- 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: Question for those that oppose the tariffs
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:27 pm to prplngldtigr
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:27 pm to prplngldtigr
My best guess is that in decades past other countries benefitted from the USD being so powerful, and our populace being much wealthier than inflation/interest (etc) has us now.
I think that back then we got a TON of products incoming to our consumers, who were wealthier per capita, and could afford tons of things. Boy can Americans consume. Consume we did. Bled our wallets and forgot how to save and be frugal. Been a long time since the "Great Depression." Most of us are reckless spenders, with terrible money management skills. Over time, we got less and less wealthy as the globalists/bankers seized more and more. And now it's no longer a win/win for those past tarrif rates for everyone.
Fair is fair, however. And even though I seem to always end up agreeing with Rand Paul, I'm not so sure he's right about this one... I think it's time to adjust those to be even-Stephen.
I also think the world is highly unstable right now. It's as bad as I've ever seen it by A WIDE margin. Moves like this can cause a splash and become unmanageable. I'd like to think that we're still in a good enough position with all these countries to pull this off.
One thing is for sure. If Trump hadn't been elected, this would not be happening. For better or worse. And to be fair to Trump, he seems to almost never be wrong about his big moves. Fauci/cv vax excluded.
I like seeing a President wield his power. Better to take shots and be wrong than never take shots and continue to be eroded by more shrewd, more patient adversaries that are specifically interested in our downfall.
I think that back then we got a TON of products incoming to our consumers, who were wealthier per capita, and could afford tons of things. Boy can Americans consume. Consume we did. Bled our wallets and forgot how to save and be frugal. Been a long time since the "Great Depression." Most of us are reckless spenders, with terrible money management skills. Over time, we got less and less wealthy as the globalists/bankers seized more and more. And now it's no longer a win/win for those past tarrif rates for everyone.
Fair is fair, however. And even though I seem to always end up agreeing with Rand Paul, I'm not so sure he's right about this one... I think it's time to adjust those to be even-Stephen.
I also think the world is highly unstable right now. It's as bad as I've ever seen it by A WIDE margin. Moves like this can cause a splash and become unmanageable. I'd like to think that we're still in a good enough position with all these countries to pull this off.
One thing is for sure. If Trump hadn't been elected, this would not be happening. For better or worse. And to be fair to Trump, he seems to almost never be wrong about his big moves. Fauci/cv vax excluded.
I like seeing a President wield his power. Better to take shots and be wrong than never take shots and continue to be eroded by more shrewd, more patient adversaries that are specifically interested in our downfall.
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 10:30 pm
0
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:32 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:It's simply a matter of effeciency. I don't raise cows, keep chickens, and grow corn for myself. I buy all that from other people that are far better equipped skilled to do so.It's a better use of my time, talents, abilities to buy over DIY.
Bc we don't make shite here anymore besides tech
It's no different for us as a country.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:38 am to prplngldtigr
I have only seen a couple of people answer these questions. So I will give it a try. I am playing devils advocate to some degree because I am not so much opposed to Trump's tariffs as I am just uncertain. I get the overall idea behind them, just not convinced it will work (not convinced it won't work either)
A blanket demand for reciprocity is not necessarily in the U.S.'s best interest. For example: lets say Vietnam wants to protect its textile industry and imposes 50% tariffs imported into their country. The U.S. benefits from this protectionist policies in that we get a supply of very cheap textiles that U.S. manufacturers cannot match. Further than that - the idea is that it would be inefficient for the U.S. to invest or have to invest in textile production, that money would see greater return invested elsewhere.
I think this line of thinking would have to imply something more - as in, for a hypothetical example: the U.S. would want to see Vietnam purchasing services (higher paying jobs than textile manufacturing) and/or Vietnamese investment in U.S.
"Fairness" should not enter the debate. Objective and practical results are what counts. And the argument here would be that the longterm health of the U.S. economy is better served by foreign investment in the U.S. that funds the U.S. consumer's purchase of cheap goods. These investments will produce far greater returns for the U.S. economy than the returns we would get producing cheap consumer goods.
My understanding of the argument is that the current system is very beneficial to the U.S. economy overall if somewhat less beneficial to relatively small groups of people (say, the unskilled, non-college-educated workforce). The U.S. is the best place for foreigners to invest their money - and the trade deficit on cheap consumer goods funds that investment, and like I said above, this investment produces far greater returns for the country than manufacturing plastic consumable, for example, ever would.
I think I have answered this question above, but will say that this is the heart of the issue, I hope. The only way Trump's policy makes sense is that he believes we can have the best of both worlds, so to speak. An end to leaving behind the unskilled, uneducated worker, but not ending the foreign investment (completely) that fuels the overall growth that helps make the strongest economy in the world.
If the goal is elimination of the trade deficit overall, then I think it is a bad policy.
quote:
Are other country’s tariffs on US products okay and why?
A blanket demand for reciprocity is not necessarily in the U.S.'s best interest. For example: lets say Vietnam wants to protect its textile industry and imposes 50% tariffs imported into their country. The U.S. benefits from this protectionist policies in that we get a supply of very cheap textiles that U.S. manufacturers cannot match. Further than that - the idea is that it would be inefficient for the U.S. to invest or have to invest in textile production, that money would see greater return invested elsewhere.
I think this line of thinking would have to imply something more - as in, for a hypothetical example: the U.S. would want to see Vietnam purchasing services (higher paying jobs than textile manufacturing) and/or Vietnamese investment in U.S.
quote:
Are cheap goods and labor more important than economic fairness and longterm reliability for the US economy?
"Fairness" should not enter the debate. Objective and practical results are what counts. And the argument here would be that the longterm health of the U.S. economy is better served by foreign investment in the U.S. that funds the U.S. consumer's purchase of cheap goods. These investments will produce far greater returns for the U.S. economy than the returns we would get producing cheap consumer goods.
quote:
How would you level the trading playing field and give the US either fairness or the advantage minus tariffs?
My understanding of the argument is that the current system is very beneficial to the U.S. economy overall if somewhat less beneficial to relatively small groups of people (say, the unskilled, non-college-educated workforce). The U.S. is the best place for foreigners to invest their money - and the trade deficit on cheap consumer goods funds that investment, and like I said above, this investment produces far greater returns for the country than manufacturing plastic consumable, for example, ever would.
quote:
What levers would you pull to make the US economy the best in the world?
I think I have answered this question above, but will say that this is the heart of the issue, I hope. The only way Trump's policy makes sense is that he believes we can have the best of both worlds, so to speak. An end to leaving behind the unskilled, uneducated worker, but not ending the foreign investment (completely) that fuels the overall growth that helps make the strongest economy in the world.
If the goal is elimination of the trade deficit overall, then I think it is a bad policy.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News