re: The First of Many - Vietnam Negotiates Zero Tariff Policy

quote:

---

So the goal is "zero tariff" and not "bringing manufacturing jobs back" or "funding the government with tariffs"?

---

Wondering the same thing

quote:

---

Could say the same about how you spend 90%+ of your day.

---

When SFP is proven correc,t the ad homs flow

quote:

---

Because you refuse to accept that the “goal” is not singular.

---

These goals effectively cannot co-exist, and I describe why ITT

Here, I'll post it again for you

quote:

---

If the "fair trade/zero tariff" policies are enacted, there will be no positive shift in either manufacturing or tax revenue.

If the "manufacturing back home" policies are enacted, then we won't have "fair trade/zero tariff" (and likely won't have tax revenue as the pricing pressure by the tariff policy will move to domestic manufacturing, which means our reliance on foreign imports of those goods will decline, so no tariffs collected).

If the "tariffs are funding our government" policy is enacted, we will be paying tariffs for foreign goods while hey tariff our experts and we won't be increasing domestic manufacturing (as we're paying the tariffs on imports instead)

---

quote:

---

You are a clown that abandons threads

---

now THIS is completely untrue

quote:

---

s, as noted in the countless “lawfare” discussions that refused to entertain anyone else’s position.

---

They couldn't define their position, just as you refuse to define the goals herein.

That's not a me problem.

quote:

---

Generic talking point: we want even trade deals

---

yes. Good example of a generic talking point

quote:

---

Vietnam: we would like to negotiate an even trade deal

You: this is vague

---

The stated goal is vague. I'll repeat my original post since you seem to have forgotten it (don't want to think you're engaging in dishonesty and using a straw man, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time)

quote:

---

So the goal is "zero tariff" and not "bringing manufacturing jobs back" or "funding the government with tariffs"?

---

quote:

---

These goals effectively cannot co-exist, and I describe why ITT

---

This thread proves that the outcomes can coexist. You are approaching this entire conversation with mutual exclusivity and have proven nothing.

quote:

---

They couldn't define their position, just as you refuse to define the goals herein.

---

Such a clown.

quote:

---

The stated goal is vague.

---

The parties to the negotiation seem to understand, you don’t need to.

quote:

---

I'll repeat my original post since you seem to have forgotten it (don't want to think you're engaging in dishonesty and using a straw man, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time) quote:So the goal is "zero tariff" and not "bringing manufacturing jobs back" or "funding the government with tariffs"?

---

According to a simple definition from investopedia: “governments impose tariffs to 1. Raise revenue 2. Protect domestic industries 3. Exert political leverage over another country”

Should I go to Wikipedia or any other basic reference? Or can we stop arguing about the basic goals of tariffs

Busted

quote:

---

Governments impose tariffs to raise revenue, protect domestic industries, or exert political leverage over another country.

---

quote:

---

Vietnam lowering its tariffs means those manufacturing jobs are not coming back

---

Vietnam is not the only other country in the world. Are you a vet or something?

quote:

---

Those are "or" statements

---

Yes, very good reading.

quote:

---

You clearly don't understand the discussion that is being had, so that probably won't help you.

---

White flag.

quote:

---

Vietnam is not the only other country in the world. Are you a vet or something?

---

It's the topic of the thread and an example of my point that the 3 goals cannot, by and large, co-exist. It was an example to disprove your point that they can.

quote:

---

Yes, very good reading.

---

Your post selectively removed the "or", and we all know why.

Including the or admits that my argument is correct as "or" denotes the exclusivity that I am arguing (and you dispute)

quote:

---

White flag.

---

You don't understand how to do this, either,

quote:

---

Your post selectively removed the "or", and we all know why.

---

you are such a loser. It wasn’t removed, I typed it from my computer screen. I don’t think the inclusion or omission of that word makes a bit of difference in this context, as we aren’t relying on the definition but using it to answer your question as to “moving targets” as it literally addresses all three of those moving targets in its definition.

What a jackass

quote:

---

I don’t think the inclusion or omission of that word makes a bit of difference in this context,

---

Then you don't understand the very basics of what's being discussed, which is shocking, as it isn't complicated.

quote:

---

as it literally addresses all three of those moving targets in its definition.

---

Exclusively from each other.

I already gave you those 3 options, but, like highlander, there can only be one.

Why "or" was so very crucial to maintaining honesty (or displaying comprehension, if that was your folly)