- 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: Trade deficit comes in better than expectations
Posted on 12/11/25 at 9:34 pm to JimEverett
Posted on 12/11/25 at 9:34 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If you halved the trade deficit tomorrow we would see an increase in GDP of 2.2%.
That’s not a given. What if our economy turned into that of Cuba? You would do even better than halving the trade deficit, but our GDP would have shrunk tremendously. Are you assuming that the decrease in trade deficit comes solely from increasing exports?
0
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:03 am to Ten Bears
quote:
I literally quoted what you said back to you.
No, you read into what was posted by me. But that's all good.
quote:
Again I used your words. Not mine. I can’t help if you are the ONLY person on the planet silly enough to use Friedman as an endorsement of tariffs
Again, you are placing words in my mouth. Everybody can see that. You are so bend out of shape and emotional you can not comprehend what's being stated.
quote:
Did you know that Friedman said that tariffs on steel help steel workers in a steel mill? Does that mean he supports tariffs on steel? Absolutely not, because he later discusses the ramifications of those tariffs are far worse than the jobs saved in the steel mill. So he prefers tariffs over quotas? That doesn’t mean you can take that statement as a ringing endorsement of tariffs.
Show me where I stated it was a ringing endorsement. You can not. Because I never stated that.
In fact, show me where I stated anything other than "That does not mean he was pro tariffs". You can't. Why? Because I clearly stated "that does not men he was pro tariffs".
That's a you issue. Not a me issue. Not a Milton issue.
quote:
No, he did not. He always believed in unilateral free trade. Unilateral meaning we should lower our trade barriers regardless of what other countries do. This is indisputable fact. To suggest otherwise is stupid.
He did not reverse his core beliefs (free markets, limited government, monetary rules), but he did significantly shift emphasis, admit certain errors, and change how strongly he pushed certain policies.
Here are some examples:
Early Friedman (1950s–1970s)
-Believed the Fed could be made reliable through simple monetary rules (e.g., steady money-supply growth).
-Thought central banks could manage inflation if disciplined.
Post-academia Friedman (late 1970s–2000s)
-Became more pessimistic about whether the Fed would ever behave predictably.
-More sympathetic to free banking arguments (though not fully converted).
-Stronger rhetorical stance toward “the Fed is the problem.”
-He didn’t abandon monetarism, but he lost faith in central bankers.
1970s–early 1980s
Believed controlling M1/M2 was feasible.
Advocated strict monetarist targets.
1990s
-Openly acknowledged that innovations in banking made M1/M2 unreliable.
-Said the Fed would likely fail if it tried to target money supply anymore.
So yes. He grew as time went. And all of that growth was based in reality.
quote:
Hmmm…so, I guess that’s why he famously said said “tarrifs do indeed protect the consumer. They protect the consumer from lower prices.” In the context you are referring to (Friedman’s Newsweek article) he is simply stating that tariffs lower prices versus quotas.
And show me where I stated anything different. Again, you can't.
Even Thomas Sowell acknowledged emergency-type situations. Those are:
1. The “national security exception”
2. The “second-best theory”
3. The “temporary buffer”
Sowell and Friedman are not the only economists. There are many that have some different views.
Dani Rodrik is in-between on THIS issue. Argues against "hyper-globalization" that sacrifices national autonomy for economic goals.
Oren Cass argues that tariffs can be used strategically to rebuild domestic manufacturing, strengthen supply chains, and create jobs.
etc etc.
In the end, we now have tariffs. Prices are not sky rocketing. Wages are up. Inflation steady.
We have Trump agreeing with Friedman on immigration and welfare state. Thus the removal of illegals.
We have a massive amount of new businesses opening up and building here.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:34 am to BBONDS25
quote:
owned by Liberty Fund which describes their political agenda as:
quote:
quote:
Our titles in political thought encompass the ideals of the classical liberal tradition,
Moron.
I just couldn't let that one go...
...
You might want to look up what the classical liberal tradition is there, Chief. Here's a hint, it doesn't have anything to do with wokeism.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:45 am to SlowFlowPro
Know what a deficit is? Your Sister’s intake compared to your wife. Just take the blue pill man.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 2:24 am to NashvilleTider
and 9 pages of "No he didn't!"
did not read them
did not read them
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News