Tariffs?

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I shouldn't still be surprised at how easy it is to find bloodthirsty people desiring the death of rich folk. 

Remember @NeuroTypical-the left has a monopoly on compassion. Especially when they talk about killing the rich and everyone who disagrees with them.  

[mordorbund]

On 4/3/2025 at 12:07 PM, LDSGator said:

https://general-history.com/why-are-tariffs-bad-according-to-milton-friedman/?amp=1
 

Let’s ask the Chairman of the Board. 

Tariffs inihibit free trade and there’s all sorts of negatives that fall out from that. But as @Carborendum pointed out elsewhere, free trade had already been inhibited. Lining troops along your border with guns pointed at the other country diminishes foreign relations, but if their border is already lined with soldiers and guns pointed at your country I think troops are back in play.

Additionally, we learned during Covid that the President should broadly consider the ramifications of his actions. That is, epidemiologists say the best course of action is to lock everyone in their homes. Before locking everyone up, the President should consider what that will do to the economy.

Europe has recently seen an issue where they officially support Ukraine but are financially supporting Russia through oil purchases. For the sake of national security, there are some things we want manufactured or extracted domestically — even if it would be cheaper to buy from other countries. Domestic industries would need to be incentivized and a tariff would be one way to do so.

Back on the unfree market, we have seen problems with American countries investing in R&D, bake that into the product’s price, and then sell it only to have a cheaper version arrive on the market shortly thereafter. If our companies have to include the cost of research but rival companies in countries that don’t respect IP only need to include cost of reverse engineering, innovation will slow or stop. Domestically we use patents to interrupt free trade in hopes that it will incentivize innovation. Could we use tariffs to do the same with international imitators?

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

ariffs inihibit free trade and there’s all sorts of negatives that fall out from that. But as @Carborendum pointed out elsewhere, free trade had already been inhibited. Lining troops along your border with guns pointed at the other country diminishes foreign relations, but if their border is already lined with soldiers and guns pointed at your country I think troops are back in play.

So because free trade has already been fooled around with, our only option is to make it worse? 

Edited April 4 by LDSGator

[Phoenix_person]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

but folks lose me as soon as they start talking guillotines and whatnot.  After the UHC CEO assassination, I shouldn't still be surprised at how easy it is to find bloodthirsty people desiring the death of rich folk.  But I still manage to be surprised every time I look.

If bullets aren't the answer to corporate excess (I fully agree) but taxing people into net worths with 9 digits instead of 10 or 11 is tyranny, then what's the best way to get poor people off of government subsidies? The idea that corporations will invest tax breaks into domestic labor instead of stock buybacks is shaky at best. That's always been the theory, but how well has it worked out in practice? I ask these questions because the people who favor guns and guillotines are getting louder, and I don't want them to have their way any more than you do. But I don't see a way of avoiding that outcome without some concessions being made by those with the most wealth to part with. And again, the states that see the highest rates of SNAP and MEDICAID spending generally aren't the ones run by Dems. 

Edited April 4 by Phoenix_person
Fixed incorrect wording

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/3/2025 at 10:41 AM, Ironhold said:

The problem is that the last 5 years have broken something inside of Trump.

Without commenting on the tariffs, my impression (other than the tariffs) has been that the last 5 years have fixed something inside of Trump.

Not saying I'm right. Just my impression.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/3/2025 at 12:22 PM, Carborendum said:

Ever since around the first week of February, I got the impression that Trump doesn't really expect to survive this term.  If he does, great.  But he is going forward at ramming speed because he doesn't think he has time to get it all done before he gets killed.  He feels like he has nothing to lose.  And he's bound and determined to fix the world before he is killed.

That gives him tremendous drive to implement the agenda.  But it also means there is a degree of wrecklessness.

I don't think thinking he's going to be killed is necessary for the drive. He has to get things rolling because they take time to work. If he's successful, then by the time the next elections roll around, the momentum for improving things will be in place and power might be maintained. If he is still in the short term pain for long term gain stage of things, elections will be lost and all his efforts goes away and are reversed.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/4/2025 at 9:34 AM, Traveler said:

and no one should profit from the labor of others more than those laboring

I think this is a Marxist idea.

Edited April 8 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

So because free trade has already been fooled around with, our only option is to make it worse? 

It's war.

Tariffs are war.

Trump is waging war.

Does war make it worse? Depends, right?

Will these tariffs make it worse in the long run? Kind of depends on if the war is won or not.

 

I inadvertently made my commentary above look like some form of poetry. Cool.

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

inadvertently made my commentary above look like some form of poetry. Cool.

Move over Shakespeare. There’s a new bard in town. 😉 

In every war there are innocent victims, and an “ethical” war (if such a thing exists) minimizes the casualties. An economic war can also cost lives.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

the people who favor guns and guillotines are getting louder

 

That crowd would die off extremely quickly.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

So because free trade has already been fooled around with, our only option is to make it worse? 

There may be. I will say that tit-for-tat is an optimal strategy for some game theory scenarios.

I think I’ve shown three uses of tariffs your article does not address. Now it’s your turn to show us the better alternative for these scenarios. I may be a lost cause and not really worth engaging seriously but I hope you do anyways for @NeuroTypical’s sake, who’s looking to learn more on the subject, as well as for the silent onlookers who share NeuroTypical’s interest but are far more shy.

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

. I may be a lost cause and not really worth engaging seriously 

Okay, I appreciate your honesty. I wish more people said “I’m not worth talking to.” and had that self awareness. 

Edited April 4 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/liq/insights/market-insights/market-updates/notes-on-the-week-ahead/the-trouble-with-tariffs/

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/how-do-tariffs-work-and-who-will-they-impact-uchicago-experts-explain

https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/opportunity-road/rooney-tariffs-rising-prices

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/31/trump-tariffs-us-economy

 

Here are some general links from right leaning sources, a leftist source, and a neutral source. 

 

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

That crowd would die off extremely quickly.

Aside from guerrilla and surprise attacks your average hardcore leftist is woefully unprepared for physical combat. Same with the guy who peaked in high school and never leaves his couch but still thinks he could beat up a pro boxer because “he just goes red and blacks out.”  

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

If bullets aren't the answer to corporate excess (I fully agree) but taxing people into net worths with 9 digits instead of 10 or 11 is tyranny, then what's the best way to get poor people off of government subsidies?

The best way?  The best way is a cultural change that returns the father to the home and re-enshrines the 2 parent household as the desired norm.  The state can help by no longer subsidizing single motherhood, which will force men to take responsibility and for women to be more selective in their sexual partners.  Absolutely the best way for this change to occur is a wide cultural return to the nation's original Christian values and a return to a belief in God.

In other words, the best way to get poor people off govt subsidies is for everyone to become Mormon.  

(You didn't ask about possible ways, or feasible ways, just the best way.)

 

Quote

I ask these questions because the people who favor guns and guillotines are getting louder

Yep.  Just yesterday the ACAB folks showed up on the UC Davis campus in their black bloc and umbrellas, and attacked a black cop who had set up a free speech "change my mind" event.  One assault, and nobody asked for medical attention, so it could have been worse.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/protesters-attempt-disrupt-student-event

 

Edited April 4 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's war.

Tariffs are war.

Trump is waging war.

Does war make it worse? Depends, right?

Will these tariffs make it worse in the long run? Kind of depends on if the war is won or not.

 

I inadvertently made my commentary above look like some form of poetry. Cool.

The thing about war is—if we’re smart, we go in with a vision of a specific set of objectives and a well-defined idea of what “victory” looks like.  And fairly early on we have to convey that vision to the country and get them (mostly) on board with it.

Does victory look like a specific nation or group of nations reducing its own tariffs or eliminating a particular uncompetitive practice?  Or do we keep the “war” up until specific domestic industries have developed a particular capacity?  Or do we keep going until the trade imbalance (either in the aggregate, or nation by nation) is “fixed”?

And if, as some have hinted, the long-term goal is to transition federal government revenue from income-tax-based to tariff-based—there are some good arguments for that; but then they probably shouldn’t be selling tariffs to their base as a temporary, [economic] wartime-based expedient when they know darned well that these tariffs (or are version of them) are going to be permanent.

Edited April 4 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

Hard question to answer, to be honest.

I'm not sure if this is what Trump has in mind or not, it could be that he's off his rocker, it could be he's nostalgic, it could be that he's caught up in the past where tariffs were desired, or if what.

HOWEVER...

The US has lost it's ability to survive on it's own manufacturing as it's become globally intertwined.  A lot of the moves Trump seems to be trying to make (including trying to seize Canada or Greenland) are in the interest of a nation which can defend itself without the need to be reliant on others. 

Part of that is to have the ability to manufacture tanks, airplanes, and everything else we need without using foreign manufacturers.  Right now, almost everything we have in the military has something in it that is made in another nation, and if that nation refuses to give it to us...well...that's going to either take some time to replace or we simply lose the ability to use that piece of equipment.

China still has the ability to make their own military equipment if they need to.  Russia has the ability, even with severe sanctions.  The problem is that many in the US do not feel the US could do that if we had to.

In addition, it seems he is taking Global Warming seriously (ironic, most of his base probably does not take it seriously).  According to those predictions, Canada and Greenland will become far more important defensive zones as shipping and other transportation becomes easier over a melted arctic (or one that is melted  year round, enabling a constant shipping lane).  The distances between Greenland, Canada, and the other portion of the world across the arctic is closer than going the long way round.  There are Two enemies in particular that would be interested in approaching us via that way.  One is Russia (whom many feel Trump is an agent of...though...interestingly enough it could be that he sees this threat from Russia and that is the real reason he is so zealous about securing these areas).

So, I can see if this was his aim (remember, my original statement was it may not be what he is thinking, but this is a possibility), these are the exact things he would be trying to accomplish. 

The problem comes in how to accomplish this.  If you have to force manufacturing back to the US to become that self sufficient, it's going to require some heavy lifting, and will cause severe repercussions.  These Tariffs may not be strong enough yet to actually force that to happen.  It may be that Tariffs have to get a lot worse in order to do that.

You may have to take Canada and Greenland by force.

And this is where the problems come in.  With the Tariffs, manufacturing will not return to the US overnight.  In fact, my current estimations (and my estimations are probably far too conservative, timewise, this is a base that we've lost over a matter of 75 years!) is that it will take at least a generation (or somewhere around 20 years) to get to that point.

I don't think Americans will have the patience for that.  In fact, I think they may be wanting to revolt against these things in less than 3 months.  That's bad news.  In that light, I think Tariffs are a bad idea that will only backfire for Trump and cause a lot of anger and angst against him, even from those that support him.  If I were advising him I'd say this could be political suicide for the party if he keeps up this track.

On Greenland and Canada, the idea is that they don't have the population to defend against a dedicated invasion against Russia or China.  However, they have traditionally been some of the US's closest allies over the past 50 years.  Threatening them and wanting to take them over makes them hostile to us, and that is Not a good thing.  That will only give possibilities for them to be endeared to  our enemies later.  We should instead negotiate for a way for us to build up our own bases in greater number as time passes and seas melt, in order to bolster our allies up while also helping ourselves.

I think, if Trump is doing this with these ideas in mind, I can see the logic behind some of them.  I don't Agree with the moves, but I could understand the logic.  In fact, I'd say I oppose the moves.

But, if one really wants to get manufacturing back to the US, I see that one very strong way to do it is with Tariffs.  Helping people understand this will be hard.  Getting it done will be harder.  It's going to take longer than Trump will probably be alive, and he will be categorized as a villain by many people for doing it.  The Republicans will be villainized for doing it.  I don't like it.  It's going to be financially painful for a lot of people.  I don't think this is the right path, but if you really want manufacturing back in the US to the degree it was in WW2, it's going to take very painful things in order to accomplish that. 

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

That crowd would die off extremely quickly.

They said that during the American Revolution...

They didn't die off that quickly.  In fact, I think their ideas and relatives are still around today in a nation called the Good Ol USA.

They said that during the French Revolution.

They didn't seem to die off that quickly either, though many DID die.  They had a more troubled start, but those they rebelled against DID die, and the descendants of those who rebelled are some of those still in power today. 

These are where those terms and ideas come from (US and French Revolutions). 

There were those that felt the same way (that the revolutions would be quickly quashed and those supporting them would either die, surrender, or disappear). 

I don't think they won that fight.

I hope that the US and the world isn't quickly approaching that point, but saying that when people get that angry that they will die off extremely quickly is not what I would say is the wisest course of thought to take. 

Perhaps more of bolstering communities to survive such things if you think it's on the horizon and preparing yourself and your family to weather the storm, whichever way it blows, would be a better approach. 

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

They said that during the French Revolution.

Not sure about that one. Once the crowd marched through the streets with Bernard-René Jourdan de Launay’s head on a pike the elites almost immediately knew it was a revolution. 

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/liq/insights/market-insights/market-updates/notes-on-the-week-ahead/the-trouble-with-tariffs/

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/how-do-tariffs-work-and-who-will-they-impact-uchicago-experts-explain

https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/opportunity-road/rooney-tariffs-rising-prices

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/31/trump-tariffs-us-economy

 

Here are some general links from right leaning sources, a leftist source, and a neutral source. 

 

When the market isn’t free, can tariffs be used tit-for-tat? From the first link:

Quote

 

the threat of tariffs can be used as a way to open up foreign markets to U.S. exports and, if they work in this way, no harm is done.

Third link notes that reciprocal tariff elimination led to global booms, but in order to have reciprocal tariff reduction, you must first have reciprocal tariffs — or at the very least some other stick to remove.

 
What about as means of enforcing IP internationally? From the second link:

Quote

tariffs can affect the global market, strategically shifting global prices or as a sanction against foreign exporting firms or exporting countries.

Other uses for tariffs (link 2):

Quote

because tariffs only apply to imports, they can be used to redistribute money from consumers towards domestic producers

 

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

When the market isn’t free, can tariffs be used tit-for-tat? From the first link:

Third link notes that reciprocal tariff elimination led to global booms, but in order to have reciprocal tariff reduction, you must first have reciprocal tariffs — or at the very least some other stick to remove.

 
What about as means of enforcing IP internationally? From the second link:

Other uses for tariffs (link 2):

 

Wait-

 

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I may be a lost cause and not really worth engaging seriously

here are some cat videos. Enjoy! 

Edited April 5 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

@JohnsonJones the violent political left is quite small.  Very few of them have any training or skill.  The violent left kicks something significant off and they will die in droves.  If you think otherwise you are quite naive.  

[Carborendum]

Nancy Pelosi on Tariffs

 

[Carborendum]

Schumer agrees with Trump on tariffs.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing about war is—if we’re smart, we go in with a vision of a specific set of objectives and a well-defined idea of what “victory” looks like.

Right. But the objective could be simply ....to go to war.

(I mean trade war, not shooting war, to be clear.)

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 And fairly early on we have to convey that vision to the country and get them (mostly) on board with it.

Yes. And that's a current failing of Trump's plan for sure. Which is why he's dipping in approval, etc. Does he have a reason for keeping the complete vision reserved? Dunno. Trump doesn't think government. He thinks business. And business thinking is..."we're at war". Always. Business is war. You fight the war and you fight it well and consistently, or your go out of business. It's kind of a new frontier.

But whether the country is on board with it or not now....give it a year and let's see what comes of it. If what Trump is prediction is even partially realized I think the county (other than the Nevers, who will never) will be pretty happy.

I'm nervous. But if the stock market rebounds (it should), prices go down (they should), taxes go down (they should), and supply chain issues are resolved within a year or so, etc., etc....I'll call it well worth it. Probably.

Alternatively...

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Or do we keep going until the trade imbalance (either in the aggregate, or nation by nation) is “fixed”?

This seems to be the implication.

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And if, as some have hinted, the long-term goal is to transition federal government revenue from income-tax-based to tariff-based—there are some good arguments for that; but then they probably shouldn’t be selling tariffs to their base as a temporary, [economic] wartime-based expedient when they know darned well that these tariffs (or are version of them) are going to be permanent.

Maybe. Hard to say. Wish I understood it all better. I hope those advising Trump know what they're doing.

My impression is...Trump's doing this because he can. And a lot of it is very good...and some of it is low, dirty business practices, the kind that takes advantage of everything they can to maximize profit. I think Trump's putting the squeeze to other countries because he's bargaining for American growth and advantage inline with the America First ideal. And I think it well may work. And that will be good for the country and probably will make him quite popular again, and all of us better off in this country. But at the cost of hurting who?

That being said, despite those fears, Trump has shows good-heartedness and forbearance in many thing, despite his bullish bargaining tactics and sometimes callous rhetoric. When push comes to shove, I don't think Trump is only power-hungry and greedy. I think he's legitimately trying to fix something that is severely broken. And if other countries capitulate and get on board with the vision, I think Trump will work deals for them that are extremely good too. If they fight him on it....well....

So is the cost that will be paid by all worth it? I don't know. My gut says yes. But my gut's also twisted into knots of nervousness over it all.