Who really believes tariffs are good business

G

Guest

Guest
I still think some of us are looking at an effect, not the cause.

The cause is US business. A increasingly common trait with all the big US majors for the last decade or so has been an obsessive greed for more and more profit. They created the made in China model,  and I would bet my left nut that this alone has been the cause for the largest loss of manufacturing jobs in the US in the last decade or so.

An honest and frank assessment needs to be made to identify the root cause/s first. The US just bitching about a economic power bloc escaping the bonds created by the US to maximise the profit for US businesses?  

Methinks thou protesteth too much about the wrong thing.
I agree with this.  I don't think US business greed is THE only cause, but I think its a significant driver.  The issue is that its become ALL about short term gain and profits.  There is little long term planning going on.  Its about the next quarter's PNL.  And this short-sighted greed IS having a huge effect on the labor market and the inequality gap we are seeing.

 

Ishmael

52,412
12,232
Fuctifino
An interesting read regarding America's ongoing decline...https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-will-not-forget-how-it-was-treated-by-trump/

The chickens could come home to roost. Mr. Trump seeks to limit Chinese exports and Chinese theft of intellectual property. One way to do that would be to sign on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was designed to counterbalance Chinese influence. Another would be to develop a common front with the European Union. A third would be to work with other major actors, such as India.

But Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the TPP, he repeatedly attacks the European Union – “I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade” – and on Monday, he threatened a trade war with India.

As for Canada and Mexico, under a different president the three countries of North America could work together to contain China where necessary, and co-operate with it where possible.

But the Trump administration is going to have to go it alone on China. It no longer has any friends. And that includes Canada.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Ish, you DO realize that Hillary was going to pull the US out of the TPP as well, right?

 
G

Guest

Guest
Ish, you DO realize that Hillary was going to pull the US out of the TPP as well, right?
That is what I heard, but it really doesn't matter. Hillary lost. 
YOu're right.  She did lose.  But you heard it FROM her, she campaigned on pulling the plug on TPP.  Reluctantly and late in the game of course.  But she did.  So Assuming she wasn't just lying, the end result would have been the same irregardless of who won.

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,209
I agree with this.  I don't think US business greed is THE only cause, but I think its a significant driver.  The issue is that its become ALL about short term gain and profits.  There is little long term planning going on.  Its about the next quarter's PNL.  And this short-sighted greed IS having a huge effect on the labor market and the inequality gap we are seeing.
The problem isn't greed, we've always had greed, it helped us win WWII by outmanufacturing the world, it helped us become the global economic superpower.

The problem is the Harvard Business School model of short term profit taking. It has spread like a cancer through American business and industry. Short term profits are WHY we shipped our production floors to Asia, it's why we will want to save 10 cents on the rope that is used to hang us.

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,209
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
You've got it backwards Jeffreaux. the rest of the world has been subsidizing the US economy and that era's coming to an end. ride that cushy expat job into the sunset brochacho.
Wait, how has the world subsidized our economy?

Do you mean that the world has been buying stuff from us? That ain't a subsidy, sister sally. That's commerce.

A subsidy is when one country puts a chunk of tax money into programs that allow other countries to advance themselves without needing to spend as much of their own tax money on the thing that is receiving the subsidy from the other country.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
The problem isn't greed, we've always had greed, it helped us win WWII by outmanufacturing the world, it helped us become the global economic superpower.

The problem is the Harvard Business School model of short term profit taking. It has spread like a cancer through American business and industry. Short term profits are WHY we shipped our production floors to Asia, it's why we will want to save 10 cents on the rope that is used to hang us.
Exactly. I think I already said that exact thing. 

 
G

Guest

Guest
Wait, how has the world subsidized our economy?

Do you mean that the world has been buying stuff from us? That ain't a subsidy, sister sally. That's commerce.

A subsidy is when one country puts a chunk of tax money into programs that allow other countries to advance themselves without needing to spend as much of their own tax money on the thing that is receiving the subsidy from the other country.
Yeah, it was called the Marshall Plan. That was a subsidy. 

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,293
5,495
De Nile
YOu're right.  She did lose.  But you heard it FROM her, she campaigned on pulling the plug on TPP.  Reluctantly and late in the game of course.  But she did.  So Assuming she wasn't just lying, the end result would have been the same irregardless of who won.
Regardless. Please.

unless you like being clunky:

Irregardless is a nonstandard synonym for regardless, which means “without concern as to advice, warning, or hardship,” or “heedless.” Its nonstandard status is due to the double negative construction of the prefix ir- with the suffix -less. ... The bottom line is that irregardless is indeed a word, albeit a clunky one.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
Whole lotta truth in that.  And I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that NAFTA alone was responsible for offshoring jobs.  But I think it did open pandora's box, the floodgates or whatever other cliche fits.  It was inevitable - globalization was going to happen and as you say it needed to happen.  Building a moat around the US wasn't the answer.

I'm simply saying that despite all the promises and lip service - we DID leave behind a significant chunk of the electorate with no real plan to get them into the innovation economy.  In fact we went one step worse than that:  I could see a decision being made to let that generation age out as not being "savable".  But we doomed their kids to worse by taking an education system that was once the envy of the world and turned it into a joke that puts people even deeper into poverty, except for the fortunate few who can afford to move where the schools are decent.  Had we made an investment in the kids of the lost manufacturing job parents, we could have given them a chance.  

I believe this ^^ issue of collectively shrugging our shoulders to several generations of the parents and kids in the midwest, the rustbelt and all the areas hard hit by loss of jobs to the global economy was DIRECTLY responsible for trump coming to power.  I think it had very little to do with Hillary and everything to do with rolling the dice on something different.  A different approach, a different style, something, anything.  These people - the deplorables - had and still have nothing to lose. Its why they doggedly still cling to him despite these YGBFSM moments when cheeto has his tourettes episodes.  Because NO ONE so far has shown them there is anything better.  

And I've said it before and I'll say it again..... if you continue to ignore these people and write them off as nothing but uneducated bumpkins.... you will end up with more Trumps.  And at the moment, our only saving grace is that trump is too stupid and narcissistic to STFU.  Imagine if we had someone as morally bereft as trump, but with actual intelligence and cunning not to be so fucking obvious about it???  Now THAT would be truly scary.  


Yes, like my grandpappy tried to tell me.."Don't be calling people stupid unless ya wants them to try to do something stupid to ya." Too bad for me that for a long time I took that as a guide for getting people to try to do exactly that...but it is what it was. I'd say the stupid have done something really really fucking stupid now. Hope they have worked some of that bile out anyway. 

  The road of those who see things must change and have a plan to do that is unfortunately much tougher than the road for those who simply tell people what they want to hear. The Clintons did a poor job of modifying DeVito's "Buggy whip" speech to something suitable for the Lil' Abners out there, left the door open for a Trump to show up. 

That said...there has to be some sort of happy medium in there somewhere. Have to deliver the bad news with a plan, and emphasis on the plan. Unfortunately there has to be the gentle but firm assertion that some people are ignorant in there somewhere too. That takes time for explanerating. Have to get away from the sound-bite addicted press to do much of that or they will fuck ya every time. 

 

Nailing Malarkey Too

Super Anarchist
2,001
64
That would make more sense.

Applying tariffs to raw materials such as steel & aluminium increases local costs to manufacture finished goods but does nothing to affect the price of imported finished goods. So the only people who make money/sell more stuff are the steel & aluminium mills while all other domestic manufacturers end up further behind.

It's stupid.

FKT
Liberal loons tell us that what is good for Business is usually bad for workers. Now what is good for business is their mantra and they ignore what is good for workers. 

Tariffs have a place. So do trade agreements and free trade. But free trade must be "Free" it rarely is. China is the poster boy for one way free. 

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,209
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
So, like many Chinese manufactured goods? Much of the electronics manufacturing industry in SEAsia? 

FYI - there are many more subsidies than just "tax money". 
The Chinese and Asian manufactured goods would be "commerce." They offer to sell us a product or service, we decide if we would like to purchase that product or service.

I come from a generation of people, who oddly, use specific words to describe specific things. A "subsidy" is not the same thing as "commerce."

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,209
Regardless. Please.

unless you like being clunky:

Irregardless is a nonstandard synonym for regardless, which means “without concern as to advice, warning, or hardship,” or “heedless.” Its nonstandard status is due to the double negative construction of the prefix ir- with the suffix -less. ... The bottom line is that irregardless is indeed a word, albeit a clunky one.
I had a boss once who said "we should all strive to be the kind of people who never use words like 'irregardless.'"

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,209
Yeah, it was called the Marshall Plan. That was a subsidy. 
That was a subsidy, a very well-thought and well-executed subsidy.

Arguably, our military presence in peaceful places far from our shores are sometimes subsidies. Australia for instance, is able to spend less money on defense and more on infrastructure development due to the subsidies from the U.S. taxpayers to pay for an American presence in their area. We do get some benefit from it too though, so it's not a 100% subsidy.

 

SloopJonB

Super Anarchist
68,710
12,363
Great Wet North
BillDBastard said:
Except I am not a Trumpian. Didn't vote for him and thinks he has lowered the dignity of The Office in which he serves. But aside from that, I'm all in I guess.
Yeah, we know - you didn't vote for him, never liked him and don't support him.

And Hillary was worse.

 

SloopJonB

Super Anarchist
68,710
12,363
Great Wet North
That was a subsidy, a very well-thought and well-executed subsidy.
The Marshall Plan was very likely the most generous action by a nation in the history of the world. It also prevented a bunch of further wars caused the way WW I reparations caused WW II.

I'm sure Trump and these Republicans would do the same in similar circumstances. :rolleyes:

 

warbird

Super Anarchist
16,600
1,346
lake michigan
 I come from a generation of people, who oddly, use specific words to describe specific things. A "subsidy" is not the same thing as "commerce."
I might point out also that a (subsidy) tax break/incentive available to numerous industries should not be used to suggest "one" industry get unfair advantage.

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,639
1,209
The Marshall Plan was very likely the most generous action by a nation in the history of the world. It also prevented a bunch of further wars caused the way WW I reparations caused WW II.

I'm sure Trump and these Republicans would do the same in similar circumstances. :rolleyes:
Yeah, it might have even prevented WWIII. But that was from a time in our country when we didn't actively mock and insult intelligence, when people like General Marshall, who had real expertise, didn't have to scream above the fray of politically-motivated disinformation.

Of course, it was also the era of McCarthyism and outright racism, so we have made some progress since then.

 




Top