re: Tariffs. What libertarian Economists don't grasp and more.

MAGA is paleoconservative with slightly more populist flair

In denial if you think there is any other conservative ideology with any movement in the US, they have all been crushed

quote:

---

Protectionism and anti-illegal immigration is straight 80s democrat policy.

---

Did you just got to bat for illegal immigration?

That's interesting.

Why's that funny?

Where's "wages" in there?

I messed up by saying income wasn't defined. I thought that was the case, but the core of the argument is that wages and income are not the same things, by the book, legally speaking.

quote:

---

Sugar producers generate nearly $23 billion a year for the U.S. economy.

---

Now. subtract out home much Americans overpay for sugar, and account for the overuse of HFCS (instead of other. porn uses) as a result of it being a cheaper alternative.

Anything can look good when you only look at one side of the economics of it.

quote:

---

Why's that funny?

---

Because I'm tired of addressing your specious argument - especially with you moving the goal posts.

People arguing that the income tax is unconstitutional just look silly after 110 years of collection.

Clearly there have been many with standing. So why hasn't this gone to the court in all this time? (I'm assuming it hasn't, otherwise there would be a readily available decision.)

quote:

---

’Murica first!

---

Following up on my post on page 12. Here's a letter signed off on by more than 260 trade organizations and it of course has more pain in the forecast:

March 24, 2025
Ambassador Jamieson Greer
United States Trade Representative
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508

RE: Opposition to Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting of the
Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance (USTR–2025–0003).

The undersigned organizations representing a wide breadth of our nation’s economy,
including importers, exporters, farmers and agribusinesses, retailers, manufacturers, energy
providers, wholesalers, and transportation and logistics providers, urge the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR) to refrain from imposing its proposed actions in response to the
Section 301 investigation of China’s targeting the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors
for dominance.
We support scrutiny of China’s efforts to dominate the maritime industry. However,
USTR’s proposed actions will not deter China’s broader maritime ambitions and will instead
directly hurt American businesses and consumers. Specifically, USTR’s proposed fees will
increase container shipping costs by at least 25% ($600-$800 or more), adding approximately
$30 billion in annual costs on U.S. businesses and farmers. This will lead to higher prices for
U.S. consumers and undermine the competitiveness of many U.S. exports—leading to a decline
in export revenues and increasing the U.S. trade deficit, contrary to the Trump Administration’s
America First trade goals. One recent study on the assessment of probable net economic effects
of the proposed remedies found that overall, total exports and imports would decline, negatively
impacting the U.S. economy at a time when the administration is striving to grow the overall
economy and create jobs around the country.
Ocean carriers will respond to USTR’s fees by reducing service to many U.S. ports and
diverting cargo to ports in Canada or Mexico. This will reduce ocean traffic at many smaller
ports, creating profound economic damage – including lost jobs – in communities where ports
serve as vital economic hubs. Reduction in service will increase congestion across the country’s
logistics network and spur a new normal of higher costs and delays affecting both imports and
exports. American consumers will suffer a lag in receiving the goods they rely on every day.
We understand USTR is proposing export requirements to support a domestic
shipbuilding industry. We also support a domestic shipbuilding industry, but the export
requirements outlined by USTR fail to acknowledge the realities of revitalizing a U.S.
shipbuilding industry. The U.S. cannot build a vibrant shipbuilding industry from its current
capacity in seven years. Holding firm to USTR’s proposal would force a reduction in U.S.
exports, since the capacity does not exist nor will exist under the USTR timelines. To achieve the
twin goals of combatting trade deficits and reinvigorating the U.S. shipbuilding industry, we
need a dedicated strategy with sustained investments, leadership, and a long-term commitment
from both the public and private sectors. We encourage the Administration to work with us to
achieve its broader goals by considering alternative and more effective measures.
We share the goal of finding real remedies to address China’s dominance in the maritime
industry, while also revitalizing the U.S. shipbuilding industry. We strongly urge USTR to
reconsider the proposed remedies which will significantly impact the millions of stakeholders
who rely on efficient maritime services to move goods in and out of the United States.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

2.5 to 3.5 billion per year. Per google.

quote:

---

Anything can look good when you only look at one side of the economics of it.

---

That's the whole topic. That is what we are doing. And most of us have had a great time talking about.

quote:

---

I think taxes are immoral

---

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society"

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

quote:

---

2.5 to 3.5 billion per year. Per google.

---

Pretty sure that is the cost of the US Sugar program, not the cost differential between what US consumers pay for sugar versus the rest of the world.

This is one of the most insane quotes of all time.

You need a politicians as a middlemen to be civilized? A truly civilized society wouldn't need a small group w/ a monopoly on power taking chunks and chunks of money and liberty from us by force.