- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nov CPI Beats Estimates
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:43 pm to SlidellCajun
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:43 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:
I’m indoctrinated by real world business. I have been on the docks and I know how tariffs are levied and who pays.
I don't think you are in the real world. I think you are in the past. Sort of like brick and mortar vs online store fronts.
You are living in a new economy that's not the same as it was.
quote:
Tariffs that we levy, raise prices on the goods that they’re levied against. Tariffs that are levied on the goods that we ship overseas also raises the price of our goods.
Yes. A one time increase. But as pointed out, that's placing the whole economic policy by this admin in to a tiny box called "tariffs alone".
There are other things taking place to mitigate that. That's in the box called "The rest of the Story"
quote:
If you don’t realize it, good for you but it’s happening. You have chosen to not realize it.
Wrong. I have chosen to view the WHOLE picture. So here's your chance. Can you tell me the rest of the plan by this Admin?
0
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:47 pm to frogtown
quote:
Forget about the inflation argument. Tariffs bring lower economic activity.
They do not. Which is why our economy grew at 4.3% killing expectations.
quote:
They are a tax on consumers. The government is taking their money. Money with which consumers could buy more goods and services.
Again, it's not the whole picture, but I know that you actually know that. It's sad that you try to form this strictly around 1 policy with in the economic plan.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:50 pm to frogtown
quote:
BS. We have the numbers. Tariffs have been tried before. You won't find any right leaning economist that will agree with you on the use of tariffs. It is as simple as that.
I can.
BTW. Economist missed the growth by ALOT.
yes Tariffs have been tried and worked for hundreds of years.
quote:
Except Trump is not doing this to "shore up strategic industries". He has put tariffs on basically all imports
There are things that Trump has placed more on. You know that. He is getting concession after concession on moving things back to the USA that are critical. And you know that too.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:52 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
In your opinion, when we set tariffs, should our goal be:
1. Increasing tariff revenue
2. Increasing domestic production
3. Leveraging for a reduction in their tariffs on US goods
And please, please don't say "all of the above".
It is all of the above. Why would we not say it?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:45 pm to BCreed1
quote:
It is all of the above. Why would we not say it?
It literally can't be. Each is mutually exclusive to the others. And if you say "well I would be good with any of the three happening", that's fine, but that's not a goal, it's hope and a dream. And I thought we stopped setting public policy based on that in 2016.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 9:08 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
It literally can't be.
But it can be. That's what was promoted by the Admin in 2024.
1. Increasing tariff revenue.
By it's very nature, a tariff will raise revenue. That does not take away from #2 and #3.
The admin made clear they will use tariffs for this specific reason.
2- Increasing domestic production
Was also sold to the US that they would be used to do that. There are other policies that help this. Open here in the USA for example. That does not rid the flat 10% that he has done. That removes the extras.
3- Leveraging for a reduction in their tariffs on US goods
This has actually happened. Just some examples:
Philippines — Agreed to eliminate tariffs on American goods (to 0%) in a July 2025 deal; U.S. capped tariffs at 19%.
Indonesia — Dropped tariffs on U.S. goods to 0%; U.S. reduced its rate to 19%.
Thailand — Committed to eliminate tariffs on almost all U.S. goods; U.S. set rate at 19%.
Cambodia — Eliminated all tariffs on U.S. goods (100% coverage).
Malaysia — Reduced or removed tariffs on a wide variety of U.S. goods.
United Kingdom — Eliminated tariffs on U.S. ethanol and increased quota/access for U.S. beef (from low previous levels); part of a May 2025 framework deal.
Vietnam — Allowed many U.S. products duty-free entry.
Other nations, such as India (offered to lower/eliminate on 55% of U.S. imports but deal stalled), Japan, South Korea, El Salvador, Argentina, Ecuador, and Guatemala, engaged in talks involving tariff reductions or barrier removals, though outcomes varied (some frameworks pending finalization).
So they are all happening.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 9:57 pm to BCreed1
It seems like you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a “goal” is.
If your goal is to raise revenue, you have to keep your tariffs in place. If you remove your tariffs either because they were simply leverage for the reduction of rates or set for the purpose of on-shoring production, you will no longer raise revenue.
If your goal is to on-shore, you can’t use the tariffs as counter leverage because that’s not why you set them in the first place. And as soon as production is on-shored, your revenue goes to zero.
If your goal is to leverage tariffs to reduce counter tariffs, then again, as soon as you “win”, you remove the tariffs and get zero revenue and zero on-shoring.
Citing to different countries having different reactions to tariffs doesn’t mean you can have your tariff cake and eat it too; it illustrates that there is no actual goal and that this is scattershot shite against the wall and hoping that some of it sticks.
If your goal is to raise revenue, you have to keep your tariffs in place. If you remove your tariffs either because they were simply leverage for the reduction of rates or set for the purpose of on-shoring production, you will no longer raise revenue.
If your goal is to on-shore, you can’t use the tariffs as counter leverage because that’s not why you set them in the first place. And as soon as production is on-shored, your revenue goes to zero.
If your goal is to leverage tariffs to reduce counter tariffs, then again, as soon as you “win”, you remove the tariffs and get zero revenue and zero on-shoring.
Citing to different countries having different reactions to tariffs doesn’t mean you can have your tariff cake and eat it too; it illustrates that there is no actual goal and that this is scattershot shite against the wall and hoping that some of it sticks.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 1:48 am to Joshjrn
What he is saying is those are the goals. Its not just one.
I think you misunderstood the policies. Trump has implemented a comprehensive tariff plan that includes a universal minimum 10% tariff on nearly all U.S. imports, in addition to higher, country-specific "reciprocal" duties for many trading partners.
Universal 10% Baseline: A base rate of 10% on most imported goods from nearly all countries took effect on April 5, 2025, imposed under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Higher "Reciprocal" Tariffs: Many countries with which the U.S. has a significant trade deficit face a higher, country-specific tariff rate, which initially ranged from 11% to 50%. These rates have been subject to change based on ongoing negotiations and agreements.
Country-Specific Rates: The tariffs vary by country, with notable examples from July and August 2025 including a 15% rate for the European Union and Japan, and 20% for Vietnam.
See it?
I think you misunderstood the policies. Trump has implemented a comprehensive tariff plan that includes a universal minimum 10% tariff on nearly all U.S. imports, in addition to higher, country-specific "reciprocal" duties for many trading partners.
Universal 10% Baseline: A base rate of 10% on most imported goods from nearly all countries took effect on April 5, 2025, imposed under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Higher "Reciprocal" Tariffs: Many countries with which the U.S. has a significant trade deficit face a higher, country-specific tariff rate, which initially ranged from 11% to 50%. These rates have been subject to change based on ongoing negotiations and agreements.
Country-Specific Rates: The tariffs vary by country, with notable examples from July and August 2025 including a 15% rate for the European Union and Japan, and 20% for Vietnam.
See it?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:50 am to NoEmpathy
quote:
No.
However, I am curious. Do you believe other countries placing exorbitant tariffs on American goods and services and receiving none in return are how capitalism works?
No. Do not believe that. But that is not what occurred. Did you pay attention to how we placed tariffs? The amount of existing tariffs was not part of the formula used. So your question is not relevant. You don't seem to know what occurred.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:55 am to Jjdoc
This is right
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:59 am to BCvol
quote:
How many true capitalist countries do we trade with? Do other countries tariff our goods? Are we currently a true capitalist country? Our local and federal governments pick winners and losers all the time, we don't live in a world where everything is black and white.
I believe in the world we live in, where other countries are waging economic, judicial and electronic warfare that tariffs are a tool that can be used effectively within our current version of capitalism.
I did not offer any philosophical comment on tariffs. I said that using tariffs to balance imports to exports is not a proper way to implement a tariff. In fact, that approach is plain stupidity. But here we are. You apparently believe we added tariffs based on existing tariffs the other country had with us. That is not what occurred.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:59 am to Joshjrn
quote:
It seems like you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a “goal” is.
Why do you think there can only be one goal. The admin stated goalS in 2924 and has repeated those goals.
quote:
If your goal is to raise revenue, you have to keep your tariffs in place.
From the Baseline of 10%
quote:
If your goal is to on-shore, you can’t use the tariffs as counter leverage because that’s not why you set them in the first place.
Those are secondary tariffs, not baseline.
quote:
If your goal is to leverage tariffs to reduce counter tariffs, then again, as soon as you “win”, you remove the tariffs and get zero revenue and zero on-shoring.
Does it remove the baseline?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:36 pm to beaverfever
quote:
Tariffs don’t cause inflation. That’s always been a nonsensical narrative intended to be consumed by morons.
They can cause a minor increase in some goods but it’s a one time increase, not ongoing increases like inflation caused by other factors
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News