Trump Tariffs = Tax Hike on all

[JohnStOnge]

It's cool to see that the libertarians among us suddenly embracing tariffs.

The evolution of the modern Conk from neoconservative (2000 - 2008) -> libertarian (2008 - 2016) -> Trumpist (2016 - ?) is quite dramatic.

Once again, reductio ad absurdum from the board's resident employer of fallacious logic

our trade deficits are the result of unfair tariffs imposed on American goods by "allies" and adversaries alike

I do believe Trump has stated himself that the object of all this is NO tariffs (not possible, but we can lower them)

No tariff is a libertarian trade goal

You really should think about things carefully first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think our trade deficit is the result of the fact that goods can be produced more cheaply outside of the United States. Not entirely. But on balance that is the situation.

[CAA Flagship]

Don't forget about subsidies designed to flood the world market.

[CID1990]

Once again, reductio ad absurdum from the board's resident employer of fallacious logic

our trade deficits are the result of unfair tariffs imposed on American goods by "allies" and adversaries alike

I do believe Trump has stated himself that the object of all this is NO tariffs (not possible, but we can lower them)

No tariff is a libertarian trade goal

You really should think about things carefully first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think our trade deficit is the result of the fact that goods can be produced more cheaply outside of the United States. Not entirely. But on balance that is the situation.

That is partially true - but trade deficits are a symptom of much more than just the disparity in production costs

How does it explain the tariffs on basic goods among our allies? Is milk produced more cheaply in the US than it is in Canada?

How does that explain the de facto bar on US autos in China? If cars are so much cheaper to manufacture in China, why the 25% base import duty, compounded with the joint venture requirement at a 50% relinquishment of the sales profits? (But they sure love those Buicks).

Why the use of tariffs by other countries to keep US goods out if the same goods are so cheaply produced elsewhere?

(I don't need your typical 6 page answer... the question is rhetorical - the answer is obvious)

For some reason I cannot explain, other countries utilizing protectionist trade practices at the expense of US manufacturing is OK with you and a few others here.

[Chizzang]

European workers are more expensive than US workers...
Things made in Europe are very expensive - I've worked for 3 European companies

[Skjellyfetti]

It's cool to see that the libertarians among us suddenly embracing tariffs.

The evolution of the modern Conk from neoconservative (2000 - 2008) -> libertarian (2008 - 2016) -> Trumpist (2016 - ?) is quite dramatic.

You’re talking out of your ass. Justin Amash backs tariffs? Rand Paul backs tariffs?Reason board of editors backs tariffs?

Among us.

I wasn't talking about Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and the board of editors at Reason. They're pretty principled and consistent libertarians. I'd include JSO in that bunch. Probably you too - but, I don't remember getting into it much with you back then.

I was talking about ones like Cid. Cid was unabashedly a neo-con arguing for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. back when I joined AGS back around 2005. During Obama's term he was an avowed libertarian. Now - he's backing anything and everything put forward by Trump. AZ is also following a similar path.

[∞∞∞]

Please, Rand Paul isn't a principled libertarian.

For every decision, you can ask yourself "How is Rand Paul going to play this out?” And for every decision, the answer is he'll openly hem and haw about it, bitch on talk shows for as long as he can possibly milk it, and then side with the Republicans.

Remember when he pretended he wouldn't vote for increasing the debt...and then did? And then gave a really nice speech complaining about all the new debt he was instrumental in creating.

Rand Paul is not a principled libertarian. He's just an attention whore.

[Ivytalk]

It's cool to see that the libertarians among us suddenly embracing tariffs.

The evolution of the modern Conk from neoconservative (2000 - 2008) -> libertarian (2008 - 2016) -> Trumpist (2016 - ?) is quite dramatic.

Once again, reductio ad absurdum from the board's resident employer of fallacious logic

our trade deficits are the result of unfair tariffs imposed on American goods by "allies" and adversaries alike

I do believe Trump has stated himself that the object of all this is NO tariffs (not possible, but we can lower them)

No tariff is a libertarian trade goal

You really should think about things carefully first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump has backed himself into a corner with the farmers, and others, and needs some political cover. The EU “deal” seems pretty cosmetic, when you drill down on it: China is a bigger player in soybeans than Europe will ever be. The fact remains that tariffs are a beggar-thy-neighbor policy that produces no winners. Trump is a bull in a China shop (pun intended), and any economic “wins” he may get with these tariff fights will be transitory and balanced by losses elsewhere. It’s just reaction and bombast, not statecraft. As for China, that’s going to take some strategic thinking on multiple fronts. Who are Trump’s expert “China hands”? Jerry Cohen is 88, and there doesn’t seem to be a deep bench of Sinologists at State.

[CID1990]

You’re talking out of your ass. Justin Amash backs tariffs? Rand Paul backs tariffs?Reason board of editors backs tariffs?

Among us.

I wasn't talking about Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and the board of editors at Reason. They're pretty principled and consistent libertarians. I'd include JSO in that bunch. Probably you too - but, I don't remember getting into it much with you back then.

I was talking about ones like Cid. Cid was unabashedly a neo-con arguing for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. back when I joined AGS back around 2005. During Obama's term he was an avowed libertarian. Now - he's backing anything and everything put forward by Trump. AZ is also following a similar path.

You don't have to distort things to express your boner for me, Jelly

I support very little of what Trump does - pointing out your hysteria over the collusion myth does not = support for Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

You know the world is topsy turvey when Cid and Chizzy are on the same page...and both completely dominating this thread.

I've taken a wait and see approach to this and generally don't view tariffs as a benefit. Obviously the status quo was not benefiting America (see Belt, Rust), however Trump's unconventional approach to this seemed to at lease better America's hand when it comes to trade to a certain degree (curious to see if JSO generates a 6 page post somehow claiming this win is Obomba's doing).

[SDHornet]

We have multiple project going on at our plant in which the contractors are having problems finding enough heavy equipment to rent. Must be an ECB thing.

No, the strong Jerry Brown economy is overriding the Trump shitstorm.

So governors get credit for the economy, but not Presidents? So how exactly does this work?

[CID1990]

Once again, reductio ad absurdum from the board's resident employer of fallacious logic

our trade deficits are the result of unfair tariffs imposed on American goods by "allies" and adversaries alike

I do believe Trump has stated himself that the object of all this is NO tariffs (not possible, but we can lower them)

No tariff is a libertarian trade goal

You really should think about things carefully first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump has backed himself into a corner with the farmers, and others, and needs some political cover. The EU “deal” seems pretty cosmetic, when you drill down on it: China is a bigger player in soybeans than Europe will ever be. The fact remains that tariffs are a beggar-thy-neighbor policy that produces no winners. Trump is a bull in a China shop (pun intended), and any economic “wins” he may get with these tariff fights will be transitory and balanced by losses elsewhere. It’s just reaction and bombast, not statecraft. As for China, that’s going to take some strategic thinking on multiple fronts. Who are Trump’s expert “China hands”? Jerry Cohen is 88, and there doesn’t seem to be a deep bench of Sinologists at State.

That may well be true. I don't have to agree with his motivations (what ever they are)

But this is an experiment that needs trying - because we are going to be eaten by China within our lifetimes if we don't radically change our trade relationship with them - and if we enjoy even a modicum of success- even transitory - it may well earn us some trade allies in the EU and down under (which is what we must have to counter China)

Sinologists at State are just like every other "ologist" at State - they speak softly and faint at the sight of big sticks

[SDHornet]

Trump has backed himself into a corner with the farmers, and others, and needs some political cover. The EU “deal” seems pretty cosmetic, when you drill down on it: China is a bigger player in soybeans than Europe will ever be. The fact remains that tariffs are a beggar-thy-neighbor policy that produces no winners. Trump is a bull in a China shop (pun intended), and any economic “wins” he may get with these tariff fights will be transitory and balanced by losses elsewhere. It’s just reaction and bombast, not statecraft. As for China, that’s going to take some strategic thinking on multiple fronts. Who are Trump’s expert “China hands”? Jerry Cohen is 88, and there doesn’t seem to be a deep bench of Sinologists at State.

That may well be true. I don't have to agree with his motivations (what ever they are)

But this is an experiment that needs trying - because we are going to be eaten by China within our lifetimes if we don't radically change our trade relationship with them - and if we enjoy even a modicum of success- even transitory - it may well earn us some trade allies in the EU and down under (which is what we must have to counter China)

Sinologists at State are just like every other "ologist" at State - they speak softly and faint at the sight of big sticks

Careful, you'll excite DBJ.

[Ivytalk]

Trump has backed himself into a corner with the farmers, and others, and needs some political cover. The EU “deal” seems pretty cosmetic, when you drill down on it: China is a bigger player in soybeans than Europe will ever be. The fact remains that tariffs are a beggar-thy-neighbor policy that produces no winners. Trump is a bull in a China shop (pun intended), and any economic “wins” he may get with these tariff fights will be transitory and balanced by losses elsewhere. It’s just reaction and bombast, not statecraft. As for China, that’s going to take some strategic thinking on multiple fronts. Who are Trump’s expert “China hands”? Jerry Cohen is 88, and there doesn’t seem to be a deep bench of Sinologists at State.

That may well be true. I don't have to agree with his motivations (what ever they are)

But this is an experiment that needs trying - because we are going to be eaten by China within our lifetimes if we don't radically change our trade relationship with them - and if we enjoy even a modicum of success- even transitory - it may well earn us some trade allies in the EU and down under (which is what we must have to counter China)

Sinologists at State are just like every other "ologist" at State - they speak softly and faint at the sight of big sticks

China has significant economic weaknesses, one being the huge debt load on its state-owned enterprises. China is trying to export its way to prosperity — sound familiar? — and it has a looming demographic problem that will dwarf ours. The problem is not being “eaten” economically by China, like people 40 years ago said we’d be “eaten” by Japan (and look how that turned out), but that we need a coordinated plan that addresses military and geopolitical issues as well as trade.

[houndawg]

You’re talking out of your ass. Justin Amash backs tariffs? Rand Paul backs tariffs?Reason board of editors backs tariffs?

Among us.

I wasn't talking about Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and the board of editors at Reason. They're pretty principled and consistent libertarians. I'd include JSO in that bunch. Probably you too - but, I don't remember getting into it much with you back then.

I was talking about ones like Cid. Cid was unabashedly a neo-con arguing for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. back when I joined AGS back around 2005. During Obama's term he was an avowed libertarian. Now - he's backing anything and everything put forward by Trump. AZ is also following a similar path.

The sheeple need a strong pimp hand.

[Ivytalk]

Among us.

I wasn't talking about Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and the board of editors at Reason. They're pretty principled and consistent libertarians. I'd include JSO in that bunch. Probably you too - but, I don't remember getting into it much with you back then.

I was talking about ones like Cid. Cid was unabashedly a neo-con arguing for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. back when I joined AGS back around 2005. During Obama's term he was an avowed libertarian. Now - he's backing anything and everything put forward by Trump. AZ is also following a similar path.

The sheeple need a strong pimp hand.

And there’s no better pimp on this board than you.

[kalm]

Please, Rand Paul isn't a principled libertarian.

For every decision, you can ask yourself "How is Rand Paul going to play this out?” And for every decision, the answer is he'll openly hem and haw about it, bitch on talk shows for as long as he can possibly milk it, and then side with the Republicans.

Remember when he pretended he wouldn't vote for increasing the debt...and then did? And then gave a really nice speech complaining about all the new debt he was instrumental in creating.

Rand Paul is not a principled libertarian. He's just an attention whore.

Rand Paul is as libertarian as Hillary was progressive.

[∞∞∞]

Rand Paul is as libertarian as Hillary was progressive.

I'd say she was progressive.

Certainly not as progressive as Sanders or what I'd like, but progressive nonetheless. Her platform (the most detailed in history) is at least better than the regressive shitshow we have now.

[kalm]

Rand Paul is as libertarian as Hillary was progressive.

I'd say she was progressive.

Certainly not as progressive as Sanders or what I'd like, but progressive nonetheless. Her platform (the most detailed in history) is at least better than the regressive shitshow we have now.

Walk softly and carry a big stick?

NYC bankers?

Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over....

[∞∞∞]

I'd say she was progressive.

Certainly not as progressive as Sanders or what I'd like, but progressive nonetheless. Her platform (the most detailed in history) is at least better than the regressive shitshow we have now.

Walk softly and carry a big stick?

NYC bankers?

Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over....

If you took Sanders away as the baseline, Clinton would have been left of most (at the time). I'm pretty sure she consistently rated as one of the most progressive Senators - she wanted to raise the minimum wage to $12, have the US be 1/3 on renewable energy in two terms, advocated for 3-months paid family leave for all parents, wanted higher taxes for the rich, and had a sensible plan to reduce student loans/college costs.

She was certainly pro-Wall Street, but even more pro-Unions.

[AZGrizFan]

You’re talking out of your ass. Justin Amash backs tariffs? Rand Paul backs tariffs?Reason board of editors backs tariffs?

Among us.

I wasn't talking about Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and the board of editors at Reason. They're pretty principled and consistent libertarians. I'd include JSO in that bunch. Probably you too - but, I don't remember getting into it much with you back then.

I was talking about ones like Cid. Cid was unabashedly a neo-con arguing for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. back when I joined AGS back around 2005. During Obama's term he was an avowed libertarian. Now - he's backing anything and everything put forward by Trump. AZ is also following a similar path.

I've stated many times that Trump's "Russian Roulette" politics may or may not work, but that he's about the ONLY guy who could even attempt this. No career politician would dare risk his power to even bother attempting--we know that through 100+ years of our politicians bending over and taking it up the ass from our "allies"...it's obvious you have no clue what the end game is, given your last several comments.

Go back to the shallow end of the pool, trip. You're in WAY over your head here.

[AZGrizFan]

Please, Rand Paul isn't a principled libertarian.

For every decision, you can ask yourself "How is Rand Paul going to play this out?” And for every decision, the answer is he'll openly hem and haw about it, bitch on talk shows for as long as he can possibly milk it, and then side with the Republicans.

Remember when he pretended he wouldn't vote for increasing the debt...and then did? And then gave a really nice speech complaining about all the new debt he was instrumental in creating.

Rand Paul is not a principled libertarian. He's just an attention whore.

He's a politician. It's tough to be a principled libertarian in a two-party system.

[Ibanez]

No, the strong Jerry Brown economy is overriding the Trump shitstorm.

So governors get credit for the economy, but not Presidents? So how exactly does this work?

Democrat governors and presidents get credit.

[Ibanez]

Among us.

I wasn't talking about Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and the board of editors at Reason. They're pretty principled and consistent libertarians. I'd include JSO in that bunch. Probably you too - but, I don't remember getting into it much with you back then.

I was talking about ones like Cid. Cid was unabashedly a neo-con arguing for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc. back when I joined AGS back around 2005. During Obama's term he was an avowed libertarian. Now - he's backing anything and everything put forward by Trump. AZ is also following a similar path.

I've stated many times that Trump's "Russian Roulette" politics may or may not work, but that he's about the ONLY guy who could even attempt this. No career politician would dare risk his power to even bother attempting--we know that through 100+ years of our politicians bending over and taking it up the ass from our "allies"...it's obvious you have no clue what the end game is, given your last several comments.

Go back to the shallow end of the pool, trip. You're in WAY over your head here.

That's jelly belly.

[AZGrizFan]

I've stated many times that Trump's "Russian Roulette" politics may or may not work, but that he's about the ONLY guy who could even attempt this. No career politician would dare risk his power to even bother attempting--we know that through 100+ years of our politicians bending over and taking it up the ass from our "allies"...it's obvious you have no clue what the end game is, given your last several comments.

Go back to the shallow end of the pool, trip. You're in WAY over your head here.

That's jelly belly.

Birds of a feather...

[UNI88]

Walk softly and carry a big stick?

NYC bankers?

Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over....

If you took Sanders away as the baseline, Clinton would have been left of most (at the time). I'm pretty sure she consistently rated as one of the most progressive Senators - she wanted to raise the minimum wage to $12, have the US be 1/3 on renewable energy in two terms, advocated for 3-months paid family leave for all parents, wanted higher taxes for the rich, and had a sensible plan to reduce student loans/college costs.

She was certainly pro-Wall Street, but even more pro-Unions.

What Hillary talked about and proposed are completely different from what she actually did. Actions are a better indicator of ideology than Words and in Hilary's case her sparse accomplishments show her to be a neo-conservative, corporate opportunist not a progressive.