New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 75
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 75 of 77 FirstFirst ... 25657374757677 LastLast
Results 1,481 to 1,500 of 1523
  1. #1481
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    I don't remember ever saying I was from Poland. I was in Poland at the time I registered, . . .
    Thanks for the response. Your profile, early on, had "Poland." Probably automatically assigned due to your location in Poland at the time.

  2. #1482
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    194
    Likes (Received)
    1981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    It's important to point out that the Laffer curve has not been proven wrong. All this is talking about is his personal belief about how that curve is shaped. So what you're saying here about his curve being disproven is incorrect. His opinion on the shape of the curve is separate.


    Yep. LTCM was a pretty big danger, but they cleaned it all up before it got out of control. Merton and Scholes were thought to be brilliant. Afterall, they came up with the Black-scholes model along with Black. And in the end, because prices didn't work out as they thought they would in the "brilliant" models they had, they almost ended up causing a recession. There's a whole book on this called "Why Genius Failed". They got the Nobel prize the year before it collapsed. To be fair, they are brilliant people. I'm just pointing out the fact that so is Laffer. They all have merits. I don't know of anyone that has a spotless record predicting the future. Some have better records than others. Regardless, there was no reason in that article to start it off that way: it was clearly because they simply do not like Trump. That's fine, but they are a news organization, and a financial news one at that, not a political one like Fox or CNN. That is a real shame they've let partisan bias takeover a key topic they're supposed to be focused on.
    Senseless trollish pseudo argument

    the laffer curve is wrong, all cutting taxes has done is lower gov't revenues

    the idiot trump gave him a medal for being a fellow idiot

    you blather on with senseless rhetoric

    cutting taxes has made the rich richer and continues to do so

    go back to your eastern european troll shop

  3. #1483
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    Senseless trollish pseudo argument

    the laffer curve is wrong, all cutting taxes has done is lower gov't revenues

    the idiot trump gave him a medal for being a fellow idiot

    you blather on with senseless rhetoric

    cutting taxes has made the rich richer and continues to do so

    go back to your eastern european troll shop
    Dude. You have been proven wrong here. All his theory is is that there is a revenue-maximizing tax rate between 0% and 100%. That's literally all it is. It has not been disproven. At all. The only thing "disproven" here is you. It is a theory that is widely accepted and is taught in economics. You've made it obvious now over 2 posts that you don't even understand the issue being talked about. The only reason they don't like the guy is because his interpretation of what that curve looks like in reality is skewed in favor of lower taxes. Some economists like low taxes, others want higher taxes. Laffer is in the former group. They have even made this clear - they did not themselves say that his theory is wrong. You look like an idiot at this point. Read on this to at least get an idea of what you're talking about before you look dumber, if that's even possible at this point. I'm not arguing that we should have lower taxes or that I supported Trump's ideas to lower income taxes; I personally believe they should have higher taxes. I'm simply stating the obvious: he made widely-taught and accepted theory, they gave him a Nobel Prize for it. There is nothing vastly different here than for any other economist awarded this. The only thing different here is bias from Bloomberg.

  4. #1484
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    571

    Default

    As one who lived through the Brownback era in Kansas, the merit or lack thereof Arthur Laffer and his "economic theories are vividly recalled. The whole "Great experiment" was an utter and total failure. Kansas is still pulling itself out of the mess that was Brownbackistan.

    Steve

  5. #1485
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Thanks for the response. Your profile, early on, had "Poland." Probably automatically assigned due to your location in Poland at the time.
    AFAIK the the ONLY "automatic" is the default to Aaland Islands for lack of any actual selection at all.

    Not that it matters except A) a genuine entry is a PM rule, and B) when advising a member in re shipping or recommending "local" resources Aaland islands is silly when he lives but two doors up the block, or on the opposite seacoast, same continent.

  6. #1486
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    A former U. of Wisconsin prof. will be leading one of our discussions next week. He just sent this, from one of his colleagues:

    YouTube

    It addresses the clash of the US and China, pros and cons of TPP, and tariffs. Perhaps controversial and I suspect there could be very different takes on it.

    It's basically an analysis of how the US is likely to lose world power, perhaps faster under current policy. Might skip through the intro if the topic is of interest, but I found the rest both confrontational and thought provoking. More on the speaker (book form) is here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Ameri...ct_top?ie=UTF8

    At stake, in his mind, is a world that has been more or less governed by by rule of law for the past 70 years -- and perhaps something less free under Chinese domination. At the same time he (in his book) is apparently pretty critical of much of our own history..

    The quote "may you live in interesting times" isn't really a Chinese saying - but it sure seems to capture the present. Here we seem to be backing away from the notion of participating in any sort of international standards of law - even worried about some sorts of new world order conspiracies -- while China is pushing into the vacuum we've left and fashioning its own world order.

    My own take is to double down on the notion, previously expressed, that we should be setting environmental standards and level the playing field with tariffs with that as the benchmark. For one thing it helps keep both the players (the nations, their companies, and transnational companies) and the playing field (the planet) intact. Lot more to this than that, though.

    Be curious of reactions, for anyone who takes the time to view this.

  7. #1487
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    I watched a good bit of it, but I have some high doubts about what he's saying. Two things stood out: his bit about Chinese students and our ranking globally compared to them, and his talking about the TPP. I didn't see the pros and cons part you talked about, but what he's saying wrt to it seems like he doesn't really understand or has even read much into what the TPP actually is. He says that the pact would have shifted away trade from China and isolated it - and I have seen this said a lot. But this is not the case. This is simply what Obama said it would do, but Wilbur Ross and Robert Lighthizer have made it clear why it is they believed it was a bad agreement and why this wasn't the case. On the opposite end of the political aisle, Joseph Stiglitz, who was an adviser under Clinton and involved with NAFTA when it was being negotiated, has explained the same points. You can read what he said about it here,

    Will TPP Help to Curb China's Rise? - Roosevelt Forward

    "Rather than checking China’s economic power, TPP would actually afford China substantial benefits via generous “rules of origin.” These terms specify how much content must be produced within TPP countries to qualify for tariff-free market access. High standards would ensure that the benefits of trade flow to partners offering reciprocal market opening. For instance, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) required more than 60 percent regional content for qualifying automobiles. The TPP, in contrast, sets the origin threshold so low that even if the vast majority of value-added content come from outside countries, a product may be able to get preferential treatment. For automobiles, the threshold would be 45 percent (with loopholes), though most industrial and consumer goods would need just 30 percent of their content produced by TPP countries, and food and chemical products would need 35–40 percent.

    Moreover, once combined with a sufficient number of other qualifying inputs—other parts or even minor manufacturing processes—outside content would be counted as 100 percent of TPP origin. For example, raw steel tubing from China—where state-owned producers are currently glutting global markets, fueling China’s epic smog crisis and accelerating global climate change—could be imported to a TPP country, threaded or heat-treated, and magically transformed into “made in TPP” steel. Imagine that such a part is combined with another 70 percent of non-TPP content to make a new good. In this way, more than 90 percent of the value of a product can come from outside TPP and still qualify for benefits under the agreement.

    This is the worst of both worlds: goods sourced from countries that do not commit to TPP’s labor, environmental, and other standards or reciprocate market opening to our goods can still get free access to TPP markets."


    A lot of economists do not even understand these agreements - they hear "free trade" and that's about all that matters to them. They don't actually read the texts, understand the economic models that underpin the forecasts for them, or anything else. Some do, but most do not, simply because that is not their area of focus. They were taught Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and others, and that's just about all that matters to them.

    Stiglitz is a great economist on this because he focuses on it. He actually does read over these texts and has been directly involved with them. He was once a proponent of these agreements like NAFTA when he was under Clinton, but now has largely become a lot more skeptical. Despite the fact that he is a pretty staunch Trump opponent, he and Trump's trade people are aligned on not liking these pacts. Here's an article by him that explains his basic ideas on the whole topic.

    Annals of free trade: will TPP learn from our NAFTA past, or are we condemned to repeat it?

    The bit he spoke about on education - yes, I think most people agree Asians focus heavily on education. But the PISA statistics he is referring to in this talk are very misleading. Instead of submitting national statistics, China simply submitted the scores for Shanghai while everyone else submitted national scores. That would be the equivalent of us submitting the scores from our highest standard city and just disregarding the rest of the country. This sort of statistics gaming from China is rampant, not just in this specific instance. Maybe this is a minor thing, but I feel like anyone doing this sort of research should be really trying to dig and examine both sides.

    When he started getting off into a hypothetical scenario at great detail on a war between China and the US for a large portion, I kind of got tired of it at that point. It seemed a bit wonky.

    Maybe China is going to be the next world leader. On the other hand, we've been here before. Back in the 80s, Japan was supposed to take over the US economically. They were smarter, harder working, their companies better, etc., on and on. Countless books were written, tons of pundits said we would be surpassed. Pretty much all the same things said today about China were said then about Japan. Fast forward a few decades later, and all the same people say that Japan is mired in stagnation and low economic growth, companies are horribly inefficient, etc., blah blah.

    Personally, I don't believe China is going to make it that far. I think they'll have a financial crisis at some point in the near future, although I have no idea when that will be, if it happens. Right now they say that their economic growth is 6% or whatever, but there is no shortage of China bears that think this is completely bunk. Even the IMF has recently said that over all countries, China is "flashing red" because they've undergone such rapid levels of growth with a huge accumulation of debt. As far as I can see, it has all the makings of a bubble. Huge bubble in real estate, tons of wasteful spending on infrastructure projects that are deeply in the red, a huge amount of debt that is something like 300% of GDP now or more.....there's a lot of ignoring big red flags and that's also typical of bubbles. People are saying that China is manipulating its currency weaker to improve exports, but I wonder if in reality they are struggling or will be struggling to keep the yuan up. Day after tomorrow they will again release the monthly treasury holdings, and if there's a sharp, sharp decrease, my guess is that they are running out of cash. Korea and some other countries in Asia underwent this same problem in the 90s in the Asian financial crisis. By the time the IMF/World Bank got to them, Korea's forex reserves had dropped down to a few days worth.

    There's a ton of China skeptics out there like Michael Pettis or others. You don't have to look far. Many have been saying this for years and it still hasn't happened. I don't proclaim to have a crystal ball. There's also the documentary "The China Hustle" which goes into similar problems in China.

    All in all, we've been here repeatedly in the past. We thought the Soviet Union was working great, it collapsed. We thought Japan had now overtaken the US, its economy collapsed. Now we're here again with China. I can't remember who said it, but it's very true: Over the long term, shorting the US has been one of the biggest widowmaker trades ever.

  8. #1488
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Thanks for the input -- especially on how TPP might be gamed. Did you get much into the 2030 scenario??

  9. #1489
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    I got into a good bit of it - I just kind of thought it was too hypothetical. Interesting stuff, though

  10. #1490
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwananew10K View Post
    could it be that virtually no country has zero tariffs because virtually every government corrupts/distorts the free market to some degree?
    Um, three thoughts. I don't really know what distortion you are referring to, but I think its a mistake to view friction in a market as it not being a free market. You can have taxes, fees and regulations - that doesn't mean its not a free market. A free market is one where gov doesn't control what you offer where price is set by supply and demand. Airlines are a great example - all kinds of regs and tax and fees, but its a free market in the routes and pricing are no longer doled out by the government

    Secondly, the endless list of tariffs around the world isn't commentary that they are good. they are there for countless reasons, political, ignorance (was that redundant?), retaliatory, negotiation, other agendas or they may even be good in the case of a downward spirally economy that has to fix the balance of payments and so on. I've also said many times I'm ok with a tariff as a negotiating tool - and in being against tariffs it should be obvious that its implicit it means there are not barriers to entry in either direction. i think it outside of reasonable to suggest we should have no tariff with country X but they can have a tariff against us (or a non tariff barrier for that matter. Free trade implies a bilateral balance.

    Lastly, in determining iff tariffs are not good, or good, the answer can't come from anecdotes or even economic data (its an aggregate of such massive numbers of inputs its about impossible to assign causality). First question,, good for who? There is no doubt tariffs will benefit the owners of the protected industries (in the short run), however hopefully in a discussion like this "good" means a utilitarian view; what will be best for all in the long run, not a few captains of industry. I also accept tariffs could be good in situations like Argentine, (but really what is being done is dropping the standard of living several notches to arrest rampant.unemployment.)

    So you can cut through the fog with some simple first principals, international trade is good for the people (higher standard of living) and the economy (growth). Most would I think support that. Then in becomes a question of should there be more tax. More tax is a burden on people and an economy, a sea anchor. Its up to each person to decide if the degradation in standard of living is worth it, but my view is your (and our) problem isn't how much you tax, its how much you spend.

  11. Likes Trboatworks, cnctoolcat liked this post
  12. #1491
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,467
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    543
    Likes (Received)
    2615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    Um, three thoughts. I don't really know what distortion you are referring to, but I think its a mistake to view friction in a market as it not being a free market. You can have taxes, fees and regulations - that doesn't mean its not a free market. A free market is one where gov doesn't control what you offer where price is set by supply and demand. Airlines are a great example - all kinds of regs and tax and fees, but its a free market in the routes and pricing are no longer doled out by the government
    Except for the fact that this is rubbish, of course.

    Landing slots are set by Govt for international flights. And there are a pile of reserved slots for regional airlines here in Australia at the big hub airports just so they can't be forced out by airlines with deeper pockets.

    You can't have a route without a landing & takeoff slot, can you?

    Another collision between theory & reality I'm afraid, with reality ahead on points....

    PDW

    PDW

  13. #1492
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    Airlines are a great example - all kinds of regs and tax and fees, but its a free market in the routes and pricing are no longer doled out by the government
    Airlines - so much actually being iceberg-like, under the surface - are actually one of the worst examples possible to find.

    Consumer-visible telecoms and sea-freight rates are two more.

    Each has all-manner of seriously complex underpinnings, treaties, other history, and ongoing, that provide Day Jobs for a great many specialist regulateers and legaleasers. DAMHIKT, but we don't BEGIN to have time left to even "go there", any of the above.

    Even so, just pick some other examples.

    That sort of speciality gnarliness does not affect your points in general.

  14. #1493
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Airlines - so much actually being iceberg-like, under the surface - are actually one of the worst examples possible to find. We don't BEGIN to have time left to even "go there".

    Even so, just pick some other example. That gnarliness does not affect your points in general.
    Hospitals.

    If you fly twenty minutes in any direction from where this fat white ass is parked, you'll not find ANY hospitals without a construction crane over top.

    They're palaces of overspending, over staffing, and over indulgence. (There's a Starbucks's in one local establishment.)

    Let's do the math on THOSE places.

    You asked for a good thought experiment for the budding economists among us.

    Square THAT circle.

    And one other thing about economists:
    A wise man once said, " When folks ask me which economists I listen to, I tell them I listen to the RICHEST economist I can find."

    Rant off.

  15. #1494
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    Except for the fact that this is rubbish, of course.

    Landing slots are set by Govt for international flights. And there are a pile of reserved slots for regional airlines here in Australia at the big hub airports just so they can't be forced out by airlines with deeper pockets.

    You can't have a route without a landing & takeoff slot, can you?

    Another collision between theory & reality I'm afraid, with reality ahead on points....

    PDW

    PDW
    not to mention that there are cabotage laws prohibiting foreign carriers from doing the domestic routes. We could all have cheaper airfares if it weren't for that. There is no free market. This article is about australia, but the same rules apply for the US

    Explainer: cabotage and why foreign airlines don’t fly domestic

  16. #1495
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderjet View Post
    A wise man once said, " When folks ask me which economists I listen to, I tell them I listen to the RICHEST economist I can find."
    LOL! Married my economist for LOVE.

    She's so frugal, first hint I had was the stunning mink she wore at our wedding, outdoors, of a chilly November day. Then she tells me she's booked the entire top floor of Hong Kong's Parklane for our wedding reception, just shy of 400 guests. Year later, we do a smaller one, Kowloon side, just for the relatives up the Pearl river.

    And yet... she's still frugal enough coming up 29 years later to bust my chops over 49 cents vs 99 cents on small stuff in the shopping cart!

    Wimmin'

    Lovin' 'em sure beats putting a bounty on their heads. Or they, on ours!

    Dunno if that's a "wise" man or not. "Survivor" is good enough for me.


  17. #1496
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    Except for the fact that this is rubbish, of course.

    Landing slots are set by Govt for international flights. And there are a pile of reserved slots for regional airlines here in Australia at the big hub airports just so they can't be forced out by airlines with deeper pockets.

    You can't have a route without a landing & takeoff slot, can you?

    Another collision between theory & reality I'm afraid, with reality ahead on points....

    PDW

    PDW
    Perhaps its different environment in Australia, or you missed the point or are trying to be difficult, but in NA supply and demand sets price and where the airilines want to fly, that makes it a free market. that rules saying say a pilots need a licenses or planes must be maintained doesn't change that fact that price is set by supply and demand (unlike the old days). Its not about theory or practice, its a point for the unaware on what exactly is meant by free markets; it hardly means the market is free from laws, fees, taxes, regs and so on and you some often see the misguided assuming. Its equally silly to think friction means something isn't a free market, hence my assertion that I don't see said friction being relevant to a comparison with tariffs. fo

    airlines are so regulated that it perhaps isn't be example as people have difficulty seeing the point, however I thought them a good example as its such a stark contrast, the current free market model, vs the old regulated model (that is when there was regulation of price and routes)

    its sub point that should be obvious if not outright tear worthily boring, so whatever......elsewhere in the who cares department.....

  18. #1497
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    you missed the point or are trying to be difficult, supply and demand sets price and where the airilines want to fly, that makes it a free market..
    You don't seem to know anything at all about the airline industry, or even the shallowest layer of its pricing, though. Supply and demand were skewed a long time ago by the "hub" system and the selection of locations, just to point out one MAJOR fallacy.

    Overseas airlines remain predominantly the partners of their governments.

    Domestic Yew-Ass-Ay dominant carriers are not-even "airlines". They are serial bankrupty finansters leasing flying cattle-cars.

    Weakens the argument to get that part wrong.

    Not a good way to make what may otherwise be a valid point in general.

  19. #1498
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    its fairly obvious know one quite knows as much about anything as you do Bill, so I suppose the post is superfluous....but why not make 5 more then anyways?.

  20. Likes Greg White liked this post
  21. #1499
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    its fairly obvious know one quite knows as much about anything as you do Bill, so I suppose the post is superfluous....but why not make 5 more then anyways?.
    It could save you time to take that as stipulated, and save me posts trying to remind you of it, yes.

  22. #1500
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3129
    Likes (Received)
    3539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    It could save you time to take that as stipulated, and save me posts trying to remind you of it, yes.
    suffice to say and for the umpteenth time, the point is a free market does NOT mean there is no friction, fees, rules, laws, tax, whatever, Who gives a shit about the example, but change it to rutabagas at vegetable stand if it makes you happy


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
  •