Is Trumps end goal to erode wealth?

8,763 Views | 85 Replies | Last: 18 days ago by YouBet
Deputy Travis Junior
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 5:38p, 2/2/25
YouBet said:
IowaAg07 said:
I didn't realize Keynesian was a derogatory word now. Can you help me understand what has replaced it? I don't have a degree in economics but I do have an MBA and try to follow markets, so if there's some other school of thought we should be following I'm interested.
It should be derogatory. Dude was not even an economist, but his theories allowed governments to justify spending into perpetuity.

Unfortunately, nothing has replaced it yet.

The other school of thought is the Austrian School of Economics.


To be fair, the policies Keynes proposed were light years from what we're actually doing today. Keynes said spend/stimulate during the bad times and then roll back that stimulus + pay off the related debts during the good times (this isn't that bad). He didn't say stimulate during the bad times, keep those simulative policies around during the boom times, and then add even more stimulus during the next recession in a snowballing cycle that will eventually have the country running ~6% deficits when unemployment is under 4 freaking percent.
Reply Quote
2
JDCAG (NOT Colin)
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TTUArmy • 6:41p, 2/2/25
AG
TTUArmy said:
IowaAg07 said:
I wasn't a fan of Biden's policies either. I'm a registered Independent and I'm frustrated with the crap both parties are bringing forward. I find it funny that posters are being made fun of for being "traditional Republicans" - I believe in smaller Federal government, which I thought most Republicans did too until Trump came along. Trump did nothing to curb spending even when he had all the power the first time, and Biden definitely didn't either.

Being for or against Biden or for or against Trump has nothing to do with being for or against tariffs. Not a single pro-tariff poster has put together an argument that is honest about the impact of tariffs but is willing to trade it for the trade benefits. It's either a negotiation tactic or it magically won't hit the consumer prices.


How much in tariffs do we pay other countries to export our goods? I don't hear a lot of people pissing and moaning about us eating those costs.


What?
Reply Quote
4
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to IowaAg07 • 7:13p, 2/2/25
AG
IowaAg07 said:
I wasn't a fan of Biden's policies either. I'm a registered Independent and I'm frustrated with the crap both parties are bringing forward. I find it funny that posters are being made fun of for being "traditional Republicans" - I believe in smaller Federal government, which I thought most Republicans did too until Trump came along. Trump did nothing to curb spending even when he had all the power the first time, and Biden definitely didn't either.

Being for or against Biden or for or against Trump has nothing to do with being for or against tariffs. Not a single pro-tariff poster has put together an argument that is honest about the impact of tariffs but is willing to trade it for the trade benefits. It's either a negotiation tactic or it magically won't hit the consumer prices.


We still do, but some of us are resigned to the reality that cutting spending is a pipe dream. Trump can't cut spending enough to make it matter. That ship has sailed. We aren't getting out from under our debt. Ever. It will implode and we will go down with that ship.

Neither party will/can touch mandatory spending. Our debt payment line item is now the second largest line item by itself. That leaves you discretionary spending which is about $1.8T. Our deficit is $1.8T.

Thus, just to break even for one year we would have to cut all discretionary spending. Never happen. Then on top of that you would have to maintain those cuts going forward through all subsequent administrations. We will solve light speed travel before that happens.

Regarding tariffs, it's absolutely a negotiating tactic by Trump; it will also result in higher prices while it's going on. Both are true. He's banking on other governments caving because they can't outlast us.
Reply Quote
4
TTUArmy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JDCAG (NOT Colin) • 8:34p, 2/2/25
JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
TTUArmy said:
IowaAg07 said:
I wasn't a fan of Biden's policies either. I'm a registered Independent and I'm frustrated with the crap both parties are bringing forward. I find it funny that posters are being made fun of for being "traditional Republicans" - I believe in smaller Federal government, which I thought most Republicans did too until Trump came along. Trump did nothing to curb spending even when he had all the power the first time, and Biden definitely didn't either.

Being for or against Biden or for or against Trump has nothing to do with being for or against tariffs. Not a single pro-tariff poster has put together an argument that is honest about the impact of tariffs but is willing to trade it for the trade benefits. It's either a negotiation tactic or it magically won't hit the consumer prices.
How much in tariffs do we pay other countries to export our goods? I don't hear a lot of people pissing and moaning about us eating those costs.
What?
I probably could have worded that better. Every country in the world uses tariffs; some more onerous than others.
Here's a wiki list of countries with tariff rates.

Many of these countries use tariffs to offset the cost of imported goods. It's a subsidy. Otherwise, they couldn't afford the goods. That subsidy is a loss for manufacturers; unless they can find another way to make it up somewhere else. Usually, the manufacturer's country of origin is on the hook to square up the trade imbalance through higher prices of the same goods.

What if a trade partner is hitting you with an unfair tariff already because they want you to fund their socialist utopia or government grift? If I told you it's been happening for decades, would you believe me? Why do so many Americans go north or south of the borders for medications they can get right here at home? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because we subsidize it. How? Take a wild guess... Piss and moan about things we already piss and moan about.

Reply Quote
1
Heineken-Ashi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Deputy Travis Junior • 8:59p, 2/2/25
Deputy Travis Junior said:
YouBet said:
IowaAg07 said:
I didn't realize Keynesian was a derogatory word now. Can you help me understand what has replaced it? I don't have a degree in economics but I do have an MBA and try to follow markets, so if there's some other school of thought we should be following I'm interested.
It should be derogatory. Dude was not even an economist, but his theories allowed governments to justify spending into perpetuity.

Unfortunately, nothing has replaced it yet.

The other school of thought is the Austrian School of Economics.


To be fair, the policies Keynes proposed were light years from what we're actually doing today. Keynes said spend/stimulate during the bad times and then roll back that stimulus + pay off the related debts during the good times (this isn't that bad). He didn't say stimulate during the bad times, keep those simulative policies around during the boom times, and then add even more stimulus during the next recession in a snowballing cycle that will eventually have the country running ~6% deficits when unemployment is under 4 freaking percent.
Fair. Keynesians are not Keynes. But the longest running critique of Keynes by Austrians is the slippery slope that Keynesian economics allows, as it ignores human nature.
Reply Quote
3
IowaAg07
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 10:08p, 2/2/25
AG
This is fair and I understand the sentiment, even if I disagree that the right course of action is to just keep spending until we crash. No politician is going to get elected with an austerity agenda, but the Republicans at least used to pretend to care about reigning in spending and the deficit. Now they just make fun of people for wanting that, I guess.

So to bring it full circle - in your mind, what specific goal is Trump trying to achieve and how will tariffs help that situation? You say other countries will cave, but cave to what demands? In my mind, the main country we need to cave on anything is China, and I don't believe they're going to make any concessions that matter - trade practices, intellectual property, hacking, de-escalation in the Pacific, or strategic partnerships.
Reply Quote
3
IowaAg07
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TTUArmy • 10:16p, 2/2/25
AG
Do you notice which countries on your list have high tariffs vs which ones have low tariffs? That link further reincores my point - very few developed countries have tariffs over a couple percent, even if they do technically have tariffs. It's because it's not productive.
Reply Quote
5
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to IowaAg07 • 9:58a, 2/3/25
AG
IowaAg07 said:
This is fair and I understand the sentiment, even if I disagree that the right course of action is to just keep spending until we crash. No politician is going to get elected with an austerity agenda, but the Republicans at least used to pretend to care about reigning in spending and the deficit. Now they just make fun of people for wanting that, I guess.

So to bring it full circle - in your mind, what specific goal is Trump trying to achieve and how will tariffs help that situation? You say other countries will cave, but cave to what demands? In my mind, the main country we need to cave on anything is China, and I don't believe they're going to make any concessions that matter - trade practices, intellectual property, hacking, de-escalation in the Pacific, or strategic partnerships.


Don't get me wrong. I don't think continued spending is the right course of action, at all. It's stupid. I just dont think there is much to do about it at this point. The math is too for gone and out of our control.

55% of the populace pays nothing into the system. Many of those actually get money back and have negative tax rates. The near-term catastrophic pain we would have to endure to get this under control would not be tolerated by the country.

I still think Trumps tariffs are primarily Art of the Deal to affect change of the status quo and less about using tariffs as long-term policy.

Columbia caved, Panama caved over the weekend, sounds like Mexico is partially caving right now. Trump is speaking with Trudeau today. May see some caving out of that.
Reply Quote
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14a, 2/3/25
AG
And Mexico has caved. Already.
Reply Quote
2
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 11:32a, 2/3/25
DOGE and Elon's boys are literally finding billions of waste and corruption.

there will be cuts

perhaps offset by covering the cost of making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, but there will absolutely be cuts in government spending.
Reply Quote
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 12:18p, 2/3/25
AG
LMCane said:
DOGE and Elon's boys are literally finding billions of waste and corruption.

there will be cuts

perhaps offset by covering the cost of making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, but there will absolutely be cuts in government spending.


Yes, but will it move the needle enough? That's the question. It will have to be a big, far-reaching needle that is permanent.
Reply Quote
Gordo14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 3:35p, 2/3/25
YouBet said:
And Mexico has caved. Already.


https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-honduras-guatemala-increase-troops-along-borders-white-house-official-2021-04-12/

Check the date of this headline. And we didn't even threaten a trade war sending the stock market down 2% at open. Master negotiator.

We get 10,000 Mexican national guard at the border for a photo op and the illusion that Mexico caved. Now we can deal with the real problem child, Canada. Maybe they'll send 5,000 mounties to the border.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Gordo14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Heineken-Ashi • 3:42p, 2/3/25
Heineken-Ashi said:
Your Keynesian love is known. We're going a new direction now. No anounts of insults and temper tantrums toward the president is going to change that. History will judge.


I actually trade commodities across borders for a living (with Canada ironically enough). I probably am just a Keynesian lover.
Reply Quote
1
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gordo14 • 5:06p, 2/3/25
AG
Gordo14 said:
YouBet said:
And Mexico has caved. Already.


https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-honduras-guatemala-increase-troops-along-borders-white-house-official-2021-04-12/

Check the date of this headline. And we didn't even threaten a trade war sending the stock market down 2% at open. Master negotiator.

We get 10,000 Mexican national guard at the border for a photo op and the illusion that Mexico caved. Now we can deal with the real problem child, Canada. Maybe they'll send 5,000 mounties to the border.
Which do you think is the more likely photo op? This done under Biden or what Trump will secure here? Some of us remember fake photo ops by AOC and other Dems at the border under Biden. The Democrats were open border advocates who hand waved security; Trump is the opposite. Look at the numbers.

In that regard, history has already shown you are wrong, and we aren't even to the final deal yet.

And Canada has become a problem with illegal immigration. Obviously not to the level of Mexico simply because of the logistics but the relative numbers went up under Biden via Canada as well.

Oh, and Canada has caved. And we got 10k; not 5K:

Quote:
As part of the agreement, Canada will put 10,000 frontline personnel on the border, appoint a fentanyl czar and list cartels as terrorists, Trump said in a Truth Social post after speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the phone.

Fentanyl is a WMD level drug. I'm happy our adjacent neighbors are being forced to the table to try and help us stem the flow of it because our southern neighbor sure as hell hasn't had any incentive to do so under the prior admin.
Reply Quote
1
JDCAG (NOT Colin)
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 5:09p, 2/3/25
AG
YouBet said:
Gordo14 said:
YouBet said:
And Mexico has caved. Already.


https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-honduras-guatemala-increase-troops-along-borders-white-house-official-2021-04-12/

Check the date of this headline. And we didn't even threaten a trade war sending the stock market down 2% at open. Master negotiator.

We get 10,000 Mexican national guard at the border for a photo op and the illusion that Mexico caved. Now we can deal with the real problem child, Canada. Maybe they'll send 5,000 mounties to the border.
Which do you think is the more likely photo op? This done under Biden or what Trump will secure here? Some of us remember fake photo ops by AOC and other Dems at the border under Biden. The Democrats were open border advocates who hand waved security; Trump is the opposite. Look at the numbers.

In that regard, history has already shown you are wrong, and we aren't even to the final deal yet.

And Canada has become a problem with illegal immigration. Obviously not to the level of Mexico simply because of the logistics but the relative numbers went up under Biden via Canada as well.

Oh, and Canada has caved. And we got 10k; not 5K:

Quote:
As part of the agreement, Canada will put 10,000 frontline personnel on the border, appoint a fentanyl czar and list cartels as terrorists, Trump said in a Truth Social post after speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the phone.

Fentanyl is a WMD level drug. I'm happy our adjacent neighbors are being forced to the table to try and help us stem the flow of it because our southern neighbor sure as hell hasn't had any incentive to do so under the prior admin.


This plan was actually in place in December https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/government-of-canada-announces-its-plan-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html
Reply Quote
2
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JDCAG (NOT Colin) • 5:11p, 2/3/25
AG
JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
YouBet said:
Gordo14 said:
YouBet said:
And Mexico has caved. Already.


https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-honduras-guatemala-increase-troops-along-borders-white-house-official-2021-04-12/

Check the date of this headline. And we didn't even threaten a trade war sending the stock market down 2% at open. Master negotiator.

We get 10,000 Mexican national guard at the border for a photo op and the illusion that Mexico caved. Now we can deal with the real problem child, Canada. Maybe they'll send 5,000 mounties to the border.
Which do you think is the more likely photo op? This done under Biden or what Trump will secure here? Some of us remember fake photo ops by AOC and other Dems at the border under Biden. The Democrats were open border advocates who hand waved security; Trump is the opposite. Look at the numbers.

In that regard, history has already shown you are wrong, and we aren't even to the final deal yet.

And Canada has become a problem with illegal immigration. Obviously not to the level of Mexico simply because of the logistics but the relative numbers went up under Biden via Canada as well.

Oh, and Canada has caved. And we got 10k; not 5K:

Quote:
As part of the agreement, Canada will put 10,000 frontline personnel on the border, appoint a fentanyl czar and list cartels as terrorists, Trump said in a Truth Social post after speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the phone.

Fentanyl is a WMD level drug. I'm happy our adjacent neighbors are being forced to the table to try and help us stem the flow of it because our southern neighbor sure as hell hasn't had any incentive to do so under the prior admin.


This plan was actually in place in December https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/government-of-canada-announces-its-plan-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html
Great!
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.