- 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: Trade Data Shows Trump’s Tariffs Are Working
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:37 am to Bunk Moreland
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:37 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Don't we have the second largest manufacturing base in the world? What manufacturing jobs do you want back here? You guys all sky scream about unions, but I don't think you want some $10 hour toy dog shite factories here.
So, in order to bring manufacturing back, we have to bring all manufacturing here, even toy dog shite?
You can't think of a solution where we bring back high end manufacturing only?
This is what you guys always do. People want to bring back manufacturing, and you all immediately jump to, "Oh, so you want every little pissant manufacturing done here in the US?"
Why can't people just use common sense when making an argument? Bringing back manufacturing does not mean we bring back every little operation.
We should 100% control the manufacturing of critical goods, but people like you always pretend that in order to do that, we have to bring sweatshops, too.
Use your head and find a balance.
2
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm talking about the article/OP and why its argument isn't strong.
Is it even an argument? You take something that has countless 1st & 2nd order effects, find one you see as positive and claim "see, it's working" while ignoring everything else.
I still can't get anybody to answer this simple question:
If consumers don't pay the tariffs then why are we importing less?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:43 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
You adjust your cost, along with the importer to account for those costs, little is passed on to the consumer, Bessent even showed these to us, and concluded the same.
Simply not true.
BBC
Not that you needed a study for that. Trump's unconstitutional tariffs have to be paid back, right? No one I heard was talking about paying them back to foreign exporters. Why would a refund be owed people who didn't pay the tariffs in the first place?
quote:
By the way, the "few" US companies that export, make us the 2nd largest exporter in the world at 2.1 trillion dollars.
So what? That doesn't change the math on why it's foolish to cost 100% of Americans more money (which both the study and the simple example I provided above confirms that it does, regardless of what you claim) to benefit 3% of Americans (a little less than 10 million Americans are employed by or own companies that export).
It's effectively a wealth redistribution scheme at that point, just like Obamacare.
quote:
The tariff is "paid" by the importer because the manufacturer of origin has reduced his price so the importer can "pay" it. Its the equivalent of your teenage daughter using your credit card to shop. She may have "paid" for it, but the cost is yours.
I understand the concept, but the fact is that it rarely happens that way. Like, 10% of the time according to the study.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 8:44 am
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:46 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I understand the concept, but the fact is that it rarely happens that way.
The bigger problem with their argument is that when it does happen that way there's no positive impact on American manufacturing. They haven't been helped at all in that situation, our government just has more money to throw around,
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:47 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:Indeed.
Use your head and find a balance.
Additionally, in economics, there is a phenomenon referred to as the employment multiplier or economic multiplier effect.
In simple terms, the reference is to secondary economic benefits associated with previously nonexistent domestic jobs. If a new manufacturing plant is built in the United States and employs 100 workers, the ancillary effect his job provision of 100 to 300 positions outside of that plant. Then there are the associated revenue effects with the 200 to 400 newly employed taxpayers. None of which existed prior to the new manufacturing plant's existence.
Even at a marginally increased consumer cost, there are very obvious benefits.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:49 am to Jjdoc
I think as long as consumers are willing to pay more for imported stuff, the higher tarrifs can serve to make American made products more attractive and spur some increase in manufacturing.
I’m just not sure what the tarrifs were designed to do- increase tax revenue to the us government or spur an increase in manufacturing.
I’m just not sure what the tarrifs were designed to do- increase tax revenue to the us government or spur an increase in manufacturing.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:51 am to Jjdoc
Uhhhhh, every other country uses them....did anyone really think they didn't work?
You needed a study to find out?
You needed a study to find out?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:52 am to Flats
quote:It's an odd question. Obviously there is some consumer transference. It may not be, and likely is not, a 100% cost transfer. Nonetheless, the question in the overall scheme is what is economically preferable, or more importantly, what is economically sustainable?
If consumers don't pay the tariffs then why are we importing less?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:52 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Trade Data Shows Trump’s Tariffs Are Working
Pure propaganda as usual.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In simple terms, the reference is to secondary economic benefits associated with previously nonexistent domestic jobs. If a new manufacturing plant is built in the United States and employs 100 workers, the ancillary effect his job provision of 100 to 300 positions outside of that plant. Then there are the associated revenue effects with the 200 to 400 newly employed taxpayers. None of which existed prior to the new manufacturing plant's existence.
In simple terms that's the broken window fallacy.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:55 am to Flats
quote:
The bigger problem with their argument is that when it does happen that way there's no positive impact on American manufacturing. They haven't been helped at all in that situation, our government just has more money to throw around,
Absolutely. That goes back to the beginning of this when Trump was telling them that the tariffs would simultaneously:
1. Bring about free trade by causing other countries to drop their tariffs
2. Replace the income tax
3. Bring manufacturing back
4. Reduce the trade deficit
When it's very obvious that it's not even logically or theoretically possible for tariffs to do all of those things. For example, if it brings manufacturing back, then no one is still paying tariffs to replace the income tax. Same if it causes other countries to drop their tariffs.
I'm guessing that in the rare cases when the foreign manufacturer eats the cost, the pivot becomes, "We're getting taxes paid by foreigners, so it's good." (Not that it reduces our taxes at all, or ever will.)
That's the thing. No matter what happens with these tariffs, when you are willing to accept several contradictory reasons for them from the outset, you can't lose. You can always claim victory.
Trump is a brilliant populist. He knows exactly what to tell these people.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 8:57 am
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:57 am to PorkSammich
quote:
Pure propaganda as usual.
You think?
From Breitbart Business Digest?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 8:59 am to Bunk Moreland
TSMC is increasing its US footprint. Its spending around $165 billion in Arizone on a facility now.
Foxxconn is putting abnout a billion dollars iand 1500 jobs into the US.
I mean that is 2 examples of companies that sped up their time line to invest in the US because of tariffs.
Foxxconn is putting abnout a billion dollars iand 1500 jobs into the US.
I mean that is 2 examples of companies that sped up their time line to invest in the US because of tariffs.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:03 am to Jjdoc
Roger is seething right now. 
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It's an odd question.
This topic makes the claim that tariffs are good for Americans and asking if Americans are paying higher prices as a result of the tariffs is an odd question?
Sure thing.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:07 am to PaperTiger
quote:
TSMC is increasing its US footprint. Its spending around $165 billion in Arizone on a facility now.
Foxxconn is putting abnout a billion dollars iand 1500 jobs into the US.
I mean that is 2 examples of companies that sped up their time line to invest in the US because of tariffs.
I don't think anyone will dispute that tariffs can encourage business to bring some manufacturing jobs back stateside.
The problem is the same as above. According to both Google and AI, if the US forced all manufacturing for every American company back to the United States, you're talking about adding maybe 6 million jobs. This ain't the 70s and manufacturing relies way more on automation than it did back then. Our output is much higher than it was then with significantly fewer employees.
Six million may sound like a lot, but it's not. It's about 3.5% of all jobs in America.
So again, we're going to artificially increase prices for everyone in the country on those items just so that we can benefit 3.5% of the workforce. That is called wealth redistribution.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:08 am to Flats
quote:No.
In simple terms that's the broken window fallacy.
The key is opportunity cost. In the broken window fallacy, there is no net productive capacity increase. Just a non-additive reshuffling of the same deck of cards.
In the case of tariffs, reshoring of production creates new previously nonexistent capacity. The deck is not reshuffled, it is expanded.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The key is opportunity cost. In the broken window fallacy, there is no net productive capacity increase. Just a non-additive reshuffling of the same deck of cards.
Wrong. Break enough windows and you'll certainly have a "productive capacity increase" and it's still just as fallacious. It ignores the lost capital of the window and you're ignoring the lost capital of taxpayers.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:17 am to Flats
quote:Yes, it is odd. It is odd because the issue is clearly multifactorial, and the question, being a rhetorical, addresses but one factor in isolation.
asking if Americans are paying higher prices as a result of the tariffs is an odd question?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why didn't they analyze the increase in consumer spending with the comparable inflation over the same time period?
And even if they did index to inflation would it be the CPI or actual inflation. Even that makes a big difference over the long run.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News