- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.
Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News
A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.
So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.
Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News
A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.
I'll add Chinese crap isn't cheap. Their junk is the most expensive of all - because it is crappy you have to buy the same thing over and over and over - because it's crap that doesn't last long - so you have to buy it again. For example, a machinist quality drill bit will cost up to 10 times the best Chinese crap drill bits they sell at Home Depot or Lowes.
Not only will it cut thru steel plate with ease - where it would take 20 times as long with the Chinese bits - mostly due to how many times you had to change drill bits - but last 25 times as long as the Chinese drill bit - meaning unless you are a machinist (or lazy ass who doesn't use oil) that fine drill bit will last you a life time - pass it on to your kids.
I read a study some years ago that claimed the wealthy spend less on furniture than working people, although furniture of the wealth cost MUCH more. Why?
Cheap veneer over non-water resistant Chinese particle board furniture isn't going to last long. Water destroys it. The joints tear out easily. The veneer doesn't like to stick on very long. No used value, just junk at the street - quickly.
But the same piece of a rich person - solid hardwood with professional wood and glue joints finely fitted will last a lifetime - will hold value fairly well - and very possibly some of it was one of their grandparent's furniture and will the furniture of their grandchildren - possible worth many times more than was paid for it. Over the same time, 300 Chinese particle board exact furniture would have long decayed in landfills.
Yeah, let prices go way up. Fire American industry back up. Penalize the hell out of taking money out of the USA. End the breaks to the super rich - meaning we will NOT subside their employees and they have a race of which of them can pile up more billions fastest and which of them will spend the next record breaking hundreds of millions of dollars on a painting?
Isolationism? Not at all. We'll make any deals with anyone that benefit US. If the deal benefits them from their perspective, then we'd have a foreign trade deal. Otherwise, no.
OMG if this means you can only buy a new Iphone every other year costing more being American made. At least it'd last two years, particularly if made in an AMERICAN UNION SHOP FACTORY with great pay, great benefits and great job security.
So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.
Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News
A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.
Did you think China was just going to give in without being pressured? Of course they are not going to do that. They have been getting away with financial murder for years because no other administration had the backbone to try to force them to change. Millions in trade deficit is not good for the U.S and changing it isn't easy.
Let me know when there are several "studies" which looked at the same situation, and then the meta-study which provides a summary of all the studies results.
Meanwhile one study from some "special interest group" like the "Trade Partnership" is not dispositive. It is merely what those (paid?) researchers think they have discovered based on whatever parameters set and data they collected...touched perhaps with a little confirmation bias. :shrug:
People that pay $1,000 for an iPhone are nuts.
Did you think China was just going to give in without being pressured? Of course they are not going to do that. They have been getting away with financial murder for years because no other administration had the backbone to try to force them to change. Millions in trade deficit is not good for the U.S and changing it isn't easy.
How much more will the Chinese made MAGA hats cost ?
How much more will the Chinese made MAGA hats cost ?
How much more those effing hats will cost isn't the issue. Were it just those damn hats, nobody would give a damn about the tariff. The issues are:
- What items are subject to the tariff?
- You can see that for yourself here: "Here are all the products that will get hit."
- The tariff won't affect the Apple Watch...I guess "Tim Apple's" lobbying effort worked...I wonder what he offered in return for the exemption? In any case, the price of the Apple Watch will increase merely because the price of its competitors' watches will increase due to the tariff. After the tariff is removed, the prices won't go down because consumers are already used to paying the higher price.
- What of the tariff'd items can one avoid buying and/or accelerate one's purchase to buy in advance the tariff?
- What firms will be driven out of business due to the tariff?
- What specific firms cease to exist is just the start. An additional problem is that those forced out of business will have to sell their assets at "rock bottom" prices and the industry(s) in which they traded will experience consolidation, thus reducing competition even after the tariff is removed, if it even is, and further acting (1) as an even greater barrier to entry for would-be "replacement" competitors, and (2) as an impetus to keep prices at the during-the-tariff level even after the tariff is removed.
Basic Analysis of a Tariff
Tariffs in a Large Economy
-- Note: "Large" refers as much to the actual size of the economy as it does to the economy's dominance in respective markets.
I'm absolutely ok with that. In fact, it's great. That $767 will then circulate ideally around the United States - staying in OUR economy. That also is a week or two pay for lower or lowest level blue collar jobs for Americans - so it's a double WIN!
Prices to consumers should at least cover a minimal living working wage for an American worker.
How do you mean the bolded? Do you believe Trump will take the tariff income and redistribute it?
Media_Truth:So let's see - Trump gives tax cuts for billionaires, which drives up the deficit. Now he imposes trade tariffs, which will bring money into the treasury, but it will inevitably come out of the pocket of the average American.
Higher China tariffs could cost Americans $767 per year - CBS News...
A good amount, apparently. Taken together, the tariffs -- levies paid by consumers and companies, not China -- could cost an average family of four $767 a year, one study from a group called the Trade Partnership estimated in February. The group also forecast the tariffs would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 people and subtract roughly 0.4 percentage points from U.S. GDP.
Respectfully, SupposnAnnual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP.
Trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced and foreign products have “crowded” their nation's domestic products from their marketplaces.
If a greater proportions of what the nation spent for products had been for domestic rather than imported products, the nation's GDPs would have been greater.
Aggregate numbers of a nation's jobs and their amounts of wages, sales volumes of their domestic marketplaces all correlate with their nation's production of goods and services, (i.e. their GDP).
If the proportions of what the nation spent had rather been greater for domestic, and lesser for foreign products, nation's' annual GDPs would have then been greater (than otherwise).
These valid statements remain true during both individual nation's richer or poorer tears. Even among proponents of pure free trade, few if any credible economists refute any of these statements.
Although few if any credible economists refute any of these statements, but a majority of them contend that USA's trade deficits are small in proportion to USA's annual GDP's and are not of any economic significance. They do not argue that trade deficits per se, are net beneficial to USA's annual GDPs.
I concur with the minority of credible economists contending that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits are of economic significance and net detrimental to our nation's GDP.
I'm among those for valid reasons contending nations' trade balances contributions to trade surplus, and detriments to trade deficit nation's annual GDPs understate their effects upon their nation's GDP.
I'm a proponent of the improved policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?