Trump Administration Accomplishments

Monahorns said:
I really don't understand what he is doing there. He says that tariffs are beautiful. I think part of his entourage (including JD) believes in the economic policy of Freidrich List who was a 19th century proponent of tariffs. He claims that are a net positive no matter what because they protect a national industrial base. I think it is very misguided and easily shown to be so.
Click to expand...

I think this is likely the case, and like inflation, tariffs are one of these policy choices that hurt the general public but has clear winners at least in the short term. (I think the long term benefits are far more questionable.) Obviously, the winners are the protected industries, and many of them are in states that are favorable to Trump and Vance.
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


Privatize it. 9/11 is why we created the TSA in the first place, and it was dumb. The security personnel didn't screw up or do anything to cause 9/11, but of course, the government massively screwed up by letting the hijackers into the United States and again by letting several of them overstay their visas. It made no sense to give the government more power. Time to correct that mistake.
 
Seems to me the only reason to be against doing what has been done to us with tariffs, unless it isn't true, is TDS. Once again, panic is setting in, and once again, Trump will end up being correct when all those ******* countries start reducing or eliminating tariffs on us.
 
To all those who don't like the tariffs, why do other countries get to impose them on us without repercussions?

Why do countries get to freely or with very minimal tariffs trade goods here while American products having tariffs much larger or no access for sales at all in foreign countries?

Probably the only thing I wouldn't tariff are natural resources that we depend on. Otherwise, I say tariff away.
 
militaryhorn said:
To all those who don't like the tariffs, why do other countries get to impose them on us without repercussions?

Why do countries get to freely or with very minimal tariffs trade goods here while American products having tariffs much larger or no access for sales at all in foreign countries?

Probably the only thing I wouldn't tariff are natural resources that we depend on. Otherwise, I say tariff away.
Click to expand...

The problem with imposing tariffs is that you hurt your own consumers. In addition, though tariffs help domestic businesses in the short term, they encourage bloat and inefficiency in the long term.

So even if another country is imposing tariffs, I'm reluctant to impose them myself at least for economic reasons. If there's a national security or retaliation for bad behavior, that's another matter. However, in those situations, I'm willing to accept the economic costs, but I don't pretend that they don't exist.
 
Very simply, here is the issue: The EU imposes a 10% Import tax on imported vehicles, plus each country collects VAT on the entire purchase price. If you import a Jeep into Germany, the German purchaser pays a 10% tariff to the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels plus a 19% VAT (on the imported cost plus the tariff) to the equally faceless German Tax authority.

On the other hand, you pay only a 2.5% import tax on that Ferrari you just purchased, plus state sales tax.

Even the hardest anti-tariff person has to admit that is a bit out of line. Attacking the import tax issue first is the easy win for the US. The VAT is a worldwide issue that pits the US versus the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
mchammer said:
Click to expand...

This is the part that makes unions bad. I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, but when there are people within their ranks that are devoted solely to the "union organization" part of it then they become professional whiners and agitators. That's when unions and collective bargaining start to become political tools rather than org's to help their membership.
 
I think it depends on which side of the equation you place priority. Tariffs raise the cost of goods and therefore make products more expensive. But they also can protect domestic production. Protecting domestic production protects domestic jobs. Tariffs have positive and negative consequences. It is a balancing act. I think the key is to find an equilibrium that allows 75% + of our supply chain to be domestic and focus particularly on keeping vital supply chains within the US. We don't need to worry about where Tonka trucks are produced, but we should care very much where the latest computer chips are produced.
 
Mr Deez, here’s a thought. In all of history, two of the foundational metrics of survival/success to governments, nations, empires are economic and military function. Either one fails, the society fails and reforms into some other arrangement. And either one failing even in a short term lapse may be catastrophic. Look at how fast we broke down economically in 1929 or even 2008.
—-
So now that, as we discussed here or on another thread, our military reality is a very expensive stalemate requiring constant expense of readiness and adaptation to an unknown sort of future hypothetical war— but not really any hot war—there is the obvious reluctance for every major power (for sure including USA, EU, Russia, and CCP) to play around with hot wars and try first soft power solutions. Things like boycotting the Olympics (that’s really going to steer historic events!)., or some kind of trade war, like tariffs or we don’t buy/sell your oil. You can really deliver a punishing body blow to the opponent’s economy if there is a vulnerability. (For example, boycotting Japan’s oil before the second world war.) so, what creates a vulnerability like that?
—-
Free trade was a staple of conservative republicans/economists most of my life. The theory, as you have been alluding to, is in the universal benefit (academically) to all actors in an efficient market. But from the first time a whole family or valley decided to trust the market by producing strongly in only a few of the necessaries of life to trade for them from people in other valleys, your vulnerability topics are those things you don’t produce.
—-
So, the benefit economically of scaling closer to efficiency by outsourcing cheaper labor or minerals or whatever, is measured against the corresponding increase in vulnerability because it is by definition a deviation from the metric of self reliance.
—-
So, back to military/economic considerations, if we are sailing in waters where trade wars may be the weapon of choice because if you start a bar fight involving any of the main four war powers (USA, EU-NATO countries , Russia, China) and you might really get your eyes poked out or stabbed if know what I mean, and no, 9-11 was nothing compared to that kind of eye poke. So if the real fight will be with the weapon of economy then we should be good at that martial art, including no crippling vulnerabilities ala OPEC70s. Thus, things like energy (really okay for us now), agriculture (same—heck we even have our own wine), cars, planes, computer technology, etc have to be self sufficient at least to a survival level.
—-
So politically, Trump—who I see historically as a third party candidate—takes the tariff position that is what heavy industry and their unions—the core democrat constituency—want. This is why he wins in the Great Lakes states. So, myself a general believer in market efficiency am now conflicted, at least with respect to international tariffs. Rather not deal with (sometimes) inferior value for my money from American union-made products. Think 70s American cars.

But we would be foolish to let critical industries die to nothing. Maybe just try to establish them in states with better union laws….
 
Last edited:
militaryhorn said:
To all those who don't like the tariffs, why do other countries get to impose them on us without repercussions?

Why do countries get to freely or with very minimal tariffs trade goods here while American products having tariffs much larger or no access for sales at all in foreign countries?

Probably the only thing I wouldn't tariff are natural resources that we depend on. Otherwise, I say tariff away.
Click to expand...

All tariffs have repercussions. Tariffs restrict trade which makes both sides poorer. Adding tariffs on tariffs just makes the situation worse.

But of course a state has the ability to do whatever they want. We can't stop China or Russia from enacting tariffs on US goods. But we do have influence on our own government.

The only possible good situation is if Trump's tariff threats convince other countries to reduce or eliminate their tariffs. Of course! Reducing tariff is good for everyone.
 
VYFan said:
So now that, as we discussed here or on another thread, our military reality is a very expensive stalemate requiring constant expense of readiness and adaptation to an unknown sort of future hypothetical war— but not really any hot war—there is the obvious reluctance for every major power (for sure including USA, EU, Russia, and CCP) to play around with hot wars and try first soft power solutions. Things like boycotting the Olympics (that’s really going to steer historic events!)., or some kind of trade war, like tariffs or we don’t buy/sell your oil. You can really deliver a punishing body blow to the opponent’s economy if there is a vulnerability. (For example, boycotting Japan’s oil before the second world war.) so, what creates a vulnerability like that?
Click to expand...

No regime has ever been overthrow due to sanctions. It never hurts states per se. It hurts the common people, making them poorer and making their opinion of the US more negative. It kills any chance we have to inspire, encourage, or convince them. It makes them depend on their evil state even more.

VYFan said:
Free trade was a staple of conservative republicans/economists most of my life. The theory, as you have been alluding to, is in the universal benefit (academically) to all actors in an efficient market. But from the first time a whole family or valley decided to trust the market by producing strongly in only a few of the necessaries of life to trade for them from people in other valleys, your vulnerability topics are those things you don’t produce.
Click to expand...

This is largely mythological. Conservatives started using libertarian language about trade in the 80s. But their action has always shown that they are big government advocates and proponents of restricting trade. Trade agreements aren't free trade. They are government controlled and restricted trade.

VYFan said:
So politically, Trump—who I see historically as a third party candidate—takes the tariff position that is what heavy industry and their unions—the core democrat constituency—want. This is why he wins in the Great Lakes states. So, myself a general believer in market efficiency am now conflicted, at least with respect to international tariffs. Rather not deal with (sometimes) inferior value for my money from American union-made products. Think 70s American cars.

But we would be foolish to let critical industries die to nothing. Maybe just try to establish them in states with better union laws….
Click to expand...

It's true that Trump has received votes from these specific constituencies. That doesn't mean tariffs are good now. Just that those are who are benefitted by them will vote for them. If there is a national security or strategical reason to subsidize an industries or companies is another topic that people can discuss.

But union laws make products even more expensive and reduce their quality. It makes companies less efficient. Better to go to right work states.
 
Monahorns said:
All tariffs have repercussions. Tariffs restrict trade which makes both sides poorer. Adding tariffs on tariffs just makes the situation worse.

But of course a state has the ability to do whatever they want. We can't stop China or Russia from enacting tariffs on US goods. But we do have influence on our own government.

The only possible good situation is if Trump's tariff threats convince other countries to reduce or eliminate their tariffs. Of course! Reducing tariff is good for everyone.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that is the strategy. He creates a stir by doing, well, basically, by waking up each day, then everyone realizes he was correct. No one acknowledges it, but it's true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top