New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 11
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 11 of 77 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 1523
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    366
    Likes (Received)
    6217

    Default

    If the consumer is not paying or going to pay these tariffs whose pocket is the money coming from?
    It is a balance sheet. No free money, there has to be source paying the bill.
    It is not the makers in China. They don't pay tariffs so who is it?
    The companies importing product? Are they making so much that they will just eat it?
    The president is all so proud about how this money will and is filling the government coffers.
    Where is all this cash coming from?

    Show me the money or more importantly here the cash flow.
    Somebody is paying the piper.
    Bob

  2. Likes JoeE., dcsipo liked this post
  3. #202
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    Um, it was you who chimed in to a reply I made to another poster who made that assertion.
    .
    you are either trolling or should slow down the reading a bit. I very clearly said its inevitable that it will, not that it has or hasn't and more importantly that you are are wrong to conclude from the CPI that has not increased prices. Then I gave logic (CPI is an aggregate) complete with simple analogies as to why. Yet you claim the candle/window example is not relevant, and have concluded the candle makes cold. And its not partisan, its based on you're with a scientific reasoning. FU Doc, I just smoked a pack and don't have cancer.

    Moving from what I know to opinion, this unnecessary partisan BS (a sword that cuts both ways) creates fervent blind faith that imo will do far more damage to a nation than tariffs. sigh, I'll let you get back to your spy vs spy routines

  4. #203
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    moscow,ohio
    Posts
    5,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    578
    Likes (Received)
    1874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipo View Post
    Read the constitution, after all, it is only a few tiny pages in a blue booklet. Congress should represent the interest of the electorate, not the donors who give them the money to run.
    dee
    ;-D
    because I have not yet stirred any pots today, what is the electorate and how is IT represented?

    Ps- I pretty much agree with you.

  5. #204
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2395
    Likes (Received)
    2181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    <SNIP>
    The president is all so proud about how this money will and is filling the government coffers.
    Where is all this cash coming from?

    Show me the money or more importantly here the cash flow.
    Somebody is paying the piper.
    Bob
    Is it because the tariffs are paying for the November 2017 tax cuts, thus redistributing the Government's source of income?

    Edit:- Just found this article that seems to support that supposition.

  6. #205
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    407
    Likes (Received)
    1634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    you are either trolling or should slow down the reading a bit. I very clearly said its inevitable that it will, not that it has or hasn't and more importantly that you are are wrong to conclude from the CPI that has not increased prices. Then I gave logic (CPI is an aggregate) complete with simple analogies as to why. Yet you claim the candle/window example is not relevant, and have concluded the candle makes cold. And its not partisan, its based on you're with a scientific reasoning. FU Doc, I just smoked a pack and don't have cancer.
    Sigh. I cannot control what you read into my comments. This is what I said:
    If the tariffs were actually hitting consumers, it would be reflected in the CPI.

    It's not. CPI is at 2%, which is right in the middle of the range of 1.6%-2.4% since 2011.
    Now if consumers were actually being hit by this, it WOULD be reflected in the CPI. It does not matter that CPI is an aggregate. "The US Consumer" is also an aggregate.

    I did not say the consumer will not be affected ever- I said he is not being affected right now. Or the effect is so small as to be completely insignificant. Take your pick.

    You think I have concluded the candle is cooling the room- that is all in your head.

    I said over a year ago that the trade issues would be a headwind on the economy. But you know what? It turned out to be a lot less than I thought it would be at the time, and we have enjoyed significant gains over the past 2 years in every relevant indicator. As I have mentioned before- the Fed has raised interest rates 8 times in Trump's first 2 years. That's not an attempt to stimulate the economy, it's an attempt to put on the brakes.

    IF the trade war escalates, and IF tariffs get applied broadly to consumer products, then YES- they will hit consumers, and that WILL be reflected in the CPI.

    I will continue to reserve judgement. When I see something in the data that actually concerns me, my view will reflect that. But for now, I am content to wait and see how it all shakes out.

    What I won't do is get all worked up over the fortune tellers' predictions.

    We on this board see the tariffs differently than most people, because they hit us directly. I won't base a judgement on them over how they just effect me. I want to see a larger picture.

    And I will not drink the "Free Trade" kool-aid again. I did that with NAFTA- it was a sales pitch that I won't fall for twice.

  7. #206
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1718
    Likes (Received)
    1828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwananew10K View Post
    because I have not yet stirred any pots today, what is the electorate and how is IT represented?

    Ps- I pretty much agree with you.
    You are most definitely. But I meant all of us, and we need to be represented, because we are not.

    dee
    ;-D

  8. #207
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1820
    Likes (Received)
    2030

    Default

    “And I will not drink the "Free Trade" kool-aid again. I did that with NAFTA- it was a sales pitch that I won't fall for twice.”

    Are you sure of that.

    The economy you defend as robust and unscathed by tariff is wholly a product of the trade interdependence of NAFTA.
    Would it be more so in its absence?

  9. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  10. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    407
    Likes (Received)
    1634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    ...The economy you defend as robust and unscathed by tariff is wholly a product of the trade interdependence of NAFTA.
    Would it be more so in its absence?
    I disagree with the first- we had an economy before NAFTA, we had trade with Mexico and Canada before NAFTA.

    I don't know the counterfactual. What I do know is the promises of creating good paying American jobs, a rising trade surplus with Mexico, and a decrease in illegal immigration never materialized.

    NAFTA was the template for the WTO and the dozen+ bilateral FTA's that we entered into subsequently. What we got in return was the decimation of US manufacturing, which I believe was a major contributor- if not the driving force- for rising income inequality in the US.

  11. #209
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    229
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    391

  12. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  13. #210
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    714
    Likes (Received)
    2236

    Default

    And now the POTUS has made a deal, NO Tariffs with our southern neighbor! They promise to do their part with the refugee situation.

    'Makes all the "End of the world is coming" banter a moot issue.

  14. Likes jancollc liked this post
  15. #211
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15294
    Likes (Received)
    918

    Default

    The stance that the trump tax doesn't seem to be affecting the economy for US consumers is like saying "well, consumers are still driving cars and buying gasoline with prices at $4 a gallon, so refineries raising prices doesn't hurt the economy".

    I saw a clip tonight on the NBC News that showed a screen shot of a trump tweet that included "... and Mexico is paying the tariffs...", or something to that effect!

    I laughed out loud at that. He's deluded, or he's trying to mislead. Mexico isn't paying any tariff or tax on goods imported from their country and sold in ours... you and I are.... every time we open our wallets.

  16. #212
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15294
    Likes (Received)
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    And now the POTUS has made a deal, NO Tariffs with our southern neighbor! They promise to do their part with the refugee situation.

    'Makes all the "End of the world is coming" banter a moot issue.
    Pfffttt... He didn't do anything but blink, like he did on the government shutdown.

    He sat himself up to fail with his imaginary "deadline". Mexico stonewalled him, he backed down. He backed down because he was getting too much flak from republicans.

    On edit: I hope they don't do their part on the refugee situation... give him a taste of his own medicine by reneging on this imaginary "deal", and making him look like the fool he is and forcing him to do something else stupid in retaliation.

  17. #213
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    714
    Likes (Received)
    2236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE. View Post
    Pfffttt... He didn't do anything but blink, like he did on the government shutdown.

    He sat himself up to fail with his imaginary "deadline". Mexico stonewalled him, he backed down. He backed down because he was getting too much flak from republicans.

    On edit: I hope they don't do their part on the refugee situation... give him a taste of his own medicine by reneging on this imaginary "deal", and making him look like the fool he is and forcing him to do something else stupid in retaliation.
    On Edit,
    Really?

    You know, spite is like drinking poison thinking the other person is going to die from it.

  18. #214
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    You know, spite is like drinking poison thinking the other person is going to die from it.
    Ah ! but I have been taking small doses of iocaine powder, and built up a tolerance. Both glasses were poisoned !

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver
    Think there's skulduggery there, time for a quick rinse of the tinfoil hat
    You live in Canada so I can't comment on your situation. But I have used that hat in the Gulf of Tonkin, the light at the end of the tunnel, the domino theory, the weapons of mass destruction, the NAFTA and WTO pushes, the greed is good scenario, the Iraquis murdering babies in their incubators, all of alan greenspan's pronouncements, Larry Summers' statements ... it's getting pretty shiny and tunes in to bullshit real well now.

  19. #215
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    407
    Likes (Received)
    1634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE. View Post
    The stance that the trump tax doesn't seem to be affecting the economy for US consumers is like saying "well, consumers are still driving cars and buying gasoline with prices at $4 a gallon, so refineries raising prices doesn't hurt the economy".
    If gas prices suddenly hike, it's reflected in the CPI immediately.

    The CPI on new vehicles is only 1.2% over the prior 12 months. That's lower than the "all items" number. I don't see the steel tariffs in there, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE. View Post
    I saw a clip tonight on the NBC News that showed a screen shot of a trump tweet that included "... and Mexico is paying the tariffs...", or something to that effect!

    I laughed out loud at that. He's deluded, or he's trying to mislead. Mexico isn't paying any tariff or tax on goods imported from their country and sold in ours... you and I are.... every time we open our wallets.
    The importers pay the tariff when it hits the US shore. Mexico stands to lose exports.

    I'm paying more for raw materials, but I'm not suddenly paying more for shop supplies, or something I need from the hardware store.

  20. #216
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    2,807
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3969
    Likes (Received)
    12648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    I think other countries' leaders- the EU especially- think Trump is an ideologue. He isn't. He is purely transactional. He wants to negotiate and deliver on a political promise.

    He's happy to accept minor concessions if he can spin them into his narrative. USMCA, South Korea FTA- he got some concessions around the edges, that was enough for him to claim a victory even though the effects will be minimal.

    The EU leaders think they can play hardball with Trump- that's his turf. He won't back down. Toss him a bone on AG or autos and he'll be your best buddy, lol.
    This topic feels like treading on broken glass. You obviously see things differently than I do and that's OK as I doubt if any one of us (PM members) agree 100% on anything.

    Present politics in the world today as I see them:

    Trump has more or less had and runs several businesses. Some think he's done well as a businessman, some don't.

    The problem is, at least how I see it, is that running a country isn't anything like running a company.

    1) A population can't be fired.

    2) Not all work yet have to be cared for. Children, elderly, handicapped, etc. Even "lazy bastards" can't be left to die or starve. Like it or not but they are all part of a government's responsibility.

    3) As good as all country leaders aren't business men as such. They are politicians and that can be a very different ball game. The population of any country, if they feel threatened by another country, will almost always forget their differences and unite. The USA is no different. This is one of the things I think Trump tends to overlook and that leaders of countries didn't get the job by being easily intimidated. Some (most?) get to be reelected more than a couple of times.

    4) New trade alliances are being formed almost every day for the simple reason that Trump is regarded as unpredictable by almost all leaders and no leader of any country can be sure what his next move will be so they go with "predictable" and find new friends and alliances for business. The sensible leaders do this quietly and discretely. What are most politicians (and not businessmen) known for? Saying one thing and doing another.

    5) What will be interesting over time is whether these new alliances will gradually change the status quo. I believe they will and "gradually" might be sooner than I think. Put very bluntly as far as trade goes, who need who the most? The USA or the rest of the world?

    6) If the USA and Trump remain on their present course as if trade is ONLY about business and who can threaten who and succeed then then after the time Trump is no longer president will things ever get back to what they were?

    Throughout history "empires" have risen and eventually fallen. Why they "fall" is usually for the same reason if anyone cares to look into any of the once great empires.

    List of largest empires - Wikipedia

    I wonder how things will look in 2025?

    YouTube
    Last edited by Gordon B. Clarke; 06-08-2019 at 07:39 AM.

  21. #217
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1820
    Likes (Received)
    2030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post

    I don't know the counterfactual.
    Hmmmm

    Nafta seems the perfect canvas.
    Just complicated enough to carry either portrait- disaster or success.

    NAFTA’s Economic Impact | Council on Foreign Relations

    Yes we had a economy prior but the one we have now is a product of the pact.
    Broad global changes occurred during its implementation.
    I couldn’t say with any certainty that we are worse off for it.
    Seems a important issue to know the answer to.

    The citations in the above piece are worth reading:

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w21906.pdf

  22. #218
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1820
    Likes (Received)
    2030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post

    NAFTA was the template for the WTO and the dozen+ bilateral FTA's that we entered into subsequently. What we got in return was the decimation of US manufacturing, which I believe was a major contributor- if not the driving force- for rising income inequality in the US.
    Yes- that is the narrative.
    Is it true?

    a0ec79a5-8282-4f80-9e42-f15f80c9c4ae.jpg


    I am a simpleton.
    I believe that information is diffusive in a energetic sense.
    Manufacturing capabilities are simple information which was going to distribute across the globe.
    Physics mandates it.
    Borders have always been a imperfect membrane which at best slows or alters what transfers first.
    More important being the receptive culture- when ready new information is rapidly incorporated, prior not so much.

    I see all trade as an attempt to slow a certainty- manufacturing was going to distribute more evenly over the globe.
    That distribution was going to cause losses in the heretofore centers of activity.

    Looking at the graph above- I would gather that manufacturing losses are a far longer process than NAFTA or WTO.
    I would perhaps look towards the WWII as being a accelerator of information diffusion and hence distribution of manufacturing capabilities.

  23. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2395
    Likes (Received)
    2181

    Default

    They aren't manufacturing losses, they are manufacturing employment losses. They've got nothing to do with international trade. Even in India, large buildings full of guys running manual lathes are not the norm these days. Actual manufacturing production in the 'western' world is probably as high as it's ever been, just doesn't need all that many people to do it any more. A bit like farming, really.

  24. #220
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    953
    Likes (Received)
    5269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    I disagree with the first- we had an economy before NAFTA, we had trade with Mexico and Canada before NAFTA.

    I don't know the counterfactual. What I do know is the promises of creating good paying American jobs, a rising trade surplus with Mexico, and a decrease in illegal immigration never materialized.

    NAFTA was the template for the WTO and the dozen+ bilateral FTA's that we entered into subsequently. What we got in return was the decimation of US manufacturing, which I believe was a major contributor- if not the driving force- for rising income inequality in the US.

    Actually, immigration from MEXICO is negative these days - the country that we have NAFTA with, Mexico, has had more mexicans moving out of the US than sneaking in this year. Our immigration problems are with Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the central american countries that are not covered by NAFTA.
    The mexican economy has been improving, and more mexicans have good paying (for mexico) jobs at home.

    The political and crime problems of central america were not affected by NAFTA.

  25. Likes JoeE. liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •