In 1988, the starting wage at one of Caterpillar’s unionized, Midwestern factories was $14.04. In 2023, the starting wage at that same job was $17.00. https://t.co/uN6uO4yVZB
— Brandon Magner (@BrandonMagner) May 7, 2025
April 2nd Reciprocal Tariffs
310,312 Views |
3993 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by J.R.
The **** it is. I have a CAT stop I see every Monday. The guys in that place are making almost $40/hr
Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
[BREAKING] Ford hikes prices on Mexico-built models after tariff hit:
— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) May 7, 2025
Effective May 2, Ford is raising prices by up to $2K on the Mustang Mach-E, Maverick, and Bronco Sport.
Vehicles built after that date will land at U.S. dealerships starting late June.
Ford says the hikes…
ANTIFA paid actor
I’m sure it was terrifying. Not really , the entire event was a complete setup. Many in government who push the January 6 narrative were likely involved in orchestrating it. pic.twitter.com/VTFKdiI1gX
— I’m No Angel (@HappyCamper2626) May 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!
can't be. I thought tariffs weren't a tax on consumer according to many Trumpians here. So much winning.boognish_bear said:[BREAKING] Ford hikes prices on Mexico-built models after tariff hit:
— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) May 7, 2025
Effective May 2, Ford is raising prices by up to $2K on the Mustang Mach-E, Maverick, and Bronco Sport.
Vehicles built after that date will land at U.S. dealerships starting late June.
Ford says the hikes…
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Assassin said:
SHOCKED I tell ya. I don't know whether to believe ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT or WAPO
They all seem sincere
Assassin said:
Same people that fell for that willingly vaxxed repeatedly
J.R. said:can't be. I thought tariffs weren't a tax on consumer according to many Trumpians here. So much winning.boognish_bear said:[BREAKING] Ford hikes prices on Mexico-built models after tariff hit:
— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) May 7, 2025
Effective May 2, Ford is raising prices by up to $2K on the Mustang Mach-E, Maverick, and Bronco Sport.
Vehicles built after that date will land at U.S. dealerships starting late June.
Ford says the hikes…
Oil prices have skyrocketed
Oops
Oh wait. That short was EPIC
Powell: If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they're likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth and an increase in unemployment pic.twitter.com/uwkIegZzgz
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 7, 2025
Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
Because endless wars overseas and unconstitutional surveillance state tyranny are not freedom.
The Founding Fathers would hate you.
We knew their views on that and many other subjects
Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
Because endless wars overseas and unconstitutional surveillance state tyranny are not freedom.
The Founding Fathers would hate you.
We knew their views on that and many other subjects
Currently reading The Years of Lyndon Johnson-Master of the Senate.
A Pulitzer Prize Winner by Robert A Caro.
He begins by discussing how the Founding Fathers absolutely did not trust the electorate . That they were governed by their 'passions'.
So to safeguard the Republic members of the senate were elected by their STATE LEGISLATORS……not the eligible voters.
Keep in mind the only eligible voters at that time were white men who owned real estate.
And the Founding Fathers STILL didn't trust them to vote intelligently.
Just imagine what the Founding Fathers would think of our current political electorate.
Which by the way, they predicted would happen eventually and result in the complete destruction of our freedoms.
LIB,MR BEARS said:Assassin said:
SHOCKED I tell ya. I don't know whether to believe ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT or WAPO
They all seem sincere
But you will believe Project Veritas?
Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
Because endless wars overseas and unconstitutional surveillance state tyranny are not freedom.
The Founding Fathers would hate you.
We knew their views on that and many other subjects
Why do you think I support endless wars? Or the Patriot Act?
no markets have been killed. Not one.Mitch Blood Green said:Could they have begun trade negotiations without killing markets for farmers and ranchers? I would never set my neighbor's house on fire and have it spread to my home because he doesn't cut his grass.LIB,MR BEARS said:boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇨🇳🇺🇸 China confirms plans to begin trade negotiations with the United States. pic.twitter.com/0axmbLeBaV
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 6, 2025
This can't be true. So many here said it would never happen.
Watcher Guru is the new Babylon Bee. It's the only thing that makes since.
geez.....
Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
Because endless wars overseas and unconstitutional surveillance state tyranny are not freedom.
The Founding Fathers would hate you.
We knew their views on that and many other subjects
Why do you think I support endless wars? Or the Patriot Act?
The only side in DC trying to undo those things is the MAGA faction (a MAGA rep. just today introduced legislation to kill the unconstitutional Patriot act)
And of course it's the MAGA faction you really hate.
Interesting how that works….
KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
Because endless wars overseas and unconstitutional surveillance state tyranny are not freedom.
The Founding Fathers would hate you.
We knew their views on that and many other subjects
Currently reading The Years of Lyndon Johnson-Master of the Senate.
A Pulitzer Prize Winner by Robert A Caro.
He begins by discussing how the Founding Fathers absolutely did not trust the electorate . That they were governed by their 'passions'.
So to safeguard the Republic members of the senate were elected by their STATE LEGISLATORS……not the eligible voters.
Keep in mind the only eligible voters at that time were white men who owned real estate.
And the Founding Fathers STILL didn't trust them to vote intelligently.
Just imagine what the Founding Fathers would think of our current political electorate.
Which by the way, they predicted would happen eventually and result in the complete destruction of our freedoms.
Indeed the Senate was made to represent the States
Interesting enough it was the party bosses that wanted that change. And progressives of the time.
I will have to find the article that talked about it.
Essentially the Democratic and GOP party machine bosses really did not like the yokels in the State legislatures electing the Senators. They did not like to deal with those hicks at all.
And making Senate elections into direct elections would increase the power of the party machines and their money supply/donor lists.
"Nationalizing" something that used to be very local
PS
Interesting enough you only hear arguments against it from conservatives…it's progressive who love direct elections to the Senate that cut out the State legislatures
And in truth the 17th amendment basically failed to accomplish what it promised anyway.
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/17th-amendment-weakened-balance-power-between-states-federal-government
[In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate also has participated in lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman."]
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/05/democratizing-constitution-failure-seventeenth-amendment.html
It is amazing to me that the Trump loyalists have not yet figured out that "The entire world has ripped us off for 50 years" actually translates to Americans have been able to purchase inexpensive products from the whole world for 50 years and I am going to put a stop to that.
Call it a tax, and the people are outraged! Call it a tariff and they get out their checkbook and wave the American flag. I really don't care where my toilet plunger and fidget spinners are made.
Call it a tax, and the people are outraged! Call it a tariff and they get out their checkbook and wave the American flag. I really don't care where my toilet plunger and fidget spinners are made.
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
whiterock said:no markets have been killed. Not one.Mitch Blood Green said:Could they have begun trade negotiations without killing markets for farmers and ranchers? I would never set my neighbor's house on fire and have it spread to my home because he doesn't cut his grass.LIB,MR BEARS said:boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇨🇳🇺🇸 China confirms plans to begin trade negotiations with the United States. pic.twitter.com/0axmbLeBaV
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 6, 2025
This can't be true. So many here said it would never happen.
Watcher Guru is the new Babylon Bee. It's the only thing that makes since.
geez.....
How much beef is China buying from the US? How many planes is Boeing selling to China?
You think Airbus or Australia is going to lose those markets when this passes?
Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:Didnt something happen on that already and they did some legislation about price-gauging?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This scenario will play out with thousands of companies across the country. Companies not affected by tariffs are going to raise prices. Why? Because they can. Everything is going up. Most of the proles have not figured that out yet.Assassin said:Hallmark is handing out new pricing sheets to customers in their stores and telling everyone it’s because of Trump’s tariffs
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 7, 2025
🚨 After being told this she looked it up online, it says Hallmark manufactures in Kansas. She called corporate, they confirmed it’s all in Kansas. After… pic.twitter.com/mmiGK63Znn
It is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will want the government to tell American companies how much they can charge for anything outside medicine and national defense, maybe a few other industries.
Freedom isn't as big of a deal for Republicans anymore, but the optics alone would be awful.
Your "freedom" loving faction of the GOP gave us the liberty killing patriot act and a civil rights crushing surveillance regime that would have made the Founding Fathers start shooting
Not to mention endless military interventions in every sand box on earth in service to non-American interests
And of course got into economic bed with one of the most evil and totalitarian States on earth (communist China)
Bush Republicans as "lovers of freedom" is not a funny idea…it's a disgusting lie.
Sorry you can't keep exporting jobs overseas….i know that makes Wall Street mad (the real people Bush Republicans want to defend the freedom of)
I'm just happy you are admitting to not be a part of the "freedom loving faction."
Because endless wars overseas and unconstitutional surveillance state tyranny are not freedom.
The Founding Fathers would hate you.
We knew their views on that and many other subjects
Why do you think I support endless wars? Or the Patriot Act?
The only side in DC trying to undo those things is the MAGA faction (a MAGA rep. just today introduced legislation to kill the unconstitutional Patriot act)
And of course it's the MAGA faction you really hate.
Interesting how that works….
Of course I'm not going to go for a quasi religious branding of Donald Trump. I'm not opposed to him, just willing to call the good and bad how I see it rather than how someone else (like him) tells me to see it.
China will bend the knee. They can't handle tariffs, it's a mathematical impossibility.
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 President Trump to rescind global chip export restrictions.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 7, 2025
China can buy all the beef it wants.Mitch Blood Green said:whiterock said:no markets have been killed. Not one.Mitch Blood Green said:Could they have begun trade negotiations without killing markets for farmers and ranchers? I would never set my neighbor's house on fire and have it spread to my home because he doesn't cut his grass.LIB,MR BEARS said:boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇨🇳🇺🇸 China confirms plans to begin trade negotiations with the United States. pic.twitter.com/0axmbLeBaV
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 6, 2025
This can't be true. So many here said it would never happen.
Watcher Guru is the new Babylon Bee. It's the only thing that makes since.
geez.....
How much beef is China buying from the US? How many planes is Boeing selling to China?
You think Airbus or Australia is going to lose those markets when this passes?
The US is a net food importer.
Australia would love to exploit the current dynamic to steal our share of the beef export market. Unfortunately for them, beef herds don't grow that fast, and accelerating herd growth actually reduces beef production in the immediate term. Today, your cows are starting to cycle and you decide to grow your heard. Ok, fine. There's a 9 month gestation. Then, herd growth deducts zero sum from beef production (i.e. keeping a heifer to breed means you cannot take it to market for slaughter). Then, it takes 12 months for that new born heifer to reach sexual maturity. Then it takes another 9 months for that heifer to reproduce a calf, which wlll take another 14 month so so to hit the abattoir. So assuming the rancher was weaning calves at the moment the tariffs hit, it'd be approx 28 month lag time involve in herd growth assuming timing was perfect, and as many as six months longer than worst case.
So what will happen is the supply lines will shift. Ex: Aussie production aimed for Korea will shift to China, who will pay a premium to induce the shift.. And US beef will fill the gaps created by Aussie shifting.
Businesses are pretty good at scrambling to problem solve, and this problem is not insurmountable.
No babies will starve due to tariffs.
It's already started. Demonstrations occurring there now.Doc Holliday said:
China will bend the knee. They can't handle tariffs, it's a mathematical impossibility.
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 President Trump to announce "major trade deal" with "a big and highly respected country" tomorrow.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 8, 2025
Massive ones. Either they bend the knee or more banks will fail.whiterock said:It's already started. Demonstrations occurring there now.Doc Holliday said:
China will bend the knee. They can't handle tariffs, it's a mathematical impossibility.
boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 President Trump to announce "major trade deal" with "a big and highly respected country" tomorrow.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 8, 2025
Not expecting anything earth shattering.
Your posting style is as antiquated as your economic theories. Sorry to everyone else for the TL;DR, but this political spin and long debunked arguments devoid of any understanding of modern economies and realities needed to be dissected piece by piece.
A short periods of deficits followed by periods of trade surpluses is not a sign of economic weakness. It's the natural order. An escalating structural trade deficit of +50 years is a sign of economic DISTRESS.
You keep repeating the phrase "50 years of trade deficits = economic distress" as if it's a self-evident truth. But let's actually test that against reality. Over the last 50 years, the exact period you're calling economic distress, the United States has quadrupled its real GDP, led the world in innovation, tech, and productivity, attracted more global capital than any other country, maintained the world's reserve currency and deepest capital markets, seen stock market valuations and wealth creation explode, and we have greater manufacturing output on a real level than any point in our history. That's not distress. That's a reflection of our economic strength specifically the strength of our internal consumption, capital access, and stability. We run trade deficits not because we're weak, but because the world wants to invest here more than we want to export. That's a privilege, not a pathology.
And if trade surpluses are the real metric of national health, then maybe you'd like to trade places with Russia or Venezuela. They've run surpluses. How's their "economic vitality" working out? Let's deal in facts not economic nostalgia dressed up as wisdom.
I don't think you realize it, but you just acknowledged what the textbooks say about export-led growth = powerful, sustainable, transformative. If it can transform a poor country with cheap labor, weak currency, and a limited domestic market into a peer competitor of the mightiest nation on earth in scarcely more than 20 years, imagine what it could do for a stronger country! Trade surpluses did not cause the Chinese pathologies you cite. Poor policy decisions did. They chose to invest enormous sums to build their military into a peer competitor of the mightiest nation on earth, rather than build a consumer market. More importantly, they continued the folly of central economic planning.
You're conflating causation with correlation. Export led growth worked for China because it was a poor country (still is in many categories), not in spite of that fact. When you're starting from the bottom, export surpluses can jumpstart industrialization, especially if you have cheap labor, weak currency, and minimal domestic demand. That's not a model for advanced economies. In fact whatever magical outcome you think tariffs are going to create, we will still have SIGNIFICANT trade deficits even after whatever rebalancing occurs, perhaps even more, because our demand way outpaces our capacity.
China's current unraveling is tied to that model. Export dependence without domestic consumption capacity is a brittle system. The moment global demand shifts or geopolitical risks rise, their economy suffers.
Because what we're doing is not sustainable. It is not trade. It is just consumption financed by giving away equity in our assets.
This is straight insanity built around the political lie of how poor things are going for Americans, including middle class and blue collar Americans. You're describing a system that has powered unprecedented wealth creation, global stability, and American dominance for over half a century, and labeling it unsustainable without actual evidence (not political platitudes) it's failing. Running trade deficits is trade. We exchange dollars, which the world demands as the reserve currency, for goods and services. In return, foreign capital flows back into the U.S. to buy treasuries, equities, real estate, or to invest in American businesses. That's not "giving away equity," it's a global vote of confidence in U.S. assets and institutions. Not to mention capital in-flows that creates jobs, just like the type you like to brag about Trump bringing in.
If this arrangement were inherently unsustainable, we would have seen structural decay. Instead, we've seen the U.S. lead the world in GDP growth, capital inflows, technological innovation, and market liquidity. What you're criticizing isn't a flaw, it's a feature of being the financial and consumption center of the global economy.
Tell us you do not understand the subject material without saying you do not understand the subject material. Trade is LESS important to us than our trading partners, for the reason you cited (85% domestic consumption). The problem with the capital inflows is that they involve a loss of equity that escalates pressure on the foundation of the globalist model - the strong dollar. At. Some, Point. the house of cards will collapse. We have to create products to attract foreign held dollars rather than offering up ever greater shares of equities. "Goods for equity" is not trade. It's payment for consumption.
I don't understand the subject?? Are you reading yourself? You say trade is less important to us than to our partners (agreed), then in the same breath act like our entire economic system is teetering on collapse because of a trade deficit that's been with us for five decades… during which we've become the global financial, technological, and investment powerhouse. WTH?? I guess it goes back to your fundamental misunderstanding of the economic reality that we produce Trillions in goods and services that bring in an even greater amount of foreign investment (Trump didn't invent that), not to mention much of it being the same dollars used to purchase imports. What do you think makes up that 85%?? Do you not understand that we're producing and consuming within our borders 85% of our total economic activity? That 85% is more GDP than any country in the world by a matter of several trillions of dollars to the closest (China).
What you cite is not a contradiction. It's a fallacy built on the absolutely insane premise that trade deficits are such a good thing that we must not only continue them but grow them as high as we can! The more we have, the richer we become! (because of all the things we got from handing equity over to foreign interests).
What a complete misrepresentation. No one is saying we should drive trade deficits as high as we can, or that we should aim to maximize them, that's your strawman. What I've pointed out is that trade deficits, particularly for a large, consumption-driven, capital-attracting economy like the U.S., are not inherently destructive. They're a byproduct of our strength, not a symptom of decay.
And again, you still haven't answered the contradiction. If trade is a small portion of our economy, how is the trade deficit supposedly destroying it? You can't say trade is marginal and existential at the same time unless your entire argument is driven by populist talking points rather than economic understanding.
More theory, with implicit assumption that other countries never take any steps (currency, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc...) to restrict our imports or propel their exports. Tariffs reshape demand, to offset unfair trading practices. They give our industries a chance to recover, to grow, to become more efficient, etc..... China does not have the same cost advantage they had 30 years ago. Mexico either. And, of course, Canada and Japan and EU have no inherent labor cost advantage over us at all. I mean, stand back and look at how silly your point is. We were a trade surplus production oriented economy with high tariffs throughout our rise the the mightiest country on earth....the "arsenal of democracy." We didn't have then all those pathologies China has now, did we? I mean, history laughs at what you're trying to sell here.
Theory? You're arguing policy from an outdated library book. You're leaning hard on a romanticized version of U.S. economic history while sidestepping the very real, structural consequences of tariffs in today's globally integrated economy. No one is denying that countries use tools to influence trade, what I'm saying is that the modern global supply chain doesn't respond well to brute force policies like blanket tariffs, because the U.S. economy is now deeply intertwined with those supply chains in ways it wasn't during the 1940s.
Your comparison to the "arsenal of democracy" era is laughably outdated. Back then, the world was rebuilding, we had no global competition, labor costs were artificially low, and we weren't operating in real-time global markets optimized around logistics, speed, and scale. That world doesn't exist anymore.
And no, tariffs don't just "reshape demand", they distort it. They inject cost and uncertainty into systems that rely on efficiency and predictability. A few percentage points of input cost on a key component sourced abroad can ripple through a company's pricing, margins, and ultimately its ability to hire or invest. We're seeing that in real time. And that's before we even talk about retaliation, lost exports, or missed investment due to uncertainty. But the problem to be solved is our competitiveness. Most tariff structures into other countries are relatively low. But we still can't compete unless we produce locally, including in Europe and Asia. Lower tariffs from foreign countries will actually accelerate that, just like with Apple, as it will lower the cost of importing inputs, so producing locally is more economical.
And why is that? Must it always be so? Are you really saying we have no hope of ever making red iron again?
You're proving my point again by skipping over the why and diving headfirst into the what if. The reason we don't have scalable domestic alternatives for many goods isn't because we've somehow forgotten how to produce "red iron," it's because the economics, infrastructure, workforce, and regulatory landscape no longer support it.
Reviving heavy industrial production in the U.S. isn't as simple as waving a tariff wand and chanting "Make Iron Great Again." We're decades removed from the capital investments, skilled labor pipelines, permitting frameworks, and environmental standards that would even make such industries feasible here again. And more importantly, we've moved up the value chain (including in steel). The U.S. specializes in advanced manufacturing, high-value services, and intellectual property precisely because those are our comparative strengths in a modern economy.
You keep pining for a version of America that was built for the 1940s war machine, not the realities of 2025. If you're serious about re-industrializing, start with proposals for skills training, infrastructure overhaul, and regulatory reform. Until then, stop pretending tariffs will magically bring back a supply chain we no longer have and no longer need in the same form.
Never? Why will our robots be more costly to run than Chinese robots? Why must we PLAN on using our AI to design automated production lines in someone else's country?
Thank you again for reinforcing my argument. Yes, automation is the future. Yes, robots, AI, and capital-intensive manufacturing are where things are headed. But here's the part you keep skipping, those sectors don't generate the broad-based, blue-collar job resurgence you keep fantasizing about. They create high-skill, high-efficiency operations with minimal labor input. If you'll simply acknowledge that particular point at least I know we're speaking a similar language.
And if you think it's just a matter of flipping a switch to "robot mode," you've clearly never had to navigate the U.S. regulatory jungle, infrastructure gaps, workforce training shortfalls, or permitting delays. That's why companies building AI driven production lines in the U.S. are still struggling with cost overruns, staffing gaps, and productivity inefficiencies. TSMC in Arizona being exhibit A.
The very reason many of these investments happen abroad isn't because we can't build robots, it's because the entire ecosystem needed to support next gen manufacturing is more functional elsewhere. If we want to change that, the answer isn't punitive tariffs or industrial cosplay. It's targeted investments in infrastructure, skills, and regulatory reform, the very solutions you continually dismiss in favor of short-term coercion. We've put the cart so far ahead of the horse we could face unintended loss of market share as other countries rebalance and we're left with empty rhetorics and years from actual productive capacity.
LOL you are imputing what your argument needs. Hasn't Trump said something about energy dominance, reopening coal plants, turning the EPA into an agency that will help propel growht, etc....? (might not the messaging we do hear belie an agenda to make precisely the changes you cite (correctly) as necessary?) Why do you assume such is NOT happening?
"Hasn't Trump said something" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Oh he's said plenty. About energy dominance, coal, the EPA, even tariffs paying down the national debt and replacing the income tax. You're confusing rhetorical posture with strategic execution. Deregulation and industrial reinvestment don't magically happen because someone tweeted about coal. Real reform means overhauling permitting timelines, environmental reviews, zoning codes, labor credentialing, and skills pipelines, none of which have been meaningfully addressed, let alone reformed, under this administration's chaotic approach. The aforementioned actually requires Congress, and negotiation, and strategic coordination. Enough bombast, let's get to the real work.
LOL we've built an advantage by being an enormous consumer markets that our trade partners cannot do without.....each of them face economic calamity if frozen out of our markets. yes. That is power. But it is not a sustainable position long-term. It is the "too big to fail" model.....a customer that owes so much to the bank that the bankers cannot abandon it without running existential risk.
Ah yes, the "too big to fail" customer theory, as if being the center of global consumption, investment, and innovation is somehow a liability rather than a strength. You're describing what the rest of the world calls leverage. The same leverage that if we didn't have, Trump could just as well be yelling into the ocean in his tariff efforts.
The U.S. economy thrives because it is capital rich, highly productive, and structurally diversified, not because it's trying to match every nation unit-for-unit in basic production. We've built value by leading in design, IP, high-value manufacturing, software, biotech, aerospace, defense systems, cloud infrastructure, and more. These are sectors that not only pay far more than mass assembly labor, but define the global economy. We don't need to replicate Bangladesh's industrial model to remain dominant. We need to maintain what works, and strategically invest where it matters, not burn it all down out of some populist fantasy that economic power only counts if it's pouring molten steel.
Again, you are simply in over your head. How can you not see that the trade deficit facilitates financing of the budget deficit? The trade deficit creates an ocean of surplus dollars abroad seeking a place to call home - T-bills, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc... Surplus USD is what fed the sub-prime crisis.....we were running out of assets to facilitate capital in-flow, to the point we started putting literal junk....loans no sane banker would ever make unless coerced to do so....into mortgage backed securities.
Buddy, you're so lost you're making up invented causations. Invoking the subprime crisis as a byproduct of trade flows? LOL, that's straight fiction. That meltdown was caused by loose domestic credit standards, regulatory blind spots, and financial engineering run amok, not because we imported too many Hyundai Elantras. You're assigning global macro blame to local greed and misregulation. I think it's time to burn your business degrees and maybe catch some classes that understand the world economy after the Internet was deployed.
LOL again, "tell me you don't understand the subject material without saying you don't understand the subject material.
Listen, if you had a serious counterpoint, you'd offer it. But you didn't. Because deep down, you probably know I'm right, you just can't say it out loud without undercutting the whole house of cards argument you've built around tariffs solving problems they were never designed to. The debt crisis in the U.S. is driven by structural entitlement spending, excessive discretionary spending, and a stagnant tax base, not trade deficits. That's not a controversial take, it's fiscal policy 101.
They're not stumbling over it. They stomping it flat as a pancake, because it no longer well serves the common good of the American people.
You're not "stomping" anything flat, you're bulldozing with your eyes closed and calling it vision.
LOL the wish-casting is thinking that continuing to do the same kinds of negotiation within the current model is going to generate different, much less transformative results.
No, the actual wish-casting is believing that lobbing tariffs like grenades while improvising policy on the fly is somehow going to produce a coherent economic renaissance. What you call "transformation" is just chaos in a nice suit. I've been clear about the need for reform with strategic reshoring in critical industries, workforce upskilling, regulatory modernization, and infrastructure investment. That's how you drive transformation. What I reject is the fantasy that disruption for disruption's sake, with no plan, no timelines, no metrics is anything but political theater.
So you say there will be some benefits, but if they don't match the rhetoric they're a failure? (you're flailing....)
No, pointing out the gap between political bluster and actual outcomes isn't flailing, it's basic accountability. When you promise a revolution and deliver a marginal renegotiation, people are allowed to ask what happened to the rest of the plan.
I've said all along some investment? Great. Lower foreign tariffs? Fantastic. But let's not confuse tactical scraps for strategic victories. What you're flailing at is trying to retroactively scale down expectations to match reality, while pretending it was the plan all along. It wasn't. You're selling "industrial revival" and "tariff driven rebalancing." What we're getting is selective reshuffling, higher consumer prices, and a confused policy landscape.
It validates what I have said here repeatedly - "trade policy always serves national security policy." Yes, it would have been nice if we could have brought those jobs home, but we did not have the sills base and infrastructure to do so on such short notice. Soon, thanks to $8T+ in announced foreign investments in (disproportionately tech) production, will be able to do so. But forcing those jobs out of China NOW was a huge win for the US. It was a flexing of muscles to remind our adversary to be very, very careful.
Ah, so now moving Apple's supply chain from China to India, not the U.S., is suddenly a "huge win" for the United States? That's a stretch even for this debate. Certainly a positive but you're stretching for wins. If anything, it underscores the limits of tariffs. They didn't bring jobs home, they rerouted them to the next lowest cost, scalable option. And about that $8 trillion in "announced" investment? Let's be honest, those numbers are inflated political confetti. Much of it is going toward data centers, AI, and automation heavy projects that generate capital efficiency, not widespread job creation. Foreign investment is great, but you don't get to count that as proof of domestic manufacturing revival and complain that we're selling off equity to foreigners in the same breath.
No, it's just shaking you by the collar to quit regurgitating mantras about how globalism will cure all ills at no cost whatsoever.
If there's a collar to shake, it's the one of anyone still buying into the fantasy that slapping tariffs on allies, driving up costs for Americans, and disrupting capital flows will somehow revive a 1950s economic model in a 2025 world. I've put forward actual reform ideas which I won't repeat for the 25th time. You just put forward slogans and a "trust me, it'll work" playbook. Only one of us is thinking beyond the bumper sticker.
We are indeed powerful, but it is because of consumption, not production, and that is an imbalance which we cannot continue. China outstrips us in steel & shipbuilding by margins that are dire and imminent strategic threats. And that is a symptom of a broader problem....we can't rifle-shot a fix for the steel & ships problem unless we just tariff ourselves a protected bubble, in which we would indeed risk the pathologies you have cited about tariffs. We have to work more broadly to bring substantial percentages of production back home. Not all of it. just enough to get to an overall trade balance.
You're right about one thing. This is a broader problem. But your proposed solution of trying to tariff our way back to industrial glory is the economic equivalent of using duct tape to fix a leaking dam.
As for steel and shipbuilding, let's cut through the nostalgia. Those industries declined not because of sabotage or neglect but because other countries outproduced and outsubsidized us, and our economy evolved toward more efficient and high-value sectors. Want to regain some strategic domestic capacity? Fine, especially in defense. Then focus on the real levers, deregulation, permitting reform, skills training, and R&D. Oh yeah, how about some new legislation directing defense dollars in that direction? You claim we can't "rifle-shot" the fix, but that's exactly what's needed, strategic precision, not economic carpet bombing.
LOL why is it ok for others to engage in mercantilism against us and wrong for us to resist it, to try to create a more level field for competition? The trade deficit, its length, size, and its trend, is hardly a sign of strength, it's a sign of economic dysfunction, distress, destruction....
you are correct to cite that the world economy is a big & complicated thing. You are wrong to presume that we cannot change it to our benefit. Doing so cannot be done with an exacto knife. We've got to swing a sledge hammer to crack loose the rusty bolts of an enormous superstructure operating to our disadvantage. I mean, we run a $235B trade deficit with the EU, give them US equities to pay for it, then have to spend borrowed money to go defend the EU from the Houthis. How can we miss the irony in that...?
We cannot fail at this, and we will not. Trump is right on the big picture. He is right on the tactics of how to get there. Watch & wait. "Golden Age of America" is good political messaging for the masses, the kind of narrative building that any successful movement must do. In reality, he's indeed building a new world order.....the old one in which I got a BBA and an MBA is receiving a long-overdue coup d'grace. A new one is going to emerge. Historic times. If you don't quit *****ing, you'll miss it.
Trump as architect of a "new world order," complete with a sledgehammer in one hand and a YouTube diploma in the other. It's amazing how often "strategic brilliance" looks exactly like improvisation, chaos, and economic volatility, but hey, slap "historic times" on it and call it a renaissance.
Let's start with your continued mercantilism dodge. No one's saying we can't always work to improve our position in the global economy. Heck, running an international business, I do it all the time. Nor that we shouldn't push back on unfair trade practices. We do through WTO cases, bilateral agreements, export controls, CFIUS reviews, and strategic investment. But the answer isn't to become the thing you're criticizing, like blanket tariffs, economic self isolation, and "if they cheat, so can we" policies, which are how weak nations like China react, not leaders. And swinging a sledgehammer at the global system that made us the most powerful economy in history is the height of reckless populist theater.
You want a trade surplus with the EU? Make products they need, at competitive prices, under regulatory regimes that don't chase investment away. But no, instead we blame our allies while continuing to flood federal spending through entitlements no one wants to touch and pretending like a trade deficit is what broke the piggy bank.
If your best pitch is, "trust the chaos, it's historic," you've already lost the economic argument.
A short periods of deficits followed by periods of trade surpluses is not a sign of economic weakness. It's the natural order. An escalating structural trade deficit of +50 years is a sign of economic DISTRESS.
You keep repeating the phrase "50 years of trade deficits = economic distress" as if it's a self-evident truth. But let's actually test that against reality. Over the last 50 years, the exact period you're calling economic distress, the United States has quadrupled its real GDP, led the world in innovation, tech, and productivity, attracted more global capital than any other country, maintained the world's reserve currency and deepest capital markets, seen stock market valuations and wealth creation explode, and we have greater manufacturing output on a real level than any point in our history. That's not distress. That's a reflection of our economic strength specifically the strength of our internal consumption, capital access, and stability. We run trade deficits not because we're weak, but because the world wants to invest here more than we want to export. That's a privilege, not a pathology.
And if trade surpluses are the real metric of national health, then maybe you'd like to trade places with Russia or Venezuela. They've run surpluses. How's their "economic vitality" working out? Let's deal in facts not economic nostalgia dressed up as wisdom.
I don't think you realize it, but you just acknowledged what the textbooks say about export-led growth = powerful, sustainable, transformative. If it can transform a poor country with cheap labor, weak currency, and a limited domestic market into a peer competitor of the mightiest nation on earth in scarcely more than 20 years, imagine what it could do for a stronger country! Trade surpluses did not cause the Chinese pathologies you cite. Poor policy decisions did. They chose to invest enormous sums to build their military into a peer competitor of the mightiest nation on earth, rather than build a consumer market. More importantly, they continued the folly of central economic planning.
You're conflating causation with correlation. Export led growth worked for China because it was a poor country (still is in many categories), not in spite of that fact. When you're starting from the bottom, export surpluses can jumpstart industrialization, especially if you have cheap labor, weak currency, and minimal domestic demand. That's not a model for advanced economies. In fact whatever magical outcome you think tariffs are going to create, we will still have SIGNIFICANT trade deficits even after whatever rebalancing occurs, perhaps even more, because our demand way outpaces our capacity.
China's current unraveling is tied to that model. Export dependence without domestic consumption capacity is a brittle system. The moment global demand shifts or geopolitical risks rise, their economy suffers.
Because what we're doing is not sustainable. It is not trade. It is just consumption financed by giving away equity in our assets.
This is straight insanity built around the political lie of how poor things are going for Americans, including middle class and blue collar Americans. You're describing a system that has powered unprecedented wealth creation, global stability, and American dominance for over half a century, and labeling it unsustainable without actual evidence (not political platitudes) it's failing. Running trade deficits is trade. We exchange dollars, which the world demands as the reserve currency, for goods and services. In return, foreign capital flows back into the U.S. to buy treasuries, equities, real estate, or to invest in American businesses. That's not "giving away equity," it's a global vote of confidence in U.S. assets and institutions. Not to mention capital in-flows that creates jobs, just like the type you like to brag about Trump bringing in.
If this arrangement were inherently unsustainable, we would have seen structural decay. Instead, we've seen the U.S. lead the world in GDP growth, capital inflows, technological innovation, and market liquidity. What you're criticizing isn't a flaw, it's a feature of being the financial and consumption center of the global economy.
Tell us you do not understand the subject material without saying you do not understand the subject material. Trade is LESS important to us than our trading partners, for the reason you cited (85% domestic consumption). The problem with the capital inflows is that they involve a loss of equity that escalates pressure on the foundation of the globalist model - the strong dollar. At. Some, Point. the house of cards will collapse. We have to create products to attract foreign held dollars rather than offering up ever greater shares of equities. "Goods for equity" is not trade. It's payment for consumption.
I don't understand the subject?? Are you reading yourself? You say trade is less important to us than to our partners (agreed), then in the same breath act like our entire economic system is teetering on collapse because of a trade deficit that's been with us for five decades… during which we've become the global financial, technological, and investment powerhouse. WTH?? I guess it goes back to your fundamental misunderstanding of the economic reality that we produce Trillions in goods and services that bring in an even greater amount of foreign investment (Trump didn't invent that), not to mention much of it being the same dollars used to purchase imports. What do you think makes up that 85%?? Do you not understand that we're producing and consuming within our borders 85% of our total economic activity? That 85% is more GDP than any country in the world by a matter of several trillions of dollars to the closest (China).
What you cite is not a contradiction. It's a fallacy built on the absolutely insane premise that trade deficits are such a good thing that we must not only continue them but grow them as high as we can! The more we have, the richer we become! (because of all the things we got from handing equity over to foreign interests).
What a complete misrepresentation. No one is saying we should drive trade deficits as high as we can, or that we should aim to maximize them, that's your strawman. What I've pointed out is that trade deficits, particularly for a large, consumption-driven, capital-attracting economy like the U.S., are not inherently destructive. They're a byproduct of our strength, not a symptom of decay.
And again, you still haven't answered the contradiction. If trade is a small portion of our economy, how is the trade deficit supposedly destroying it? You can't say trade is marginal and existential at the same time unless your entire argument is driven by populist talking points rather than economic understanding.
More theory, with implicit assumption that other countries never take any steps (currency, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc...) to restrict our imports or propel their exports. Tariffs reshape demand, to offset unfair trading practices. They give our industries a chance to recover, to grow, to become more efficient, etc..... China does not have the same cost advantage they had 30 years ago. Mexico either. And, of course, Canada and Japan and EU have no inherent labor cost advantage over us at all. I mean, stand back and look at how silly your point is. We were a trade surplus production oriented economy with high tariffs throughout our rise the the mightiest country on earth....the "arsenal of democracy." We didn't have then all those pathologies China has now, did we? I mean, history laughs at what you're trying to sell here.
Theory? You're arguing policy from an outdated library book. You're leaning hard on a romanticized version of U.S. economic history while sidestepping the very real, structural consequences of tariffs in today's globally integrated economy. No one is denying that countries use tools to influence trade, what I'm saying is that the modern global supply chain doesn't respond well to brute force policies like blanket tariffs, because the U.S. economy is now deeply intertwined with those supply chains in ways it wasn't during the 1940s.
Your comparison to the "arsenal of democracy" era is laughably outdated. Back then, the world was rebuilding, we had no global competition, labor costs were artificially low, and we weren't operating in real-time global markets optimized around logistics, speed, and scale. That world doesn't exist anymore.
And no, tariffs don't just "reshape demand", they distort it. They inject cost and uncertainty into systems that rely on efficiency and predictability. A few percentage points of input cost on a key component sourced abroad can ripple through a company's pricing, margins, and ultimately its ability to hire or invest. We're seeing that in real time. And that's before we even talk about retaliation, lost exports, or missed investment due to uncertainty. But the problem to be solved is our competitiveness. Most tariff structures into other countries are relatively low. But we still can't compete unless we produce locally, including in Europe and Asia. Lower tariffs from foreign countries will actually accelerate that, just like with Apple, as it will lower the cost of importing inputs, so producing locally is more economical.
And why is that? Must it always be so? Are you really saying we have no hope of ever making red iron again?
You're proving my point again by skipping over the why and diving headfirst into the what if. The reason we don't have scalable domestic alternatives for many goods isn't because we've somehow forgotten how to produce "red iron," it's because the economics, infrastructure, workforce, and regulatory landscape no longer support it.
Reviving heavy industrial production in the U.S. isn't as simple as waving a tariff wand and chanting "Make Iron Great Again." We're decades removed from the capital investments, skilled labor pipelines, permitting frameworks, and environmental standards that would even make such industries feasible here again. And more importantly, we've moved up the value chain (including in steel). The U.S. specializes in advanced manufacturing, high-value services, and intellectual property precisely because those are our comparative strengths in a modern economy.
You keep pining for a version of America that was built for the 1940s war machine, not the realities of 2025. If you're serious about re-industrializing, start with proposals for skills training, infrastructure overhaul, and regulatory reform. Until then, stop pretending tariffs will magically bring back a supply chain we no longer have and no longer need in the same form.
Never? Why will our robots be more costly to run than Chinese robots? Why must we PLAN on using our AI to design automated production lines in someone else's country?
Thank you again for reinforcing my argument. Yes, automation is the future. Yes, robots, AI, and capital-intensive manufacturing are where things are headed. But here's the part you keep skipping, those sectors don't generate the broad-based, blue-collar job resurgence you keep fantasizing about. They create high-skill, high-efficiency operations with minimal labor input. If you'll simply acknowledge that particular point at least I know we're speaking a similar language.
And if you think it's just a matter of flipping a switch to "robot mode," you've clearly never had to navigate the U.S. regulatory jungle, infrastructure gaps, workforce training shortfalls, or permitting delays. That's why companies building AI driven production lines in the U.S. are still struggling with cost overruns, staffing gaps, and productivity inefficiencies. TSMC in Arizona being exhibit A.
The very reason many of these investments happen abroad isn't because we can't build robots, it's because the entire ecosystem needed to support next gen manufacturing is more functional elsewhere. If we want to change that, the answer isn't punitive tariffs or industrial cosplay. It's targeted investments in infrastructure, skills, and regulatory reform, the very solutions you continually dismiss in favor of short-term coercion. We've put the cart so far ahead of the horse we could face unintended loss of market share as other countries rebalance and we're left with empty rhetorics and years from actual productive capacity.
LOL you are imputing what your argument needs. Hasn't Trump said something about energy dominance, reopening coal plants, turning the EPA into an agency that will help propel growht, etc....? (might not the messaging we do hear belie an agenda to make precisely the changes you cite (correctly) as necessary?) Why do you assume such is NOT happening?
"Hasn't Trump said something" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Oh he's said plenty. About energy dominance, coal, the EPA, even tariffs paying down the national debt and replacing the income tax. You're confusing rhetorical posture with strategic execution. Deregulation and industrial reinvestment don't magically happen because someone tweeted about coal. Real reform means overhauling permitting timelines, environmental reviews, zoning codes, labor credentialing, and skills pipelines, none of which have been meaningfully addressed, let alone reformed, under this administration's chaotic approach. The aforementioned actually requires Congress, and negotiation, and strategic coordination. Enough bombast, let's get to the real work.
LOL we've built an advantage by being an enormous consumer markets that our trade partners cannot do without.....each of them face economic calamity if frozen out of our markets. yes. That is power. But it is not a sustainable position long-term. It is the "too big to fail" model.....a customer that owes so much to the bank that the bankers cannot abandon it without running existential risk.
Ah yes, the "too big to fail" customer theory, as if being the center of global consumption, investment, and innovation is somehow a liability rather than a strength. You're describing what the rest of the world calls leverage. The same leverage that if we didn't have, Trump could just as well be yelling into the ocean in his tariff efforts.
The U.S. economy thrives because it is capital rich, highly productive, and structurally diversified, not because it's trying to match every nation unit-for-unit in basic production. We've built value by leading in design, IP, high-value manufacturing, software, biotech, aerospace, defense systems, cloud infrastructure, and more. These are sectors that not only pay far more than mass assembly labor, but define the global economy. We don't need to replicate Bangladesh's industrial model to remain dominant. We need to maintain what works, and strategically invest where it matters, not burn it all down out of some populist fantasy that economic power only counts if it's pouring molten steel.
Again, you are simply in over your head. How can you not see that the trade deficit facilitates financing of the budget deficit? The trade deficit creates an ocean of surplus dollars abroad seeking a place to call home - T-bills, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc... Surplus USD is what fed the sub-prime crisis.....we were running out of assets to facilitate capital in-flow, to the point we started putting literal junk....loans no sane banker would ever make unless coerced to do so....into mortgage backed securities.
Buddy, you're so lost you're making up invented causations. Invoking the subprime crisis as a byproduct of trade flows? LOL, that's straight fiction. That meltdown was caused by loose domestic credit standards, regulatory blind spots, and financial engineering run amok, not because we imported too many Hyundai Elantras. You're assigning global macro blame to local greed and misregulation. I think it's time to burn your business degrees and maybe catch some classes that understand the world economy after the Internet was deployed.
LOL again, "tell me you don't understand the subject material without saying you don't understand the subject material.
Listen, if you had a serious counterpoint, you'd offer it. But you didn't. Because deep down, you probably know I'm right, you just can't say it out loud without undercutting the whole house of cards argument you've built around tariffs solving problems they were never designed to. The debt crisis in the U.S. is driven by structural entitlement spending, excessive discretionary spending, and a stagnant tax base, not trade deficits. That's not a controversial take, it's fiscal policy 101.
They're not stumbling over it. They stomping it flat as a pancake, because it no longer well serves the common good of the American people.
You're not "stomping" anything flat, you're bulldozing with your eyes closed and calling it vision.
LOL the wish-casting is thinking that continuing to do the same kinds of negotiation within the current model is going to generate different, much less transformative results.
No, the actual wish-casting is believing that lobbing tariffs like grenades while improvising policy on the fly is somehow going to produce a coherent economic renaissance. What you call "transformation" is just chaos in a nice suit. I've been clear about the need for reform with strategic reshoring in critical industries, workforce upskilling, regulatory modernization, and infrastructure investment. That's how you drive transformation. What I reject is the fantasy that disruption for disruption's sake, with no plan, no timelines, no metrics is anything but political theater.
So you say there will be some benefits, but if they don't match the rhetoric they're a failure? (you're flailing....)
No, pointing out the gap between political bluster and actual outcomes isn't flailing, it's basic accountability. When you promise a revolution and deliver a marginal renegotiation, people are allowed to ask what happened to the rest of the plan.
I've said all along some investment? Great. Lower foreign tariffs? Fantastic. But let's not confuse tactical scraps for strategic victories. What you're flailing at is trying to retroactively scale down expectations to match reality, while pretending it was the plan all along. It wasn't. You're selling "industrial revival" and "tariff driven rebalancing." What we're getting is selective reshuffling, higher consumer prices, and a confused policy landscape.
It validates what I have said here repeatedly - "trade policy always serves national security policy." Yes, it would have been nice if we could have brought those jobs home, but we did not have the sills base and infrastructure to do so on such short notice. Soon, thanks to $8T+ in announced foreign investments in (disproportionately tech) production, will be able to do so. But forcing those jobs out of China NOW was a huge win for the US. It was a flexing of muscles to remind our adversary to be very, very careful.
Ah, so now moving Apple's supply chain from China to India, not the U.S., is suddenly a "huge win" for the United States? That's a stretch even for this debate. Certainly a positive but you're stretching for wins. If anything, it underscores the limits of tariffs. They didn't bring jobs home, they rerouted them to the next lowest cost, scalable option. And about that $8 trillion in "announced" investment? Let's be honest, those numbers are inflated political confetti. Much of it is going toward data centers, AI, and automation heavy projects that generate capital efficiency, not widespread job creation. Foreign investment is great, but you don't get to count that as proof of domestic manufacturing revival and complain that we're selling off equity to foreigners in the same breath.
No, it's just shaking you by the collar to quit regurgitating mantras about how globalism will cure all ills at no cost whatsoever.
If there's a collar to shake, it's the one of anyone still buying into the fantasy that slapping tariffs on allies, driving up costs for Americans, and disrupting capital flows will somehow revive a 1950s economic model in a 2025 world. I've put forward actual reform ideas which I won't repeat for the 25th time. You just put forward slogans and a "trust me, it'll work" playbook. Only one of us is thinking beyond the bumper sticker.
We are indeed powerful, but it is because of consumption, not production, and that is an imbalance which we cannot continue. China outstrips us in steel & shipbuilding by margins that are dire and imminent strategic threats. And that is a symptom of a broader problem....we can't rifle-shot a fix for the steel & ships problem unless we just tariff ourselves a protected bubble, in which we would indeed risk the pathologies you have cited about tariffs. We have to work more broadly to bring substantial percentages of production back home. Not all of it. just enough to get to an overall trade balance.
You're right about one thing. This is a broader problem. But your proposed solution of trying to tariff our way back to industrial glory is the economic equivalent of using duct tape to fix a leaking dam.
As for steel and shipbuilding, let's cut through the nostalgia. Those industries declined not because of sabotage or neglect but because other countries outproduced and outsubsidized us, and our economy evolved toward more efficient and high-value sectors. Want to regain some strategic domestic capacity? Fine, especially in defense. Then focus on the real levers, deregulation, permitting reform, skills training, and R&D. Oh yeah, how about some new legislation directing defense dollars in that direction? You claim we can't "rifle-shot" the fix, but that's exactly what's needed, strategic precision, not economic carpet bombing.
LOL why is it ok for others to engage in mercantilism against us and wrong for us to resist it, to try to create a more level field for competition? The trade deficit, its length, size, and its trend, is hardly a sign of strength, it's a sign of economic dysfunction, distress, destruction....
you are correct to cite that the world economy is a big & complicated thing. You are wrong to presume that we cannot change it to our benefit. Doing so cannot be done with an exacto knife. We've got to swing a sledge hammer to crack loose the rusty bolts of an enormous superstructure operating to our disadvantage. I mean, we run a $235B trade deficit with the EU, give them US equities to pay for it, then have to spend borrowed money to go defend the EU from the Houthis. How can we miss the irony in that...?
We cannot fail at this, and we will not. Trump is right on the big picture. He is right on the tactics of how to get there. Watch & wait. "Golden Age of America" is good political messaging for the masses, the kind of narrative building that any successful movement must do. In reality, he's indeed building a new world order.....the old one in which I got a BBA and an MBA is receiving a long-overdue coup d'grace. A new one is going to emerge. Historic times. If you don't quit *****ing, you'll miss it.
Trump as architect of a "new world order," complete with a sledgehammer in one hand and a YouTube diploma in the other. It's amazing how often "strategic brilliance" looks exactly like improvisation, chaos, and economic volatility, but hey, slap "historic times" on it and call it a renaissance.
Let's start with your continued mercantilism dodge. No one's saying we can't always work to improve our position in the global economy. Heck, running an international business, I do it all the time. Nor that we shouldn't push back on unfair trade practices. We do through WTO cases, bilateral agreements, export controls, CFIUS reviews, and strategic investment. But the answer isn't to become the thing you're criticizing, like blanket tariffs, economic self isolation, and "if they cheat, so can we" policies, which are how weak nations like China react, not leaders. And swinging a sledgehammer at the global system that made us the most powerful economy in history is the height of reckless populist theater.
You want a trade surplus with the EU? Make products they need, at competitive prices, under regulatory regimes that don't chase investment away. But no, instead we blame our allies while continuing to flood federal spending through entitlements no one wants to touch and pretending like a trade deficit is what broke the piggy bank.
If your best pitch is, "trust the chaos, it's historic," you've already lost the economic argument.
My Lord ATL. I think you just shattered Jinxie's Longest Post Ever on Sic 'Em 365 record!
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
I was just curious how many of those 100's of beautiful deals has Trumpy completed? uh, that would be zero. Once again, ole fat boy bully continues to write checks his arse can't cash. What a clown. Not only does he look like a complete fool, so do his minions, Old83, Little Johnny, Tin Man, Assman. All part of the plan bros!
At least I apologized in advance. lolRD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
My Lord ATL. I think you just shattered Jinxie's Longest Post Ever on Sic 'Em 365 record!
You're so well spoken.J.R. said:
I was just curious how many of those 100's of beautiful deals has Trumpy completed? uh, that would be zero. Once again, ole fat boy bully continues to write checks his arse can't cash. What a clown. Not only does he look like a complete fool, so do his minions, Old83, Little Johnny, Tin Man, Assman. All part of the plan bros!
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Facts don't matter. They're all in on the "dystopian American economy that needs shattering" narrative.nein51 said:
The **** it is. I have a CAT stop I see every Monday. The guys in that place are making almost $40/hr
BREAKING: The US will announce a trade deal with the United Kingdom tomorrow, per NYT
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 8, 2025