Election 2024

[Johnny D]

Inflated costs and created supply issues while also lowering demand for our exports as a result of retaliatory tariffs. It was expected to happen and it did.

 

[CUSP82]

You don't feel that it protects American business and workers?
Are you aware of the number of countries that have tariffs placed on us regardless of whether we have placed tariffs on them?

 

[BigO]

All I know is that Harris sucked her way into politics

 

[akaTrex]

All I know is that Harris sucked her way into politics

Thevlist is long and distinguished. SF Mayor Willie Brown 31 yrs her senior.

 

[Johnny D]

You don't feel that it protects American business and workers?

Some, yes. But it's at the expense of many others. When the supplier's costs go up, many workers lose jobs as a result. Wages is one of the most controllable costs that an employer has, and also one of the most impactful. When employers have to maintain margins under a climate of supply cost inflation, workers will alway suffer as a result.

Plus, all workers are consumers. Even those workers whose jobs are protected and maybe whose salaries aren't affected as a result of higher supply costs, still have to buy stuff and that stuff is now comes at a higher cost.

Are you aware of the number of countries that have tariffs placed on us regardless of whether we have placed tariffs on them?

Of course I am. Tariffs aren't a new invention. But, other than through some diplomacy (which obviously won't always work) we don't get a say in the matter. And retaliatory tariffs only come at a cost to us.

Tariffs are a tax on goods and that tax is paid by the consumer. It might sound good to prevent competition to protect someone's job but ultimately what happens is the price goes up. The best net outcome would be to allow for market pricing that creates an environment of fair competition. The cost of goods to consumers will find its equilibrium and demand for goods will increase, creating more employment opportunities and better wages.

 

[Johnny D]

All I know is that Harris sucked her way into politics

No you don't. What you know is that her political opponents have claimed that she did.

Thevlist is long and distinguished.

Once again... If this was true there would be credible accounts of it. People would be stepping up and making the case.

SF Mayor Willie Brown 31 yrs her senior.

She's admitted they dated. So what?

 

[akaTrex]

No you don't. What you know is that her political opponents have claimed that she did.


Once again... If this was true there would be credible accounts of it. People would be stepping up and making the case.

She's admitted they dated. So what?

Willie/Montel/Willie again are going to confirm her Fluffing?

Remember Billy Clinton stating to the USA "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
Monica was a smart gal and kept the DNA evidence of Billy‘s spew aka DNA on her blue dress.

Check out Judge Joe Brown’s videos regarding Harris. He has publicly stated she’s a Hoe!
Isn't it strange that Kamala Harris has never sued him for slander or libel?

​

 

[BigO]

No you don't. What you know is that her political opponents have claimed that she did.


Once again... If this was true there would be credible accounts of it. People would be stepping up and making the case.

She's admitted they dated. So what?

She admitted it, long ago

 

[Johnny D]

Willie/Montel/Willie again are going to confirm her Fluffing?

Remember Billy Clinton stating to the USA "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
Monica was a smart gal and kept the DNA evidence of Billy‘s spew aka DNA on her blue dress.

Check out Judge Joe Brown’s videos regarding Harris. He has publicly stated she’s a Hoe!
Isn't it strange that Kamala Harris has never sued him for slander or libel?

As I said before, a slander suit against Joe Brown wouldn't go anywhere. He's entitled to make the remarks that he made and is pretty well protected by 1A. He chose his words well to avoid losing a defamation claim.

She admitted it, long ago

She admitted that she and Willie Brown dated. So what? And, again, all that anyone has is "friend of a friend" rumors. Not one single person has come forward publicly with any personal claim or accusation. You can bet that if any of it was true, it would have been made public, not just "she's known to be" rumors.

 

[CUSP82]

Some, yes. But it's at the expense of many others. When the supplier's costs go up, many workers lose jobs as a result. Wages is one of the most controllable costs that an employer has, and also one of the most impactful. When employers have to maintain margins under a climate of supply cost inflation, workers will alway suffer as a result.

Plus, all workers are consumers. Even those workers whose jobs are protected and maybe whose salaries aren't affected as a result of higher supply costs, still have to buy stuff and that stuff is now comes at a higher cost.


Of course I am. Tariffs aren't a new invention. But, other than through some diplomacy (which obviously won't always work) we don't get a say in the matter. And retaliatory tariffs only come at a cost to us.

Tariffs are a tax on goods and that tax is paid by the consumer. It might sound good to prevent competition to protect someone's job but ultimately what happens is the price goes up. The best net outcome would be to allow for market pricing that creates an environment of fair competition. The cost of goods to consumers will find its equilibrium and demand for goods will increase, creating more employment opportunities and better wages.

I watched steel workers in PA yesterday saying that Trump tariffs saved their jobs. Is having cheaper prices worth Americans losing their jobs or an important industry being destroyed?

 

[not2big]

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a law that raised import duties on foreign goods to protect American farmers and businesses from foreign competition. The act is widely considered to have made the Depression worse in the United States and around the world and turned the Depression into the Great Depression.

 

[Johnny D]

I watched steel workers in PA yesterday saying that Trump tariffs saved their jobs. Is having cheaper prices worth Americans losing their jobs or an important industry being destroyed?

I refer you to my previous post addressing exactly that

 

[CUSP82]

So bottom line it's all about prices correct?

 

[akaTrex]

So bottom line it's all about prices correct?

Steel workers in PA yesterday saying that Trump tariffs saved their jobs. Is having cheaper prices worth Americans losing their jobs or an important industry being destroyed?

Considering the NEW Oakland SF Bay Bridge was built using Steel from CHINA. Humm.
Bet US Steel would have liked that order and manufacturing jobs here in the Good Old USA!

There were concerns about the Quality of the steel from China.
Due to the fact this was the area of the Bay Bridge that failed on the 1989 Earth Quake.

 

[not2big]

It is not all about prices; however, price considerations are a major component working against applying tariffs indiscriminately because tariffs act as a progressive tax against lower income households with little consequences on high income households. Tariffs do have advantages when the intent is to protect specific industries producing vital components essential to the country’s security or essential technology, for example. Specific tariffs can result in good consequences, whereas blanket tariffs usually result in bad consequences.

 

[not2big]

There is also the law of comparative advantage that states that even though (for example purposes) the US can manufacture both steel and technology more effectively and at lower prices than China, the U.S. is more effective at producing technology than steel. Therefore, the U.S. should concentrate on producing technology and let the Chinese concentrate on producing steel. In the long run, by protecting the US steel industry, both countries are less well off.

 

[BigO]

As I said before, a slander suit against Joe Brown wouldn't go anywhere. He's entitled to make the remarks that he made and is pretty well protected by 1A. He chose his words well to avoid losing a defamation claim.

She admitted that she and Willie Brown dated. So what? And, again, all that anyone has is "friend of a friend" rumors. Not one single person has come forward publicly with any personal claim or accusation. You can bet that if any of it was true, it would have been made public, not just "she's known to be" rumors.

Willie slapped those cheeks, he was like 95 years older than her. They would use it against Trump

I'm just saying she a hoe

 

[akaTrex]

Interesting testimony from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Wade’s Fuck Buddy.
Former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade testified they met with Biden administration staff on at least two occasions during District Attorney Fani Willis' probe into former President Donald Trump.

Interesting that the White House DOJ sent two prosecutors to assist NY Alvin Bragg.

Matthew Colangelo, a former senior Biden Justice Department official, is leading the political prosecution of President Trump with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg​

Law Fare at is best!

 

[BigO]

There is also the law of comparative advantage that states that even though (for example purposes) the US can manufacture both steel and technology more effectively and at lower prices than China, the U.S. is more effective at producing technology than steel. Therefore, the U.S. should concentrate on producing technology and let the Chinese concentrate on producing steel. In the long run, by protecting the US steel industry, both countries are less well off.

We could also raise our production of steel to such a point that we could compete with China, producing in bulk would lower prices.

Our biggest problem is that we stopped producing and then became dependant.

If we produce in our country, we wouldn't need their steel. If we don't need their steel, the sell less and then they lost that advantage.

It is not all about prices; however, price considerations are a major component working against applying tariffs indiscriminately because tariffs act as a progressive tax against lower income households with little consequences on high income households. Tariffs do have advantages when the intent is to protect specific industries producing vital components essential to the country’s security or essential technology, for example. Specific tariffs can result in good consequences, whereas blanket tariffs usually result in bad consequences.

I agree with this

 

[Johnny D]

So bottom line it's all about prices correct?

It's all about the most efficient allocation of resources to maximize economic benefit across a society. Not protecting one particular industry or class at the expense of others. Tariffs which insulate a specific worker from the economic realities, and then place the extra cost burden broadly across the consumer are essentially socialist tinkering. Why on earth anyone would want anyone in the government determining these outcomes is beyond me. We've already seen how tariffs lead to inflation and shortages. Sure, it's nice that some workers' jobs were protected by the government (just some, though, because the government gets to decide which jobs to protect ), but nice just for those workers. Not for the economy on the whole.

There were concerns about the Quality of the steel from China.
Due to the fact this was the area of the Bay Bridge that failed on the 1989 Earth Quake.

False! It was a result of lower seismic design standards back then. Fact.