The offical Trump Tariff thread

I'm to much of a traditionalist to jump on meme or bitcoin.
Slow and steady. My portfolio only consists if my NY Teachers retirement and gold. Funny thing is I'm not even a teacher. But all that work where I do that hold specific credentials fall under that union.

I'm to busy with fantasy baseball daily to day trade.
Plus gold is always a steady investment.

 

I never purchased extended service plans.
Something I might consider moving forward.

 

So you're saying Donald Trump is a socialist?

 

Funny. I'm an avid reader, and worked in a demanding occupation that required studying non-stop for 20 years. After I retired from the military I earned my master's degree, and aced all my classes. Don't presume I am stupid or illiterate because our opinions differ.

We disagree on our opinions about Trump.
I'll leave it at that.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if it comes out that Trump is benefiting from payouts from corporations that have American manufacturing bases and are seeking to drive out competition that don't. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was driving some of the tariffs

I'm not saying that's the case because that would be highly comical and sound like a great comedy movie, but usually Trump doesn't do anything without some sort of ulterior motive. He's not some sort of Martyr trying to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the country. Everything he does ultimately has some sort of self-serving motive. We all know that.

 

The premise of free trade is to decentralize production, giving everyone a chance to produce goods or services. In a free market, whoever can produce most efficiently wins that market. For example, the United States leads in producing innovative ideas, architecture, and some products; Mexico excels at producing avocados; Georgia in the United States is renowned for producing oranges; a plant in Germany might be the best at producing a specific type of jet engine; and a plant in South Korea could be the best at producing a particular type of airplane door. Modern manufacturing sources parts from all over the world, assembles them in multiple locations, and then ships the finished products globally to consumers.

Full isolationism, which seems to be the goal here, aims to move everything in-house. Just as people have different skills, the United States is not the best at everything. If we try to produce everything domestically, we risk engaging in far more inefficient production and incurring higher costs. Consider a doctor who excels at surgery but insists on cutting grass himself because he refuses to allow others to do it. His exceptional talent is wasted on low-productivity work, and the return on his investment in time and skill is negative. Likewise, if the United States commits to producing goods that could be made more efficiently elsewhere, we risk misallocating our limited resources.

All of this occurs in the context of a modern global supply chain where international trade is the norm. If the United States were to become isolationist, it would be a unilateral choice that other nations would not follow. In the long term, while other countries would continue to trade with each other, trade with the United States would diminish. The possible outcomes include the United States being unable to compete globally. Our products might end up serving mainly domestic consumers because our companies would be at a disadvantage internationally. An exception might occur in areas where we hold a monopoly, such as a unique new technology, but overall, this would result in slower economic growth compared to an open trade policy. Even if workers are paid well, the overall economic pie would be smaller, leaving the nation poorer.

As a possible side effect, in order to remain competitive globally, we might be forced to drive down product costs. This could means lowering wages to levels seen in developing countries or increasing automation to reduce reliance on human labor. In this scenario, workers are paid less, while big corporations might benefit more than they would under an open trade policy.

p.s. We have plenty of historical examples and economic theory to guide us here, but this situation is unprecedented in that we are part of a much more robust global international market and we are the richest nation. It is likely that the current understanding turns out to be correct, but there is more room for error. It is a big gamble on our part, one that forces us all to be part of it, and it is not necessary. I think there are much safer paths to take toward the same goal of a more prosperous and secure United States.

 

Democrats are always talking about taxing the rich but do not have a clue on how the wealthy structure their balance sheet. We'll. AOC does, but she is only interested in rattling the cage for her own selfish needs. Being part of Congress pays a lot more than an alcohol barista.

 

Truth! This will be his biggest grift of all. I can't even speculate how much money will be funneled into his greedy hands, offshore bank accounts, crypto and other businesses from billionaires and foreign leaders at home and abroad for favors. It's no wonder he's firing prosecutors, FBI officials, judges, military leaders, National Security officials, investigators, and so many others who aren't die-hard loyalists willing to look the other way. It's no wonder he's making bribery legal. Everything he does is self-serving, and he needs die-hard loyalists to keep him out of prison. Every weekend is an opportunity at his golf resorts to wine and dine and grift for favors.

 

I heard you like tariff so I put tariffs against your tariffs – China,

 

it does feel like a sales tax lol. Now the other shoe drop is that the 2017 tax cuts are gonna roll back and not be renewed.

here’s the thing though: a 15% increase in prices for me affects me a lot less than a person who was barely getting by before the tariff. I don’t think you appreciate how many people are living paycheck to paycheck or worse, and are wholly dependent on the cheap consumerism that has proliferated over the last couple decades.

 

Some of you guys really need to hear this. ONSHORING MANUFACTURING IS NOT ISOLATIONISM.

Also, Georgia is known for their peaches and pecans, not oranges. That is FL and CA.

Also others of you need to understand that manufacturing is going more and more automated. Manufacturing is no longer competing against slave wages found in foreign countries. Manufacturing brings in high tech jobs that require very complicated engineering processes. We are not hiring illegals mexicans to solder 3nm chips to PCB's.
Above all, Democrats fail to understand we have a severe shortage of people who understand how to deploy and manage high scale manufacturing processes. From the time a purchase order is submitted to FAT, it can take 12 months to build a m1 Abrahams tank. 24 months for the f-35. We are not winning any wars with a shoddy manufacturing base like this. No wonder we haven't won a war since wwii.

Since Trump has taken office, Democrats have taken a heap of old dirty laundry and randomly pulled threads to come up with reasons to get in the way of all progress. You guys are too busy screaming Russia Russia Russia while China continues to run circles around the US. And the Democrats solution comes down to "if you can beat them, join them". Lets just continue to outsource everything. Idiots.

 

“the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges“

 

The data is wrong. The top 10% start at around $170K. They pay their taxes. This group collectively pays about 75% of all federal individual income taxes. You can look at IRS data to see this.

 

Living paycheck to paycheck is not a good measure. Many people live paycheck to paycheck because they spend their entire 150k annual salary on consumption.

Food, water, housing, and energy should be tax free. Also resale will obviously be tariff free.

 

I am not sure what you mean. Top 10% consume 60%. Are you disagreeing with that?

 

I am talking about the everyday people making $65,000 or less for household income.

 

According to data, the top 10% consume about 40–50% of total consumer spending, not 60%. But that's in the ballpark, so I don't disagree with that.

The "we are finally taxing the rich in America" (the 10%) is wrong since according to IRS data, the top 10% pay 75% of federal income taxes.

The idea that a universally large tariff would finally tax them is therefore wrong. It further ignores that such a tariff will hurt lower-earning and poor Americans much more than the top 10%.

 

Three times in our history tariffs were tried the first two times led to depressions, we have to stop electing idiots.

This is the third.


DD

 

The problem with this the rick can absorb the higher orices, the middle class and poor cannot. I know you don’t give a **** about them.