- 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: Do you think it is fair that Chinese automakers can use Mexico to ship cars tax free?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:47 am to frogtown
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:47 am to frogtown
quote:
The reality is you want more central planning, not less. You have consistently made that known over the last year.
Theyre standing in the gap between mercantilism and socialism. Theyre almost there.
0
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:47 am to Timeoday
Instead of fricking off in the Sandbox about 23 years too long, we should have been sticking our boot in Mexico’s arse
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:50 am to frogtown
quote:
The reality is you want more central planning, not less. You have consistently made that known over the last year.
The only part were I advocated for more central planning is tariffs to enforce trade reciprocity.
I've belittled the Inflation Reduction Act and how it benefits O&G industry unbeknownst to the climate changed nuts who pushed it in multiple posts on this board.
I spoke highly of Trump's desire to cut regulation, lower income, capital gains and corporate taxes and his propensity to not intervene in foreign affairs (which is very libertarian BTW).
Look I want less central planning like all good libertarians but I'm not going to sit by and allow Xi to f' us.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:50 am to Timeoday
It is 2024.
The idea that tariffs are good to protect American industry is so laughable. We have hundreds of years of data to prove that is does not protect the American worker or the American consumer.
I am still open to tariffs as a punitive measure for bad actors. Mutual self destruction (this overstates the issue, but the net results of tariffs are lose/lose) as a bargaining chip for leverage when we are the American economy makes sense. Most countries need us more than we need them. But we can't ignore that it does hurt our consumers and our workers.
I honestly don't know. Who are the Chinese auto manufacturers that we are worried about in mexico?
The idea that tariffs are good to protect American industry is so laughable. We have hundreds of years of data to prove that is does not protect the American worker or the American consumer.
I am still open to tariffs as a punitive measure for bad actors. Mutual self destruction (this overstates the issue, but the net results of tariffs are lose/lose) as a bargaining chip for leverage when we are the American economy makes sense. Most countries need us more than we need them. But we can't ignore that it does hurt our consumers and our workers.
I honestly don't know. Who are the Chinese auto manufacturers that we are worried about in mexico?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:54 am to Timeoday
I've been saying for years that Mexico and messicans are not our friends.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:56 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
A booming economy South of the border means less immigration.
Lol you’re so dumb. You’re advocating for China
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:57 am to GumboPot
quote:
Look I want less central planning like all good libertarians but I'm not going to sit by and allow Xi to f' us.
Forget about Xi.
Orange wants to be known as "tariff man". The 10% universal baseline import tax he has floated on numerous occasions will pretty much be a disaster.
Is Trump wrong here with "universal baseline" or is he right?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:57 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
Lol you’re so dumb. You’re advocating for China
Do have a random quote generator or something?
Nothing you say makes sense.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 10:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
You’re just retarded
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:03 am to Timeoday
quote:
Do you think it is fair that Chinese automakers can use Mexico to ship cars tax free?
We have several Anti Trump "conservatives" on this forum who believe free trade consists of unfettered trade, doesn't matter if the nation uses slave labor, tariffs and requires US corporations to share their industrial and manufacturing technologies, that's free trade man. Seems more like the type of trade agreements a Globalist would want rather than trade agreements that help to preserve a sovereign nation with a robust middle class.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:07 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
. Seems more like the type of trade agreements
Free trade lacks any govt mandated trade agreements
This post was edited on 3/19/24 at 11:08 am
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:11 am to frogtown
quote:
Orange wants to be known as "tariff man". The 10% universal baseline import tax he has floated on numerous occasions will pretty much be a disaster.
Is Trump wrong here with "universal baseline" or is he right?
It's a negotiating tool.
When you are sitting at the table across from a potential trading partner or business partner why would you remove a leverage point before you even sit down?
IT MAKES ZERO SENSE.
Why would you place yourself in a weaker negotiation position from the start? It's just dumb and our politicians besides Trump have been doing this for decades (because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who represent multinationals tell them to not use tariffs as a negotiation leverage point because they want cheap labor in foreign countries and sell back the the U.S. consumers with no taxes).
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:12 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
several Anti Trump "conservatives"
Who would this be?
quote:
and requires US corporations to share their industrial and manufacturing technologies
If a company wants to share technology, why would a conservative interfere?
If a company doesn't want to share technology, then don't.
I can't tell if you are referencing piracy.
quote:
Seems more like the type of trade agreements a Globalist would want
Letting a company operate within the laws and with their own self interest is a conservative principle.
I'm not understanding why a conservative would be against conservative principles of free enterprise for a US based corporation.
quote:
rather than trade agreements that help to preserve a sovereign nation with a robust middle class.
Trade agreements help preserve a Middle class. Tariffs do not. Are you principled in favor of the middle class? Or not?
This post was edited on 3/19/24 at 11:12 am
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:14 am to GumboPot
quote:
Why would you place yourself in a weaker negotiation position from the start?
Why are we holding back American consumers and manufacturers by govt mandated trade agreements?
The government as the economic arbitrator is a huge step off the Conservative platform.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:15 am to meansonny
So you’re fine with an enemy’s plans to move into a sovereign country to undercut American business and workers?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:15 am to GumboPot
quote:
It's a negotiating tool.
When you are sitting at the table across from a potential trading partner or business partner why would you remove a leverage point before you even sit down?
IT MAKES ZERO SENSE.
Tariffs make zero sense if the goal is to benefit our country with improved trade.
If you are combatting a country which does not protect property and actively supports piracy, I understand the leverage. But the goal is not to engage in perpetual tariffs. The goal is to correct behavior and get back to free trade.
Tariffs for any reason other than punitive measures makes zero sense.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:16 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
So you’re fine with an enemy’s plans to move into a sovereign country to undercut American business and workers?
What company is the enemy?
Answer that question in order to define "enemy" and I may engage a response.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:17 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
We have several Anti Trump "conservatives" on this forum who believe free trade consists of unfettered trade, doesn't matter if the nation uses slave labor, tariffs and requires US corporations to share their industrial and manufacturing technologies, that's free trade man. Seems more like the type of trade agreements a Globalist would want rather than trade agreements that help to preserve a sovereign nation with a robust middle class.
Multinationals have done a fantastic job of selling the idea of "free trade" though think tanks, lobbyists and NGOs. Their idea of free trade puts the burden on the U.S. They don't care about selling products in the countries where they take advantage of cheap labor and no environmental regulations. They just want to sell back to America as cheaply as possible.
I can't blame them. I understand their motivation. But whatever consumer gains America makes in the short term are lost in the long term.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:18 am to GumboPot
quote:
Multinationals have done a fantastic job of selling the idea of "free trade" though think tanks, lobbyists and NGOs. Their idea of free trade puts the burden on the U.S. They don't care about selling products in the countries where they take advantage of cheap labor and no environmental regulations. They just want to sell back to America as cheaply as possible.
\
What products are we losing out on exporting here?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:20 am to GumboPot
quote:
But whatever consumer gains America makes in the short term are lost in the long term.
Exactly. It's easy to argue that in the long term, Americans are paying more for their goods than they did in the past. "Cheap" manufacturing has resulting in shorter lifespans on products and even government regulation has played a hand in encouraging more "efficiency" that has driven a disposable mindset.
When it's all said and done, we'll be left with mountains of "cheap" trash.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News