Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

New ad: "God made Trump"
Religion by Donna     October 4, 2024 10:22 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (16 comments) [240 views]


Tim Walz loses another constituency: School Shooters Distance Themselves From Tim Walz
Crime by HatetheSwamp     October 3, 2024 12:44 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [90 views]


Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector and the election
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 1.7) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (176 comments) [3938 views]


Brit Hume: "[Tampon] clearly doesn't understand or believe in freedom of speech."
Law by HatetheSwamp     October 5, 2024 3:39 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [103 views]


Kamala Harris's husband Doug Emhoff 'forcefully slapped ex-girlfriend for flirting with another man'
Crime by HatetheSwamp     October 2, 2024 3:40 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (26 comments) [184 views]


Melania Trump sides with Kamala Harris on women's individual freedom. Has not agreed to campaign for Harris.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     October 4, 2024 1:43 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [70 views]


My MAGA neighbor...
Crime by Indy!     October 4, 2024 7:16 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [50 views]


Fox Snooze APOPLECTIC over stunning new jobs report and economic news
News by Donna     October 4, 2024 11:16 am (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Donna (8 comments) [102 views]


Question for Ponderer
Politics by Navy2711     October 4, 2024 5:16 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (10 comments) [115 views]


pb's opinion: Kammy's, and Joe's weak, lackluster support for hurricane victims in Georgia and North Carolina just won Trump both states
Opinion by HatetheSwamp     October 4, 2024 5:12 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [82 views]


Horror selectors, pages, etc.
The Trump policy that scares economists the most
By Donna
September 6, 2024 8:53 am
Category: Horror

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Trump's proposal to slap a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports is insane. I wonder how many of his devout followers understand that tariffs are paid for by the importers, not China, and that those added costs are passed onto you and I and all American consumers.

I work p/t merchandising goods in supermarkets for a large vendor in supermarkets. Almost all of those goods are Chinese imports. If a 60% tariff were to be imposed, my company would have to raise its prices on those goods by the same amount (a $7 can opener would then cost over $11) which will reduce sales.

***

New YorkCNN — 

Former President Donald Trump wants to spend trillions of dollars on tax cuts. His plan to pay for that is alarming some mainstream economists.

Trump proposed sweeping tariffs on all $3 trillion worth of imports into the United States, including a 60% tariff on imports from China and a 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from other nations.

Recently, Trump doubled down on the threat, saying he is considering tariffs of up to 20% on most imports in a bid to protect working-class jobs and punish what he labels unfair trading practices.

In theory, the unprecedented tariff hikes could raise trillions of dollars, funds that would help cover the cost of the tax cuts. However, many economists warn that those tariffs could backfire – badly – by raising prices on American families, killing jobs and setting off a global trade war.

It’s part of the reason Goldman Sachs in an analyst note this week said Trump’s economic policies – particularly on trade – would cause America’s economy to shrink. By contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic policy proposals would grow the economy, Goldman Sachs predicted.

Goldman and other experts fear Trump’s tough proposed trade tactics could worsen the affordability crisis in America.

"It’s one of those magical economic proposals that can actually cause inflation and put you into a recession – at the same time,” David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, told CNN in a phone interview.

Kelly warned that tariffs are a “perfect stagflation machine,” threaten to scramble supply chains and invite a punishing response from trading partners.

“It’s a two-year-old’s mentality: You punch someone in the nose and expect them not to punch you back,” he said....

Trump’s trade proposals could be equivalent to a $3 trillion tax hike, warned Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right think tank the American Action Forum.

“It’s enormously protectionist and terrible economic policy,” said Holtz-Eakin, who served as an economic adviser to former President George H.W. Bush and an adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of GOP Sen. John McCain.


Cited and related links:

  1. cnn.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The Trump policy that scares economists the most":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on September 6, 2024 9:02 am

    When I laugh at you brainless, brainwashed, lockstepping progressive Swampcultists, it's often your newfound belief that tariffs are bad. Almost forever, GOPs favored free trade and, when they regained control of the economy, they eliminated tariffs... it's the conservative thing to do.

    Now, suddenly, because OrangeTurdBad favors tariffs, woke Swampcultists... like Donna and po... are outReaganing Reagan... brainlessly, viscerally. Comically.

    How freakin friggin EFFINcute! Baha


  2. by Donna on September 6, 2024 9:08 am

    I'm not criticizing tariffs on targeted goods - I'm criticizing Trumo's propised blanket 60% tariff on Chinese imports, and explained why that's a very bad idea. If you disagree with me, then explain what you disagree with.



  3. by Curt_Anderson on September 6, 2024 9:24 am
    Every economist and history student who payed attention knows how the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act backfired and led to the Great Depression.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on September 6, 2024 9:31 am

    Donna,

    It has occurred to me. In my first two years of college, I minored in Economics. I understand economic theory stuff because I studied it formally and took (and, by the way, EFFINaced) tests on it. Most posters here don't have that history.


    Two observations, Donna.

    1. You never, ever expressed concern about tariffs in any form until it became an OrangeTurdBad thing. You are Trump deranged and I can't help but think that opposing Trump is the only reason you hold this opinion.
    2. You're ignoring the crucial reality that Trump's tariffs will create opportunities for domestic businesses to enter the market and compete with Chinese products so that prices won't necessarily increase as much as you fear.

    Having said that, based on what I know about economics, I'm not a big fan of tariffs. I'm not crazy about Trump's policy...

    ... but, as for you, I recognize TDS when I see it.


  5. by Donna on September 6, 2024 9:57 am

    I didn't minor in economics, but I did take a college course and majored in Math. I've never supported blanket tariffs.

    I'm all in for increasing manufacturing in the U.S., but we aren't set up to immediately replace all of the Chinese goods we all buy.

    The way Trump wants to go about it is reckless. Remember - this is the guy who somehow managed to bankrupt his own casino, and now you want to put him in charge of the U.S. economy

    I can understand why the "uneducated", who Trump once famously said he "loves", might fall for his boneheaded proposal. Educated people should know better, though.




  6. by HatetheSwamp on September 6, 2024 10:09 am

    Tariffs is a long-term strategy that, until Trump, was a SwampDem thing.

    I'm not a big fan.


  7. by Indy! on September 6, 2024 10:49 am

    The reason no one talked about tariffs until Trump came along is because everyone except Trump understands they didn't work BEFORE we had a global economy - they will not work now. And giving more tax breaks to the super wealthy as Trump wants to do (that's why he thinks we need tariffs - to help those (figuratively) "poor" billionaires AGAIN) is insanity when it hasn't worked since Reagan was president and taxes were actually a tiny bit too high.


  8. by meagain on September 6, 2024 11:17 am
    I don't think the question of tariffs is so simple. Protective tariffs are necessary to protect important industries from cheaper imports that may, as with EVs from China be massively subsidised. Subsidising our manufacturers would have the same result but would cost the government in lost revenue. They are also necessary to protect infant industries and jobs.

    The WTO does set maximum allowable levels and I have to wonder whether the USA and Canada are exceeding those maximums with 100% but I don't know the level of subsidies in China.

    Battery Plants are a good example of the subsidy route. Canada and the USA are both doing that and creating domestic industries where the world market is dominated by China. Would tariffs there be an alternative? I think not for political reasons and as an attraction for foreign investment. Tariifs cab be reduced while the subsidies won't be.

    The USA industrialised behind a tariff wall. Your massive steel industry for one would never have got off the ground without them.


  9. by oldedude on September 6, 2024 1:14 pm
    IF you're trying to bring back manufacturing into the US, then you make Chinese goods more expensive, which puts the US products easier to buy for Americans. This is okay, IF the US manufacturing is ready for the changes. As for targeting... What would you target first? Fish and monkeys from the Wuhan markets? Tilapia from the water treatment plants in China?

    This is actually an idea to continue making solar cells/ computer parts more reasonable for the US and would help expand those manufacturing plants. That was started by trumpster, dropped by pedojoe, then reprogrammed by pedojoe. It is a good thing to do. I would keep using it, but (maybe) expand it and call it mine (being a politician).

    My guess is that Xi Jinping won't accept the "blanket order." So they enter negotiations. Maybe the tariff on Chinese steel. That would put a few thousand people to work and get them in full-time work with benefits. Or the recycling business. The US recycle sucks. period. I had better recycling in Europe in the 1970's. Why can't we catch up to that?

    Also working with Canada on lumber production. And there are houses that don't use much lumber. It's much more efficient, much stronger, and much faster to put up.

    We need to also open up oil, knowing that oil will only be around for a finite time. In the meantime, our oil companies know their life is limited, so they'd better get their butts in gear. And they're all working to be the "first" with a big breakthrough.



  10. by Indy! on September 6, 2024 1:59 pm

    IF you're trying to bring back manufacturing into the US, then you make Chinese goods more expensive, which puts the US products easier to buy for Americans.


    Ummm... OD? When you bring the prices of Chinese goods up to the cost of producing them in America - what have you done? You just raised the prices for Americans. There is no magic bullet. Targeted tariffs as meagain discussed are where you use tariffs - AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.


  11. by Indy! on September 6, 2024 2:02 pm

    Forgot - it's also important to note that during covid, we had problems supplying simple items like masks and hand cleanser. We gave up our manufacturing (thanks Reagan!) and it's not as simple as raising prices all around with tariffs and hoping everyone will be happy with even more inflation.


  12. by oldedude on September 6, 2024 2:53 pm
    The issue with all the COVID crap is that we had already given away all our manufacturing. And then with the lockdowns and dim scare tactics, the rest of it shut up. The idea that you are missing is NOT to pay our enemies to make our goods that we need. They'll stop selling to us to take down the US.

    Oh. Yeah. You think the Chinese have a pretty good idea and you support them. I forgot🙄.


  13. by oldedude on September 6, 2024 2:59 pm
    Donna & meagain re: #8.
    You both have good points and as far as blanket tariffs. Again, I don't think China would accept them and negotiate something else. We have lots to gain, they have lots to lose. They're buying ag land via shell companies and individuals DBA. If we can prove that and close them down, that would be the coup of the decade, and a huge loss to China. Legally? It's a crapshoot to even attempt.

    Otherwise, good points for a debate👍.


  14. by Indy! on September 6, 2024 3:04 pm

    Good lord, OD - why do I have to explain even the simplest of things to you? Yes, it would be better if we still manufactured everything - but not if it means a 60% increase thanks to Trump Tariffs.


  15. by oldedude on September 6, 2024 5:58 pm
    That is 60% to ONE COUNTRY, not every country. why do I have to explain even the simplest of things to you?🙄

    And like I said, the Chinese will negotiate this. By announcing it now, the Chinese can have a counteroffer on day one. It's faster politics. The Chinese rely on us for grain and meat, heavily. That would be a good place to start the negotiation. Tariffs are interesting in China. It really only hits the wealthy since prices are fixed by the government. Of course there's a trickle-down effect, but since you don't believe in trickledown economics, it's not an issue to you.

    And with the arrest of a few of the Chinese spies in our government arrested, that makes our position stronger.


  16. by Curt_Anderson on September 6, 2024 6:16 pm
    "And like I said, the Chinese will negotiate this. By announcing it now, the Chinese can have a counteroffer on day one." ---OD

    So you are thinking that the Chinese would counter with a lower number, maybe 20%, then after some back and forth meet at a 40% tariff on goods from China? If that's so, I disagree.

    If we place a 60% tariff on the stuff we buy from them, they would retaliate with 60% tariff on the stuff we sell to them. But they wouldn't buy at that price. They would then buy their beef from perhaps Argentina and their grain from Canada or from whoever can sell for less than us with the added tariff.


  17. by oldedude on September 6, 2024 7:34 pm
    So you are thinking that the Chinese would counter with a lower number, maybe 20%, then after some back and forth meet at a 40% tariff on goods from China? If that's so, I disagree.

    If we place a 60% tariff on the stuff we buy from them, they would retaliate with 60% tariff on the stuff we sell to them. But they wouldn't buy at that price. They would then buy their beef from perhaps Argentina and their grain from Canada or from whoever can sell for less than us with the added tariff.


    That's fair. My earlier point is not just to knock down the tariff, it would be to not pay as much on products we rely on, and get a clearance for what they need.

    100% of their meat goes through Taiwan. It has to. We can shut that down because meat is something we already have an embargo on that, but no one else will deal with them on those products. We know they do it, and we let them get away with it. They can't get it from Argentina or Uruguay, because they have exports going to mainly Europe and are topped out on that. Russia's no good, as they also have to import most of their beef and pork.

    What are we willing to pay 30% more for. That's tough.

    First, to get absolutely 100% petro neutral or petro positive ASAP. Understand this is finite, as we all know, but for the time, we need to do that before we press for the next things.

    My guess is the computer stuff until we can get our manufacturing up and running. pedojoe has been pretty? successful in these. That said, he's really wishywashy on it, and some of those got closed in a couple of months, just to be restarted again. If he (well kammy) can get those going at 100%, that's a great friggin talking point for the dims. It's a little late in the game though to get them done before election (BE).

    Solar panels are another issue. For some reason, we're not producing many of them, and most of those "Made in USA" panels are using Chinese parts. After buying two solar systems for our residences, the solar companies will tell you that. There are a couple of companies that do make their own cells, but not near enough to do what we need to do. This would be a win/win/win whoever could get this knocked out and working. Again, pedojoe started putting them together here (joe's "manufacturing"), but we need to make the parts here. This would be a great negotiation point.

    My point is that we're really behind on building our technology. We invent it, then send it to China for them to steal. That hasn't made since to me.

    So I guess I didn't really 'argue" either side, maybe just discussed it? And these are the things I would like to see.


  18. by oldedude on September 6, 2024 8:01 pm
    One thing I wanted to add. This issue is also connected to the numerous Chinese agents associated with politicians on any level of government. I didn't mention any party, because I'm "assuming" that most are being bribed. So as we've seen in a couple of the latest arrests, this isn't about intel gathering, in some cases, it's about 1. access to politicians, 2. refusing access to anti-"chinese" groups (Fill in your country here). along with all the other things the Chinese need to use us. Right now, they're buying ag land under DBA individuals, groups, or corporations. Monsanto and most of the rest of the fertilizer and seed companies are Chinese owned. And the Chinese get to pick and choose who their products go to. So the "hicks" and "gomers" in podunkville the dims hate, are getting screwed over, while the Chinese "farmers" near our nuclear bases are making all the bank, eavesdropping on military comms, and sending that back to the motherland.


  19. by Indy! on September 7, 2024 11:28 am

    First problem for you, OD - is to recognize the enemy and it's not China. China is not the one who decided to normalize trade with China. The ones who allowed all of our businesses to move there for the slave labor. Your two steps behind, bro.


  20. by oldedude on September 7, 2024 11:33 am
    I said that. You chose to 1. LIE about it. 2. not read it.


  21. by Indy! on September 7, 2024 5:46 pm

    Maybe you did (I doubt it), but perhaps if you got right to the point with your posts instead of pontificating on how great you were in the army and projecting bullshit lies onto other board members and info dumping 15 sources when you actually do source something... I might be more inclined to read your posts.


  22. by oldedude on September 9, 2024 4:48 am
    First problem for you, OD - is to recognize the enemy and it's not China.

    BWAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    You're so fucking naive!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Maybe when you grow up, you actually understand international issues. Oh. Yeah. "art" School" from a comic book....


  23. by meagain on September 9, 2024 7:27 am
    China is already retaliating against Canada, though I think they have made a bad choice. They are investigating whether Canada is "dumping" its Canola there. Canole represents billions of dollars in sales to China. They are probably still trying to come to a decision about the USA.

    I can't understand why we don't both follow the European model of WTO-approved levels targeted to the particular manufacturers according to how each is subsidised. China would have no grounds for complaint and we would still have cheaper EVs. Thus forcing North American companies to build lower-end cars instead of the more profitable higher cost.

    Alternatively, why not encourage Chinese Automakers to establish factories here as the Japanese and Koreans did.




Go To Top

Comment on: "The Trump policy that scares economists the most"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page