Tariffs produce wins for Trump
First and foremost, I am a free market conservative. That means I do not like tariffs.
Since the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, the support for tariffs has generally come from the left — Democrats and their union base.
Tariffs are traditionally supported in the belief that they would protect American workers from cheap overseas labor. That is still a factor, although not discussed very much in the current national debate. The contemporary focus is on the impact tariffs can have on the prices of goods and services.
In terms of price increases, the current debate focuses on the increased cost of FOREIGN goods – the things we import from other nations. Tariffs – and the reasons they are imposed – are more complicated than the simplistic claim that if you impose a tariff prices will go up and the people suffer. If that were the only issue, why would a foreign government impose tariffs in response? Would not that be bad for their economy – for their consumers?
There are three reasons why we import goods. Cheap labor in foreign countries results in imported goods being sold on retail shelves for less money than their domestic counterparts. It is the primary reason that we see so many items being produced in China, Vietnam, Mexico, Cambodia and several other nations currently supplying the American consumer.
In theory, imposing tariffs makes domestically produced goods more competitive – even cheaper. It also spurs increases in domestic manufacturing – more jobs. That is the union’s argument.
But two things can be true at the same time. In can spur domestic production and add more jobs, but the cost of goods will still not be as cheap as they were before the tariffs.
But … there is another important reason for imposing tariffs. It is the rationale for President Trump’s tariffs. They can be employed as an effective bargaining tool – used to win concessions on other issues.
When Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on Mexico and Canada and a 10 percent tariff on China, he understood that it would have a negative impact on American consumers. He did not impose them with the intention that they be permanent.
Trump sees any negative impacts from the tariffs on the American consumer to be mild and short lived – a small price to pay for more critical benefits. In this round of tariffs, Trump’s primary focus was on the fentanyl crisis that is ravaging America.
Both Mexico and Canada have issues with illegal fentanyl entering the United States across their respective borders. In the case of China, Trump is using tariffs to address several issues – one being the fact that China ships large amounts of the components of fentanyl to be processed by drug cartels and smuggled over the border or brought directly onshore in places like California and Florida.
We can know Trump’s motivation by what he got in return for temporarily suspending the tariffs on Mexico and Canada. In the case of Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum has agreed to send more troops to the border to stem the flow of illegal crossings. Other measures are still on the table. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has agreed to appoint a “Fentanyl Czar” and to spend $1.3 billion dollars to enhance border security with new technology and more personnel to “ensure 24/7 eyes” on the border. Trudeau also agreed to list the drug cartels as terrorist organizations and create a joint U.S./Canadian strike force to charge them on crime and money laundering. Other issues are still being negotiated.
By any measure, this was a quick win for Trump and the United States in addressing the fentanyl crisis, gang and cartel-related crimes and the negative socio-economic impact of the past open border policies.
The tariff on China went into effect. That is a much more complicated range of issues that goes beyond the fentanyl crisis. It includes unfair trade practices, stealing intellectual property and attacks on the U.S. dollar.
As much as I oppose tariffs as a general trade policy, it is obvious that even the threat of imposing tariffs can be effective in forcing diplomatic solutions to critical issues.
As expected, the never-Trump resistance forces went bonkers when Trump proposed the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. As is their habit, they projected the most Draconian outcomes for the American people. No matter what Trump does, the crazies on the left will see it as the end of everything.
So far, however, Trump’s tariff gambit appears to be working – leaving the pernicious Trump haters with rather expensive egg on their faces.
So, there ‘tis.
Nope, no egg on any faces other than the dynamic duo Trumuski.
The flood of EOs Trump is pumping out like opening water valves in California must have had him woken up every night. He allowed his imagination its head like wild untamed horse runs in circles kicking up its feet.
Talk about rationale Trump’s policy has him throwing a bunch stuff at the wall, some of it will stick. But it still looks like a sticky mess somebody else will have to clean up.
You can a try to figure out Trump’s rationale behind playing the supposed trump card with his implant tax scheme but the countries he is imposing it on are laughing at his ridiculously impractical ideas on economics.
He’s the one with edgy on his kisser because he promised he could control the price of eggs his first day in office.
His hens have not comeback ro sit on their roosts without raise in salary. The will not sit and watch their output costs increase and not demand a just compensation. The hens are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore
. American chickens are liberal progressives who decry the efforts of the formers’ lean to the right
Larry, Total bullshit in this post. The tariffs did absolutely nothing but make people fear that prices were about to rise. And a bargaining tool? Not really, both the Canadian and Mexican governments committed to do what they had already promised to do. In the case of Mexico, their president got trump to promise to look at the issue of massive shipments of guns pouring into Mexico from the US-right into the cartels hands (though it is doubtful that he will spend any time dealing with this-it might cost his supporters, the gun manufactures, some money. His war on fentanyl is all lip service). And then there is the real cost of all this rabble rousing-so many tourists from these countries cancelling their plans to visit the US. But what else can we expect when ignoramuses re-elect the worst (and dumbest) President we’ve had in over 100 years?
“Since the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, the support for tariffs has generally come from the left — Democrats and their union base.” Gee, when it’s racism, Horist goes back to the 1700’s, but tariffs, which have been here since the Founders but started in earnest after the Civil War under Republican rule (to pay off the War via tariff taxes paid by Americans, not to protect against overseas labors costs), he starts in 1930, a year into The Great Depression where lots of economic shenanigans can be found, often for good reason considering the economic times. But, as often is the case, the author offers no evidence to his conclusion. It should be interesting since hard to find.
“Tariffs are traditionally supported in the belief that they would protect American workers from cheap overseas labor.“ Really? Got proof? Cuz the post civil war tariffs went to pay off the war debt. Congressional Research Service says: “Tariffs are now typically used selectively to protect certain domestic industries, advance foreign policy goals, or as negotiating leverage in trade negotiations.”
He is weasel wording to defend the undefendable. Trump just hit Canada/Mexico with 25%; China with 10%. Why the difference? Because he can bully our neighbor allies, but fears our strongest competitor and ally to Russia? Why? Why the fuck can he not even explain what he does? It’s demented. He should be tested.
Then there is the result causing his capitulation in less than 24 hours on the 25% solution. He got Canada to reiterate what they previously promised, and were proceeding with, under BIDEN. Mission accomplished? And Mexico who put 15,000 troops on the border, under Trump 1, promised to put 10,000 troops there now. That seems like a downsizing. Mission accomplished? It’s the perfect storm for Mexico, make a promise knowing Trump will take credit, but never track or measure results. Just like last time when he announced all those factories coming to America that never did. You do know he lies a lot and that Sharpie corrections are not reality, right? Remember, a natural liar can tell his lies, and when caught, just tell another. Where’s that Sharpie?
“By any measure, this was a quick win for Trump.” Yeah boy, and he can paste a “BRAND NEW” star cluster in the corner of the same old thing. Just like he did on the remake of NAFTA that was so, so, so HUGE, that he had to do this to fix his own work in his next term……
Horist leaves the China solution on the cutting room floor. Does not want to tell you how China said, so far, fuck you by targeting tariffing to Red States and MAGA voters. “The tariffs from China range from 10% to 15% and are applied to crude oil, liquefied natural gas, farm machinery and select other products from the United States.” NPR. China also announced an antitrust investigation into Google, added two other U.S. companies to an “unreliable entities” blacklist, and increased export controls on rare metals that are crucial to technology supply chains. The game is afoot and if you see a Trump win in this, you ain’t John Deere.
FYI: The EU plan is to emulate China and target tariffs to regions where Trump is demographically strong. They have a list of who is naughty and nice and will exercise that upon Trump tariffing the EU. Clever.
“As much as I oppose tariffs as a general trade policy, it is obvious that even the threat of imposing tariffs can be effective in forcing diplomatic solutions to critical issues.” Yeah, in two cases it did nothing and in the third we are getting bitch slapped in return to our opening salvo. Horist seems blind to reality and more than willing to sip the kool aid. And this is a guy who does not believe in tariffs in the first place but seems to believe Trump come hell or high water. A free market guy who not wants government restrictions and control to manipulate prices. I got a sinking feeling about this……
Frank Danger …. Lots of opinion and not a scintilla of evidence. Where is your proof, old man? Funny how you are what you complain about. A case study in projection and deflection. Frank ,,, you are only a Danger to the truth.
What exactly are you looking for evidence on from my passage?
The author rebuttals my entry saying: “Where is your proof, old man? Funny how you are what you complain about.” I responded for clarification and, of course, crickets as he can’t toe the line.
He drones on: “A case study in projection and deflection. Frank ,,, you are only a Danger to the truth.” Pretty funny considering he rarely supports any of his bullshit when asked. Except with snark and name calling like a third grader caught in his little boy lies. This time he snark-calls me “old man” as a pejorative to pick a fight knowing full well he’s got a generation on me in age and about three generations in mind. He just thinks old-fashioned, and not the drink. As I have often said, as picked up from his so called journalist friend, he’s the little boy who picks a fight and then blames the other guy. Well, older man, this guy is here to chat back. I spell my name: danger. And Danger says look at the his headline picture depicting his views in this story. Note how he shows his hand: win-lose. It’s not enough to be right, he must beat the other guy into submission, pummel him, curb stomp him and scream, “look at me, I win, I win.” He’s overjoyed that Trump forced Mexico, not to freely agree, but instead to bend the knee, be a supplicant to our wishes. He prints as much with the conclusion: “already” as if bending the knee was the top priority. Win-lose, because that’s how this guy rolls. He likes it. Not only must he win, the other guy has to lose something. He literally paints Mexico as the loser, Trump the winner, and believes the “(f)art of the deal,” includes putting the other guy down. That’s the guy he really is. We beat up on Mexico and Canada, our passive, friendly neighbors, and next it’s GAZA, those heartless bastards, we can take them down, we can get their land, and we can stick Egypt . Win-lose, WTF.
And along with that is the other side: he rarely admits being wrong. So, with that in mind, here we go answering his insane question for support without a shred of specificity because after more than a day with no response, I figure he just is not able to muster one. He can spew generalities but when asked to step into the ring, toe the line, the bully demurs.
First paragraph support: It’s Horist input and he requests proof? As to the history of tariffs:
* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/03/22/u-s-tariffs-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-world-and-in-the-nations-history/* I will let you look at the chart to see that tariffs begin to rise post the civil war but exist all the way back to the 1700’s to see we always charged them.
Second paragraph and again, Mr. Horist is asking me for proof of what he claims. Odd demented behavior except that is his style of using illogic to pick a fight. Because in this, my opinion was supported by: “Congressional Research Service says: “Tariffs are now typically used selectively to protect certain domestic industries, advance foreign policy goals, or as negotiating leverage in trade negotiations.” He’s weird asking what he asks is already given in what I wrote, and supported. Seems to repeat himself when under stress, when under stress….
Third paragraph is pretty much common knowledge and my conclusion: my opinion, so the author can just suck on that one.
Fourth paragraph; again Trump’s actions are common knowledge; I do not know why Horist would ask such a moronic question. As to Canada offering concessions, and Trump and Hoirst ballyhooing, what was already in place: * https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-tariffs-what-concessions-from-mexico-canada-really-mean-rcna190784* I will let the author determine his own source for Mexico putting 15K soldiers on the border during the Felon Kings first term. Surely he must be able to source that, it was his guy. But the real question remains and I guarantee Hoirst has no answer: How will Trump confirm that Mexico, or Canada for that matter, they are doing what they said. Who is counting the 10K new soldiers put on the border and do they REPLACE the 15K already there? He fucking will duck the question because he does not know. He just believes. A true believer.
As to the factories: “It is important to note that the Trump administration has a habit of issuing press releases citing plans for major foreign investments in the U.S. that never materialize. In July 2017 Foxconn announced—to great fanfare from the White House–plans to invest $10 billion and bring “thousands of new American jobs” to Wisconsin and elsewhere in the United States (White House 2017). News reports indicate that Foxconn’s buildings in Wisconsin were still empty as of April 2020 (Dzieza and Patel 2020” * https://www.epi.org/publication/reshoring-manufacturing-jobs/* Maybe Horist love the Felon King’s policies because he believes the lies. Maybe he should fact-check himself more often.
Fifth paragraph: opinion, and I like it :>😊 Except it is intuitively obvious that if Trump “fixed” NAFTA, even gave it a spiffy new overly wordy moniker, and now needs to hit Canada with tariffs, that Trump is fixing his own broken, ineffective, impotent work. Does Horist need more info on that conclusion? Maybe a weasel spin supporting Trump 1 versus Trump 2 actions on Canada which is like beating up your own grandmother to get some candy that you could of just fucking asked her…..or them Canadians.
Sixth paragraph: seems demented that Hoirst does not know he did not speak much about China’s solution. HEY YOU DIDN’T. Does that clarify? As to my providing facts, I sourced NPR. Do you need a link too? Perhaps some stronger strength reading glasses?
As to the EU plan for retaliation in paragraph 7: * https://apnews.com/article/eu-us-tariffs-trump-trade-war-leyen-0b23d25d30428eb288b79bfda4fa25e9* I am pretty sure Trump knows this; Horist does not apparently.
Last paragraph: these are Horist statements, he can source himself by himself. I hear that’s how he claims to be the world’s greatest lover when he told friends: ‘it’s because I practice alone…..a lot…”
In my post I asked Horist to prove a few things. He, like his Felon King, was impotent to get an answer up. His response instead was to ask me to prove everything. That’s just weird, and whacky. Earlier, on another tiff he has with me, I asked him a simple question: “have you ever smoked pot, and how many times.” Crickets. Is he afraid? I am pretty sure he’s not a pothead, but why can’t he answer almost ANY simple question, whether personal or asking for support or more info for his ascertains? It’s not just me, he does it to many people, many times. Usually combined with snark, name calling, vain attempts at personal insults, of a low-brow variety.
I answered.
Now it’s your turn to be weighed, measured, and I am quite sure you will come up short. You just can’t back up much of the truths you seem to hold self-evident, especially in light of evidence to the contrary.
I spell my name: Danger. And I am Frank about it. My brother’s Clear and Present, are too.
The author rebuttals my entry saying: “Where is your proof, old man? Funny how you are what you complain about.” He drones on: “A case study in projection and deflection. Frank ,,, you are only a Danger to the truth.” Pretty funny considering he rarely supports his bullshit when asked. Except with snark and name calling. This time he snark-calls me “old man” as a pejorative to pick a fight knowing full well he’s got a generation on me in age and about three generations in mind. As in he just thinks old-fashioned, and not the drink. As I have often said, as picked up from his so called journalist friend, he’s the little boy who picks a fight and then blames the other guy. Well, older man, this guy is here to fight back. He spells his name: danger. And Danger says look at the picture depicting his views in this story. Note how he shows his hand: win-lose. It’s not enough to be right, he must beat the other guy into submission, pummel him, curb stomp him and scream, “look at me, I win, I win.” He’s overjoyed that Trump forced Mexico, not to freely agree, but instead to bend the knee, be a supplicant to our wishes. He prints as much with the conclusion: “already” as if bending the knee was the top priority. Win-lose, because that’s how this guy rolls. He likes it. Not only must he win, the other guy has to lose something. He literally paints Mexico as the loser, Trump the winner, and believes the “(f)art of the deal,” includes putting the other guy down. That’s the guy he really is. We beat up on Mexico and Canada, next it’s GAZA, those heartless bastards, we can take them down, we can get their land. Win-lose, WTF.
And along with that is the other side: he rarely admits being wrong. So, with that in mind, here we go answering his insane question for support without a shred of specificity because after more than a day with no response, I figure he just is not able to muster one. He can spew generalities but when asked to step into the ring, toe the line, the bully demurs.
First paragraph support: It’s Horist input and he requests proof? As to the history of tariffs:
* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/03/22/u-s-tariffs-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-world-and-in-the-nations-history/* I will let you look at the chart to see that tariffs begin to rise post the civil war but exist all the way back to the 1700’s to see we always charged them.
Second paragraph and again, Mr. Horist is asking me for proof of what he claims. Odd demented behavior except that is his style of using illogic to pick a fight. Because in this, my opinion was supported by: “Congressional Research Service says: “Tariffs are now typically used selectively to protect certain domestic industries, advance foreign policy goals, or as negotiating leverage in trade negotiations.” He’s weird asking what he asks is already given in what I wrote, and supported. Seems to repeat himself when under stress, when under stress….
Third paragraph is pretty much common knowledge and my conclusion: my opinion, so the author can just suck on that one.
Fourth paragraph; again Trump’s actions are common knowledge; I do not know why Horist would ask such a moronic question. As to Canada offering concessions, and Trump and Hoirst ballyhooing, what was already in place: * https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-tariffs-what-concessions-from-mexico-canada-really-mean-rcna190784* I will let the author determine his own source for Mexico putting 15K soldiers on the border during the Felon Kings first term. Surely he must be able to source that, it was his guy. But the real question remains and I guarantee Hoirst has no answer: How will Trump confirm that Mexico, or Canada for that matter, they are doing what they said. Who is counting the 10K new soldiers put on the border and do they REPLACE the 15K already there? He fucking will duck the question because he does not know. He just believes. A true believer.
As to the factories: “It is important to note that the Trump administration has a habit of issuing press releases citing plans for major foreign investments in the U.S. that never materialize. In July 2017 Foxconn announced—to great fanfare from the White House–plans to invest $10 billion and bring “thousands of new American jobs” to Wisconsin and elsewhere in the United States (White House 2017). News reports indicate that Foxconn’s buildings in Wisconsin were still empty as of April 2020 (Dzieza and Patel 2020” * https://www.epi.org/publication/reshoring-manufacturing-jobs/* Maybe Horist love the Felon King’s policies because he believes the lies. Maybe he should fact-check himself more often.
Fifth paragraph: opinion, and I like it :>😊 Except it is intuitively obvious that if Trump “fixed” NAFTA, even gave it a spiffy new overly wordy moniker, and now needs to hit Canada with tariffs, that Trump is fixing his own broken, ineffective, impotent work. Does Horist need more info on that conclusion? Maybe a weasel spin supporting Trump 1 versus Trump 2 actions on Canada which is like beating up your own grandmother to get some candy that you could of just fucking asked her…..or them Canadians.
Sixth paragraph: seems demented that Hoirst does not know he did not speak much about China’s solution. HEY YOU DIDN’T. Does that clarify? As to my providing facts, I sourced NPR. Do you need a link too? Perhaps some stronger strength reading glasses?
As to the EU plan for retaliation in paragraph 7: * https://apnews.com/article/eu-us-tariffs-trump-trade-war-leyen-0b23d25d30428eb288b79bfda4fa25e9* I am pretty sure Trump knows this; Horist does not apparently.
Last paragraph: these are Horist statements, he can source himself by himself. I hear that’s how he claims to be the world’s greatest lover when he told friends: ‘it’s because I practice alone…..a lot…”
In my post I asked Horist to prove a few things. He, like his Felon King, was impotent to get an answer up. His response instead was to ask me to prove everything. That’s just weird, and whacky. Earlier, on another tiff he has with me, I asked him a simple question: “have you ever smoked pot, and how many times.” Crickets. Is he afraid? I am pretty sure he’s not a pothead, but why can’t he answer almost ANY simple question, whether personal or asking for support or more info for his ascertains? It’s not just me, he does it to many people, many times. Usually combined with snark, name calling, vain attempts at personal insults, of a low-brow variety.
I answered. Now it’s your turn to be weighed, measured, and I am quite sure you will come up short. You just can’t back up much of the truths you seem to hold self-evident, especially in light of evidence to the contrary.
I spell my name: Danger. And I am Frank about it. My brother’s Clear and Present, are too.
Frank Danger … You really do write for yourself. This thread if almost a week old…LOL. And so looooong …and then your repeat yourself. In the past, I have referred to your writings a mental maturation since you are the only one engaged and satisfied with your handiwork (no pun intended.) I did not read your long rants, but I assume you whine about me not responding to your obsessive crap. No time… no interest …no value.
I applaud Larry Horist for admitting that his preaching’s are limited to about a week of value before he feels there’s no need to respond. Stale I guess, like day old bread. Worthless. Since his book has been on the shelf for a month or more, guess that one is over too. Perfect time to market this whale tale via butt wad teasers on PBP for free advertising. Based on the response, wouldn’t bet the farm on PBP reader book sales. Can this guy really be so stupid as to ask for my response and then admit he won’t even read the response he asked for? Once again, that allows him to duck any questions asked, clarifications, requested.
This gentleman respectfully answered. Mr. Horist does not and is not anything more than a, well, you know.
He seems to confuse “maturation” with masturbation: perhaps they are one in the same to him?
He asked for it, he got it, and now he ducks it by brushing me off for being verbose. Maybe he just reads too slow. The man pretends to step into the ring, but he cannot toe the line. He picked the fight, now he runs and hides.
Bottom line: it’s probably good thing you missed it. Factually, it really made you look stupid to even ask the question. Or, maybe you read it and decided ducking the better choice. By pussy-ing out, you can avoid looking even dumber than you trying to rationalize how stupid you were in the first place to even ask the question, based on the facts. Course you ducked it when I requested clarification too. Oh yeah — links, experts, and sources. Missed you chance to once again extoll us how the media lies, statistics lie, science lies, medicine lies and only your Felon King tells the truth. As you see it. Perhaps your recent victories have gone to your head and you actually think you are always in the right. You think Kennedy is a scientist-doctor and Gabbard a super spy. Probably think giving Musk all our government data on every citizen is a low-risk, safe move, that will improve the happiness of the nation. Win-lose.
As you continue to self-promote your blacks-like-me expose with a plethora of long, boring, spins, that nobody comments on, nobody will buy your book after reading this crap, if they can even muster the energy to plod through all the boredom, you denounce anyone who has a different idea. Usually based on personal characteristics you falsely attribute to them, not facts, figures, or statistics.
I spell my name: Danger, and my aim is truth.