Trump's first 100 days

121,549 Views | 3121 Replies | Last: 49 min ago by whiterock
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:




Counter point is that the more radical leftists are probably correct

Had they eliminated the filibuster and forced through mass amnesty of the Biden mass migration wave they could well have created the semi-one party oligarchy they have always wanted (8 million migrants at least entered under his regime)

Just like in Mexico (where the leftist PRI was in power for 70 years)

And South Africa (where the leftist ANC has been in power for 34 years)

The Trump election would not have been possible if Biden was able to legalize the liberal approved mass invasion
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump taking it to the Iranian proxies


historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Because the fascists love economic & political chaos.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://notthebee.com/article/former-columbia-prof-and-un-judge-found-guilty-for-slavery-in-the-united-kingdom
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


Owww...

Be thankful if you have 10 years left before retirement... If not, ouch.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:



The "Democrats" are anything but. They are the least "democratic" political organization in the country. They only win by lying, cheating & stealing. That's how they do everything these days. Those who have done shred of honesty, decency, or integrity leave the party and become Republicans or something else.

They are fascists. In their ideology, tactics, attitudes, arrogance, bigotry, greed, criminality, obsession with power, untrustworthiness with power, dishonesty, complete lack of integrity, and every other trait they are fascist. Their loony foot soldiers (BLM, antifa, etc) or more like the black shirts or the brown shirts from a century ago.

The are fascists.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



No industry or company should allow itself to be that dependent on government contracts. Especially if is a govt that wastes taxpayer money the way ours has for so long, has generated a huge groundswell of opposition to the waste & fraud that went with it, & has & 36 trillion in debt. If this is true, the airlines needed a new business model and better leaders, particularly not woke.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


The VCLU, Venezuelan Civil Liberties Union
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Add it to the list of overturned orders
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

Add it to the list of overturned orders
Watch my left hand while my right hand pounds you into submission...

Donald J. Trump
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

historian said:

whiterock said:

historian said:

whiterock said:

historian said:

boognish_bear said:



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.

Revisionist history. The U.S. consumer sided with price. Early Japanese cars undercut U.S. offerings by quite a bit because the models were incredibly downsized. That worked well in the has crunch era. Most early Japanese cars were junk. Hondas literally rotted away it's why it's near impossible to fine a good early Honda in this country. Quality came later.

That same model has been used many times. Early Kia's were junk coated piles of junk. They didn't get better until later.

Entry to the U.S. market is almost always always a price first. Once people start buying then you can raise prices.


Was that true of Toyota as well? From what I can remember it seems like they have always been good quality. But I don't know much about their 1980s models and earlier.

Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

nein51 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

EatMoreSalmon said:

historian said:

whiterock said:

historian said:

whiterock said:

historian said:

boognish_bear said:



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.

Revisionist history. The U.S. consumer sided with price. Early Japanese cars undercut U.S. offerings by quite a bit because the models were incredibly downsized. That worked well in the has crunch era. Most early Japanese cars were junk. Hondas literally rotted away it's why it's near impossible to fine a good early Honda in this country. Quality came later.

That same model has been used many times. Early Kia's were junk coated piles of junk. They didn't get better until later.

Entry to the U.S. market is almost always always a price first. Once people start buying then you can raise prices.


Was that true of Toyota as well? From what I can remember it seems like they have always been good quality. But I don't know much about their 1980s models and earlier.



First Toyotas were sold in 57 and 58. They were essentially scaled down, cheap copies of classic Americana (Chevy/Ford). They didn't sell well at all.

The Land Cruiser FJ25 was the first model that had even modest sales. It was basically a civilian Jeep.

The remainder of their history is similar to Honda. The Corona in 1965 (later became the Corolla) was a compact much smaller than the Detroit offerings and their first real seller.
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jacques Strap said:


Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

boognish_bear said:

They are lost at sea


Completely lost with no self awareness.


AOC continues to market herself brilliantly.

Currently on a speaking tour with ol' Bernie.

Fully expect her to run for the Senate within 6-8 years at the latest.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:



whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

whiterock said:

ATL Bear said:

whiterock said:

ATL Bear said:

whiterock said:

historian said:

boognish_bear said:



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.


It's an incorrect stat, probably because the article was focused on Toyota. 70% are manufactured in North America not America. Japan imports nearly 30% of their cars sold in America from Mexico into the U.S., with some like Mazda and others highly import heavy. Toyota happens to be the best performer in U.S. production. But as if to prove my macro point, even Toyota with its best performance, produced 25,000 jobs over that long horizon of negotiation. Yet we're applying tariffs that impact millions of US employees, and companies will adjust staffing to profitability.

uh, not quite.

Fed stats say unit sales of vehicles have hovered around 17m per year.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA
Other stats indicate, unit sales of imported vehicles are about 7m per year.
https://www.usimportdata.com/blogs/top-us-car-imports-by-country-in-2024
That's about a 60-40 ratio (varying from year to year).

The point of the tariffs is to force companies to move greater percentages of their production to the US market. No one wants to be shut out of the US market. They will more likely increase production here to avoid the (higher) cost of tariffs. Several such moves have already been announced. You will see more in the future. Every company wants a stable supply chain, and the best way to ensure that is to move production closer to markets. Wouldn't it be better if that 60-40 split went the other way around?

90% of cars made in Mexico and Canada are exported to USA.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2025/03/13/volkswagen-bmw-make-preparations-tariffs/82375652007/
Why must that be the natural order of things? Does Canada REALLY have dramatically lower costs? (No). Wouldn't it be better if those cars were made here? We do want jobs HERE, don't we? Voters do. that's one reason why many of them voted for Trump......to ignore the nincompoops arguing bad trade policy - that others can tariff us but we can't tariff them.

Note that link cites BMW as planning to absorb tariff costs. Why would they do that?
Heard a radio report that VW will do the same.
Why would they do that?
(perhaps due to subsidies from their own governments......)
Doesn't that undercut the argument that tariffs are direct cost burdens on consumers?
Doesn't that highlight the level the degree to which subsidy and VAT et al of our trading partners disadvantage US producers?

among the key concepts you are ignoring is this: trade is about JOBS (not about cheap goods). Governments negotiate trade agreement to promote job growth in their countries and protect the ones they already have.

"The only sustainable growth is export-led growth." If I heard my professors say that once, I heard it a thousand times. That's what Trump is trying to get to. How do you get to export-led growth if you do not engage in the same kinds of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade employed by your trading partners? Sure, everybody reducing everything to zero is preferred, but that's not terribly realistic. Reality is everybody does everything they can to protect/promote domestic employment. Except the USA. Until now.....

In a cold war context, tolerating trade imbalance had strategic benefits - tying allies to us economically. Without that Cold War context, tolerating trade imbalance is imbecility defined.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.