Jump to content
Burnt Ends Dinner with Gunnar Helm March 28th ×

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 hours ago, 'stache said:

An immediate exception for the auto industry. I’m sure pharma is next. This whole thing is absurd.

Agriculture is now up, and apparently the next exemption.

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

There's nothing the stock market loves more than uncertainty!

Season 9 Lol GIF by The Office

Posted (edited)

What a clown.  Whoever said in this thread or elsewhere that Trump has a 9th grade US history class understanding of tariffs is spot on.

Edited by A-Tex Devil
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Surprisingly the Mexico tariff threat affected fentanyl production according to the most recent Daily podcast.

They were surprised anyway.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, huge said:

Surprisingly the Mexico tariff threat affected fentanyl production according to the most recent Daily podcast.

They were surprised anyway.

"Affected?"  As in....the fentanyl producers started labeling their product with stickers that said "totally not subject to tariffs, you can let this through free of charge," or something else?  Good, bad, indifferent?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 3/5/2025 at 9:26 PM, Beau Vine said:

There's nothing the stock market loves more than uncertainty!

That same "uncertainty" is highly lucrative to those with inside information on said "uncertainty". 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

So it appears Canadian electricity providers will put a 25% tariff on electricity provided to US.

2+million. I’m sure this won’t backfire. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Trump says he will double tariffs on Canada metals to 50%
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday doubled his planned tariff on all steel and aluminum products coming into the United States from Canada, bringing the total to 50%, in response to the province of Ontario placing, opens new tab a 25% tariff on electricity coming into the U.S.

Trump said in a post on Truth Social he has instructed his commerce secretary to add an additional 25% tariff on the products that will go into effect on Wednesday morning.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
15 hours ago, Shaddie said:

So it appears Canadian electricity providers will put a 25% tariff on electricity provided to US.

2+million. I’m sure this won’t backfire. 

I think in other world's that's just a price increase. I mean, it's there's to sell. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, bolverk said:

Trump says he will double tariffs on Canada metals to 50%
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday doubled his planned tariff on all steel and aluminum products coming into the United States from Canada, bringing the total to 50%, in response to the province of Ontario placing, opens new tab a 25% tariff on electricity coming into the U.S.

Trump said in a post on Truth Social he has instructed his commerce secretary to add an additional 25% tariff on the products that will go into effect on Wednesday morning.

Well Done Bravo GIF by Friends

The stock market will reward you richly, good sir!

Posted
On 3/6/2025 at 4:05 PM, Beau Vine said:

 

Maria with the cunty pivot shrieking to her co-host "Jeff, why don't you see Dodge Rams in Europe or Japan; President Trump is trying to open up that market!!!!".

Uh, yeah Maria, fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, bolverk said:

Trump says he will double tariffs on Canada metals to 50%
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday doubled his planned tariff on all steel and aluminum products coming into the United States from Canada, bringing the total to 50%, in response to the province of Ontario placing, opens new tab a 25% tariff on electricity coming into the U.S.

Trump said in a post on Truth Social he has instructed his commerce secretary to add an additional 25% tariff on the products that will go into effect on Wednesday morning.

image.png.383764e840466a02ce50411cf2985567.png

Posted
[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]" timestamp="[emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]]]]" name="Brisketexan" userid="[emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]"] "Affected?"  As in....the fentanyl producers started labeling their product with stickers that said "totally not subject to tariffs, you can let this through free of charge," or something else?  Good, bad, indifferent?

No. They stopped producing. Listen to the podcast, it was surprising.
Posted

If you guys think cars are an issue... wait until you want to upgrade your home entertainment, your company wants to upgrade their conference rooms, your children's schools or college want to complete their new building. 

Doesn't help any of the people or companies doing the installing nor the folks selling for the manufacturers. 

Sigh... some people don't consider the "trickle down economics" of specific global financial moves. 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 3/12/2025 at 8:37 PM, BurntEyes said:

Sigh... some people don't consider the "trickle down economics" of specific global financial moves. 

Sigh… the longer term intent of the tariffs is to reverse the effects of the last several decades of “trickle down economics” of specific global financial moves. 

Posted

Interesting breakdown of the long term plan here. 
 

https://x.com/theallinpod/status/1899491382793773532?s=46

 

 

friedberg's most optimistic theory: the three-legged stool

leg 1) tariffs
-- encourages on-shoring of manufacturing
--  increases supply chain security
-- increases demand for domestic workforce

leg 2) reduced income taxes
-- unleashes capital into the private sector 
-- potential pivot from income-based to consumption-based taxation

leg 3) reduced government spend
-- slashing govt workforce frees up labor for private sector
--  offsets inflation from tariffs

  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Girth Brooks said:

Sigh… the longer term intent of the tariffs is to reverse the effects of the last several decades of “trickle down economics” of specific global financial moves. 

Trickle down economics was a tax policy, specifically tax breaks for the rich. We're doubling down on that policy.

Edited by Schulz2.0
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Girth Brooks said:

Interesting breakdown of the long term plan here. 
 

https://x.com/theallinpod/status/1899491382793773532?s=46

 

 

friedberg's most optimistic theory: the three-legged stool

leg 1) tariffs
-- encourages on-shoring of manufacturing
--  increases supply chain security
-- increases demand for domestic workforce

leg 2) reduced income taxes
-- unleashes capital into the private sector 
-- potential pivot from income-based to consumption-based taxation

leg 3) reduced government spend
-- slashing govt workforce frees up labor for private sector
--  offsets inflation from tariffs

Drawing a bullseye after throwing the dart is not "long term planning" lol. Further, forcing regressive consumption taxes like tarrifs and sales tax (to replace income taxes) is going to reduce consumer spending.

Tovarich, this IS trickle down economics at work.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted

Good piece on the impact of retaliatory tariffs on specific industries and their geographies in the US, suggesting they're targeted to hurt areas that voted a certain way in this past election. The story also provides links to studies from Brookings and MIT showing similar results.

Some pulled quotes:

The jobs that could be hit by retaliation are especially concentrated in pockets of the upper Midwest, South and Southeast, including many rural parts of the country that are responsible for producing agricultural goods. It also includes areas that produce coal, oil, car parts and other manufactured products.

The message foreign countries are trying to send, he said, is, “You think you can bully us, well, we can hurt you too. And by the way, we know where it really matters.”

Rural parts of the country are once again at risk from retaliation. Agriculture is a major U.S. export and farmers are politically important to Mr. Trump. And rural counties may have one major employer — like a poultry processing plant — that provides a big share of the county’s jobs, compared with urban or suburban areas that are more diversified.

Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro, said that many of the counties affected by retaliation were rural, and “hard red territory.” The geography of Mr. Trump’s political support, he said, was “no secret to our trade partners.”

“They’re very cognizant of these industries, the geography of these industries, and how American politics work,” he added.

Sharing gift link so you can move your cursor around over counties to see the number of affected jobs and their share of the total in each place.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/business/economy/tariffs-trump-maps-voters.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4U4.EjUu.clGohPPmoEo_&smid=url-share

image.thumb.png.54fc566f2312a3714f31442462dd5a8d.png 

 

Top Ten states with the highest share of impacted jobs (4% in Texas):
image.png.f33b81c8e11acf9ffa22070c619d91a4.png 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
12 hours ago, Girth Brooks said:

Interesting breakdown of the long term plan here. 
 

https://x.com/theallinpod/status/1899491382793773532?s=46

 

 

friedberg's most optimistic theory: the three-legged stool

leg 1) tariffs
-- encourages on-shoring of manufacturing
--  increases supply chain security
-- increases demand for domestic workforce

leg 2) reduced income taxes
-- unleashes capital into the private sector 
-- potential pivot from income-based to consumption-based taxation

leg 3) reduced government spend
-- slashing govt workforce frees up labor for private sector
--  offsets inflation from tariffs

that's-not-a-plan-bunty.gif

 

  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Girth Brooks said:

Interesting breakdown of the long term plan here. 
 

https://x.com/theallinpod/status/1899491382793773532?s=46

 

 

friedberg's most optimistic theory: the three-legged stool

leg 1) tariffs
-- encourages on-shoring of manufacturing (completely unrealistic in the short term, like under five years, probably 10)
--  increases supply chain security (Canada and Mexico, contiguous neighbors with whom we ordinarily would ally in any sort of non-Trump induced conflict, are not a threat to supply-chain security).
-- increases demand for domestic workforce (Wholly dependent on item "1" above, so not in any short term)

leg 2) reduced income taxes (bullshit, projections are $20 billion annually in revenue, US tax revenue in 2023 was $47 trillion, fucking DOGE math)
--
unleashes capital into the private sector (fucking bahahahaha)
-- potential pivot from income-based to consumption-based taxation (horseshit, see above).

leg 3) reduced government spend
-- slashing govt workforce frees up labor for private sector (the unemployment is immediate, the "re-employment" is speculative and in the future)
--  offsets inflation from tariffs 

That's just ludicrous wishing in one hand shitting in the other.  And, as I keep pointing out, if tariffs succeeded in on-shoring most US manufacturing, revenue would dwindle.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's just ludicrous wishing in one hand shitting in the other.  And, as I keep pointing out, if tariffs succeeded in on-shoring most US manufacturing, revenue would dwindle.

Tariffs might initially be inflationary, in that they will cause a price spike, long term they are aggressively deflationary, as they are a defacto sales tax.  Goods with inelastic demand will become more expensive as the government pulls money out of the economy (pr domestic producers raise prices to collect more profit)  via customs collection, and the resulting pass through pricing, while elastic goods will see their demand drop, reducing overall economic activity.  

There is a reason that big tariff bills had a bad propensity to induce panics and recessions during the 19th century: they tended to kill economic growth and smother the economy. Luckily, we aren't on the gold standard, which excerbated those panics....at least we aren't right now. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
On 3/16/2025 at 9:04 AM, Girth Brooks said:

Interesting breakdown of the long term plan here. 
 

https://x.com/theallinpod/status/1899491382793773532?s=46

 

 

friedberg's most optimistic theory: the three-legged stool

leg 1) tariffs
-- encourages on-shoring of manufacturing
--  increases supply chain security
-- increases demand for domestic workforce

leg 2) reduced income taxes
-- unleashes capital into the private sector 
-- potential pivot from income-based to consumption-based taxation

leg 3) reduced government spend
-- slashing govt workforce frees up labor for private sector
--  offsets inflation from tariffs

This strategic approach must have been dreamed up by the Lionel Hutz of economists.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

There is a reason that big tariff bills had a bad propensity to induce panics and recessions during the 19th century: they tended to kill economic growth and smother the economy.

This sounds pretty definitive. Could you elaborate?

 

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

image.png.adaf357c7c4bb683d318d148391bd07b.png

image.thumb.png.b9e58d58d1c93793e4ec2af5ec24db1e.png

image.png.ecbe8aa5972a0da2820d452dca4ea71c.png

Well that sounds bad. If tariffs stifle global economic activity, then maybe other countries should drop theirs?

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

We are currently under a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, that Donald Trump negotiated. He's angry about his own deal. 

THIS.

That's the fucking madness here.  THE USMCA IS THE DEAL THAT TRUMP NEGOTIATED.  IF IT IS SUCH A BAD DEAL THAT WE NEED MASSIVE TARIFFS TO FIX THE FUCKERY....WHY AREN'T WE BLAMING THE GUY WHO CREATED THE FUCKERY?

Goddammit this is such a stupid timeline.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The most obvious is Smoot-Hawley, which took the damage from from the Stock Market collapse of 1929 and the follow on bank runs, started a global trade war and took a bad recession and made it the Great Depression.  

The McKinley Tariffs of 1893 excerbated the Panic of 1893 by dramatically raising prices and restricting economic activity.   The Panic of 1837 was brought on by land speculation in the West, as well as an effort to recapitalize the English Banking system, sucking money out of the East Coast banks.  But tariffs on Agriculutural products imports implemented at the insistence of Southern Northern Politicians to protect domestic markets excerbated the problem. 

I guess it's more accurate to say that substantial tariffs have a propensity to suppress economic activity and greatly excerbated existing poor economic conditions. From an macro economic perspective: I'm not going to rehash the third week of Economics 101.  You either took the class and implicitly understand tariffs are bad for economies (whether they are a net overall good for a society is a different conversation) or you don't. 

As to other countries:  Most of the world abides by a series of global trade treaties or submits to binding decisions by the World Trade Organization. If a country has imposed a tariff, is usually because the other side has agreed it's okay, lost a WTO case, or just doesn't care because it's not a source of much trade. 

We are currently under a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, that Donald Trump negotiated. He's angry about his own deal. 

Edit for getting my north and south mixed up. 

Posted

The thing is, if you were serious about reshoring, you wouldn't just roll over exisiting tax cuts. You'd tell the American people, this is the new direction of America, and we are going to have to redesign our tax code, entitlement system, and industrial policy to accomodate it. Instead, it's basically trade policy the way my buddy plays golf: grip it and rip it. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The thing is, if you were serious about reshoring, you wouldn't just roll over exisiting tax cuts.

For a good example of something that seems to get broad support for reshoring.....semiconductor production.  For both economic and strategic reasons.  So, see the CHIPS Act as a good example of how to go about that.  You can and should wield a comprehensive set of tools to accomplish such large-scale goals.

Oh, and how long do they think it's going to take to have truly made a dent in reshoring chip production?  YEARS.  And not a couple of them -- like a decade.

Similar large-scale manufacturing would take years as well.  And of course, that assumes that the policies behind this are long-haul and broadly supported so they'll stay in place (they're not).  People aren't going to make trillion dollar bets on the whims of a nutbar.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
21 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The thing is, if you were serious about reshoring, you wouldn't just roll over exisiting tax cuts. You'd tell the American people, this is the new direction of America, and we are going to have to redesign our tax code, entitlement system, and industrial policy to accomodate it. Instead, it's basically trade policy the way my buddy plays golf: grip it and rip it. 

And if you were serious about it, you'd realize that there are some jobs that will not be done by Americans for various reasons (salaries to make really cheap shit).

So instead we should be working with the countries south of the border to take up that slack instead of demonizing them.  We could move a helluva lot of the supply chain for a lot of stuff to the Americas if we had somebody who understands supply chains, but unfortunately, he's busy running Apple.

But just imagine if we moved a lot of stuff back to the US, Canada, and Mexico and points south - the actual supply chain would be extremely short - railroads and ships wouldn't be crossing oceans, and if a lot was moved to railroads, the whole "just in time" thing would not be subjected to shitty conditions in the Pacific.  We could even get Rick Perry's fabled Trans-Texas Corridor going, linking South America and Mexico all the way through Canada (and Buccees would have franchises at every exit).

But no.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And if you were serious about it, you'd realize that there are some jobs that will not be done by Americans for various reasons (salaries to make really cheap shit).

So instead we should be working with the countries south of the border to take up that slack instead of demonizing them.  We could move a helluva lot of the supply chain for a lot of stuff to the Americas if we had somebody who understands supply chains, but unfortunately, he's busy running Apple.

But just imagine if we moved a lot of stuff back to the US, Canada, and Mexico and points south - the actual supply chain would be extremely short - railroads and ships wouldn't be crossing oceans, and if a lot was moved to railroads, the whole "just in time" thing would not be subjected to shitty conditions in the Pacific.  We could even get Rick Perry's fabled Trans-Texas Corridor going, linking South America and Mexico all the way through Canada (and Buccees would have franchises at every exit).

But no.

What if we also added in Pacific partners (Japan, Korea, Australia), but not China, to create a huge Pacific Free Trade Zone that would boost economies and build mutually reenforcing alliances against Beijing's growing military adventurism and keep them from implementing belt and road in central and south america? 

Oh. wait. that was the Trans Pacific Partnership. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

The most obvious is Smoot-Hawley, which took the damage from from the Stock Market collapse of 1929 and the follow on bank runs, started a global trade war and took a bad recession and made it the Great Depression.  

The McKinley Tariffs of 1893 excerbated the Panic of 1893 by dramatically raising prices and restricting economic activity.   The Panic of 1837 was brought on by land speculation in the West, as well as an effort to recapitalize the English Banking system, sucking money out of the East Coast banks.  But tariffs on Agriculutural products implemented at the insistence of Southern Politicians to protect domestic markets excerbated the problem. 

I guess it's more accurate to say that substantial tariffs have a propensity to suppress economic activity and greatly excerbated existing poor economic conditions. From an macro economic perspective: I'm not going to rehash the third week of Economics 101.  You either took the class and implicitly understand tariffs are bad for economies (whether they are a net overall good for a society is a different conversation) or you don't. 

As to other countries:  Most of the world abides by a series of global trade treaties or submits to binding decisions by the World Trade Organization. If a country has imposed a tariff, is usually because the other side has agreed it's okay, lost a WTO case, or just doesn't care because it's not a source of much trade. 

We are currently under a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, that Donald Trump negotiated. He's angry about his own deal. 

Ok. The way you first posted to implied more of a cause and effect. I understand that tariffs will put a damper on certain economic activities, like any other tax. 
 

We’ve run the globalization playbook for several decades and we’ve reached the point where the tradeoffs have to be accounted for and addressed. It started in 2016 and then COVID really highlighted the deficiencies we’ve allowed in our economy and society. A rebalancing of our economy is in order and that will take time and some pain. That’s known and I suspect it’s why Trump has shied away from market talk this time around. 
 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Similar large-scale manufacturing would take years as well.  And of course, that assumes that the policies behind this are long-haul and broadly supported so they'll stay in place (they're not). 

Depending on your definition they may not be “broadly supported”. But they are supported by his base. He was clear about his intentions, and he was elected handily. 
 

A lot of the handwringing comes from asset holders. I get. I’m one as well. We’ve killed it for the last several decades, while the working class has slowly bled out. We got cheaper widgets and bigger stock portfolios. They got unemployment, wrecked communities and the opioid crisis amongst other things. This is part of the attempt to address that. So he’s actually doing what he said, for whom he said he would. In the realm of politics, almost admirable. 
 

 

  • Haha 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Girth Brooks said:

Ok. The way you first posted to implied more of a cause and effect. I understand that tariffs will put a damper on certain economic activities, like any other tax. 
 

We’ve run the globalization playbook for several decades and we’ve reached the point where the tradeoffs have to be accounted for and addressed. It started in 2016 and then COVID really highlighted the deficiencies we’ve allowed in our economy and society. A rebalancing of our economy is in order and that will take time and some pain. That’s known and I suspect it’s why Trump has shied away from market talk this time around. 
 

Depending on your definition they may not be “broadly supported”. But they are supported by his base. He was clear about his intentions, and he was elected handily. 
 

A lot of the handwringing comes from asset holders. I get. I’m one as well. We’ve killed it for the last several decades, while the working class has slowly bled out. We got cheaper widgets and bigger stock portfolios. They got unemployment, wrecked communities and the opioid crisis amongst other things. This is part of the attempt to address that. So he’s actually doing what he said, for whom he said he would. In the realm of politics, almost admirable. 
 

 

The CHIPs Act is the way to go about this, not tariffs.  Tariffs are a blunt force instrument of the stupid.  They might have a role in certain instances, but this is not a coherent economic policy.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Girth Brooks said:

Ok. The way you first posted to implied more of a cause and effect. I understand that tariffs will put a damper on certain economic activities, like any other tax. 
 

We’ve run the globalization playbook for several decades and we’ve reached the point where the tradeoffs have to be accounted for and addressed. It started in 2016 and then COVID really highlighted the deficiencies we’ve allowed in our economy and society. A rebalancing of our economy is in order and that will take time and some pain. That’s known and I suspect it’s why Trump has shied away from market talk this time around. 
 

Depending on your definition they may not be “broadly supported”. But they are supported by his base. He was clear about his intentions, and he was elected handily. 
 

A lot of the handwringing comes from asset holders. I get. I’m one as well. We’ve killed it for the last several decades, while the working class has slowly bled out. We got cheaper widgets and bigger stock portfolios. They got unemployment, wrecked communities and the opioid crisis amongst other things. This is part of the attempt to address that. So he’s actually doing what he said, for whom he said he would. In the realm of politics, almost admirable. 
 

 

You are not a serious person. You've been banned on here enough to know that no one is buying this bullshit. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted

Also, let's talk about "the globalization handbook."

Who did that?  The government?  Only if you mean by inaction, by laissez-faire and anti-union and anti-regulation postures.

It was business that did that while the gubmint was sticking its thumb up its ass letting shit trickle down.

When push comes to shove, the government is going to have to be actively involved in returning important jobs, like semiconductors, to the United States.  It's not going to do it by slashing the federal workforce and regulation and opposing unions at every turn.

In a lot of ways, the government is going to have to force corporations to act more like US citizens than they have the last 30-40 years or so.  When push comes to shove, you think Trump or Elon fucking Musk is going to reliably do that?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted

Everyone has sat next to a guy at DKRTMS who does nothing but bitch about the starting quarterback for four hours. 

What we're experiencing is the political equivalent of plucking that guy out of the stands and putting him in at QB vs Georgia.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The CHIPs Act is the way to go about this, not tariffs.  Tariffs are a blunt force instrument of the stupid.  They might have a role in certain instances, but this is not a coherent economic policy.

Chips act required a targeted, legislative effort.  Tariffs are easy and within executive powers now. 
 

As far as being coherent economic policy, a post above outlined how it would be part of a combined effort. I don’t know if it’s going to work, but you can see how the pieces could fit. 
 


 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, let's talk about "the globalization handbook."

Who did that?  The government?  Only if you mean by inaction, by laissez-faire and anti-union and anti-regulation postures.

It was business that did that while the gubmint was sticking its thumb up its ass letting shit trickle down.

When push comes to shove, the government is going to have to be actively involved in returning important jobs, like semiconductors, to the United States.  It's not going to do it by slashing the federal workforce and regulation and opposing unions at every turn.

In a lot of ways, the government is going to have to force corporations to act more like US citizens than they have the last 30-40 years or so.  When push comes to shove, you think Trump or Elon fucking Musk is going to reliably do that?

Yes globalization accelerated due to neoliberal economic polices.
 

How do you make corporations do things? Financial incentives, ie tariffs. Yes I believe that Trump will do that. It’s the only policy he’s been publicly consistent on for 40 years. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...