- 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
0
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:25 am to Azkiger
quote:
Was the OP making comparisons or pointing out trends?
The most important trend is the one I asked about
the most important discussion about the purchasing power of the dollar is how it relates to other currencies. The relativity of that discussion is pretty much all that matters, especially within the discussion of international trade and trade policy
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:This is a spending problem. Giving the government more money isn't going to help.
In the real world, the US needs to get our budget under control. Under control means we are now in a situation where interest on the debt costs us ~39% more in Mandatory Spending than we would otherwise have to pay. Interest on the US debt is on track to overtake all US discretionary spending COMBINED! It simply is not a sustainable situation.
We're two CRs and a suspended debt limit already in this adminsitration. Along with demonizing anyone that argues we should spend less.
Pretending the tariffs are about fiscal responsiblity is silly.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In the real world, the US needs to get our budget under control.
That deals with public spending, not the trade deficit.
Unless you can show how a huge chunk of that federal spending is on foreign goods, it's not really relevant.
quote:
Interest on the US debt is on track to overtake all US discretionary spending COMBINED! It simply is not a sustainable situation.
We need less federal spending, yes.
Has little, if anything, to do with the trade deficit.
quote:
If we cut every penny of last year's discretionary spending, we'd still run a deficit this year. So taxes must be a component. How would you suggest we raise them?
Adding more layers of government intervention in markets is not a way to increase economic output
Engaging in economic polity that will hurt our economic output also is not a way to increase economic output.
This redistributive tariff policy does both.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The relativity of that discussion is pretty much all that matters
So because foreign currencies are inflating we should expect our own too as well...
What does that say about foreign tariffs?
Doh.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:38 am to Azkiger
quote:
So because foreign currencies are inflating we should expect our own too as well...
We're discussing international trade. How our currency stacks up to the field is what matters.
quote:
What does that say about foreign tariffs?
You'd have a better argument using this with trade imbalances than tariffs.
Tariffs are typically a way for pols to engage in domestic protectionism at the expense of total economic efficiency/output. That matters more than how their currency stacks up, typically.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How our currency stacks up to the field is what matters.
But not tariffs.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:50 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Of course not. You really surmised that observation, which was a given, warranted a laughing emoji???
our trade deficit is $900 billion. Tax all of it and you're not close to balancing the budget
First off, let's be clear, no one is taxing a trade deficit. We are tariffing imported goods. Last year, that amounted to about $3.3T. Assuming a 15% mean tariff, we'd increase revenue by half a trillion. That's about 1/4th of the deficit which we must otherwise close in a hurry.
We have to raise tax revenue. Sorry. I know that fact is anathema for some, but w/o a change of direction we're approaching fiscal dependence. FD will KILL anyone on salary or (worse yet) anyone on fixed income. As that outcome is still avoidable, continuing to proceed as if it isn't is ignorant and unacceptable.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:59 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
we'd increase revenue by half a trillion.
Paid for out of the pockets of American consumers. Means less money for them to buy goods and services. Their standard of living will be reduced. A reduction in GDP will follow. Some jobs will be lost.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:00 am to Azkiger
quote:
But not tariffs.
Tariffs are a way to engage in suboptimal economic policy.
I'm hoping we don't mimic inferior economies in using them.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Last year, that amounted to about $3.3T. Assuming a 15% mean tariff, we'd increase revenue by half a trillion. That's about 1/4th of the deficit which we must otherwise close in a hurry.
We have to raise tax revenue. Sorry. I know that fact is anathema for some, b
The price increase from those tariffs will hurt GDP as much, if not more, than the value we gain from the tariff taxation. That's the problem.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The price increase from those tariffs will hurt GDP as much, if not more, than the value we gain from the tariff taxation. That's the problem.
You have no way of factually knowing this.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:04 am to texag7
quote:
You have no way of factually knowing this.
Other than the data we have on prior uses of tariffs and the severe negative economic impacts that occurred?
Or the economic data we have when prices of goods increase?
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 10:05 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And this is what we call a strawman. Outside of select avenues that provide solutions for national security concerns, the outsourcing is for unproductive, economically inefficient jobs. You do realize that we're still a manufacturing power, right? We're #2 in output and one of the top10 in per capita output. No other country comes close to our mesh of the volume and value re: manufacturing. What we did was ship out jobs that are less economically productive than McDonalds workers.
Just admit you will decimate entire regions of our country in order to save $50 on a washer and dryer set.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Currently a job at McDonalds is higher-paced, more skilled, and more economically productive than these jobs you want back
What are you smoking, and can I have some?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I mean, if you’re asserting that tariffs will fix our deficit and debt issues, yeas that is laughable. If I’ve misconstrued your assertion, then i’m sorry.
Of course not. You really surmised that observation, which was a given, warranted a laughing emoji???
quote:Thats cute. But tariff proponents assert that they will spur domestic production, and curb imports. Seemingly we have a conflict here. Do tariffs “work” or not?
First off, let's be clear, no one is taxing a trade deficit. We are tariffing imported goods. Last year, that amounted to about $3.3T. Assuming a 15% mean tariff, we'd increase revenue by half a trillion. That's about 1/4th of the deficit which we must otherwise close in a hurry.
quote:Practically speaking, we need a massive tax increase on the “middle class” to be able to afford our government. I guess if you want to go with tariffs as a backdoor way to do that… ok. But why not a 15% tax hike on the “middle class”. They’ll pay it either way.
We have to raise tax revenue.
quote:That’s where we disagree. It’s already too late. The necessity to tariff other countries to fund our own expensive standard of living is a symptom of what’s coming.
w/o a change of direction we're approaching fiscal dependence. FD will KILL anyone on salary or (worse yet) anyone on fixed income. As that outcome is still avoidable
We cannot expect the rest of the planet to remain poor for our sake.
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 10:17 am
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:17 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
But why not a 15% tax hike on the “middle class”. They’ll pay it either way.
You’re claiming these tariffs will cause a 15% tax on take home income?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:28 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Just admit you will decimate entire regions of our country in order to save $50 on a washer and dryer set.
No, because that's poor framing and an emotional-irrational argument.
The people in those regions have opportunities to this day, and better ones if they make better decisions for their economic future.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:29 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
What are you smoking, and can I have some?
Nothing. My statement was factual.
The jobs lost were not economically productive or efficient. That's why they're gone. This is why to "bring them back" the government would have to engage in redistribution policies in order to make them appear economically viable.
The question is why we should pay people to do those jobs today more than what we consider menial jobs that are actually productive in our actual economy.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No, because that's poor framing and an emotional-irrational argument. The people in those regions have opportunities to this day, and better ones if they make better decisions for their economic future.
Actually that is reality. You should get out more.
You like most people have made an emotional decision based on lizard brain compulsion to acquire more for less.
You are now trying to rationalize your basic evolutionary instinct with unfounded logic and economic quackery.
Page 9 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News