- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Trump has it right on the economy. Tariff-hating "conservatives" are clueless
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:05 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:05 am to wackatimesthree
quote:That probably seemed like a cute quip when you uploaded it.
"They just didn't do it right...this time, socialism will be different."—Every idiot on the planet
Tariffs were viewed as critical in the 19th century. Was that because 19th century economists were stupid in your opinion?
21st century tariffs are motivated differently, but the underlying pretexts hold.
4
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:09 am to RiverCityTider
Fine. And I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why is the President and his Treasury Secretary now promoting this tariff “stimulus” payment?
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Tariffs were viewed as critical in the 19th century.
Correct.
But Mercantilsim (Trumps philosophy) has been dead for a century. Tariffs no longer serve as a protection
Tafiffs "dont work" if prices do not rise. Yet, 90% of MAGA on this board pretend prices are stable, and mfg will return.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
U.S. COMPANIES RESHORING / EXPANDING PRODUCTION BACK IN THE U.S.
That's great.
Now do the list of companies who have frozen hiring, laid workers off, cancelled expansions, and frozen promotions/raises due to increased operating costs via tariffs.
You realize that the first round of tariffs from 2017-2020 resulted in a net loss of jobs, right?
Again.
I don't know how educated people can think that 2+2 can possibly equal 2.
When you artificially inflate expenses in a system, that increase can't just magically disappear. It has to be accounted for somewhere. Tariffs may benefit some businesses, but they are going to also hurt businesses.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That probably seemed like a cute quip when you uploaded it.
Nah, it just seemed true, because it is. That's exactly what the guy I was replying to said, I just paraphrased.
BTW, what grown man types the word "cute?"
quote:
Tariffs were viewed as critical in the 19th century. Was that because 19th century economists were stupid in your opinion?
Yeah, so was slavery. The global economy has changed a little bit since then. Wouldn't you say?
But hey, let's use your logic:
The overwhelming consensus of 21st century economists is that tariffs are not good policy. Is that because 21st century economists are stupid in your opinion? Do you think they don't know more about 21st century economies than 19th century economists?
This post was edited on 11/18/25 at 10:16 am
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:16 am to NC_Tigah
Seriously, they hate history.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Haven't really read this particular thread, but i have a question for you. And i've asked this in previous threads.
How do you force a bad actor, in this case another country, to trade fairly with the US, on equal terms? We can reasonable assume country A is trading US goods but applies their own tariffs, VATs, or other tax measures to artificially inflate the price of US goods so as to give a competitive advantage to their countries own goods. Let's assume the US, is not doing this in near the amount that Country A is doing this.
A) How do you get Country A to stop penalizing American products unfairly if not through tariffs?
Part 2, it has been stated by Scott Bessent that tariffs don't necessarily make the price of goods rise. The reasoning behind this, is America is the largest market in the world. Meaning, we buy everyone's shite. If a tariff is applied to a foreign good, that foreign company could just pass it on to the consumer. But what happens to that good? Price rises. In a competitive market, when prices rise, what does the consumer do? Buys from another seller. Ergo, it is within a companies best interest, if the intent is to keep trade in the largest market in the world, to eat that tariff cost, as much as it is feasible so that company remains competitive. Do you disagree with this?
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:18 am to BCreed1
quote:
God you are stupid.
DKE in full effect.
quote:
They did not make the decision. It was made for them.
There are jobs for these people today.
They refused to adapt because they wanted overpaid/inefficient factory jobs like their pappy had.
quote:
It was designed to raise up nations that had nothing while lowering our own citizens.
Then they did a shitty job b/c our spot as #1 is further from #2 than it has been in decades.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Tariffs were viewed as critical in the 19th century.
Let me know when we got back to an agrarian economy that doesn't rely as much on international trade
quote:
Was that because 19th century economists were stupid in your opinion?
It was still a relatively young science and they can only analyze the economy they're presented with. They weren't analyzing a much more advanced economy/finance system.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are jobs for these people today.
Fook you and your box jobs. It never had to be this way.
quote:
Then they did a shitty job b/c our spot as #1 is further from #2 than it has been in decades.
Bless your heart.
We are done here.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:27 am to BugAC
quote:
How do you force a bad actor, in this case another country, to trade fairly with the US, on equal terms?
Often you don't need to, but this all depends on how you define "bad actor" and the negative behavior.
But as for countries subsidizing their domestic economy, it's usually a double benefit for the US and its citizens. The "bad actor" is taking from its own citizens (so not from our's) in order to make goods cheaper for our citizens.
quote:
A is trading US goods but applies their own tariffs, VATs, or other tax measures to artificially inflate the price of US goods so as to give a competitive advantage to their countries own goods.
Protectionism ultimately hurts those economies and permits a gap for the US to fill elsewhere and advance with efficient economic choices.
Want a great example of this? Look at the EU. There's been a major divergence in the EU and US the past 10-15 years, and that's AFTER the EU waived the white flag on directly competing with the US.
quote:
The reasoning behind this, is America is the largest market in the world. Meaning, we buy everyone's shite. If a tariff is applied to a foreign good, that foreign company could just pass it on to the consumer. But what happens to that good? Price rises. In a competitive market, when prices rise, what does the consumer do? Buys from another seller. Ergo, it is within a companies best interest, if the intent is to keep trade in the largest market in the world, to eat that tariff cost,
This is not a long-term strategy. Selling at a loss is worse than not selling at all.
Companies are somewhat eating these in the short-term hoping that the tariffs are only the short term but prices are being adjusted daily. People post examples on here in each of these discussions. It's just not economically viable to expect these companies to sell at no profit or a loss, and that also assumes highly competitive markets. Why is Bessent also working on schemes to lower the prices of certain goods already? If his theory is correct, this would not be necessary.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:27 am to BCreed1
quote:
Fook you and your box jobs. It never had to be this way.
The issue is the people you want to put on assembly lines arent smart enough or motivated enough to survive without government help.
We need to stop helping these people so they can better themselves. Sacrificing our economy so people can make rubber dog shite at $15/hour int what I call an economic revolution.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:29 am to RogerTheShrubber
You still think Trump is sweating bullets over the Epstein files? Roger the prognosticator is always wrong.
Roger the prognosticator is always wrong. Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:30 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You still think Trump is sweating bullets over the Epstein files?
Probably. He lost. Conservatives who want the info released won.
Dude has a friend in those "files" obviously.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:30 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
See, the multiplier effect measures how much additional economic activity is created when you spend one dollar. In manufacturing, every $1 flowing into a plant, supply chain, or industrial project creates $3 to $7 in total economic activity. In services, every $1 usually creates $1.10 to $1.20 at most.
Very true. And manufacturing also leads to new service industries as well.
Manufacturing plant is built in a town of 20,000. Plant hires 1500 employees, not all of which come from that town. New people move to town. Housing and property values rise. Local retailers and restaurants see increased business from more people. New prospective business owners hear about the business boom in this town and bring new business in. New services such as chemical suppliers, tool suppliers, etc are needed for the new manufacturing plant. Businesses come to fill that demand. New businesses need employees, more people move there. Tax revenue increases leading to improved city infrastructure and services making it a more attractive place to live. Other manufacturers consider the area.
It can have a vast multiplier domino effect. It goes both ways too, I’ve seen how fast towns go downhill and businesses close and talented people move away causing brain drain. It’s happened to so many delta towns here since the cotton gins, textile mills, catfish processors have gone out of business. The industrial parks in towns like Clarksdale, Greenville, indianola, belzoni are downright depressing. Greenwood and Cleveland are hanging on ok still since Greenwood has Viking, Milwaukee tools, and a couple nearby catfish processors. Cleveland has delta state and big pharmaceutical manufacturer
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:33 am to BCreed1
quote:
Fook you and your box jobs.
Are you unaware of the huge demand for labor in the trades?
quote:
Bless your heart.
I'm sorry but facts don't care about your feelings.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:36 am to BugAC
quote:
to trade fairly with the US, on equal terms?
There is no such a thing. Laws and regulations vary too widely.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:37 am to wackatimesthree
quote:The overwhelming number of 21st century economists are also dyed-in-the-wool liberals. But you apparently think science by consensus is cute as well.
The overwhelming consensus of 21st century economists
There was solid foundation for 19th century tariffs. They were economically critical. You apparently don't know that, so the basis for the remainder of the post you tried to respond to escaped you.
i.e., "The global economy has changed a little bit since then."
It's less "changed" than you suppose.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:38 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Such things are relative, Rog.
There is no such a thing.
Posted on 11/18/25 at 10:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Such things are relative, Rog.
Its totally impossible to get regulations/laws/labor costs to match.
Its insanity to think otherwise.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News