I hope you like nice surprises, my friend.ATL Bear said:You simpletons are absolute economic idiots. Making the working and middle class pay for their own economic demise through higher prices is one of the most evil ironies I've ever heard of. The jobs of the future are not manufacturing jobs, and using the false premise of trade deficits as "cheating" to push the job fairy tale is dtraight devious.whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Mothra said:So, in other words, this is about damaging other countries' economies more than helping our own. It will take years to change supply chain and manufacturing base, but at least over the course of the next two years we can damage their economies worse than they can damage ours. In the meantime, the American people take it in the shorts.whiterock said:muddled thinking. the purpose of tariffs is to address a trade deficit, which will benefit domestic manufacturers and jobs. Whether they are reciprocal or not depends on the nature of the abuse happening, e.g. look at the way China relocates production & transshipments to avoid existing trade restrictions. This is particularly true when it comes to trade subsidies (which many countries do) and non-tariff barriers to trade like the EU VAT.Robert Wilson said:Mothra said:So, when I first saw the list, I thought it was actually a reciprocal tariff based on the tariffs imposed by other countries, and I thought it might not be so bad.boognish_bear said:
Not sure if this is accurate across the board or not… Comments seemed to indicate soThis guy cracked the tariff formula:@orthonormalist
— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 2, 2025
It’s simply the nation’s trade deficit with us divided by the nation’s exports to us.
Yes. Really.
Vietnam: Exports 136.6, Imports 13.1
Deficit = 123.5
123.5/136.6 = 90% pic.twitter.com/fDOMoQwzKt
However, if this is truly the formula Trump used - which is based apparently on trade deficits - this is not a reciprocal tariff but instead a tariff that tries to get manufacturing to come back to the US - something that is likely never gonna happen in any large numbers.
In short, the Trump admin is misleading the American people by labeling this a reciprocal tariff. That's just a wholly false statement.
Such an entirely ridiculous and unnecessary move, and it's going to come back to bite him. Kiss the midterms goodbye. We are going to lose the House and the Senate. So dumb.
I hope Republicans who didn't skip Economics 101 will block this deal.
I'm with you. I could get on board with reciprocal tariffs. If we are instead enacting huge one sided tariffs just to counteract trade deficits, that's insane.
if you are going to pick this fight you have to smack hard coming out of the gate, to effectively deny entry to our market unless concessions are made. Your opponent, who has investments in an existing supply chain has to make hard decisions about whether he is going to abandon the supply chain or open up his own market to your goods. Sure, the wealthier countries will have at least theoretical options to consider, but it will take years for them to restructure and in the meantime they will incur more damage to their economy than they will inflict on ours (by virtue of having a trade surplus with us).
our position is quite strong and concessions from trade partners are a matter of when not if.
Such a silly strategy.
The silliest strategy of all is doing nothing and accepting the status quo, which is what you are advocating.
There are a lot of people in American who see nothing wrong with the status quo
They walk out of their expensive homes in their expensive neighborhoods and see nothing wrong with the current spoils system or how the economic pie is divided up
They are going to learn (by the ballot box or the bullet) how wrong they are
The red light is flashing...and the American electorate is signaling (potentially dangerously) revolutionary impulses
[America's newly elected president may be a demagogue and a populist, but what he is above all is a revolutionary.
In hoping to make America great again, Donald Trump promises to introduce a fundamental, comprehensive and rapid transformation of American political, economic, social and cultural institutions. Such a massive change is what we mean by the term "revolution."]
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4976570-america-has-elected-a-revolutionary-will-he-succeed/
The aversion to tariffs is a foremost luxury belief of the upper classes. THEIR careers are not impacted by a flood of cheap foreign goods……
If you understood why we have income tax vs tariffs today, it was instituted specifically so the working class didn't have to carry so much of the tax burden, and it could be transferred more to the wealthy.
This joker went to war with the world on trade all at the same time. Straight insanity!
April 2nd Reciprocal Tariffs
264,955 Views |
3836 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Adriacus Peratuun
I don't doubt that there may be some small concessions, though I don't know if they're going to be enforceable. I mean, when you have a trade partner willing to violate trade agreements, I think it's going to be difficult to enforce the concessions that result from same.Adriacus Peratuun said:Disagree. Some behavior will immediately change. Easy deals will get finalized. Future work will get papered [enforceable].Mothra said:Sideline themselves? Of course not. They will simply pass along most of the cost of the tariffs to the American consumer, which is of course what always happens. Just like the dealerships I described above.Adriacus Peratuun said:The entire dispute will be done within 3-4 months.Mothra said:No they won't.Redbrickbear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Great Scott. Tariffs are a tax on you. When Trump puts a 25% tariff on foreign cars, you will pay the difference. Tariffs are an attempt to force you to buy an American made car.ScottS said:I don't see Congress getting rid of income taxes. Get back to me when they do.boognish_bear said:ScottS said:...except the tariffs Trump put on are paid by other countries. Could it be past to the comsumer, yes but you might just buy something US made instead. You don't have to pay the tariff.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 JPMorgan says President Trump's tariffs are the largest US tax hike since 1968.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) April 3, 2025
Trump said the tariff money can be used to help eliminate income taxes. So everyone buying American wouldn't help that out...
No, the foreign manufacturer will
They will cut costs and sell the car at a cheap enough price point to be competitive in the US market
Or they will move production of said car to the USA to avoid the tariff....thus creating jobs in the USA
I already have Honda and Toyota dealers that have marked up prices on the vehicles that have arrived since yesterday a full 10%. The idea that foreign manufacturers are going to slash prices is extremely naive.
It will take 5 years to set up manufacturing here. These countries will wait it out the next 2 years, and then when Trump loses congress and these stupid tariffs are overturned, will reclaim their market share.
No global business is going to effectively sideline itself in the USA for two years.
Once the pain level is fully understood, deals will be made.
Foreign business/countries might hate USA tariffs, but they hate uncertainty even more.
And of course it will be easy for the manufacturers to "promise" Trump they will rebuild their factories in Detroit, telling him what he wants to hear, while simply reneging on the deal when he loses Congress in two years or is gone in 4.
Example: possible BMW
Immediate: radically change marketing to heavily emphasize all X series [made in Spartanburg].
Easy: begin process to move 2 series production from San Luis Potos plant in Mexico to USA. the 3 production there remains.
Future: deal to manufacture some inline 4 engines in USA, leave the inline 6 production entirely in Germany.
There is zero chance that Japan sits down to negotiate with USA and Germany remains outside shaking their fist. No major player is going to let the basic parameters of future deals be struck while they protest outside.
Free Trade purists might behave like Greta Thunberg, countries will not.
I don't think we will see anywhere close to what is included in your letter, however. And are they going to be worth the economic hurt consumers experience in the interim? Very likely, no.
Mothra said:And are they going to be worth the economic hurt consumers experience in the interim? Very likely, no.Adriacus Peratuun said:Disagree. Some behavior will immediately change. Easy deals will get finalized. Future work will get papered [enforceable].Mothra said:Sideline themselves? Of course not. They will simply pass along most of the cost of the tariffs to the American consumer, which is of course what always happens. Just like the dealerships I described above.Adriacus Peratuun said:The entire dispute will be done within 3-4 months.Mothra said:No they won't.Redbrickbear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Great Scott. Tariffs are a tax on you. When Trump puts a 25% tariff on foreign cars, you will pay the difference. Tariffs are an attempt to force you to buy an American made car.ScottS said:I don't see Congress getting rid of income taxes. Get back to me when they do.boognish_bear said:ScottS said:...except the tariffs Trump put on are paid by other countries. Could it be past to the comsumer, yes but you might just buy something US made instead. You don't have to pay the tariff.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 JPMorgan says President Trump's tariffs are the largest US tax hike since 1968.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) April 3, 2025
Trump said the tariff money can be used to help eliminate income taxes. So everyone buying American wouldn't help that out...
No, the foreign manufacturer will
They will cut costs and sell the car at a cheap enough price point to be competitive in the US market
Or they will move production of said car to the USA to avoid the tariff....thus creating jobs in the USA
I already have Honda and Toyota dealers that have marked up prices on the vehicles that have arrived since yesterday a full 10%. The idea that foreign manufacturers are going to slash prices is extremely naive.
It will take 5 years to set up manufacturing here. These countries will wait it out the next 2 years, and then when Trump loses congress and these stupid tariffs are overturned, will reclaim their market share.
No global business is going to effectively sideline itself in the USA for two years.
Once the pain level is fully understood, deals will be made.
Foreign business/countries might hate USA tariffs, but they hate uncertainty even more.
And of course it will be easy for the manufacturers to "promise" Trump they will rebuild their factories in Detroit, telling him what he wants to hear, while simply reneging on the deal when he loses Congress in two years or is gone in 4.
Example: possible BMW
Immediate: radically change marketing to heavily emphasize all X series [made in Spartanburg].
Easy: begin process to move 2 series production from San Luis Potos plant in Mexico to USA. the 3 production there remains.
Future: deal to manufacture some inline 4 engines in USA, leave the inline 6 production entirely in Germany.
There is zero chance that Japan sits down to negotiate with USA and Germany remains outside shaking their fist. No major player is going to let the basic parameters of future deals be struck while they protest outside.
Free Trade purists might behave like Greta Thunberg, countries will not.
What do you suggest we do....nothing?
Keep doing what we have been doing for decades?
Outsourcing jobs, importing 3rd world immigrants, making China a world power....helping fuel a very possible pre-revolutionary political situation inside the USA?
You realize of course that serious Professors are saying the USA is flashing red on potential Civil War, violent upheaval, or political revolution right...
What we have been doing can not go on forever...it just can't...and it won't
[A recent Washington Post headline says: "In America, talk turns to something not spoken of for 150 years: Civil war." The story references, among others, Stanford University historian Victor Davis Hanson, who asked in a National Review essay last summer: "How, when, and why has the United States now arrived at the brink of a veritable civil war?" Another Washington Post story reports how Iowa Congressman...recently posted a meme warning that red states have "8 trillion bullets" in the event of a civil war. And a poll conducted last June by Rasmussen Reports found that 31 percent of probable US voters surveyed believe "it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years."]
[Our nation is in civic crisis. On one hand, Americans report historically low levels of trust in institutions and offices of government. On the other, they exaggerate the power of such institutions and offices, demanding that the U.S. president end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, for instance, or work harder to stop inflation. As the 2024 election approaches, some lament the travesty of a democracy reduced to a choice between bad and worse; others view the prospect of their chosen candidates' losing as they might the prospect of a foreign invasion or zombie apocalypse.
Americans are losing hope: specifically, that distinctive, civic hope that their own choices and actions can meaningfully and positively shape their communities' futures. In the face of such hopelessness, we recall the words attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: "In a democracy, the highest office is the office of citizen."
The outcomes of the 2024 elections are hardly irrelevant to such fears; they have rarely mattered more. But whatever returns in November, the return of civic hope, and with it, the future of our democracy...
The last 40 years of American politics illustrates the problem....] -Time Magazine
WOW: “Toyota to cover U.S. suppliers' higher costs tied to Trump tariffs”
— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) April 4, 2025
Toyota stepping up big time.
(via Nikkei Asia) https://t.co/qiaFmpwuwW
BREAKING: Fed Chair Powell says "it feels like we don't need to be in a hurry" regarding interest rate cuts.
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 4, 2025
Someone in the audience asks, "Really?"
Powell responds: "Yeah!"
Jesus.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 4, 2025
The S&P500 is down 5%.
The Nasdaq 100 is down 5.4% pic.twitter.com/hmIaDhXO6G
A Tariff Parable
A wealthy Cadillac dealer orders a pizza for his family every Friday night. His family loves pizza from a particular restaurant because it's the best tasting pizza and the Cadillac dealer likes the price. He's even developed a friendship with the pizza delivery boy who cycles several miles to bring them their pizza.
One day the Cadillac dealer is doing his accounts and has a thought: 'Over the years, I've given the pizza delivery boy thousands of dollars and yet never once has he bought a Cadillac Escalade from me. How is that fair? This guy is ripping me off.'
The more he thinks about it, the more angry he becomes.
'I'm running a massive trade deficit with that kid on that bicycle. He is deliberately not buying my cars to screw me over. I'm a Cadillac dealer and he's a puny kid on a bike. I hold all the cards. I'm going to put a stop to this.'
So, the following Friday night he confronts the delivery boy. 'You have been robbing me for years. I'm subsidising your business with thousands of dollars and yet you never buy my Escalades. So, I'm going to impose a 50% surcharge on every pizza you deliver to this house and there's nothing you can do about it!'
The pizza delivery boy looks confused. 'I'm sorry but I couldn't afford to buy or run a Cadillac Escalade even if I needed one, which I don't.'
'I don't care,' says the Cadillac dealer. 'It's not fair me subsidising you thousands of dollars. Why should I be paying you these subsidies?'
'Because you like my pizza and that's what they cost. That's not a subsidy. It's called trade,' answers the delivery boy.
'Well, it's not trade if you refuse to buy a Cadillac, so I'm going to charge 50% on top of the price of your pizzas so I get some payback.'
'Who are you going to charge?'
'My family!'
'How's that going to work?'
'They're going to be livid! They'll be so angry that the pizza is going to cost 50% more that they'll stop telling me to buy them from you. They'll start making their own pizzas and you'll go bust!'
'Can they make pizzas this good? Do they even want to?'
'That's not the point!'
'And how many more Cadillacs will you sell if we go bust?'
'Who cares? At least I won't be being ripped off by a mere pizza delivery boy on a bicycle!'
'OK. Here's your pizza. Keep the tip. It was nice doing business with you.'
A wealthy Cadillac dealer orders a pizza for his family every Friday night. His family loves pizza from a particular restaurant because it's the best tasting pizza and the Cadillac dealer likes the price. He's even developed a friendship with the pizza delivery boy who cycles several miles to bring them their pizza.
One day the Cadillac dealer is doing his accounts and has a thought: 'Over the years, I've given the pizza delivery boy thousands of dollars and yet never once has he bought a Cadillac Escalade from me. How is that fair? This guy is ripping me off.'
The more he thinks about it, the more angry he becomes.
'I'm running a massive trade deficit with that kid on that bicycle. He is deliberately not buying my cars to screw me over. I'm a Cadillac dealer and he's a puny kid on a bike. I hold all the cards. I'm going to put a stop to this.'
So, the following Friday night he confronts the delivery boy. 'You have been robbing me for years. I'm subsidising your business with thousands of dollars and yet you never buy my Escalades. So, I'm going to impose a 50% surcharge on every pizza you deliver to this house and there's nothing you can do about it!'
The pizza delivery boy looks confused. 'I'm sorry but I couldn't afford to buy or run a Cadillac Escalade even if I needed one, which I don't.'
'I don't care,' says the Cadillac dealer. 'It's not fair me subsidising you thousands of dollars. Why should I be paying you these subsidies?'
'Because you like my pizza and that's what they cost. That's not a subsidy. It's called trade,' answers the delivery boy.
'Well, it's not trade if you refuse to buy a Cadillac, so I'm going to charge 50% on top of the price of your pizzas so I get some payback.'
'Who are you going to charge?'
'My family!'
'How's that going to work?'
'They're going to be livid! They'll be so angry that the pizza is going to cost 50% more that they'll stop telling me to buy them from you. They'll start making their own pizzas and you'll go bust!'
'Can they make pizzas this good? Do they even want to?'
'That's not the point!'
'And how many more Cadillacs will you sell if we go bust?'
'Who cares? At least I won't be being ripped off by a mere pizza delivery boy on a bicycle!'
'OK. Here's your pizza. Keep the tip. It was nice doing business with you.'
Waco1947 ,la
Don't know the answer, but this isn't going to come close to working. All it will do is make China stronger.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:And are they going to be worth the economic hurt consumers experience in the interim? Very likely, no.Adriacus Peratuun said:Disagree. Some behavior will immediately change. Easy deals will get finalized. Future work will get papered [enforceable].Mothra said:Sideline themselves? Of course not. They will simply pass along most of the cost of the tariffs to the American consumer, which is of course what always happens. Just like the dealerships I described above.Adriacus Peratuun said:The entire dispute will be done within 3-4 months.Mothra said:No they won't.Redbrickbear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Great Scott. Tariffs are a tax on you. When Trump puts a 25% tariff on foreign cars, you will pay the difference. Tariffs are an attempt to force you to buy an American made car.ScottS said:I don't see Congress getting rid of income taxes. Get back to me when they do.boognish_bear said:ScottS said:...except the tariffs Trump put on are paid by other countries. Could it be past to the comsumer, yes but you might just buy something US made instead. You don't have to pay the tariff.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 JPMorgan says President Trump's tariffs are the largest US tax hike since 1968.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) April 3, 2025
Trump said the tariff money can be used to help eliminate income taxes. So everyone buying American wouldn't help that out...
No, the foreign manufacturer will
They will cut costs and sell the car at a cheap enough price point to be competitive in the US market
Or they will move production of said car to the USA to avoid the tariff....thus creating jobs in the USA
I already have Honda and Toyota dealers that have marked up prices on the vehicles that have arrived since yesterday a full 10%. The idea that foreign manufacturers are going to slash prices is extremely naive.
It will take 5 years to set up manufacturing here. These countries will wait it out the next 2 years, and then when Trump loses congress and these stupid tariffs are overturned, will reclaim their market share.
No global business is going to effectively sideline itself in the USA for two years.
Once the pain level is fully understood, deals will be made.
Foreign business/countries might hate USA tariffs, but they hate uncertainty even more.
And of course it will be easy for the manufacturers to "promise" Trump they will rebuild their factories in Detroit, telling him what he wants to hear, while simply reneging on the deal when he loses Congress in two years or is gone in 4.
Example: possible BMW
Immediate: radically change marketing to heavily emphasize all X series [made in Spartanburg].
Easy: begin process to move 2 series production from San Luis Potos plant in Mexico to USA. the 3 production there remains.
Future: deal to manufacture some inline 4 engines in USA, leave the inline 6 production entirely in Germany.
There is zero chance that Japan sits down to negotiate with USA and Germany remains outside shaking their fist. No major player is going to let the basic parameters of future deals be struck while they protest outside.
Free Trade purists might behave like Greta Thunberg, countries will not.
What do you suggest we do....nothing?
Keep doing what we have been doing for decades?
Outsourcing jobs, importing 3rd world immigrants, making China a world power....helping fuel a very possible pre-revolutionary political situation inside the USA?
You realize of course that serious Professors are saying the USA is flashing red on potential Civil War, violent upheaval, or political revolution right...
What we have been doing can not go on forever...it just can't...and it won't
[A recent Washington Post headline says: "In America, talk turns to something not spoken of for 150 years: Civil war." The story references, among others, Stanford University historian Victor Davis Hanson, who asked in a National Review essay last summer: "How, when, and why has the United States now arrived at the brink of a veritable civil war?" Another Washington Post story reports how Iowa Congressman...recently posted a meme warning that red states have "8 trillion bullets" in the event of a civil war. And a poll conducted last June by Rasmussen Reports found that 31 percent of probable US voters surveyed believe "it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years."]
[Our nation is in civic crisis. On one hand, Americans report historically low levels of trust in institutions and offices of government. On the other, they exaggerate the power of such institutions and offices, demanding that the U.S. president end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, for instance, or work harder to stop inflation. As the 2024 election approaches, some lament the travesty of a democracy reduced to a choice between bad and worse; others view the prospect of their chosen candidates' losing as they might the prospect of a foreign invasion or zombie apocalypse.
Americans are losing hope: specifically, that distinctive, civic hope that their own choices and actions can meaningfully and positively shape their communities' futures. In the face of such hopelessness, we recall the words attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: "In a democracy, the highest office is the office of citizen."
The outcomes of the 2024 elections are hardly irrelevant to such fears; they have rarely mattered more. But whatever returns in November, the return of civic hope, and with it, the future of our democracy...
The last 40 years of American politics illustrates the problem....] -Time Magazine
BREAKING: Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell says that bigger-than-expected tariffs will translate into higher inflation and slower economic growth — and that the higher inflation could be persistent, not temporaryhttps://t.co/eRxpMSMvaG
— Axios (@axios) April 4, 2025
bought from mexico but built in ChinaAdriacus Peratuun said:Granted that engines & drive trains will continue to be built in Japan & Germany [and almost every chip in Taiwan……a different issue], but everything else can be grabbed back from Canada & Mexico. The USA can cost-effectively manufacture many automotive components.ron.reagan said:assembling plants, so not much differenceAdriacus Peratuun said:Clarification…….foreign manufactured cars not foreign brand cars.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Great Scott. Tariffs are a tax on you. When Trump puts a 25% tariff on foriegn cars, you will pay the difference. Tariffs are an attempt to force you to buy an American made car.ScottS said:I don't see Congress getting rid of income taxes. Get back to me when they do.boognish_bear said:ScottS said:...except the tariffs Trump put on are paid by other countries. Could it be past to the comsumer, yes but you might just buy something US made instead. You don't have to pay the tariff.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 JPMorgan says President Trump's tariffs are the largest US tax hike since 1968.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) April 3, 2025
Trump said the tariff money can be used to help eliminate income taxes. So everyone buying American wouldn't help that out...
There are plenty of foreign brand cars manufactured in Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Tennessee, etc.
These questions rely heavily on simplified assumptions (political narratives), false binaries, and an outdated understanding of how manufacturing fits into a modern economy.Adriacus Peratuun said:Questions:ATL Bear said:
Low skill manufacturing isn't coming back. And even if it did it would be low wage work and serve no economic purpose other than higher prices and increased worker risk for low pay. That was the preponderance of the oft sighted 60,000 - 90,000 factory loss (heck of a range there BTW).
Bringing manufacturing back is a capital not labor exercise, and the type of manufacturing we need is not only skilled labor, but highly skilled labor which is not only in short supply, but requires a reorientation of our education and training matrix domestically to address the short and long term lack of resources. That's before we even address the scale required to mass produce like our global competitors, the deregulation required to even contemplate it, and the supply chains necessary to execute.
Manufacturing employment beyond engineering, IT, and specialty technicians is on the bullet train of obsolescence. Why we would go to war with the world economically to try and protect it is beyond me. Don't protect, create and innovate. That's what always made us better.
1) for people whose basic skill set aligns with manufacturing work and not "create & innovate", what exactly are they to do for employment?
2) if the USA can cost effectively run automotive assembly plants, why can't it also run automotive component manufacturing? HVAC manufacturing [easily brought back]? Similar?
3) is the USA's national defense better by destroying the manufacturing base?
4) why did the USA create an economic environment that lead to offshoring tech manufacturing?
5) how many items do you own that are created by basic manufacturing skills? Cars, HVAC, appliances, etc.?
6) how many items do you that utilize tech manufacturing? Phones, cars, computers, pads, etc.
7) how often do you make phones calls, utilize the internet, etc.?
Throwing shade on manufacturing as part of a balanced economy is very 1990s.
1) For people whose basic skill set aligns with manufacturing work and not "create & innovate," what exactly are they to do for employment?
First I'd say make some effort to up-skill, but second with a long term unemployment rate of 3-5%, I'd say keep working as they are now. The myth of suffering is greatly overstated. Of course you're assuming manufacturing jobs are inherently accessible to the "basic skill set." That may have been true in 1955, but today's advanced manufacturing jobs require technical proficiency, digital fluency, and adaptive learning. The path forward isn't protecting jobs that no longer exist, it's expanding access to training, apprenticeships, and skilled trades that align with the demands of high-tech industry. Protecting obsolete roles keeps workers trapped in economic limbo. Empowering them through modern upskilling creates mobility.
2) If the USA can cost-effectively run automotive assembly plants, why can't it also run component manufacturing? HVAC manufacturing [easily brought back]? Similar?
Because assembly and component production are not the same thing. Assembly plants often benefit from logistics advantages, market proximity, and automation, making them viable in the U.S. Components, on the other hand, are part of a global, just-in-time supply chain with cost sensitive parts often manufactured at scale abroad. Simply asking "why not?" ignores economies of scale, labor intensity, material costs, regulatory burdens, and existing supplier networks. We can't rebuild the entire system by fiat.
3) Is the USA's national defense better by destroying the manufacturing base?
This is a straw man. No one is arguing for the destruction of the manufacturing base. The argument is to modernize it, invest in defense critical industries, dual use technologies, and resilient supply chains. Protecting commodity production like textiles or toaster ovens has nothing to do with national defense. Strategic reshoring of pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and rare earths? Absolutely. But conflating that with blanket manufacturing protection is lazy geopolitics.
4) Why did the USA create an economic environment that led to offshoring tech manufacturing?
Because multinational corporations pursued profit and efficiency in a globalized system we helped architect. This wasn't some deep-state plot, it was the logical output of comparative advantage, currency dynamics, foreign labor markets, and demand for lower consumer prices. The solution isn't isolationism, it's building a domestic ecosystem that's attractive to high-end production, which includes stable policy, workforce investment, deregulation, and competitive tax and infrastructure systems.
5) How many items do you own that are created by basic manufacturing skills? Cars, HVAC, appliances, etc.?
Plenty. But owning them doesn't mean they need to be made here, or that we benefit from doing so. Global specialization allows the U.S. to lead in innovation while importing goods that are lower margin and labor intensive. There's a difference between using a product and needing to produce it locally. It's called economic efficiency, and it's a feature, not a flaw.
6) How many items do you own that utilize tech manufacturing? Phones, cars, computers, pads, etc.?
All of them, and this actually supports my point. These are the types of manufacturing that are capital-intensive, IP driven, and require high-skill labor, the very sectors we should be focused on strengthening. Trying to preserve low wage, low skill production to satisfy a nostalgic vision of factory floors doesn't move us forward. Investing in these tech heavy industries, supply chain resilience, and workforce capability does.
7) How often do you make phone calls, utilize the internet, etc.?
Constantly, which proves my point. Our economy is increasingly digital, decentralized, and service oriented. That doesn't mean we don't need manufacturing, but it means we need the right kind of manufacturing, embedded in future facing industries, not revived mid-century models. BTW, China's economy has been maturing in this direction as well. Less manufacturing employment and greater service orientation.
As for your "1990s" jab, if anything's outdated, it's the belief that manufacturing = national greatness and that trade protectionism can reverse 40 years of structural, capital, and technological change. The real danger is not moving forward and doubling down on a vision of the past that no longer maps to economic reality. Making the working and middle class pay for that folly through tariffs is downright 1890's.
How is it that you're the only person on the planet that knows the end game here?Adriacus Peratuun said:Your argument is based upon a false assumption. That a global tariff scheme is intended to have equal long term impact across the globe.Mothra said:What is a new and more balanced arrangement? Some of these countries have lower tariffs than the US. They could do like Israel - get rid of tariffs altogether - and still get smacked with a 30% tariff (like Israel). So what can they do? Try to get their citizens, many of whom have an average income that is a fraction of the income of American citizens, to buy more American products to reduce the trade imbalance? How does that work exactly when they are having trouble putting food on their tables?Adriacus Peratuun said:
How many countries opting out of a fight and instead making new more balanced arrangements creates unstoppable momentum to support tariffs?
Certain industries and their pet politicians will continue to scream but the public at large will generally get onboard. Momentum is a weird factor to calculate.
Let's drop the silly charade that this is some sort of reciprocal tariff. It's not and never was.
Squeezing everyone serves multiple purposes.
1) lock up some early easy wins.
2) deal making by "not the true targets" puts pressure on the true targets to deal.
End game:
Germany buying LNG from us and telling Russia to kick sand.
Kill all of the preferential deals that China has negotiated in the developing world.
Stop all of the undercover Airbus subsidies.
Get tech manufacturing back in the USA [to some degree]
Teach India a harsh lesson
And similar………
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Why do you think the auto industry has these 25% margins, either in sales or materials acquisition? And do you realize how much harder it will get for auto companies if China completely blocks certain rare earths we need to make cars, batteries?Redbrickbear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Great Scott. Tariffs are a tax on you. When Trump puts a 25% tariff on foreign cars, you will pay the difference. Tariffs are an attempt to force you to buy an American made car.ScottS said:I don't see Congress getting rid of income taxes. Get back to me when they do.boognish_bear said:ScottS said:...except the tariffs Trump put on are paid by other countries. Could it be past to the comsumer, yes but you might just buy something US made instead. You don't have to pay the tariff.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 JPMorgan says President Trump's tariffs are the largest US tax hike since 1968.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) April 3, 2025
Trump said the tariff money can be used to help eliminate income taxes. So everyone buying American wouldn't help that out...
No, the foreign manufacturer will
They will cut costs and sell the car at a cheap enough price point to be competitive in the US market
Or they will move production of said car to the USA to avoid the tariff....thus creating jobs in the USA
And why would they move production to the USA when this is not GOP agenda or DNC agenda, purely Trump agenda and we all know whoever is President next will not keep this up? As I said before, the time horizon in play here will prevent much of the manufacturing jobs moving back to the US. And even if they did, it would only be an opportunity to use the latest in automated tech. There would be a few really good jobs for highly skilled engineers and programmers, but these working on the line auto jobs will simply not come back.
Porteroso said:do you realize how much harder it will get for auto companies if China completely blocks certain rare earths we need to make cars, batteries?Redbrickbear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Great Scott. Tariffs are a tax on you. When Trump puts a 25% tariff on foreign cars, you will pay the difference. Tariffs are an attempt to force you to buy an American made car.ScottS said:I don't see Congress getting rid of income taxes. Get back to me when they do.boognish_bear said:ScottS said:...except the tariffs Trump put on are paid by other countries. Could it be past to the comsumer, yes but you might just buy something US made instead. You don't have to pay the tariff.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: 🇺🇸 JPMorgan says President Trump's tariffs are the largest US tax hike since 1968.
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) April 3, 2025
Trump said the tariff money can be used to help eliminate income taxes. So everyone buying American wouldn't help that out...
No, the foreign manufacturer will
They will cut costs and sell the car at a cheap enough price point to be competitive in the US market
Or they will move production of said car to the USA to avoid the tariff....thus creating jobs in the USA
Do you even look things up before you post?
The USA....and strong US ally Australia... are top 4 producers of rare earth minerals
(and so is our new State Department owned vassal state Ukraine)
[China holds the largest rare earth reserves and is the world's leading producer, followed by countries like the United States, Myanmar, and Australia]
[In a significant development, American Rare Earths announced the discovery of an estimated 2.34 billion metric tons of rare earth minerals at Halleck Creek in Wyoming, potentially making the US the world's largest supplier of these critical material]
PS
China has actually been trying to buy up rare earth minerals in Australia lately....using the money they make off the massive trade imbalance with the USA!
Another example of how unequal globalism and predatory Chinese policy makes the USA less secure....
They use our money to try and buy up rare earth minerals to use a leverage against us
It's very likely that he and anyone that is taking these tariffs seriously will be nicely surprised.canoso said:I hope you like nice surprises, my friend.ATL Bear said:You simpletons are absolute economic idiots. Making the working and middle class pay for their own economic demise through higher prices is one of the most evil ironies I've ever heard of. The jobs of the future are not manufacturing jobs, and using the false premise of trade deficits as "cheating" to push the job fairy tale is dtraight devious.whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Mothra said:So, in other words, this is about damaging other countries' economies more than helping our own. It will take years to change supply chain and manufacturing base, but at least over the course of the next two years we can damage their economies worse than they can damage ours. In the meantime, the American people take it in the shorts.whiterock said:muddled thinking. the purpose of tariffs is to address a trade deficit, which will benefit domestic manufacturers and jobs. Whether they are reciprocal or not depends on the nature of the abuse happening, e.g. look at the way China relocates production & transshipments to avoid existing trade restrictions. This is particularly true when it comes to trade subsidies (which many countries do) and non-tariff barriers to trade like the EU VAT.Robert Wilson said:Mothra said:So, when I first saw the list, I thought it was actually a reciprocal tariff based on the tariffs imposed by other countries, and I thought it might not be so bad.boognish_bear said:
Not sure if this is accurate across the board or not… Comments seemed to indicate soThis guy cracked the tariff formula:@orthonormalist
— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 2, 2025
It’s simply the nation’s trade deficit with us divided by the nation’s exports to us.
Yes. Really.
Vietnam: Exports 136.6, Imports 13.1
Deficit = 123.5
123.5/136.6 = 90% pic.twitter.com/fDOMoQwzKt
However, if this is truly the formula Trump used - which is based apparently on trade deficits - this is not a reciprocal tariff but instead a tariff that tries to get manufacturing to come back to the US - something that is likely never gonna happen in any large numbers.
In short, the Trump admin is misleading the American people by labeling this a reciprocal tariff. That's just a wholly false statement.
Such an entirely ridiculous and unnecessary move, and it's going to come back to bite him. Kiss the midterms goodbye. We are going to lose the House and the Senate. So dumb.
I hope Republicans who didn't skip Economics 101 will block this deal.
I'm with you. I could get on board with reciprocal tariffs. If we are instead enacting huge one sided tariffs just to counteract trade deficits, that's insane.
if you are going to pick this fight you have to smack hard coming out of the gate, to effectively deny entry to our market unless concessions are made. Your opponent, who has investments in an existing supply chain has to make hard decisions about whether he is going to abandon the supply chain or open up his own market to your goods. Sure, the wealthier countries will have at least theoretical options to consider, but it will take years for them to restructure and in the meantime they will incur more damage to their economy than they will inflict on ours (by virtue of having a trade surplus with us).
our position is quite strong and concessions from trade partners are a matter of when not if.
Such a silly strategy.
The silliest strategy of all is doing nothing and accepting the status quo, which is what you are advocating.
There are a lot of people in American who see nothing wrong with the status quo
They walk out of their expensive homes in their expensive neighborhoods and see nothing wrong with the current spoils system or how the economic pie is divided up
They are going to learn (by the ballot box or the bullet) how wrong they are
The red light is flashing...and the American electorate is signaling (potentially dangerously) revolutionary impulses
[America's newly elected president may be a demagogue and a populist, but what he is above all is a revolutionary.
In hoping to make America great again, Donald Trump promises to introduce a fundamental, comprehensive and rapid transformation of American political, economic, social and cultural institutions. Such a massive change is what we mean by the term "revolution."]
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4976570-america-has-elected-a-revolutionary-will-he-succeed/
The aversion to tariffs is a foremost luxury belief of the upper classes. THEIR careers are not impacted by a flood of cheap foreign goods……
If you understood why we have income tax vs tariffs today, it was instituted specifically so the working class didn't have to carry so much of the tax burden, and it could be transferred more to the wealthy.
This joker went to war with the world on trade all at the same time. Straight insanity!
This is the same guy who said "THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL FOR CANADA AND MEXICO TO AVOID TARIFFS IMMEDIATELY." and then "Oh, yeah we had a nice phone call, let's kick the tariff thing out a month. Silly tariffs."
It is likely political posturing, and already Trump has some major wins in countries who want to drop all tariffs upon the USA. Big wins. But the thing is, nobody knows whether Trump will take them or not. He might just say "make me a better deal," which is what his announcement earlier sounded like. Didn't he say something like "They can avoid tariffs if they offer something phenomenal."
People are right to freak out, because what is being proposed is a global recession, countless jobs lost, and a complete shot in the dark at restructuring the entire global economy.
I go back to my first post in this thread, that apparently Trump wants to get us from point A, to point B. Nobody knows what point B is, we only know that point A was a great economy and great markets.
To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Porteroso said:To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Do markets ever correct?
Is printing trillions of dollars of paper money and running up gargantuan trade deficits forever the plan?
You are basically making the same arguments that have been made for 30 years and have proven to be erroneous in practice. Real world trumps [pun intended] theoretical economics.ATL Bear said:These questions rely heavily on simplified assumptions (political narratives), false binaries, and an outdated understanding of how manufacturing fits into a modern economy.Adriacus Peratuun said:Questions:ATL Bear said:
Low skill manufacturing isn't coming back. And even if it did it would be low wage work and serve no economic purpose other than higher prices and increased worker risk for low pay. That was the preponderance of the oft sighted 60,000 - 90,000 factory loss (heck of a range there BTW).
Bringing manufacturing back is a capital not labor exercise, and the type of manufacturing we need is not only skilled labor, but highly skilled labor which is not only in short supply, but requires a reorientation of our education and training matrix domestically to address the short and long term lack of resources. That's before we even address the scale required to mass produce like our global competitors, the deregulation required to even contemplate it, and the supply chains necessary to execute.
Manufacturing employment beyond engineering, IT, and specialty technicians is on the bullet train of obsolescence. Why we would go to war with the world economically to try and protect it is beyond me. Don't protect, create and innovate. That's what always made us better.
1) for people whose basic skill set aligns with manufacturing work and not "create & innovate", what exactly are they to do for employment?
2) if the USA can cost effectively run automotive assembly plants, why can't it also run automotive component manufacturing? HVAC manufacturing [easily brought back]? Similar?
3) is the USA's national defense better by destroying the manufacturing base?
4) why did the USA create an economic environment that lead to offshoring tech manufacturing?
5) how many items do you own that are created by basic manufacturing skills? Cars, HVAC, appliances, etc.?
6) how many items do you that utilize tech manufacturing? Phones, cars, computers, pads, etc.
7) how often do you make phones calls, utilize the internet, etc.?
Throwing shade on manufacturing as part of a balanced economy is very 1990s.
1) For people whose basic skill set aligns with manufacturing work and not "create & innovate," what exactly are they to do for employment?
First I'd say make some effort to up-skill, but second with a long term unemployment rate of 3-5%, I'd say keep working as they are now. The myth of suffering is greatly overstated. Of course you're assuming manufacturing jobs are inherently accessible to the "basic skill set." That may have been true in 1955, but today's advanced manufacturing jobs require technical proficiency, digital fluency, and adaptive learning. The path forward isn't protecting jobs that no longer exist, it's expanding access to training, apprenticeships, and skilled trades that align with the demands of high-tech industry. Protecting obsolete roles keeps workers trapped in economic limbo. Empowering them through modern upskilling creates mobility.
2) If the USA can cost-effectively run automotive assembly plants, why can't it also run component manufacturing? HVAC manufacturing [easily brought back]? Similar?
Because assembly and component production are not the same thing. Assembly plants often benefit from logistics advantages, market proximity, and automation, making them viable in the U.S. Components, on the other hand, are part of a global, just-in-time supply chain with cost sensitive parts often manufactured at scale abroad. Simply asking "why not?" ignores economies of scale, labor intensity, material costs, regulatory burdens, and existing supplier networks. We can't rebuild the entire system by fiat.
3) Is the USA's national defense better by destroying the manufacturing base?
This is a straw man. No one is arguing for the destruction of the manufacturing base. The argument is to modernize it, invest in defense critical industries, dual use technologies, and resilient supply chains. Protecting commodity production like textiles or toaster ovens has nothing to do with national defense. Strategic reshoring of pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and rare earths? Absolutely. But conflating that with blanket manufacturing protection is lazy geopolitics.
4) Why did the USA create an economic environment that led to offshoring tech manufacturing?
Because multinational corporations pursued profit and efficiency in a globalized system we helped architect. This wasn't some deep-state plot, it was the logical output of comparative advantage, currency dynamics, foreign labor markets, and demand for lower consumer prices. The solution isn't isolationism, it's building a domestic ecosystem that's attractive to high-end production, which includes stable policy, workforce investment, deregulation, and competitive tax and infrastructure systems.
5) How many items do you own that are created by basic manufacturing skills? Cars, HVAC, appliances, etc.?
Plenty. But owning them doesn't mean they need to be made here, or that we benefit from doing so. Global specialization allows the U.S. to lead in innovation while importing goods that are lower margin and labor intensive. There's a difference between using a product and needing to produce it locally. It's called economic efficiency, and it's a feature, not a flaw.
6) How many items do you own that utilize tech manufacturing? Phones, cars, computers, pads, etc.?
All of them, and this actually supports my point. These are the types of manufacturing that are capital-intensive, IP driven, and require high-skill labor, the very sectors we should be focused on strengthening. Trying to preserve low wage, low skill production to satisfy a nostalgic vision of factory floors doesn't move us forward. Investing in these tech heavy industries, supply chain resilience, and workforce capability does.
7) How often do you make phone calls, utilize the internet, etc.?
Constantly, which proves my point. Our economy is increasingly digital, decentralized, and service oriented. That doesn't mean we don't need manufacturing, but it means we need the right kind of manufacturing, embedded in future facing industries, not revived mid-century models. BTW, China's economy has been maturing in this direction as well. Less manufacturing employment and greater service orientation.
As for your "1990s" jab, if anything's outdated, it's the belief that manufacturing = national greatness and that trade protectionism can reverse 40 years of structural, capital, and technological change. The real danger is not moving forward and doubling down on a vision of the past that no longer maps to economic reality. Making the working and middle class pay for that folly through tariffs is downright 1890's.
How many decades of a failing imbalanced economy are necessary for you to admit the error?
Or it simply, "I am a winner in the new economy, screw those other folks. Let them eat cake."?
Your arguments are similar to defense spending choices that focused on big ticket projects and left the USA vulnerable to the uglies of real world conflicts.
As an aside, you are arguing against economic choices that pick winners while ignoring the fact that prior choices created the current winner & loser lists.
It doesn't take much time in the Rust Belt v. SFO/Austin to see the real world impact on people who lives were upended v. the lives of the people throne on the trash heap.
Before pretending moral superiority, send some time in Akron, Dayton, Scranton, etc.
And if pure Free Trade is the answer, why aren't we 30 years into bliss by this point?
Hint: pure free trade will never work when 99% of the players are cheating.
Try reading and listening to those involved. Those two simple practices will help inform your opinion.Porteroso said:How is it that you're the only person on the planet that knows the end game here?Adriacus Peratuun said:Your argument is based upon a false assumption. That a global tariff scheme is intended to have equal long term impact across the globe.Mothra said:What is a new and more balanced arrangement? Some of these countries have lower tariffs than the US. They could do like Israel - get rid of tariffs altogether - and still get smacked with a 30% tariff (like Israel). So what can they do? Try to get their citizens, many of whom have an average income that is a fraction of the income of American citizens, to buy more American products to reduce the trade imbalance? How does that work exactly when they are having trouble putting food on their tables?Adriacus Peratuun said:
How many countries opting out of a fight and instead making new more balanced arrangements creates unstoppable momentum to support tariffs?
Certain industries and their pet politicians will continue to scream but the public at large will generally get onboard. Momentum is a weird factor to calculate.
Let's drop the silly charade that this is some sort of reciprocal tariff. It's not and never was.
Squeezing everyone serves multiple purposes.
1) lock up some early easy wins.
2) deal making by "not the true targets" puts pressure on the true targets to deal.
End game:
Germany buying LNG from us and telling Russia to kick sand.
Kill all of the preferential deals that China has negotiated in the developing world.
Stop all of the undercover Airbus subsidies.
Get tech manufacturing back in the USA [to some degree]
Teach India a harsh lesson
And similar………
Adriacus Peratuun said:You are basically making the same arguments that have been made for 30 years and have proven to be erroneous in practice. Real world trumps [pun intended] theoretical economics.ATL Bear said:These questions rely heavily on simplified assumptions (political narratives), false binaries, and an outdated understanding of how manufacturing fits into a modern economy.Adriacus Peratuun said:Questions:ATL Bear said:
Low skill manufacturing isn't coming back. And even if it did it would be low wage work and serve no economic purpose other than higher prices and increased worker risk for low pay. That was the preponderance of the oft sighted 60,000 - 90,000 factory loss (heck of a range there BTW).
Bringing manufacturing back is a capital not labor exercise, and the type of manufacturing we need is not only skilled labor, but highly skilled labor which is not only in short supply, but requires a reorientation of our education and training matrix domestically to address the short and long term lack of resources. That's before we even address the scale required to mass produce like our global competitors, the deregulation required to even contemplate it, and the supply chains necessary to execute.
Manufacturing employment beyond engineering, IT, and specialty technicians is on the bullet train of obsolescence. Why we would go to war with the world economically to try and protect it is beyond me. Don't protect, create and innovate. That's what always made us better.
1) for people whose basic skill set aligns with manufacturing work and not "create & innovate", what exactly are they to do for employment?
2) if the USA can cost effectively run automotive assembly plants, why can't it also run automotive component manufacturing? HVAC manufacturing [easily brought back]? Similar?
3) is the USA's national defense better by destroying the manufacturing base?
4) why did the USA create an economic environment that lead to offshoring tech manufacturing?
5) how many items do you own that are created by basic manufacturing skills? Cars, HVAC, appliances, etc.?
6) how many items do you that utilize tech manufacturing? Phones, cars, computers, pads, etc.
7) how often do you make phones calls, utilize the internet, etc.?
Throwing shade on manufacturing as part of a balanced economy is very 1990s.
1) For people whose basic skill set aligns with manufacturing work and not "create & innovate," what exactly are they to do for employment?
First I'd say make some effort to up-skill, but second with a long term unemployment rate of 3-5%, I'd say keep working as they are now. The myth of suffering is greatly overstated. Of course you're assuming manufacturing jobs are inherently accessible to the "basic skill set." That may have been true in 1955, but today's advanced manufacturing jobs require technical proficiency, digital fluency, and adaptive learning. The path forward isn't protecting jobs that no longer exist, it's expanding access to training, apprenticeships, and skilled trades that align with the demands of high-tech industry. Protecting obsolete roles keeps workers trapped in economic limbo. Empowering them through modern upskilling creates mobility.
2) If the USA can cost-effectively run automotive assembly plants, why can't it also run component manufacturing? HVAC manufacturing [easily brought back]? Similar?
Because assembly and component production are not the same thing. Assembly plants often benefit from logistics advantages, market proximity, and automation, making them viable in the U.S. Components, on the other hand, are part of a global, just-in-time supply chain with cost sensitive parts often manufactured at scale abroad. Simply asking "why not?" ignores economies of scale, labor intensity, material costs, regulatory burdens, and existing supplier networks. We can't rebuild the entire system by fiat.
3) Is the USA's national defense better by destroying the manufacturing base?
This is a straw man. No one is arguing for the destruction of the manufacturing base. The argument is to modernize it, invest in defense critical industries, dual use technologies, and resilient supply chains. Protecting commodity production like textiles or toaster ovens has nothing to do with national defense. Strategic reshoring of pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and rare earths? Absolutely. But conflating that with blanket manufacturing protection is lazy geopolitics.
4) Why did the USA create an economic environment that led to offshoring tech manufacturing?
Because multinational corporations pursued profit and efficiency in a globalized system we helped architect. This wasn't some deep-state plot, it was the logical output of comparative advantage, currency dynamics, foreign labor markets, and demand for lower consumer prices. The solution isn't isolationism, it's building a domestic ecosystem that's attractive to high-end production, which includes stable policy, workforce investment, deregulation, and competitive tax and infrastructure systems.
5) How many items do you own that are created by basic manufacturing skills? Cars, HVAC, appliances, etc.?
Plenty. But owning them doesn't mean they need to be made here, or that we benefit from doing so. Global specialization allows the U.S. to lead in innovation while importing goods that are lower margin and labor intensive. There's a difference between using a product and needing to produce it locally. It's called economic efficiency, and it's a feature, not a flaw.
6) How many items do you own that utilize tech manufacturing? Phones, cars, computers, pads, etc.?
All of them, and this actually supports my point. These are the types of manufacturing that are capital-intensive, IP driven, and require high-skill labor, the very sectors we should be focused on strengthening. Trying to preserve low wage, low skill production to satisfy a nostalgic vision of factory floors doesn't move us forward. Investing in these tech heavy industries, supply chain resilience, and workforce capability does.
7) How often do you make phone calls, utilize the internet, etc.?
Constantly, which proves my point. Our economy is increasingly digital, decentralized, and service oriented. That doesn't mean we don't need manufacturing, but it means we need the right kind of manufacturing, embedded in future facing industries, not revived mid-century models. BTW, China's economy has been maturing in this direction as well. Less manufacturing employment and greater service orientation.
As for your "1990s" jab, if anything's outdated, it's the belief that manufacturing = national greatness and that trade protectionism can reverse 40 years of structural, capital, and technological change. The real danger is not moving forward and doubling down on a vision of the past that no longer maps to economic reality. Making the working and middle class pay for that folly through tariffs is downright 1890's.
How many decades of a failing imbalanced economy are necessary for you to admit the error?
Or it simply, "I am a winner in the new economy, screw those other folks. Let them eat cake."?
But you have to remember even in a rigged system there are people who benefit tremendously
And will greatly resist any change.....even much needed positive change.
The old Regime in France & Russia had to change....instead they dug in their heels and prevent peaceful change...economic and political...and got violent change instead.
Printing trillions of dollars and running hup unsustainable trade deficits has benefits for a small well connect group of college educated Americans...you can zoom in on their zip codes and see that...they will dig in to prevent real systemic change
That sentence summarizes your position. Kevin Bacon screaming: "All is well".Porteroso said:
I go back to my first post in this thread, that apparently Trump wants to get us from point A, to point B. Nobody knows what point B is, we only know that point A was a great economy and great markets.
Clearly you were a winner in the USA's new global economy. Good for you. Many people were not winners and would adamantly dispute your assertion of "great". But screw them.
And of course there is that small problem of "greatness"…….the economy was great until Carter's inflation, until the S&L crisis, until the dot-com bubble, until the subprime mortgage crisis.
Great is only truly great when sustained and benefitting the vast majority.
Adriacus Peratuun said:That sentence summarizes your position. Kevin Bacon screaming: "All is well".Porteroso said:
I go back to my first post in this thread, that apparently Trump wants to get us from point A, to point B. Nobody knows what point B is, we only know that point A was a great economy and great markets.
Clearly you were a winner in the USA's new global economy. Good for you.
Bingo.....
"the lady doth protest too much methinks"
I don't think this is something new. This has always been his style...it's part of his appeal for many.
White House official on President Trump's "thinking" right now, per the Washington Post: pic.twitter.com/4vz2CCkr9F
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 4, 2025
Only if Puppet Harris had one. Soros was determined to drain America of every last dollar before he rode out of townRedbrickbear said:Porteroso said:To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Do markets ever correct?
Is printing trillions of dollars of paper money and running up gargantuan trade deficits forever the plan?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Do markets ever correct?
Is printing trillions of dollars of paper money and running up gargantuan trade deficits forever the plan?
Sure they do, but anyone who thinks the current state of the market wasn't directly caused by the tariffs ain't too bright.
Apparently, the folks that were in charge of the market prior to the Tariffs was not very smart at all. More like brain-dead. A massive restructure had to take placeMothra said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Do markets ever correct?
Is printing trillions of dollars of paper money and running up gargantuan trade deficits forever the plan?
Sure they do, but anyone who thinks the current state of the market wasn't directly caused by the tariffs ain't too bright.
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Right now, my thought is this guy is getting assassinated for sure. People will kill you over a million bucks, day in day out. The US market has lost trillions in the past 2 days, to say nothing of the runup to this. Add in global markets, and the past 2 days may have erased more wealth than anything else, at any point, in human history.Redbrickbear said:Do markets ever correct?Porteroso said:To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Is printing trillions of dollars of paper money and running up gargantuan trade deficits forever the plan?
I guarantee that if you watch what George Soros is doing right now, follow his actions and you will also become rich. He's a stinking piece of one world order trash, but he is right there with Warren Buffet when it comes to investing in bear markets
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
“One thing that I think was very positive about this report is that we're seeing job growth in the private payroll sector, not in government jobs. Remember, in the prior administration, job growth was in government jobs.”
— DOGE NEWS- Department of Government Efficiency (@realdogeusa) April 4, 2025
No more fake job growth on the taxpayer's dime! pic.twitter.com/IAh7KLQRxC
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
BREAKING: This is the first time ever the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 1,500 points on back-to-back days.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 4, 2025
I agree that a restructure was needed. I was just hoping for the new structure to be a better oneAssassin said:Apparently, the folks that were in charge of the market prior to the Tariffs was not very smart at all. More like brain-dead. A massive restructure had to take placeMothra said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:To be railing on libs in a thread about a self imposed recession caused by the guy you voted for is a bit irrelevant. Nobody cares. Libs are not erasing my retirement account, your beloved is.Assassin said:
Apparently some of these "Homo big heads" made it to America....we now call them liberals. Not a lot of brain, but full of chit
https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-831441
Do markets ever correct?
Is printing trillions of dollars of paper money and running up gargantuan trade deficits forever the plan?
Sure they do, but anyone who thinks the current state of the market wasn't directly caused by the tariffs ain't too bright.
so much winningboognish_bear said:BREAKING: This is the first time ever the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 1,500 points on back-to-back days.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 4, 2025
This video says Warren Buffett believes "Trump is making the best economic moves he's seen in over 50 years"
— Morning Brew ☕️ (@MorningBrew) April 4, 2025
Buffett put out this statement this afternoon: https://t.co/F87xQFfXSI pic.twitter.com/cbRBRr5CHo
BREAKING: The S&P 500 is now down -6% on the day and 1% away from a 15 minute trading halt.
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 4, 2025
If a halt does NOT occur before 3:25 PM ET, there is no halt mechanism into the close.
Between 3:25 PM ET and 4:00 PM ET, markets CANNOT be halted. pic.twitter.com/1xpBNLTAC6