Tariff wars

[Pooter]

My reading is just fine. Your argument is falling apart as the administration abandons it in real time..

[Clark Griswold]

Another tariff idea I support

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/04/pollution-tariffs-would-strengthen-donald-trumps-trade-hand/?_gl=1*zjlh13*_ga*MTY4MDYwNjQwNS4xNzQ0NDgxOTY5*_up*MQ..
 

 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another tariff idea I support

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/04/pollution-tariffs-would-strengthen-donald-trumps-trade-hand/?_gl=1*zjlh13*_ga*MTY4MDYwNjQwNS4xNzQ0NDgxOTY5*_up*MQ..
 

 

I think he muddles two ideas in this article, one good and one bad. Idea 1: it's important to maintain some domestic manufacturing capacity for national security purposes. Definitely a good argument. We don't want to be reliant on Chinese supply chains to build our military hardware and critical national defense infrastructure.

Idea 2: We need to claw back manufacturing from overseas to provide jobs for the American people.  This one is complete nonsense. This argument presumes we have a big unemployment problem in the form of a huge pool of factory-qualified people who are out of work, just waiting for a new steel plant in Pittsburgh or Detroit to be opened up.  The article consistently references these cheap polluters overseas are "costing us jobs" so one would expect that as manufacturing declined in the US, so has American employment.  The only problem is, that's not true. 

Since the US manufacturing jobs peak in 1979, manufacturing in the US has steadily declined as we've transitioned to a more tech-centric, service-based economy. But jobs have not declined, they've grown massively in absolute numbers and unemployment rates are actually better now than they were at peak manufacturing periods. Unemployment today is 4.2%. Unemployment in 1979 was 6%. Unemployment now is also lower than it was every single year from 1970 to 1998. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494

Unemployment fluctuates for a wide variety of reasons, but I was genuinely surprised to find it's actually better now than the heavily romanticized eras of peak American manufacturing. The truth is, moving manufacturing overseas has not robbed the American people of jobs, it just changed the kinds of jobs people have. 

The other funny wrinkle in this argument is that when we were at peak manufacturing in the US, we didn't have all of the environmental regulations in place we do today. Our own industrial revolution was famously pollution-heavy, so I'm not convinced you get to have it both ways. I think the equation goes something like this:

-robust domestic manufacturing

-feel good about yourself environmentally

-affordable goods

Choose two.

Edited Saturday at 07:59 PM by Pooter

[Banzai]

I can’t wait to see the trades of congressman and folks in the administration. Must be reported by May 15.

Equally excited to see this forum explain how it isn’t insider trading and is somehow not only ethical but also logical and obviously the right thing to do.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

I can’t wait to see the trades of congressman and folks in the administration. Must be reported by May 15.

Equally excited to see this forum explain how it isn’t insider trading and is somehow not only ethical but also logical and obviously the right thing to do.

both parties commit obvious insider trading...this is a issue we can all get behind.

 

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

I think he muddles two ideas in this article, one good and one bad. Idea 1: it's important to maintain some domestic manufacturing capacity for national security purposes. Definitely a good argument. We don't want to be reliant on Chinese supply chains to build our military hardware and critical national defense infrastructure.

Idea 2: We need to claw back manufacturing from overseas to provide jobs for the American people.  This one is complete nonsense. This argument presumes we have a big unemployment problem in the form of a huge pool of factory-qualified people who are out of work, just waiting for a new steel plant in Pittsburgh or Detroit to be opened up.  The article consistently references these cheap polluters overseas are "costing us jobs" so one would expect that as manufacturing declined in the US, so has American employment.  The only problem is, that's not true. 

Since the US manufacturing jobs peak in 1979, manufacturing in the US has steadily declined as we've transitioned to a more tech-centric, service-based economy. But jobs have not declined, they've grown massively in absolute numbers and unemployment rates are actually better now than they were at peak manufacturing periods. Unemployment today is 4.2%. Unemployment in 1979 was 6%. Unemployment now is also lower than it was every single year from 1970 to 1998. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494

Unemployment fluctuates for a wide variety of reasons, but I was genuinely surprised to find it's actually better now than the heavily romanticized eras of peak American manufacturing. The truth is, moving manufacturing overseas has not robbed the American people of jobs, it just changed the kinds of jobs people have. 

The other funny wrinkle in this argument is that when we were at peak manufacturing in the US, we didn't have all of the environmental regulations in place we do today. Our own industrial revolution was famously pollution-heavy, so I'm not convinced you get to have it both ways. I think the equation goes something like this:

-robust domestic manufacturing

-feel good about yourself environmentally

-affordable goods

Choose two.

I’ll take robust manufacturing and environmental responsibility for $1000 Alex…

Tech has wildly improved since the beginning of the offshoring, as we reshore and if we hasten the process with tariffs to adjust for countries manufacturing with less environmental regard than us, I’m confident that we would make goods affordably and about 69x more environmentally friendly than X country that doesn’t GAF about pollution or their workers.

[Sua Sponte]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I’ll take robust manufacturing and environmental responsibility for $1000 Alex…

Tech has wildly improved since the beginning of the offshoring, as we reshore and if we hasten the process with tariffs to adjust for countries manufacturing with less environmental regard than us, I’m confident that we would make goods affordably and about 69x more environmentally friendly than X country that doesn’t GAF about pollution or their workers.

Then why is the current administration EOing environmental protections away and gutting the EPA?

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Then why is the current administration EOing environmental protections away and gutting the EPA?

Because Executive Branch agencies have been acting well out of the bounds of their purpose for decades...and it turns out the Executive can do something about that.

Edited yesterday at 02:19 PM by Hacker

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Because Executive Branch agencies have been acting well out of the bounds of their purpose for decades.

Conjecture

[Hacker]

3 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Conjecture

You asked "why".  You don't have to agree with the answer.

The Chevron Deference is gone.

[Sua Sponte]

9 minutes ago, Hacker said:

You asked "why".  You don't have to agree with the answer.

The Chevron Deference is gone.

There's ongoing litigation to see about the powers of the Executive Branch if he can "do something about it." So, until that litigation is finalized, either way, it's conjecture. There's also an EO that says the Executive Branch will assert control over independent agencies. Just because it's written in an EO, which isn't statue, doesn't mean it's legal. Last I checked, people who sit in some Supreme Court with JDs ultimately determine that. 

Edited yesterday at 02:37 PM by Sua Sponte

[Hacker]

6 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

There's ongoing litigation to see about the powers of the Executive Branch if he can "do something about it."

It is literally an Executive Branch agency, and he's the Executive.

[contraildash]

Quote

Pretty surprised you’ve been living under that big of a rock and hadn’t heard about any of this, and apparently you were too lazy to google it yourself instead of trying to challenge me to prove the sky is blue.

None of those investments are due to the tariffs. Based on the articles you’ve linked, all three of those were generally planned expansion and upgrades to existing facilities based on strong economic growth through January. Not brining work/jobs/ect from overseas locations because of the current tariff discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Lord Ratner]

On 4/13/2025 at 8:44 AM, Banzai said:

Equally excited to see this forum explain how it isn’t insider trading and is somehow not only ethical but also logical and obviously the right thing to do.

See this is how I can tell you're an idiot. You're incapable of divorcing one argument from another. You don't like anyone supporting something you don't support, therefore they must disagree with you on every topic. 

 

You're not going to find a lot of people here who are fond of congressman using their positions to enrich themselves. But by all means, continue to show what a bad faith debater you are by continually making this more personal than it needs to be. 

[VigilanteNav]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:29 PM, arg said:

And you won't see American cars in China, in South Korea, in Southeast Asia, in Germany, and most of the rest of Europe. You will not see them.

Flat out false in regards to American cars in Germany (so, there goes the "no spin" of Billy O's show.) And, Maria B on FoxNews was pontificating on this "problem" with Europe too (and therefore, assuring her viewers that the new tariff policies where absolutely necessary). She said you won't see any Ford or Dodge trucks driving around Europe. False.  How do I know? I've lived in Germany the last 3 years so I'm seeing it with my own eyes. When you drive the autobahn anywhere here you'll see a few Ford and Dodge trucks (occasionally I see a Japanese one) and absolutely 0 European Auto Maker brands of the same type of vehicle. Why? Because there is very little demand here for those types of vehicles so the European Auto Makers do not produce pickup trucks.  Most locals that have the need to cart stuff around have a smallish SUV or wagon and a trailer (my neighbors for example).  Because that's way more efficient than driving around a huge vehicle with crappy gas mileage (when gas costs significantly more than in the US) that you are only hauling stuff with on the weekend...not to mention those vehicles won't fit in most locals driveways or down their local village streets. Dispute what I'm seeing with my own eyes?  I attached a few pics from my trip to Munich!  This was on the autobahn close to Munich so the odds are it was German owned vehicles and not just Americans stationed here.  There's a Dodge and there's a Ford truck driving around Germany.  The point is that there is way more to the story than simply: we have a trade deficit with country X and that is bad and that country is "ripping us off" therefore let's support slapping huge tariffs on them and then the US starts winning and we all get richer.   

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a total tariff elimination advocate. In regards to China, I fully support an aggressive tariff scheme.  Yet, I'd also say we should have zero to low tariffs on Vietnam so some industries will continue to move from China to Vietnam (and, we continue to benefit by getting cheap t-shirts, shoes, electronics, etc).   

But, I felt compelled to provide some strong evidence that the "No Spin" zone that Billy O assures you is what he's dishing out is a dish served with some verifiable spin (as he's done throughout his career).      

[herkbum]

Well I see with my own eyes that there are very few American vehicles of any type in Japan, South Korea, or China. The ones that I have seen have always been near the U.S. bases in Japan or South Korea. We get picked up in China in Buick vans in Shanghai and Shenzen, and I have seen less than 10 Cadillacs since going there and that’s it. But you do see Teslas.

The lack of American vehicles in Asia really jumped out at me. I started going to these places 4years ago and it hasn’t changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Banzai]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

See this is how I can tell you're an idiot. You're incapable of divorcing one argument from another. You don't like anyone supporting something you don't support, therefore they must disagree with you on every topic. 

 

You're not going to find a lot of people here who are fond of congressman using their positions to enrich themselves. But by all means, continue to show what a bad faith debater you are by continually making this more personal than it needs to be. 

Nah, I saw how this forum reacted to bureaucrats releasing timing, targets, and assets within an unclassified signal chain.

The basis of judgment has been primarily first which party does the accused wrong doer belong to.

[arg]

1 hour ago, VigilanteNav said:

Flat out false in regards to American cars in Germany (so, there goes the "no spin" of Billy O's show.) And, Maria B on FoxNews was pontificating on this "problem" with Europe too (and therefore, assuring her viewers that the new tariff policies where absolutely necessary). She said you won't see any Ford or Dodge trucks driving around Europe. False.  How do I know? I've lived in Germany the last 3 years so I'm seeing it with my own eyes. When you drive the autobahn anywhere here you'll see a few Ford and Dodge trucks (occasionally I see a Japanese one) and absolutely 0 European Auto Maker brands of the same type of vehicle. Why? Because there is very little demand here for those types of vehicles so the European Auto Makers do not produce pickup trucks.  Most locals that have the need to cart stuff around have a smallish SUV or wagon and a trailer (my neighbors for example).  Because that's way more efficient than driving around a huge vehicle with crappy gas mileage (when gas costs significantly more than in the US) that you are only hauling stuff with on the weekend...not to mention those vehicles won't fit in most locals driveways or down their local village streets. Dispute what I'm seeing with my own eyes?  I attached a few pics from my trip to Munich!  This was on the autobahn close to Munich so the odds are it was German owned vehicles and not just Americans stationed here.  There's a Dodge and there's a Ford truck driving around Germany.  The point is that there is way more to the story than simply: we have a trade deficit with country X and that is bad and that country is "ripping us off" therefore let's support slapping huge tariffs on them and then the US starts winning and we all get richer.   

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a total tariff elimination advocate. In regards to China, I fully support an aggressive tariff scheme.  Yet, I'd also say we should have zero to low tariffs on Vietnam so some industries will continue to move from China to Vietnam (and, we continue to benefit by getting cheap t-shirts, shoes, electronics, etc).   

But, I felt compelled to provide some strong evidence that the "No Spin" zone that Billy O assures you is what he's dishing out is a dish served with some verifiable spin (as he's done throughout his career).      

 

GTF outta the left lane Granpa

WTF are you driving that you let a Ford and a Dodge pass you?

Used to see a few Harleys in Japan. And classic US autos.