Is the West in decline

[Johnny D]

With regard to tariffs...

at least we are better off this week than we were last week.

...is not what we should be saying. If someone steals $100 from you and gives back $50, do you view that as a step in the right direction?

With regard to drug pricing...

If you do not feel lowered drug prices and lowered tariff rates are a good idea, that is your right.

Lower prices are good for consumers, right? So how about the government just decides the price of everything from now on. Kamala Harris said she would impose price caps on groceries. Maybe Trump should do that, too.

at least we are better off this week than we were last week.

No we're not. The government telling private companies how to run their business and how much they can charge is worse off. We shouldn't be applauding that - we should be protesting it.

 

[akaTrex]

Companies like Walmart and Amazon receive substantial discounts from their suppliers due to the large volume of products they purchase. Why does the UK pay significantly lower prices for the same drugs than the U.S., despite purchasing far less?

Looks reminiscent of the "Art of the Deal"!

 

[not2big]

After the executive order was announced, PhRMA president and CEO Steve Ubl said: ”To lower costs for Americans, we need to address the real reasons U.S. prices are higher: foreign countries not paying their fair share and middlemen driving up prices for U.S. patients." He added, "The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines. U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation.

Apparently, the pharmaceutical industry is not completely against he idea.

 

[not2big]

Another evolving questionable situation is whether Trump should accept the gift of a $400 million luxury jet from the government of Quatar.

If he accepts it as personal gift, it could be considered as a violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause which requires the approval of Congress for the President to accept gifts from foreign governments. Trump claims he would only use it while in office and then donate it to his library as a “Momento.”

Alternately, he could arrange to have to gifted to the Government which could also result in the impression by political opponents as well as other nations viewing it as inappropriate influence by the government of Quatar On U.S. policy in the Middle East.

it has also been mentioned that Boeing has already been in the process of developing its own version of Air Force One which will be equipped with high quality and various security measures, including armored reinforcement and equipment to protect against attack as well as special offensive and refueling capabilities. More importantly, the Boeng plane would include highly technical communications equipment allowing the plane to act as central global communications center during significant conflicts. However, a number of delays have occured, including obtaining various security clearances for the Boeing employees. Oman has suggested that their Plane could be used until the Boeing plane is completed. Unfortunately, the Qatar gift plane would also have to be outfitted similarly to the Boeing plane which would significantly also delay it from becoming operational.

In my opinion, there are too many questionable issues involved and, accordingly, the gift plane should be rejected.

 

[Johnny D]

After the executive order was announced, PhRMA president and CEO Steve Ubl said: ”To lower costs for Americans, we need to address the real reasons U.S. prices are higher: foreign countries not paying their fair share and middlemen driving up prices for U.S. patients." He added, "The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines. U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation.

Apparently, the pharmaceutical industry is not completely against he idea.

More intellectual dishonesty. It's exhausting!

You conveniently left out the rest of his statement, didn't you?
“Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers. It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America – threatening jobs, hurting our economy and making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

So, you either misunderstand what he does believe should happen - other countries should pay more - or you're spinning it intentionally to suit your own narrative. Since you omitted part of his statement - the part that makes his point of view clear - I assume it was the former. Sigh...

Looks reminiscent of the "Art of the Deal"!

Remember that time when Trump said:
"After causing catastrophic inflation, Comrade Kamala announced that she wants to institute socialist price controls. This is Communist; this is Marxist; this is fascist."
How do all of you who suddenly now support our government deciding what things should cost reconcile this???

 

[not2big]

For the most part, I am in agreement with the portion I left out; however, I guess you missed my phrase “not completely” which was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Johnny D]

For the most part, I am in agreement with the portion I left out; however, I guess you missed my phrase “not completely” which was the point I was trying to make.

No, I didn’t miss that part. And they are pretty unanimously completely against the EO. I don’t know how you can possibly interpret it any other way. John Crowley, Innovation Organization CEO, said it’s “a deeply flawed proposal that would devastate our nation’s small- and mid-size biotech companies.” And, again, Ubl said, “Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers…” Very much the opposite of not being completely against.

 

[Pegasus]

The economic effects of Trump policies are and will continue to be felt on the ground . Thus negative GDP indicates something so will the recession and so on .

Trump promised improvement in a whole range of things from his first day in office . These have not happened and will continue to not happen.
The down turn in US prospects are long term .

I am geting more upbeat about prospects for the west I can see positives happening in Europe .

Attempts by the US to impose inflated prices for medication on other countries will be resited .

 

[not2big]

Wallmart announced today that it will be increasing prices on some item in the next 30 days as a result of the tariffs.

 

[Pegasus]

I remind everyone that the US had a free trade agreement with the US . The US broke it to impose a 10% tarrif on Australia and more on some of it's islands .

As the Aussie PM said not the act of a friend .

Still it makes little difference since Aussie exports little to the US . We do export beef to US but we expect to pick up more exports of beef in the Chinese market since they have a farrif on US beef so expect a net positive . We do import a fair bit from the US .

 

[Johnny D]

The unfortunate reality for the US consumer, and many in other countries, is that Trump's not a person to admit or even imply that he was wrong about something. Even when it's becoming clear that imposing and increasing tariffs has massive negative consequences, he'll die on his hill insisting that we're all better off and should thank him. The Gaslighter in Chief.

 

[CUSP82]

I remind everyone that the US had a free trade agreement with the US . The US broke it to impose a 10% tarrif on Australia and more on some of it's islands .

As the Aussie PM said not the act of a friend .

Still it makes little difference since Aussie exports little to the US . We do export beef to US but we expect to pick up more exports of beef in the Chinese market since they have a farrif on US beef so expect a net positive . We do import a fair bit from the US .

What free trade; you guys have these non tariffs barriers, I forget what you call them that and a tax on our products.

 

[CUSP82]

The unfortunate reality for the US consumer, and many in other countries, is that Trump's not a person to admit or even imply that he was wrong about something. Even when it's becoming clear that imposing and increasing tariffs has massive negative consequences, he'll die on his hill insisting that we're all better off and should thank him. The Gaslighter in Chief.

Inflation low, no recession, trillions coming into the country; what do you find bad with that? India announced it will do zero tariffs with the U.S.

 

[Pegasus]

You mean quality control?

I remind you that last quarter was negative growth .

 

[CUSP82]

No your general service tax, luxury car tax,wine equalization tax; tax not different than tariff huh?

 

[Johnny D]

Inflation low, no recession, trillions coming into the country; what do you find bad with that? India announced it will do zero tariffs with the U.S.

The latest CPI report is already showing upward pressure on the price of consumer goods and as the impact of the tariffs catch up, inflation goes up right along with it. "Trillions coming int the country"? Really? You're buying into the headlines and hyperbole without doing the research. You like the way that sounds so instead of looking for the facts of the situation, you stop right there and accept it as fact. It's not.

You still can't answer the question I keep asking. If tariffs are so good and will lead to American prosperity, why is anyone happy to see them negotiated down? That's antithetical to the whole concept of it, isn't it? They should be as high as possible, shouldn't they? Trump is gaslighting his constituency and you're falling for it.

If another country imposes tariffs on US products, they're mostly harming their own consumer. US output has been at historic highs so what's the problem to solve? Why impose higher costs on our own consumers in the US? What kind of "retaliation" is that?! But I keep repeating myself and none of you on the pro-tariff side respond to my questions and the points I make with an argument. You just come back with another misleading headline.

 

[CUSP82]

You have the wrong point of view on tariffs. Tariffs are placed by a country on foreign goods to protect that countries business, to keep people employed. Many countries can sell product X cheaper than a host country and of course consumers will choose the cheaper products won't they? So what happens to the worker whose company goes out of business due to foreign competition? Oh just run off and get another job; easy right? Not really. Now aren't those unemployed workers consumers as well? Well not anymore because they're unemployed. So the 'consumer' in that country will still have cheap prices but will pay more in other ways to prevent the recently unemployed from starving and being homeless.

Consumers should not be able to dictate policy because in their minds they want good stuff and cheap and most are willing to put their neighbor out of work to get it. How does a country survive without meaningful business employing their people? Can you be a consumer with no job? Not for long. Do you not realize that unemployed people cost the consumer money? How about adding a surcharge to foreign goods to pay for those workers who have been put out of business by cheap foreign competition.

 

[Johnny D]

Yes. That's how tariffs work - they're protectionist. What did we see with steel tariffs used to protect steel workers' jobs? The effect was the addition of a thousand or so jobs for the steel workers. So, good for them - their jobs were protected. And then the contraction of some 70,000 or so other jobs which required the steel. The same will happen for autos, etc... Some jobs are protected, many others are lost, and the consumer, which represents the largest of the groups by far experiences inflation. I get that you want to protect certain industries and people but you're doing at the cost of causing even more to suffer. The math has been calculated. History has played this out repeatedly.

Consumers should not be able to dictate policy because in their minds they want good stuff and cheap and most are willing to put their neighbor out of work to get it.

Once again, I'm beyond confounded by people on the right suddenly arguing in favor of socialism. Wow!

 

[not2big]

If I have to pay more for my automobile, I will then have less money to spend on other U.S. goods and services which industries will suffer accordingly. Though tariffs imposed on specific situations can be helpful when properly focused, the imposition of broad tariffs only promotes reciprocal tariffs by other Countries resulting in unnecessary trade wars. For example, the Smoot-Howley tariffs imposed in 1930 generated massive losses in the automobile and steel industries and the midwestern agricultural states endured massive reductions in exports after massive tariff increases were imposed by other countries on agricultural imports From the U.S. The tariffs were responsible for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression.

 

[Pegasus]

Cusp you are just being silly these are taxes you pay if you make items in Aussie or not .

Cusp after the recession hits you are still going to be in denial . The signs including negative growth are already there .

I am surprised from where the argument for higher tax (tarrif) is coming from.