Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
sturg33
I
That has literally 0 to do with the point that the private company is unimaginably better at execution and cost efficiency than the federal government.
Why do yall argue this?
57Brave
Well-known member
Dont know if you were old enough to remember the nonsense about "you didn't build that " at the 2012 RNC.
The chest pounding the I Me Mine of failing to acknowledge the contributions of the social network to these endeavors is really, childish.
No one is arguing just kinda tired of this school of thought
and
Denying the simple physical truth that nothing happens in a vacuum
and of course at every turn having to listen to this sophomoric gibberish.
Hey , good for the astronauts, good for Elon Musk --- but most of all, this doesnt happen without NASA.
And 60 years of tax payer funded agency
You act like this is the first time anyone has gone to space. If anything you should be giving Obama credit for getting Elon Musk to kick in $1B
or whatever.
But, just think of what good Musk could have done with that $1B.
Lotta people out of work the health care system is broken and he invested $1B on the future of taking high paying customers out to McSpace
You then proclaim he "built it"
The chest pounding the I Me Mine of failing to acknowledge the contributions of the social network to these endeavors is really, childish.
No one is arguing just kinda tired of this school of thought
and
Denying the simple physical truth that nothing happens in a vacuum
and of course at every turn having to listen to this sophomoric gibberish.
Hey , good for the astronauts, good for Elon Musk --- but most of all, this doesnt happen without NASA.
And 60 years of tax payer funded agency
You act like this is the first time anyone has gone to space. If anything you should be giving Obama credit for getting Elon Musk to kick in $1B
or whatever.
But, just think of what good Musk could have done with that $1B.
Lotta people out of work the health care system is broken and he invested $1B on the future of taking high paying customers out to McSpace
You then proclaim he "built it"
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Soooo lets trigger those with ODS. Murder hit the lowest total under Obama since 1968 when the population was less than 200 million. Murders per year on average under Obama 15,184. Murders per year on average under Trump 16,754. Thats with only 2017 and 2018. I cant find complete data for 2019 so far. Murder rate under Bush was under 16,000 for only one year. His first year. Averaging 1500 more murders per year under Trump and Bush Jr.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.econlib.org/flaaen-et-al-in-the-july-issue-of-the-a-e-r/
Trump’s early 2018 tariffs on washing machines are costing American consumers $1.5 billion a year in higher prices, even after deducting the meager $82 million in customs revenues. The whole tariff was paid by American consumers in higher prices—in fact, even more than the whole tariff if we consider that dryers, a complement good, also increased in price. The total cost to American consumers amounts to more than $800,000 a year for each of the 1,800 jobs created in America by the tariff.
These are the main results of an econometric study by three economists, Aaron Flaaen (Federal Reserve), Ali Hortaçsu (University of Chicago and NBER), and Felix Tintelnot (same affiliations as the latter). Their article was published in the latest issue of the American Economic Review under the title “The Production Relocation and Price Effects of US Trade Policy: The Case of Washing Machines” (the article is not gated). I previously mentioned on Econlog the authors’ preliminary research on the same topic as published in March and April 2019.
Another lesson from the washing machine tariffs, which is not surprising either, is that the tariffs have had the same impact on the price of domestically produced washing machines as on imported ones. I explained in a few previous Econlog posts why a tariff always increases the price of the domestic substitute as much as the price of the targeted imported good (see, for example, “Post Scriptum on Steel Tariffs,” December 5, 2018). A simple way to see this is to realize that the very reason domestic producers ask for a tariff on the competing foreign goods is to be able to increase their prices at the level from which they had to cut them because of this competition.
Trump’s early 2018 tariffs on washing machines are costing American consumers $1.5 billion a year in higher prices, even after deducting the meager $82 million in customs revenues. The whole tariff was paid by American consumers in higher prices—in fact, even more than the whole tariff if we consider that dryers, a complement good, also increased in price. The total cost to American consumers amounts to more than $800,000 a year for each of the 1,800 jobs created in America by the tariff.
These are the main results of an econometric study by three economists, Aaron Flaaen (Federal Reserve), Ali Hortaçsu (University of Chicago and NBER), and Felix Tintelnot (same affiliations as the latter). Their article was published in the latest issue of the American Economic Review under the title “The Production Relocation and Price Effects of US Trade Policy: The Case of Washing Machines” (the article is not gated). I previously mentioned on Econlog the authors’ preliminary research on the same topic as published in March and April 2019.
Another lesson from the washing machine tariffs, which is not surprising either, is that the tariffs have had the same impact on the price of domestically produced washing machines as on imported ones. I explained in a few previous Econlog posts why a tariff always increases the price of the domestic substitute as much as the price of the targeted imported good (see, for example, “Post Scriptum on Steel Tariffs,” December 5, 2018). A simple way to see this is to realize that the very reason domestic producers ask for a tariff on the competing foreign goods is to be able to increase their prices at the level from which they had to cut them because of this competition.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I dont believe this tells the whole story. What did those 1800 people do with the money they made from.the new jobs. Assuming 60k jobs thats 108m in gross wages.
We have seem what unfettered globalism did to us in the midst of a pandemic. Sure, using slave labor is cheaper from other countries. Do you support that?
I'll ask the same question to you then. What are your thoughts on using the uyghurs to make products. They are cheaper for the american consumer.
Therefore it must be good?
And another question to aces/sturg. What are your thoughts on communism? How do you feep when your economic principles support the rise of China?
Its not as black and white as calitalism is good or bad. We live in very complicated times. It should be a sense of national pride to pay 5% more for goods if it is taken away from China.
Its not as black and white as calitalism is good or bad. We live in very complicated times. It should be a sense of national pride to pay 5% more for goods if it is taken away from China.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i prefer products made by child labor from pakistan personally...what an idiotic question to conflate slave labor with tariffs
The idea to is divert production away from China when we are discussing the move away from globalism.
You either support slave labor or don't.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
then put me down in the pro slave labor column...and while you're at it you can put me down as favoring child labor too...and human trafficking too
Clearly. And apparently pro communism because its globalism that has allowed China to become the principal threat to world freedom.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
definitely pro communism
acesfull86
Well-known member
What were the consumers of washer/dryers unable to do with the money that went to those 1,800 people? You can try to tout a multiplier effect, but that money came from other American consumers in the form of paying (artificially) higher prices, money they would have otherwise put to different uses.
Since you want to take things to the extreme (anti-tariff = pro communism and slave labor), why not make the tariffs 1,000% or 10,000%? Why not extend them to include imports from all other countries for all products, since you believe the (artificially) higher wages earned by American producers will cause a multiplier effect in the economy?
I'm obviously against slave labor and communism in China, but ultimately those issues are going to have to be taken up by the Chinese people against their government. I don't think hurting everyday American (and Chinese) people in the meantime is an effective means to those ends.
More immediately, I'm concerned with two parties in America who seem to be in a "hold my beer" battle to one up each other in moving us further away from free market capitalism, making everything we consume more expensive.
Your baseline costs to calculate how much extra americans paid is completely skewed though. You cant just simply ignore this point just as you can't ignore that trying to get the most efficient price point is lining the ccp with hundreds of billions of dollars a year. You say its an issue with the Chinese people but globalism has stacked the deck against them and made the ccp the strongest singular entity in the world.
We do not have free trade as evident by other countries practices. This isn't just China. Should we ignore that as well while we send compensation and COGS to other countries.
What does the loss of jobs do to Americas society? Don't you think this marxist uprising may have been fueled by a lack of available jobs for our youth? What about drug usage? All of this interconnected.
I'm sorry. The world isn't an econ textbook. There is so much more to it than just 'capitalism'.
Last edited: