Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's already happened! Not my fault you don't keep up with the news. One example: NAFTA is gone, both Canada and Mexico had hissy fits, followed by both of them agreeing to better terms than were in NAFTA.

When you say that NAFTA is gone, maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

Of the three countries involved, do you know how many have actually ratified NAFTA 2.0? Let me give you a hint:

1. Canada has not ratified NAFTA 2.0;
2. Mexico has not ratified NAFTA 2.0; abd
3. the United States of America has not ratified NAFTA 2.0.

So that means, of the three countries involved a grand total of __[fill in the blank]__ of them have actually ratified NAFTA 2.0.

 

[Integrityrespec]

IF you want to get these countries to even the playing field when it comes to trade restrictions they have imposed on the US you have to play hard ball. That's what he is doing. If you cannot see how badly we have managed trade then you are blind. Things must be forced because begging and pleading with China and the EU don't work. They will only respond to actions that make it hard on them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

LOL. Yes, a straight line going up.

Where did you see me even implying otherwise?

You conveniently left that fact out of your post.

Why would I think that any reasonably informed person would not know that the number of jobs in the US has been increasing at a (reasonably) steady pace for the past 93 months?

Of course, there are those who think that the only time that the number of jobs in the US increased was after 01 JAN 17, but I don't class them in with reasonably informed people (no matter how intelligent they might be).

That's absolutely hilarious.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

NAFTA 1.0 became NAFTA 2.0. Almost all experts agree that the new trade deal doesn't do much more than the original NAFTA did.

Not only that, but ALL the experts (or even someone who has actually read NAFTA 2.0) also agree that NAFTA 2.0 does NOT contain the one clause that Mr. Trump insisted was absolutely essential and that he would not agree to anything that didn't contain it - the clause that would have given the absolute authority to decide on any disputes over the terms of NAFTA 2.0 to American courts (which would be under the control of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America due to the President's ability to "certify" that a continuation of a court action would be "harmful to the national security interests of the United States of America".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In other words, it DOES do more.

It most certainly did.

Why NAFTA 2.0 gave the US dairy industry access to 0.3% more of the Canadian milk market.

 

[Airyaman]

Not only that, but ALL the experts (or even someone who has actually read NAFTA 2.0) also agree that NAFTA 2.0 does NOT contain the one clause that Mr. Trump insisted was absolutely essential and that he would not agree to anything that didn't contain it - the clause that would have given the absolute authority to decide on any disputes over the terms of NAFTA 2.0 to American courts (which would be under the control of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America due to the President's ability to "certify" that a continuation of a court action would be "harmful to the national security interests of the United States of America".

And lest we forget...NAFTA 2.0 still has to make its way through Congress.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We got a better NAFTA deal and we will get a better China deal.

Quite right. After all, Mr. Trump got the DPRK to agree to nuclear disarmament didn't he?

 

[Moderate Right]

Where did you see me even implying otherwise?



Why would I think that any reasonably informed person would not know that the number of jobs in the US has been increasing at a (reasonably) steady pace for the past 93 months?

Of course, there are those who think that the only time that the number of jobs in the US increased was after 01 JAN 17, but I don't class them in with reasonably informed people (no matter how intelligent they might be).

That's absolutely hilarious.

You very purposely just said "straight line" because you were afraid to say "straight line going up" because it blows your entire argument. You wanted to believe it was just a straight line going flatly across.

 

[Moderate Right]

Quite right. After all, Mr. Trump got the DPRK to agree to nuclear disarmament didn't he?

Actually, he did get them to stop testing both nukes and the missiles to carry them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And lest we forget...NAFTA 2.0 still has to make its way through Congress.

And through the Mexican government.

And through the Canadian government.

Something along the lines of

"Hi Donald, this is Justin. You know that Chinese woman that we have detained at your government's request? You know, the one whose prosecution you have pretty clearly indicated is actually a "political prosecution"? Well we aren't so sure that it would be just and equitable under all the circumstances to issue an extradition order - but we might be persuaded. Now, you know those clauses in NAFTA 2.0 that our negotiators said that they'd accept but didn't like? What we'd like to see is __[fill in the blank]__. Why don't you take a couple of hours to think about it and get back to me."
​

isn't completely out of the question either.

Nor would a similar type of telephone call to Mr. Xi.

 

[Hatuey]

I guess people would rather China keep giving it to us in the ass instead of paying for all the IP stuff and military espionage.

If only China paid the US for the intellectual property on the literally millions of cheap, disposable items they sell to us. I know tons of people who can sacrifice a few more dollars from their limited income so Apple can make a few more million on the IP.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Thorgasm]

Tariffs are a tax on consumers.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You very purposely just said "straight line" because you were afraid to say "straight line going up" because it blows your entire argument. You wanted to believe it was just a straight line going flatly across.

The TOTAL NUMBER of jobs has increased annually from the end of the "Bush Recession" to today.

The RATE of job creation IS (a statistical) "flat line" at about 1.5% p.a. throughout all of Mr. Obama's eight years (if you only count the time after the end of the "Bush Recession" to the end of Mr. Obama's terms its actually higher) and all of Mr. Trump's two years.

You do know how "RATE of job creation" differs from "TOTAL NUMBER of jobs", don't you?

 

[Moderate Right]

The TOTAL NUMBER of jobs has increased annually from the end of the "Bush Recession" to today.

The RATE of job creation IS (a statistical) "flat line" at about 1.5% p.a. throughout all of Mr. Obama's eight years (if you only count the time after the end of the "Bush Recession" to the end of Mr. Obama's terms its actually higher) and all of Mr. Trump's two years.

You do know how "RATE of job creation" differs from "TOTAL NUMBER of jobs", don't you?

All I know is that you purposely misguided people by trying to imply that job creation was a flat line.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

All I know is that you purposely misguided people by trying to imply that job creation was a flat line.

I did not say "flat line", I said "straight line" - there is a difference you know.

To illustrate, try graphing the following coordinates (the first is the value on the "X" scale and the second it the value on the "Y" scale)

• 1, 1;
• 2,2;
• 3,3;
• 4,4;
• 5,5;

Assuming that you actually know how to draw a graph, you will see that the "X" value increases in a "straight line".

Now, get someone who has actually passed Grade 10 math to show you what the first derivative of that line is and you will see that that is a "flat line".

Why?

Because the RATE OF CHANGE does not change.

I won't make your brain hurt by mentioning "rate of change in rate of change" or even "rate of change of rate of change in rate of change".

 

[Hawkeye10]

From CBS News

Trump tariffs hit middle- and low-income earners most
​

President Donald Trump's tariffs are causing more pain for middle- and low-income households than for wealthy ones, a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation found. Tariffs already imposed, like those on Chinese goods, may cut income by $146 for each of the middle- and low-income households, according to the analysis. If all of Mr. Trump's threatened tariffs are ultimately imposed, those households would lose $453.

That may not sound like much, but consider: $148 is roughly the weekly cost of food for a "thrifty" family of four, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Tax Foundation looked at the impact of tariffs by household income. For the lower and middle groups, tariffs cut their after-tax income the most, at 0.33 percent, compared to 0.23 percent at the highest income level. That's because most middle-income families buy more of what economists call consumables -- clothes, food and even autos -- that are subject to Mr. Trump's tariffs than their wealthy counterparts, the analysis found.

"Those lower-income households are spending a larger share of their income on consumption," Tax Foundation analyst Erica York said in an interview.

COMMENT:-

If a "left-leaning" media source reports something from a "right-leaning" source does that mean that whatever the "right-leaning" source said is a lie?
​

CounterPoint:

US import prices fell 1.6 percent from a month earlier in November of 2018, following a 0.5 percent gain in October and compared with market expectations of a 0.9 percent decrease. It was the largest decline in import prices since August 2015. Import fuel prices dropped 11.0 percent, after rising 3.2 percent in October, the decrease was the largest since January 2016, mainly due to cost of petroleum (-12.1 percent from 2.7 percent). Also, prices for non-fuel imports went down 0.3 percent, after ticking up 0.1 percent in the prior month. Lower foods, feeds, and beverages prices were the largest factor for the November decrease in non-fuel prices, although prices for non-fuel industrial supplies and materials and capital goods also dropped. Year-on-year, import prices went up percent 0.7 percent. Import Prices in the United States averaged 108.59 Index Points from 1982 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 147.50 Index Points in July of 2008 and a record low of 75 Index Points in March of 1986.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/import-prices

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

CounterPoint:


https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/import-prices

In short, using different statistics to measure different things produces two different results.