Maybe you should because that’s correct.
you’re buying a good from the grocery store in exchange for money, but the grocery store is not buying a good from you so it is a trade deficit.
DOW Futures down another 1600
- Thread starter 615dawg
- Start date
- Status
you’re buying a good from the grocery store in exchange for money, but the grocery store is not buying a good from you so it is a trade deficit.
lol yall are wild. No one outed me. I used "tariff" when I should have used "deficit".No....he didn't understand that. That is who so many in this thread were arguing with, including myself.
But I give myself credit for outing him
Waiting for any of you economic gurus to explain why US products should not be competitive in other countries. You can't do it without admitting it's better for the foreign country to make those goods themselves or buy it somewhere else. It would demonstrate the America-last policy that voters are tired of.
They don’t have to make US products less competitive in their country if folks with similar logical skills to you are creating and marketing those aforementioned US products… **
I got what you were going with. Essentially they have to import things they don’t have the capability to produce or to stabilize food. If a typhoon wipes out rice production in Vietnam they will have a severe food shortage so they import that as well as meats and dairy to minimize the impact. They levy tarrifs because Importers are willing to pay it and it helps with government infrastructure to help build the country. Heavy Machinery is another importthey rely heavily on because they do not have the production capacity to keep up with demand. Vietnam will likely capitulate because they export 5 times more than they import so the threat of US consumers not paying for higher prices will cripple their economy. The concern is, they as well as loads of other countries will go down the same path that we are discussing. They’ll concentrate on domestic production for domestic consumption or find better trade partners and rice and cheap T-shirt shortages will be felt in the US. I’m joking about the T-shirts of course, but that’s the general idea the best i understand it.
Last edited:
By the definition usually used, the one Trump uses, yes. Now is it really? He is right about this, he got goods of value for that trade, so is it really a deficit? If trade deficits (by Trump's definition) were really so bad we would have gone under long ago. We get our money back, and then some, in other ways. Goods aren't the only thing traded internationally.
Last edited:
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
THIS explains so much. My grocer and I traded equal values. There is no deficit.
We have witnessed years of Trump turning on his political allies the moment they dare disagree with him, and you don't think the Treasury Secretary that he just picked isn't a yes man? And what does his sexuality have to do with his economic policy? And why does it matter that he worked at Soros Fund Management?
And I stand corrected on the UAW president, who I think it would be safe to assume wouldn't be a yes man, but why should it make me feel better that the head of a protectionist, leftist union supports tariffs?
The world has changed a lot, but basic economic principles have not and will not, so it's safe to heed Friedman and the others.
I thought you'd never ask.
EO 13993 - "Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities"
EO 14010 - "Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework To Address the Causes of Migration, To Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and To Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border"
EO 14011 - "Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families"
EO 14012 - "Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans"
EO 14013 - "Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration"
Then he made it even worse with:
EO 14006 - "Reforming Our Incarceration System To Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities"
EO 14019 - "Promoting Access to Voting"
***The above doesn't include Biden's order to revoke Trump's "Remain in Mexico" order, which he then double-reverse-revoked on himself and put back in place in 2022 (LOL)
US made goods that require a lot of labor aren't completive internationally, or at home, because our labor costs are too high. What y'all seem to be yearning for is a return to sweat shop labor in the US. Our unemployment rate is at what is considered full employment now. WE do not have the labor in sheer numbers, much less inclination, to return to that. It's not going to happen. You may see some heavy industry return, IF these tariffs persist across a couple or more administration changes. It will be heavily automated though. It will bring a FEW high paying jobs with it, but It's not going to bring back thousands of unskilled/semi-skilled jobs to Toledo, or even Mississippi. Those days are gone for good. Granny ain't going back to the pants factory.
This was just bonus spank bank material for lefties. But I guess since he agrees with Trump, they can't get it up.
This is something else you can only say if you haven't dealt with government regulatory agencies. That is the way we are taught it is supposed to work, but that's not how it works. The agencies legislate, often times by rule making but there is also what is known as "rulemaking by enforcement", which the SEC is well known for but certainly has happened through other agencies also. And there is the "sue and settle" method. If the rule can be changed without Congress acting, then it's not Congress doing the legislating. But that's not even what I'm complaining about.
That is just not true at all. Malicious compliance is a term of art, and it's the most difficult to deal with when it is happening at the rank and file level. The people doing things like removing references to the Tuskagee airmen or scrubbing website references to the civil rights act or whatever are almost certainly not high level political appointees. They are pitching a hissy fit because they like race preferences and think they're good so they are going out of their way to purposefully misinterpret at least the spirit of the rule but usually the letter of it also.
Certainly high level political appointments are sometimes problems also, particularly in Trump's first term, but I am not blaming the wrong people. You are completely missing what I am talking about which is fine. Hope you continue to be so lucky as to not have to deal with it. But the bureaucracy/administrative state has been an extra opponent for at least George W Bush and Trump instead of being subject to their control.
At the current cost of goods, most low margin manufacturing is for 3rd world/developing economies. With tariffs, manufacturing might pay better, but then the goods will be unaffordable.
The cost of living in the US makes those extreme low wage jobs untenable here. Clothing/garment assembly is too low margin to pay an American worker enough to keep pace with prices.
Also, we have had job openings in manufacturing and the muscular trades in the millions for at least a decade. There has not been a natural flow of people to fill those roles. Whether you like it or not, Americans don't want to do that work for the current pay.
For the love of Pete, fiscal deficits and trade deficits are not the same thing. Is someone in the Trump camp making that claim? I have seen this claim made several times here....
That was even worse in a lot of ways because they didn't even do an EO I don't think. They just stopped enforcing the law and lied about it.
So tell me, why do we have a deficit with Vietnam? We paid them for their stuff, and they paid for us for ours. All equal, right?
Is that number fabricated? I'm so confused.
They don't make US products less competitive. They just ARE, because we are selling iphones that they can't afford. However we are buying drifit T shirts for pennies.
See the difference yet you stupid mother 17er
I’ll just say it and it has been my fear all along. This is just a theory and I certainly hope I am wrong. The focus of a balanced budget and tax cuts has been thrown around. The only way to make meaningful cuts in the US budget is touching one of the big three which nobody wants to do because of political backlash. If the tariffs are a way to get more government revenue while passing tax cuts that are disproportionately for the wealthy I will not be surprised.
If that were true, why are those countries adding a tariff thus making US products
less competitive? Your logic makes zero sense. Are you saying that other countries would not purchase more US goods if it cost x% less (remove the tariff)? You're also implying that trade imbalances are based on trade quantities rather than values.
There is no push for sweatshop labor lol.
Trump haters are pushing for US products to be less competitive in other countries while we don't do the same in return. It's just a real bizarre stance for an American to have, and highlights why the election went the way it did.
Where exactly do you think the money collected on tariffs goes? Remember, we've learned recently that our Federal government has basically one bank account that matters.
And it's good to be aware that tariffs were a MAJOR source of our government's income for about 140 years or so. The deficits and debt would have been really bad without them.
If your going to respond to someone in a way that makes it appear you don't respect their opinion, it helps to be right (and to show you can figure out how to actually assign yourself a name on the board that's not Anon followed by the national debt........ actually, that number needs quite a few zeros to approach our national debt.)
Then why do they impose a tariff if US products are naturally not competitive?
If the price were less (no tariff), the US would sell more of that product to that country. And for some reason, Trump haters do NOT want that to happen.
we both know these didn't do what you say, don't we?
This is prolly a little closer to what happened, albeit WILDLY simplified.
I'll just not take anyone's word for it and only evaluate what has taken place over the last 8 years with tariffs on China. If everything goes to hell in a handbasket over the next six months, I'll concede your point.
Dems will never applaud Trump for anything. They've already come out on the side of fraud, waste, and abuse in government, illegal aliens, trans men muscling women out of sports, and a wide open border. So much of this stuff was democrat sponsored policy until Trump broke everyone.
In fairness, we did have reeeeealllly cheap labor on a lot of the items we produced and sold domestically and we didn’t tax their income because, well, they didn’t have income.
Yes, I see the difference. You think other countries should sell their products at market value in the US, while US products are purposefully made less competitive through tariffs, which benefits the foreign country rather than the US.
It's literally why the election went the way it did lol. It's not a grievance/emotion based economy anymore.
You're probably also upset with the idea of government efficiency. TDS in full swing, ma'am.
I'm old enough to remember 51 "intelligence officials" signing on to the letter stating that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation. I'm old enough to remember over a 1000 "economists" who signed a NYT op ed stating that Trump would tank the economy first term.
Economists are biased, too. There's plenty of others who disagree.
Why does Vietnam add a tariff if US goods are cost prohibitive naturally? When you understand the answer to that, you will come a looong way from unconfusing yourself.
No, taken as a whole they pretty much did. I know this thread is about to get locked up, but just out of morbid curiosity, is it your honest opinion that Biden (or his handlers) didn't take action to allow illegals to flood the country on purpose?
- Status