re: Let’s call it what it is

quote:

---

was going to be a half year recession

---

This would be the best case

quote:

---

cheap eggs.

---

Arent they cheaper then bidens? Still not happy huh

quote:

---

I think these new tariffs are going to be great. Imagine how much worse inflation would had been without Trump’s tariffs that Jill and Kamala kept

---

quote:

---

Trust me, Bro.

---

Bro, I wouldn't trust you with my pet turtle.

You have spent about 20hrs today crying about Trump

Tate math.

quote:

---

Amazing how everything went from "things are going to get better day 1" to now "Just wait 6 months...man, this economy is going to be awesome

---

Going to need some citations.

This is a good explanation on Reddit of what Trump is trying to do. Could the initial investments by companies looking to avoid tariffs spark some growth?

LINK /

Trump's trade policies only make some kind of "sense" (and I use that term loosely here) if we believe their goal is about re-distribution, rather than about wealth-building. The starting point of this line of reasoning is that the hollowing-out of American manufacturing has had negative economic consequences on a certain subset of the American population, who used to be able to earn good manufacturing wages, but have now been pushed into lower-wage jobs (e.g., in the "low-skill" service sector).

The goal of trying to bring manufacturing back to the US is to reverse this phenomenon, to the benefit of that same subset of the American population. However, basic economics will tell you that such policies will shrink the size of the economic pie. Meaning that there is less stuff to go around, but more of that stuff will be going to that particular subset of the population. The corollary of that is that there must be less going to everybody else.

Now, none of that is to say that Trump's policies will actually accomplish this goal (assuming indeed that re-distribution is the goal here). Tariffs will be a boost to certain manufacturers, but it will hurt others (e.g., those who need to import raw materials), and it's not clear at all that the manufacturing sector as a whole will be significantly better off, if at all. Furthermore, past experience with "re-shoring" (bringing manufacturing back from abroad) suggests that the employment gains may not be as large as hoped, since newly built factories tend to use the newest technologies, which involve extensive automation and minimal need for labor.

It's also not to say that even if it accomplishes this goal that the cost will be worth it. For example, if re-distribution is the goal, then there are other ways this can be accomplished (e.g., through the progressive income tax system) that may come at a smaller cost in terms of the total economic pie.

quote:

---

unfortunately, it's going to take way longer than 6 months to unfrick this mess.

---

If they get a handle on it and it looks like trump is going to get a handle on it the economy could be on fire inside a year.

But yes it will take a decade to get things fixed.

quote:

---

Trump's trade policies only make some kind of "sense" (and I use that term loosely here) if we believe their goal is about re-distribution, rather than about wealth-building. The starting point of this line of reasoning is that the hollowing-out of American manufacturing has had negative economic consequences on a certain subset of the American population, who used to be able to earn good manufacturing wages, but have now been pushed into lower-wage jobs (e.g., in the "low-skill" service sector).

The goal of trying to bring manufacturing back to the US is to reverse this phenomenon, to the benefit of that same subset of the American population. However, basic economics will tell you that such policies will shrink the size of the economic pie. Meaning that there is less stuff to go around, but more of that stuff will be going to that particular subset of the population. The corollary of that is that there must be less going to everybody else.

Now, none of that is to say that Trump's policies will actually accomplish this goal (assuming indeed that re-distribution is the goal here). Tariffs will be a boost to certain manufacturers, but it will hurt others (e.g., those who need to import raw materials), and it's not clear at all that the manufacturing sector as a whole will be significantly better off, if at all. Furthermore, past experience with "re-shoring" (bringing manufacturing back from abroad) suggests that the employment gains may not be as large as hoped, since newly built factories tend to use the newest technologies, which involve extensive automation and minimal need for labor.

It's also not to say that even if it accomplishes this goal that the cost will be worth it. For example, if re-distribution is the goal, then there are other ways this can be accomplished (e.g., through the progressive income tax system) that may come at a smaller cost in terms of the total economic pie.

---

The problem I have with all of that is this:

1. The average factory worker in the US makes $17 an hour.

2. $17 an hour jobs are going to effectively redistribute wealth? To whom? Frankly, the benefits for people on welfare are worth more than that.

3. Wealth redistribution is a far leftist strategy (it's the entire motivation behind Obamacare). That doesn't bother the populists, but I'm not a populist.

4. The average Chinese factory worker makes $6 an hour. So we're going to raise the cost of all of these products for everyone so that a small handful of Americans can supposedly benefit (but I'm not sure they really will. Not unless these jobs pay significantly more than the average. And if they do, then the cost goes up even more.)

If that's really the motivation, it will work about as well as Obamacare has and it will have the same effect.

quote:

---

It’s not. If you took Economics 101 in High School you would understand why it’s probably going to be flat for the next few months. Flat meaning, not much is going to change but it’s not going to get worse (even with the tariffs

---

You have no idea wtf you are talking about.