- 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
re: Can Those Of You Who Advocate Tariffs...
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:13 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:13 pm to wackatimesthree
OPs primary fallacy is that he acts as if tariffs don’t already exist…it’s not about price, it’s about returning the economy to efficiency and eliminating inefficient use of limited resources.
2
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:14 pm to BugAC
quote:Almost a months worth of trade deficit
TSMC’s total investment in the U.S. is expected to reach US$165 billion
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:16 pm to dstone12
quote:Now do currency and labor costs.
All tarrifs should be reciprocal.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:20 pm to MisslePig
quote:Huh? If I can buy an imported product at $3 how is it more “efficient” to force people to buy the same product with the same economic value for $30? Do you work for the government?
it’s not about price, it’s about returning the economy to efficiency and eliminating inefficient use of limited resources.
And on the flip side… if I can produce a good for $3 how is producing it for $30 more efficient use of my capital?
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:38 pm to wackatimesthree
We will mirror their tariffs.
What's not fair?
What's not fair?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:39 pm to MisslePig
quote:
it’s about returning the economy to efficiency and eliminating inefficient use of limited resources.
Protectionism does the opposite of that.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 8:53 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Look at how many of the responses here talk about everything except the fact that the people who pay the tariffs are the people who reside in the countries that impose them.
Even though I asked people to please not do that. Even though I clearly stated that I understand the "negotiating tactic" nature of it.
"Let's talk about tariffs, but you have to restrict your arguments to only ones I approve of."
You want to focus solely on the one argument you have - tariffs increase prices in the country they are implemented. We get it, but you seem to really struggle with imagination.
In your little scenario, consumer A buys good A and now pays 100% more. That's it. That's the only possible outcome your brain can foresee.
The fact that the company can move production to America, the consumer can buy an American good, an American company can increase production with a larger market share to create even lower costs, the company with the tariff could lower their prices to not lose market share.
There are also outcomes that do indeed increase prices, but the benefit to the country as a whole is worth the expense, such as security and knowledge. The phrase, "We don't know how to make that extremely critical object here," should never be muttered in this country.
Many things could happen. You look at the worst possible scenario, and say, "This will happen every single time without exception, and it is the only thing that will happen. Therefore, it's bad." We understand your point. We just disagree that that's where the line of thinking should stop. We think the whole situation should be considered instead of a single component.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:05 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
The fact that the company can move production to America, the consumer can buy an American good, an American company can increase production with a larger market share to create even lower costs,
If people were committed to buying American that could happen now. You shouldn't need a tariff to force you to buy American if that's what you want to do.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:32 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
please explain to me how tariffs work
They bring manufacturing back to the USA, which will raise the base pay of the average American higher than any related increases in cost of goods.
I'm sure that's too simple for you to believe.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:32 pm to Flats
quote:
If people were committed to buying American that could happen now.
Wrong.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:41 pm to wackatimesthree
Stop watching mainstream news. You only believe that tariffs are bad because that is what they told you to think.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:44 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
If I can buy an imported product at $3 how is it more “efficient” to force people to buy the same product with the same economic value for $30?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:57 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
Part I
I never invited anyone to generally talk about tariffs.
I just wanted the people who seem to think tariffs in other countries cost American taxpayers money to confront their ignorance on that one point. Which is why I tried to cut off the irrelevant nonsense from the get. Pretty dumb, I'll admit, because the one thing you can count on here is irrelevant nonsense.
Speaking of which...
I didn't make an argument. I never said I was against tariffs. Did I? Again, that wasn't the point.
Based on what? The fact that I didn't detail any? Well that's because none of the OP was about any of that. Of course I can foresee multiple outcomes.
When Chinese factor workers work for an average of $6 an hour and American factory workers work for an average of $17 an hour (actual numbers, I looked them up, though I rounded), what possible scenario can you imagine for moving production back to America other than that the price on every good manufactured here instead of there would go up?
Only it would be permanent this time instead of temporary.
The consumer can already do that. We don't need tariffs to produce that outcome.
I assume you mean if the Trump tariff succeed and other countries drop their tariffs and we drop ours. If so, this is exactly what I begged y'all to read in the OP. It's been dealt with, long before you even found this thread.
And if that's not what you meant, that sentence makes no sense.
Without knowing whether the hypothetical company you are referring to is located, there's no way to address that sentence. If you are talking about a company located in the US as a response to foreign tariffs, that's obviously bad for American companies. If you are talking about a company located outside the US responding to Trump's tariffs, I suppose that could theoretically happen, but I'm not sure how likely it is. The size of the tariffs being discussed don't leave much room for that and still turning a profit. We'd be talking about a minority of imports as a certainty.
Knowing how isn't the problem. You can easily find someone who knows how to make just about anything.
The problem is building and equipping the factories and developing a supply chain for the raw materials (which you either have in your country or you don't, and if you don't, there's nothing you can do about it but depend on getting it from somewhere else).
But that's irrelevant to this point...like choosing to buy American goods, you don't need tariffs to solve this problem. If we don't have someone in country to supply something we need for critical infrastructure or national defense, all we have to do is contract with a domestic company to provide it. No tariffs necessary.
Well, here's the other thing. People act like Trump Tariffs 2.0 are the first run of this little experiment. They aren't. Trump instituted tariffs as far back as 2018. We don't have to guess at the results, we can see what happened.
Tax Foundation
From the article:
quote:
"Let's talk about tariffs, but you have to restrict your arguments to only ones I approve of."
I never invited anyone to generally talk about tariffs.
I just wanted the people who seem to think tariffs in other countries cost American taxpayers money to confront their ignorance on that one point. Which is why I tried to cut off the irrelevant nonsense from the get. Pretty dumb, I'll admit, because the one thing you can count on here is irrelevant nonsense.
Speaking of which...
quote:
You want to focus solely on the one argument you have
I didn't make an argument. I never said I was against tariffs. Did I? Again, that wasn't the point.
quote:
That's the only possible outcome your brain can foresee.
Based on what? The fact that I didn't detail any? Well that's because none of the OP was about any of that. Of course I can foresee multiple outcomes.
quote:
The fact that the company can move production to America
When Chinese factor workers work for an average of $6 an hour and American factory workers work for an average of $17 an hour (actual numbers, I looked them up, though I rounded), what possible scenario can you imagine for moving production back to America other than that the price on every good manufactured here instead of there would go up?
Only it would be permanent this time instead of temporary.
quote:
the consumer can buy an American good
The consumer can already do that. We don't need tariffs to produce that outcome.
quote:
an American company can increase production with a larger market share to create even lower costs
I assume you mean if the Trump tariff succeed and other countries drop their tariffs and we drop ours. If so, this is exactly what I begged y'all to read in the OP. It's been dealt with, long before you even found this thread.
And if that's not what you meant, that sentence makes no sense.
quote:
the company with the tariff could lower their prices to not lose market share.
Without knowing whether the hypothetical company you are referring to is located, there's no way to address that sentence. If you are talking about a company located in the US as a response to foreign tariffs, that's obviously bad for American companies. If you are talking about a company located outside the US responding to Trump's tariffs, I suppose that could theoretically happen, but I'm not sure how likely it is. The size of the tariffs being discussed don't leave much room for that and still turning a profit. We'd be talking about a minority of imports as a certainty.
quote:
The phrase, "We don't know how to make that extremely critical object here," should never be muttered in this country.
Knowing how isn't the problem. You can easily find someone who knows how to make just about anything.
The problem is building and equipping the factories and developing a supply chain for the raw materials (which you either have in your country or you don't, and if you don't, there's nothing you can do about it but depend on getting it from somewhere else).
But that's irrelevant to this point...like choosing to buy American goods, you don't need tariffs to solve this problem. If we don't have someone in country to supply something we need for critical infrastructure or national defense, all we have to do is contract with a domestic company to provide it. No tariffs necessary.
quote:
Many things could happen.
Well, here's the other thing. People act like Trump Tariffs 2.0 are the first run of this little experiment. They aren't. Trump instituted tariffs as far back as 2018. We don't have to guess at the results, we can see what happened.
Tax Foundation
From the article:
quote:
When the Trump administration imposed tariffs on various imports in 2018, the stated purpose was to boost US industries and punish foreign exporters. But rather than hurting foreign exporters, the economic evidence shows American firms and consumers were hardest hit by the Trump tariffs.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 9:57 pm to wackatimesthree
Part II
Tax Foundation Again—Summary of Trump Tariffs 1.0
This one was from 2021 and they were urging the Biden administration to not keep the tariffs (which they did anyway). From the article:
So it's not like we have to guess what's going to happen. It's already happened. We're just going to get more of it.
Until/unless Trump can force other countries to drop their tariffs and we drop ours. Just like it says in the OP. If he can do that, great, he will have done a great thing for everyone.
But it didn't work that way the first time around.
China is not Mexico. They've got a lot more leverage and ability to resist, and they know they can outlast us. That's the thing. This tariff game is a game of cigarette lighter chicken. Two guys holding their arms over the flame of a cigarette lighter and the first one who drops out loses. But while the game is still going on, both sides take damage. China can probably take more damage than we can, if for no other reason they have a dictatorship and Xi doesn't have to worry about whether his citizens are happy with his decisions or not.
Does it really look to you like I am only considering a single component?
Have you actually looked up the effects of the Trump 1.0 tariffs? Have you looked at any data at all?
My only thing with this thread is that if people are posting things like, "they have a 150% tariff on us and we only charge them a 3% tariff, that's not fair for the American taxpayer!" then they literally don't even know how tariffs work. And there are dozens of people posting stuff like that.
Don't you think they need to understand what the hell is being discussed before having the discussion?
Tax Foundation Again—Summary of Trump Tariffs 1.0
This one was from 2021 and they were urging the Biden administration to not keep the tariffs (which they did anyway). From the article:
quote:
On average, U.S. manufacturing firms source 22 percent of their intermediate inputs internationally. By raising prices of intermediate inputs, Leibovici argues that the new U.S. tariffs are likely to have a significant negative impact on the manufacturing sector, with the potential to “force U.S. manufacturers to raise prices, thus hurting consumers and leading to cuts in production. Moreover, some firms might not be able to compete in this alternative environment and might have to shut down.”
Federal Reserve economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce took a comprehensive look at the effects of the new tariffs on employment, output, and producer prices in the U.S. manufacturing sector. They took care to measure the benefits of tariffs to protected companies, and the costs of tariffs to companies that faced higher input prices or other distortions. On net, they found a decrease in manufacturing employment due to the tariffs: the positive contribution from protected industries (0.3 percent) was significantly outweighed by the effects of rising input costs (-1.1 percent) and by retaliatory tariffs (-0.7 percent). They found that manufacturing industries more exposed to tariff increases experienced relative reductions in employment, showing that “tariffs have been a drag on employment and have failed to increase output.”
Other estimates similarly suggest that saving a relatively small number of jobs in a protected industry comes at a very high cost. Gary Hufbauer and Euijin Jung of the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that the Trump administration’s steel tariffs would expand steel employment by about 8,700 jobs, but at an average cost of about $650,000 per job—about 11 times greater than the average wage earned by steelworkers, indicating a high level of inefficiency and economic loss. Their estimates do not attempt to measure employment loss in downstream industries but they note that “job losses probably exceed jobs created by a large magnitude.”
St. Louis Federal Reserve economists Ana Marie Santacreu and Makenzie Peake evaluated how exposure to trade at the onset of the trade war was correlated with employment and output growth to evaluate the effects of changing U.S. trade policy. Their empirical analysis shows that states more exposed to U.S. tariffs on imports from China experienced lower increases—or even decreases—in employment and output, providing additional evidence that exposure to tariffs played a role in reductions in employment and output.
So it's not like we have to guess what's going to happen. It's already happened. We're just going to get more of it.
Until/unless Trump can force other countries to drop their tariffs and we drop ours. Just like it says in the OP. If he can do that, great, he will have done a great thing for everyone.
But it didn't work that way the first time around.
China is not Mexico. They've got a lot more leverage and ability to resist, and they know they can outlast us. That's the thing. This tariff game is a game of cigarette lighter chicken. Two guys holding their arms over the flame of a cigarette lighter and the first one who drops out loses. But while the game is still going on, both sides take damage. China can probably take more damage than we can, if for no other reason they have a dictatorship and Xi doesn't have to worry about whether his citizens are happy with his decisions or not.
quote:
We think the whole situation should be considered instead of a single component.
Does it really look to you like I am only considering a single component?
Have you actually looked up the effects of the Trump 1.0 tariffs? Have you looked at any data at all?
My only thing with this thread is that if people are posting things like, "they have a 150% tariff on us and we only charge them a 3% tariff, that's not fair for the American taxpayer!" then they literally don't even know how tariffs work. And there are dozens of people posting stuff like that.
Don't you think they need to understand what the hell is being discussed before having the discussion?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 10:00 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Wrong.
Somebody's prohibiting you from buying goods made in the US?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 10:02 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I just wanted the people who seem to think tariffs in other countries cost American taxpayers money to confront their ignorance on that one point.
In other words it's exactly what I posted earlier:
I will not try to explain it to you because you don't want a serious conversation. What you think you are doing is "educating". You aren't.
In 1955 a house, on average, was $7,900. The average family made $4,400.
In 2024, the average sold home was $512,000 and the average pay was $62,000. (BTW in CHINA the average pay is $50,400. )
You simply want to hold on to your wrong belief and no amount of telling you what's wrong with that belief will change your belief.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 10:29 pm to wackatimesthree
I have an idea
Posted on 3/10/25 at 11:31 pm to Flats
quote:
Somebody's prohibiting you from buying goods made in the US?
No, someone is prohibiting you from understanding the economy.
Posted on 3/11/25 at 4:27 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
For NATO and other military operations… sure! But we aren’t going to pay for that with tariffs. And worse the tariffs will be paid by US consumers.
America first ain’t coming easy but it’s well past time. Problem is you get another liberal in the WH for 2028 and it’s all for naught
Posted on 3/11/25 at 4:53 am to wackatimesthree
Think anaconda.
The tariff will strangle the competition until they give up.
They ultimate goal is for them to say no more tariff’s and in kind we say no more tariff. Free trade boom.
Second goal, the companies move here creating jobs. Making up an even stronger economic power.
Will there be pain? no fight is without pain. However, we should win because we are bigger and more powerful.
The tariff will strangle the competition until they give up.
They ultimate goal is for them to say no more tariff’s and in kind we say no more tariff. Free trade boom.
Second goal, the companies move here creating jobs. Making up an even stronger economic power.
Will there be pain? no fight is without pain. However, we should win because we are bigger and more powerful.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News