While I agree that Biden's tariffs were a mistake as well, they were an order of magnitude smaller related to the overall economy. The Trump tariffs are by far the largest government intervention into the economy for the entire post-war era. In fact, the only time in American history there has been a larger intervention in the economy, was the WW2 economic mobilization.I hear yah. I used the exact same analogy when Biden put tariffs on aluminum and steel... it was hilarious to watch low information people try to defend it.
But 60 cents tax, that funds roads and Healthcare and services on a 2 dollar plastic toy also doesn't bother me too much.
sorry. mised your thread I started one in Breaking News as well
Now Trump has SLASHED many of those things our taxes funded, is making life MORE expensive for Americans, and will add trillions to the debt to hand out more tax cuts for his rich buddies.Taxes pay for services that benefit all Americans, and many others across the world through aid and programs run by the US.
They fund education and research and defense and medicine and food and housing for low income people and a thousand other things.
Lowering taxes, while a Republican ideals, reduces the benefits that can be offered.
But go MAGA and your stupid tax cuts.
It's super dumb to watch Trump pull a Biden. It sucks. Both were so horrible and outdated with their ideas.While I agree that Biden's tariffs were a mistake as well, they were an order of magnitude smaller related to the overall economy. The Trump tariffs are by far the largest government intervention into the economy for the entire post-war era. In fact, the only time in American history there has been a larger intervention in the economy, was the WW2 economic mobilization.
You know what could fund American domestic initiatives?
Not continuing to cut taxes for the rich EVERY SINGLE TIME the GOP gets in power.
Every time in my lifetime - we cut taxes for the riches and EVERY SINGLE TIME the middle class gets f*cked.
And EVERY SINGLE TIME the GINI coefficients for wealth disparity and wage stagnation increases.
But hey…THIS time is MAGICALLY going to do the same thing and magically yield a different result
Lowering taxes has this effect.
Trump just lowered taxes people pay on Chinese goods. He also tried to raise them, but people got mad.
I am pretty pro tax; it seems to work, but people don't like paying them, for sure.
Out of this temporary reprieve? That it’s cheaper for China to buy American goods than it is for Americans to buy Chinese goods is a great thing for exporters and domestic farmers in particular.
There isn’t a rabbit hole. If anything, this is a matter of people not feeling like they have to state the obvious. Trading with China is bad because it isn’t a level playing field. The global market is not even close to competitive because of how much the Chinese government owns and subsidizes their industries. Domestic producers are either undermined by cheap Chinese imports to the point of near extinction or bought by Chinese companies.While MAGA has us going down these type of rabbit hole debate tangents, the overarching element is MAGA never proved trade with China a bad thing.
They've adamantly asserted and asserted as if fact, but never proved a dayem thing!
GDP is a metric for economic performance. A trade deficit means we're buying more than we sell. In your example, you'd be buying more groceries (or whatever) than you make selling your labor.The point is that trade deficits are a terrible metric of an economy's performance.
Which more often than not indicates exploitation - a narrow export sector with very little domestic benefit, where the people who benefit (or are hurt by tariffs) are largely foreign corporations or the very powerful.Poor nations often have a trade surplus with other countries because their citizens cannot afford to consume as much.
America has peaked. They will never manufacture anything again.
I said away from China. Note the difference? Biden placed tarrifs on aluminum and steel and other products - notice how no one opened up new smelters?
It was a myth old white men told themselves.
And by far their largest market. Next in line is Vietnam with 4%Oh B.S. The U.S. is 14% of China's export market,
LOL, thanks for your advice about how to use the site! First, let me hop out of the turnip truck and I'll get right to it!Well, call them out. That's the point of a debate site; they can't possibly defend their position, can they?
I'm still at a loss to understand what is it he's getting out of this?
How can it be decreasing?
We lowered tariffs; won't it increase? Doesn't everyone want the cheap products from China?
Is supporting China bad, in your opinion? What are you even arguing?
From tariffs on China at 145% to 30%.It is the mirror of a Seinfeld episode when Castanza negotiated the deal for LESS money for a TV pilot with NBC. What say you red hats, you stupid door stops.
That post is so profoundly ignorant of economics I don’t even know where to begin.GDP is a metric for economic performance. A trade deficit means we're buying more than we sell. In your example, you'd be buying more groceries (or whatever) than you make selling your labor.
That's not to say that sometimes it doesn't make sense to go into debt for long term growth (as is still often the case with higher education). That's a debate actually worth having. But to claim that the trade deficit is like buying from a grocery store or that it's simply a 30% tax on Americans is just simply wrong and doesn't really advance the debate.
Which more often than not indicates exploitation - a narrow export sector with very little domestic benefit, where the people who benefit (or are hurt by tariffs) are largely foreign corporations or the very powerful.
We injected $361.1 billion into their economy last year, that accounts for more than 1/3 of their total trade surplus and could cover their entire military budget.My specific point here was in rebutting your "building China's Navy" assertion.
If this were true, you *would* know where to begin. You need to read a bit more on trade deficits.That post is so profoundly ignorant of economics I don’t even know where to begin.
We injected $361.1 billion into their economy last year, that accounts for more than 1/3 of their total trade surplus.
If you seriously want to revive American manufacturing, then you need to subsidize American industries with federal money, exactly like the Chinese are doing. You can't just raise tariffs and then hope for the best. That's not gonna work. You'll end up trashing the quality of life for working class Americans, in exchange for nothing at all.There isn’t a rabbit hole. If anything, this is a matter of people not feeling like they have to state the obvious. Trading with China is bad because it isn’t a level playing field. The global market is not even close to competitive because of how much the Chinese government owns and subsidizes their industries. Domestic producers are either undermined by cheap Chinese imports to the point of near extinction or bought by Chinese companies.
Consequently, our economy has become so dependent on Chinese imports and manufacturing that it cannot function without those things. The pandemic exposed just how dependent we’ve become on them. That a foreign country has that much leverage is an economic, national security, and strategic catastrophe. And the only way to recover from that is to try to induce a revival in American manufacturing by making Chinese products more expensive.
Tariffs are the absolute worst form of taxation.I'm just not super pro China.
If no production is moved from China, then you win. But at least higher taxes mean more money to fund government initiatives; the US has a very low tax rate compared to much of the rest of the developed world
I don't think a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, at least not for consumers. Imports are a good thing. Consumers WANT to have access to goods from around the world at affordable prices. We don't want or need to produce everything ourselves.GDP is a metric for economic performance. A trade deficit means we're buying more than we sell. In your example, you'd be buying more groceries (or whatever) than you make selling your labor.
That's not to say that sometimes it doesn't make sense to go into debt for long term growth (as is still often the case with higher education). That's a debate actually worth having. But to claim that the trade deficit is like buying from a grocery store or that it's simply a 30% tax on Americans is just simply wrong and doesn't really advance the debate.
Which more often than not indicates exploitation - a narrow export sector with very little domestic benefit, where the people who benefit (or are hurt by tariffs) are largely foreign corporations or the very powerful.
You can have imports while maintaining a healthy trade balance. A trade imbalance simply means you're buying more than you're selling.I don't think a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, at least not for consumers. Imports are a good thing. Consumers WANT to have access to goods from around the world at affordable prices. We don't want or need to produce everything ourselves.
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?