- 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: Tariffs. What libertarian Economists don't grasp and more.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:26 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:26 am to SDVTiger
Muh Where's the Math!!?!!!
quote:
Like he said, they do not work the way y'all think they work.
If we got back all the jobs we "lost" overseas and then doubled it, we'd be talking about maybe 20 million Americans. Out of 340 million. Roughly 6%.
And that's if we double it just for good measure.
If you search for the average factory worker salary in the US, you'll get around $17 an hour. if you search for average manufacturing job salary in the US, you'll get almost $24.50 an hour.
Not sure why the difference (maybe the latter takes management jobs into account and the former doesn't?), but let's use the higher number.
That's a little under $51,000 a year for 20 million people.
That doesn't mean that 20 million people who were unemployed suddenly make $51,000 a year, it probably mostly means that someone who was making $15-$20 an hour is now making $24.50 an hour and the unemployed people are filling in the $15-$20 an hour jobs.
$51,000 a year is going to pay roughly $6,000 in taxes. That IS significantly higher by percentage than when the person was making $18 an hour who will pay maybe $1,500 in federal taxes. The difference being $4,500 times 20 million, which is $90 billion in additional tax revenues.
However, if the average manufacturing worker here makes $24.50, that's four times as much as the average Chinese manufacturing worker makes. Obviously prices have to go up to deal with that.
Let's say prices go up in those industries by 20%. It's probably going to be more than that, but we'll be conservative.
Now, in 2023, we still had almost 13 million manufacturing jobs going in the US and those jobs produced $2.3 Trillion in revenue.
Using that math, an additional 20 million jobs would add another $4.3 Trillion, without accounting for the 20% price increase.
Do the math and those goods costs Americans (all of us, not just 6% of us) over a trillion dollars more than they would have, for a 90 billion dollar offset in federal income taxes.
That's off by almost an order of magnitude.
Now I'm sure that someone could dispute some aspect of what I have said or chime in with, "Wait, you didn't factor in XYZ," but the napkin math is too far off for anything I can reasonably think of to matter.
Bottom line, unless or until someone shows otherwise, when we "get those manufacturing jobs back," America loses. Financially, at least, which is what your claim was based on.
Tariffs will NOT cause anyone's income taxes to go down. They WILL cause prices to go up.
And another reason I know this is that Trump instituted tariffs back in 2018 and we know the effects of them. I don't need a crystal ball. All I have to do is look up the net effect of the 2018 tariffs. We lost. Net jobs, net cost, American producers lost market share, etc. That's a fact.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:28 am to Jjdoc
quote:
You would be hard pressed to find an economist that agrees with that.
Is Sowell good enough for you Einstein?
“I happen to believe that the Smoot-Hawley tarifffs of 1939 had a lot more to do with the Great Depression than the stock market. Unemployment was nowhere near as low as it was in the first year after the stock market as it was in the first six months after the tariffs went in.”
And I could go on about Friedman’s opinion on Smoot-Harley and the GD.
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 8:30 am
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:34 am to Ten Bears
I believe that was talked about in the OP.
He even gave you an Economist in the OP whose book is still used in universities . The guy was a free trader but he had enough common sense to admit the work.
But everything you mentioned he covered in the op
He even gave you an Economist in the OP whose book is still used in universities . The guy was a free trader but he had enough common sense to admit the work.
But everything you mentioned he covered in the op
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:36 am to DisplacedBuckeye
What facking math. Predictable
quote:
They WILL cause prices to go up.
HOW MUCH!? Provide 1 example
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:38 am to SDVTiger
quote:
GAVTiger
quote:
What facking math.
Clown.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:39 am to Ten Bears
quote:
And I could go on about Friedman’s opinion on Smoot-Harley and the GD.
He'd just ignore it. That's exactly what they did in the other thread.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 8:56 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Not 1 example. Not even an attempt. Just excuses and a reference to your lover Gavin
As predicted
As predicted
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:02 am to SDVTiger
There's an entire post of examples that I linked and quoted for you.
Try reading it.
Try reading it.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:03 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Still nothing
Its really incredible
Its really incredible
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:05 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Still not one example. Nothing ever

Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:05 am to BCreed1
If you govern based on metrics that are flawed, you’ll enact flawed policies chasing that metric.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:07 am to BCreed1
Not to mention the dust bowl that killed 50% of crops along with the jobs
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:08 am to Ten Bears
quote:
Sowell good enough for you Einstein?
Not really. I stated it that you would be hard pressed to find an economist that agreed with your stance that Smoot Hawley caused the great depression.
Sowell makes some great observations in some respects but he isn't always consistent. For example, what did he say about immigration when Paul Ryan said it needed reform?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:17 am to Jjdoc
quote:
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act has come to symbolize protectionism run mad. It has been blamed for both the 1929 stock-market crash and the subsequent Depression. In my view, that gives it too much “credit.” However, it did impose heavy costs on the American consumer, did deepen the Depression, and did usher in a decade of “beggar-thy-neighbor policies” around the world.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:18 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Not really. I stated it that you would be hard pressed to find an economist that agreed with your stance that Smoot Hawley caused the great depression.
Go back and read my post where explicitly stated that Smoot-Hawley did not cause the GD. I’m sorry you can’t friggin read because your desire for confirmation bias.
quote:
Sowell makes some great observations in some respects but he isn't always consistent. For example, what did he say about immigration when Paul Ryan said it needed reform?
Damn. What does immigration have to do with tariffs? Not a damn thing. But somehow you are using it to undermine the credibility of Sowell, and by extension, his position on everything that doesn’t fit whatever narrative you’re trying to sell. It’s intellectually dishonest, and honestly smacks of a woman with BPD.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 9:19 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Zero math no examples refuses to answer
The BuckIron way
The BuckIron way
Popular
Back to top



1




