The trade and economy mega-thread (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Is there a trade deal with China? Is it really a deal or just a pull-back to status quo ante? Is Trump advancing US interests in this well-executed trade battle plan or was this poorly conceived from the start . . . and harmful?

I think the jury's still out, but I haven't seen that the Chinese are offering much in compromise - and it's not even clear if there's going to be an agreement. But it's clear they are working on something and I'm sure Trump will sell it as the greatest trade deal ever. The proof will be in the details.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Please feel free to ignore that which you do not like.

Nah. Unlike you, I have decided to acknowledge and interact with the world around me.

 

[TampaJoe]

Nah. Unlike you, I have decided to acknowledge and interact with the world around me.

Good luck.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Good luck.

Thanks, I'm gonna need it. You can't tell from your bubble, but things are getting crazy out here.

 

[Optimus Prime]

After spending most of the 2024 campaign blaming Democrats for inflation and insisting that tariffs don’t increase prices, Donald Trump and his allies have a new economic message: High prices are good.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for example, recently admitted to the Economic Club of New York that inflation-weary Americans could see a “one-time price adjustment” from Trump’s tariffs, but he quickly added that “access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.”

Representative Mark Alford of Missouri told CNN, “We all have a role to play in this to rightsize our government, and if I have to pay a little bit more for something, I’m all for it to get America right again.”

And Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick put his own spin on the argument, telling NBC News that, yes, prices on imports will rise, but American-made goods will get cheaper, and that’s what matters. (In fact, tariffs generally lead to price increases for imported and domestic goods, because the latter face less foreign-price competition.)

It’s true that affordable goods and services are not, on their own, the definition of the American dream. But they’re a necessary component of it, and trade is one of the most important drivers of that affordability. Until recently, Republicans understood this quite well.

American workers are also American consumers who must devote a sizable chunk of their income to essential goods such as clothing, food, shelter, and energy—goods made cheaper and more plentiful by international trade.

Produce and clothing from Latin America, lumber and energy from Canada, footwear and electronics from Asia, wine and cheese from Europe: All of these and more help Americans stretch their paychecks and live happier, healthier lives.

Thanks to the internet, moreover, we benefit from internationally traded services too, whether it’s an online tutor in Pakistan, a personal trainer in London, a help-desk employee in India, or an accountant in the Philippines. And we gain from better or cheaper domestic goods and services that are forced to compete with imports on quality or price.

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

Donald Trump’s allies have pivoted from denying that his tariffs will hurt consumers to insisting that consumers should welcome the pain.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[bird]

I was talking to my Canadian buddy today. He offered a gentleman’s bet of one dollar that Trump will try to get the U.S. to default on its debt.

Sadly, that would not surprise me.

 

[MT15]

After spending most of the 2024 campaign blaming Democrats for inflation and insisting that tariffs don’t increase prices, Donald Trump and his allies have a new economic message: High prices are good.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for example, recently admitted to the Economic Club of New York that inflation-weary Americans could see a “one-time price adjustment” from Trump’s tariffs, but he quickly added that “access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.”

Representative Mark Alford of Missouri told CNN, “We all have a role to play in this to rightsize our government, and if I have to pay a little bit more for something, I’m all for it to get America right again.”

And Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick put his own spin on the argument, telling NBC News that, yes, prices on imports will rise, but American-made goods will get cheaper, and that’s what matters. (In fact, tariffs generally lead to price increases for imported and domestic goods, because the latter face less foreign-price competition.)

It’s true that affordable goods and services are not, on their own, the definition of the American dream. But they’re a necessary component of it, and trade is one of the most important drivers of that affordability. Until recently, Republicans understood this quite well.

American workers are also American consumers who must devote a sizable chunk of their income to essential goods such as clothing, food, shelter, and energy—goods made cheaper and more plentiful by international trade.

Produce and clothing from Latin America, lumber and energy from Canada, footwear and electronics from Asia, wine and cheese from Europe: All of these and more help Americans stretch their paychecks and live happier, healthier lives.

Thanks to the internet, moreover, we benefit from internationally traded services too, whether it’s an online tutor in Pakistan, a personal trainer in London, a help-desk employee in India, or an accountant in the Philippines. And we gain from better or cheaper domestic goods and services that are forced to compete with imports on quality or price.

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

Donald Trump’s allies have pivoted from denying that his tariffs will hurt consumers to insisting that consumers should welcome the pain.

www.theatlantic.com

We really need a vomit emoji under posts like these.

 

[UriUT]

Lol it's like a broken record. Attempt to move the issue (profit is THE driving factor) to something more palatable ( it's A factor, but other factors and social responsibility is just as important).

Not one person here said they "can't be socially responsible". Every top 500 company has an entire division for projecting social responsibility. It's called marketing.

But everything a corporation does is for one reason only...profitability.

If the division you worked in for your company wasn't profitable, it gets shut down. If your division had 100 employees and 50 get repurposed and 50 laid off, where is the social responsibility for the 50 laid off? Severance pay?

What's missing here is that that company intentionally reduced revenue in order to give the appearance that that company is swimming in the red. It allowed the richest shareholders to gobble more of that company.

Back in the 2000s, a republican strategist admitted publicly that this was the strategy. Cut revenue and force dems to make cuts. Reaganites were convinced that government spending would fall off the cliff with social spending. After Clinton created a surplus in the government balance, these fools decided to give tax breaks to the wealthy and created a recession along with a huge deficit.

I can post the deficit graphs from the feds but this is more convenient.

The U.S. Economy Performs Better Under Democratic Presidents - The U.S. Economy Performs Better Under Democratic Presidents - United States Joint Economic Committee

www.jec.senate.gov

The U.S. economy has performed much better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents in the modern era. In almost every measure of the U.S. economy including total job growth, unemployment, economic growth, manufacturing job growth, manufacturing investment, small business creation, and contribution to the national debt, economic performance is stronger under Democrats.

And I've posted in the past about reagan's tax cut. The first caused a huge deficit, resulting in an immediate recession. So quickly in fact that he quietly rescinded them. The only thing he did was made tax cuts popular. This isn't to say, tax cuts per se is bad. After all, Kennedy's was great because Americans at the time was overburden. We've since swung the pendulum completely the other way towards a 2nd gilded age.

That's the thing with responsible governance. You deficit spend when the economy is down and save or repay when the economy is great. Governments don't have only to spend on "profitable" sectors. We ve been quite successful with social democracy. Europeans prove that more social programs can work still. Somehow, people like that dude believes that we should keep giving billionaires more yachts instead of investing in the people that it governs. Crazy...like feeding kids at school....one of the biggest contributor on low performance is hunger. But these asshats who cannot even open a book much less be inquisitive enough to read about the first gilded age are telling us that core human nature are basically altruistic. That Rockefeller is the philanthropist while ignoring his prior business practices. And the biggest stinker he tells himself? Hey individuals and corps will be socially responsible. Then turns around and he himself labels social programs as entitlements negatively. Hows that for hypocrisy. Individuals will act morally, but not him. What a load of crap. Americans are one of the most productive in the world. Yet it's common to have two bread earners in a household. Adding salt on that, now these types are telling workers they need to work harder and longer. But we deserve it. Because it's more common to have types like them in America than folks who do wish well on others and see collective progress in helping and valuing potential in the most vulnerable of us.

God I hate this age of hyper-individualism. "I pulled myself up from my bootstrap"...forgetting that the government programs like the gi bill, Medicare, roads, free education, etc were given to them.

 

[efil4]

What's missing here is that that company intentionally reduced revenue in order to give the appearance that that company is swimming in the red. It allowed the richest shareholders to gobble more of that company.

Back in the 2000s, a republican strategist admitted publicly that this was the strategy. Cut revenue and force dems to make cuts. Reaganites were convinced that government spending would fall off the cliff with social spending. After Clinton created a surplus in the government balance, these fools decided to give tax breaks to the wealthy and created a recession along with a huge deficit.

I can post the deficit graphs from the feds but this is more convenient.

The U.S. Economy Performs Better Under Democratic Presidents - The U.S. Economy Performs Better Under Democratic Presidents - United States Joint Economic Committee

www.jec.senate.gov

And I've posted in the past about reagan's tax cut. The first caused a huge deficit, resulting in an immediate recession. So quickly in fact that he quietly rescinded them. The only thing he did was made tax cuts popular. This isn't to say, tax cuts per se is bad. After all, Kennedy's was great because Americans at the time was overburden. We've since swung the pendulum completely the other way towards a 2nd gilded age.

That's the thing with responsible governance. You deficit spend when the economy is down and save or repay when the economy is great. Governments don't have only to spend on "profitable" sectors. We ve been quite successful with social democracy. Europeans prove that more social programs can work still. Somehow, people like that dude believes that we should keep giving billionaires more yachts instead of investing in the people that it governs. Crazy...like feeding kids at school....one of the biggest contributor on low performance is hunger. But these asshats who cannot even open a book much less be inquisitive enough to read about the first gilded age are telling us that core human nature are basically altruistic. That Rockefeller is the philanthropist while ignoring his prior business practices. And the biggest stinker he tells himself? Hey individuals and corps will be socially responsible. Then turns around and he himself labels social programs as entitlements negatively. Hows that for hypocrisy. Individuals will act morally, but not him. What a load of crap. Americans are one of the most productive in the world. Yet it's common to have two bread earners in a household. Adding salt on that, now these types are telling workers they need to work harder and longer. But we deserve it. Because it's more common to have types like them in America than folks who do wish well on others and see collective progress in helping and valuing potential in the most vulnerable of us.

God I hate this age of hyper-individualism. "I pulled myself up from my bootstrap"...forgetting that the government programs like the gi bill, Medicare, roads, free education, etc were given to them.

plus-un!

not to mention the "national security aspect" of having a well established, collective citizenry.

We have entered an era of entitlement simply because we are American? I do think its limited by age- as i definitely notice those over 60 tend to have this same outlook.

 

[wardorican]

I cant believe (ok, I can) yall argued about how corporations are like for days.

Just move on. Lol.

 

[UriUT]

plus-un!

not to mention the "national security aspect" of having a well established, collective citizenry.

We have entered an era of entitlement simply because we are American? I do think its limited by age- as i definitely notice those over 60 tend to have this same outlook.

Using colleges as an example. During my time, I didn't quite have the competition these kids have today. Thats not 30 years ago. College space/supplies more or less are unchanged while population growth has exploded. My nieces and nephews are facing incredible odds just to get into good schools...and will be paying dearly for them. And I told them I wouldn't get accepted with my credentials today.

 

[efil4]

I cant believe (ok, I can) yall argued about how corporations are like for days.

Just move on. Lol.

i think its a worthy conversation to have, especially today, where corporations wield as much power and influence as they do. Especially with respect to the economic future of the country both financially and politically.

 

[wardorican]

i think its a worthy conversation to have, especially today, where corporations wield as much power and influence as they do. Especially with respect to the economic future of the country both financially and politically.

To a point. Then it's just talking in circles. But, that's just my opinion. No one has to agree with it.

 

[efil4]

Using colleges as an example. During my time, I didn't quite have the competition these kids have today. Thats not 30 years ago. College space/supplies more or less are unchanged while population growth has exploded. My nieces and nephews are facing incredible odds just to get into good schools...and will be paying dearly for them. And I told them I wouldn't get accepted with my credentials today.

that "competition" is manufactured imo. They only "want" the 30 ACT score, the top 1% of HS grads etc etc. To give the impression that they are elite. And im sure there are contingents in every college across the US that indeed have some of the top echelon of kids.

Shoot, i got news for ya-many of the Fraternities and Sororities are now employing same entry requirements ( grades/act scores etc )



My oldest is a junior at SELU. Between her ACT scores ( TOPS ) and academic scholarships, we pay a grand total of $700~/YR for her education ( Tuition runs about $15k/annual ) and she is getting an education on par with that of any other State school for her discipline ( education ). Now, there is certainly a "reputational" aspect to attend a school like LSU, especially if you plan to remain in Louisiana. Folks are tribal and loyal, so there is that element, when it comes to job applicants and hiring. But if the hiring is done simply on merits, my daughter holding a 3.9 GPA at SELU is no different than if she held a 3.9 at LSU.

and FWIW, i still remember dropping off my moms check to the bursar office for my semester fees- 15-18 hrs - $1300-$1500~ LOL

15-18 hrs TODAY? $7k.

 

[UriUT]

that "competition" is manufactured imo. They only "want" the 30 ACT score, the top 1% of HS grads etc etc. To give the impression that they are elite. And im sure there are contingents in every college across the US that indeed have some of the top echelon of kids.

Shoot, i got news for ya-many of the Fraternities and Sororities are now employing same entry requirements ( grades/act scores etc )



My oldest is a junior at SELU. Between her ACT scores ( TOPS ) and academic scholarships, we pay a grand total of $700~/YR for her education ( Tuition runs about $15k/annual ) and she is getting an education on par with that of any other State school for her discipline ( education ). Now, there is certainly a "reputational" aspect to attend a school like LSU, especially if you plan to remain in Louisiana. Folks are tribal and loyal, so there is that element, when it comes to job applicants and hiring. But if the hiring is done simply on merits, my daughter holding a 3.9 GPA at SELU is no different than if she held a 3.9 at LSU.

and FWIW, i still remember dropping off my moms check to the bursar office for my semester fees- 15-18 hrs - $1300-$1500~ LOL

15-18 hrs TODAY? $7k.

I don't know. I guess manufactured elitism plays a part. But there are limited space and much much more applicants. Take ut austin for example. They can increase beyond the roughly 50k, but that adds so much overhead and space that they don't have. I can understand intro courses w 500+ students, but 1000 is obscene. California does a good job with this. They routinely have multiple elite public colleges.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don't know. I guess manufactured elitism plays a part. But there are limited space and much much more applicants. Take ut austin for example. They can increase beyond the roughly 50k, but that adds so much overhead and space that they don't have. I can understand intro courses w 500+ students, but 1000 is obscene. California does a good job with this. They routinely have multiple elite public colleges.

This topic is hitting close to home... I'm probably going to end up sending my son to a Jesuit school in California - and it's roughly a billion dollars a year.

 

[UriUT]

This topic is hitting close to home... I'm probably going to end up sending my son to a Jesuit school in California - and it's roughly a billion dollars a year.

I feel for you. Friend's kid got accepted. It's a relief...that she didn't have to look at texas a&m But seriously though competitions intense. Parents are prepping their kids for the act/sat early, and kumon is common. It's really wild.

 

[Dragon]

Imagine I was the CEO of a major company producing an item—let’s call it AnItem. In order to manufacture AnItem efficiently, I invested heavily in a set of highly sophisticated machines. These machines were incredibly expensive, so to save costs elsewhere, I rented a rundown building at a bargain price to house them.

At first, everything ran smoothly. The machines operated at peak performance, my production lines churned out AnItem at full capacity, and customers were pleased with the quality. Orders flooded in, and profits soared.

But the initial investment had drained my funds, so after a few months, I made what seemed like a smart financial decision—I laid off my experienced and costly maintenance team and instead hired the neighbor’s son to handle upkeep. He was young, eager, and, most importantly, cheap.

For a while, nothing seemed amiss. The machines still ran, the orders were still fulfilled, and my bottom line looked better than ever. But slowly, problems crept in. The machines weren’t cleaned or calibrated properly. Small malfunctions went unnoticed. When the old roof began leaking, I ignored it—after all, fixing it would eat into my profits.

Then, the decline accelerated. Quality dropped, customers complained, and delays mounted. To keep up with demand, I pushed the machines harder, running them 24/7 without pause. One by one, the expensive machines broke down. Without proper maintenance, they deteriorated rapidly. I couldn’t afford replacements, and production ground to a halt. In the end, the company folded.

Now, let’s consider a different perspective. Instead of machines, imagine humans.

Like machines, humans need maintenance. They need rest, care, and a safe environment. Yet, in the corporate world, this basic logic is ignored. Companies invest in expensive technology, monitor machine efficiency, and schedule routine upkeep, yet they neglect the workers who keep everything running. Employees are overworked, denied time to recharge, and pushed to their breaking points. When they falter—when stress, exhaustion, and poor working conditions take their toll—they are cast aside, just like a broken-down machine.

The irony is glaring. Businesses readily acknowledge the necessity of machine maintenance but fail to see that human upkeep is just as vital. In the end, whether it’s a neglected machine or an overworked employee, the result is the same—inevitable breakdown and collapse.

Perhaps it’s time we rethink what truly keeps a business running.

 

[efil4]

I feel for you. Friend's kid got accepted. It's a relief...that she didn't have to look at texas a&m But seriously though competitions intense. Parents are prepping their kids for the act/sat early, and kumon is common. It's really wild.

They have local ACT/SAT tutors that go for $2000 + that guarantee +3-5 pts on ACT and they are never not busy.

Parents are paying $2000 + for 2-3 sessions to have child get an extra 3-5 pts on ACT - not to mention what you noted above as well.

And there is also an element of pressure from the parent(s) on having a child accepted to a certain school - be it reputational ( as if their acceptance is a comment on their parenting ability or genetics ) or simply braggin rights. Its all around nuts.

I will say, when my now college junior was looking at prospective schools, we were told that schools are trending away from ACT/SAT and looking more at the 4 year HS transcripts to get a better idea of student. They understand standardized testing isnt for all and some kids carrying 3.9 gpas from 9-12 grade, yet score a 24 on test- that 24 is NOT a good indicator of the type of student he/she is.

My youngest is dyslexic. Test taking/long reads have always been an issue for her. As she has gotten older, with therapy ( in last year of 3 year therapy thank goodness ) she has gotten so much better, but the baseline was so low, its an issue. Add to it her "confidence" is ( and never will be ) all that very high, and any long form test gives her the heebie jeebies and she psyches herself out before the actual test anyway.

Yet she puts in the hard work and currently carries a 3.75 GPA since 8th grade.

But i get from a college perspective- you get 100,000 applicants, you simply cannot vet each individual student; it would take months they dont have to "accept or deny". So test scores are one way to thin the herd. GPA is another.

Side note- good friends of ours daughter got accepted to Texas. I almost passed out at annual cost.