- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:49 am to BCreed1
quote:
What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Nothing and you know that. Just your attempt to change the conversation.
Paying off debt was one of the braindead talking points of this dumb policy.
Record debt and tariffs are going to really help affordability issues
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:50 am to frogtown
quote:
You listed a bunch of what you thought were good things about the economy.
No I stayed within the topic. I did not pivot to the US debt that is growing at a slower pace now. It's a totally different topic.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:51 am to jlnoles79
quote:
Paying off debt was one of the braindead talking points of this dumb policy.
Then start another thread on it. No need in derailing this because you have a hard on to find a talking point.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:51 am to BCreed1
quote:
I'm not lying. Maybe you need to research it, but I'm not derailing a thread for you to pull a roger.
No frick stain. You need to address the topic. Quit being a punk.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:52 am to frogtown
quote:
You need to address the topic.
This is the topic:
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:54 am to BCreed1
quote:
You need to address the topic.
This is the topic:
Not the topic me and you are discussing which you lied about.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:56 am to I20goon
quote:Soybeans are up? that's good for the American farmer.
Soybean futures
Posted on 12/11/25 at 10:56 am to frogtown
quote:
Increase in exports is from the weak dollar genius.
The reduction in tariffs charged to us by other countries also increase our exports.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:08 am to frogtown
quote:
Not the topic me and you are discussing which you lied about.
Yes it is. You just decided to forgo that to latch onto something totally different. And that difference went right over your head. You didn't even grasp it.
So I will try it in another way. Principle and philosophical terms VS practical policy terms.
Milton understood the differences. It's why he changed his beliefs over time. He, unlike you and a few others, was not so indoctrinated that he could not think for himself.
One of those was that Friedman noted that, if government intervention in trade is unavoidable, a tariff is less harmful than a quota because it at least generates revenue for the government and provides an incentive for foreign producers to offer lower prices.
But to put your avoidance to an end so you can get back onto topic:
"In principle I would like to see free immigration.”
— Friedman on Charlie Rose, Dec 26, 2005.
“There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state…”
— Friedman, email to Henryk A. Kowalczyk, Oct 16, 2006.
Principle and philosophical terms VS practical policy terms.
This post was edited on 12/11/25 at 11:09 am
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:09 am to BCreed1
quote:
practical policy terms.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:14 am to RogerTheShrubber
Roger admitting he is a liberal:
quote:
Glad you finally admit to being a liberal
response
quote:
"classic"
In this very thread.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:18 am to BCreed1
quote:
"In principle I would like to see free immigration.”
— Friedman on Charlie Rose, Dec 26, 2005.
“There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state…”
— Friedman, email to Henryk A. Kowalczyk, Oct 16, 2006.
There you are taking snippets and not putting them into the correct context.
You know that Friedman repeatedly stated you cannot have open borders with a welfare state. Period. We have a welfare state. So Friedman is advocating for a closed border.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:20 am to frogtown
quote:
I want you to quit lying. Again show me where Friedman openly advocated for open borders.
I graduated from Chicago in 94 w/ an economics degree. While Friedman had retired, I can assure that his works, papers, ideas, etc were taught, almost to the point of exhaustion in both the economics department as well as the public policy department, and other departments as well.
Every single Chicago graduate will know 2 things, regardless of their major, before leaving. The first is Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War as well as a basic understanding of the Chicago's economic school.
Having said that, I can assure you that Friedman never endorsed open borders in a welfare state. NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
To suggest otherwise is either 1) stupid, or willfully ignorant 2) so absolutely mind-rotted w/ bad information or 3) re-write history in order to undermine an idea to promote something else (disparaging the messenger subverts the message).
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:22 am to frogtown
quote:
Increase in exports is from the weak dollar genius.
Trump's trade deals that allow American companies greater access to foreign markets had nothing to do with it, right?
Trump just cannot be responsible for anything positive, even when his actions directly contribute to it, according to the TDS losers.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:26 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Trump's trade deals that allow American companies greater access to foreign markets had nothing to do with it, right?
You believe what you want to believe. I see the DXY has lost 9% YTD and I will draw my conclusions from that.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:28 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Trump's trade deals that allow American companies greater access to foreign markets had nothing to do with it, right?
His devaluing the dollar had way more to do with it.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:29 am to frogtown
quote:
There you are taking snippets and not putting them into the correct context.
No sir. I am not. I stated clearly that the differences here in in PRINCIPLE and POLICY.
His on words state that. Here it is for you:
quote:
There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state
That sir is a thought in PRINCIPLE.
THIS:
quote:
but in a welfare state it is a different story
is POLICY. Now how did he reach that conclusion? His words tells us:
quote:
That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California.”
—Milton Friedman, email to Henryk A. Kowalczyk, October 16, 2006
Thus the difference of in principle vs backed up with policy.
Friedman is/was open borders. His words say that. BUT when put into policy, he saw that it did not work and decided to draw a conclusion on why it would not work. Welfare.
He also stated this:
quote:
“Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.”
Back to this topic. YES, on paper and principle, Milton was not pro tariffs. In Policy, he understood the need and the results. And he was right as you can clearly see.
If government intervention in trade is unavoidable, a tariff is less harmful than a quota because it at least generates revenue for the government and provides an incentive for foreign producers to offer lower prices.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:29 am to Penrod
If you halved the trade deficit tomorrow we would see an increase in GDP of 2.2%. Given the feds capture 24%-25% of GDP as inlays then you would see a 10% reduction in fiscal deficit without doing anything else. Although, to be fair, foreign investment that is lost would have been taxed, although most likely not as much as the 24%/25% figure. So,m say a 5% reduction in fiscal deficit - without doing anything else (i.e. not seeing supply pick up domestically and the presumably increased private savings being invested in domestic projects.)
The only issue would be what, if anything, do we lose due to decreased efficiency. Looking at recent history suggests not much. During the 90s we were running trade deficits under 2% and our standard of living was rising. Whether you believe we were really running a fiscal surplus or not, the fiscal situation was far far better than it is today. Then we cut a deal with China, saw our trade deficit double and the fiscal situation began a decline that really has not stopped since.
The only issue would be what, if anything, do we lose due to decreased efficiency. Looking at recent history suggests not much. During the 90s we were running trade deficits under 2% and our standard of living was rising. Whether you believe we were really running a fiscal surplus or not, the fiscal situation was far far better than it is today. Then we cut a deal with China, saw our trade deficit double and the fiscal situation began a decline that really has not stopped since.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 11:30 am to Ten Bears
quote:
Having said that, I can assure you that Friedman never endorsed open borders in a welfare state. NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
And that's not what is being argued.
Period. Maybe read the conversation.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News