Trump 2.0: MAGAA

[Caribbean Hen]

Why do you hate the working class?

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/ ... g-families

The truth is, the Trump tax cuts resulted in economic growth that was a full percentage point above CBO’s forecast, and federal revenues far outpaced the agency’s predictions. In fact, under Trump tax policies in 2022, tax revenues reached a record high of nearly $5 trillion, and revenues averaged $205 billion above CBO predictions for the four years following implementation of the law.

Beyond what the Trump tax cuts did for economic growth and federal revenues, it provided major benefits to working families. The officially reported poverty level fell to its lowest rate in 50 years and unemployment rates for minorities and those without a college degree hit all-time lows. Real median household income rose by $5,000, and wages went up by nearly 5 percent. Americans earning under $100,000 saw an average tax cut of 16 percent. And while the tax burden on low-income families went down, the top one percent saw their share of federal taxes go up.

On the other hand, President Biden's promise for the expiration of the Trump tax cuts, means a family of four making $75,000 today will owe Uncle Sam an extra $1,500 in taxes. The Child Tax Credit will be slashed in half; small businesses will see their tax rates top 40 percent; and farmers may have to weigh selling the family business to pay a rising death tax. In his budget, President Biden has called for upwards of $7 trillion in new taxes. Republicans believe working families do not need the IRS taking any more out of their pockets, especially at a time when they are already paying for the nearly 20 percent increase in prices under ‘Bidenflation.’

You’re missing my point.

Provide tax relief AND/or adequately fund government programs that help the working class.

That stimulates the economy.

Increase taxes on the rich who already pay for basically everything in this country and make more strategic cuts to spending (EG military spending, oil and gas subsidies) to start bringing down the debt and China can continue to defeat us

However, with an extension, the largest tax cuts would accrue to the highest-income families, the Treasury said.

Household in the top 5% — who earn more than $450,000 a year, roughly — are the "biggest winners," according to a July 2024 analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. They'd get over 45% of the benefits of extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it said.

A Dem funded Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis on the impacts of the broad Republican tax plan had a similar finding.

The bottom 80% of income earners who don’t really pay taxes anyway would get 29% of the total value of proposed tax cuts in 2026, according to the always wrong Wharton analysis, issued Thursday. The top 10% would get 56% of the value, it said.


This dynamic speaks to silly Democrats' arguments, especially when coupled with possible spending cuts for programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Such programs largely benefit lower earners. No Joke

Wharton estimates that the combination of tax cuts and spending reductions for programs like Medicaid and food stamps would leave "low-income households worse off," even after accounting for economic growth. It would be good for them to get out of the house for 20 hours a week and they would develop a better diet so all is not lost

Some tax analysts view after-tax income as among the best frames of reference to assess policy impact, because it estimates how much a household's buying power improves. Others disagree, however, saying it's hard to control for other economic variables that might alter income.

Click here to view interactive content
The top 1% of households (who make about $1 million or more a year) would get a 3.2% boost in after-tax income in 2027 via an extension of the Trump law, the Tax Policy Center said. In dollar terms, their tax savings would be about $70,000, on average,

By comparison, middle-income households, would get a 1.3% income boost, or a $1,000 tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center

.


https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/who-ben ... nsion.html

You really have a problem with rich people don’t you?

[kalm]

You’re missing my point.

Provide tax relief AND/or adequately fund government programs that help the working class.

That stimulates the economy.

Increase taxes on the rich who already pay for basically everything in this country and make more strategic cuts to spending (EG military spending, oil and gas subsidies) to start bringing down the debt and China can continue to defeat us

.


https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/who-ben ... nsion.html

You really have a problem with rich people don’t you?

Nope. I judge people on their actions and kindness… rich or poor.

We’ve just slashed high end and corporate taxes over the last 70 years without replacing that revenue or significantly cutting spending. Supply side/neo-liberal economics is a proven failure. We are at our best when the working class is thriving.

[Caribbean Hen]

You really have a problem with rich people don’t you?

Nope. I judge people on their actions and kindness… rich or poor.

We’ve just slashed high end and corporate taxes over the last 70 years without replacing that revenue or significantly cutting spending. Supply side/neo-liberal economics is a proven failure. We are at our best when the working class is thriving.

Neo liberal economics? Do you think the working class even knows what that is? Whatever the definition, I bet it changes daily.

Working class just voted for Trump because they had more money in their pockets during Trump 1.0 then they did under the no good idea Dems . Any money they had under Biden wasn’t because they were working. It was pandemic bloat funds

[kalm]

Nope. I judge people on their actions and kindness… rich or poor.

We’ve just slashed high end and corporate taxes over the last 70 years without replacing that revenue or significantly cutting spending. Supply side/neo-liberal economics is a proven failure. We are at our best when the working class is thriving.

Neo liberal economics? Do you think the working class even knows what that is? Whatever the definition, I bet it changes daily.

Working class just voted for Trump because they had more money in their pockets during Trump 1.0 then they did under the no good idea Dems . Any money they had under Biden wasn’t because they were working. It was pandemic bloat funds

Do you know what neo-liberal economics is without looking it up? It’s not exactly a new term.

[UNI88]

Trump’s tariffs are turning into a ‘mosaic’ that will be ‘idiosyncratic,’ Morgan Stanley says, projecting a $2.7 trillion haul over 10 years

Guerra warned of unpredictable impacts across the global economy and projected tariff rates are likely to keep rising and remain elevated, even as the Trump administration weathers questions about their legality. Guerra’s team also made a projection, calculated based off tariff collections over the last three months: The U.S. Treasury could collect as much as $2.7 trillion in tariffs over the next 10 years.
...
Compounding the uncertainty is a significant weakness in the U.S. dollar, Morgan Stanley noted, which has dropped 10% year-to-date, making imports more expensive for American consumers and companies. Guerra’s team warned the combination of a weaker dollar and rising tariffs could translate directly into higher import prices, fueling inflation and potentially squeezing corporate margins unless costs are passed on to consumers.

While inflation had shown some signs of moderating—helped in part by lower energy prices and inventory build-ups ahead of new tariffs—markets are now pricing in a rebound: Inflation expectations for the next 12 months have climbed to 3.43%, according to zero-coupon swaps, roughly matching the levels seen in April, when Trump announced his tariff plans in more detail as part of “Liberation Day.”
...
Morgan Stanley said the current environment is “particularly fluid and dynamic” as legal and political battles over trade continue to play out. As Trump’s tariff regime grows more intricate, markets, businesses, and consumers alike are bracing for an era of heightened unpredictability—and potentially, record-shattering government revenue, paid for by American consumers through higher tariffs.

Tariffs will essentially be a tax on the American consumer, adversely impacting the lower to middle class and more than offsetting any short-term tax benefits they received from the Budget Busting Behemoth.

[kalm]

Trump’s tariffs are turning into a ‘mosaic’ that will be ‘idiosyncratic,’ Morgan Stanley says, projecting a $2.7 trillion haul over 10 years

Guerra warned of unpredictable impacts across the global economy and projected tariff rates are likely to keep rising and remain elevated, even as the Trump administration weathers questions about their legality. Guerra’s team also made a projection, calculated based off tariff collections over the last three months: The U.S. Treasury could collect as much as $2.7 trillion in tariffs over the next 10 years.
...
Compounding the uncertainty is a significant weakness in the U.S. dollar, Morgan Stanley noted, which has dropped 10% year-to-date, making imports more expensive for American consumers and companies. Guerra’s team warned the combination of a weaker dollar and rising tariffs could translate directly into higher import prices, fueling inflation and potentially squeezing corporate margins unless costs are passed on to consumers.

While inflation had shown some signs of moderating—helped in part by lower energy prices and inventory build-ups ahead of new tariffs—markets are now pricing in a rebound: Inflation expectations for the next 12 months have climbed to 3.43%, according to zero-coupon swaps, roughly matching the levels seen in April, when Trump announced his tariff plans in more detail as part of “Liberation Day.”
...
Morgan Stanley said the current environment is “particularly fluid and dynamic” as legal and political battles over trade continue to play out. As Trump’s tariff regime grows more intricate, markets, businesses, and consumers alike are bracing for an era of heightened unpredictability—and potentially, record-shattering government revenue, paid for by American consumers through higher tariffs.

Tariffs will essentially be a tax on the American consumer, adversely impacting the lower to middle class and more than offsetting any short-term tax benefits they received from the Budget Busting Behemoth.

[UNI88]

The Great Tariff ‘Inflation’ Confusion

One of this year’s more annoying yet persistent tariff defenses—including from a certain Oval Office Tariff Man and his trusty VP sidekick—is that tariffs can’t possibly be bad for American consumers or the U.S. economy because they haven’t caused “inflation.”
...
So, has Trump proven the “experts” and “economists” wrong once again?

In short, no. Even leaving aside the wonky methodological mistakes (and blatant cherrypicking) that Vance and others tariff defenders have made, their recent “inflation” obsession reveals either a fundamental cluelessness about how tariffs and “inflation” interact—and about how most actual “economists” view the issue—or a cynical belief that you’re clueless, too.
...
The bigger, global Trump 2.0 tariffs should have bigger effects, but the general principles still apply. Economist Bryan Cutsinger recently summarized the consensus view:

There seems to be broad agreement that higher tariffs lead to a one-time increase in the price level, not a sustained rise in the rate of price increases, that is, inflation. If it takes time for tariffs to pass through to consumer prices, inflation may temporarily pick up — a point Fed officials have acknowledged. But once the adjustment is complete, the inflation rate will come back down — that is, the increases will stop, even if prices themselves remain at a new, higher level.
...
There are also several well-documented reasons for why even a temporary tariff-fueled increase in U.S. prices hasn’t materialized yet—and, in fact, might never show up fully in the CPI or other broad measures of inflation. For starters, Trump quickly rolled back some of his biggest tariffs (e.g., China and “Liberation Day”) and temporarily exempted many other products—semiconductors and consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals, many USMCA-compliant products, etc.
...
Then there’s the timing issue. Goldman notes that, from a purely mechanical perspective, it takes several weeks between the date of a tariff announcement and the tariff being paid by U.S. importers:

Meanwhile, American companies have worked hard to avoid paying the tariffs that are now in force. Most notable in this regard were their efforts to import goods before tariffs hit, thus resulting in a big spike in imports between November and April …
...
Companies are also deploying other strategies to avoid taking a full tariff hit—at least in the short term. They are, for example, engaging in “tariff engineering”—reclassifying products into lower-tariff categories or ones with no tariffs at all.
...
Then there’s the issue of foreign exporters eating the tariff costs by lowering their prices—Trump’s favorite excuse. As we’ve discussed, this is possible under the right circumstances but didn’t happen much during Trump 1.0, as American companies and consumers instead ate almost all of the tariffs’ costs. This time around, however, Goldman notes that there are some very early signs that foreign exporters, mainly Chinese, “have absorbed about 20% of the cost of tariffs”—an outcome that makes some sense given the sheer size of the tariffs, lingering inflation pain here, and widely reported deflationary problems in China. If these preliminary data hold, it’d be a shift from recent U.S. tariff experience but would still mean that Americans are paying about 80 percent of the tariffs’ cost—not exactly a huge Trump win. Other evidence, it should be noted, shows foreigners paying even less.
...
Goldman estimates, in fact, that U.S. businesses have initially absorbed much of the new Trump tariff costs instead of passing them on to consumers, thus leading to a much more moderate impact on the inflation figures. Over time, however, they expect this balance to change and for consumers to bear half or more of the tariff costs (and related increases of U.S. goods’ prices), with price data eventually reflecting that burden. Anecdotes and alternative data, such as Federal Reserve surveys of U.S. businesses, show similar things.
...
Despite these mitigating factors, economists still expect a lot of Trump’s tariffs to eventually show up in the CPI and other broad measures of U.S. prices. Not only are the effective tariff rates rising, with more still to come, but inventories are dwindling and other tricks like bonded warehouses can only work for so long. Many companies, meanwhile, simply don’t have the profit margins to absorb all their new tariff costs—and, even if they did, their shareholders might not be too thrilled with that approach. (Foreign companies have the same problem.)
...
At this point, the issue is less about whether tariffs cause higher prices but when the biggest hikes will hit. There’s no great, clear answer but—if recent trends hold—it should be sometime this fall.
...
Most people who actually do this stuff for a living (aka not TV pundits or viral posters) have been saying these exact things for more than a year now, so—as you can imagine—constantly repeating them in response to endless “inflation” inanity has become one of the more pointless and annoying parts of the job.

Excellent piece. Hopefully it will give the simpletons crowing that tariffs haven't caused inflation to increase a better understanding of how the economy actually works. And it's the Cato Institute so you can't dismiss it as radical, leftwing, extremist rag propaganda.

[Caribbean Hen]

Neo liberal economics? Do you think the working class even knows what that is? Whatever the definition, I bet it changes daily.

Working class just voted for Trump because they had more money in their pockets during Trump 1.0 then they did under the no good idea Dems . Any money they had under Biden wasn’t because they were working. It was pandemic bloat funds

Do you know what neo-liberal economics is without looking it up? It’s not exactly a new term.

No I don’t and I’m just fine

[Caribbean Hen]

Trump’s tariffs are turning into a ‘mosaic’ that will be ‘idiosyncratic,’ Morgan Stanley says, projecting a $2.7 trillion haul over 10 years

Guerra warned of unpredictable impacts across the global economy and projected tariff rates are likely to keep rising and remain elevated, even as the Trump administration weathers questions about their legality. Guerra’s team also made a projection, calculated based off tariff collections over the last three months: The U.S. Treasury could collect as much as $2.7 trillion in tariffs over the next 10 years.
...
Compounding the uncertainty is a significant weakness in the U.S. dollar, Morgan Stanley noted, which has dropped 10% year-to-date, making imports more expensive for American consumers and companies. Guerra’s team warned the combination of a weaker dollar and rising tariffs could translate directly into higher import prices, fueling inflation and potentially squeezing corporate margins unless costs are passed on to consumers.

While inflation had shown some signs of moderating—helped in part by lower energy prices and inventory build-ups ahead of new tariffs—markets are now pricing in a rebound: Inflation expectations for the next 12 months have climbed to 3.43%, according to zero-coupon swaps, roughly matching the levels seen in April, when Trump announced his tariff plans in more detail as part of “Liberation Day.”
...
Morgan Stanley said the current environment is “particularly fluid and dynamic” as legal and political battles over trade continue to play out. As Trump’s tariff regime grows more intricate, markets, businesses, and consumers alike are bracing for an era of heightened unpredictability—and potentially, record-shattering government revenue, paid for by American consumers through higher tariffs.

Tariffs will essentially be a tax on the American consumer, adversely impacting the lower to middle class and more than offsetting any short-term tax benefits they received from the Budget Busting Behemoth.

Show me the math

[SeattleGriz]

Trump’s tariffs are turning into a ‘mosaic’ that will be ‘idiosyncratic,’ Morgan Stanley says, projecting a $2.7 trillion haul over 10 years



Tariffs will essentially be a tax on the American consumer, adversely impacting the lower to middle class and more than offsetting any short-term tax benefits they received from the Budget Busting Behemoth.

You two have no clue how tariffs work, do you?

Let me give you a lesson:

Guess jeans has a Chinese manufacturer make their jeans and they cost $10 per pair of jeans. Guess imports them and sells them for $100. Trump imposes a 50% tariff and now the jeans cost Guess $15 dollars. Guess eats the $5 loss because $85 in profit is still soaking the consumer.

Trump did this in his first term and China devalued their currency to "eat" the $5, and as a result, the US was importing deflation.

Morgan Stanley was wrong during Trump's first term and apparently didn't learn a thing. Wrong here as well.

[kalm]

Do you know what neo-liberal economics is without looking it up? It’s not exactly a new term.

No I don’t and I’m just fine

Yes…I’m sure you’re fine but you’re arguing economics on a political message board without completely understanding what shapes things (from both sides) the past 50 years.

You should at least take a quick dive into it. We could have better discussions.

[bobbythekidd]

You two have no clue how tariffs work, do you?

Let me give you a lesson:

Guess jeans has a Chinese manufacturer make their jeans and they cost $10 per pair of jeans. Guess imports them and sells them for $100. Trump imposes a 50% tariff and now the jeans cost Guess $15 dollars. Guess eats the $5 loss because $85 in profit is still soaking the consumer.

Trump did this in his first term and China devalued their currency to "eat" the $5, and as a result, the US was importing deflation.

Morgan Stanley was wrong during Trump's first term and apparently didn't learn a thing. Wrong here as well.

Only Guess doesn't/won't eat the tariffs because of their duty to increase the share price. So now the jeans cost $105. The consumer (us) pay the tariffs and it's a new tax on Americans.

Not to mention the US dollar is losing value since this admin started. Now we have less buying power with our dollars. China is in the cat bird seat and isn't inclined to change any policy as a result.

[UNI88]

You two have no clue how tariffs work, do you?

Let me give you a lesson:

Guess jeans has a Chinese manufacturer make their jeans and they cost $10 per pair of jeans. Guess imports them and sells them for $100. Trump imposes a 50% tariff and now the jeans cost Guess $15 dollars. Guess eats the $5 loss because $85 in profit is still soaking the consumer.

Trump did this in his first term and China devalued their currency to "eat" the $5, and as a result, the US was importing deflation.

Morgan Stanley was wrong during Trump's first term and apparently didn't learn a thing. Wrong here as well.

You contradicted yourself (speaking of not understanding how tariffs work) - Does Guess eat the tariffs or china?

Read the Cato Institute's piece if you want to engage your brain and really start to understand how tariffs work rather than blindly believing trump and his merry band of dick sucking sycophants.

The Great Tariff ‘Inflation’ Confusion

[kalm]

You two have no clue how tariffs work, do you?

Let me give you a lesson:

Guess jeans has a Chinese manufacturer make their jeans and they cost $10 per pair of jeans. Guess imports them and sells them for $100. Trump imposes a 50% tariff and now the jeans cost Guess $15 dollars. Guess eats the $5 loss because $85 in profit is still soaking the consumer.

Trump did this in his first term and China devalued their currency to "eat" the $5, and as a result, the US was importing deflation.

Morgan Stanley was wrong during Trump's first term and apparently didn't learn a thing. Wrong here as well.

So we’re going to rely upon the benevolence or fear from the Chinese government and manufacturers as well as domestic clothing importers to eat the increases?

Does your Guess brand jeans example hold true across all sectors and with all countries? Does it open the door for new trade agreements between other counties willing to play more fair (see Canada and the EU)?

There’s a reason for the concern from economists and the Fed itself over the outcomes. These are people and organizations that employ people who DO have a clue.

[UNI88]

You two have no clue how tariffs work, do you?

Let me give you a lesson:

Guess jeans has a Chinese manufacturer make their jeans and they cost $10 per pair of jeans. Guess imports them and sells them for $100. Trump imposes a 50% tariff and now the jeans cost Guess $15 dollars. Guess eats the $5 loss because $85 in profit is still soaking the consumer.

Trump did this in his first term and China devalued their currency to "eat" the $5, and as a result, the US was importing deflation.

Morgan Stanley was wrong during Trump's first term and apparently didn't learn a thing. Wrong here as well.

So we’re going to rely upon the benevolence or fear from the Chinese government and manufacturers as well as domestic clothing importers to eat the increases?

Does your Guess brand jeans example hold true across all sectors and with all countries? Does it open the door for new trade agreements between other counties willing to play more fair (see Canada and the EU)?

There’s a reason for the concern from economists and the Fed itself over the outcomes. These are people and organizations that employ people who DO have a clue.

Not it doesn't. Anecdotal but it applies - last year I got a quote for materials to replace my rooftop deck but didn't move forward with it. I called the supplier earlier this week to ask if the materials were in stock and if the price had changed. It had, a 50% increase. The materials are from Canada. Thank you donald, you twat.

The Cato Institute does a better job of explaining tariffs than trump, bessent, lutnick, navarro or any other bootlickers could dream about. Maybe because they have real fiscal conservatives on staff.

[BDKJMU]

If you’re a humorless America hater.

Colbert will be fine. He has options one of which is to retire.
PBS and NPR were imperfect but they were assets that made us just a little bit better.

Colbert is canceled because they were losing $$ hand over fist. Why? Because the ad dollars weren’t there. Why? Because his show sucked. He went full bore left wing TDS, and wasn’t funny.

CBS Reportedly Lost $40 Million on Colbert’s Late Show This Year

….. Given that The Late Show—with its handsomely paid host and a staff of roughly 200 employees—reportedly costs CBS $100 million per year to produce, that $40 million figure becomes easier to understand…

https://latenighter.com/news/cbs-report ... this-year/

PBS and NPR were left wing propaganda outlets who had no more business being funded by the taxpayers than right wing talk radio would.

[Caribbean Hen]

No I don’t and I’m just fine

Yes…I’m sure you’re fine but you’re arguing economics on a political message board without completely understanding what shapes things (from both sides) the past 50 years.

You should at least take a quick dive into it. We could have better discussions.

Nooo

You’ve been proven wrong time and time again on these boards so you would be the last person I would listen to about economics on here

You’re absolutely basement dwelling rock bottom bottom last

I know you don’t realize it and that’s what makes it so entertaining

[Caribbean Hen]

If you’re a humorless America hater.

Colbert will be fine. He has options one of which is to retire.
PBS and NPR were imperfect but they were assets that made us just a little bit better.

Colbert is canceled because they were losing $$ hand over fist. Why? Because the ad dollars weren’t there. Why? Because his show sucked. He went full bore left wing TDS, and wasn’t funny.

CBS Reportedly Lost $40 Million on Colbert’s Late Show This Year

….. Given that The Late Show—with its handsomely paid host and a staff of roughly 200 employees—reportedly costs CBS $100 million per year to produce, that $40 million figure becomes easier to understand…

https://latenighter.com/news/cbs-report ... this-year/

PBS and NPR were left wing propaganda outlets who had no more business being funded by the taxpayers than right wing talk radio would.

I’m old enough to remember when late night television talkshows were actually funny

Johnny Carson is a legend

He would be able to poke fun at Trump in a way that was funny without being totally deranged and of course he would’ve had some Great Biden impersonations… lots of material there and our biased lying media ignored it because they were not allowed to tell the truth about Democrats

[kalm]

Yes…I’m sure you’re fine but you’re arguing economics on a political message board without completely understanding what shapes things (from both sides) the past 50 years.

You should at least take a quick dive into it. We could have better discussions.

Nooo

You’ve been proven wrong time and time again on these boards so you would be the last person I would listen to about economics on here

You’re absolutely basement dwelling rock bottom bottom last

I know you don’t realize it and that’s what makes it so entertaining

You should try reading my post you replied to here. Nowhere did I claim my expertise.

I’m not an economist, but at least I’m aware of basic economic terms that have influenced our world the last 50 years.

But trying to own the libs is more important to you than acquiring actual knowledge and awareness of history.

Let me know when you’re interested in educating yourself and I’ll suggest some ideas and history you can research.

[kalm]

If you’re a humorless America hater.

Colbert will be fine. He has options one of which is to retire.
PBS and NPR were imperfect but they were assets that made us just a little bit better.

Colbert is canceled because they were losing $$ hand over fist. Why? Because the ad dollars weren’t there. Why? Because his show sucked. He went full bore left wing TDS, and wasn’t funny.

CBS Reportedly Lost $40 Million on Colbert’s Late Show This Year

….. Given that The Late Show—with its handsomely paid host and a staff of roughly 200 employees—reportedly costs CBS $100 million per year to produce, that $40 million figure becomes easier to understand…

https://latenighter.com/news/cbs-report ... this-year/

PBS and NPR were left wing propaganda outlets who had no more business being funded by the taxpayers than right wing talk radio would.

It’s a trend throughout network programming and has many factors other than hurting your MAGA feelings with content.

PBS and NPR were more than just politics but yes, they had a left wing slant at times. Comparing them to conservative talk radio however is laughable. The truth has a liberal bias after all.

Oh well…things change and someone as talented as Colbert can always follow the Conan or Hasan Piker route.

[Caribbean Hen]

Nooo

You’ve been proven wrong time and time again on these boards so you would be the last person I would listen to about economics on here

You’re absolutely basement dwelling rock bottom bottom last

I know you don’t realize it and that’s what makes it so entertaining

You should try reading my post you replied to here. Nowhere did I claim my expertise.

I’m not an economist, but at least I’m aware of basic economic terms that have influenced our world the last 50 years.

But trying to own the libs is more important to you than acquiring actual knowledge and awareness of history.

Let me know when you’re interested in educating yourself and I’ll suggest some ideas and history you can research.

with a post you made on this board you claimed to teach economics, did you not?

[kalm]

You should try reading my post you replied to here. Nowhere did I claim my expertise.

I’m not an economist, but at least I’m aware of basic economic terms that have influenced our world the last 50 years.

But trying to own the libs is more important to you than acquiring actual knowledge and awareness of history.

Let me know when you’re interested in educating yourself and I’ll suggest some ideas and history you can research.

with a post you made on this board you claimed to teach economics, did you not?

Fuck no. I taught golf and how to make a proper scratch Bloody Mary.

[Caribbean Hen]

So we’re going to rely upon the benevolence or fear from the Chinese government and manufacturers as well as domestic clothing importers to eat the increases?

Does your Guess brand jeans example hold true across all sectors and with all countries? Does it open the door for new trade agreements between other counties willing to play more fair (see Canada and the EU)?

There’s a reason for the concern from economists and the Fed itself over the outcomes. These are people and organizations that employ people who DO have a clue.

Not it doesn't. Anecdotal but it applies - last year I got a quote for materials to replace my rooftop deck but didn't move forward with it. I called the supplier earlier this week to ask if the materials were in stock and if the price had changed. It had, a 50% increase. The materials are from Canada. Thank you donald, you twat.

The Cato Institute does a better job of explaining tariffs than trump, bessent, lutnick, navarro or any other bootlickers could dream about. Maybe because they have real fiscal conservatives on staff.

I would’ve asked him so when did you buy that lumber…

I know some HVAC contractors in Miami were jacking up prices on units they had sitting in the warehouse for months and months. Long before any tariff was in play

[UNI88]

Not it doesn't. Anecdotal but it applies - last year I got a quote for materials to replace my rooftop deck but didn't move forward with it. I called the supplier earlier this week to ask if the materials were in stock and if the price had changed. It had, a 50% increase. The materials are from Canada. Thank you donald, you twat.

The Cato Institute does a better job of explaining tariffs than trump, bessent, lutnick, navarro or any other bootlickers could dream about. Maybe because they have real fiscal conservatives on staff.

I would’ve asked him so when did you buy that lumber…

I know some HVAC contractors in Miami were jacking up prices on units they had sitting in the warehouse for months and months. Long before any tariff was in play

You're assuming the deck was going to be lumber. It wasn't but it might be now.

I checked other suppliers, similar pricing.

Engage your brain and read the Cato institute piece to get a rational, fiscally conservative perspective on trump's tariffs.

[Caribbean Hen]

I would’ve asked him so when did you buy that lumber…

I know some HVAC contractors in Miami were jacking up prices on units that had been sitting in the warehouse for months and months. Long before any tariff was in play but blaming tariffs

You're assuming the deck was going to be lumber. It wasn't but it might be now.

I checked other suppliers, similar pricing.

Engage your brain and read the Cato institute piece to get a rational, fiscally conservative perspective on trump's tariffs.

I remember conservatives being in wait-and-see mode on Trump‘s tariffs. It was the TDS crowd that was selling all their stocks.