historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

I understand tariffs, including protective tariffs. It generally bites back in the form of higher consumer prices and other negative ramifications.

Now, if Trump is serious about ending the income tax and the IRS, then it could mean the transition to an entirely different tax structure. That's another story and might work. But that's a dramatic change and it's probably impossible to predict all of the consequences. It's also a gamble and unlikely to be a smooth process.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

SCOOP: BMW North America will be “eating” the cost of tariffs

The automaker announced it will be *price-protecting* dealer pipeline vehicles.

This is huge.

In other words, BMW will absorb the costs incurred from the new 25% tariff on imports from Mexico & Canada.

Affected…

— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) March 13, 2025

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

I understand tariffs, including protective tariffs. It generally bites back in the form of higher consumer prices and other negative ramifications.

Now, if Trump is serious about ending the income tax and the IRS, then it could mean the transition to an entirely different tax structure. That's another story and might work. But that's a dramatic change and it's probably impossible to predict all of the consequences. It's also a gamble and unlikely to be a smooth process.

---

the macroeconomic effects of the tariffs Trump has announced are, macroeconomically speaking, trivial. Remember, only 15% of our economy is trade related. And a lot of that number is not finished goods, just parts and pieces of things assembled here.

What the tariffs will do is force manufacturers to invest here if they want to play here.
We've done that before (1970's with Japanese automakers)......

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

nein51 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

ScottS said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

Except you as the consumer can decide to buy a different countries product and NOT pay the new price. You could say now buy American products if you want.

---

That's the goal of protectionist tariffs. However, long term the trend is for prices across the board to go up. Competitor will charge more because they can. Also, there are many other dynamics in the economy at work.

---

Only if the US prices are competitive. The Walmart situation is saying that negotiating with the Chinese is more cost efficient than working with US companies to replace the Chinese now higher priced items. That is a problem. Either the US products are still not competitively priced even with a tariff or there is no US product to substitute.

The only thing this exercise shows me is where the US needs improve. I HOPE there is some type of systematic review and documentation going on and some type of plan to address it. This would be an interesting exercise. Is GAO allowed to do such identification or since they are a Govt Agency they should stay out of it?

---

Cheap manufacturing is never coming back to the U.S. because of meaningful regulations (like OSHA). Some items can be made here for a reasonable cost.

However, I'll give you an example from my tire days. We had a factory in OKC. It cost more to produce a tire there than to produce it in Brazil, put it on a boat, pay import taxes, put it on a rail to a DC then a truck from the DC to customer. The plant in OKC was completely tax abated as well. That's the kind of costs we are talking about.

---

Just to add to your story and the broader picture, the US doesn't grow rubber trees at any significant level due to the climate here. Meanwhile, Brazil has one of the largest sources of natural rubber (sap). That is what's called a comparative advantage. Something some of these folks don't seem to understand when you're talking global trade. You secure good relationships with countries like Brazil so you have a reliable partner and supply.

Probably not telling you something you didn't know or agree with, but thought was relevant to your story.

---

We owned a rubber tree plantation in Liberia for this reason

---

Spent a little time in Monrovia. The town was so nasty that I stayed on the ship most of the time while we "reflagged" our ships at the embassy.

---

Why?

Its a country founded on the exact copy of the American system of government.

I guess it just does not have the right "magic dirt" for sustained Democracy and Development.

[The text of Liberia's constitution is similar to the text of the U.S. Constitution]

[the flag of Liberia bears a strong resemblance to the flag of the United States, featuring similar red and white stripes and a blue square in the upper left corner, with a single white star representing Liberia's status as the first independent republic in Africa.]

[Liberia was founded by....Americans in the 1800s, who modeled many state institutions on American ones]

Just impossible to figure out what is different about the place....

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

nein51 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

ScottS said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

Except you as the consumer can decide to buy a different countries product and NOT pay the new price. You could say now buy American products if you want.

---

That's the goal of protectionist tariffs. However, long term the trend is for prices across the board to go up. Competitor will charge more because they can. Also, there are many other dynamics in the economy at work.

---

Only if the US prices are competitive. The Walmart situation is saying that negotiating with the Chinese is more cost efficient than working with US companies to replace the Chinese now higher priced items. That is a problem. Either the US products are still not competitively priced even with a tariff or there is no US product to substitute.

The only thing this exercise shows me is where the US needs improve. I HOPE there is some type of systematic review and documentation going on and some type of plan to address it. This would be an interesting exercise. Is GAO allowed to do such identification or since they are a Govt Agency they should stay out of it?

---

Cheap manufacturing is never coming back to the U.S. because of meaningful regulations (like OSHA). Some items can be made here for a reasonable cost.

However, I'll give you an example from my tire days. We had a factory in OKC. It cost more to produce a tire there than to produce it in Brazil, put it on a boat, pay import taxes, put it on a rail to a DC then a truck from the DC to customer. The plant in OKC was completely tax abated as well. That's the kind of costs we are talking about.

---

Just to add to your story and the broader picture, the US doesn't grow rubber trees at any significant level due to the climate here. Meanwhile, Brazil has one of the largest sources of natural rubber (sap). That is what's called a comparative advantage. Something some of these folks don't seem to understand when you're talking global trade. You secure good relationships with countries like Brazil so you have a reliable partner and supply.

Probably not telling you something you didn't know or agree with, but thought was relevant to your story.

---

We owned a rubber tree plantation in Liberia for this reason

---

Spent a little time in Monrovia. The town was so nasty that I stayed on the ship most of the time while we "reflagged" our ships at the embassy.

---

Why?

Its a country founded on the exact copy of the American system of government.

I guess it just does not have the right "magic dirt" for sustained Democracy and Development.

[The text of Liberia's constitution is similar to the text of the U.S. Constitution]

[the flag of Liberia bears a strong resemblance to the flag of the United States, featuring similar red and white stripes and a blue square in the upper left corner, with a single white star representing Liberia's status as the first independent republic in Africa.]

[Liberia was founded by....Americans in the 1800s, who modeled many state institutions on American ones]

Just impossible to figure out what is different about the place....

---

there is no public trash service. Everybody burns their own. And the main roads are lined with smoldering windrows of trash......leaves, banana peels, scrap paper, chicken feathers, etc..... (chickens run loose everywhere....) It's hot enough and humid enough that spontaneous combustion starts. Just like green hay baled too early. all of it results in a pall of smoke hanging over the city. Part of it is that Monrovia is a multicultural city - people from all 13 tribes living together. So there is no overriding cultural ethic at play. You go to a village upcountry, and they are all spotless. Ladies bent over sweeping the dirt clean of debris several yards around the village. (this helps keep the bugs & rodents at bay, which keeps the cobras at bay).

to this day, if I hear chickens & smell smoke, my mind transports back to Monrovia.

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

70% of Japanese vehicles sold in America are imported.

---

you have it exactly backwards.
https://www.allamericanmade.com/where-are-toyotas-made/

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ontario Premier Doug Ford announces he’s adding a 25% surcharge on the electricity exported from Ontario to Minnesota, Michigan and New York.

He added “if the United States escalates, I won’t hesitate to shut the electricity off completely”

🇺🇸🇨🇦 pic.twitter.com/R9E2mIZqy3

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 11, 2025

---

To arbitrarily cut of all electricity to our states would obviously violate various contracts.

Would be an act of war.

In case of such draconian actions I would not fault Trump if he decides to commit paratroopers and take over those facilities in Ontario.

I half expect this to happen.

---

You are okay with going to war with Canada? That will make Trump no better than Putin. Trump's quest for new territory (Greenland, Canada, etc.) is quite troubling.

---

If Ontario willfully fails to provide electricity to the populations of three of our states despite viable contracts………that is in reality an act of war.

Hell yes I am ok with defending our citizens.

---

Warren Buffett considers tariffs an act of war. I agree with him.

If there are valid contracts in place at a set price for x amount of megawatts for months/ years, it seems to me that Donald Trump and the United States have violated the contract(s) by just Willy Nilly jacking up tariffs.

Trump's treatment of Mexico and Canada is atrocious. Neither are our enemy. Trump is certainly not treating them like allies. Would sure hate to see both countries cozy up to China/ Russia/ N. Korea because of Trump's arrogance. The world is a dangerous place. Trump should try just a little bit of diplomacy here. We need more allies, - not fewer.

---

You dont get what Trump is doing. He is bringing everything back to the USA. He wants us to be as self sufficient as possible, moving as far away from the globalist experiment of George Soros as quickly as possible. Look back at every single thing that he has done.

---

The scariest part about all of this is that Trump does not realize who actually pays the tariffs. Or he doesn't want to acknowledge it.

The tariffs are paid by the importer of record, which is mostly American companies and Americans. This is why higher inflation will be a highly probable outcome.

---

Do you consider the astronomical tarriffs on our ag products that Canada has as an act of war

---

You should be more concerned about the 60 percent + of produce we import from Mexico. Retailers have already told Trump prices are going up. Trump's response? He does not care. Get ready for Covid era pricing at the grocery store. Let them eat cake (very expensive cake). Unforced error by Trump.

Trump can't blame this fiasco on anybody but himself. It is funny to watch Trump's cheerleaders proclaim that no recession is coming. Kind of gives me flashbacks of Janet Yellin's "Inflation is transitory" stance. I am very disappointed in Larry Kudlow. He should know better.

---

he doesn't care because he doesn't need to.

When you are running a trade deficit, you are in the drivers seat in a trade war. The other guy has his entire market at risk. Canada gets hurt worse in a trade war because they are running a trade surplus with us. That's a law of gravity working against Canada, and they will cave first (because they have no choice but to do so).

it's no accident Trump is calling Canada the 51st state. The Canadian & Mexican economies are so tied to the US economy that they are, in macroeconomic terms, the 51st and 52nd state. They cannot just pivot & sell elsewhere in enough time to avoid economic calamity. Here's the key facts:
Trade is 67% of Canadian GDP (3/4ths of it with USA) = trade with USA is HALF of the Canadian economy.
Trade is 74% of Mexican GDP (2/3rd of it with USA) = trade with USA is HALF of the Mexican economy
Trade is 15% of United States GDP (don't need to go any further than that.)

Canada and Mexico are in a gunfight armed with a plastic knife.
The outcome is foreordained.

---

Intentionally depressing the global economy via tariffs impacts everyone. There are things he has placed tariffs on that we don't grow anywhere in the U.S. or manufacture anywhere, but are part of supply chains of U.S. companies production of higher value outputs. This is insanity and unnecessary.

You know damn well we aren't even remotely prepared to take on the production of things like lower grade steel and mining because we decided regulatory, labor, and environmental concerns are the priority.

---

it is amazing to see so many reflexive fallacious arguments.

Threats of tariffs are not permanent tariffs.
Emplacing targeted tariffs to force concessions is not permanent tariffs.
Why is it ok for our trading partners to tariff us, and only a problem when we announce reciprocal tariffs?
How do we re-incentivize production of steel in the US if we don't do anything at all?
Did you not hear all the things Zeldin announced yesterday on regulatory changes?
Have you been asleep on Drill Baby Drill (as a way of lowering energy costs, which will help manufacturers).

I could go on with that for a while.......

What you're saying is, change is painful so we should just hunker down and manage the decline.

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

Except you as the consumer can decide to buy a different countries product and NOT pay the new price. You could say now buy American products if you want.

---

What if the American product relies upon some imported goods to produce and is now more expensive than before?

---

that is an example of conflating incremental costs with paradigm changes.

Trade is 15% of our GDP. So any cost increases from eliminating trade cannot, by definition, must be multiplied (1-time) by .15 to get net effect on macroeconomy. In other words, DOUBLING the cost of all imported goods would be a one-time 15% increase in cost to our economy. In a real world, the net cost increases are very small percentages. That's because GLOBALISM WORKED. It built dozens of developed (or nearly so) economies around the world, which do not have the kinds of significant cost advantages they did decades ago.

We want those companies to build plants here. Trump's tariff threats have already prompted TRILLIONS of dollars of direct investment that was scheduled to occur in other countries.

When they invest here, they lobby for pro-business policies.
When they import here, they like anti-business policies.

Like most globalist arguments, your posts reflectively avert gaze from macroeconomy. If you don't look big picture, you'll never see it.

---

historian said:

---

---

Kash Patel CONFIRMS Judge Juan Merchan should have never been assigned to Donald Trump’s case

Kash Patel “I'm calling for the subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchant's Daughter's company who made $15+ million dollars from the illicit information pouring out of her father's… pic.twitter.com/ED7ENWVFaP

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 14, 2025

🚨 BREAKING: Major political UPSET in Greenland as center-right party wins election. Anti-American leftists OUT, pro-business reformers IN.

Here's what you need to know... 🧵 pic.twitter.com/hCPj0Zw2px

— Rod D. Martin (@RodDMartin) March 12, 2025

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

Except you as the consumer can decide to buy a different countries product and NOT pay the new price. You could say now buy American products if you want.

---

What if the American product relies upon some imported goods to produce and is now more expensive than before?

---

that is an example of conflating incremental costs with paradigm changes.

Trade is 15% of our GDP. So any cost increases from eliminating trade cannot, by definition, must be multiplied (1-time) by .15 to get net effect on macroeconomy. In other words, DOUBLING the cost of all imported goods would be a one-time 15% increase in cost to our economy. In a real world, the net cost increases are very small percentages. That's because GLOBALISM WORKED. It built dozens of developed (or nearly so) economies around the world, which do not have the kinds of significant cost advantages they did decades ago.

We want those companies to build plants here. Trump's tariff threats have already prompted TRILLIONS of dollars of direct investment that was scheduled to occur in other countries.

When they invest here, they lobby for pro-business policies.
When they import here, they like anti-business policies.

Like most globalist arguments, your posts reflectively avert gaze from macroeconomy. If you don't look big picture, you'll never see it.

---

nein51 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

Except you as the consumer can decide to buy a different countries product and NOT pay the new price. You could say now buy American products if you want.

---

What if the American product relies upon some imported goods to produce and is now more expensive than before?

---

that is an example of conflating incremental costs with paradigm changes.

Trade is 15% of our GDP. So any cost increases from eliminating trade cannot, by definition, must be multiplied (1-time) by .15 to get net effect on macroeconomy. In other words, DOUBLING the cost of all imported goods would be a one-time 15% increase in cost to our economy. In a real world, the net cost increases are very small percentages. That's because GLOBALISM WORKED. It built dozens of developed (or nearly so) economies around the world, which do not have the kinds of significant cost advantages they did decades ago.

We want those companies to build plants here. Trump's tariff threats have already prompted TRILLIONS of dollars of direct investment that was scheduled to occur in other countries.

When they invest here, they lobby for pro-business policies.
When they import here, they like anti-business policies.

Like most globalist arguments, your posts reflectively avert gaze from macroeconomy. If you don't look big picture, you'll never see it.

---

Increasing the 'COGS' by 15%, one time or going forward, is not going to be enough to re-establish domestic production on about 95% of the items we consume. You're going to have to double or triple many of those costs to make the math math.

---

You're fighting a losing battle with people who seemingly don't understand that a certain level of margin is needed to continue operations and if COGS goes up price will go up accordingly because companies and shareholders won't accept margin declines resulting in profit declines.

That doesn't begin to tackle the fact that a decent percentage of stuff we consume can't be made here currently and the capital needed may not bring those products online for 2-3 years or more.

Which also doesn't address the real monkey in the room…a lot of American made stuff is fing junk. "Made in America" doesn't mean what it did in 1950. While that's not true of all American goods it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them.

---

The Biden Administration exploited the CBP One app to allow more than 1 million aliens to illegally enter the United States. @Sec_Noem restored integrity to our immigration system with the launch of the CBP Home app. Now, illegal aliens can use the app to report their… pic.twitter.com/yxzDPqOWyW

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 14, 2025

excuse me what pic.twitter.com/8nPcsCdz8r

— Mike Solana (@micsolana) March 13, 2025

🚨 911. I need to report the m*rder of CNN.

REP. MCCLAIN (R): "Look at your show. It's nothing but fearmongering. That's all the Democrats do. What's inflation doing? Is inflation up or down? Oh, it's down." pic.twitter.com/3HK3nVhlYY

"What's the prices of eggs? Oh, they're down.…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 14, 2025

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

I understand tariffs, including protective tariffs. It generally bites back in the form of higher consumer prices and other negative ramifications.

Now, if Trump is serious about ending the income tax and the IRS, then it could mean the transition to an entirely different tax structure. That's another story and might work. But that's a dramatic change and it's probably impossible to predict all of the consequences. It's also a gamble and unlikely to be a smooth process.

---

the macroeconomic effects of the tariffs Trump has announced are, macroeconomically speaking, trivial. Remember, only 15% of our economy is trade related. And a lot of that number is not finished goods, just parts and pieces of things assembled here.

What the tariffs will do is force manufacturers to invest here if they want to play here.
We've done that before (1970's with Japanese automakers)......

---

The 1970s economy was mostly disastrous. There were multiple causes, especially stupid govt policies. Tariffs were likely one of them although probably not nearly as much as Nixon's wage & price controls, two artificial oil shortages, insane levels of govt spending (Great Society & Vietnam), etc.

---

31 MONTHS LATER… https://t.co/YtliJRkucp pic.twitter.com/5zUrGw1DO5

— Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) March 14, 2025

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

I understand tariffs, including protective tariffs. It generally bites back in the form of higher consumer prices and other negative ramifications.

Now, if Trump is serious about ending the income tax and the IRS, then it could mean the transition to an entirely different tax structure. That's another story and might work. But that's a dramatic change and it's probably impossible to predict all of the consequences. It's also a gamble and unlikely to be a smooth process.

---

the macroeconomic effects of the tariffs Trump has announced are, macroeconomically speaking, trivial. Remember, only 15% of our economy is trade related. And a lot of that number is not finished goods, just parts and pieces of things assembled here.

What the tariffs will do is force manufacturers to invest here if they want to play here.
We've done that before (1970's with Japanese automakers)......

---

The 1970s economy was mostly disastrous. There were multiple causes, especially stupid govt policies. Tariffs were likely one of them although probably not nearly as much as Nixon's wage & price controls, two artificial oil shortages, insane levels of govt spending (Great Society & Vietnam), etc.

---

Can't forget US automakers "planned obsolescence."

---

BREAKING: President Trump announces that the leader of ISIS has been k*lled.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) March 15, 2025

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

I understand tariffs, including protective tariffs. It generally bites back in the form of higher consumer prices and other negative ramifications.

Now, if Trump is serious about ending the income tax and the IRS, then it could mean the transition to an entirely different tax structure. That's another story and might work. But that's a dramatic change and it's probably impossible to predict all of the consequences. It's also a gamble and unlikely to be a smooth process.

---

the macroeconomic effects of the tariffs Trump has announced are, macroeconomically speaking, trivial. Remember, only 15% of our economy is trade related. And a lot of that number is not finished goods, just parts and pieces of things assembled here.

What the tariffs will do is force manufacturers to invest here if they want to play here.
We've done that before (1970's with Japanese automakers)......

---

The 1970s economy was mostly disastrous. There were multiple causes, especially stupid govt policies. Tariffs were likely one of them although probably not nearly as much as Nixon's wage & price controls, two artificial oil shortages, insane levels of govt spending (Great Society & Vietnam), etc.

---

Can't forget US automakers "planned obsolescence."

---

Excellent point! American automakers were engineering parts to wear out quickly while the Japanese automakers concentrated on quality. The U.S. consumer sided with quality.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

70% of Japanese vehicles sold in America are imported.

---

you have it exactly backwards.
https://www.allamericanmade.com/where-are-toyotas-made/

---

That didn't say what you thought it did. Unless Mexico and Canada are part of the U.S.

---

BREAKING:

Zelensky says the Russian Army is amassing forces on the border with Ukraine’s Sumy region and are likely preparing an invasion into a new area of Ukraine.

The Russians also attacked Sumy in February 2022 but were later pushed out by the Ukrainian Army. pic.twitter.com/TxS0E0A2e4

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 15, 2025

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Leavitt: Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries and a tax cut for the American people

Reporter: Have you ever paid a tariff? I have. They don’t get charged on foreign countries

Leavitt: I think it’s insulting that you are trying test my knowledge on economics pic.twitter.com/usJyrfEZFP

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 11, 2025

---

She is wrong. In the final analysis, the consumer pays all tariffs. The companies who buy the products and then sell them here in America pass on the increased costs through higher prices. It's inevitable.

It's all political theater.

---

same is true for taxes.

the point of tariffs is to increase the cost of imported goods, to make them less competitive against domestically produced goods. And looming tariffs can have significant impact on investment decisions (as we have seen numerous times to our advantage in the last few weeks). Manufacturers can on longer count on reflexive US aversion to tariffs. The only way to hedge against that risk is to invest in MANUFACTURING in the USA (to ensure access to the US market).

Nothing new here. We did that in the 70s with Japanese automakers, and now most Japanese brand vehicles sold here are made here. Trump is merely trying to force that same dynamic on other sectors now.

---

70% of Japanese vehicles sold in America are imported.

---

you have it exactly backwards.
https://www.allamericanmade.com/where-are-toyotas-made/

---

That didn't say what you thought it did. Unless Mexico and Canada are part of the U.S.

---

You apparently missed this sentence.
"An estimated 69 percent of all the Japanese vehicles made for the US were made in the United States."

Now, you could drill down a little further and note another fact which mitigates the first - vehicles made in the USA (including by US companies) have up to 25% imported content. In fact, that is a more important datum. Direct importation of 100% foreign content items is not exactly representative of the total. in no small part, that's because of what I have referred to (and you have ignored) over and over - countries typically will demand on-shore production when trade generates excessive demands. countries typically do not want to offshore entire industries. They want the jobs created at home. There are numbers of reasons for that, to include pressure from political constituencies as well as national security concerns (the ability to mobilize for war). I say again, trade policy ALWAYS serves national security policy.

All those Japanese manufacturing plants are here because of trade agreements negotiated in the 1970's and 1980's. Trump is merely doing what Reagan did = demanding a greater percentage of on-shore production of goods sold in the USA.

---

Popular take from the Left:

If u had eliminated the filibuster & voted for everything that the Left wanted, the threat of the filibuster being used by Rs would never happen bc Ds would win every election & have a permanent majority.

What a breathtakingly undemocratic take. https://t.co/G6m9rlCtvR

— Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) March 15, 2025

Footage has emerged of ICE arresting the Palestinian Columbia University protest leader Mahmoud Khalil.

These types are arrests are starting of foreign students supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas or disrupting peace on campus for other students pic.twitter.com/GZ1x2HxKTf

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 15, 2025