I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
Contractors and farmers aren't looking for just any workforce. They are looking for a workforce that is willing to be paid at (let's be honest) below minimum wage. Tariffs have cut margins from farming, so they can't just hire anybody, the same goes for contractors because of the housing slowdown due to an already inflated housing market.
Below minimum wage you say? A “market” wage then.
Tariffs were a really stupid idea in retrospect, weren’t they?
I don't like tariffs but it was the only way to bring China to the floor to negotiate on the issue of intellectual property theft. Trump's tweets about tariffs lowering the trade deficit was borderline retarded. If the purpose was to hurt their economy, they were naturally going to import less goods, so an increase in the deficit was a given. People who don't know that are dumb. There was not a single alternative brought forth to fight the intellectual property theft China commits annually, outside of being left with our dicks hanging out and allowing the theft to continue. I posted months ago with Hondo that China's theft amounts to around $600 Billion a year. Which means that roughly 5% of China's entire GDP is raised through the theft of foreign governments and companies. 5% doesn't seem like much, but in most cases a 5% drop in annual GDP can send an entire country into chaos.
Tariffs weren't ideal, but necessary given the true purpose of them.
So according to trumptards, tariffs are stupid unless they aren’t.
Ironic
Learn to read, then maybe you can refer to things as stupid. Until then, stupid is is stupid does Forrest.
I read your dumbfuck post again. Here’s my reassessment: You are stupid. Dumb as a fucking post. A total fucking retard. Instead of “reading” and posting on HH, you might want to research and study micro-economics, and then get back to the board regarding your grand insights into tariffs.
That’s not an argument. Do better.
Here’s the argument: 1) tariffs are taxes on US consumers 2) they decrease the productivity, efficiency, and profitability of the US economy 3) tariffs damage US economic dominance by dragging our standards to the lowest common denominator 4) tariffs attack US competitive advantages in the highest margin sectors of the economy to appease domestic laggards (hi @greenblood ) 5) Lowering US economic goals, objectives and strategies to address China economic manipulation is abdication, failure and surrender 6) foregoing US economic dominance to protect unskilled, ucompetive, uneducated domestic trump constituentlcies is suicide and and an abomination towards those with skills to succeed.
@greenblood has been promulgating this “strategic” tariff imbecility for a long time now. He’s had long enough time to figure it about by now.
LOL...rent free bitch.
If you read you’d see I don’t like tariffs either. But there is no other way to combat China’s intellectual property theft. Do you have another solution to that? Instead of mentioning another solution to that problem, you just continue to state the consequences of said tariffs. News flash, i don’t disagree. There is the long game and the short game. If short term tariffs solves a major problem, the consequences are worth it. You must be in the intellectual property theft is part of the free market crowd. Sad.
You dont like tariffs? Tough stand! US economic interests win when domestic ingenuity and competitiveness are allowed to prevail and win. Winners win. That means you lose.
You think it’s ok that US taxpayers pay increased taxes for this fiasco? To subsidize failure and inefficiency? Tariffs have been in place a long time now with deleterious impacts and no end in sight. Short term or long term. The obese fool trump is going to negotiate a long term win? You’ve been shoveling this bullshit and apology for your failure for months now. It was stupid then and is self-evidently ignorant today.
No solution I see. Just some more bitching and moaning.
Real US competitors make China look like WSU playing football in the snow. Engineering, tech, financial, legal, entertainment.
We beat them by being better. Not by bitching and moaning. Not by penalizing ourselves and helping them in the long term with tariffs.
They steal our work and co opt American lackeys to do their bidding
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
Contractors and farmers aren't looking for just any workforce. They are looking for a workforce that is willing to be paid at (let's be honest) below minimum wage. Tariffs have cut margins from farming, so they can't just hire anybody, the same goes for contractors because of the housing slowdown due to an already inflated housing market.
Below minimum wage you say? A “market” wage then.
Tariffs were a really stupid idea in retrospect, weren’t they?
I don't like tariffs but it was the only way to bring China to the floor to negotiate on the issue of intellectual property theft. Trump's tweets about tariffs lowering the trade deficit was borderline retarded. If the purpose was to hurt their economy, they were naturally going to import less goods, so an increase in the deficit was a given. People who don't know that are dumb. There was not a single alternative brought forth to fight the intellectual property theft China commits annually, outside of being left with our dicks hanging out and allowing the theft to continue. I posted months ago with Hondo that China's theft amounts to around $600 Billion a year. Which means that roughly 5% of China's entire GDP is raised through the theft of foreign governments and companies. 5% doesn't seem like much, but in most cases a 5% drop in annual GDP can send an entire country into chaos.
Tariffs weren't ideal, but necessary given the true purpose of them.
So according to trumptards, tariffs are stupid unless they aren’t.
Ironic
Learn to read, then maybe you can refer to things as stupid. Until then, stupid is is stupid does Forrest.
I read your dumbfuck post again. Here’s my reassessment: You are stupid. Dumb as a fucking post. A total fucking retard. Instead of “reading” and posting on HH, you might want to research and study micro-economics, and then get back to the board regarding your grand insights into tariffs.
That’s not an argument. Do better.
Here’s the argument: 1) tariffs are taxes on US consumers 2) they decrease the productivity, efficiency, and profitability of the US economy 3) tariffs damage US economic dominance by dragging our standards to the lowest common denominator 4) tariffs attack US competitive advantages in the highest margin sectors of the economy to appease domestic laggards (hi @greenblood ) 5) Lowering US economic goals, objectives and strategies to address China economic manipulation is abdication, failure and surrender 6) foregoing US economic dominance to protect unskilled, ucompetive, uneducated domestic trump constituentlcies is suicide and and an abomination towards those with skills to succeed.
@greenblood has been promulgating this “strategic” tariff imbecility for a long time now. He’s had long enough time to figure it about by now.
LOL...rent free bitch.
If you read you’d see I don’t like tariffs either. But there is no other way to combat China’s intellectual property theft. Do you have another solution to that? Instead of mentioning another solution to that problem, you just continue to state the consequences of said tariffs. News flash, i don’t disagree. There is the long game and the short game. If short term tariffs solves a major problem, the consequences are worth it. You must be in the intellectual property theft is part of the free market crowd. Sad.
You dont like tariffs? Tough stand! US economic interests win when domestic ingenuity and competitiveness are allowed to prevail and win. Winners win. That means you lose.
You think it’s ok that US taxpayers pay increased taxes for this fiasco? To subsidize failure and inefficiency? Tariffs have been in place a long time now with deleterious impacts and no end in sight. Short term or long term. The obese fool trump is going to negotiate a long term win? You’ve been shoveling this bullshit and apology for your failure for months now. It was stupid then and is self-evidently ignorant today.
No solution I see. Just some more bitching and moaning.
Real US competitors make China look like WSU playing football in the snow. Engineering, tech, financial, legal, entertainment.
We beat them by being better. Not by bitching and moaning. Not by penalizing ourselves and helping them in the long term with tariffs.
They steal our work and co opt American lackeys to do their bidding
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
Contractors and farmers aren't looking for just any workforce. They are looking for a workforce that is willing to be paid at (let's be honest) below minimum wage. Tariffs have cut margins from farming, so they can't just hire anybody, the same goes for contractors because of the housing slowdown due to an already inflated housing market.
Below minimum wage you say? A “market” wage then.
Tariffs were a really stupid idea in retrospect, weren’t they?
I don't like tariffs but it was the only way to bring China to the floor to negotiate on the issue of intellectual property theft. Trump's tweets about tariffs lowering the trade deficit was borderline retarded. If the purpose was to hurt their economy, they were naturally going to import less goods, so an increase in the deficit was a given. People who don't know that are dumb. There was not a single alternative brought forth to fight the intellectual property theft China commits annually, outside of being left with our dicks hanging out and allowing the theft to continue. I posted months ago with Hondo that China's theft amounts to around $600 Billion a year. Which means that roughly 5% of China's entire GDP is raised through the theft of foreign governments and companies. 5% doesn't seem like much, but in most cases a 5% drop in annual GDP can send an entire country into chaos.
Tariffs weren't ideal, but necessary given the true purpose of them.
So according to trumptards, tariffs are stupid unless they aren’t.
Ironic
Learn to read, then maybe you can refer to things as stupid. Until then, stupid is is stupid does Forrest.
I read your dumbfuck post again. Here’s my reassessment: You are stupid. Dumb as a fucking post. A total fucking retard. Instead of “reading” and posting on HH, you might want to research and study micro-economics, and then get back to the board regarding your grand insights into tariffs.
That’s not an argument. Do better.
Here’s the argument: 1) tariffs are taxes on US consumers 2) they decrease the productivity, efficiency, and profitability of the US economy 3) tariffs damage US economic dominance by dragging our standards to the lowest common denominator 4) tariffs attack US competitive advantages in the highest margin sectors of the economy to appease domestic laggards (hi @greenblood ) 5) Lowering US economic goals, objectives and strategies to address China economic manipulation is abdication, failure and surrender 6) foregoing US economic dominance to protect unskilled, ucompetive, uneducated domestic trump constituentlcies is suicide and and an abomination towards those with skills to succeed.
@greenblood has been promulgating this “strategic” tariff imbecility for a long time now. He’s had long enough time to figure it about by now.
LOL...rent free bitch.
If you read you’d see I don’t like tariffs either. But there is no other way to combat China’s intellectual property theft. Do you have another solution to that? Instead of mentioning another solution to that problem, you just continue to state the consequences of said tariffs. News flash, i don’t disagree. There is the long game and the short game. If short term tariffs solves a major problem, the consequences are worth it. You must be in the intellectual property theft is part of the free market crowd. Sad.
You dont like tariffs? Tough stand! US economic interests win when domestic ingenuity and competitiveness are allowed to prevail and win. Winners win. That means you lose.
You think it’s ok that US taxpayers pay increased taxes for this fiasco? To subsidize failure and inefficiency? Tariffs have been in place a long time now with deleterious impacts and no end in sight. Short term or long term. The obese fool trump is going to negotiate a long term win? You’ve been shoveling this bullshit and apology for your failure for months now. It was stupid then and is self-evidently ignorant today.
No solution I see. Just some more bitching and moaning.
Real US competitors make China look like WSU playing football in the snow. Engineering, tech, financial, legal, entertainment.
We beat them by being better. Not by bitching and moaning. Not by penalizing ourselves and helping them in the long term with tariffs.
We are winning, but we could be running the score up. That’s the difference.
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
Contractors and farmers aren't looking for just any workforce. They are looking for a workforce that is willing to be paid at (let's be honest) below minimum wage. Tariffs have cut margins from farming, so they can't just hire anybody, the same goes for contractors because of the housing slowdown due to an already inflated housing market.
Below minimum wage you say? A “market” wage then.
Tariffs were a really stupid idea in retrospect, weren’t they?
I don't like tariffs but it was the only way to bring China to the floor to negotiate on the issue of intellectual property theft. Trump's tweets about tariffs lowering the trade deficit was borderline retarded. If the purpose was to hurt their economy, they were naturally going to import less goods, so an increase in the deficit was a given. People who don't know that are dumb. There was not a single alternative brought forth to fight the intellectual property theft China commits annually, outside of being left with our dicks hanging out and allowing the theft to continue. I posted months ago with Hondo that China's theft amounts to around $600 Billion a year. Which means that roughly 5% of China's entire GDP is raised through the theft of foreign governments and companies. 5% doesn't seem like much, but in most cases a 5% drop in annual GDP can send an entire country into chaos.
Tariffs weren't ideal, but necessary given the true purpose of them.
So according to trumptards, tariffs are stupid unless they aren’t.
Ironic
Learn to read, then maybe you can refer to things as stupid. Until then, stupid is is stupid does Forrest.
I read your dumbfuck post again. Here’s my reassessment: You are stupid. Dumb as a fucking post. A total fucking retard. Instead of “reading” and posting on HH, you might want to research and study micro-economics, and then get back to the board regarding your grand insights into tariffs.
That’s not an argument. Do better.
Here’s the argument: 1) tariffs are taxes on US consumers 2) they decrease the productivity, efficiency, and profitability of the US economy 3) tariffs damage US economic dominance by dragging our standards to the lowest common denominator 4) tariffs attack US competitive advantages in the highest margin sectors of the economy to appease domestic laggards (hi @greenblood ) 5) Lowering US economic goals, objectives and strategies to address China economic manipulation is abdication, failure and surrender 6) foregoing US economic dominance to protect unskilled, ucompetive, uneducated domestic trump constituentlcies is suicide and and an abomination towards those with skills to succeed.
@greenblood has been promulgating this “strategic” tariff imbecility for a long time now. He’s had long enough time to figure it about by now.
LOL...rent free bitch.
If you read you’d see I don’t like tariffs either. But there is no other way to combat China’s intellectual property theft. Do you have another solution to that? Instead of mentioning another solution to that problem, you just continue to state the consequences of said tariffs. News flash, i don’t disagree. There is the long game and the short game. If short term tariffs solves a major problem, the consequences are worth it. You must be in the intellectual property theft is part of the free market crowd. Sad.
You dont like tariffs? Tough stand! US economic interests win when domestic ingenuity and competitiveness are allowed to prevail and win. Winners win. That means you lose.
You think it’s ok that US taxpayers pay increased taxes for this fiasco? To subsidize failure and inefficiency? Tariffs have been in place a long time now with deleterious impacts and no end in sight. Short term or long term. The obese fool trump is going to negotiate a long term win? You’ve been shoveling this bullshit and apology for your failure for months now. It was stupid then and is self-evidently ignorant today.
You've been embarrassingly stupid since your first day on HH.
But you've now outdone yourself and plunged to imbecile status. Nice work.
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
Contractors and farmers aren't looking for just any workforce. They are looking for a workforce that is willing to be paid at (let's be honest) below minimum wage. Tariffs have cut margins from farming, so they can't just hire anybody, the same goes for contractors because of the housing slowdown due to an already inflated housing market.
Below minimum wage you say? A “market” wage then.
Tariffs were a really stupid idea in retrospect, weren’t they?
I don't like tariffs but it was the only way to bring China to the floor to negotiate on the issue of intellectual property theft. Trump's tweets about tariffs lowering the trade deficit was borderline retarded. If the purpose was to hurt their economy, they were naturally going to import less goods, so an increase in the deficit was a given. People who don't know that are dumb. There was not a single alternative brought forth to fight the intellectual property theft China commits annually, outside of being left with our dicks hanging out and allowing the theft to continue. I posted months ago with Hondo that China's theft amounts to around $600 Billion a year. Which means that roughly 5% of China's entire GDP is raised through the theft of foreign governments and companies. 5% doesn't seem like much, but in most cases a 5% drop in annual GDP can send an entire country into chaos.
Tariffs weren't ideal, but necessary given the true purpose of them.
So according to trumptards, tariffs are stupid unless they aren’t.
Ironic
Learn to read, then maybe you can refer to things as stupid. Until then, stupid is is stupid does Forrest.
I read your dumbfuck post again. Here’s my reassessment: You are stupid. Dumb as a fucking post. A total fucking retard. Instead of “reading” and posting on HH, you might want to research and study micro-economics, and then get back to the board regarding your grand insights into tariffs.
That’s not an argument. Do better.
Here’s the argument: 1) tariffs are taxes on US consumers 2) they decrease the productivity, efficiency, and profitability of the US economy 3) tariffs damage US economic dominance by dragging our standards to the lowest common denominator 4) tariffs attack US competitive advantages in the highest margin sectors of the economy to appease domestic laggards (hi @greenblood ) 5) Lowering US economic goals, objectives and strategies to address China economic manipulation is abdication, failure and surrender 6) foregoing US economic dominance to protect unskilled, ucompetive, uneducated domestic trump constituentlcies is suicide and and an abomination towards those with skills to succeed.
@greenblood has been promulgating this “strategic” tariff imbecility for a long time now. He’s had long enough time to figure it about by now.
LOL...rent free bitch.
If you read you’d see I don’t like tariffs either. But there is no other way to combat China’s intellectual property theft. Do you have another solution to that? Instead of mentioning another solution to that problem, you just continue to state the consequences of said tariffs. News flash, i don’t disagree. There is the long game and the short game. If short term tariffs solves a major problem, the consequences are worth it. You must be in the intellectual property theft is part of the free market crowd. Sad.
You dont like tariffs? Tough stand! US economic interests win when domestic ingenuity and competitiveness are allowed to prevail and win. Winners win. That means you lose.
You think it’s ok that US taxpayers pay increased taxes for this fiasco? To subsidize failure and inefficiency? Tariffs have been in place a long time now with deleterious impacts and no end in sight. Short term or long term. The obese fool trump is going to negotiate a long term win? You’ve been shoveling this bullshit and apology for your failure for months now. It was stupid then and is self-evidently ignorant today.
No solution I see. Just some more bitching and moaning.
Real US competitors make China look like WSU playing football in the snow. Engineering, tech, financial, legal, entertainment.
We beat them by being better. Not by bitching and moaning. Not by penalizing ourselves and helping them in the long term with tariffs.
Where is your string and who the fuck keeps pulling it? They should've dropped your ass at the local Goodwill with the rest of the shitty art & toys from the eighties.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
And of course producers always want to raise prices. A lot have been trying to do it for the last couple of years and have been unable to do so. If you raise prices, you're never going to say it's because, well, I want to make more money. You're going to blame it on the tariffs.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
What a racist piece of shit you are.
Obviously.
"Poor whites can't pick crops. That's colored folk work."
-HHusky, CSA
We clearly need to make a lot more poor whites if you want the economy to grow in keeping with your racial preferences.
We just need to reduce the "assistance". If you can be on all the welfare programs and make well above minimum wage and have a place to live why go to work?
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
Today I learned that tariffs are to punish China and move the jerbs away from China to other countries. Not back to the USA where BubbaTrumptardVoter is wondering when the ABC Widget Co. will move back to his bumfuck hick town and set up production again.
Also, how is moving the jerbs to Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. protecting our vital manufacturing footprint and industries?
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
That's so interesting
I still think we should focus on this Bradley Cooper situation
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
That's so interesting
I still think we should focus on this Bradley Cooper situation
Who is this Bradley Cooper of which you speak? Does he poast here?
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I don't know but slavery did retard the development of the South and allow the Yankees and their manufacturing to run over them. An educated work force even in mid 19th century standards and a paid work force allowed the industrial revolution to flourish in the north. An industrial society will crush an agrarian society particularly when you had free men farming within the borders of the industrial nation. Food production also out produces slave produced food
One could argue that paid labor did replace slave labor. At the cost of 500,000 lives or so but still.
The whole notion of Chivalry and slavery was never going to last in the modern world. It just wasn't
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I don't know but slavery did retard the development of the South and allow the Yankees and their manufacturing to run over them. An educated work force even in mid 19th century standards and a paid work force allowed the industrial revolution to flourish in the north. An industrial society will crush an agrarian society particularly when you had free men farming within the borders of the industrial nation. Food production also out produces slave produced food
One could argue that paid labor did replace slave labor. At the cost of 500,000 lives or so but still.
The whole notion of Chivalry and slavery was never going to last in the modern world. It just wasn't
That's got to be the argument. It may even be the case that paid labor with basic means of self-sustaining oneself is more productive even in simple agrarian applications.
Agreed. It just wasn't going to last. It just wasn't.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I don't know but slavery did retard the development of the South and allow the Yankees and their manufacturing to run over them. An educated work force even in mid 19th century standards and a paid work force allowed the industrial revolution to flourish in the north. An industrial society will crush an agrarian society particularly when you had free men farming within the borders of the industrial nation. Food production also out produces slave produced food
One could argue that paid labor did replace slave labor. At the cost of 500,000 lives or so but still.
The whole notion of Chivalry and slavery was never going to last in the modern world. It just wasn't
That's got to be the argument. It may even be the case that paid labor with basic means of self-sustaining oneself is more productive even in simple agrarian applications.
Agreed. It just wasn't going to last. It just wasn't.
Even our good old slave owning founding fathers recognized that slavery wasn't economically all that competitive. GW himself wondered how long the institution could last purely based on the underlying inefficiency. Without going into a ton of it it really boils down to motivation. It's really hard to force people to work for other people's benefits and not their own. This is also why socialismo continues it's poor track record. If you want to go into the tangent more I can but generally, slavery, the American institution of it, was quickly outpaced by free labor markets, automation, and free enterprise in the Norte.
Comments
But you've now outdone yourself and plunged to imbecile status. Nice work.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/20/640141115/how-much-are-tariffs-pushing-up-prices
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients-paid-more-minimum-wage.html/
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
Also, how is moving the jerbs to Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. protecting our vital manufacturing footprint and industries?
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I still think we should focus on this Bradley Cooper situation
One could argue that paid labor did replace slave labor. At the cost of 500,000 lives or so but still.
The whole notion of Chivalry and slavery was never going to last in the modern world. It just wasn't
Agreed. It just wasn't going to last. It just wasn't.