|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 28 2017 03:30 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 02:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2017 01:36 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
I am genuinely wondering what the poeple in the US think of Trump being told to fuck off by the president of Mexico.
Wasnt he supposed to be a great negotiator? Why did the President bypass the diplomatic channels to adress Pena Nieto directly via Twitter?
I think it's great that a bully is being told to fuck off, and I hope every other country follows suit when Trump inevitably tries to strongarm them without any diplomacy or consideration for other people. The mexican president has a cartel gun to his head.
Uh, I cant imagine what can be worse than this. I've read some awfull stuff regarding the cartels. There is one of the bigger cartels named Caballeros Templarios which includes kidnapping children and eating their hearts as initiation. The rest of body is harvested for the organs.
Cutting of hands and flaying the face while alive and conciousness and even worse than that is also a trademark of a lot of cartels.
Ugh I'm in a bit of a shock because I did some research now on it for whatever reason and I kinda needed to share. This needs to stop rapidly. I can see how Mexican governent can be helpless regarding this, corrupted or not.
|
On January 28 2017 02:29 NukeD wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.
You should probably read what the man himself has to say on the subject. Even if it isn't bollocks. Which is "this pretty much counters Trump's claims and he needs to stop citing it."
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/stop-citing-our-work-virginia-professor-says-trumps-twisting-his-research-on-non-citizen-voting/
Also, the 6.4%? That's from 2008, since the study came out in 2014, it has nothing to do with this November. Washington Times needs to get their shit together.
On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else.
What the hell does it even mean to have a "justified" vs. "unjustified" trade deficit? Maybe I should tell my apartment complex our trade deficit is unjustified, that would go over well.
|
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure.
|
On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure.
The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy.
|
On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure.
Part of the plan is also to return US bussineses from Mexico to USA so there is a chance it will work out.
|
On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy.
Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then.
|
On January 28 2017 04:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 02:29 NukeD wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. You should probably read what the man himself has to say on the subject. Even if it isn't bollocks. Which is "this pretty much counters Trump's claims and he needs to stop citing it." https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/stop-citing-our-work-virginia-professor-says-trumps-twisting-his-research-on-non-citizen-voting/Also, the 6.4%? That's from 2008, since the study came out in 2014, it has nothing to do with this November. Washington Times needs to get their shit together. Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else. What the hell does it even mean to have a "justified" vs. "unjustified" trade deficit?
I guess justified means you benefit in another way from the trade deficit whereas in unjustified obviously you do not.
|
On January 28 2017 03:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 28 2017 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2017 23:49 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2017 23:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:I can't help but find the mind-bogglingly dumb mistakes like tweeting a photo of the inauguration with the wrong date and having no one in the administration able to spell Theresa May's name somewhat cathartic amongst all the discussions implying that Trump's presidency is some master gamesmanship plan. One thing's for sure: the incompetence aspects leftover from the campaign (not registering delegates to national conventions/not applying in a timely manner to general election ballots/etc.) are here to stay. It's been 16 years, so I can't really compare. Is Trump actually completely incompetent, or is this the same kind of stuff we got with "Bush or Chimp?", Bushisms and the relentless flow of people making fun of Dubya? Despite him being a fairly intelligent man according to more levelheaded opinions. That said, Dubya 2.0 would be a bad enough blow for the world. So I'm not sure it really makes much of a difference whether Trump is an absolute moron, or simply looks like one any time he opens his mouth/twitter account. Because at the end of the day, George W. Bush's policies cast the world into a ruinous recession (sure, it wasn't all him, but it was on his watch), and two disastrous wars that achieved absolutely nothing in the long run, regardless of whether you agree with his intentions or not. Personally, I would far prefer another GWB term over Trump. GWB might have been dumb, but he was a good, respectful human being, and didn't go out of his way to marginalize every possible group of Americans. Heck, GWB had to make a statement during 9/11, and he kept it together and noted that this was not an attack by all Muslims or mainstream Islam, but instead by radical terrorists, which was not only true but it was also aimed at minimizing anti-Muslim American sentiment, which was the right thing to do. Could you imagine Trump handling 9/11? He'd nuke the entire Middle East and lynch all Muslim Americans. And he'd probably Tweet pictures of that too. Not only is Trump dumb and unqualified (to the point where I've regrettably had to start tuning out the few delusional people who still think he's some sort of masterful genius who only fakes being an idiot), but he's also malevolent and ill-intentioned. He's actually a bad person, not just a bad president and bad representative of the American people. I think this is going to be the time when people start to realize that society isn't some divine, given, totally guaranteed, stable framework for humanity. Things have been so stable and decent that everyone started getting spoiled and wanting their dream list. Clinton, Bush1+2 etc kept the lights on and kept things moving mostly forward, on a macroscopic scale. I hope these next 4 years give people a wake up call and start to realize that boring isn't so bad. People just aren't satisfied to see someone keep the lights on. At this point they're going dim and people really want someone to replace them with something more reliable, even if it means we will have to live with candles and flashlights for a while. Because the status quo is simply not willing to be self-correcting at this point - some people just have too much to gain to be willing to help out those for whom it's getting worse.
Right, this perspective is exactly what I was talking about. People are underestimating how dim the candles and flashlights can be and assuming there will always be a certain amount of safety and stability.
|
On January 28 2017 04:05 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. Part of the plan is also to return US bussineses from Mexico to USA so there is a chance it will work out.
The only way that ends up making things even the same price for Americans is if the U.S. labor is cheaper than the Mexican labor is right now. Even if labor prices were identical the externalities of relocating would result in higher prices for American consumers.
On January 28 2017 04:07 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 28 2017 02:29 NukeD wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. You should probably read what the man himself has to say on the subject. Even if it isn't bollocks. Which is "this pretty much counters Trump's claims and he needs to stop citing it." https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/stop-citing-our-work-virginia-professor-says-trumps-twisting-his-research-on-non-citizen-voting/Also, the 6.4%? That's from 2008, since the study came out in 2014, it has nothing to do with this November. Washington Times needs to get their shit together. On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else. What the hell does it even mean to have a "justified" vs. "unjustified" trade deficit? I guess justified means you benefit in another way from the trade deficit whereas in unjustified obviously you do not.
But the deficit isn't some individual thing you can benefit from or not, it's a conglomeration of millions of goods being exchanged between countries each of which is a favorable trade for the two involved or else it wouldn't happen!
|
On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else.
Do you even know what a trade deficit is? Our trade deficit with Mexico just means that we import more from Mexico than we export to Mexico. You have a trade deficit with your grocery store, does that mean they should be in line for public humiliation, or are you proposing to barter for your produce with whatever it is you do for a living? I think the trade deficit is absolutely justified, since everybody loves Avocados and our economy has moved past the manufacturing focus that would allow us large exports to countries like Mexico.
If the administration does go through with some sort of tariff on goods in order to "get Mexico to pay for the wall" American consumers will end up paying for that, and the Mexican economy will suffer. For those of you with no greater priority than halting illegal immigration, you should want to do everything in your power to improve Mexico's standard of living.
|
On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then.
Not necesarilly, after all, companies will be lower taxed so the prices probably wont go up dramatically. Lets see how it works out before jumping to conclusions.
|
On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else.
do you think the trade deficit has anything to do with actual trade policy, or any sort of "taking advantage" of?
I'm inclined to think it doesn't, having researched the issue some, as per discussions had yesterday (and maybe the day before).
I'm feeling you don't have a goo dunderstanding of what a trade deficit is or what it actually means.
|
On January 28 2017 04:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 02:29 NukeD wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. You should probably read what the man himself has to say on the subject. Even if it isn't bollocks. Which is "this pretty much counters Trump's claims and he needs to stop citing it." https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/stop-citing-our-work-virginia-professor-says-trumps-twisting-his-research-on-non-citizen-voting/Also, the 6.4%? That's from 2008, since the study came out in 2014, it has nothing to do with this November. Washington Times needs to get their shit together. Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else. What the hell does it even mean to have a "justified" vs. "unjustified" trade deficit? Maybe I should tell my apartment complex our trade deficit is unjustified, that would go over well.
It means are we gaining in other ways that make up for the 60 billion dollars a year in trade deficit, unless you think making trade deals with massive deficits is optimal.
|
On January 28 2017 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:05 NukeD wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. Part of the plan is also to return US bussineses from Mexico to USA so there is a chance it will work out. The only way that ends up making things even the same price for Americans is if the U.S. labor is cheaper than the Mexican labor is right now. Even if labor prices were identical the externalities of relocating would result in higher prices for American consumers.
Labor stays the same price-> employers are taxed less. Thats the theory at least.
|
On January 28 2017 04:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 28 2017 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2017 23:49 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2017 23:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:I can't help but find the mind-bogglingly dumb mistakes like tweeting a photo of the inauguration with the wrong date and having no one in the administration able to spell Theresa May's name somewhat cathartic amongst all the discussions implying that Trump's presidency is some master gamesmanship plan. One thing's for sure: the incompetence aspects leftover from the campaign (not registering delegates to national conventions/not applying in a timely manner to general election ballots/etc.) are here to stay. It's been 16 years, so I can't really compare. Is Trump actually completely incompetent, or is this the same kind of stuff we got with "Bush or Chimp?", Bushisms and the relentless flow of people making fun of Dubya? Despite him being a fairly intelligent man according to more levelheaded opinions. That said, Dubya 2.0 would be a bad enough blow for the world. So I'm not sure it really makes much of a difference whether Trump is an absolute moron, or simply looks like one any time he opens his mouth/twitter account. Because at the end of the day, George W. Bush's policies cast the world into a ruinous recession (sure, it wasn't all him, but it was on his watch), and two disastrous wars that achieved absolutely nothing in the long run, regardless of whether you agree with his intentions or not. Personally, I would far prefer another GWB term over Trump. GWB might have been dumb, but he was a good, respectful human being, and didn't go out of his way to marginalize every possible group of Americans. Heck, GWB had to make a statement during 9/11, and he kept it together and noted that this was not an attack by all Muslims or mainstream Islam, but instead by radical terrorists, which was not only true but it was also aimed at minimizing anti-Muslim American sentiment, which was the right thing to do. Could you imagine Trump handling 9/11? He'd nuke the entire Middle East and lynch all Muslim Americans. And he'd probably Tweet pictures of that too. Not only is Trump dumb and unqualified (to the point where I've regrettably had to start tuning out the few delusional people who still think he's some sort of masterful genius who only fakes being an idiot), but he's also malevolent and ill-intentioned. He's actually a bad person, not just a bad president and bad representative of the American people. I think this is going to be the time when people start to realize that society isn't some divine, given, totally guaranteed, stable framework for humanity. Things have been so stable and decent that everyone started getting spoiled and wanting their dream list. Clinton, Bush1+2 etc kept the lights on and kept things moving mostly forward, on a macroscopic scale. I hope these next 4 years give people a wake up call and start to realize that boring isn't so bad. People just aren't satisfied to see someone keep the lights on. At this point they're going dim and people really want someone to replace them with something more reliable, even if it means we will have to live with candles and flashlights for a while. Because the status quo is simply not willing to be self-correcting at this point - some people just have too much to gain to be willing to help out those for whom it's getting worse. Right, this perspective is exactly what I was talking about. People are underestimating how dim the candles and flashlights can be and assuming there will always be a certain amount of safety and stability.
Maybe people realize that candles aren't all that great but perhaps replacing the lights is the only way forward. That it has to get worse before it gets better.
|
On January 28 2017 04:10 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 28 2017 02:29 NukeD wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. You should probably read what the man himself has to say on the subject. Even if it isn't bollocks. Which is "this pretty much counters Trump's claims and he needs to stop citing it." https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/stop-citing-our-work-virginia-professor-says-trumps-twisting-his-research-on-non-citizen-voting/Also, the 6.4%? That's from 2008, since the study came out in 2014, it has nothing to do with this November. Washington Times needs to get their shit together. On January 28 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:
Mexico has relatively no bargaining power compared to the USA. Do you guys really feel the trade deficit with mexico is justified? Mexico will ultimately end up paying for this wall, the only question is will Trump spare them the public humiliation. That is what the pm is negotiating at the moment, the public humiliation, not anything else. What the hell does it even mean to have a "justified" vs. "unjustified" trade deficit? Maybe I should tell my apartment complex our trade deficit is unjustified, that would go over well. It means are we gaining in other ways that make up for the 60 billion dollars a year in trade deficit, unless you think making trade deals with massive deficits is optimal.
Trade deals and trade deficits aren't the same thing...even with no trade deals there would almost certainly be a U.S.-Mexican trade deficit.
The optimal market solution when different groups have different resources is virtually never to make sure everyone imports and exports the same amount from everywhere. Even Austrians think that, I believe, and they refuse to use models to test hypotheses.
|
On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then.
What if you subsidize the local production so they don't have to pay 30% more for everything? I know it would be very expensive but it could be financed with loans and/or money from cancelled social programs.
|
On January 28 2017 04:09 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then. Not necesarilly, after all, companies will be lower taxed so the prices probably wont go up dramatically. Lets see how it works out before jumping to conclusions.
Right, because not only will those lower taxes offset the increase cost of using US workers instead of cheap Mexican the companies will also not pocket those same tax cuts for themselves. Because products have always become cheaper when you cut corporate taxes...
America labor (and most western labor) is damn expensive compared to 2nd and 3e world costs. Thats why the companies moved out in the first place.
|
On January 28 2017 04:14 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then. What if you subsidize the local production so they don't have to pay 30% more for everything? I know it would be very expensive but it could be financed with loans and/or money from cancelled social programs.
That's the same thing as saying the reduction in taxes paid will make up for it (since tax lowerings are effectively subsidies at the business-level). I am pretty sure you need to even give straight tax credits at this point, too.
|
On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then.
I'm sure the people who now make $40k for making American instead of $15k in retail work for selling Chinese will be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
