[garygreen]

This is an uncharacteristically pro-capitalist take from you, gary.

i'm simply describing a cause-and-effect relationship measured by economists, but okay.

The purpose of tariffs is not to "spur growth".

i said spur growth and protect jobs, and i obviously mean with respect to the protected industries. and the 2018 tariffs absolutely were mapped to specific domestic production/employment growth goals.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3055-1.html

hey, thanks! i didn't expect you to do any research for me, but this is a great source for me to add.

We found that U.S. economic policies achieved limited progress in promoting fair trade but a higher degree of success in defending U.S. economic-related interests. Increases in U.S. tariffs have succeeded in reducing imports from and curbing the bilateral trade deficit with China, developments that both the Trump and Biden administrations view as resulting in fairer trade. However, U.S. policies have made little progress in ensuring fair treatment for U.S. firms in China and even less in persuading the Chinese government to reduce its subsi- dies and other uncompetitive state assistance to its own manufacturers, especially exporters. The United States has experienced a higher degree of success in diversifying some supply chains away from China and constraining Chinese efforts to secure sensitive technologies that could be used for commercial or military purposes. Some of these economic policies, most notably tariff increases, have come at a price, such as reduced U.S. economic growth and losses in U.S. manufacturing jobs, output, and exports.

they go on to characterize the costs:

Several studies have attempted to quantify the economic costs of the tariffs to the U.S. econ- omy. According to the IMF estimates discussed previously, the estimated cost of the direct effects of the tariffs on the U.S. economy in 2019 was estimated at 0.18 percent of GDP; the cost in 2023 was projected to be 0.1 percent of GDP on an ongoing basis. Dollar costs would have been $39 billion and $27 billion for 2019 and 2023, respectively. 21 Bekkers and Schroeter estimated the direct cost to the U.S. economy at 0.16 percent of GDP in 2019 and projected that this loss would continue. Using this estimate, the costs to the United States would have been $34 billion in 2019 and $44 billion in 2023. 22

Mary Amiti and her coauthors found that the increases in tariffs reduced U.S. aggregate welfare by $1.4 billion per month by December 2018—$8.2 billion in total in 2018 as tar- iffs were repeatedly raised. They estimated the ongoing loss in U.S. welfare at $16.8 billion per year, 23 which translates to 0.08 percent of 2019 GDP, because of the deadweight losses from the tariffs on the U.S. economy. 24 The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the increases in tariffs would reduce U.S. GDP by 0.5 percent in 2020 ($107 billion) and reduce average real household income by $1,277 (in 2019 dollars) in 2020. 25

Consistent with international trade theory and numerous studies on the economic effects of tariffs, Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce found that the increases in U.S. tariffs resulted in a reduction in U.S. manufacturing output, exports, and employment. 26 They estimated that U.S. manufacturers that were highly exposed to the tariffs experienced a 1.4 percent reduc- tion in employment because of the higher costs of imported inputs and the effects of retalia- tory tariffs on their exports. These losses were only partially offset by a 0.3 percent increase in manufacturing employment in the industries that the tariffs were designed to protect. 27 To illustrate the consequences of the tariffs: U.S. firms that use an input imported from China must pay the additional costs of the tariffs. This puts them at a cost disadvantage against Canadian firms that use the same input to manufacture the same product. Both sell into the North American free trade area, but the U.S. firm has to absorb the cost of the tariff on the input imported from China, while the Canadian firm does not. The declines in exports, output, and employment found by Flaaen and Pierce reflect these outcomes.

Amiti and her coauthors found that the tariffs resulted in a 1 percentage point increase in U.S. producer prices. The average rate of producer price inflation between 1990 and 2018 was just over two percentage points, so the tariffs increased the rate of producer price inflation by almost 50 percent. 28 Companies that experienced a sharp increase in tariffs on imports of inputs increased factory-gate prices by 4.1 percent. 29

The economic literature on the 2018–2019 tariff increases finds that the entire cost of the tariffs has been passed through to U.S. consumers and businesses. 30 A complete pass-through of tariffs to an importing nation that is a major consumer of the products, such as the United States, is unusual. In this case, the complete pass-through is even more unusual, as Chinese exporters benefited from the depreciation of the renminbi in 2019, 2020, and 2023 compared with its rate in 2017. Studies generally find that when important import markets face abrupt increases in prices because of higher tariffs or shifts in exchange rates, exporters to the coun- try must reduce prices to keep market share. In these instances, the cost of the tariff is shared between the importing country and the exporting country. However, there was no notice- able decrease in the price of exports from China following the tariff increases in 2018 and 2019. Lower-income groups disproportionately bore these price increases because they spend a larger share of their income on goods imported from China, such as clothing and shoes, compared with middle- and upper-income groups. 31

In short, the increases in U.S. tariffs in 2018 resulted in reductions in U.S. manufacturing exports, output, and employment; accelerated producer and consumer price inflation; and diminished household welfare, especially for lower-income households.

in other words -- tariffs reduce domestic production and manufacturing (among many other things).

and yes, they do say that tariffs have achieved some successes. just not for any of the reasons you've been arguing. they explicitly say that tariffs have failed to change china's trade practices, and they conclude that the benefit of tariffs for access to steel is by diversifying the supply chain globally, and they see the declining trade deficit with china as a positive indication of that. lol they're not saying anywhere that tariffs are "keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation" or anything of the sort.

Biden and Trump's administration, as well as the EU, don't really differ much in terms of economic decision making with respect to China.

yes, that's what i said.

[Rushy]

i'm simply describing a cause-and-effect relationship measured by economists, but okay.

You described a series of things you googled given your limited knowledge of economic policy.

As an analogy, imagine China fired an artillery shell into the US. The US fires one back. You begin arguing this was a bad decision, because firing expensive artillery shells into adversarial nations is not economically advantageous. You link some studies pointing out that artillery shells are expensive and firing them is also expensive. You present this as an argument that others should take seriously, for some reason.

i said spur growth and protect jobs, and i obviously mean with respect to the protected industries. and the 2018 tariffs absolutely were mapped to specific domestic production/employment growth goals.

Okay.

in other words -- tariffs reduce domestic production and manufacturing (among many other things).

I never argued otherwise.

they conclude that the benefit of tariffs for access to steel is by diversifying the supply chain globally

lol they're not saying anywhere that tariffs are "keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation" or anything of the sort.

Biden and Trump's administration, as well as the EU, don't really differ much in terms of economic decision making with respect to China.

yes, that's what i said.

Yes, so it's you, some various economic papers you googled in your spare time, versus the economic policy decisions of world governments. Surely you can think for a moment and identify that you're missing something and barking up the wrong trees with respect to tariff criticism.

[garygreen]

in other words -- tariffs reduce domestic production and manufacturing (among many other things).

I never argued otherwise.

if you say so.

"Yeah lol we should just keep letting our miners and manufacturers go bankrupt competing with subsidized Chinese firms lmao, who even needs steel or aluminum amirite?"

"Their purpose is to keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation."

they conclude that the benefit of tariffs for access to steel is by diversifying the supply chain globally

lol they're not saying anywhere that tariffs are "keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation" or anything of the sort.

yes. flattening the distribution of nations we import steel from (i.e., diversifying the supply chain) doesn't keep domestic steel/mining/whatever from dying.

Yes, so it's you, some various economic papers you googled in your spare time, versus the economic policy decisions of world governments. Surely you can think for a moment and identify that you're missing something and barking up the wrong trees with respect to tariff criticism.

>"you don't know anything. read this paper and learn something, idiot."
>"this paper agrees with me."
>"oh so you just get your opinions from nerds and their nerd papers? trying listening to the GOVERNMENT sometime, idiot."

okay.

[Rushy]

if you say so.

"Yeah lol we should just keep letting our miners and manufacturers go bankrupt competing with subsidized Chinese firms lmao, who even needs steel or aluminum amirite?"

"Their purpose is to keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation."

Yes. I did say those things. If you want to claim what I've said so far is counter to them, you're going to need to elaborate quite a bit more.

yes. flattening the distribution of nations we import steel from (i.e., diversifying the supply chain) doesn't keep domestic steel/mining/whatever from dying.

Diversifying the supply chain keeps us from relying on an adversary. The tariffs target China specifically. If we were worried about only growing US companies, we'd target everyone equally. As you've probably noticed, we're not doing that.

>"you don't know anything. read this paper and learn something, idiot."
>"this paper agrees with me."
>"oh so you just get your opinions from nerds and their nerd papers? trying listening to the GOVERNMENT sometime, idiot."

The parts of your argument the paper agrees with aren't parts I ever argued against, hence why I linked it to you. It seems all it did was cause you to double down on points only tangential to the political outcomes of tariffs. This is clearly a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Maybe, and I should emphasize this, you should actually read the report. I can only assume you skimmed it, since you seem to have come away from it without actually learning anything about why the tariffs are being put in place.

Hint: the paper doesn't recommend that the US lift its tariffs. Why is that?

[Tom Bishop]

It appears that Trump is winning so much that he able to apply his policy influence even without being in office.

Mexico has broken up two caravans

Speaker of the House says Ukraine funding is likely halted:

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1864342940950163601

[Lord Dave]

It appears that Trump is winning so much that he able to apply his policy influence even without being in office.

Mexico has broken up two caravans

Speaker of the House says Ukraine funding is likely halted:

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1864342940950163601

Someone didn't read the article.  Or they did and are just as easily fooled as Trump.

1. Broken up two small caravans(totaling 4,000).  Which means they took them to various cities and gave them 20 day travel visas.  So they could go to the US border individually.
2. Another caravan was on its way to the US border already (2,000 people).  But hey, Trump did it!  He made Mexico do... nothing but easily trick Donald into thinking they did something.

[garygreen]

Yes. I did say those things. If you want to claim what I've said so far is counter to them, you're going to need to elaborate quite a bit more.

lol pass. it's way funnier watching you completely change your argument mid-discussion.

Diversifying the supply chain keeps us from relying on an adversary.

china is our ally.

but sure, partially. it somewhat mitigates our reliance, but it does not alleviate it (we're always gonna buy assloads of steel from china). but it certainly doesn't "keep our miners and manufacturers from going bankrupt competing with subsidized Chinese firms" or whatever.

the paper doesn't recommend that the US lift its tariffs. Why is that?

for one thing, it absolutely does. they recommend increasing tariffs only on materials deemed critical to the economy while negotiating the others away.

for another thing, their analysis does not calculate or estimate the net effect of the tariffs. they quantify the overall cost to the us economy (e.g. it's a tax on poor people), and they assert some of the benefits (e.g. decreased trade deficit). but since they don't compare the two, i can't tell you why they recommend their proposals other than "they believe the benefits outweigh the costs."

for another another thing, none of this matters since this isn't trump's tariff plan. like, you can tell me all day long that we have to stop relying on chinese steel since china is an adversary. okay, cool. what's that got to do with 25% tariffs on literally all products from canada and mexico? or raising all tariffs on all chinese goods by 10%? sorry, but that's an absolutely horrifically fucking stupid economic policy, and you should feel super silly for defending it.

In short, the increases in U.S. tariffs in 2018 resulted in reductions in U.S. manufacturing exports, output, and employment; accelerated producer and consumer price inflation; and diminished household welfare, especially for lower-income households.

i think that's bad. i think vastly expanding the scope of things that are bad is even more bad.

[Action80]

^ITT gary believes a country using its own resources, establishing a strong manufacturing base, and selling homemade products to its own immediate neighbors, is a bad thing, regardless of the length of time it takes.

Can't make this shit up...

[Lord Dave]

US lacks all the resources needed.
US Labor is expensive and will likely be mostly automated.
Immediate neighbors can and do make the products cheaper and would never buy an import.


The manufacturing sector would require significant expansion to keep up with current demand, however current demand will drop as the price jumps to match US manufacturing costs. 

End result: any manufacturing or business relying on the produced goods will see an increase in cost, which will decrease their ability to expand as well as decrease profit and ability to reinvest.
Expansion of manufacturing may not be economically viable due to the massive upfront costs, long time, and no guarantee the tariffs will remain long term.

[Action80]

For what?
Automation not necessary and only cheered on by Malthusians such as yourself and the rest of the ilk here.
We do not need to give a shit about what the neighbors or you buy.

Horseshit.

End result: We start living within our means, buy only the shit we need at first, and then move on to the things we want.
Meanwhile, the rest of you fuckers can eat shit and die.

[Lord Dave]

For what?
Automation not necessary and only cheered on by Malthusians such as yourself and the rest of the ilk here.
We do not need to give a shit about what the neighbors or you buy.

Horseshit.

End result: We start living within our means, buy only the shit we need at first, and then move on to the things we want.
Meanwhile, the rest of you fuckers can eat shit and die.

Oh I'm not advocating automation.  I'm just stating what has happened in the past and will likely happen again.  Automation is cheaper than people in the long run.

As for our neighbors: you do, as you brought it up.

"Living within our means" becomes more difficult as less people have the means to live.  And yes, some will become poor and die.  Like you.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30er1d6mxo

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship via Executive Order despite it being a constitutional Amendment.  He then vowed to deport illegals and their American citizen families.

So Trump not only doesn't know the constitution, but wants to remove citizenship from Americans.  Because he's just a walking meme.

[Action80]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30er1d6mxo

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship via Executive Order despite it being a constitutional Amendment.  He then vowed to deport illegals and their American citizen families.

So Trump not only doesn't know the constitution, but wants to remove citizenship from Americans.  Because he's just a walking meme.

Birthright citizenship is not clearly spelled out in the US Constitution.

You do not know the Constitution.

Apologize to the forum for lying.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30er1d6mxo

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship via Executive Order despite it being a constitutional Amendment.  He then vowed to deport illegals and their American citizen families.

So Trump not only doesn't know the constitution, but wants to remove citizenship from Americans.  Because he's just a walking meme.

Birthright citizenship is not clearly spelled out in the US Constitution.

You do not know the Constitution.

Apologize to the forum for lying.

O.o
Do... Do you have some other definition of birthright citizenship than everyone else on Earth?

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That first line seems pretty damn clear to me.  But maybe you're just illiterate.

[Action80]

That first line seems pretty damn clear to me.  But maybe you're just illiterate.

What part of "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," did you fucking miss?

Honestly, just STFU with the goddamn bullshit.

I noticed the same post over with the morons and I suggest you follow the adage, "birds of a feather..." in this case.

[Lord Dave]

That first line seems pretty damn clear to me.  But maybe you're just illiterate.

What part of "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," did you fucking miss?

Honestly, just STFU with the goddamn bullshit.

And?  Do you even know what that means?

[Action80]

Yeah, I know what it means.

It means in the only case ever brought to the Supreme Court dealing with this issue, the child was granted US citizenship due to the fact the parents were LEGAL immigrants to this country.

So again, STFU with your goddamn bullshit.

If you have something else other than your interpretation or your TDS to offer, then bring it.

If he does issue an Executive Order banning the total practice (which he will not...it will only include language requiring one parent be recognized as being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof), then it can be litigated and clarified further.

Clarified on the side of allowing this idiotic practice to continue will only hasten the upcoming civil war.

[Lord Dave]

Yeah, I know what it means.

It means in the only case ever brought to the Supreme Court dealing with this issue, the child was granted US citizenship due to the fact the parents were LEGAL immigrants to this country.

So again, STFU with your goddamn bullshit.

If you have something else other than your interpretation or your TDS to offer, then bring it.

If he does issue an Executive Order, then it can be litigated and clarified further.

Clarified on the side of allowing this idiotic practice to continue will only hasten the upcoming civil war.

You should probably link the case.
But generally speaking, it means you can't have duel citizenship. 

[Action80]

You should probably link the case.
But generally speaking, it means you can't have duel citizenship.

^You are absolutely fucking clueless.

LOL!!! "duel(sic) citizenship."

Not one bit of goddamn case law to support that fucking interpretation at all.

[Lord Dave]

You should probably link the case.
But generally speaking, it means you can't have duel citizenship.

^You are absolutely fucking clueless.

LOL!!! "duel(sic) citizenship."

Not one bit of goddamn case law to support that fucking interpretation at all.

I'm waiting for you to explain what case law shows it means something different.  I'm sure I'll be waiting forever.