These facts are an attack on our government and a hoax/witch hunt. Heads will roll.
4:53p, 8/1/25
In reply to BusterAg
He's been proven more wrong than right thus far on tariffs. He explicitly said that other countries would pay them. That is factually false because the US importer pays them. There are now plenty of data points of companies publicly stating that they will incur hits of millions and even over a billion dollars because some of the tariffs are being passed onto them from importers.
Additionally, tariffs have started to show up in the latest CPI and PCE prints, and there are also plenty of public statements from companies that they will pass on some of the tariffs to consumers in the coming months.
So for someone who repeatedly said other countries would pay the tariffs, he has been proven wrong. It's all right there in the public domain for everyone to see if they will allow themselves to acknowledge that Trump is wrong.
I voted for him three times and don't regret my vote. I just believe in being honest about things and don't like it when politicians try to avoid the truth that even a blind man could see.
Additionally, tariffs have started to show up in the latest CPI and PCE prints, and there are also plenty of public statements from companies that they will pass on some of the tariffs to consumers in the coming months.
So for someone who repeatedly said other countries would pay the tariffs, he has been proven wrong. It's all right there in the public domain for everyone to see if they will allow themselves to acknowledge that Trump is wrong.
I voted for him three times and don't regret my vote. I just believe in being honest about things and don't like it when politicians try to avoid the truth that even a blind man could see.
5:00p, 8/1/25
Nitpick on terminology: price movements due to tariffs is not inflation. If they do occur, it's a price hike, not an erosion in the purchasing power of the underlying currency. The buyers at Walmart may not care about the difference, but there is one and it's important.
Counter position, I think the entire macro plan of which the tariffs are a significant part are probably the most significant piece of this administration's platform. Didn't realize what they were really proposing last November, but in the months since it's become the plank I care about most -- and it will certainly be the initiative that has the most impact on my future and (if I'm right) the next generation's, too.
Counter position, I think the entire macro plan of which the tariffs are a significant part are probably the most significant piece of this administration's platform. Didn't realize what they were really proposing last November, but in the months since it's become the plank I care about most -- and it will certainly be the initiative that has the most impact on my future and (if I'm right) the next generation's, too.
5:16p, 8/1/25
In reply to Fitch
To the nitpick on inflation definition, yes there's an academic definition of inflation resulting from an increase in the money supply.
To the common man and woman on the street, and even business executives and government leaders, inflation is more broadly recognized as changes in price regardless of the underlying reasons.
It's what everyone feels. When you pay more for something, that's inflation to 99% of people beyond the academic purists. CPI and PCE, the two most common metrics for inflation, capture price changes for all things and don't strip out that portion that was due simply to money supply changes.
Fitch said:
Nitpick on terminology: price movements due to tariffs is not inflation. If they do occur, it's a price hike, not an erosion in the purchasing power of the underlying currency. The buyers at Walmart may not care about the difference, but there is one and it's important.
Counter position, I think the entire macro plan of which the tariffs are a significant part are probably the most significant piece of this administration's platform. Didn't realize what they were really proposing last November, but in the months since it's become the plank I care about most -- and it will certainly be the initiative that has the most impact on my future and (if I'm right) the next generation's, too.
To the nitpick on inflation definition, yes there's an academic definition of inflation resulting from an increase in the money supply.
To the common man and woman on the street, and even business executives and government leaders, inflation is more broadly recognized as changes in price regardless of the underlying reasons.
It's what everyone feels. When you pay more for something, that's inflation to 99% of people beyond the academic purists. CPI and PCE, the two most common metrics for inflation, capture price changes for all things and don't strip out that portion that was due simply to money supply changes.
5:27p, 8/1/25
In reply to Apollo79
Trump will fire Powell. The song and dance all this time is just to normalize it to his followers. Just like tariffs. TACO is wishful thinking. He does outrageous stuff; he just takes the necessary time to warm the water so the frogs (his followers) don't notice.
5:36p, 8/1/25
This isn't rocket science. If you force American consumers and manufacturers to pay more than before and more than the rest of the world, it's bad for America.
7:25p, 8/1/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
I could be wrong but I believe what he meant was the other countries would lower their profit margins to cover the tariff expense. The price the importer would pay would not go up and stay the same.
In negotiating these tariffs the importer could offer to lower their tariffs along with the exporter lowering their profits so the price the importer pays for the product stays the same.
MemphisAg1 said:
He's been proven more wrong than right thus far on tariffs. He explicitly said that other countries would pay them. ….,,,,
I could be wrong but I believe what he meant was the other countries would lower their profit margins to cover the tariff expense. The price the importer would pay would not go up and stay the same.
In negotiating these tariffs the importer could offer to lower their tariffs along with the exporter lowering their profits so the price the importer pays for the product stays the same.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
7:33p, 8/1/25
In reply to JohnClark929
How many "Open to Work" contacts do you have in your LinkedIn network? I asked in another thread but staff deleted for some reason.
JohnClark929 said:
Trump will fire Powell. The song and dance all this time is just to normalize it to his followers. Just like tariffs. TACO is wishful thinking. He does outrageous stuff; he just takes the necessary time to warm the water so the frogs (his followers) don't notice.
How many "Open to Work" contacts do you have in your LinkedIn network? I asked in another thread but staff deleted for some reason.
7:33p, 8/1/25
In reply to richardag
That's a theoretical possibility but foreign countries are at best only offering a discount on a fraction of our imports. That's clear because US companies are publicly stating that tariff costs are being passed on to them from importers.
It's really not hard to realize the cost of tariffs will be shared along the value chain, with the foreign country, US company, and US consumer absorbing a piece of it.
Yet Trump insists it's all absorbed by the foreign country. Hogwash.
richardag said:MemphisAg1 said:
He's been proven more wrong than right thus far on tariffs. He explicitly said that other countries would pay them. ….,,,,
I could be wrong but I believe what he meant was the other countries would lower their profit margins to cover the tariff expense. The price the importer would pay would not go up and stay the same.
In negotiating these tariffs the importer could offer to lower their tariffs along with the exporter lowering their profits so the pric3 the importer pays for the product stays the same.
That's a theoretical possibility but foreign countries are at best only offering a discount on a fraction of our imports. That's clear because US companies are publicly stating that tariff costs are being passed on to them from importers.
It's really not hard to realize the cost of tariffs will be shared along the value chain, with the foreign country, US company, and US consumer absorbing a piece of it.
Yet Trump insists it's all absorbed by the foreign country. Hogwash.
7:49p, 8/1/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
Inflation is the change of overall prices.
Tariffs cause the prices of some things to go up, and will eventually cause the prices of other things to go down, or reduce demand of the tariffed product in exchange for product substitutes.
That's not just splitting hairs. Tariffs cause changes in relative prices, as in prices of some goods relative to other goods. They do not cause the prices of all goods to go up. Prices of other products and demand for the tariffed product must come down if there is no increase in the money supply.
MemphisAg1 said:Fitch said:
Nitpick on terminology: price movements due to tariffs is not inflation. If they do occur, it's a price hike, not an erosion in the purchasing power of the underlying currency. The buyers at Walmart may not care about the difference, but there is one and it's important.
Counter position, I think the entire macro plan of which the tariffs are a significant part are probably the most significant piece of this administration's platform. Didn't realize what they were really proposing last November, but in the months since it's become the plank I care about most -- and it will certainly be the initiative that has the most impact on my future and (if I'm right) the next generation's, too.
To the nitpick on inflation definition, yes there's an academic definition of inflation resulting from an increase in the money supply.
To the common man and woman on the street, and even business executives and government leaders, inflation is more broadly recognized as changes in price regardless of the underlying reasons.
It's what everyone feels. When you pay more for something, that's inflation to 99% of people beyond the academic purists. CPI and PCE, the two most common metrics for inflation, capture price changes for all things and don't strip out that portion that was due simply to money supply changes.
Inflation is the change of overall prices.
Tariffs cause the prices of some things to go up, and will eventually cause the prices of other things to go down, or reduce demand of the tariffed product in exchange for product substitutes.
That's not just splitting hairs. Tariffs cause changes in relative prices, as in prices of some goods relative to other goods. They do not cause the prices of all goods to go up. Prices of other products and demand for the tariffed product must come down if there is no increase in the money supply.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
7:55p, 8/1/25
In reply to BusterAg
I agree with all of that. To most people, inflation is what they see when overall prices go up. Tariffs can be a part along with many other things.
Right now, tariffs seem to be an increasingly relevant factor in inflation, as many other factors have subsided over the past 18 months.
Right now, tariffs seem to be an increasingly relevant factor in inflation, as many other factors have subsided over the past 18 months.
8:17p, 8/1/25
One thing I've been curious about (because I'm not an economist) is what the real effect on retail prices might be from a, let's say, 15% tariff. Because it's not a 15% increase at the retail price for a final consumer.
The tariffs are applied at the port of entry, so at worst you're charging the tariff on the wholesale import price from the international manufacturer / producer, before any intermediaries in the supply chain add their own markups or the final retailer sets their consumer price.
Each interval in that supply chain is a point where some of the marginal price change could be absorbed.
Where it gets very strange is when there's a single buyer who is purchasing the majority of a product produced from overseas manufacturer. In that instance the US retailer has massive leverage to cram the margin cost onto the supplier, and especially so in an economy where the state is what's compelling production as in China's centrally-directed system they literally cannot stop producing even if it becomes uneconomical.
Curious if there are any importers or manufacturers here that could offer anecdotes?
The tariffs are applied at the port of entry, so at worst you're charging the tariff on the wholesale import price from the international manufacturer / producer, before any intermediaries in the supply chain add their own markups or the final retailer sets their consumer price.
Each interval in that supply chain is a point where some of the marginal price change could be absorbed.
Where it gets very strange is when there's a single buyer who is purchasing the majority of a product produced from overseas manufacturer. In that instance the US retailer has massive leverage to cram the margin cost onto the supplier, and especially so in an economy where the state is what's compelling production as in China's centrally-directed system they literally cannot stop producing even if it becomes uneconomical.
Curious if there are any importers or manufacturers here that could offer anecdotes?
8:17p, 8/1/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
It's all very complicated and intertwined, so almost all polemic statements are wrong.
1) Foreign companies buy a lot of US dollars in order to keep their currencies weak against the dollar, making their products cheaper to American consumers. This is good for America overall, because it is giving a free loan to our economy. But, who is the free loan good for? Who do you think it benefits most? Companies that import cheap goods and mark them up? Yes. Companies that borrow and loan money? Yes. Consumers of cheap goods? Yes. The government, who can use the demand for $'s to just print more money, and use the grift to make the real estate in DC some of the most expensive in the world? Yes. American workers? No. American industry? No.
2) Foreign countries subsidize their middle-class industries to maximize export revenue. This helps them politically in the short run. In the long run, it doesn't really hurt them, because, while they are subsidizing their industry out of their left hand, they are stealing our technology with their right hand. The foreign governments aren't just giving money away through subsidies, they are just investing in IP theft by the companies in their country that they are supporting.
3) The US refuses to Tariff anyone at reciprocal rates. Since every country in the world BUT THE US protects their own niche middle-class job industries, and we have the largest consuming economy in the world that everyone wants to sell to, the transition costs to switch industries for the US when another country protects their own industry are inflated. We can't shift from making trucks to making washing machines or TV's, because Korea protects LG. We can't switch to making silicon, because Taiwan protects silicon. We can't switch to making more sedans, because Europe and Japan protect sedans. What is there left to switch to? Making Tiktoks? Not a great strategy anymore. EVERYONE but the US protects their industries with tariffs, and, since they focus on one or two major industries, they become really good and entrenched in those industries, and more globally competitive. Krugman is a giant economic hack and no longer a real economist, but his Nobel work on this subject was actually noteworthy. You have to take a step back and look at the global picture, not just industry by industry, to see the entanglement of the problem.
4) Tariffs cause some prices to go up. Printing money causes inflation. Which of these two that impact prices helps working class families more? Which helps Wallstreet and DC more? At least with Tariffs, you are going to help out American workers.
5) This government is not going to stop printing money until we show up in DC with pitchforks. I think it is a complete fairytale to believe that we can curve inflation in the mid-term. If Trump doesn't cause specific industry price increases with tariffs, the government is just going to print a whole lot more money. We are not going to be able to stop inflation without a major upheaval. If the tariffs cause some short-term price increases to crappy consumer goods, adding to concerns about inflation (although, again, tariffs do not cause inflation), we are just bringing that pimple to a head that much quicker.
6) The key question here is if overall prices for the middle class go up more than the tax revenue collected by the federal government in tariffs. There is a very real possibility that the answer to that question will be no. So far, the answer seems like a resounding no. That might change in the future. There sure is a lot of bluster about it from Wallstreet, but that doesn't surprise me. To think that any macro economist is good enough to be able to predict the outcome of such a complicated system is actually quite naive. Macro is much easier when you can say "all other things held constant." That is never the case. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Given the totality of the circumstances we are in, it is going to be interesting to see if the increases in consumer costs are going to be worth it to the American middle class. Tariffs are going to be bad for America as a whole, but the sectors that are going to get hurt the worst are Sand Hill Road, Wallstreet and DC. The massive increase in government revenue providing future tax relief, and creating opportunity for middle class workers in the age of AI, are likely to provide as much or more value long-term to American workers than the cost of inflation.
MemphisAg1 said:richardag said:MemphisAg1 said:
He's been proven more wrong than right thus far on tariffs. He explicitly said that other countries would pay them. ….,,,,
I could be wrong but I believe what he meant was the other countries would lower their profit margins to cover the tariff expense. The price the importer would pay would not go up and stay the same.
In negotiating these tariffs the importer could offer to lower their tariffs along with the exporter lowering their profits so the pric3 the importer pays for the product stays the same.
That's a theoretical possibility but foreign countries are at best only offering a discount on a fraction of our imports. That's clear because US companies are publicly stating that tariff costs are being passed on to them from importers.
It's really not hard to realize the cost of tariffs will be shared along the value chain, with the foreign country, US company, and US consumer absorbing a piece of it.
Yet Trump insists it's all absorbed by the foreign country. Hogwash.
It's all very complicated and intertwined, so almost all polemic statements are wrong.
1) Foreign companies buy a lot of US dollars in order to keep their currencies weak against the dollar, making their products cheaper to American consumers. This is good for America overall, because it is giving a free loan to our economy. But, who is the free loan good for? Who do you think it benefits most? Companies that import cheap goods and mark them up? Yes. Companies that borrow and loan money? Yes. Consumers of cheap goods? Yes. The government, who can use the demand for $'s to just print more money, and use the grift to make the real estate in DC some of the most expensive in the world? Yes. American workers? No. American industry? No.
2) Foreign countries subsidize their middle-class industries to maximize export revenue. This helps them politically in the short run. In the long run, it doesn't really hurt them, because, while they are subsidizing their industry out of their left hand, they are stealing our technology with their right hand. The foreign governments aren't just giving money away through subsidies, they are just investing in IP theft by the companies in their country that they are supporting.
3) The US refuses to Tariff anyone at reciprocal rates. Since every country in the world BUT THE US protects their own niche middle-class job industries, and we have the largest consuming economy in the world that everyone wants to sell to, the transition costs to switch industries for the US when another country protects their own industry are inflated. We can't shift from making trucks to making washing machines or TV's, because Korea protects LG. We can't switch to making silicon, because Taiwan protects silicon. We can't switch to making more sedans, because Europe and Japan protect sedans. What is there left to switch to? Making Tiktoks? Not a great strategy anymore. EVERYONE but the US protects their industries with tariffs, and, since they focus on one or two major industries, they become really good and entrenched in those industries, and more globally competitive. Krugman is a giant economic hack and no longer a real economist, but his Nobel work on this subject was actually noteworthy. You have to take a step back and look at the global picture, not just industry by industry, to see the entanglement of the problem.
4) Tariffs cause some prices to go up. Printing money causes inflation. Which of these two that impact prices helps working class families more? Which helps Wallstreet and DC more? At least with Tariffs, you are going to help out American workers.
5) This government is not going to stop printing money until we show up in DC with pitchforks. I think it is a complete fairytale to believe that we can curve inflation in the mid-term. If Trump doesn't cause specific industry price increases with tariffs, the government is just going to print a whole lot more money. We are not going to be able to stop inflation without a major upheaval. If the tariffs cause some short-term price increases to crappy consumer goods, adding to concerns about inflation (although, again, tariffs do not cause inflation), we are just bringing that pimple to a head that much quicker.
6) The key question here is if overall prices for the middle class go up more than the tax revenue collected by the federal government in tariffs. There is a very real possibility that the answer to that question will be no. So far, the answer seems like a resounding no. That might change in the future. There sure is a lot of bluster about it from Wallstreet, but that doesn't surprise me. To think that any macro economist is good enough to be able to predict the outcome of such a complicated system is actually quite naive. Macro is much easier when you can say "all other things held constant." That is never the case. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Given the totality of the circumstances we are in, it is going to be interesting to see if the increases in consumer costs are going to be worth it to the American middle class. Tariffs are going to be bad for America as a whole, but the sectors that are going to get hurt the worst are Sand Hill Road, Wallstreet and DC. The massive increase in government revenue providing future tax relief, and creating opportunity for middle class workers in the age of AI, are likely to provide as much or more value long-term to American workers than the cost of inflation.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
8:34p, 8/1/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
I disagree that this is easy to measure.
How do you disaggregate the price increase from inflation due to the increase in the money supply and price increases from Tariffs?
It is not at all easy to measure, and way to early to make any conclusions.
The primary driver of inflation right now is home prices and food. Tariffs are not driving the majority of those inflation factors. The Fed printing money and dropping it off in dump trucks at the foot of ivory towers is creating the Food and Housing inflation.
MemphisAg1 said:
I agree with all of that. To most people, inflation is what they see when overall prices go up. Tariffs can be a part along with many other things.
Right now, tariffs seem to be an increasingly relevant factor in inflation, as many other factors have subsided over the past 18 months.
I disagree that this is easy to measure.
How do you disaggregate the price increase from inflation due to the increase in the money supply and price increases from Tariffs?
It is not at all easy to measure, and way to early to make any conclusions.
The primary driver of inflation right now is home prices and food. Tariffs are not driving the majority of those inflation factors. The Fed printing money and dropping it off in dump trucks at the foot of ivory towers is creating the Food and Housing inflation.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
9:20p, 8/1/25
In reply to infinity ag
That may be true, but you can't just ignore economics. Trying to somehow create these overpaid jobs in the private sector is just communism with extra steps. It will inevitably fail and then you have no jobs.
infinity ag said:ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
The problem is that a lot of manufacturing is the equivalent of working at McDonald's. You run a mostly automated machine or do a very repetitive task that takes very little skill, but people doing manufacturing jobs want to get paid like they're running a lathe or a mill. Paying those jobs what people here think they're worth means products will inevitably be more expensive than people value them at.
Look at the $70 grill scrubber. That's about 2-3 hours of wages for the median person. Most people aren't going to value a kitchen utensil at that price relative to everything else they buy. You can't make it here for less not because of the lack of manufacturing facilities or professionals, but because the people who would work those jobs are not willing to do it at a rate that would allow it. It's the equivalent of people wanting fast food workers to make $20/hr with the expectation that restaurants can sell a $15 hamburger. Customers simply don't value a Whopper or 1/4 Pounder that high.
You are right, but there is a large swathe of population which isn't too bright and just want a clock in and out job. They cannot build AI models and never will. They also need to live and so the country needs to provide jobs for them also else they will be homeless, die on the streets etc. So as I see it, there is no way other than to take a hit somewhere in order to not let that happen.
That may be true, but you can't just ignore economics. Trying to somehow create these overpaid jobs in the private sector is just communism with extra steps. It will inevitably fail and then you have no jobs.
9:25p, 8/1/25
In reply to ABATTBQ11
Or, and stick with me here a minute, maybe you can create jobs that are not overpaid by using trade agreements to curb the trade manipulation that we are experiencing from other countries that cost the US economy jobs.
ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
The problem is that a lot of manufacturing is the equivalent of working at McDonald's. You run a mostly automated machine or do a very repetitive task that takes very little skill, but people doing manufacturing jobs want to get paid like they're running a lathe or a mill. Paying those jobs what people here think they're worth means products will inevitably be more expensive than people value them at.
Look at the $70 grill scrubber. That's about 2-3 hours of wages for the median person. Most people aren't going to value a kitchen utensil at that price relative to everything else they buy. You can't make it here for less not because of the lack of manufacturing facilities or professionals, but because the people who would work those jobs are not willing to do it at a rate that would allow it. It's the equivalent of people wanting fast food workers to make $20/hr with the expectation that restaurants can sell a $15 hamburger. Customers simply don't value a Whopper or 1/4 Pounder that high.
You are right, but there is a large swathe of population which isn't too bright and just want a clock in and out job. They cannot build AI models and never will. They also need to live and so the country needs to provide jobs for them also else they will be homeless, die on the streets etc. So as I see it, there is no way other than to take a hit somewhere in order to not let that happen.
That may be true, but you can't just ignore economics. Trying to somehow create these overpaid jobs in the private sector is just communism with extra steps. It will inevitably fail and then you have no jobs.
Or, and stick with me here a minute, maybe you can create jobs that are not overpaid by using trade agreements to curb the trade manipulation that we are experiencing from other countries that cost the US economy jobs.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
9:25p, 8/1/25
In reply to infinity ag
I do not agree with this part.
infinity ag said:ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
The problem is that a lot of manufacturing is the equivalent of working at McDonald's. You run a mostly automated machine or do a very repetitive task that takes very little skill, but people doing manufacturing jobs want to get paid like they're running a lathe or a mill. Paying those jobs what people here think they're worth means products will inevitably be more expensive than people value them at.
Look at the $70 grill scrubber. That's about 2-3 hours of wages for the median person. Most people aren't going to value a kitchen utensil at that price relative to everything else they buy. You can't make it here for less not because of the lack of manufacturing facilities or professionals, but because the people who would work those jobs are not willing to do it at a rate that would allow it. It's the equivalent of people wanting fast food workers to make $20/hr with the expectation that restaurants can sell a $15 hamburger. Customers simply don't value a Whopper or 1/4 Pounder that high.
You are right, but there is a large swathe of population which isn't too bright and just want a clock in and out job. They cannot build AI models and never will. They also need to live and so the country needs to provide jobs for them also else they will be homeless, die on the streets etc. So as I see it, there is no way other than to take a hit somewhere in order to not let that happen.
I do not agree with this part.
9:32p, 8/1/25
In reply to infinity ag
I am curious about this.
Why do you think this?
What are you relying on for this conclusion?
How deflated do you think prices really are?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I could see several arguments that might lead to that conclusion. I am more interested in WHY you think this.
infinity ag said:
We are living in an artificially deflated price environment.
I am curious about this.
Why do you think this?
What are you relying on for this conclusion?
How deflated do you think prices really are?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I could see several arguments that might lead to that conclusion. I am more interested in WHY you think this.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
9:39p, 8/1/25
In reply to ETFan
What conservative policy are you witnessing because the R's are just a tad to the right of the D's. Not conservative, at all.
ETFan said:Ferg said:jt16 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
Trump is one of the most fiscal liberal presidents we have ever seen. He literally shamed the republicans into throwing one more $1T Covid grift on his way out the door last term. And these tariff rates have gone beyond protecting American jobs. It's one of the most massive tax increases on Americans we have experienced. And people that think they are conservative cheer it on because they love the chaos that comes with Trump.
Its a consumption Tax, which many on this board have said they would prefer to Income Tax. Given the $37T in Debt and the continuing budget deficits, I'm not sure its a bad solution to help close the gap.
Hard to believe the national debt is of any concern to this admin or any conservative. Their policy says as much.
What conservative policy are you witnessing because the R's are just a tad to the right of the D's. Not conservative, at all.
9:43p, 8/1/25
In reply to Tom Fox
The more posts of yours I read, the more I think you escaped from some failed DC comic where the hero was Dr. Pragmatism, and you were the big bad villain, the Unrealistic Idealist, or Real Deal for short!
Real Deal was raised by mega-preppers in an abandoned missel silo in South Dakota who taught him that any deviation from the ideal should be denied with ultimate force. He married a Native American who grew up on a reservation in South Dakota, and she eventually divorced him because he always complained that is kitchen was never really clean, because his wife didn't wash the windows every single day. He is routinely reported for shooting jay walkers, arrested for telling cops that everything that they are doing is technically unconstitutional, regardless of what the local Sheriff or Courts have said, and walking out of the store with $13 worth of groceries, and after handing a clerk a $100, and the teller not having change for $100, claiming "whopee, my debt is erased since you won't take cash! Thank you Jesus!"
Tom Fox said:infinity ag said:ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
The problem is that a lot of manufacturing is the equivalent of working at McDonald's. You run a mostly automated machine or do a very repetitive task that takes very little skill, but people doing manufacturing jobs want to get paid like they're running a lathe or a mill. Paying those jobs what people here think they're worth means products will inevitably be more expensive than people value them at.
Look at the $70 grill scrubber. That's about 2-3 hours of wages for the median person. Most people aren't going to value a kitchen utensil at that price relative to everything else they buy. You can't make it here for less not because of the lack of manufacturing facilities or professionals, but because the people who would work those jobs are not willing to do it at a rate that would allow it. It's the equivalent of people wanting fast food workers to make $20/hr with the expectation that restaurants can sell a $15 hamburger. Customers simply don't value a Whopper or 1/4 Pounder that high.
You are right, but there is a large swathe of population which isn't too bright and just want a clock in and out job. They cannot build AI models and never will. They also need to live and so the country needs to provide jobs for them also else they will be homeless, die on the streets etc. So as I see it, there is no way other than to take a hit somewhere in order to not let that happen.
I do not agree with this part.
The more posts of yours I read, the more I think you escaped from some failed DC comic where the hero was Dr. Pragmatism, and you were the big bad villain, the Unrealistic Idealist, or Real Deal for short!
Real Deal was raised by mega-preppers in an abandoned missel silo in South Dakota who taught him that any deviation from the ideal should be denied with ultimate force. He married a Native American who grew up on a reservation in South Dakota, and she eventually divorced him because he always complained that is kitchen was never really clean, because his wife didn't wash the windows every single day. He is routinely reported for shooting jay walkers, arrested for telling cops that everything that they are doing is technically unconstitutional, regardless of what the local Sheriff or Courts have said, and walking out of the store with $13 worth of groceries, and after handing a clerk a $100, and the teller not having change for $100, claiming "whopee, my debt is erased since you won't take cash! Thank you Jesus!"
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
9:44p, 8/1/25
In reply to BigRobSA
There are only about 5 fiscal conservatives left in DC. Not a good situation for anyone.
BigRobSA said:ETFan said:Ferg said:jt16 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
Trump is one of the most fiscal liberal presidents we have ever seen. He literally shamed the republicans into throwing one more $1T Covid grift on his way out the door last term. And these tariff rates have gone beyond protecting American jobs. It's one of the most massive tax increases on Americans we have experienced. And people that think they are conservative cheer it on because they love the chaos that comes with Trump.
Its a consumption Tax, which many on this board have said they would prefer to Income Tax. Given the $37T in Debt and the continuing budget deficits, I'm not sure its a bad solution to help close the gap.
Hard to believe the national debt is of any concern to this admin or any conservative. Their policy says as much.
What conservative policy are you witnessing because the R's are just a tad to the right of the D's. Not conservative, at all.
There are only about 5 fiscal conservatives left in DC. Not a good situation for anyone.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
9:48p, 8/1/25
In reply to BusterAg
I'm more like Dr. Rugged Individualist or Captain Small Government.
My catch phrase would be, "take care of your damn self."
My catch phrase would be, "take care of your damn self."
10:17p, 8/1/25
In reply to BusterAg
Has less to do with trade manipulation than the labor being worth less than workers here are willing to be paid to do it. Highly paid assembly line or factory jobs either need to be creating products that people are willing to pay top dollar for or a **** ton of cheap products to spread the high labor cost over. The problem with the latter is that high volume cheap products don't require skill and inevitably come with low to mediocre pay that Americans aren't willing to accept. It's the difference between a chef and burger flipper, except the budget flipper wants chef level pay.
BusterAg said:ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:ABATTBQ11 said:infinity ag said:
If one willingly allows jobs to leave and wring hands about it, what else will happen?
We have done nothing about that.
jobs jobs jobs.
If there are no jobs, there is no country.
The problem is that a lot of manufacturing is the equivalent of working at McDonald's. You run a mostly automated machine or do a very repetitive task that takes very little skill, but people doing manufacturing jobs want to get paid like they're running a lathe or a mill. Paying those jobs what people here think they're worth means products will inevitably be more expensive than people value them at.
Look at the $70 grill scrubber. That's about 2-3 hours of wages for the median person. Most people aren't going to value a kitchen utensil at that price relative to everything else they buy. You can't make it here for less not because of the lack of manufacturing facilities or professionals, but because the people who would work those jobs are not willing to do it at a rate that would allow it. It's the equivalent of people wanting fast food workers to make $20/hr with the expectation that restaurants can sell a $15 hamburger. Customers simply don't value a Whopper or 1/4 Pounder that high.
You are right, but there is a large swathe of population which isn't too bright and just want a clock in and out job. They cannot build AI models and never will. They also need to live and so the country needs to provide jobs for them also else they will be homeless, die on the streets etc. So as I see it, there is no way other than to take a hit somewhere in order to not let that happen.
That may be true, but you can't just ignore economics. Trying to somehow create these overpaid jobs in the private sector is just communism with extra steps. It will inevitably fail and then you have no jobs.
Or, and stick with me here a minute, maybe you can create jobs that are not overpaid by using trade agreements to curb the trade manipulation that we are experiencing from other countries that cost the US economy jobs.
Has less to do with trade manipulation than the labor being worth less than workers here are willing to be paid to do it. Highly paid assembly line or factory jobs either need to be creating products that people are willing to pay top dollar for or a **** ton of cheap products to spread the high labor cost over. The problem with the latter is that high volume cheap products don't require skill and inevitably come with low to mediocre pay that Americans aren't willing to accept. It's the difference between a chef and burger flipper, except the budget flipper wants chef level pay.
10:28p, 8/1/25
In reply to Fitch
The real answer is nobody knows right now. If the companies exporting goods into the US and paying the tariffs thought they could increase prices by 15% (the number you gave as a hypo) without losing a single sale, they would. Obviously that's not the case, though, so it will some combination of raising prices to cover increased costs + eating the taxes/tariffs and accepting a lower profit margin (likely after significant experimenting by the exporters).
I was initially thought we'd see more price increases, but some analysts have convinced me that the US has a lot of power to force companies to accept lower profit margins. We're currently importing ~$3 trillion of goods/year, which means that the employment of a lot of people around the world depends on access to our markets. So if foreign companies crank prices and demand tanks, tens of millions of people around the world could lose their jobs (literally that many... And he'll, maybe more). That's unacceptable to them, so we may see smaller price increases than expected in order to maintain us consumer demand.
I still think they're a horrible idea longer term. In general, protecting industries from competition does not lead to better quality or performance. It leads to crappier goods manufactured by sclerotic inefficient companies.
I was initially thought we'd see more price increases, but some analysts have convinced me that the US has a lot of power to force companies to accept lower profit margins. We're currently importing ~$3 trillion of goods/year, which means that the employment of a lot of people around the world depends on access to our markets. So if foreign companies crank prices and demand tanks, tens of millions of people around the world could lose their jobs (literally that many... And he'll, maybe more). That's unacceptable to them, so we may see smaller price increases than expected in order to maintain us consumer demand.
I still think they're a horrible idea longer term. In general, protecting industries from competition does not lead to better quality or performance. It leads to crappier goods manufactured by sclerotic inefficient companies.
11:31p, 8/1/25
In reply to Tom Fox
I would have went for "Real Deal Holifield", but you do you, sir.
Tom Fox said:
I'm more like Dr. Rugged Individualist or Captain Small Government.
My catch phrase would be, "take care of your damn self."
I would have went for "Real Deal Holifield", but you do you, sir.
11:38p, 8/1/25
In reply to BigRobSA
Nice!
What is crazy is that what I am advocating would have been common sense for 98% of human history but now it is somehow crazy town.
Apparently we must give our money to the government to support the idiots that cannot support themselves or we are not being pragmatic. Eventually nature will restore the natural order because we will run out of others people money.
BigRobSA said:Tom Fox said:
I'm more like Dr. Rugged Individualist or Captain Small Government.
My catch phrase would be, "take care of your damn self."
I would have went for "Real Deal Holifield", but you do you, sir.
Nice!
What is crazy is that what I am advocating would have been common sense for 98% of human history but now it is somehow crazy town.
Apparently we must give our money to the government to support the idiots that cannot support themselves or we are not being pragmatic. Eventually nature will restore the natural order because we will run out of others people money.
8:19a, 8/2/25
You cannot have factory jobs without factories. I doubt that the U.S. built a lot of factories under Biden's administration.
8:53a, 8/2/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
Trump Reneges on Promise That His Tariffs Won't Raise Costs for Consumers Story by Chris Walker
7mo
quote from the article from an interview done last December
MemphisAg1 said:richardag said:MemphisAg1 said:
He's been proven more wrong than right thus far on tariffs. He explicitly said that other countries would pay them. ….,,,,
I could be wrong but I believe what he meant was the other countries would lower their profit margins to cover the tariff expense. The price the importer would pay would not go up and stay the same.
In negotiating these tariffs the importer could offer to lower their tariffs along with the exporter lowering their profits so the pric3 the importer pays for the product stays the same.
That's a theoretical possibility but foreign countries are at best only offering a discount on a fraction of our imports. That's clear because US companies are publicly stating that tariff costs are being passed on to them from importers.
It's really not hard to realize the cost of tariffs will be shared along the value chain, with the foreign country, US company, and US consumer absorbing a piece of it.
Yet Trump insists it's all absorbed by the foreign country. Hogwash.
Trump Reneges on Promise That His Tariffs Won't Raise Costs for Consumers Story by Chris Walker
7mo
quote from the article from an interview done last December
- President-elect Donald Trump took a massive step back from previous claims he's made on his planned tariffs, stating in an interview over the weekend that he could no longer "guarantee" that costs from tariffs wouldn't be passed onto consumers.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
9:02a, 8/2/25
In reply to AgGrad99
POTDAgGrad99 said:
cause /= effect
The same prognosticators who are saying prices will go up and will be passed onto the consumer, are also blaming job cuts on tariffs.
I'm a manufacturer, I use dozens of suppliers, and I supply hundreds of customers (some are also manufacturers). Costs have adjusted slightly, because of tariffs...and will continue to for a bit...while consumer prices follow. But I've seen very little to no movement with their labor force this year because of that. Most are still lamenting the lack of qualified people.
I'll also say this...we're still wading through the effects of the previous 2-3 year inflation rates. Those things come in slow waves, and we seem to be on the backside of the last wave. But those increases are affecting us much more than these policies that have only began to filter through.
Point being, tariffs have simply become the new cost-center for any negative number/trend in the economy, whether it's the cause or not, so it's extremely difficult to wade through the information.
Want to create jobs? Don't allow Asia countries to manipulate markets for decades, to our detriment. Don't support policies that cause extreme inflation. Don't over-tax and punish those who contribute. Instead of wasting billions upon billions of dollars on the most idiotic ideals around the globe, maybe support American manufacturers? Build up infrastructure, improve efficiencies for necessities around the country, etc. It's not rocket surgery.
9:28a, 8/2/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
So do we continue to allow ourselves to be ****ed by the rest of the world with our ****ty trade policies just because that's the way it's always been? There's going to be some pain with change. In the long run we'll be better off for it.
9:34a, 8/2/25
In reply to MemphisAg1
So you're saying that the consumer will eventually be paying for some of the tariffs in the goods they buy in the coming months?
If that's the case, maybe that's why Trump was talking about the reduced amount of dolls and Christmas, because he knew it would be around that time that the consumer would start paying for the tariffs.
MemphisAg1 said:
He's been proven more wrong than right thus far on tariffs. He explicitly said that other countries would pay them. That is factually false because the US importer pays them. There are now plenty of data points of companies publicly stating that they will incur hits of millions and even over a billion dollars because some of the tariffs are being passed onto them from importers.
Additionally, tariffs have started to show up in the latest CPI and PCE prints, and there are also plenty of public statements from companies that they will pass on some of the tariffs to consumers in the coming months.
So for someone who repeatedly said other countries would pay the tariffs, he has been proven wrong. It's all right there in the public domain for everyone to see if they will allow themselves to acknowledge that Trump is wrong.
I voted for him three times and don't regret my vote. I just believe in being honest about things and don't like it when politicians try to avoid the truth that even a blind man could see.
So you're saying that the consumer will eventually be paying for some of the tariffs in the goods they buy in the coming months?
If that's the case, maybe that's why Trump was talking about the reduced amount of dolls and Christmas, because he knew it would be around that time that the consumer would start paying for the tariffs.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
11:20a, 8/2/25
In reply to BusterAg
I agree with your summation that overall prices won't increase if there is no increase in money supply. I'm concerned about the effects of the giant stimulus bill that was just passed. I it will create a jump in the money supply. Think multiplying effect of banks lending more money and hedge funds leveraging Treasuries to create wealth.
BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:Fitch said:
Nitpick on terminology: price movements due to tariffs is not inflation. If they do occur, it's a price hike, not an erosion in the purchasing power of the underlying currency. The buyers at Walmart may not care about the difference, but there is one and it's important.
Counter position, I think the entire macro plan of which the tariffs are a significant part are probably the most significant piece of this administration's platform. Didn't realize what they were really proposing last November, but in the months since it's become the plank I care about most -- and it will certainly be the initiative that has the most impact on my future and (if I'm right) the next generation's, too.
To the nitpick on inflation definition, yes there's an academic definition of inflation resulting from an increase in the money supply.
To the common man and woman on the street, and even business executives and government leaders, inflation is more broadly recognized as changes in price regardless of the underlying reasons.
It's what everyone feels. When you pay more for something, that's inflation to 99% of people beyond the academic purists. CPI and PCE, the two most common metrics for inflation, capture price changes for all things and don't strip out that portion that was due simply to money supply changes.
Inflation is the change of overall prices.
Tariffs cause the prices of some things to go up, and will eventually cause the prices of other things to go down, or reduce demand of the tariffed product in exchange for product substitutes.
That's not just splitting hairs. Tariffs cause changes in relative prices, as in prices of some goods relative to other goods. They do not cause the prices of all goods to go up. Prices of other products and demand for the tariffed product must come down if there is no increase in the money supply.
I agree with your summation that overall prices won't increase if there is no increase in money supply. I'm concerned about the effects of the giant stimulus bill that was just passed. I it will create a jump in the money supply. Think multiplying effect of banks lending more money and hedge funds leveraging Treasuries to create wealth.
Formerly CowPieAndFries
11:31a, 8/2/25
In reply to doubledog
They're not building them under Trump, either.
None of the reasons why mfg moved out of country is being dealt with, in the slightest. Not to mention the inability to see into the future and what it holds (e.g. Democrat winning in 28, total effect of liberal tariffs, etc)
Deregulate massively
Cut corporate taxes (and everyone else), not just keep the current rates like was done
GUT spending
Simple solution to actually bring back mfg jobs.
doubledog said:
You cannot have factory jobs without factories. I doubt that the U.S. built a lot of factories under Biden's administration.
They're not building them under Trump, either.
None of the reasons why mfg moved out of country is being dealt with, in the slightest. Not to mention the inability to see into the future and what it holds (e.g. Democrat winning in 28, total effect of liberal tariffs, etc)
Deregulate massively
Cut corporate taxes (and everyone else), not just keep the current rates like was done
GUT spending
Simple solution to actually bring back mfg jobs.
11:43a, 8/2/25
Back to the original topic about job loss data. I pulled this from google. It matches the much longer report from the department of labor.
"U.S. factory production, as measured by the Federal Reserve's industrial production index, saw a 0.3% increase in June, with manufacturing output specifically up by 0.1%. This follows a period of stagnation, with no change in April and May. Overall, industrial production is 0.7% higher than it was a year ago."
It's hard for me to get a longer term trend because of Covid. Industrial production numbers are higher mostly because of utilities and mining. Manufacturing is one sector that makes up Industrial production and manufacturing looks close to flat.
Workers are getting more productive, as measured by the worker productivity index. Some manufacturers need less manpower by their very nature. It could be that they are the ones growing while others are shrinking. It could be automation or probably a combination of both.
To the OP, manufacturing and industrial production does not appear to be on the skids.
"U.S. factory production, as measured by the Federal Reserve's industrial production index, saw a 0.3% increase in June, with manufacturing output specifically up by 0.1%. This follows a period of stagnation, with no change in April and May. Overall, industrial production is 0.7% higher than it was a year ago."
It's hard for me to get a longer term trend because of Covid. Industrial production numbers are higher mostly because of utilities and mining. Manufacturing is one sector that makes up Industrial production and manufacturing looks close to flat.
Workers are getting more productive, as measured by the worker productivity index. Some manufacturers need less manpower by their very nature. It could be that they are the ones growing while others are shrinking. It could be automation or probably a combination of both.
To the OP, manufacturing and industrial production does not appear to be on the skids.
Formerly CowPieAndFries
12:01p, 8/2/25
In reply to CowPieAndFries
Unfortunately, my company isn't one of these. We need a bunch more personnel, and a MASSIVE influx of capital to revamp our factory and the higher ups (who couldn't do even the most basic jobs on the floor, or even know how to wear PPE) refuse to make that happen. Yet they ARE making our daily goals higher, even though we never hit our previous goals due to machine downtime and lack of headcount.
We're hitting record income amounts, and record cash-on-hand, but they're not investing in future productivity. They have figured out ways around the tariffs...for now...but on some things we're passing it along, when affected.
CowPieAndFries said:
Workers are getting more productive, as measured by the worker productivity index. Some manufacturers need less manpower by their very nature. It could be that they are the ones growing while others are shrinking. It could be automation or probably a combination of both.
To the OP, manufacturing and industrial production does not appear to be on the skids.
Unfortunately, my company isn't one of these. We need a bunch more personnel, and a MASSIVE influx of capital to revamp our factory and the higher ups (who couldn't do even the most basic jobs on the floor, or even know how to wear PPE) refuse to make that happen. Yet they ARE making our daily goals higher, even though we never hit our previous goals due to machine downtime and lack of headcount.
We're hitting record income amounts, and record cash-on-hand, but they're not investing in future productivity. They have figured out ways around the tariffs...for now...but on some things we're passing it along, when affected.