The price increase is more than offset by keeping more of the COGS in the US and helping US citizens which generates tax revenue which facilitates reduced taxes.
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
The price increase is more than offset by keeping more of the COGS in the US and helping US citizens which generates tax revenue which facilitates reduced taxes.
Advancing forward means allowing the CCP to manufacturing HUB of hte world then launch a world war and us not able to defend ourselves.
The loser L worldview.
sturg33
I
meanwhile... the savings doge is finding can be sent to the industries we are destroying with tariffs? Trump term 1 all over again
you're the guy who would have opposed the automobile bc it would have put the more drivers out of a job
I can't think of a more loser mentality than "we can't automate our shipping ports because it will cost people their jobs, so we shall remain in slowly, dangerously, and inefficiently maintaining our ports
you're the guy who would have opposed the automobile bc it would have put the more drivers out of a job
No I am fully embracing the future and the new jobs that will be created a result. You don't want those to be American jobs because America is an economic zone to you. Just the loser L mindset.
sturg33
I
then why did you side with the retarded unions who opposed port automation?
Someone needs to support humans in the robotic future. First you must dispel the fear and that is not done by not listening to their concerns.
sturg33
I
got it so you simultaneously support and oppose the shift to automation
heads I win, tails you... of nevermind
exhausting
chop2chip
Well-known member
Yes I have heard this propaganda that’s light on specifics.
sturg33
I
You must have also missed your massive income tax break
When it comes out to be a reality just remember you effectively called this a conspiracy theory.
sturg33
I
grok weighs in
can you summarize the outcomes of the trump tariffs in his first term? what were the impact, and were they overall positive or negative?
During Donald Trump's first term (2017-2021), his administration imposed tariffs on a range of imports, primarily targeting China, but also affecting Canada, Mexico, the EU, and others. These included tariffs on steel (25%), aluminum (10%), and various Chinese goods (up to 25% on $360 billion worth). The stated goals were to protect U.S. industries, reduce trade deficits, and bring manufacturing jobs back. Here's a summary of the outcomes and impacts, based on available data and analyses:
Key Outcomes and Impacts
The tariffs had mixed results, leaning net negative economically. While they provided short-term protection for specific industries and signaled a tough stance on trade, they failed to significantly boost manufacturing jobs or shrink the trade deficit. Higher consumer prices, job losses in vulnerable sectors, and strained trade relationships outweighed limited gains. Studies, like those from MIT and the Tax Foundation, estimate a 0.1-0.2% GDP reduction by 2020 due to tariffs. However, supporters argue they laid groundwork for renegotiated trade deals (e.g., USMCA) and long-term leverage against China.
can you summarize the outcomes of the trump tariffs in his first term? what were the impact, and were they overall positive or negative?
During Donald Trump's first term (2017-2021), his administration imposed tariffs on a range of imports, primarily targeting China, but also affecting Canada, Mexico, the EU, and others. These included tariffs on steel (25%), aluminum (10%), and various Chinese goods (up to 25% on $360 billion worth). The stated goals were to protect U.S. industries, reduce trade deficits, and bring manufacturing jobs back. Here's a summary of the outcomes and impacts, based on available data and analyses:
Key Outcomes and Impacts
- Economic Effects on U.S. Industries:
- Positive: Some industries, like steel and aluminum, saw short-term benefits. Domestic production in these sectors increased slightly, and certain companies reported higher profits. For example, U.S. steel producers like Nucor benefited from higher prices.
- Negative: Tariffs raised input costs for downstream industries (e.g., auto manufacturing, construction, agriculture equipment), leading to higher prices and reduced competitiveness. Studies estimated 0.2-0.4% higher consumer prices across the board.
- Job Creation and Losses:
- Positive: Limited evidence of job gains in protected sectors. Steel industry added about 1,000-2,000 jobs in 2018-2019.
- Negative: Retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, and the EU targeted U.S. agriculture (e.g., soybeans, pork) and manufacturing, costing jobs. Estimates suggest a net loss of 100,000-245,000 U.S. jobs by 2020, per studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research and others.
- Trade Deficit:
- Neutral/Negative: The U.S. trade deficit grew from $552 billion in 2016 to $628 billion in 2020. Tariffs disrupted supply chains but didn’t significantly reduce imports from China, as trade shifted to countries like Vietnam and Mexico.
- Consumer Impact:
- Negative: Tariffs increased costs for consumers, estimated at $20-40 billion annually in purchasing power. Goods like washing machines, electronics, and clothing saw price hikes of 10-20% in some cases.
- China Trade War:
- Mixed: The U.S.-China Phase One trade deal (2020) secured commitments for Chinese purchases of U.S. goods, but China met only 58% of its $200 billion target by 2021. Tariffs pressured China but also hurt U.S. exporters, especially farmers, who lost market share.
- Global Relations:
- Negative: Tariffs strained alliances (e.g., Canada, EU) and prompted retaliatory measures. The WTO criticized some U.S. tariffs as non-compliant, complicating multilateral trade.
- Government Revenue and Costs:
- Positive: Tariffs generated $70-80 billion in revenue by 2020.
- Negative: The government spent $28 billion on farm subsidies to offset retaliatory tariff losses, negating some fiscal gains.
The tariffs had mixed results, leaning net negative economically. While they provided short-term protection for specific industries and signaled a tough stance on trade, they failed to significantly boost manufacturing jobs or shrink the trade deficit. Higher consumer prices, job losses in vulnerable sectors, and strained trade relationships outweighed limited gains. Studies, like those from MIT and the Tax Foundation, estimate a 0.1-0.2% GDP reduction by 2020 due to tariffs. However, supporters argue they laid groundwork for renegotiated trade deals (e.g., USMCA) and long-term leverage against China.
They failed to produce after implemented for 1 year -WOWOWOWOWOWWO
So ineffective the CCP had to release a virus to shut down the world.
sturg33
I
so why will be q1 2026 be roaring? that's less than a year after liberation day
Trump understands the system better and his advisors are better this time around. He went too soft the first time around at the onset.
Easy question
sturg33
I
Higher median income is the biggest one
Higher full time employement
Higher citizen based employement
THings that actually impact Americans.
sturg33
I
I'm not going to be boxed into a stupid game - Increases from where they are today and a continual growth in those areas.
But we are already seeing indicators that US citizen employment is increasing under Trump and manufacturing coming back is going to be a mssive driver of that.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I called what a conspiracy theory?
There is a cost to tariffs. The messaging from the administration is that these will be offset by tax breaks and deregulation (Bessent’s three legs of the chair).
I’m skeptical that leg 1 and leg 2 will offset leg 3. The admin has shared no specifics why I’m wrong to be skeptical.