- 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: I love how everyone is suddenly an economist when it comes to tariffs
Posted on 2/23/26 at 11:52 pm to meansonny
Posted on 2/23/26 at 11:52 pm to meansonny
quote:If the idea is “we only want strong partners,” that sounds awesome and all, but I’m struggling to understand the specific mechanism.
I think Trump wants the world to pull their pants up and get stronger. Or don't and we won't involve that country in any of our economic or geopolitical future because that country can't help us.
The UK was embarrassed that we excluded them from plans against Iran in the summer of 2025. But why should we include them other than we have a history together? They are neither strong politically or militarily.
Trump wants strong partners for strong partnerships. But globalism has Europe still buying gas from Russia 4 years after the invasion of Ukraine. Europe is literally helping to fund the war that they are sending resources to continue on Ukraine's behalf.
How do tariffs make another country stronger? If Europe buys Russian gas, slapping tariffs on their exports to us doesn’t directly change their energy sector. It just makes trade more expensive on both sides.
If strength is the metric, strength in what sense? GDP? Military capability? Intelligence cooperation? Financial leverage? The UK and Europe aren’t powerless actors. They’re some of the biggest military spenders in the world. Alliances aren’t supposed to be charity projects. Ideally, they’re force multipliers.
If the concern is dependency in specific sectors like semiconductors or medications, that’s a focused national security argument. I can engage with that. But “get stronger or get excluded” seems more rhetorical than causal.
Are we trying to correct a specific strategic vulnerability, or are we trying to make trade balances look better on paper?
This post was edited on 2/23/26 at 11:53 pm
1
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:13 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Read it again.
t is not an assumption at all. It's fact.
---
It's not. We've been printing for decades
The statement had NOTHING to do with us, or our spending. It was a simple statement of fact, as was the follow on sentence. The point is, it is the printing of paper rather than the paper itself which leads to inflation. Under the gold specie standard, printing was limited to physical bullion reserves. Now it isn't.
quote:Your qualifier was "fixed and satiated." A demand delta, up or down, is non-compatible. But your injection of Zimbabwe is odd, because your "fixed and satiated" claim was related to deflation, was it not?
Is demand for a currency ever "fixed and satiated" other than in theory?
---
You can buy a $500 trillion zimbabwe note on ebay for about $20 usd. I'd say the appetite for zimbabwe dollars is pretty well satisfied.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:43 am to northshorebamaman
quote:There are several other possibilities. E.g., in any country there is always going to be a segment of society ill-suited for white-collar jobs. Elimination of blue-collar opportunities seeds dependence and desperation within that cohort. Meanwhile, as we've shifted away from blue-collar opportunities, AI has potential to substantially reduce need for white collar jobs. Blue collar positions may become more desirable, albeit with a dearth of opportunity in a country which has shed them over the years.
Are we trying to correct a specific strategic vulnerability, or are we trying to make trade balances look better on paper?
There is also a matter of evenly resetting the board after 8 decades of uneven trade practices. Those were necessary assists in rebuilding post-WWII economies. But at some point they should have disappeared. Yet, they didn't. It's the classic example of a favor on the giver's part turning into expectation by recipient. Ironically, it's often the case that the more one gives, and the longer the period of charity, the less the favor is appreciated.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 2:48 am to meansonny
quote:
The discussion is a lot more nuanced than you are willing to acknowledge
They don’t want to acknowledge or discuss nuance. But that attitude blows up in their faces when it comes to COVID-19.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 4:41 am to meansonny
quote:... and?
I did.
quote:Interesting. Did you ask about fiscal dominance, its potential origins, its impact, and contributions massive trade deficits might lend to it, or did that slip your mind?
"How does the US trade imbalance over the past 35 years affect the US dollar"
Posted on 2/24/26 at 7:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Interesting. Did you ask about fiscal dominance, its potential origins, its impact, and contributions massive trade deficits might lend to it, or did that slip your mind?
No. All of that was exactly my point.
With fiscal dominance, the trade deficit is moot.
It doesn't hurt. It is a symptom of the fiscal dominance.
You maybe don't understand "dog wags the tail vs tail wags the dog" references.
I asked for evidence and you gave me theoreticals. Own it.
The fiscal dominance of the dollar has many results. One of which is the trade deficit.
The trade deficit is not hurting our country like you said. 50 years of economic numbers (growth, gdp, dollar) are the evidence.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 9:59 am to meansonny
quote:When a country runs a trade deficit, it is by definition spending more on foreign goods and services than foreigners spend on its goods and services.
No. All of that was exactly my point.
With fiscal dominance, the trade deficit is moot.
That is not theoretical.
Those excess dollars flowing out to foreign hands have to go somewhere.
That is not theoretical.
Foreigners end up holding more dollars than they want to spend on American goods, so they invest them back into American assets (Treasuries, stocks, real estate, corporate bonds, direct investment in businesses) or trade them with intermediaries who invest them back into American assets. Regardless, those assets generate an ROI that runs up the costs of US debt while financing it.
That is not theoretical.
The combination of persistent deficits and debt create borrowing risk which drives debt instrument rates higher.
That is not theoretical.
Eventually it is a glideslope which leads to fiscal dominance, necessitates currency devaluation and entails high inflation.
That is not theoretical. There are a litany of examples.
At that stage, one might surmise the relatively increased cost of imported goods would drive the trade deficit down. The problem is commensurate domestic financing to ramp up competitive domestic production is sky-high, countering import price pressure.
Again, that is not theoretical. It's been a near universal occurrence in such situations.
Had we preserved US manufacturing and a balanced economy minimizing trade deficits, the increased taxbase, decreased dependency, secondary crime reductions, etc, US debt would certainly be lower, perhaps by as much as half. as would cost-of-carry, therefore budget deficits.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 10:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
When a country runs a trade deficit, it is by definition spending more on foreign goods and services than foreigners spend on its goods and services.
That is not theoretical.
Those excess dollars flowing out to foreign hands have to go somewhere.
That is not theoretical.
Foreigners end up holding more dollars than they want to spend on American goods, so they invest them back into American assets (Treasuries, stocks, real estate, corporate bonds, direct investment in businesses) or trade them with intermediaries who invest them back into American assets. Regardless, those assets generate an ROI that runs up the costs of US debt while financing it.
That is not theoretical.
The combination of persistent deficits and debt create borrowing risk which drives debt instrument rates higher.
That is not theoretical.
Eventually it is a glideslope which leads to fiscal dominance, necessitates currency devaluation and entails high inflation.
That is not theoretical. There are a litany of examples.
At that stage, one might surmise the relatively increased cost of imported goods would drive the trade deficit down. The problem is commensurate domestic financing to ramp up competitive domestic production is sky-high, countering import price pressure.
Again, that is not theoretical. It's been a near universal occurrence in such situations.
Had we preserved US manufacturing and a balanced economy minimizing trade deficits, the increased taxbase, decreased dependency, secondary crime reductions, etc, US debt would certainly be lower, perhaps by as much as half. as would cost-of-carry, therefore budget deficits.
Now you are going off the deep end.
1) You can't point to any evidence where the trade deficit has been detrimental to the dollar or economy. That was your comment which led to my reply. Prove it is detrimental after we left the gold standard.
Your replies are all theoretical because there is no evidence to detriment. Just more economic theory.
2) You conflate imports/export imbalances and government debt.
We aren't China. We have a private economy.
Everytime WalMart buys a good from China or Vietnam, that does not pressure the US government to take on more debt. If I am wrong, show me where.
As I said, the strong dollar is the dog that wags the tail. The tail is the trade deficit which obviously results from the strong dollar.
Every historian and economist should want a strong dollar 99.99 times out of 100 with a fiat currency.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 11:49 am to meansonny
quote:Good Lord.
You conflate imports/export imbalances
quote:I did. One more time though.
If I am wrong, show me where.
Domestic money chasing foreign goods exits our economy.
If more leaves than enters, the US economy is in possession of less money. Accordingly, our trade counterparts have more money.
When that money re-enters our economy as debt financing, it comes at a cost. It doesn't pressure debt. It adds to it.
That is not so big a deal as long as rates are low. But as our debt escalates, low rates won't be an afforded luxury. If we've not moved to a more balanced economy by then, we'll be screwed.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 11:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
When that money re-enters our economy as debt financing, it comes at a cost. It doesn't pressure debt. It adds to it.
Foreign money can purchase US debt without the US issuing new debt. There is a free market trade on the debt.
Like I said. Everytime Walmart imports a product from China/Vietnam, the US government is not forced to issue more debt. The issuance of government debt is related to government spending. Not WalMart cost inputs.
You are equating a false proposition for some reason.
Just like China and Vietnam are not required to buy our government debt because they sold us TShirts.
And still you show no negative affect on the US dollar or US economy from a large trade deficit.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 11:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Yea but don’t forget money isn’t the only form of currency when it comes to global trade. Having resources and manufacturing potential mitigates less cash.
If more leaves than enters, the US economy is in possession of less money.
For example, if you own a house you own value, even if it’s not liquid.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:05 pm to DyeHardDylan
Well, the market reacted strongly after his tariff fit
from 10% to 15% after the SC gave him an offramp.
But, what do they know.
from 10% to 15% after the SC gave him an offramp.
But, what do they know.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:14 pm to meansonny
quote:Oh FFS.
Foreign money can purchase US debt without the US issuing new debt. There is a free market trade on the debt.
That is completely irrelevant.
Track the deficit money however you'd like.
Does it have to go to US debt instruments. Of course not!. Aiding debt finance is a best case scenario for us.
Obviously, China's isn't buying any US Debt though. So in their instance, we are funding furtherance of their manufacturing advantage.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Indeed. it’s demand for more dollars that drives the value of dollars. Zero intrinsic value. But as long as demand exceeds supply, we are buying at a discount by using dollars. Even if the nominal value goes down.
The statement had NOTHING to do with us, or our spending. It was a simple statement of fact, as was the follow on sentence. The point is, it is the printing of paper rather than the paper itself which leads to inflation. Under the gold specie standard, printing was limited to physical bullion reserves. Now it isn't.
quote:No. You asked if demand for a currency was ever satiate outside of theory. I gave you a practical case where this is basically zero appetite for a currency.
Your qualifier was "fixed and satiated." A demand delta, up or down, is non-compatible. But your injection of Zimbabwe is odd, because your "fixed and satiated" claim was related to deflation, was it not?
It can happen. And will, someday, for the US. And that will absolutely be a great time for tariffs!
EDIT: I’m not the down-voter on your post. I appreciate your posts.
This post was edited on 2/24/26 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Track the deficit money however you'd like.
It isn't hard.
WalMart is the country's largest importer.
I'm trying to figure out how WalMart is destroying the US from within by adding onto our government deficit spending.
This is where I still need your help closing your argument.
You said that the trade deficit is destabilizing to the US economy.
You said that trade deficit "needs" to be financed.
Put that into context with our largest importer, Walmart.
How does Walmart force our government to finance the capacity of the Walmart imports? What is the destabilizing product of Walmart?
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:This is a good point. And it raises the question… why aren’t US workers l, lacking opportunity, not emigrating to the places those opportunities have shifted to? It’s also odd that we’re importing tons of blue-collar labor.
There are several other possibilities. E.g., in any country there is always going to be a segment of society ill-suited for white-collar jobs. Elimination of blue-collar opportunities seeds dependence and desperation within that cohort. Meanwhile, as we've shifted away from blue-collar opportunities, AI has potential to substantially reduce need for white collar jobs. Blue collar positions may become more desirable, albeit with a dearth of opportunity in a country which has shed them over the years.
There is also a matter of evenly resetting the board after 8 decades of uneven trade practices. Those were necessary assists in rebuilding post-WWII economies. But at some point they should have disappeared. Yet, they didn't. It's the classic example of a favor on the giver's part turning into expectation by recipient. Ironically, it's often the case that the more one gives, and the longer the period of charity, the less the favor is appreciated.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:54 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:The part missing, we would have had to maintain the same standard of living over that time.
Had we preserved US manufacturing and a balanced economy minimizing trade deficits, the increased taxbase, decreased dependency, secondary crime reductions, etc, US debt would certainly be lower, perhaps by as much as half. as would cost-of-carry, therefore budget deficits.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:55 pm to meansonny
quote:No. You aren't. You are assuming that money escaping our economy, and going to foreign economies on a continual basis is healthy. It isn't. To cover those losses, we either print money, or have less of it in our economy. It's 6 and 1/2 dozen the other. Printing money devalues it. Not printing money leaves less in our economy.
I'm trying to figure out
Manufacturing processes abroad, instead of domestically, sheds tax revenue, and creates job loss and dependency. Dependency and joblessness are roots of crime. Those are the things that destabilize our economy.
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:58 pm to DyeHardDylan
That’s because the Wikipedia economists go to Google and are told tariffs are bad for the economy. They have yet to figure out that the huge advantage we have had in technology and innovation is about to be undone by AI or at the least severely level the playing field. Which means if we don’t bring back heavy manufacturing we are going to be in trouble moving forward
Posted on 2/24/26 at 12:59 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:In no small part, because other countries do not cater to immigrants as we do.
why aren’t US workers l, lacking opportunity, not emigrating
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News