Leverage
This past week, President Trump secured two very important trade deals. One deal was with Japan and the other was with the EU. Both Japan and the EU agreed to drop their tariff rates to zero, promised incredible investments in the U.S., and opened markets to American producers. How was Trump able to get them to go along with that?
The answer is leverage and Trump holds the very best.
Former U.S. ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland explained it:
"Without our market, very few industries would survive," Sondland says. "No one fully valued how much leverage our market creates when it comes to trade negotiations until Trump."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the deal would bring the stability and predictability that global businesses need. It demonstrates how far foreign leaders will go to safeguard access to the U.S. market. With these key trading partners now signed on, it is only a matter of time before others will want in. Thus far the tariffs have generated an extra $20 billion each of the past two months, which could total $240 billion in additional revenue this year. All in all, it was another very good week for Trump.
In other news:
Israel said it had paused some military operations in parts of Gaza to allow more aid in. Some has recently been airlifted in to reduce the risk to IDF forces.
As Germany’s far-right party, the AfD, rises in popularity, some lawmakers are pushing to ban it. Other opponents of the party say a ban would only increase its popularity.
The suspect in the stabbing of 11 people at a Michigan Walmart is facing charges of terrorism. One of the citizens who stepped in and stopped him was armed with a gun.
A star-studded benefit concert that raised more than $100 million dollars for wildfire victims in California is itself under fire for how the money was spent. The money raising group known as "FireAid" claimed that it partnered directly with "trusted" local non-profits "to reach communities in need."
Jeffrey Epstein's former lawyer has suggested that the sex-trafficking financiers only convicted accomplice should be granted immunity from further prosecution in exchange for coming clean in front of Congress.
The suspect accused of driving his car through a crowd of people in LA is a convicted felon who was out on parole.
At least three people were wounded in separate shootings near the Dominican Day Parade route through the Bronx on Sunday, all nearly within one bloody hour.
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the news.
Nominations and appropriations remain at the forefront of the Senate’s agenda for what is scheduled to be the final week before August recess. Democrats have sleepwalked and stonewalled 135 Trump nominees. That leaves Senate Leader Thune with a big decision:
He is considering cancelling the Senate's August recess in order to get the nominees confirmed.
Didn't the MAGA crowd freak out when the Dems were gonna do this?
Just wondering
I don't think any president other than Trump has had 135 nominees still unconfirmed after 6 months in office.
The answer is that MAGA supporters expected it.
Regardless of the number of nominees, my question was didn't the MAGA Proud and true screech bloody murder when the Dems were going to take advantage of recess appointments?
A yes or no please
... although his party holds the majority in both the house and the senate.
Yes, they did. And I want you to know that Republicans are consistent:
Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune plan to convene-and-adjourn every 4 or 5 days to block Trump from making those appointments.
House Republican Claims GOP Leaders Are Conspiring to Block Trump From Making Recess Appointments
Your question is mute also because Senate Leader Thune is going to keep the Senate in session to fill the vacancies the right way ...by Senate votes.
Because democrats have used up time on every nominee. Now they can vote over what would have been the August recess.
... not like it's a big enough deal to interrupt a golf vacation over.
Good for Thune
I am glad to see them staying hard at work in service to their master
Your question is mute
Actually it isn't, it speaks to the point I was asking about
I believe the term you are looking for is "moot"
Now it's in service to their master.
You have no problem with the democrats dragging out the nomination process for months?
Actually, it is. The Republicans were consistent. They didn't like when Obama did it and they didn't allow their own President do it.
So much for "servicing their master."
MAGA men do that service in so many ways
Based on the quality of some of the nominees, I look at it as a publis service
MAGA men identify as men.[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
Thus far US companies have eaten the tariff costs, but as the realization sets in that all tariffs will be higher than they have been the appetite for eating the costs will dissolve and consumer prices will rise. In the end the tariffs will constitute a consumption tax on all Americans.
You keep assuming that there won't be trade deals. We just had two huge ones.
US companies wont continue to eat the tariff costs after they realize these high tariffs are permanent.
They aren't quite that high for those who make a deal. The other thing to keep in mind is that this country still produces stuff. We don't import everything.
[deleted][✘]
And they are the same quality and cheaper than the import.
Boeing might even argue better quality.
Sikorsky makes a pretty good product as well.
Yes. Did you know that in all these trade deals there are no tariffs placed on items or components going to those companies. I read that yesterday.
I don't see why not. We are paying tariffs on outgoing products.
US consumers and businesses do not pay tariffs on outgoing products (what we export).
Amazing how people continue to buy Trump’s bullshit that a tariff is paid by trade partners.
The tariffs ultimately will be paid for in full by the American consumer
Exactly. How is it that Trump supporters cannot see this?
There is an easy solution to that.
1. Consumers by domestic. This stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
2. Companies move production to the US. This stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
Either way, the goal is met. Economy is stimulated and jobs are created. Don't know why the left can't get behind that. Oh...that's right...
The thing that our members here on the left side of the aisle seem not to realize is the fact that the tariffs are collectable and work BOTH ways. So yes, Virginia, we will come out just fine.
Funny how so many declared the tariffs a disaster when they were first announced and chastised those that said they would "wait and see". Those same folks are now saying wait and see, it will be a disaster.
Inflation under Biden year over year was 3%
The inflation rate under trump 2%
Exactly when do these tariffs cause prices to rise? Not the TDS timeline but in the real world when are we going to see it?
They can always fall back on Trump is damaging relationships.
A large portion of the American people require low prices. Not want, require. Why do you think so many people go to dollar stores and discount stores and online sites like temu where you can buy a winter coat for 20 dollars. Its not because they want to, its because they have to.
Are American companies going to lower their prices to the level these foreign companies are at ?
The effect of tariffs hasnt happened yet because companies are eating the tariffs hoping they are not permanent.
Not to worry, inflation is transitory. S/
That's as factual as their tariff crying.
So the solution is:
1. Consumers by domestic. This stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
2. Companies move production to the US. This stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
Really? I thought they said it was Putin's fault.
Those "experts" that made that claim are the same "experts" that stated that the POTUS didn't have the authority to impose them.
You mean they are reciprocal. Others impose tariffs on the US so the US imposes them on that country.
That's not going to stop them from setting their hair on fire.
The same can be said of any tax on business, including income tax, franchise tax, payroll tax, etc. Nobody seems to be suggesting we do away with any of those.
This is just another right wing "trickle down scam" designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
How so? Please be specific
First, why should consumers be forced to buy domestic? You think that US consumers should be restricted by a single person: Trump?
Second, we do not make everything domestically. For example, we do not produce bananas or coffee. In cases such as those where we produce products like pharmaceuticals and high-precision equipment, we currently cannot manufacture many of these products and rely on imports.
In result, consumers pay higher prices. That is not how one grows an economy. One grows an economy by encouraging and then satisfying a growing international market for our goods and services. Trump has wasted decades of US goodwill and has thus damaged our ability to encourage foreign consumers to buy American goods and services. Trump is a misguided buffoon.
Companies do not make strategic decisions based on the irrational whims of a PotUS who will be gone in 3 1/2 years (or less).
Trump is feeding his supporters bullshit and they (clearly) keep believing his lies.
Does it not bother you that Trump continues to tell people that tariffs are paid by the trade partner?
What, specifically, do you mean by this?
But Trump (parroted by supporters) is claiming that the tariffs are paid by the trade partner. When someone lies so blatantly, should that not be countered (as Robert did)?
Do you believe that tariffs raise consumer prices or do you believe that this is not the case?
We collect tariffs on goods sold to those countries, just as they do with us. Where do you suppose that tariff money goes? To the exporter? I think not.
No we do not. The tariffs on products we export are paid by the importing entity (a business in the foreign nation) and then passed on to that nation's consumers.
If GM exports a Corvette for $120,000 and a 10% tariff is in effect by the receiving nation, the consumer in that nation will pay $132,000 for that Corvette.
Really? anywhere? Someone should tell Hawaii to stop then.
Top-15-Commodities-2023_SOH_12.30.2024.pdf
Hawaii alone cannot meet domestic demand. Did you do any research at all when trying to counter what was simply an example? If you had done so, you would know that Hawaii cannot even supply 1% of our demand.
49 states do not have the climate and biological conditions to produce these products. The continental USA has no domestic production capabilities. If we relied solely upon Hawaii, you would find it next to impossible to get a banana or cup of coffee.
You get that, right?
If so then you recognize that my point that we do indeed depend upon trade for key products is true.
You made the claim that we DO NOT produce those things, i proved you wrong. PERIOD,
So you do not care about the point. You just want to 'prove me wrong' not on the point but rather on an example where I listed products that we MUST import. Petty chickenshit nitpicking rather than engaging in serious, adult conversation.
Given my point that the USA cannot possibly sustain its demands on products like bananas and coffee (and these were just examples), do you believe the USA can sustain its demand domestically? If so, let's hear how.
Hawaii's production is insignificant compared to our demand. Less than 1% in both areas.
Words have meaning, we do not produce enough...... or we don't grow enough would have been a point, WE DO NOT is a statement, and you made it incorrectly.
So all you have is chickenshit nitpicking that has no impact on the point I made.
You cannot counter my point that we must import many products.
Hawaii cannot supply even 1% of our demand of the example bananas and coffee. In result, the USA does depend on other nations for items such as bananas, coffee, many pharmaceuticals, certain precision machinery, and many more items.
Instead of dealing with a serious point, you play chickenshit games.
I am sure you have heard the comment "apples and oranges"
Some sure do like to run around with their hair on fire.
You mean excise tax somehow doesn't get passed through to the consumer? How does that work, exactly?
And Biden, Sanders, Warren, et al have been trying to raise business taxes for decades, pretending they're not passed through to consumers. I don't remember the furor about that.
If it raises prices when Trump does it, it raises prices when they do it, too.
What in your opinion are Trump tariff supporters thinking is happening? Do they recognize that tariffs are, in effect, a consumption tax and find that this is a good thing? Or do they think tariffs are paid by the exporting nation (as Trump is saying)?
If they realize that Trump's tariffs are paid (ultimately) by US consumers, do they not recognize how this is a violation of one of Trump's major campaign promises (lower prices)?
The furor was not from the Ds, but it certainly was evident from the Rs. Does that surprise you?
Right now Trump is PotUS and he promised to lower prices yet he unnecessarily imposes tariffs which raise prices. So when a PotUS breaks a major campaign promise (especially when it was unnecessary) why do you object to that being called out?
I'd agree but then we'd both be wrong.
It stimulates the economy and creates jobs. But then again, the left hasn't been all that successful doing that. But, if they want to pay the higher prices then pay them and quit crying.
If Companies move production to the US we could. Don't know why that concept is so hard for some to grasp.
I've held this belief LONG before Trump even joked about entering politics. But, please, continue to tell me what I'm thinking. It's fun to see how much you claim to know vs. what you actually know.
The economy has been performing well despite Trump; but this will not last with continued negative pressure. There is no need to force people to buy domestic. Furthermore, trade wars hinder trade, which in turn reduces GDP. Because, Jeremy, we are part of a global economy. Our GDP growth is fundamentally dependent upon trade (both imports and exports).
The way we grow our GDP is by making the best and having trade partners want to buy what we produce. Trump is doing the opposite of what we need.
Your big 'if' is flawed reasoning. The concept is easy to grasp, the problem is that it is simply not the case that companies will make strategic decisions to move their production to the USA because of a single PotUS who will be gone in 3½ years or less. When companies do move production to the USA it is NOT merely to avoid tariffs since that problem could disappear at any time and will disappear after Trump.
Production in the USA does not simply mean building a plant (and that alone is typically billions). But it also involves building an effective supply chain and training the workers. On top of this, all of this expense must result in a strategic benefit to the company. This is a long term strategic move that will apply for decades; no company would do this simply because Trump (or anyone) imposed tariffs (temporary, fragile). That is the concept you fail to understand.
On top of that, any new production facilities built in the USA would be heavily automated and would not employ massive amounts of conventional industrial labor. So your 'creates jobs' notion is not nearly what you have in mind.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that no company will establish new plants in the USA. I am saying that they would NOT do so merely because of tariffs. There are other factors that a company might consider. For example, a company that is heavily dependent upon China rare Earth might produce there due to proximity of the supply chain and raw materials. But if the USA were to establish a suitable supply chain and most consumers were in the USA, the company might indeed consider production facilities in the USA. Long-term strategic decisions are based on the prediction of long-term factors, not on the whims of an irrational PotUS.
When you write posts (repeatedly) that express Trump's lies, it is natural for one to hold that you believe his bullshit.
That's on them.
That's your opinion. You're entitled to that. Doesn't mean you are correct but you are entitled
You offer 'nuh-uh'. No logic whatsoever to counter what I posed. No counterfacts. Nothing.
You are dead wrong, which is why you bob & weave instead of providing a serious, cogent rebuttal.
Seems many folks have problems with this simple concept.
Yet you haven't proven it. All I and many others have seen is opinion based.
No. I just don't play your games. Don't get all hissy because I don't give the answers you want to hear. I'm not you little parrot.
You've shrieked that "tariffs will hurt the country" yet what is actually happening has proven you you wrong.
Another feeble response.
And then you post an article that shows the economy grew yet I had already stated that it remains good in spite of Trump.
You have no argument:
I sent this to my brother in law the other day. I am not sure he is still speaking to me.
So...........who gets the extra $12K...........hmmmmm WHO?
How many times do I need to explain this? This is so basic.
If a nation imposes a tariff on imports, that nation is essentially imposing a tax. The importing company (in the receiving nation) pays the tariff. That tariff then goes to the nation imposing the tariff just like any other tax.
So, real simple, if a nation imposes a 10% tariff on Corvettes and a Corvette cost a dealer $120,000 then the dealer (company) importing the Corvette must pay GM for the Corvette ($120,000) and then pay the nation's government $12,000 to cover the 10% tariff. The total cost to the dealer is $132,000.
The consumer who buys the Corvette will wind up paying the $12,000 tariff (reimbursing the dealer) unless the dealer chooses to eat the tariff (not likely).
If this is not clear, ask a serious question.
Your usual condescention noted, where does the $12K go from there? What does the nation's (which you are talking about) government do with it?
Is that serious enough?
No matter how long you keep tutoring them, they're not getting any smarter. These folk ridicule higher education and support a guy who thinks he can reduce drug prices by 1500%. You can fix ignorance with education, but you just can't fix stupid.
The only thing conservatives are being tortured by is the upmost ignorance coming from some on the left.
No one ridicules higher education. We ridicule leftists with sociology, gender studies, and other worthless degrees where no one gets a meaningful job then demand the government forgives their thousands of dollars in loans.
Any coherent thinking person knows he probably misspoke, but those on the left believed an old senile guy with a DEI hire VP that had to have everything scripted, on a teleprompter, and still fucked it up most of the time.
hilarious ...
I wouldn't call leftist ignorance hilarious, but if you insist, then OK.
And that is EXACTLY my point. And when they don't hear what they want to hear we have 2.3.41 and 2.3.45.
What are you talking about? The $12,000 goes to the foreign government and is used as that government determines.
What about this do you not understand? Truly, I am at a loss as to how this could not be clear.
Just amazing.
How could I possibly have been clearer?
I understand just fine. That said, how in the hell can you say that tariffs DON'T help the US Government if "we" get to keep the tariffs and thus Trump is not full of shit? Yep, prices may go up, but it also introduces a means to reduce taxes on the citizenry since GovCo is getting increased resources with which to meet budgets.
Where did I even imply that tariffs do not help the US government? Don't start with strawman crap now.
This is just ridiculous. You applaud a consumption tax (higher prices) because that (merely) enables a way to reduce taxes.
You are engaging in intellectual somersaults here. How about NOT paying higher prices in the first place rather than pay higher prices and get pennies on the dollar in terms of a (unlikely) tax cut?
I asked ChatGPT to analyze the soundness of your 'argument':
Which puts more money in the pockets of consumers to purchase goods even if prices are higher. It's practically a net zero proposition.
Are you shitting us? If tariffs are bad, which I am CERTAIN you have implied as your overall view of them, "cuz Trump", is clouded with your disdain for the man in the White House. Dems have always, recently anyway, cried about leveling the playing field and "fair share" bullshit (no definition has ever been given that I am aware of). These tariffs and trade negotiations are doing just that. Leveling the trade "playing field" on the world stage. And it's about time WE came first. Sorry if you don't agree.
The left is pissed because of WHO is leveling the playing field. That's their sole complaint. He took action while the Democrats only provided lip service (again).
Meh. Hard to say.
I would guess they're enjoying the "America first" vibe, primarily.
It would appear there are some of each. The former group will probably argue that the tariffs are or will eventually be an incentive to produce and buy American products. I'm guessing the latter group just assume the increase will cut into corporate margins? I dunno.
TBF, inflation is still under 3%. Also TBF, the tariff situation is so fluid it's difficult to understand what impact it is or isn't having in real life.
So what Trump supporters see is just more educated liberals making more theoretical claims.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
But it isn't really raising prices very much. It's certainly not raising them the way Biden's actions did.
Not at all what I said.
As I have said many times and you are no doubt completely aware, my objection is to partisan stupidity.
To refresh your memory, the comments in question along the lines of how do Trump supporters not see that tariffs flow through to the consumers?
The point was that most Trump haters are at least as ridiculous when it comes to their inability to see obvious economic matters.
Complaining about the potential inflationary effects of tariffs... which are simply a business tax... while ignoring the inflationary aspects of other business taxes.. is partisan stupidity. Ignoring the inflationary aspects of increased regulation is also partisan stupidity.
So let's stop pretending this shit only raises prices when Trump does it.
That is just nutty reasoning. You want consumers to pay more so that they get a tax break so that they can afford higher prices??? First of all, there is no way on the planet that the government will take the revenues from the tariffs and pass them onto tax payers. Second, with Trump especially, there is no way that this will be given as tax breaks to the majority who would care about this.
You did not even read the ChatGPT part did you? ChatGPT went into more detail on how tariff revenues would NOT be a net-zero proposition ... not even close.
Your hypothesis is an amazing level of wishful thinking.
How about this? Instead of higher prices and a totally unrealistic net-zero result just go for the net-zero right off the bat. Here is how that is done. Do not impose tariffs except on specific, targeted products to help a struggling domestic industry. You know, the way tariffs have generally been used for over 100 years now.
Inventory depletions will force using tariffed items. It takes a while for inventories to deplete. But we can already see that prices are being raised. It is a shame that some need to feel direct pain before they realize what is taking place.
ChatGPT offer this:
Now, for items where tariffs persist, what do you think will happen to prices? If you think prices will not go up then you must believe that the importers are all going to eat the tariffs. Is that your belief?
Strawman. My comments were strictly about tariffs. I never implied that tariffs are the only thing that raises prices. My argument has been that tariffs raise prices and that Trump is using tariffs stupidly.
I have no patience for those who cannot issue a rebuttal and instead resort to dishonesty.
But seriously, we've been coming first for decades stemming from the fact that the US manufacturing facilities were pretty much the only ones not destroyed in WWII and so for several decades we became the manufacturing hub of the world which made us a ton of money turning us into the biggest consumers on the planet. And now our consumers are the envy of the world. The rest of the world only wishes they could get their citizens to spend money like Americans do.
Tariffs will never bring back the manufacturing of old. Might it bring a few manufacturing jobs back? Probably. But not nearly enough to make them worth the rest of us paying a lot more for our imported goods.
What Trump supporters / defenders fail to see is cause and effect unless the effect hits them directly. That will happen. Big shame that it takes experiencing pain to recognize an obvious problem.
No. I dare you to find any comment from me where I suggest that tariffs are bad for the US government. Tariffs are essentially a tax thus they provide revenue for the US government. So go ahead Jim, let's see you back up your claim that I have argued that tariffs are bad for the government.
Tariffs are bad for the nation. The nation is not a synonym for the federal government.
As usual, you have no argument so you claim that my argument is because of hatred for Trump. If you think that is true then you should be able to rebut my points. Thus far you have failed miserably. What are you waiting for ... if my argument is pure emotion then make your rebuttal.
More Trump bullshit. Back to the ridiculous notion that a trade deficit means we are being ripped off. Stop believing what that buffoon claims and do some actual research on tariffs and trade deficits. Make an argument instead of repeating bullshit from Trump.
Theoretical Claims it is then.
It also has taken a while for tariffs to actually be implemented. They're on again/off again.
We've seen people say they're going to raise prices. Which makes sense when the tariff is going to be 50%. When it's back down to 4% the next day, not so much.
I am completely uninterested in what AI says. Make your own points or don't bother.
The same thing that always happens when we raise business taxes or impose high cost regulation. We've discussed this.
You're assuming the tariffs stay in place. Given the last several months, that just doesn't seem likely.
I dare you to find where I did that. I said, your opinion of the tariffs, overall, is that they are bad. I would surmise that you meant all encompassingly bad. If that isn't what you meant, perhaps you should be more clear.
A simple matter of opinion where I sit anyway.
Join the club. I use it rarely, but when I do, it is to express what people are feeding it. One must know how AI works. It's much like Wiki-everthing. Based upon what it perhaps gleans, as well as the opinions of "the trainers".
If you think I am 'shitting you' then you must think I have implied that tariffs do not help the US government. Again, show where you got this ridiculous notion.
Of course, the standard fallback for Trump supporters when they have no argument: 'that is just your opinion'.
Make an argument. Show how it is better to impose a consumption tax via tariffs with a (totally ridiculous) belief that these taxes will be passed onto taxpayers as tax cuts instead of simply NOT imposing a tariff.
Correct. The price hikes will only apply on items where tariffs have persisted.
Too bad that is not the case across the board. So let's ignore the fringe and concern ourselves with items that are indeed under a real tariff that will persist. Those are the items of concern in my arguments. If Trump removes all of his tariffs then the problem goes away. If not, prices will rise on those items and downstream in the value chain.
Yeah, especially when it goes against your argument. Too bad for you. ChatGPT is just another source. So if you disregard it (and it comes with supporting links) then why would you ever ask for any source? You think a source from a human being is necessarily more accurate? While ChatGPT makes mistakes, it is generally substantially more reliable than your average human being.
The best sources is raw data and you can follow the links from ChatGPT just as easily as you can follow the links from an individual writer.
I use ChatGPT as a convenient 3rd party to corroborate my comments. That is, it shows that my comments are not merely something I have dreamed up but that there is a base of assimilated knowledge that corresponds with what I just wrote.
You keep wanting to deflect. I am talking about tariffs. Instead of trying to hide your answer, why not just clearly state that raising business taxes or imposing tariffs translates into higher prices?
Yes, if tariffs fade away in the near term the problem fades. The problem only exists if tariffs persist. There is no point talking about tariffs that are removed next week so of course we are talking about tariffs that would be problematic ... tariffs that persist.
Yes, that would be helpful. Do you think you know how it works?
The problem you run into here is that the Church of Liberal Politics is America's most vocal doomsday cult, running around for over a decade telling everyone the sky is falling, but little if any of the cataclysm they promise has actually come about.
Agreed. Let's also make sure we tell that to the socialists. Again, pretending it's unique to Trump supporters is partisan idiocy.
Another lame, cliche response in lieu of an actual rebuttal.
Irrelevant. Do you personally disregard the impact on prices of persistent tariffs because liberals have exaggerated claims of failure in the past? Or do you go by an understanding of economics?
Another strawman. Nowhere do I even imply that the failure to recognize an obvious problem is unique to Trump supporters. More dishonesty.
What are you thinking of specifically?
It's not a source. It looks up information from other sources. It's a research assistant that is influenced by the wording of your prompts. Use it accordingly.
Also known as sticking to my point.
I have stated it directly. That has been the entire point the entire time. Glad to see we agree.
Tariffs are a tax on businesses who import things. Like ANY business tax, that cost is eventually passed through to the consumer.
If the President has shown nothing else, he has demonstrated with extreme emphasis his willingness and indeed enthusiasm for capricious behavior with regard to tariffs. I'm certainly not going to pretend I know which tariffs will persist and which will not. And I'm certainly not going to take his word for it.
They keep predicting doom that never happens, and you think that's not relevant?
Why would there only be two options? Oh.... right....
For the purposes of this discussion, I treat the persistence of any tariff with great suspicion. If we've learned nothing else over the last 4 months, we've learned that tariffs are subject to presidential whim.
On a broader, academic basis, I think tariffs are an economic tool that can be used for good or ill depending on the implementation. The fact that nearly every country in the world imposes them to some degree lends them a degree of credibility. Obviously, they can be misused like any tool.
So are the vast majority of sources. And it does not merely 'look up' information. What it produces is a synthesis of its corpus (supplemented by real-time lookups when necessary). Its corpus is incomprehensively vast, so it is representing a wealth of knowledge (and opinion).
I am sticking to my point, you are deflecting. My point is that tariffs raise prices for consumers and that they are NOT paid by the exporting nation (countering Trump's bullshit).
Correct. That has been my point. So the question is why you are arguing with me? And for the benefit of Trump supporters who are still parroting Trump's bullshit:
Per Jack @3.2.79 ☞ Tariffs are a tax on businesses who import things. Like ANY business tax, that cost is eventually passed through to the consumer.
Yes it is entirely irrelevant to the point I made. Since you are replying to my comments, you bringing up the notion that liberals have a history of crying wolf is totally irrelevant. If you want to talk about liberals start a new thread.
Back to you making obnoxious declarations rather than engaging intellectually.
Yeah, we all know: TACO. I am not predicting which tariffs will be persistent. I am stating that persistent tariffs will raise prices. And you understand that and have clearly stated the same.
Well of course. Tariffs are not inherently bad. I have explained this many times: Trump is misusing tariffs. Tariffs are best used as a mechanism for temporarily directing consumption domestically to help a strategic but weakened industry (such as steel). There is a clear reason for the tariff and the tariff is targeted. Trump used tariffs as a weapon. Plus he imposes them across the board. On top of that, he offers little to no rational reasoning behind the level of tariffs. He is walking around with his tariff weapon like a child with a new toy without understanding what he is doing (or, more likely, not caring what he is doing). All the while he is lying to his supporters (e.g. foreign nations pay the tariffs) and too many of them believe his bullshit.
See above. Again, tariffs are not inherently bad. And yes they are being misused ... especially by Trump; yet, Trump's misuse is outrageous.
How is it "sticking to your point" when you do it but "deflecting" when I do it? Oh, that's right, it's not. Just a cheerful reminder, you don't control the conversation.
Yes. And my point is that ALL business taxes do that. So we've agreed with each other again. Isn't it splendid.
Staying on that point, why is it so objectionable when Trump supporters believe business taxes don't flow through to the consumer but it's not a problem at all when liberals believe Warren, Sanders, AOC or any of hundreds of Democrats telling exactly the same lie?
Because you only acknowledge agreement if somebody joins in your Trump hatred.
I was having a conversation with Robert, and you jumped in with both feet on yet another tiresome Trump bashing episode. In the process of this conversation, I have agreed with several points, but I have refused yet again to join your anti-Trump religious crusade. So here we are, stuck in the ultimate irony loop where you actually have the temerity to accuse other people of being obnoxious.
No, it's just inconvenient so you don't want it brought up.
You and every other Trump-ophobe keep forecasting the end of the world and then you're incredulous when nobody believes you. The fact that the Trump hating crowd does this about every last issue entirely relevant. It's why they don't believe you now.
You fail to recognize when people agree with you, and then you act like they have the comprehension problem.
I believe I used the terms "capricious" and "whim". Sounds like agreement again.
And? What does that change, exactly? Are you suggesting that if somehow Trump supporters all got a miraculous education in economics that any of those lessons would apply to tariffs that get turned off and on like the bathroom light switch? How do you predict the impact of a 48 hour tariff?
My point was about tariffs. Talking about liberals is a deflection. Pretending not to understand this simple concept is an obnoxious little game.
No shit. If Trump had raised business taxes instead of engaging in tariffs he would have been criticized for violating his campaign promise to lower taxes based on that act. But that is not what he did. What he did was impose tariffs thus I am criticizing what he did. Not only do tariffs have the opposite effect of lowering prices, but the way Trump is handling them has also unnecessarily damaged international relationships.
The fact that all business taxes encourage businesses to pass on these taxes via higher prices does not change the fact that tariffs raise prices nor does it provide any value to the discussion.
Strawman. I have never suggested otherwise. You are deflecting yet again.
You label my criticism as 'Trump hatred' yet my criticism is about his actions. Another game ... trying to categorize my comments as emotional instead of logical. Instead of playing your little games, if you have a problem with my logic then provide a rebuttal that logically and factually deals with the substance of what I have argued. Your strawman arguments and deflections show an intent to merely be obnoxious rather than engage in actual debate.
Liberals crying wolf or Conservatives engaging in conspiracy theory is not inconvenient; it is irrelevant to the point.
As usual your comments grow increasingly personal (and fallacious). You have now moved from implied to direct. Best to stop with the personal crap.
Trump's effective power is a function of his support. If his supporters were to fall off then Congress would very likely stand up to Trump's damaging actions. They could, for example, curtail his irrational tariff policies. Trump himself is affected by his base. If he is praised he continues, if not, he demurs.
It was my conversation to start with. You don't get to hijack it. If you didn't want to talk about what I was talking about, you shouldn't have replied.
In review:
So we do... in fact... agree. Increasingly more emphatically it appears.
And if Harris had won the election and raised business taxes Trump haters would be singing their praises while his supporters would be whining about how they're passed through to the consumer and will prove inflationary.
Yes. Brainless political partisanship requires a healthy degree of hypocrisy, no matter which side the partisan supports. It has ever been thus.
If he were doing any of this in any sort of traditional way, you might have a point. But he isn't anywhere close, so it's impossible to say what the actual effects will be. There isn't any data on 48 hour tariffs. Or 10 day tariffs. Or "called off at the 11th hour" tariffs. It's like trying to predict the flight path of a bumble bee. So any doom and gloom or praise and glory is ridiculously premature.
As to this drum you continue to beat about damaged international relationships, you continue to ignore the fact that world leaders don't think like you or I do. It is far too early to know if or how any relationships may be damaged. Most of these countries are struggling with far, far more visible and meaningful problems than American tariffs.
Then you should have kept scrolling and let Robert and I have a conversation.
You certainly (and conveniently) have refused to acknowledge that this thing you're criticizing Trump for is, in fact, a longstanding practice among Democrats. I ask again, why is it so terrible when he does it but not when they do it?
The game here is you pretending it's about his actions when your comments are only ever critical.
Demonstrably false. The 3.2 thread was started by me! And note the sub-topic of the 3.2 thread:
And I was engaging with Robert; you are the one who chimed in. (Which, by the way, is perfectly acceptable.) Further, my response to you was directly focused on what you wrote and related to what Robert wrote. I did not use any of the dishonest tactics you have employed in this thread.
My arguments are always based on his actions (his words and his deeds as a public figure). And my comments are mostly critical (not always, pay attention) because the super majority of what Trump does deserves criticism.
Thus your comments yet again employ fabricated bullshit allegations.
Well it looks like we've agreed on tariffs, so now you're arguing about the argument.
I'm not interested in that. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Very well said and great reply.
Now you are projecting. My focus has always been on the point I made @3.2. The rest of this has been dealing with your tangents and attempts to be obnoxious.
You drove it!!
As I noted earlier, given we have no disagreement on tariffs and that you have no disagreement on the point I made, there was no point in you veering off into what liberals do, etc.
The NT "Tariff experts" were wrong about the reciprocal tariffs bringing business to the US.
I know it. And now the anger is overflowing.
You know, those pics look like somebody in and out of drag.
Well, she is questionable. I'm so glad she left the country. The other ugly bastard is angry because he may have to hire a lawyer.
Not everyone is enjoying the Goden Age.
She is desperately trying to keep herself relevant. Failing naturally but trying nonetheless.
He's angry because he was caught and stands a good chance of being held accountable.
Yup, Perjury and conspiracy can be serious offenses.
Do you know what else is serious? Mortgage fraud! That leads us to this one:
He's angry as well.
For some reason, can't really put my finger on it, something keeps telling me that Schiff will leave the country before facing charges.
Either that or he may try to hypnotize us.
Like the frog from Futurama? There is a striking resemblance.
Wrong about what?
I do not recall anyone saying that the USA is incapable of striking trade deals. Or that the Trump administration could not strike trade deals. The issue was the pointless bullying by Trump, which not only reduces trust in the USA but encourages trade partners to strategically become less dependent upon the USA given we have proved to the world that we will hand over the powers of the US presidency to a psychopath.
I've read the EU only agreed to this deal because they dont want Trump to turn his back on Ukraine. Extortion and bullying seems to be his m.o.
He is the most untrustworthy leader we have ever had.
[deleted][✘]
Where'd you read that? Google has nothing of the sort.......even CNN.
Interesting theory. All I could find was articles stating the US got the better deal, some saying it was to avoid the worst of Trump tariffs. Please supply a link that states it had something to do with Ukraine.
Be careful. I got a ticket for asking the same thing
So the Europeans are such cowards that they will screw over their entire population rather than step up for Ukraine? You may be right.
Yesterday morning on Maria Bartiromo:
MARIA: “Will we ever see anyone accountable for the incredible lie to the American People?”
TULSI: “We have whistleblowers coming now… who were so disgusted by what happened… because they too, like the American people, want justice delivered”.
Translation: We haven't figured out yet quite what we want them to say
Oh, it's a conspiracy?
Got it.
Cruella deVille wannabe.
"White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said alleged efforts by the Obama administration to smear President Donald Trump's win in 2016 is "truly one of the greatest scandals in American history." Her comments came after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Trump accused Barack Obama of pushing a false conspiracy about Russia's involvement in the election nearly a decade ago."
Obama fires back at White House 2016 election claims, calls them 'ridiculous'
Why are you quoting that idiot ?
Idiot must be your little euphemism for those who say things you'd rather not hear.
More name-calling. Are you pissed that a woman is way smarter than you
I seriously doubt that.
Why would anybody quote Obama?
So you are NOT pissed that a woman is smarter than you??
Sure sounds like it.
I'm happy with you not being smarter than me.
Highly subjective.....
And wrong
From what I have seen, it wasn't actually Obama that put out an X post, it was a rep at his office.
Something tells me he has advice not to say anything directly about this.
I doubt the ability to stay quiet is there.
You doubt a woman can be smarter than you? There is a name for that.
There are a lot of women smarter than me. Karoline Leavitt isnt one of them.
Wait, have they figured out what a woman is?
Lucky guess.
“Something tells me he has advice not to say anything directly about this.”
Or maybe the arrogant F is working hard on his 3rd, or 4th autobiography and just doesn’t have time to respond?
If he does say something, I'm sure somewhere and someone will reference the R word.
Go to insult for many on the left.
Why would he even need to respond to this dumb fuck conservative? This isn't a scandal. There is no "there" there. All they have is a "who what now?" and even that is too confusing for the poorly educated conservatives who are just whining, crying and chewing on their crayons like little babies. When Obama's staff responded, their use of the word "ridiculous" was being kind. They should have just called it what it was, a whole truck load of horse shit dribbling out of brain-dead moron sycophants' mouths as they bend over backwards to please their Lord and Master the Mango Mussolini.
Your rant sure shows that you are concerned that the roof is falling in on the leftist gods.
I am sure that if any of them are indicted and convicted of things they are accused, you will be leading the charge screaming that it is a witch hunt and probably something about race, etc.
You know, doing the same things the left had done to Trump for years.
Do you believe her??? Have you not noticed that she simply repeats Trump’s lies and obsequiously praises him as if he was a perfect emperor?
Just like the DEI hire Biden had at the end.
So she is doing her job and alot better than KJP ("Biden is as sharp as ever"). Personally I take what any press secretary says with a mound of salt. It is their job to spin, expecting unbiased truth from them is a fools errand. Listening or watching them is a waste of time. There is grass growing that needs to be watched.
I believe the new documents which she has released indicating that then President Obama asked Brennan, Clapper and Comey to find evidence in order to continue the Russia Collusion hoax. The new information shows what they did and how they are implicated.
I will give you credit. You are very knowledgeable in things that are true.
The fact that Putin actually interfered in the 2016 election by way of Fox and other right wing propaganda outlets is what far right fascists can't stand to wrap their tiny brains around.
All I hear is hateful words.
Karoline Gretel appears to be fattening up nicely. Fortunately for her, Witch Loomer is busy munching a dozen Hansels.
Oh, Commieda: After Canada Bans Christian Singer's Shows, Cops Allow Antifa Thugs to Throw Smoke Bombs – RedState
Good on us!
What's it like being misogynist?
I have no idea, enlighten me.
I'm not the one that posted this...
"Karoline Gretel appears to be fattening up nicely. Fortunately for her, Witch Loomer is busy munching a dozen Hansels."
“What's it like being misogynist?”
Exactly! We’ve all been “schooled” that saying anything negative about any single woman means we feel that way about ALL women. Lol
Apparently, it's (D)ifferent on here.
Evidence (actual evidence, not that BS the left push) shows otherwise.
The Entirety of the Whitehouse Communications Department has absolutely zero credibility. I wonder how she can lie so much without being strangulated by that cross around her neck.
She provided a trove of documents. They did all the talking.
She provided a bunch of documents?
A "trove" would indicate that there is actually something in them to back up what she and Tulsi Gabbard are lying about.
It is my understanding that these were not new documents. More like Bondi's when she handed out the "Epstein files" earlier this year. Given the track record of the Whitehouse, all members of the Cabinet along with any person involved directly with communications to the outside world to spew vicious lies, I would have to assume this is merely more of the same.
None of this is new, Gabbard is just desperately trying to reframe old news to make it look like a scandal so that she can take the heat off her boss. The facts show this as less than a nothing burger.
Fact 1. Neither the Obama administration or Hillary's campaign claim Russia had hacked the voting machines. They did claim Russia hacked the DNC (which was proved true) and ONLY released Democrat campaign emails in an effort to affect the election.
Fact 2. When Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails, they immediately complied.
Fact 3. Putin himself said when asked " did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” he replied “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.”.
The official ICA findings:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The assessment of a clear preference appears to be what some intelligence community groups admit they had no hard evidence for, it appears the "clear preference" was circumstantial based on Russia's attacks being directed at Hillary.
I accept the true motive of Putin was to disrupt "democratic order" and undermine our elections. I just believe Putin understood that the one thing that would disrupt "democratic order" most would be to help the least qualified joke of a candidate into the white house. And based on Putin's words and actions, that's exactly what he did.
None of this is new
tben show us when it was published that Putin withheld emails about Hillary’s mental health problems in order to protect her?
Also show us the ‘old news’ that Brennan overrode his given intel that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election and directed his agents to generate a report that said Russia helped Trump in the election.
Not put all of his egg into one basket. It is called hedging your bet.
"Protesters gathered in New York City to hold a “We’re With Colbert” rally on Sunday in support of the recently canned ” The Late Show” host.
The rally was held outside of the CBS Broadcast Center on Manhattan ‘s West Side, according to the New York Post. The outlet noted that only around 20 people showed up to the event, with most attendees — including the New York Police Department (NYPD) officers assigned to keep the peace — leaving shortly after it began."
NYC Protesters Organize A ‘We’re With Colbert’ Rally — But Only 20 People Showed Up
That may have been his entire audience.
Or all he could afford.
Must be nice having nothing else to worry about or do than "protest" that a vlogger program was shut down.
Out of work? most likely.
Everyone else was watching South Park for the nth time.
Read a story today about a group of about a dozen blacks attacked and beat the hell out of a white man and woman in Cincinnatti. Of course, the left wing media has ignored it, but you can sure as hell be assured that if the races were reversed, it would be on constant loop 24/7 on every left wing news channel and stories would be written for days in left wing papers.
Cincinnati police charge multiple suspects in viral downtown street fight | Fox News
If CNN had covered it they would have probably said a "group of about a dozen possibly whites attacked".
Or ‘a group of unknown race’ as the video of blacks beating them playing in the background