Yes, I understand it's a glorified flexible federal sales tax that also essentually serves as a VAT. Democrats loves taxes. What changed? Now the Republicans want to tax. So bizarre It's the secondary and tertiary effects
Democrats have never proposed taxes on the middle/low class to finance tax cuts for the top 1% you low iq hack
spinning false narrative again. there is nothing glory about a needless/ill-conceived national sales tax as for VAT, ur confused and all mixed up Repugs always try to shift the tax burden away from the top 5%, Trump 2.0 economic terrorism also hurts the bottom 95% the most
The USA isn't even stopping Iranian oil flowing to China/Asia..... lol it's not going to war with Iran. They're not even enforcing the sanctions
He said this (context - he's talking about the high tariff era under McKinley): “The American economic story has seen periods of high tariff rates coincide with extraordinary economic success,” Miran told senators. “There’s nothing in the historical record that would say that it’s impossible to have a fabulous economy with high tariffs.” Miran's statement fundamentally misrepresents economic history. While growth did occur during McKinley's high-tariff presidency, attributing this to tariffs commits a basic logical fallacy – correlation does not prove causation. The robust growth of the late 1890s stemmed primarily from the technological revolution sweeping America, massive railroad expansion creating national markets, unprecedented European immigration providing labor, rapid urbanization driving consumer demand, and monetary expansion from new gold discoveries. Moreover, comparing the McKinley era to today's economy is profoundly wrong. The 19th century American economy bore little resemblance to our modern globally-integrated system – international trade was marginal to GDP, global supply chains didn't exist, digital commerce was unimaginable, and America was an emerging industrial power with naturally higher growth rates, not the world's dominant economy. So, what alarms me is, these GUYS BELIEVE HIGH TARIFF is GOOD, thereofre, these tariffs aren't merely negotiating leverage – they represent the administration's core economic doctrine. With advisors like Miran cherry-picking historical examples to justify permanent protectionism while ignoring centuries of economic scholarship, we're witnessing ideology trumping evidence-based policy. This rigid commitment to high tariffs as THE POLICY itself, rather than as a means to an end, is a huge gamble to American prosperity.
I’m nice so I would have started with 2.5% tariff for less offenders and 5% for greater offenders. Then, monitored the coffers and effects on world trade. That’s not conservative I guess?
Wow. This is incredibly dumb. I'll do the tl;dr of this garbage. America is the police and the reserve currency of the world. That's gone really well for us, but now were are running massive debts so we can't afford to be the police anymore. But if we aren't the police, we can't bully our way to be the reserve currency and we really really still want to be the reserve currency. So here are some ways the rest of the world can give us money so we can remain the police and reserve currency. That a good deal for you too, right? Pretty please, give us the monies.
I haven't found many responses to this speech, but the comments on this X thread are illuminating. The general consensus is the US can go **** itself. This feels like a shakedown. This is insane. Why would any country go along with this.
In a world where manufacturing is fully automated and labor-less, the advantage no longer belongs to countries with cheap labor but to those with strong innovation in automation. So, if this is in fact what manufacturing looks like in said the next 20 to 30 years, China and other countries with a large pool of cheap labor will lose their advantage. The countries that will have the edge are those that attract talent capable of driving innovation, maintain a stable and low-cost business environment (high tariff is the opposite of a low-cost business environment), have access to global markets, and collaborate effectively on open-source development. In my area of work, factories oversea today still rely heavily on manual labor. There is a lot of work underway to automate tasks like validation of software, firmware, hardware, and mechanical components. We are still in the early stages even though we have been at it for close to a decade. All of this automation effort is being developed in here in the States and then exported to our overseas design centers and factories.
When it comes to manufacturing China having a command economy gives them an inherent advantage in scaling manufacturing output. Also America doesn't have the social safety nets to handle a fully automated manufacturing economy. Which also means that bringing back automated manufacturing to the US will result in America no longer being the consumption engine of the world which means.... Who's gonna buy all these new manufactured goods produced in America from automation? America doesn't have it in itself to be a command economy due to decades of fear mongering to protect capital interests. It doesn't have it within itself to provide some sort of basic living income because of the same fear. So how are we going to continue the consumption engine that consumes all these manufactured goods? Eventually you'll have the same problem with selling F150s to Bangladeshi villagers as you would the average American.
Bubba maga ain't gonna replace those engineers when we friendshore or redomesticate. It'll be very hard to wake up from our sleepwalking. I guess the hope is to spend and coerce our way into success? P.S. you also replied the first time I posted that article. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts after reading it.
While the U.S. does not have centralized control like China, China actually adopted elements of the West's model: less control and more free market. That is part of what helped propel their growth (same for Vietnam, as another exmaple). Centralized control can mobilize massive resources toward a goal, but it does not have the efficiency of a free market where the best ideas rise to the top (and as we've witness in the past, if that goal is wrong, it's devastating). China might have the best of both worlds. They can quickly allocate resources to areas they consider important while still maintaining a market that encourages innovation. The U.S. can also achieve both, but it tends to move much more slowly with it's political system. In a world where there is much less labor, of course a major challenge is how to distribute wealth. That is where ideas like UBI and automation taxes have came up. It is a difficult political problem, but it is one that can be solved. If you imagine a future 300 years from now, where resources are plentiful and accessible, it is possible to envision a world where money is no longer necessary. Of course, that is a pipe dream for the time being. I don't think you can stop progress. Automation, sooner or later, will have a signficant impact on labor. It's better to deal with it effectively than to block it.
The era when China relied predominantly on cheap labor has become a thing of the past. Today, companies can access lower-cost workforces in countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Consequently, low-skilled labor-intensive industries have largely migrated from China to these emerging manufacturing hubs. The competitive pricing of Chinese manufacturing now rests on a sophisticated ecosystem encompassing world-class infrastructure, deeply integrated supply chains, optimized logistics networks, economies of scale, strategic government policies, and sustained technological advancement. This multidimensional foundation not only ensures cost efficiency but also delivers production agility and quality benchmarks that remain unmatched by most developing economies.
