THE GREAT ORANGE MENACE PROCLAIMS: "IT'S LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA!"

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Big Blitz]

4 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Give me a break. California has its place on top of the world because of Silicon Valley. 
 

No one considers Mississippi an economic powerhouse. 

 

California’s population has increased (thanks to illegal immigration) from 33 million in 2000 to 39 million.  
 

 

Texas population in 2000 was 20 million.  It is now 31 million.  Largely driven by immigration - from California.   

[meazza]

Just now, Big Blitz said:

Good thread

 

 

 

 

 

No that’s not a « good thread ».  Those calculations are off. Those aren’t in fact the tariffs that the « offending » countries are applying on us exports.

 

 

[JDHillFan]

9 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Name one red state with an economy better than California. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy

 

USNews and World Report is rated as having a center-left bias. Do they count as a news source? 

[Roundybout]

2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

California’s population has increased (thanks to illegal immigration) from 33 million in 2000 to 39 million.  
 

 

Texas population in 2000 was 20 million.  It is now 31 million.  Largely driven by immigration - from California.   

First off, I’m going to need some sort of source stating that all six million new residents of California are “illegal.” 
 

Second, I am not disputing you that people are leaving California. But they’re leaving because of the same restrictive economic institutions that Trump wants. It’s impossible to live in California because housing supply is so choked and restricted, it’s impossible to meet demand. 
 

The same thing will happen with the tariffs. 

3 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy

 

USNews and World Report is rated as having a center-left bias. Do they count as a news source? 

I question ANY source that ranks Idaho over Texas for economy lmao 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

This tariff thing is a 2nd step in a reset of the global financial system. The first step was central banks allocating more of their reserves to gold. It would be wise for investors to follow the bankers actions. They're always properly positioning themselves to mitigate risks. Instead of moaning and groaning about the impact of tariffs adjust to a new set of arrangements. Or lose your ass going forward.

I'm glad Congress is passing this legislation through though because it would be downright dangerous if all this power was given to one person under the guise of an "emergency."

[Tenhigh]

2 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

I'm not an economist. Wouldn't pretend to be. This is a global economy with so many nuisances it's virtually impossible for the normal person to understand the full implications of everything that will happen from this. When it comes to situations I can grasp more clearly but are still very complicated, especially when the stakes are high, I'm cautious. If I can't see what's around the corner then it's not very safe to slam the gas pedal. I would expect the same behavior from the president of the United States when it comes to our livelihood.

 

What Trump has done with this is unconscionable. This is the most powerful country in the world, the most wealthy, still economically positioned better than the majority of the countries in the world. He decided to take an action that has the potential to have catastrophic consequences on the US. It wasn't a situation with the US on the brink of war or being forced to make a move so drastic. He did so as if this move would have no risk and only reward. It's beyond short sited, especially when all the leading experts are throwing caution to the wind. 

 

 

 

I appreciate the reasoned response.  I know a bit about economics, and many academic economists will say tarriffs dont work.  I agree in principle, but there is more in play than basic academic factors. 

Regardless, it's surely not as bleak and terrifying as you think, at least from my perspective. And to be clear, this is just my personal interpretation of things.  

 

Ultimately,  we have been getting taken advantage of by our trading partners (friends and enemies) on a sizable scale both with tarriffs and with environmental aspects, causing essentially a defacto subsidizing of their economies.  Its been ok because the US was so wealthy that we could afford it, and being this generous bought us a lot of goodwill internationally (at the expense of our working class and production base ,if you want proof, spend some time in downtown Jamestown NY).

At some point it needed to be addressed (as do many arguably more urgent issues like SS and our insane national debt).  As is often the case, Trump handled it poorly, but he was right in identifying the issue.  I think he believes it will result in a massive renegotiation of tarriffs (think everyone lowering tarriffs equally), and probably in short order.  If he is right, this move has the power to reset global trade and possibly make the US an actual manufacturing center again (as opposed to just a country of consumer economy), ultimately increasing our tax base, which can be used to address some of the other urgent fiscal issues facing our country. As for the goodwill aspect, this days are pretty much gone anyway,  imo. If he is right in all of this, I'd say it's the opposite of short sighted. 

If he is wrong and nobody blinks, he will just quietly lower the tarriffs and declare a HUGE victory anyway, in true Trump form.

In the short term it'll mean turmoil, posturing and higher prices on some goods.  What is the long term outcome going to be?  Who knows. 

But again, this is just my personal take on it. 

 

3 hours ago, dgrochester55 said:

 

I see the value of tariffs in small doses, but personally think that this is way too much too fast. We didn't get to this level of debt overnight, and it will take more than one decision or even one year of decisions to get us out. The level of success or failure for this will depend on other countries and whether they are willing to negotiate or whether they call his bluff and retaliate (I wouldn't put it past far left celebrities and extremist activists to beg other country leaders to do the latter.)

 

If it is the first scenario, he looks brilliant, if it is not, it could create a mess and essentially guarantee democrat wins in two and four years. Since we were all told to "give it more time", three years into Biden's term, I can give it at least a couple of months before i pass full judgment.

See my above post. I generally did the same. 

[JDHillFan]

3 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

If he is wrong and nobody blinks, he will just quietly lower the tarriffs and declare a HUGE victory anyway, in true Trump form.

YUGE 

[meazza]

3 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

I appreciate the reasoned response.  I know a bit about economics, and many academic economists will say tarriffs dont work.  I agree in principle, but there is more in play than basic academic factors. 

Regardless, it's surely not as bleak and terrifying as you think, at least from my perspective. And to be clear, this is just my personal interpretation of things.  

 

Ultimately,  we have been getting taken advantage of by our trading partners (friends and enemies) on a sizable scale both with tarriffs and with environmental aspects, causing essentially a defacto subsidizing of their economies.  Its been ok because the US was so wealthy that we could afford it, and being this generous bought us a lot of goodwill internationally (at the expense of our working class and production base ,if you want proof, spend some time in downtown Jamestown NY).

At some point it needed to be addressed (as do many arguably more urgent issues like SS and our insane national debt).  As is often the case, Trump handled it poorly, but he was right in identifying the issue.  I think he believes it will result in a massive renegotiation of tarriffs (think everyone lowering tarriffs equally), and probably in short order.  If he is right, this move has the power to reset global trade and possibly make the US an actual manufacturing center again (as opposed to just a country of consumer economy), ultimately increasing our tax base, which can be used to address some of the other urgent fiscal issues facing our country. As for the goodwill aspect, this days are pretty much gone anyway,  imo. If he is right in all of this, I'd say it's the opposite of short sighted. 

If he is wrong and nobody blinks, he will just quietly lower the tarriffs and declare a HUGE victory anyway, in true Trump form.

In the short term it'll mean turmoil, posturing and higher prices on some goods.  What is the long term outcome going to be?  Who knows. 

But again, this is just my personal take on it. 

 

 

You have not been subsidizing other economies.  

 

Example, Canada.  Trump has stated that Canada is subsidized to the tune of 200B.  In fact, Canada purchases more goods from the Americans (aside from oil which we sell at a discount to the Americans).

 

Enough with the bullhit.

[Roundybout]

 

[Tenhigh]

8 minutes ago, meazza said:

 

You have not been subsidizing other economies.  

 

Example, Canada.  Trump has stated that Canada is subsidized to the tune of 200B.  In fact, Canada purchases more goods from the Americans (aside from oil which we sell at a discount to the Americans).

 

Enough with the bullhit.

 

[JDHillFan]

6 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

 

Isnt he the guy behind Project Liberal? The organization you believe is an “economic think tank” even though they don’t even describe themselves as such? 

[Tenhigh]

Sorry, will pick it back up tomorrow. 

[Mikie2times]

19 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

I appreciate the reasoned response.  I know a bit about economics, and many academic economists will say tarriffs dont work.  I agree in principle, but there is more in play than basic academic factors. 

Regardless, it's surely not as bleak and terrifying as you think, at least from my perspective. And to be clear, this is just my personal interpretation of things.  

 

Ultimately,  we have been getting taken advantage of by our trading partners (friends and enemies) on a sizable scale both with tarriffs and with environmental aspects, causing essentially a defacto subsidizing of their economies.  Its been ok because the US was so wealthy that we could afford it, and being this generous bought us a lot of goodwill internationally (at the expense of our working class and production base ,if you want proof, spend some time in downtown Jamestown NY).

At some point it needed to be addressed (as do many arguably more urgent issues like SS and our insane national debt).  As is often the case, Trump handled it poorly, but he was right in identifying the issue.  I think he believes it will result in a massive renegotiation of tarriffs (think everyone lowering tarriffs equally), and probably in short order.  If he is right, this move has the power to reset global trade and possibly make the US an actual manufacturing center again (as opposed to just a country of consumer economy), ultimately increasing our tax base, which can be used to address some of the other urgent fiscal issues facing our country. As for the goodwill aspect, this days are pretty much gone anyway,  imo. If he is right in all of this, I'd say it's the opposite of short sighted. 

If he is wrong and nobody blinks, he will just quietly lower the tarriffs and declare a HUGE victory anyway, in true Trump form.

In the short term it'll mean turmoil, posturing and higher prices on some goods.  What is the long term outcome going to be?  Who knows. 

But again, this is just my personal take on it. 

 

See my above post. I generally did the same. 

Not aligned here, but appreciate some discussion that is normal 👍

[SectionC3]

12 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

 

I wish them no luck whatsoever in this endeavor.  I also don't wish them ill.  I simply hope they enjoy what they asked for. 

[meazza]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Pres. Trump's "Liberation Day" announcement was really excellent. He was a far greater expositor and persuader than usual.

 

1. He made you realize that the new tariffs are just the logical response to a trade war that other countries started, but we simply brushed off and took our lumps.

 

2. He made very subtle and clever fun of all the smarter-than-thou pundits who are aghast at tariffs, saying "They do to us; we do it to them. You can't get any simpler than that." I LOLed thinking of the pathetic Scott Lincicome, whom I follow on X only as self-flagellation.

 

3. He explained the scope of things very clearly. Real countries, real tariff rates. The highlight was him saying that 90,000 factories had been closed in the last 30 years, and he said "Imagine putting a pushpin on a map for every one of those." Excellent visualization.

 

4. He communicated proper respect to the countries that were going to have to make adjustments. He made it clear that he doesn't blame them--they're doing what they need to do, and the problem has strictly been our own previous inaction.

 

5. By giving the 1789-1913 history, he gave confidence that tariffs are actually a great source of income, and that we may have lost a lot of our potential by implementing an income tax--a genius way to tie in an eventual income tax change, if tariff revenue is actually that great (which I doubt, but we'll see).

 

6. He had the most pithy way to take all the Reason/CATO "OMG tariffs!" wonks and throw them into the pit of irrelevance: "If these struggling countries were negatively affected by their own tariffs [like Vietnam's 75% on motorcycles], they'd just take them off, right?"

 

--- Mark Lowenstein

 

.

[daz28]

...and then after blah blah blah the prices will finally come down.  Since when has that happened?  EVER!  The spikes we see in prices now will NEVER go away.

[sullim4]

During Trump's first term, Ben Shapiro had a pretty good explanation of why Trump was being a complete moron about the trade deficit.  It is worth the 3 minute watch, it was noteworthy enough to me to remember it almost 8 years later:

 

 

 

[Mikie2times]

When your country consumes more than any other in the world do you think it’s logical to try and produce the amount of goods and the diversity of goods to satisfy that consumption? Is it even possible? Obviously both answers are no.