- 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 make sense in a world of predatory mercantilism
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:10 am to BCreed1
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:10 am to BCreed1
quote:
and therefore security threats are good reasons to forego economic opportunities.
National security is not the same thing as economic "fairness", whatever that is. Just about every person I've seen discuss this doesn't have a problem with spending money on national security.
This is another pivot, where the discussion is about "fairness" then you try to switch to national security. They're completely different issues.
1
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:17 am to BCreed1
quote:
And guess what I am doing today? BUYING!
buying a fractional share of VOO on Schwab does not count as buying the dip.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:17 am to Flats
quote:
I'm guessing we import a lot more from Kenya than they import from us. We're wealthy, they're poor. We have 5-6 times (I did have to look that up) their population. If we buy a bunch of delicious coffee from Kenya and they still barely have enough money to buy anything from us, why is that bad?
In your example, Kenya is selling a natural resource. The majority of the production is done in facilities in other countries. People on this board have also said that oil companies do no make much on crude compared to the downstream. The finished product usually earns more than the natural resource.
So, wouldn't Kenya be more wealthy if they manufactured the coffee as well as harvested it? Wouldn't Kenya be more wealthy if they could manufacture and sell other products that didn't strictly rely on their limited natural resources?
This whole idea that a country becomes wealthy because it buys cheaper goods instead of making and selling goods for a profit is absurd.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:18 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This whole idea that a country becomes wealthy because it buys cheaper goods instead of making and selling goods for a profit is absurd.
Is wealth created or static?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
The Book of Trump says do unto others as they do unto you.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:20 am to Goforit
quote:
The Book of Trump says do unto others as they do unto you.
And soon you'll be as poor as them.
We have the worlds most advanced economy and the luddites want to go back to horse and buggy days
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:21 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
We have the worlds most advanced economy and the luddites want to go back to horse and buggy days
Boomer hyperbole.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:21 am to Flats
quote:
National security is not the same thing as economic "fairness", whatever that is. Just about every person I've seen discuss this doesn't have a problem with spending money on national security.
No, He clearly stated he was for the Navigation Acts. Smith calls these acts “perhaps the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England.”
To break down some of those... All trade to England had to be on English ships. That's just 1 part of it.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:21 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
In your example, Kenya is selling a natural resource.
That's irrelevant.
quote:
So, wouldn't Kenya be more wealthy if they manufactured the coffee as well as harvested it?
They're not capable of manufacturing it, and this is a separate discussion from what he posted.
Why don't you answer his actual question instead of trying to re-frame it into irrelevance?
quote:
This whole idea that a country becomes wealthy because it buys cheaper goods instead of making and selling goods for a profit is absurd.
You're ignoring that the US makes and sells a lot of goods for profit, and that's why we're wealthy.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:22 am to BigGreenTiger
quote:
buying a fractional share of VOO on Schwab does not count as buying the dip.
I purchased AMZN sir. I also sold 17 calls.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:28 am to tide06
quote:
tide06
Spot on.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:52 am to BugAC
A bump for the best thread of the day so far.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 6:54 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Adam Smith emphasized in book IV of The Wealth of Nations, trade sometimes needs to be limited, not least because ‘defence is of much more importance than opulence’. It is not much use being prosperous if one is not free, and therefore security threats are good reasons to forego economic opportunities.
I don't see how this applies to the administration's tariffs, which the White House itself has said were "to balance bilateral trade deficits" not for national defense.
quote:
According to Smith, it was perfectly justified to burden foreign traders for the encouragement of domestic industry when this was needed.
Again, I don't see how this applies to some of the countries on the administration's tariff list, which a "reciprocal tariff" isn't going to have any effect on domestic industry.
Now, who knows if the administration is just posturing to get leverage against our trading partners for more favorable agreements of if the President is a true believer in mercantilism? I hope it's the former rather than the latter.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News