- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:20 pm to Civildawg
quote:
I'm curious to the boards opinions of tariffs, do y'all think they are good or bad in most cases?
Generally bad, but you do need your trade partners to keep the market manipulation to a minimum.
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:21 pm to Bard
quote:
How, exactly, is that socialism?
Manipulating tax rates (and subsidies) to control the market is socialism.
quote:
You realize the object is to promote domestic production, right?
I'm showing why it's not an ideal object. The consumer gets fricked and our economy devolves.
quote:
That sounds like that Obama "we need to transition to a service economy" talk.
The US still has plenty of manufacturing jobs, just now the lowest-level ones that we offshored. That's a good thing.
People need to make better decisions and not make themselves unmarketable in a modern economy.
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:23 pm to hottub
quote:
Free trade only works when everyone plays by the same rules.
This isn't true.
When producer countries subsidize their production, Americans benefit double.
LINK
quote:
As Don Boudreaux pointed out recently on Cafe Hayek, if Team Trump and their supporters are really serious about “making America great again,” we should then enthusiastically welcome, not discourage, the philanthropic redistribution of wealth from foreign countries and their citizens to Americans in the form of government subsidies that lower prices and raise our standard of living. Just like we don’t complain about the free light and heat we receive from the sun every day (and the huge trade deficit with the sun that results from those daily imports of free light that are not offset by exports going in the opposite direction, see Venn diagram below), we likewise shouldn’t complain about low-cost products from abroad. The more foreign subsidies that lower prices for Americans and the more dumping into the US of imports sold to Americans below the cost of production, the greater the foreign aid/philanthropy/wealth transfers from foreigners to Americans, and the higher our standard of living. As Friedman asks,”why should we complain” about that generous philanthropy?
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm showing why it's not an ideal object. The consumer gets fricked and our economy devolves.
Amazon operated at a loss for years in order to corner markets and kill off competition. Now that they're the only game in town (functionally, if not literally), they're steadily increasing rents for cloud services, prime subscriptions, and retailer fees.
That's basically what China is trying to do with the next-gen energy tech. And energy does present something of a national security concern. So this goes well beyond economic policy and anyone's little theories about free trade.
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:52 pm to kaaj24
quote:
Hurt consumers so think it’s bad.
Hurts global consumers, sure.
Just a couple years ago we (the US) had massive shortages of all types of products because we’ve become over reliant on China, and China shut down and our ports are shite tier. These tariffs will help the US and other countries compete with cheap Chinese garbage. This will bring more jobs back to North America and the US, and make our supply chain more consistent in the US. It will also create more US jobs. It’s better for the US in the long run
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Manipulating tax rates (and subsidies) to control the market is socialism.
No, it isn't. Socialism is the "social" (read: government) owning of the means of production instead of the private sector. Tax rates and subsidies, in this instance, are simply ways of attempting to manage the economy.
quote:
I'm showing why it's not an ideal object. The consumer gets fricked and our economy devolves.
If you're allowing for only ideal objects, you'll never get anything done. In this thread you've thus far argued against tariffs, tax rate changes, subsidies and free trade. That pretty much runs the gamut.
That said, if you're against all of that then what are you actually for? What's your "ideal object"?
quote:
The US still has plenty of manufacturing jobs, just now the lowest-level ones that we offshored. That's a good thing.
Manufacturing steel is lowest-level? Computers, phones and pharmaceuticals are "lowest-level" manufacturing?
quote:
When producer countries subsidize their production, Americans benefit double.
That's not the full extent of it. These producer countries are using domestic currency, which is worth far less than the USD, to pay their employees. Their subsidizing of their production costs them nothing as they are selling their products here for USDs. In reality, the real subsidy is coming from the American consumer buying their goods.
quote:
People need to make better decisions and not make themselves unmarketable in a modern economy.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it's a bit too simplistic. At some point it comes down to what you believe drives an economy more at a given point in time, manufacturing jobs or cheap goods. Along with that, the country that manufactures less and less of its own goods eventually becomes slave to the countries which manufacture for them. We saw that with COVID when suddenly it became difficult to get many things due to port and shipping slowdowns from China.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:37 am to TejasHorn
quote:
How did we get here? Trump loves him some tariffs, and Biden has followed suit. Why has protectionism gotten so stylish and Adam Smith so passé?
It will be to the detriment of all in the long run, but as economists say… in the long run we’ll all be dead.
LINK
That^ is where "free trade" has gotten us and it now threatens political stability. An economy can only survive on treasuries being its biggest export for as long as foreign demand rises congruently with supply. Once supply outstrips foreign demand it's time to devalue and reshore.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:45 am to Bard
quote:
No, it isn't. Socialism is the "social" (read: government) owning of the means of production instead of the private sector. Tax rates and subsidies, in this instance, are simply ways of attempting to manage the economy.
Dude. No one uses the Marx definition anymore.
"The second variety of socialism is the so-cial-democratic model. Under this system, the idea of socialized production is exchanged for taxation and equalization. The means of production can be privately owned, with some exceptions, such as education, traffic, communications, central banking, the police, and the courts. Individuals have the right to own and produce, but not to keep all of the fruits of their labor. Some of these fruits belong to “society,” which means the rights of the natural owner have been aggressively invaded. Thus, the difference between Soviet-style and social-democratic-style socialism is one of degree. In the first case, private ownership isn’t permitted. In the second case, private ownership is permitted, but the state determines how much of the fruits can be kept by the rightful owner. "
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:47 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Amazon operated at a loss for years in order to corner markets and kill off competition. Now that they're the only game in town (functionally, if not literally), they're steadily increasing rents for cloud services, prime subscriptions, and retailer fees.
It's kind of funny you gloss over why they operated at losses. They weren't content to just be a book retailer, or a general retailer...hell, they didn't even become profitable until AWS hit. Amazon kept investing their revenue in new products, which involved a lot of losses for products that didn't pan out (anyone remember the Amazon phone?).
quote:
Now that they're the only game in town (functionally, if not literally), they're steadily increasing rents for cloud services, prime subscriptions, and retailer fees.
Amazon is not the only game in town for cloud services, streaming, or online retail. That's the second problem with your argument. At one time they were, but the market adapted. Once other companies saw how profitable AWS was, a slew of cloud operations were developed. Walmart completely changed their online presence, and you basically see the same sellers across the board (Amazon, Walmart, eBay, etc.)
quote:
That's basically what China is trying to do with the next-gen energy tech.
Next gen or last gen?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:49 am to frogtown
quote:
Dude. No one uses the Marx definition anymore.
"The second variety of socialism is the so-cial-democratic model. Under this system, the idea of socialized production is exchanged for taxation and equalization. The means of production can be privately owned, with some exceptions, such as education, traffic, communications, central banking, the police, and the courts. Individuals have the right to own and produce, but not to keep all of the fruits of their labor. Some of these fruits belong to “society,” which means the rights of the natural owner have been aggressively invaded. Thus, the difference between Soviet-style and social-democratic-style socialism is one of degree. In the first case, private ownership isn’t permitted. In the second case, private ownership is permitted, but the state determines how much of the fruits can be kept by the rightful owner. "
Thank you.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:59 am to Bard
quote:
If you're allowing for only ideal objects, you'll never get anything done. In this thread you've thus far argued against tariffs, tax rate changes, subsidies and free trade.
Where have I argued against free trade?
quote:
if you're against all of that then what are you actually for? What's your "ideal object"?
Extremely small amounts of government manipulation of the market (domestic or international), to produce as close to a free market that avoids war.
quote:
Manufacturing steel is lowest-level?
There are different levels of manufacturing. The manufacturing we lost is the lowest level (which is why it was not optimal to stay here).
We still manufacture a ton of stuff. We're #2 in total manufacturing output and top-10 in PC value of our manufacturing output (which denotes a higher level of manufacturing and a higher value/margin in goods produced). China only is #1 in total manufacturing because they have a huge population, but their PC output it shite.
The only way to justify domestic manufacturing at the bottom rung is via redistributive programs, like tariffs. That's inefficient and fricks consumers doubly (higher taxes/cost of goods and a shittier economy).
quote:
These producer countries are using domestic currency, which is worth far less than the USD, to pay their employees. Their subsidizing of their production costs them nothing as they are selling their products here for USDs
It's still taking money from the Chinese citizen to make life less expensive for the American citizen. See the Friedman quote earlier in this thread I posted. Manipulation was going on then, too. Thomas Sowell is also a huge critic of these arguments (and tariffs) as being anti-consumer.
quote:
In reality, the real subsidy is coming from the American consumer buying their goods.
How (other than the benefits of selling a good)?
quote:
. At some point it comes down to what you believe drives an economy more at a given point in time, manufacturing jobs or cheap goods.
Cheap goods. Literally look at America and how dominant we have become economically on the world stage during the post-Soviet, globalized new world order.
quote:
Along with that, the country that manufactures less and less of its own goods eventually becomes slave to the countries which manufacture for them.
"Slaves" is a bit histrionic. Why not become Russia and completely crush our SOL to produce almost all goods in house?
quote:
We saw that with COVID when suddenly it became difficult to get many things due to port and shipping slowdowns from China.
That happened with a lot of things all over, not just China.
If we're building our economic philosophy on assuming events like Covid will be common, we may as well just commit mass suicide. We certainly can't have a discussion on efficient and advanced economies.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:31 am to TejasHorn
"Free trade" which was never free destroyed manufacturing in the country and made the 1% very wealthy by pulling money from the middle class.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's kind of funny you gloss over why they operated at losses. They weren't content to just be a book retailer, or a general retailer...hell, they didn't even become profitable until AWS hit. Amazon kept investing their revenue in new products, which involved a lot of losses for products that didn't pan out (anyone remember the Amazon phone?).
Yea ok it is not a perfect metaphor. The point is that the Chinese government is willing to shave points off their GDP to dominate these industries.
quote:
Next gen or last gen?
IDK what you mean here, but EV, solar, and wind are definitely a big part of the world's energy future (like it or not, O&G simps). China leads in 2 of 3 because they are just throwing money at production with no regard for profits at this point.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 9:26 am
Posted on 5/20/24 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
I can tell you on very good authority that the DoD is treating solar and battery tech as a national security issue. We need to jumpstart our domestic industries to safeguard energy independence, but that is increasingly difficult to do when China is over-producing cheap-arse panels and batteries using low-quality materials and forced labor.
Even the non-Chinese solar companies are getting materials from China. Canadian Solar? China. Maxeon? China. The only exception I know of is First Solar, which has an advanced design and explicit anti-slavery commitments. They just opened major facilities in Louisiana and Alabama. This company (and others like it) is who we're trying to protect.
LINK
You can say the same thing about battery tech. Biggest three companies are Chinese. They overproduced during 2021 and 2022 and caused the worldwide price of lithium to crash in 2023. Australia and Chile in particular, who are the world's top producers of lithium, basically took a body blow over lithium last year. Not to mention the biggest EV battery producers outside of China which happen to be Panasonic (Japan), LG (Korea), and Samsung (Korea). We're protecting them, too ...
LINK
Even the non-Chinese solar companies are getting materials from China. Canadian Solar? China. Maxeon? China. The only exception I know of is First Solar, which has an advanced design and explicit anti-slavery commitments. They just opened major facilities in Louisiana and Alabama. This company (and others like it) is who we're trying to protect.
LINK
You can say the same thing about battery tech. Biggest three companies are Chinese. They overproduced during 2021 and 2022 and caused the worldwide price of lithium to crash in 2023. Australia and Chile in particular, who are the world's top producers of lithium, basically took a body blow over lithium last year. Not to mention the biggest EV battery producers outside of China which happen to be Panasonic (Japan), LG (Korea), and Samsung (Korea). We're protecting them, too ...
LINK
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 9:42 am
Posted on 5/20/24 at 9:52 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
"Free trade" which was never free destroyed manufacturing
The market destroyed lower-level manufacturing in the richest country on earth.
quote:
and made the 1% very wealthy
It made 99% of the US very wealthy, compared to the world.
quote:
by pulling money from the middle class.
The ironing.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 9:56 am to TxTiger82
quote:
The point is that the Chinese government is willing to shave points off their GDP to dominate these industries.
The Chinese have fricked themselves by doing this. They're heavily reliant on population-based, low-margin manufacturing and they're about to have a severely-reduced population. They never made any real inroads into advancing their economy because so much of it was devoted to the shitty stuff.
Their economy is currently in the shitter before the population bomb is even set off.
quote:
but EV, solar, and wind are definitely a big part of the world's energy future (like it or not, O&G simps).
Yes, but there is older tech and innovative tech. China doesn't really develop much new tech, b/c of their economic investment (see above). They can steal/copy old tech. That's why I was asking if it's next gen or last gen?
They just tried EV cars and it's been a big fail.
quote:
China leads in 2 of 3 because they are just throwing money at production with no regard for profits at this point.
And they're going to end up back in the same boat.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
I completely agree with you about China's future. The population time bomb + their attempted return to a planned economy is going to result in the fastest economic decline in history.
The question is whether we let them drag us down with them. I'm generally opposed to tariffs, but in this case it might be a good idea to protect those industries we deem critical to the future functioning of our infrastructure. Doing otherwise exposes us to massive risk created not by the market but by some dickwad central planners who think they know better than the market.
The question is whether we let them drag us down with them. I'm generally opposed to tariffs, but in this case it might be a good idea to protect those industries we deem critical to the future functioning of our infrastructure. Doing otherwise exposes us to massive risk created not by the market but by some dickwad central planners who think they know better than the market.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 10:14 am to TxTiger82
quote:
The question is whether we let them drag us down with them.
Here is the thing: we have options. China's already losing market share of its shite manufacturing to poorer countries, b/c it's SOL went too high (without economic alternatives, which is a reason why the house of cards is wiggling).
Vietnam, Bangladesh, Mexico, etc. have already established themselves.
Then we can move onto Africa, Central America, etc. Central America is clearly in our interest and I've been arguing for years we need to focus investments there, to build them up. We'll get the double benefit of not relying on Asian slave labor, but the economic migrants will stop coming to America (as they already have largely from Mexico).
China has no alternative, which is another reason why investing in that sort of economy is irrational. We don't want to devolve our economy to face the problems China is about to.
quote:
but in this case it might be a good idea to protect those industries we deem critical to the future functioning of our infrastructure.
I think most people are limited to a discussion on this, but the problem is that you'll get a Democratic version of "infrastructure", which means anything.
I mean we already have spent tens of billions of dollars to lure chip manufacturers here, and it's already having issues, from not having adequate workers to other technical issues.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 10:23 am to Fat Bastard
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 10:26 am
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News