- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Trump has it right on the economy. Tariff-hating "conservatives" are clueless
Posted on 11/18/25 at 1:33 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 1:33 am
The conservative right is not confused about how the economy has changed. They know America is no longer an industrial powerhouse. They simply do not care. They keep demanding a balanced budget as if Congress could ever pass cuts on the scale they imagine. It cannot. The voters will not accept it. The math will not allow it. Their message has become moral theater, not a workable plan.
Their worldview has become elitist without admitting it. They judge the economy by what pleases Wall Street, not by what builds Main Street. They defend free trade in a world where corporations use global labor markets with no overtime rules, no livable wages, weak child labor laws, and poor safety standards. That is not free enterprise. It is a way to escape American standards. It treats American workers as a cost problem instead of the foundation of the nation.
They repeat the claim that tariffs are a tax on consumers, even though the Federal Reserve’s own research shows that is not how markets behave. When tariffs appear, consumers resist higher prices, so retailers hold the line. Importers absorb cost to protect volume. Foreign exporters cut their own prices to keep access to the American market. The burden is spread across everyone, which is why tariffs barely move inflation.
The deeper issue is this. Inflation today is not driven by tariffs. It is driven by slow growth and weak productivity. And slow growth is the direct result of deindustrialization. When America built things, real growth reached four or five percent. The 1950s, 1960s, early 1980s, and late 1990s all saw strong growth because production lived here. Factories create productivity. Supply chains create innovation. Industrial jobs create rising wages. That is how debt-to-GDP stayed stable for decades without brutal cuts. Growth did the work.
A service-heavy economy cannot do that. Finance, healthcare, consulting, and compliance are large but low-multiplying. They raise revenue but not national output in a meaningful way. A hospital or law firm can grow for decades without raising national productivity. A steel mill or chip plant lifts an entire region. That difference explains why the old conservative model no longer works. The engine that once supported limited government and low debt is gone.
The real goal today is simple: stabilize debt-to-GDP and then slowly reduce it.
You cannot reach that goal through cuts alone in a slow-growth service economy. You reach it by raising the growth rate itself.
This is where Trump’s plan meets the reality the right refuses to face. Tariffs are not inflationary in practice. Their purpose is to force supply chains back to American soil, which pushes companies to invest here instead of hiding behind cheap offshore labor. Tariffs only work if paired with domestic investment, and Trump’s approach recognizes that. He understands that tariffs without investment can slow growth, but tariffs with investment rebuild the productive core that creates growth.
The Federal Reserve is fighting the wrong battle. High interest rates might cool an overheating economy, but America is not overheating. It is underbuilt. High rates choke the investment needed to rebuild factories, ports, refineries, mines, and semiconductor plants. A country trying to restore its industrial base needs lower rates and heavy capital spending. That is how you restore productivity. That is how you lift real growth from two percent to four or more. And that is how debt-to-GDP stabilizes without political chaos.
This is not ideology. It is arithmetic. A service economy cannot deliver the growth needed to manage a modern nation’s obligations. An industrial and mixed economy can. Trump’s plan aims to restore that structure. It brings supply chains home. It puts American labor back at the center of national prosperity. It ends the moral failure of letting boardrooms decide the fate of the country based on quarterly profits. It puts industrial policy back under national control.
Debt stabilization does not come from austerity speeches. It comes from strength. It comes from rising output, rising wages, rising productivity, and rising national capacity. Trump’s plan is the only one that seated in reality. It is the only plan rooted in how nations actually grow, how deficits are actually overcome.
Their worldview has become elitist without admitting it. They judge the economy by what pleases Wall Street, not by what builds Main Street. They defend free trade in a world where corporations use global labor markets with no overtime rules, no livable wages, weak child labor laws, and poor safety standards. That is not free enterprise. It is a way to escape American standards. It treats American workers as a cost problem instead of the foundation of the nation.
They repeat the claim that tariffs are a tax on consumers, even though the Federal Reserve’s own research shows that is not how markets behave. When tariffs appear, consumers resist higher prices, so retailers hold the line. Importers absorb cost to protect volume. Foreign exporters cut their own prices to keep access to the American market. The burden is spread across everyone, which is why tariffs barely move inflation.
The deeper issue is this. Inflation today is not driven by tariffs. It is driven by slow growth and weak productivity. And slow growth is the direct result of deindustrialization. When America built things, real growth reached four or five percent. The 1950s, 1960s, early 1980s, and late 1990s all saw strong growth because production lived here. Factories create productivity. Supply chains create innovation. Industrial jobs create rising wages. That is how debt-to-GDP stayed stable for decades without brutal cuts. Growth did the work.
A service-heavy economy cannot do that. Finance, healthcare, consulting, and compliance are large but low-multiplying. They raise revenue but not national output in a meaningful way. A hospital or law firm can grow for decades without raising national productivity. A steel mill or chip plant lifts an entire region. That difference explains why the old conservative model no longer works. The engine that once supported limited government and low debt is gone.
The real goal today is simple: stabilize debt-to-GDP and then slowly reduce it.
You cannot reach that goal through cuts alone in a slow-growth service economy. You reach it by raising the growth rate itself.
This is where Trump’s plan meets the reality the right refuses to face. Tariffs are not inflationary in practice. Their purpose is to force supply chains back to American soil, which pushes companies to invest here instead of hiding behind cheap offshore labor. Tariffs only work if paired with domestic investment, and Trump’s approach recognizes that. He understands that tariffs without investment can slow growth, but tariffs with investment rebuild the productive core that creates growth.
The Federal Reserve is fighting the wrong battle. High interest rates might cool an overheating economy, but America is not overheating. It is underbuilt. High rates choke the investment needed to rebuild factories, ports, refineries, mines, and semiconductor plants. A country trying to restore its industrial base needs lower rates and heavy capital spending. That is how you restore productivity. That is how you lift real growth from two percent to four or more. And that is how debt-to-GDP stabilizes without political chaos.
This is not ideology. It is arithmetic. A service economy cannot deliver the growth needed to manage a modern nation’s obligations. An industrial and mixed economy can. Trump’s plan aims to restore that structure. It brings supply chains home. It puts American labor back at the center of national prosperity. It ends the moral failure of letting boardrooms decide the fate of the country based on quarterly profits. It puts industrial policy back under national control.
Debt stabilization does not come from austerity speeches. It comes from strength. It comes from rising output, rising wages, rising productivity, and rising national capacity. Trump’s plan is the only one that seated in reality. It is the only plan rooted in how nations actually grow, how deficits are actually overcome.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 1:49 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 2:10 am to RiverCityTider
THE MULTIPLIER WE LOST
America grew fast when we made things here. Every factory dollar ran through whole towns and came back again. One dollar turned into five. That multiplier drove high growth, rising wages, and stable debt.
When we offshored production, that multiplier vanished. Money now leaves the country as soon as we spend it. A service economy can’t replace that. Services spend a dollar once. Industry spends it many times. That is why growth fell, wages stalled, and debt exploded.
See, the multiplier effect measures how much additional economic activity is created when you spend one dollar.
In manufacturing, every $1 flowing into a plant, supply chain, or industrial project creates $3 to $7 in total economic activity.
In services, every $1 usually creates $1.10 to $1.20 at most.
Growth drops from 4 or 5% to 2%.
See, the board rooms that exported our industry didnt consider all this. They only cared about their short term profits.
This is all about populism vs the GOP traditional conservatism. It basically boils down to considering the overall well being of the country and its people.
Capitalism is the way to go, but within the confined of a complete, fully functioning economy.
America grew fast when we made things here. Every factory dollar ran through whole towns and came back again. One dollar turned into five. That multiplier drove high growth, rising wages, and stable debt.
When we offshored production, that multiplier vanished. Money now leaves the country as soon as we spend it. A service economy can’t replace that. Services spend a dollar once. Industry spends it many times. That is why growth fell, wages stalled, and debt exploded.
See, the multiplier effect measures how much additional economic activity is created when you spend one dollar.
In manufacturing, every $1 flowing into a plant, supply chain, or industrial project creates $3 to $7 in total economic activity.
In services, every $1 usually creates $1.10 to $1.20 at most.
Growth drops from 4 or 5% to 2%.
See, the board rooms that exported our industry didnt consider all this. They only cared about their short term profits.
This is all about populism vs the GOP traditional conservatism. It basically boils down to considering the overall well being of the country and its people.
Capitalism is the way to go, but within the confined of a complete, fully functioning economy.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 2:28 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 2:27 am to RiverCityTider
Yeah, making prices higher than they would otherwise be, IOW, reducing purchasing power, is wonderful for society.
How about this instead; Deregulate the frick out of everything. Make it easier, CHEAPER, for businesses to actually do business. How about reducing the living shite out of taxes, which would entice more capital to flow here?
The only people who benefit from tariffs are special interests.
Some of y'all need to read some Bastiat, Sowell, and Hazlitt.
How about this instead; Deregulate the frick out of everything. Make it easier, CHEAPER, for businesses to actually do business. How about reducing the living shite out of taxes, which would entice more capital to flow here?
The only people who benefit from tariffs are special interests.
Some of y'all need to read some Bastiat, Sowell, and Hazlitt.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 2:33 am to stuntman
Here is the problem. You're old playbook of cutting taxes and deregulation are good ideas. But its too late for that alone.
You would be trying to rev a dead engine.
TAX CUTS & DEREGULATION ONLY WORK IN A HIGH-MULTIPLIER ECONOMY
Reagan’s tax cuts worked because the underlying engine was strong.
Tax relief went into:
plants
equipment
oil fields
shipyards
R&D
factories
industrial clusters
The multiplier was there. The velocity was there. Growth was high.
You cut taxes today and the money flows into:
stock buybacks
Offshore factories
Software monopolies
Foreign markets
Passive investments
The multiplier is gone.
Velocity is low.
So the growth impact is tiny.
You would be trying to rev a dead engine.
TAX CUTS & DEREGULATION ONLY WORK IN A HIGH-MULTIPLIER ECONOMY
Reagan’s tax cuts worked because the underlying engine was strong.
Tax relief went into:
plants
equipment
oil fields
shipyards
R&D
factories
industrial clusters
The multiplier was there. The velocity was there. Growth was high.
You cut taxes today and the money flows into:
stock buybacks
Offshore factories
Software monopolies
Foreign markets
Passive investments
The multiplier is gone.
Velocity is low.
So the growth impact is tiny.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 2:37 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 2:48 am to RiverCityTider
When should we start to see this rise in the velocity of money? It increased fast under Biden. Are we to assume he was great on the economy or something? And since the end of Biden's term, from the FRED chart I'm looking at, the velocity of money has flattened out.
When Trump put those tariffs on in his first term, where was the increase in the velocity of money?
W/ all this money that these huge companies are making, you ever wonder why more competitors aren't jumping in trying to get at that share? Massive compliance costs to even get started. That includes taxes and regulations.
It's simple; Lower costs do to business, allow people to keep more of what they earn and "magically", the people benefit tremendously. Rewarding cronies at the expense of everyone else is crazy. Cannot believe I'm having to explain this to fellow right wingers.
When Trump put those tariffs on in his first term, where was the increase in the velocity of money?
W/ all this money that these huge companies are making, you ever wonder why more competitors aren't jumping in trying to get at that share? Massive compliance costs to even get started. That includes taxes and regulations.
It's simple; Lower costs do to business, allow people to keep more of what they earn and "magically", the people benefit tremendously. Rewarding cronies at the expense of everyone else is crazy. Cannot believe I'm having to explain this to fellow right wingers.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 2:59 am to stuntman
Velocity didn’t rise under Biden because the economy was strong. It rose because he pumped trillions of stimulus through the system, and that kind of sugar high always fades once the money burns off. Velocity doesn’t jump the moment you add tariffs either ...it jumps when production acutely comes home, and rebuilding factories and supply chains takes years. Tax cuts and deregulation only work when the productiv engine is inside the country. Today the engine is overseas, where labor is $3 an hour and compliance is near zero. That’s why the 2017 tax cuts didn’t bring factories back: the global cost gap is too large for tax cuts to overcome.
The real issue isn’t taxes or regulation. It’s that we offshored the industrial multiplier...the thing that used to turn every one American dollar into five as it moved through local businesses, supply chains, and communities. Once we exported that multiplier, velocity collapsed, wages stagnated, and growth fell to two percent. A service economy can’t fix that. Stimulus can’t fix that. Only rebuilding the productive core...factories, ports, refineries, chip plants, energy, minerals ...brings velocity back for real. Production is the source of growth, not slogans.
The real issue isn’t taxes or regulation. It’s that we offshored the industrial multiplier...the thing that used to turn every one American dollar into five as it moved through local businesses, supply chains, and communities. Once we exported that multiplier, velocity collapsed, wages stagnated, and growth fell to two percent. A service economy can’t fix that. Stimulus can’t fix that. Only rebuilding the productive core...factories, ports, refineries, chip plants, energy, minerals ...brings velocity back for real. Production is the source of growth, not slogans.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 3:04 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 3:06 am to RiverCityTider
Jobs were offshored, in large part, to the constant rise in compliance costs.
If an individual city wanted to get insanely rich or a state did, just put up massive barriers to trade to other states or cities? I know it can't happen under our system, but I'm just going through a thought experiment here. That seems to be what you legitimately believe.
And why didn't the velocity of money ramp up during Trump's first term?
If an individual city wanted to get insanely rich or a state did, just put up massive barriers to trade to other states or cities? I know it can't happen under our system, but I'm just going through a thought experiment here. That seems to be what you legitimately believe.
And why didn't the velocity of money ramp up during Trump's first term?
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:18 am to stuntman
quote:M2V is a far more involved premise than any simple attribution to secondary tariff effects. Obviously regarding Trump45, CV19 obliterated effects of other inputs anyway.
And why didn't the velocity of money ramp up during Trump's first term?
But what you are asking is what effect tariffs have on industrial re-shoring and domestic growth. The answer is, we won't really know for at least a couple of years. The planning, buildout, and production ramping phases all take time. But over the past several months we've seen a litany of companies initiating that process.
The OP seems to imply all tariff costs are covered by exporters. I don't believe that. But I do believe some are.
We have major budgetary problems in DC. We spend more than we take in. Correction will require a reset in our revenue-expenditure paradigm, and it seems obvious American voters are not prepared to vote out big spenders. Given that pretext, I'd personally prefer requisite revenue increases come from something other than income tax.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:24 am to stuntman
quote:
Make it easier, CHEAPER, for businesses to actually do business.
Sounds great in a vacuum but are you willing to allow the following in America business so they can compete globally?
1. No health insurance or other benefit burdens
2. No liability insurance
3. No injury claims or lawsuits
4. No Workers Comp
5. No Osha or workplace safety requirements
6. No unemployment insurance
7. No paid sick leave
8. No paid family leave
These are the line items that drive up the cost of business in the USA that few other manufacturing countries have.
These "first world" regulations will never allow the USA to compete with third world countries that have no such cost.
Get your head out of the sand and come to grips with reality. These cost, regardless of deregulation, are never going away in the USA.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
But what you are asking is what effect tariffs have on industrial re-shoring and domestic growth. The answer is, we won't really know for at least a couple of years.
The initial impact can be mostly seen through the amount/commitment of companies to invest in the manufacturing infrastructure in the USA. We are currently seeing more investment commitment in this than ever before in my lifetime.
It's not just about the tariff dollars but the incentive to invest in the USA and we are seeing that like never before.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:38 am to CDawson
quote:Correct.
It's not just about the tariff dollars but the incentive to invest in the USA and we are seeing that like never before.
But relative to velocity of money which the other poster kept returning to, full M2V effects could be years off. Of course, even then they'll be counter-balanced by LFPR/aging population, investment vehicle performance, interest rates, etc.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 4:39 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:41 am to NC_Tigah
Are we just disregarding the unemployment caused by tariffs?
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:52 am to CDawson
quote:
The initial impact can be mostly seen through the amount/commitment of companies to invest in the manufacturing infrastructure in the USA.
These “commitments” almost never come to fruition as promised (see Foxconn’s Wisconsin project). The commitments are spurred by political pressure, not business acumen.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 4:53 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 4:55 am to 4cubbies
quote:
unemployment caused by tariffs?
Tarriffs are most useful in ensuring American employment - that is their main mission.
What tariffs are unemploying Americans? = or is it the slave labor in China you want to protect?
Posted on 11/18/25 at 5:00 am to RiverCityTider
TLDR, Tarrifs are bad for the US consumers.
Otherwise he wouldn't be a TACO
Otherwise he wouldn't be a TACO
Posted on 11/18/25 at 5:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
We have major budgetary problems in DC. We spend more than we take in. Correction will require a reset in our revenue-expenditure paradigm, and it seems obvious American voters are not prepared to vote out big spenders.
As much as the big spenders in Washington spend on pork projects, the biggest animals in that need slaughter to cut the budget will never be touched. One of them is Health care costs thanks to Obamacare mandates and increases in subsidies and expansions in Medicaid and Medicare expenditures. The other is for military spending on projects that never materialize or end in failure that cost lives.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 5:02 am to ChineseBandit58
The positive relationship between tariffs and unemployment isn’t even disputed. Or so I thought? I guess you’re disputing it.
Tariffs increase the cost of imported inputs, reduce aggregate demand, and slow overall economic growth, which in turn leads to job losses.
Trump-Era Tariffs and Uncertainty Are Weakening the Job Market and Hollowing Out the Middle Class
Tariffs increase the cost of imported inputs, reduce aggregate demand, and slow overall economic growth, which in turn leads to job losses.
Trump-Era Tariffs and Uncertainty Are Weakening the Job Market and Hollowing Out the Middle Class
Posted on 11/18/25 at 5:42 am to RiverCityTider
Tariff hating conservatives aren’t clueless, they’re benefiting….
They’re “self over country”, not “ country over self”
They’re “self over country”, not “ country over self”
Posted on 11/18/25 at 6:14 am to 4cubbies
That JEC Minority memo is a 3-page political staff document that cherry-picks a few months of job data and claims tariffs caused a labor-market collapse without controlling for the Fed, the cycle, or anything else. The actual research...like the San Francisco Fed’s 150-year study of tariff shocks... shows tariffs are disinflationary, employment effects are limited, and the memo’s “tariffs hollowed out the middle class” line is campaign messaging, not economics.
At this point it’s a choice between a 3-page partisan memo and a 150-year San Francisco Fed study. The Fed finds tariffs are disinflationary and employment effects are limited. That contradicts the memo completely. I’m siding with the research, not the politics.
At this point it’s a choice between a 3-page partisan memo and a 150-year San Francisco Fed study. The Fed finds tariffs are disinflationary and employment effects are limited. That contradicts the memo completely. I’m siding with the research, not the politics.
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 6:24 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 6:16 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
The actual research...like the San Francisco Fed’s 150-year study of tariff shocks... shows tariffs are disinflationary, employment effects are limited, and the memo’s “tariffs hollowed out the middle class” line is campaign messaging, not economics.
That study showed tariffs increased unemployment and lowered economic activity.
Popular
Back to top

13





