mxleader on 10/9/2024 at 17:19
It's getting spicy in here! :eek:
RippedPhreak on 10/9/2024 at 17:33
Nobody believes these wild stories.
Nicker on 10/9/2024 at 18:00
A jury believed he raped an adult woman. Trump bragged about grooming children. Why wouldn't we believe him? He's a straight talker, right?
Or we could ask Jeffery Epstein. Oh right.
Just ask Trump's victims then. Or his procuress, Ghislaine "I wish her well" Maxwell.
heywood on 10/9/2024 at 18:02
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
No, losing all our jobs took years and it would take years for them to come back. But first we would have to set up a good environment for them to even considering coming back. Companies went overseas because they could ignore things like overtime pay, health insurance, maternity leave, safety measures in the warehouse, environmental impact studies, etc. All these things cost a lot of money.
So a business operating out of a third world country can sell a shirt for $10.00 because they don't need to worry about any of those laws or expenses. They might even have literal slave labor. A business in America has to pay for all those things I mentioned above, so they have to sell the same shirt at $30.00. Result: No one makes shirt in the USA.
The point of the tariff is to raise the cost of the overseas-made shirt to $30.00 so companies might as well just come back to the USA. But no, it won't happen all that quickly. Lastly, I would gladly pay a bit more for things if it meant Americans had jobs making X thing. And if Americans were making better money from all these jobs that came back, they wouldn't mind paying more anyway.
A 25% tariff makes the $10 shirt $12.50, not $30. That's not enough to move production, it's just a shirt tax. It will be that way with most goods imported from low skill labor countries. On the other hand, a 25% tariff on some higher end manufactured goods is enough to isolate the US market and manufacturers, leading to fewer choices and complacency. The tariff would also apply to goods from countries where we already have fair trading agreements, which is backwards.
I think we have to consider which domestic industries require protection or investment for strategic national policy reasons and use tariffs in a targeted manner to support those industries. Suppose we decided the domestic apparel industry was strategically important to protect. Then we might consider a 200% tariff on imported shirts to achieve price parity. If we wanted to protect our washing machine makers, 25% is sufficient. Energy, steel, aluminum, mining, and fisheries always seem to need a raft of controls to negotiate over.
Nicker on 10/9/2024 at 18:11
tRump logic: if we raise the price of consumer goods we can generate the money we need to subsidise consumers. HYUCK!
mxleader on 10/9/2024 at 18:16
Quote Posted by Nicker
A jury believed he raped an adult woman. Trump bragged about grooming children. Why wouldn't we believe him? He's a straight talker, right?
Or we could ask Jeffery Epstein. Oh right.
Just ask Trump's victims then. Or his procuress, Ghislaine "I wish her well" Maxwell.
Well, the jury did reject the rape charge but agreed with the lesser charge of sexual assault so the columnist could be awarded $5 million. She had a pretty big smile on her face for a woman who was raped.
I'll be honest though I don't know how laws separate sexual assault from rape. Maybe it's just in the wording of the law like manslaughter vs. murder. I'm not a legal expert but I do know that both are wrong on any level.
RippedPhreak on 10/9/2024 at 18:40
Quote:
A 25% tariff makes the $10 shirt $12.50, not $30.
I was illustrating a general scenario. It could be washing machines, televisions, anything.
Quote:
tRump logic: if we raise the price of consumer goods we can generate the money we need to subsidise consumers.
I don't know what you mean by "subsidize consumers." If this means "people will have jobs at decent wages making those goods" here in the USA, then great. I never thought of raising peoples' wages as subsidizing them.
Quote:
It will be that way with most goods imported from low skill labor countries.
There are tons of people here that could use low-skilled labor. But since we've sent most jobs overseas and brought in migrants as near-slave labor to do the rest, these folks have no low-skilled labor to do. So they turn to drugs and crime.
Quote:
a 25% tariff on some higher end manufactured goods is enough to isolate the US market and manufacturers
What does this even mean and why should anyone care? If the US was more "isolated," so what? We have the ability to make everything we need right here. We just don't because politicians accepted bribes to allow all the jobs to go offshore.
Quote:
The tariff would also apply to goods from countries where we already have fair trading agreements, which is backwards.
We should only need to import things that we literally
can't make here, like certain rare earth elements that just aren't in the ground here. Just because we have an agreement with X country doesn't mean it can't be changed or abandoned if the agreement no longer benefits us.
Nicker on 11/9/2024 at 02:37
On January 6th, 2020, JD Vance admits he would have committed the crime against democracy, which Mike pence refused commit. Vance would have certified FAKE ELECTORS.
[video=youtube;6z2q6lWJDtQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z2q6lWJDtQ[/video]
Quote:
I don't know what you mean by "subsidize consumers."
tRump said he would offer a few crumbs to fund child care by making everything more expensive by increasing tariffs. Hence the DERP.
