Maybe still? Some on the right have labeled Harris's economic plan as communism, but have they—and the general public—actually compared it to Trump's economic plan? With all the focus on demanding details from Harris, why isn't there the same scrutiny for Trump, who remains incredibly vague about how he would achieve his economic promises? This is another example of the media failing to fairly and accurately inform the public. If Harris's plan is communism, then Trump’s plan is communism on steroids. For those not interested in learning more, feel free to stop here (and post your usual standard dismissive replies). For everyone else, read on. What is Trump’s economic plan? It’s mostly nonsensical, far from normal, and full of promises that are impossible to deliver (pandering lies). Let’s break it down: 10-20% worldwide tariff on all imports, with a 60% tariff on China: Trump claims this will create millions of new American manufacturing jobs. However, there is no evidence to support this—before COVID, the U.S. was actually losing manufacturing jobs (under Trump with his tariff on China in effect). Estimates from a center-right organization suggest his new proposal would cost Americans around $4k annually—a significant Trump tax. Trump said he will direct his cabinet to greatly reduce auto insurance prices within 100 days: This is typical Trump—big promises with no substance. It sounds like government price control, which is far from a free-market approach. Unlike Harris's plan, which targets unfair price gouging, Trump’s plan would force insurance companies to lower prices. This sounds like Communism++. Trump said his administration will cut energy costs by at least half within 1 year: This is pure nonsense. No policy could achieve this within a year, unless you completely crash the economy, causing demand to vanish. It’s simply impossible to double production in such a short time frame. Seal the border, mass deportations, and severely limiting legal immigration: This could, theoretically, lower housing prices (his promise) by reducing demand as millions are deported. However, it would also push prices up due to a severe labor shortage, potentially leading to a massive recession. For those worried about economic downturns with inflation, Trump’s plan might just make those fears a reality. Trump wants to control the Fed and force it to cut rates: Remember when he advocated for negative rates in his first term? The President doesn’t have this power, as the Fed is an independent agency within the executive branch for very good reason. But Trump and Project 2025 want to eliminate independent agencies and bring them under his control. Trump claims he would manage the Fed better, but this kind of political interference in independent banking is dangerous and could trigger massive inflation. By forcing rates down too quickly, Trump could turn the current downward trend in inflation into a runaway crisis, much like what’s happened in other countries where central banks are politically controlled. All this talk about government intervention and centralizing power to control the economy --- COMMUNISM? It’s exactly what Trump’s planning to do. So, if you think Harris’s plan is communism, Trump’s plan is communism on steroids.
I posted this in another thread, but am I understanding Trump's tariff policy correctly? That by putting tariffs on imports, in particular on imports from China, the American consumer will stop buying these products as Chinese companies will pass along the costs for tariffs to the consumer. After this happens for a long enough period of time, companies that have been hit with these tariffs will move their operations to the United States to recapture the lost sales from their American customers and bypass the tariffs. Is this close to being correct or am I way off? Really just trying to steel man their position here so I can more intelligently engage with all of the delusional Trump supporters in my life.
Trump's stated goal is to bring manufacturing back and that it would have zero impact on US consumers. The first part has some merit, but the second part is false (he double down on this every-time he gets a chance to). In addition to the huge tax on Americans, there are other issues as well. Good luck finding a Trump supporter who is willing to debate honestly. Here is a steel man position: The proposed tariff policy aims to strongly incentivize domestic production by making all imports, especially those from China, significantly more expensive. The primary goals are to: Rebuild American manufacturing capacity across many sectors Reduce dependence on foreign goods, especially from potential geopolitical rivals Bring back jobs to the United States Protect American industries from what is perceived as unfair foreign competition Use economic leverage to negotiate more favorable trade terms globally Supporters argue that while this approach may lead to economic pain (NOTE AGAIN that Trump refuses to acknowledge this and chooses to lie about it) through higher prices and potential retaliation from other countries, it's necessary for long-term American economic independence and security. They believe that the current global trade system disadvantages American workers and industries, and that dramatic action is needed to level the playing field. They might contend that previous, more moderate approaches have been insufficient to address the decline of American manufacturing and the trade deficit. In their view, the potential benefits of reinvigorating domestic industries and reducing foreign dependence outweigh the risks of economic isolation. Supporters might also argue that as the world's largest consumer market, the US has unique leverage to reshape global trade in its favor, and that other countries will ultimately have to accommodate American demands rather than risk losing access to the US market. They may acknowledge the historical precedents of isolationism leading to negative outcomes (Trump again does not acknowledge the negative impact of isolationism by withdrawing the US from being a powerful figure to an isolated figure), but argue that the current situation is different due to the size and importance of the US economy in the global system. In their view, this policy isn't true isolationism, but rather a re-balancing of trade relationships to better serve American interests. Regarding potential global economic disruption, supporters might argue that global economic pain is an acceptable cost for long-term American economic strength and independence. They may believe that the US can and should prioritize its own economic interests over global economic stability.
The Biden administration is bringing back manufacturing. Trump's blanket tariffs will tank the economy. Did we not learn this from the Smoot-Hawley tariff act? Let's just keep repeating history. https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...-biden-administrations-new-industrial-policy/
Trumpism has pivoted more socialist/mercantilist that it's hard distinguish the two in their battle for swing state voters. Made a similar thread wondering whether either party still follows free market or neo-liberal ideals. I'm pretty sure it's embedded deep into the bowels of our economic infrastructure, so no worries there!... As for these points, the blurred lines doesn't make anything clear cut since parties are not beholden by ideology (nor country) anymore. Biden's tariffs kept China taxes and even raised outright tech restrictions and knowledge bans. I don't see why Trump is worse as we're deepening the Cold War drums for both parties. BYD is selling a 13,000 car that's pretty much best in class in every category, but you'll have to pay double if you can even buy it here. Neither party, nor Detroit wants this, so Zoomers will continue to pretend they hate driving and going places. Controlling insurance rates is just as "bad" as the Harris Campaign wanting to hold Grocers accountable for Price Gouging. Like grocers, the media has largely refrained from accusing insurers of price gouging. Are Geico/Progressive/State Farm/etc...going to return some of that the 88 billion dollars they made last year after jacking up our rates by at least 25%? I don't mind putting some heat on insurers and making them squirm. CA had to force insurers to refund some of their insurance money during lockdown when some people didn't drive more than 500 miles. Sounds dubious Trump or anyone could do that. He took credit for sub 3 dollar gas when Covid turned everything to ****. Maybe he'll pull it off again with similar means. The current illegal immigration situation is one of those political ironies that journalists don't like to cover. That botched immigration bill would more than likely tighten border security and reduce the amount of illegals pouring in. It would also skew our economic numbers in the longer term as growth as been largely credited to illegals finding cheaper jobs during the post covid manual labor crunch. Trump can promise whatever he wants but he'd have to start from scratch whereas Harris would use the same bill that almost passed a few months ago. This bill which was marketed as "the best bipartisan bill the Republicans could get" would probably be more effective than Trump's executive orders, so he'd have to rely on bile and intimidation (plus unconstitutional and temporary "bandaids") to discourage people from crossing the border, but the real teeth and authority from a legit Trump immigration bill would come years later or never. As for legal immigration, Trump has made it more difficult in the past, and I think both parties should promise to make the naturalization process simpler or less ****ed up. Yeah, it's insane. He bullied and pestered Powell to lower rates last time. I don't think he has the mandate nor the authority to do it, and I doubt anyone wants the president to handle that kind of responsibility.
Largely agree with most of what @Invisible Fan just and noted in another thread that Trump’s policies are likely going to lead to more inflation. I’m one of the few Americans that is for free trade and am largely homeless when both parties are getting more protectionist. Between the two parties though the blanket approach of tariffs Trump is proposing is far more damaging than the approach of Biden /Harris which is more targeted. Also the Democrat plan pairs tariffs with investments in building up US manufacturing through things now the CHIPs act.
If the cost of Tariffs is passed on to the consumer let's say to the tune of 60% Do we really think that companies inside of America won't charge the same even though they don't pay the tarriffs? Price of the Widget from China goes up 60% The Price of the Widget made in America will go up 55% just enough to be "competitive" but also increase their PROFITS These things are meant to profit only those at the top really The consumer won't see the savings either way Rocket River
Good post. Just a few points... It's important not to underestimate Trump's ability to execute his plans. His team is already actively working to concentrate power within the executive branch, which could allow him to bypass Congress and eliminate independent agencies that don't align with his agenda. His strategy includes removing those who resist his goals and installing loyalists who will work tirelessly to carry out his vision, whether it's mass deportations or controlling the Federal Reserve. For example, one of their plans is to invoke insurrection laws to use the military for mass deportations. Export controls and tech restrictions are more about safeguarding national security than protecting industry, particularly in the race for AI dominance. Unlike tariffs, these measures focus on protecting sensitive technology. Given the risks associated with AI, I believe it makes some sense to restrict the export of the most capable GPUs. While this restriction might hurt some companies, like Nvidia, it largely doesn't impact consumers. A federal ban on price gouging could be fine. It depends on the details, but none have been provided. We already do this at the state level. Also, note that a core part of Harris’s plan is the belief that there isn't a level playing field—a true free market—and that there is too much concentrated power within certain market segments. So, she wants to use the government to ensure a freer market. They may potentially overstep, but the general idea is still based on the belief that a free market is best. She talks about increasing competition by supporting smaller players (using federal funds to kick-start them) and preventing anti-competitive mergers to address the issue of market concentration. Trump, OTOH, doesn't believe in a free market but one he can control or manipulate.
It's an existential fear, though I'm not sure why he has to break laws or do unconstitutional acts first. He might be a lame duck who's more empowered to carry out his inner whims, but lame ducks are also handcuffed by Congress and successors that have to live with the damage he caused. It's still bigly bad for the groups MAGA has targeted, but I'm not totally convinced it's End of America bad. What would be the continuity and succession plan of King Trump...Big boy pants Bobby Hill? Irrespective of national security or geopolitical concerns, the point is that Biden took Trump's tariff regime and Made it Better with those technical and resource restrictions. I've seen predictions in the press about the $2000 Trump Tax passed onto Americans, but I had to dig up the numbers for Biden's tariffs as it's less reported and not common knowledge. https://libertystreeteconomics.newy...hina-tariffs-increase-costs-to-us-households/ Trumps old 2018 tariff: 414 BBB tariff: 831 The whole tariff debate has been finetuned in a way where both parties can keep doing what they're doing without consequence because the greater calculus for both candidates is to draw in swing state voters. If we all acknowledge China's manufacturing and aggressive posturing as a problem, then neolib economics has to be thrown out the window and costly policy mistakes will be part of the process. It's just that neoliberal economics is still a marketing success in the mainstream for more than 40 years that neither side wants to unmoor themselves from its ideological credentials. Seems like Kamala ripped this play from Trump? Beats me. 2019 Kamala for Pres is different than VP Kamala.
I get your point about tariffs. I was explaining the difference between tariffs and export controls, two very different things. AAF (a traditional Republican organization) estimates Trump's new tariffs would cost U.S. households $3,650-$4,300 annually (using the 10%, not 20% number). Trump’s 10 Percent Tariffs: Projected Impacts on U.S. Households and Allies - AAF (americanactionforum.org) Former president and presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed a 10 percent tariff on all imports into the United States, which would result in average estimated additional costs per U.S. household of between $1,700 and $2,350 annually. A targeted 60 percent tariff on China, as candidate Trump also proposed, would balloon additional U.S. consumer costs from $300 billion to over $500 billion and on its own increase household costs by $1,950 annually. I think Trump has already done great damage to our democratic norms and that a 2nd term would be much more dangerous (his team has an actual playbook to execute). A deteriorating democratic system will eventually crack. This is the height of "fk around and find out".
The tariffs Trump is proposing are far greater than what he implemented in his prior term so while Harris 2019 isn’t the same as Harris 2024. Trump 2025 won’t be the same as Trump. 2017.
Obama started off the targeted tariffs on Chinse dumping of steel, solar panels, etc. Trump expanded the Obama tariffs and made them more general. Biden kept many of the tariffs and added more targeted measures with govt support (subsidies and regulations).
Definitely will fall on deaf ears in the Kamala thread: I think there is still some low hanging economic fruit that would be politically savvy as well. Basically another, smaller infrastructure bill that offers carrots to municipalities that upzone and/or approve more units (SFH and multi). Those carrots would include fed $$$ for local roads, sidewalks, utilities, police stations, fire stations, parks, etc. for areas that choose to meet the requirements. Politically savvy in the sense that it could be billed as investing in American jobs and union jobs with the male population, which is solely needed by the Harris campaign. I think Walz would be a great spokesman.
I'm not going to dispute the idea that his tariff scheme will be twice as bad as Biden/Harris's for American pockets. My key issue with how this thread is framed. The economics Trump used has been kept by the Democrats because it's politically expedient and popular. It doesn't help that the usual MSM reporting bias has given Biden the slant making those evil tariffs "good" through His Vision. It's not mentally difficult to compare the claims then, how much it costs Americans now, then argue what future claims are within reason. It doesn't grab sensationalist and polarizing headlines, but it makes the reader more informed and holds previous experts to task. The Hawley Smoot Doom foretold by critics during Trump's presidency didn't happen. Trump upped the stakes this round because of the lack of consequences and it was popular enough for the other guy to continue them. I'll go as far to make a prediction that either presidencies will add more Chinese tariffs and pass the bill onto Americans or future Americans through unpaid offset subsidies. There's plenty of Good Reasons to choose from, but Good Reasons shouldn't override intellectual consistency. Tariffs are popular because there is a protectionist streak that's wholly justified, but it's a silly promise or assumption that factory jobs from the Good Ol Days will return. Companies aren't moving low skilled factories back to America, rather they are white labeling Offshoring with Friendshoring (Mexico, Indonesia, Communist Vietnam...). Automation is set to bring back the bulk of the expected manufacturing resurgence. Unions in the 40s-80s bargained some hefty back loaded deals that American car giants are still dealing in some form, so higher labor costs will always be in the back of every company's mind during planning. The TSMC chip plant might turn out to be a money pit with future MBA case studies on cultural work ethic and proper incentive structures. The government will definitely sink in more money now that semis are considered a critical resource, but I doubt American workers have the same existential will and pride as their underpaid Taiwanese counterparts. It could very well become another photo op disaster like Trump's Foxconn in Wisconsin. They're planning three phases to get it right but if they don't, then...declare the first phase a victory while silently pare everything back with future phases? I guess shrinkflation can happen with larger packages too. In the end, the neoliberal free trade model needs a bit of revisiting. No one truly knows what will happen but the current system is definitely becoming more fragile. I would assume a giant like Apple moving plants from China to India would increase costs but they're mostly the same because Apple was smart to gouge customers from the beginning so no one could credibly accuse them of doing it post-pandemic. Trump through Peter Navarro might've sold the China manufacturing threat with the nastiest delivery but it's worth it to look into the reasons behind them. It's seeped into Americans mind enough for Biden to keep them and for Kamala not to take any detailed campaign stance on existing tariffs. I guess for Dems, it's like the current Ukraine strategy where you weaken the enemy Just Enough without the enemy directly punching you in the face instead of your proxy. That doesn't sound like a great sensationalist article or soundbyte.
once again, Invisible cutting n pasting verbiage from the internet and taking full credit for it I think the sources from which you cut n paste mean tariffs, not economics the sources from which you cut n paste are being intellectuallt dishonest, and ur falling for it. Most critics of Trump trade war point to the inflation pressure trade war would lead to. for your education, Smoot Hawley Act happened in a time when the US economy, w massive unemployment, was just heading into a depression. Trump inherited a healthy economy from Obama, hi employmet & low inflation, whose admin generated 70 consecutive months of positive job creation the CHIP act, under Bidens, has already poured in lots of $$ a dead give-away that ur cutting n pasting someone else's article i actually think it will be Viet Nam, not India VietNam has a much more efficient/productive work force VN has one official language; its literacy rate is close to 100% India has more than 10 official language; its literacy rate is ~~75%
Blah blah blah. The tariffs Trump is saying he will implement are across the board tariffs on EVERY import. This would be comparable to Smoot-Hawley. Not what he did previously or what was continued by Biden. He wants a 10% tariff on every import and a 60% one on Chinese goods.
again, most critics point to the inflation pressure emnating from the trading war, w the consumers end up being the losers. some critic pointed to Smoot Hawley Act as a historical counter point to Trump's baseless/convenient claim that trade wars are easy
The spat between the two self proclaimed economic gay blades adoo and the invisible man is just freaking hilarious. Are we not entertained? Lol
