what US pols like Obama do constantly. I just gave you three examples of Obama interfering in foreign elections. If it's okay for Obama, why isn't it okay for other people?

late wrote:3) We passed the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which wasn't strong enough, and has been weakened.

Dodd-Frank did not make banks safer, it just made them more likely the be bailed out by the government. If you want to revert back to the pre-Clinton banking reforms, just re-enact Glass-Steagall. Break up the big banks.

late wrote:4) Which tells me what you care about is it's impact on politics. You lack an interest in governance.

Uh, I expect a recession too. They are cyclical in nature--having little to do with who is president at the time. Presidents can influence fiscal policy, but rarely monetary policy. Presidents also influence regulatory policy.
By late
#15051178
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Tariffs that fall only on China force a substitution effect and incentivize production elsewhere.


2) Well that's an interesting assertion. Derispaska hasn't been charged with any crime in the US, has he? Arguing that Deripaska should be sanctioned because of interfering in elections is a bit rich considering what the US did to the Ukraine, and what US pols like Obama do constantly. I just gave you three examples of Obama interfering in foreign elections. If it's okay for Obama, why isn't it okay for other people?


3) Dodd-Frank did not make banks safer, it just made them more likely the be bailed out by the government. If you want to revert back to the pre-Clinton banking reforms, just re-enact Glass-Steagall. Break up the big banks.





1) You're not talking about tariffs. More likely, you're not talking about anything that exists in the real world.

2) You're carrying water for Putin again..


"Deripaska is also known for his connection to American political consultant Paul Manafort, convicted of tax fraud, bank fraud and failure to report foreign bank accounts. The convictions stemmed from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Deripaska employed Manafort from at least 2005 to 2009..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Deripaska


3) More babbling. Glass-Steagall would have to be updated. Your comment about Dodd_Frank is simply wrong. We badly need to break up the big banks, but the only people serious about that are Progressives like Warren.
#15051204
late wrote:1) You're not talking about tariffs. More likely, you're not talking about anything that exists in the real world.

I'm talking about US tariffs on Chinese imports--the tariffs Trump imposed. I think Trump should be comfortable increasing them.

late wrote:2) You're carrying water for Putin again..

Funny. He hasn't even sent me a thank you card. Cheeky bastard.

late wrote:"Deripaska is also known for his connection to American political consultant Paul Manafort, convicted of tax fraud, bank fraud and failure to report foreign bank accounts. The convictions stemmed from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Deripaska employed Manafort from at least 2005 to 2009..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Deripaska

In other words, Manafort cheated on his taxes. So what? That has little to do with Deripaska.

late wrote:3) More babbling. Glass-Steagall would have to be updated. Your comment about Dodd_Frank is simply wrong. We badly need to break up the big banks, but the only people serious about that are Progressives like Warren.

So you should support Warren.
By late
#15051205
blackjack21 wrote:
1) I'm talking about US tariffs on Chinese imports--the tariffs Trump imposed. I think Trump should be comfortable increasing them.


2) Funny. He hasn't even sent me a thank you card. Cheeky bastard.


3) In other words, Manafort cheated on his taxes. So what? That has little to do with Deripaska.


4) So you should support Warren.



1) Tariffs can't do that in a developed economy.

2) That he is still attacking us is all the thank you that you want.

3) Deripaska does a lot for Putin, it's why he has run afoul of the authorities in a number of countries. It's why we want to get our mitts on him.

But it's nice to see Putin still has a friend.

4) I do.
#15051209
late wrote:1) Tariffs can't do that in a developed economy.

You should try using more expository sentences instead of saying "that" and expecting that everyone knows what you mean.

Tariffs against one country do not necessarily cause prices to rise everywhere or permanently. They do incentivize firms investing in labor arbitrage, for example, to explore other venues. Consumers facing more expensive Chinese goods may switch to lower priced Vietnamese or Japanese or Korean goods instead.

Image
I'm not too worried about things. You know, if you have persistent anxiety, you can talk to your doctor about SSRIs. Moderate aperiodic anxiety, perhaps Xanax. If you're just stressed out for the day, you can always "get me a beer" as Elizabeth Warren says. Alcohol has anxiolytic properties.

Image
She's just so authentic--a native American drinking a beer. How American!

late wrote:2) That he is still attacking us is all the thank you that you want.

I am not afraid of Putin. I think he is probably very amused at the Democratic party and the establishment building his country, with a GDP the size of Italy, into this great big monster that somehow controls the president of the United States. It has to be one of the most absurd conspiracy theories ever floated.

late wrote:3) Deripaska does a lot for Putin, it's why he has run afoul of the authorities in a number of countries. It's why we want to get our mitts on him.

Uh huh. So if the US wants to get a hold of him, don't you think it might be smart to grant him a visa so he comes here? I mean, I'm no master crimefighter, but it does seem that not granting him a visa so that he doesn't come to the United States makes hit harder to "get our mitts on him." But...that's just me.
By late
#15051211
blackjack21 wrote:
1) You should try using more expository sentences instead of saying "that" and expecting that everyone knows what you mean.

2) Tariffs against one country do not necessarily cause prices to rise everywhere or permanently. They do incentivize firms investing in labor arbitrage, for example, to explore other venues. Consumers facing more expensive Chinese goods may switch to lower priced Vietnamese or Japanese or Korean goods instead.


3) I am not afraid of Putin. I think he is probably very amused at the Democratic party and the establishment building his country, with a GDP the size of Italy, into this great big monster that somehow controls the president of the United States. It has to be one of the most absurd conspiracy theories ever floated.






1) Have to be honest, you test my tolerance for superflous crap. So I often dip a toe in your cesspool, and that's my limit.

2) Takes time. The ironic bit here is that tariffs are actually a tax. Trade wars can also precede a shooting war.

3) It's not a theory. And it's several countries, not just ours. But I did like the pink unicorns.
#15051212
late wrote:The ironic bit here is that tariffs are actually a tax.

Indeed. That's why I find it amusing that Democrats are clamoring for lower taxes. I think of tariffs against China as a "China wealth tax."

late wrote:Trade wars can also precede a shooting war.

Uh huh. Peace can precede a shooting war too. Should we be afraid of peace, because of what might come after it?

late wrote:3) It's not a theory. And it's several countries, not just ours. But I did like the pink unicorns.

What other countries does Putin control besides Russia and the United States?
By late
#15051217
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Indeed. That's why I find it amusing that Democrats are clamoring for lower taxes. I think of tariffs against China as a "China wealth tax."


2) Uh huh. Peace can precede a shooting war too. Should we be afraid of peace, because of what might come after it?


3)What other countries does Putin control besides Russia and the United States?



1) China doesn't pay that tax, we do. The sane oppose them because they are f***ing stupid.

2) You don't go to war with your trading partners. But if you make mess (think Smoot-Hawley) then there is a pretty good chance things will go to hell.

3) Look up which countries have shiny new cyberdefense programs, and why. Stop asking me to do your homework. Which you are only asking about so you can try to avoid the obvious.

This list needs to be updated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia
#15051233
late wrote:1) China doesn't pay that tax, we do. The sane oppose them because they are f***ing stupid.

China sacrificed profits to maintain marketshare, as the graph I provided illustrates. Again, I would suggest avoiding the overuse of pronouns. Do the sane oppose tariffs, because they think tariffs are stupid? Or do the sane oppose tariffs, because the sane are stupid?

late wrote:2) You don't go to war with your trading partners.

Huh? Trading partners go to war all the time. Ever heard of WWI or WWII? Lots of people like to point out how much trade the US had with Germany.

late wrote:But if you make mess (think Smoot-Hawley) then there is a pretty good chance things will go to hell.

Smoot-Hawley was a general tariff not a retaliatory tariff on a specific country. Things are going to hell in China. I'm sure you find that troubling.

late wrote:3) Look up which countries have shiny new cyberdefense programs, and why. Stop asking me to do your homework. Which you are only asking about so you can try to avoid the obvious.

You asserted that Russia was in control of a bunch of countries. I'm just asking you to enumerate them. For example, I wasn't aware the United States was controlled by Putin via proxy (Donald Trump) so that Putin could get an apartment in a future Trump Tower in Moscow, as I've recently learned from jimjam. I find this fascinating.
By late
#15051236
blackjack21 wrote:
China sacrificed profits to maintain marketshare, as the graph I provided illustrates. Again, I would suggest avoiding the overuse of pronouns. Do the sane oppose tariffs, because they think tariffs are stupid? Or do the sane oppose tariffs, because the sane are stupid?






"On May 3, the National Taxpayers Union delivered an open letter to Pres. Donald Trump and Congress that was signed by over 1100 economists from left, right, up, down, and center urging him to reconsider American tariff policy. It’s an echo of the letter signed by 1,028 economists in 1930 opposing the Smoot-Hawley tariff. I signed the NTU’s letter. Why?

First, economists since Adam Smith have been shouting this from the rooftops for over two centuries...Second, tariffs are classic examples of policies that hurt when they’re alleged to help...The buildings that aren’t built and cars that aren’t made—and the jobs that don’t exist as a result—are impossible to actually see, but they’re real nonetheless. Frederic Bastiat is reputed to have said “when goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

More at the link from those crazy Commies at Forbes, you should read it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2018/05/04/1100-economists-no-trump-tariffs/#6914777b40fb

https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/ ... 14777b40fb
#15051357
late wrote:"On May 3, the National Taxpayers Union delivered an open letter to Pres. Donald Trump and Congress that was signed by over 1100 economists from left, right, up, down, and center urging him to reconsider American tariff policy. It’s an echo of the letter signed by 1,028 economists in 1930 opposing the Smoot-Hawley tariff. I signed the NTU’s letter. Why?

It is because they don't understand that President Trump is a genius.
Praise the Lord.
By late
#15051374
Hindsite wrote:
It is because they don't understand that President Trump is a genius.




If all else fails, try standup, you're a natural.
By late
#15051414
Hindsite wrote:
I'd rather try sitdown.



First, economists since Adam Smith have been shouting this from the rooftops for over two centuries...
#15051585
late wrote:First, economists since Adam Smith have been shouting this from the rooftops for over two centuries...

I guess that is nice to know, huh?
#15051767
late wrote:"On May 3, the National Taxpayers Union delivered an open letter to Pres. Donald Trump and Congress that was signed by over 1100 economists from left, right, up, down, and center urging him to reconsider American tariff policy. It’s an echo of the letter signed by 1,028 economists in 1930 opposing the Smoot-Hawley tariff. I signed the NTU’s letter. Why?

First, economists since Adam Smith have been shouting this from the rooftops for over two centuries...Second, tariffs are classic examples of policies that hurt when they’re alleged to help...The buildings that aren’t built and cars that aren’t made—and the jobs that don’t exist as a result—are impossible to actually see, but they’re real nonetheless. Frederic Bastiat is reputed to have said “when goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

More at the link from those crazy Commies at Forbes, you should read it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/ ... 14777b40fb

https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/ ... 14777b40fb

Blah blah blah... Trump tariffs against China are not in any way like Smoot-Hawley, which was a general tariff on imports. We didn't have free trade with the Soviet Union precisely so they could not realize their comparative advantages. We should be doing the same thing with China, especially since it is non-democratic, violates human rights routinely, and is trying to challenge US military supremacy.

Tariffs used to be quite high, and were largely replaced with income taxes. Income taxes are now too high, and could be replaced to some degree with tariffs--particularly against US adversaries. Income taxes back under Wilson had a maximum rate of 7% for people earning over $500k in early 20th century dollars. Today, income taxes are simply outrageous. It seems if we could fight WWI on a 15% income tax, we should be able to keep lowering the income tax over time until we get back to a single digit income tax.
By late
#15051837
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Blah blah blah... Trump tariffs against China are not in any way like Smoot-Hawley, which was a general tariff on imports.

2) We didn't have free trade with the Soviet Union precisely so they could not realize their comparative advantages.

3) We should be doing the same thing with China, especially since it is non-democratic, violates human rights routinely, and is trying to challenge US military supremacy.

4)Tariffs used to be quite high, and were largely replaced with income taxes.
Income taxes are now too high

5) and could be replaced to some degree with tariffs--particularly against US adversaries.




1) Tariffs are tariffs are tariffs. Ask a farmer.

2) Those were sanctions, not tariffs.

3) Look into what happens if China dumps a trillion dollars. Here's a hint: the word crash will be in there.

4) Actually, we are taxed less than a lot of European countries. The difference is that they get a lot more for their money.

5) How many ways can you fail with a single sentence? Turns out there's a lot. Guys like Ike and Truman built this world to try and avoid another world war. And look, we haven't had one. Turns out it's also good for the economy, if the country is properly managed. Tariffs are beyond dumb. Working on the basics every country needs, good infrastructure, good schools, etc, is what is needed.
#15051842
late wrote:3) Look into what happens if China dumps a trillion dollars. Here's a hint: the word crash will be in there.


I agree with you so this isn't a rebuttal or anything.

As you know, China won't dump US dollars because the US is such a crucial market for China.

However, indeed hypothetically, an inflection point could be reached where China would potentially exercise such an option.

In my opinion, it's a very long ways off, and it would possibly even take a real shooting war for it to be exercised, but it is something in their tool bag.

I don't think it will happen, I would call it possible but not very probable.

On the discussion of tariffs being replaced by income taxes (ala BJ), while this is historically accurate, it doesn't follow that you can re-replace income tax with tariffs. Tariffs were a primary form of generating revenue at a lower stage of economic development. For some developing countries, they are still a relevant means. (Again, this is more talking to @blackjack21 ) tariffs at some point become detrimental in the course of economic development, and advanced countries are for the most part beyond a point at which they are beneficial, in most circumstances (particularly for revenue generation). Tariffs are usually counter-productive in terms of generating revenue, because they are detrimental to business, and thus lead to lower corporate and income tax receipts.
  • 1
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 93

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]