and if the other parties will properly defend their own borders (stopping migrants and fentanyl from entering their country to exploit their undefended borders with USA) it will again be a very good deal.ATL Bear said:Yes, the USMCA. "A terrific deal for all of us" said Trump at the time.FLBear5630 said:Canada-Mexico? NAFTA?ATL Bear said:Trade is built around nations leveraging their advantages globally. The Marshall Plan stuff went out in the 60s and 70s and isn't why we have structural trade deficits today. It's a myth that we can create, grow, and make everything domestically. Our consumption strength way exceeds our production capacity. That doesn't mean we can't do more, even much more, but we are hamstrung on several levels we seem unwilling to address to make that happen, and it isn't unfair trade tariffs.whiterock said:Point #2 is one I have made here and elsewhere many, many times. It is hard for people to believe it happened. It is harder still to get them to wrap their brain around the idea that it was purposeful. But such was literally taught as fact in undergrad and grad level macro classes & trade classes.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Just a question. Are we stronger today than we were when Reagan was President? Militarily? Economically? Is life a multitude easier than it was in 1986? Technology not outsourcing has been the killer of the manufacturing worker, and the driver of our innovation that has propelled us. It's in a constant pursuit of minimizing human necessity in repeatable process tasks, and as AI progresses it's going much more complex.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:RINO. Reagan In Name Only…boognish_bear said:
Reagan was not a demi-god
He was right about a lot
But he was dead wrong about amnesty for millions of 3rd worlders and was wrong about the de-industrialization of the USA
A USA without powerful manufacturing and production capabilities could never have defeated the communists in the USSR
And if America is going to defeat the communists in China it has to change course from the failed orthodoxies of the past few decades
Sending 50,000 factories and millions of jobs overseas does not in fact make us stronger
Where you and others are lost is what Reagan and others like Milton Friedman understood. Trade, even if on unequal terms, pushes companies to innovate around it. Where we failed was being unwilling to actually deregulate to the level necessary to compete. We continue to hang onto labor value perspectives that are becoming obsolescent. Our auto industry still languishes in these historical burdens. We don't need more metal press operators, we need engineers. That's where China, India, Europe and elsewhere beat our butts. And now we want to limit our labor supply shortage through Visa limits.
We've gone next level in complaining about our lot ( which is pretty damn good comparatively), but we have a long way to go in actually trying to make the necessary changes if we want to get back to the low ends of the supply chain. Take mining for example. We don't need to buy Greenland to get into rare earth minerals again. We just need the fortitude to change our laws. Are we ready? Words are cheap and easy, actions not so much.
1. It actually debatable if we are stronger than during the time of Reagan
We do not yet have a major peer super power competitor to challenge us (though China is trying to get there)
[More than 60,000 manufacturing plants have closed in the United States since 1998. This has led to the loss of millions of jobs. The decline in manufacturing has devastated local economies and workers in industrial areas. Rural areas have been particularly hard hit by the closure of small factories.]
A great power war would tell us very quickly if we are stronger or weaker since the 1980s
2. De-industrialization of the American heartland was not just the work of dispassionate market forces....it was deliberate policy in many cases.
[Across the manufacturing sector, sophisticated industries that once served as the backbone of U.S. economic prosperity are dwindling in terms of both output and employment. Evidence of this U.S. deindustrialization should be raising red flags for U.S. policy makers, given manufacturing's long-recognized contribution to economic growth and prosperity, as well as the problematic manufacturing-driven trade and current account deficits (for more detail, see Hersh 2003). But rather than suffering through sleepless nights, U.S. policy
makers have met manufacturing's decline with a series of public policy choices that place U.S. manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage against foreign producers and provide perverse incentives for companies to relocate manufacturing overseas. In other words, U.S. deindustrialization is not simply a result of natural economic evolution, but also owes to policy makers' remarkable indifference to the manufacturing economy]
file:///C:/Users/James/Downloads/1285-Article%20Text-1766-1-10-20150205%20(2).pdf
3. Tariffs are about equalizing trade.....not killing free trade
You can still buy, sell, trade what products and services you want.
[New reciprocal Trump tariffs aim to match the already existing tariffs other countries place on U.S. goods]
MacroEconomic textbook fact: When you choose to run a structural trade deficit, you WILL lose manufacturing base and grow service industries. And you can prevent that trade deficit from devaluing your currency IF you maintain positive capital flows to offset the trade deficit. And every single year, we did.
So simple. The Marshall Plan effectively told the world "we will loan you the money to build/rebuild your economy and we will buy what you produce, as long as you ally with us and use the excess dollars generated by your trade surplus to purchase our Treasury bills." That's it. That's globalism in a nutshell. It allows you to build allies, finance and maintain a 2m man army and a 600-ship navy for several decades. And it worked! We won the Cold War.!! Along the way, over an over again in both university classes and in embassies abroad, I saw exactly what Trump is talking about - trade diplomacy that gave countries sweetheart trade deals, getting greater access to our economy than we got to theirs, not fulfilling their defense commitments, etc.... And the defense of it was "well, we need them as allies....don't be predatory, help them..." as if it was the natural order. And it was....natural order of a Cold War alliance where were were the great benefactor.
But the cold war ended in 1992.
Look how long it's take us to kill the model that delivered victory, and move on to one that serves our peoples better.
It makes no sense whatsoever to run a structural trade deficit in a post-Cold War world. None.
The deindustrialization of the heartland started with movement from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt. Is that part of your "purposeful" equation? As we began selling in foreign markets, supply chains shifted. Instead of seriously looking at how we can match the scale and capabilities in those other markets, and incentivize innovation, we are doubling down on protecting outdated models and companies instead of encouraging new ones. We keep looking outward instead of inward for blame, and that's a problem both parties suffer from. Trump's not advocating anything new economically, he's just doing it in a broad and disorganized fashion and having it shouted from the social media rooftops. I'm old enough to remember when he touted his Canada-Mexico trade agreement the first time around.
Trump's efforts in pushing Europe to carry more of their defense burden and negotiating better trade agreements is always the right move. But blanket tariffs without a defined strategy is chaotic and destructive to the economy.
Trump's first 100 days
107,479 Views |
2776 Replies |
Last: 35 min ago by Osodecentx
Spot. On.boognish_bear said:WORLD WAR III: Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda says the quiet part out loud, "Ukraine is bying the precious time for us every day, paying with the blood. So it would be highly irresponcible to waste this time." Europe is preparing for war. pic.twitter.com/ntTgBtf4UD
— @amuse (@amuse) March 7, 2025
indeed. as we see here on this forum, it is very difficult to get people to change their world view, chiefly that says the one the USA is obligated to allow unequal trade arrangements as a natural order of things.boognish_bear said:Trump slammed Canada for unfair trade, citing a 250% dairy tariff and restrictions on U.S. lumber.
— 🅾️ Kat Kanada (@KatKanada_TM) March 7, 2025
He vowed reciprocal tariffs as early as Monday.
Trump also said it's been very difficult to deal with Canada's representatives. pic.twitter.com/7UOJo14Lz9
a world in which Iran & North Korea can have nuclear weapons but Poland and Japan cannot makes no sense whatsoever.boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 7, 2025
"Poland must pursue the most advanced capabilities, including nuclear and modern unconventional weapons”
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk made the statement today 🇵🇱 pic.twitter.com/e4lVwwjaDU
What's not imaginary is the ability to negotiate trade deals. You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it. Don't punish your citizens for it. And why do we want to be more like Europe? Do we not understand that model doesn't work? The facts and numbers don't lie. But lying about imaginary manufacturing jobs so you can raise prices on your citizens is an unfortunate reality.Oldbear83 said:Nope. Imaginary like ignoring tariffs and just hoping other countries stop using them on us, like we have seen the last several decades.ATL Bear said:Like the imaginary new manufacturing jobs that tariffs create?Oldbear83 said:
You use the tools available to you, not imaginary things .
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
LOL those other countries do not agree that tariffs punish their citizens. The model works for them. Why should it not work for us?ATL Bear said:What's not imaginary is the ability to negotiate trade deals. You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it. Don't punish your citizens for it. And why do we want to be more like Europe? Do we not understand that model doesn't work? The facts and numbers don't lie. But lying about imaginary manufacturing jobs so you can raise prices on your citizens is an unfortunate reality.Oldbear83 said:Nope. Imaginary like ignoring tariffs and just hoping other countries stop using them on us, like we have seen the last several decades.ATL Bear said:Like the imaginary new manufacturing jobs that tariffs create?Oldbear83 said:
You use the tools available to you, not imaginary things .
Perplexed that you cannot see that imbalanced trade is bad for us.
The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
The model isn't working. Why do you think Europe has been stagnating under higher prices, low wage growth, and reduced outputs for years?whiterock said:LOL those other countries do not agree that tariffs punish their citizens. The model works for them. Why should it not work for us?ATL Bear said:What's not imaginary is the ability to negotiate trade deals. You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it. Don't punish your citizens for it. And why do we want to be more like Europe? Do we not understand that model doesn't work? The facts and numbers don't lie. But lying about imaginary manufacturing jobs so you can raise prices on your citizens is an unfortunate reality.Oldbear83 said:Nope. Imaginary like ignoring tariffs and just hoping other countries stop using them on us, like we have seen the last several decades.ATL Bear said:Like the imaginary new manufacturing jobs that tariffs create?Oldbear83 said:
You use the tools available to you, not imaginary things .
Perplexed that you cannot see that imbalanced trade is bad for us.
I want to attack the real reasons behind the trade imbalances, which is sustainable and puts us back at a competitive advantage. Not proven ineffective government tax gimmicks hoping it's some magical fix.
You are ignoring any fact which might suggest Trump is right.ATL Bear said:The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
I'll stick with actual economic facts instead of imagining that Trump might be right on tariffs.Oldbear83 said:You are ignoring any fact which might suggest Trump is right.ATL Bear said:The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
No you don't.ATL Bear said:I'll stick with actual economic facts instead of imagining that Trump might be right on tariffs.Oldbear83 said:You are ignoring any fact which might suggest Trump is right.ATL Bear said:The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
You pretend any tariff will be a disaster.
You ignore what other nations have done with tariffs except that you imagine they will stop if we just ask.
You are angry and stubborn, and it damages your thinking here.
You want to play hardball with China? Fine, they are a geo strategic enemy. Blanket tariffs across all industries and agriculture, some of which we will NEVER be relevant in, is straight insanity. Particularly when these are allies that we can actually negotiate with.Oldbear83 said:No you don't.ATL Bear said:I'll stick with actual economic facts instead of imagining that Trump might be right on tariffs.Oldbear83 said:You are ignoring any fact which might suggest Trump is right.ATL Bear said:The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
You pretend any tariff will be a disaster.
You ignore what other nations have done with tariffs except that you imagine they will stop if we just ask.
You are angry and stubborn, and it damages your thinking here.
You guys are the ones eaten up with political blindness. There's a disdain for Europe from many Trump supporters because of the perceived disdain for Trump from them during his first term and today, as well as their "woke progressivism". Frankly it's not unfounded. But we can't lose practicality over a mission to punish political opponents.
Tariffs and protectionism are the very definition of progressive economic policy.
More anger from you again, less attention to the facts.ATL Bear said:You want to play hardball with China? Fine, they are a geo strategic enemy. Blanket tariffs across all industries and agriculture, some of which we will NEVER be relevant in, is straight insanity. Particularly when these are allies that we can actually negotiate with.Oldbear83 said:No you don't.ATL Bear said:I'll stick with actual economic facts instead of imagining that Trump might be right on tariffs.Oldbear83 said:You are ignoring any fact which might suggest Trump is right.ATL Bear said:The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
You pretend any tariff will be a disaster.
You ignore what other nations have done with tariffs except that you imagine they will stop if we just ask.
You are angry and stubborn, and it damages your thinking here.
You guys are the ones eaten up with political blindness. There's a disdain for Europe from many Trump supporters because of the perceived disdain for Trump from them during his first term and today, as well as their "woke progressivism". Frankly it's not unfounded. But we can't lose practicality over a mission to punish political opponents.
Tariffs and protectionism are the very definition of progressive economic policy.
I will come back when you are calmer.
whiterock said:but, but, but.....wait......I thought that Russia always controlled all that.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING: Poland announces that all adult men will be called to undergo military training.
— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) March 7, 2025
What's going on???
They see a chance to rebuild the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth
No, but since the great Cossack uprising of the 1600s they have dominated Ukraine
[The Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-1654) was a rebellion against Polish rule in Ukraine led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, which resulted in the Cossack Hetmanate (Cossack state) forming an alliance with the Tsardom of Russia, placing central Ukraine under Russian protection…
Uprising was a major revolt against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that controlled Ukraine. It was a culmination of Cossack revolts and dissatisfaction with Polish rule, religious persecution, and the exploitation of the Ukrainian Orthodox population by the Polish Catholic szlachta (nobility)]
ATL Bear said:I'll stick with actual economic facts instead of imagining that Trump might be right on tariffs.Oldbear83 said:You are ignoring any fact which might suggest Trump is right.ATL Bear said:The same leverage you think tariffs are taking advantage of is the same used in trade agreements. I'm okay being tough on neighbors, just not Americans in the process, particularly when unnecessary and misguided.Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear: "You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it."
LOL!
Without leverage, are you seriously pretending Canada, Mexico and other nations which have cheated us for decades will stop just because we ask?
THAT is the kind of imagination I meant.
You don't have to like tariffs, but pretending the threat of a tariff is awful, that we would do better if we just ignored the tariffs levied against us for so long ... seriously, I find it hard to believe a Baylor graduate would write something that absurd.
The REALITY is that we need to level the field, making nice won't get it done, and so far the simple threat of tariffs has been pretty effective.
Sometimes you have to be tough even with your neighbors.
Trump is right on tariffs
The real issue is that it will take more than one presidency to undo the de-industrialization and damage that 40+ years of uniparty policy have done
If took decades to close down 70,000 factories and completely gut our once working middle class….going to be almost impossible for one President in 4 years to do much on that front
But maybe other populist leaders (left and right will take up that cause?)
A country of low wage/semi slave service industry jobs and out of touch college educated white collar neo-aristocrats is a receipt for national disfunction and possible upheaval/revolution going forward
Something has to change
In order to have national stability you must have a productive and stable middle class and to be a true world super power (the thing you guys like) you have to be able to produce things…especially weapons and steel.
Elon Musk is sending DJ Daniel a Cybertruck. pic.twitter.com/E875leDCFc
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 7, 2025
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
WATCH: Democrats storm out of the room to protest a speech against men invading women’s spaces.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 7, 2025
NH State Rep Erica Layon (R) gave a fiery speech defending women's rights and calling out radical gender ideology that lets men invade women's spaces.
The Democrats tried to silence… pic.twitter.com/sf9Jz1GuvD
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
The US never offered a security guarantee. The US and Russia agreed to not threaten or use force against Ukraine. Also they didn't give anything, the US paid them to be allowed to disassemble the nukes and remove them.
— Global Statistics (@Globalstats11) March 7, 2025
Security "assurances" were provided rather than…
Johnson: We will restore founder's original vision for the constitution. They wanted limited government with careful oversight by congress but congress has not been able to do that because they have been hiding the data. Elon has found it. It’s going to change the way we do… pic.twitter.com/XLydTRjizO
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 7, 2025
For example: Europe has no significant competitive advantage over us in automobile manufacturing. It uses tariffs to protect its market, and subsidies to promote its exports. And we never challenged them on it, for a number of reasons most of which involve national security.ATL Bear said:The model isn't working. Why do you think Europe has been stagnating under higher prices, low wage growth, and reduced outputs for years?whiterock said:LOL those other countries do not agree that tariffs punish their citizens. The model works for them. Why should it not work for us?ATL Bear said:What's not imaginary is the ability to negotiate trade deals. You want lower tariffs on your goods in another market? Ask for it. Don't punish your citizens for it. And why do we want to be more like Europe? Do we not understand that model doesn't work? The facts and numbers don't lie. But lying about imaginary manufacturing jobs so you can raise prices on your citizens is an unfortunate reality.Oldbear83 said:Nope. Imaginary like ignoring tariffs and just hoping other countries stop using them on us, like we have seen the last several decades.ATL Bear said:Like the imaginary new manufacturing jobs that tariffs create?Oldbear83 said:
You use the tools available to you, not imaginary things .
Perplexed that you cannot see that imbalanced trade is bad for us.
Faulty premise alert - trade is neither the only nor the most significant policy lever available to address macroeconomic problems
I want to attack the real reasons behind the trade imbalances, which is sustainable and puts us back at a competitive advantage. Not proven ineffective government tax gimmicks hoping it's some magical fix.
Trade 101: the primary reason for the trade imbalance is the non-market support for the value of the USD (i.e. its use as a reserve currency, which insulates the USD from supply/demand pressures that drive pricing).
Pure Free Trade arguments ALWAYS presume that only wealth creation matters. In the real world, it doesn't matter how much wealth you generate......if you cannot defend it. And automobile manufacturing involves skills and assets which a state must have if it has any hope of outfitting armies & navies that can fight & win wars. EU protects its automakers not just to protect jobs, but to protect the ability to have machinists with machines to make ordnance. So if we are allied with EU (via Nato), it is indeed in our interest not to have our ally totally dependent upon our merchant marine to carry US-made ordnance over the Atlantic. It is a good thing that they can much and possibly all of their own supply. such will free our industry up to focus on China, who unfortunately now has 12x the steel production capability we have. We promoted free trade with China based on the classical liberal belief that trade brings peace. Well, it can. But not always. We helped China enter the WTO. They used free trade to build up steel mills. and we bought the cheap steel. And 60 years later, China is no more of a partner in peace than they were before Nixon went to Beijing, only they have 12x the steel production capability we do. (and are now building assault barges to retake Taiwan in an open challenge to the USA.)
We COULD have protected our steel industries (more than we did). Yes, we would have paid more for steel . But we would have the ability to make enough steel to replenish our armies & navies. Now we don't, at least with respect to China. But the free traders keep banging the table about wealth creation, as though it's all that matters.
the model of a structural trade deficit offset by capital account surplus is the business model of a Switzerland or Holland or Singapore or......a state which does not have the resources to become a more balanced economy. We are not that kind of state, and it would be foolish for us to continue to act like it.
Again, free trade does not exist. Never has. Never will. Free trade agreements are not negotiated by markets. They are negotiated by political elites who have existential interest to protect their industries. We never played hardball. There was a valid argument for doing so in the Cold War. But the Cold War is over....
We built the post-WWII global order. And because of it, we won the Cold War. It was in our interest to let market forces whittle away our manufacturing base, because doing so strengthened our allies, whom we needed very badly. Now, it is no longer in our interest to do so. We have a manufacturing base to rebuild. Trump is going about it cleverly. He's put every CEO in the position of having to calculate potential US tariffs into how they build supply chains. Many are concluding its wise to invest in manufacturing capacity here, rather than abroad, for fear of getting locked out of the US market altogether.
Trump using the bully pulpit to drive trillions of dollars of investment to the US. And yet, you complain.....
Interesting take on Leftist judges pretending they are president:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/07/trump-should-ignore-a-supreme-court-that-wont-defend-the-constitution/
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/07/trump-should-ignore-a-supreme-court-that-wont-defend-the-constitution/
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Never thought about it that way. However if I were Trump, I would have to consider that the lefties would do the same a couple of decades from now when folks started to forget how corrupt they were from the 70s to 2020s, got a Dem POTUS and start doing that everytime they didn't like the Supreme Court ruling.historian said:
Interesting take on Leftist judges pretending they are president:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/07/trump-should-ignore-a-supreme-court-that-wont-defend-the-constitution/
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
That's the danger of new strategies to counter the fascists. I'm not sure what the best response is, but something needs to be done about judges acting unconstitutionally. It's interesting that articles of impeachment are being prepared for some of these radical judges. The problem is that it's almost impossible for it to succeed unless a large number of Dem senators will vote for it. That's not going to happen.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
🚨 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is working with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 8, 2025
This is a good thing. pic.twitter.com/VyzsMUmesv
What a combo!
On the one hand cc interest rates are outrageous and intolerable. On the other hand, it's idiotic for the govt to arbitrarily cap anything. Price ceilings & floors ALWAYS do more harm than good. They distort the markets and harm the people they supposedly are trying to help. Examples include rent control & minimum wage.
Regarding minimum wage it's quite simple: does the worker want a job at $10 per hour or no job at $15 or $20 per hour. That's the inevitable result. The same reasoning can be applied to every other use.
On the one hand cc interest rates are outrageous and intolerable. On the other hand, it's idiotic for the govt to arbitrarily cap anything. Price ceilings & floors ALWAYS do more harm than good. They distort the markets and harm the people they supposedly are trying to help. Examples include rent control & minimum wage.
Regarding minimum wage it's quite simple: does the worker want a job at $10 per hour or no job at $15 or $20 per hour. That's the inevitable result. The same reasoning can be applied to every other use.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
The result of this will be anyone without a 700+ credit score just won't get a credit card. The risk would outweigh the reward.
The people with excellent credit basically don't pay interest regardless of the rate and the people without excellent credit aren't profitable at 10%.
This is a prime example of something that SEEMS good but probably ends badly.
The result of this will be anyone without a 700+ credit score just won't get a credit card. The risk would outweigh the reward.
The people with excellent credit basically don't pay interest regardless of the rate and the people without excellent credit aren't profitable at 10%.
This is a prime example of something that SEEMS good but probably ends badly.
boognish_bear said:🚨 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is working with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 8, 2025
This is a good thing. pic.twitter.com/VyzsMUmesv
Sheer idiocy
They want to eliminate the availability of unsecured debt?
Assassin said:WATCH: Democrats storm out of the room to protest a speech against men invading women’s spaces.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 7, 2025
NH State Rep Erica Layon (R) gave a fiery speech defending women's rights and calling out radical gender ideology that lets men invade women's spaces.
The Democrats tried to silence… pic.twitter.com/sf9Jz1GuvD
They are acting like children by walking out so as to not listen to what they don't want to hear. This will come back to hurt many of them in the midterms.
Robert Wilson said:boognish_bear said:🚨 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is working with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 8, 2025
This is a good thing. pic.twitter.com/VyzsMUmesv
Sheer idiocy
They want to eliminate the availability of unsecured debt?
Ripple effect will be brutal.
historian said:
What a combo!
On the one hand cc interest rates are outrageous and intolerable. On the other hand, it's idiotic for the govt to arbitrarily cap anything. Price ceilings & floors ALWAYS do more harm than good. They distort the markets and harm the people they supposedly are trying to help. Examples include rent control & minimum wage.
Regarding minimum wage it's quite simple: does the worker want a job at $10 per hour or no job at $15 or $20 per hour. That's the inevitable result. The same reasoning can be applied to every other use.
If there is a cap on cc interest I would imagine that most cards would become hard to get or only have low balances.
Which means many of the people that rely on credit cards would probably not be able to get them anymore.
cowboycwr said:historian said:
What a combo!
On the one hand cc interest rates are outrageous and intolerable. On the other hand, it's idiotic for the govt to arbitrarily cap anything. Price ceilings & floors ALWAYS do more harm than good. They distort the markets and harm the people they supposedly are trying to help. Examples include rent control & minimum wage.
Regarding minimum wage it's quite simple: does the worker want a job at $10 per hour or no job at $15 or $20 per hour. That's the inevitable result. The same reasoning can be applied to every other use.
If there is a cap on cc interest I would imagine that most cards would become hard to get or only have low balances.
Which means many of the people that rely on credit cards would probably not be able to get them anymore.
If it's a true cap it means a 10% default rate which is insane. Won't bankrupt Visa, MC or Amex. Will likely bankrupt smaller card issuers of which there are many.
There's also the very real problem of what to do with the rest of the rates. So if default is capped at 10% and high risk is capped at 10% what do you do with an 810 credit score? You will have to go to a variable rate tied to the federal funds rate. At that point you will lose the majority of those customers and you're just left with a high risk portfolio which is unsustainable.
boognish_bear said:🚨 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is working with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 8, 2025
This is a good thing. pic.twitter.com/VyzsMUmesv
This seems drastic, maybe start somewhere between 20-25 percent and see what happens.
I don't know why more folks just don't consolidate their credit card debt with a personal loan
Robert Wilson said:boognish_bear said:🚨 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is working with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 8, 2025
This is a good thing. pic.twitter.com/VyzsMUmesv
Sheer idiocy
They want to eliminate the availability of unsecured debt?
This fails everywhere. Fixed pricing is socialism. Ayn Rand wouldnt be a fan, I'll tell you that much.
BigGameBaylorBear said:boognish_bear said:🚨 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is working with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 8, 2025
This is a good thing. pic.twitter.com/VyzsMUmesv
This seems drastic, maybe start somewhere between 20-25 percent and see what happens.
I don't know why more folks just don't consolidate their credit card debt with a personal loan
Debt consolidation destroys your credit score but for some people it would make really good sense. It is, however, like putting a bandaid over a gaping head wound. The behaviors that got you in debt didn't change so when you free up peoples money via consolidation they end up just racking up more debt because they can "afford it".