73% of Republicans think Tariffs will help the US

[bendog]

America thrived and became an economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs--for decades. China has done very well by following an ardently protectionist trade policy.

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

I don't know about your grocery store, but I'm seeing cheap bacon. It won't last of course because farmers will cull their herds. Could be some good ribs for labor day though.

 

[edward37]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

 

[edward37]

America thrived and became an economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs--for decades. China has done very well by following an ardently protectionist trade policy.

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

I don't know about your grocery store, but I'm seeing cheap bacon. It won't last of course because farmers will cull their herds. Could be some good ribs for labor day though.

I'm in NY and they don't know what good ribs are

 

[Mac1958]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

 

[jc456]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

republicans are tired of other countries stealing our country's profits. why is that so difficult for you?

Posts the guy who shops at Walmart for cheap Chinese goods.

mostly I buy groceries and beer there. not sure any of it comes from china except perhaps the aluminum cans holding my beer.

 

[jc456]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

Why?

Give some specific reasons with actual facts attached as to why it was needed?

 

[Mac1958]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

 

[jc456]

America thrived and became an economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs--for decades. China has done very well by following an ardently protectionist trade policy.

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

What the latest round of pork tariffs could do to your Iowa grocery bill

"But the retail pricing effect on the next 12 months is likely small
The long-range impact is likely smaller than what Steve Meyer, an economist for ag risk management firm Kerns and Associates in Ames, called the psychological impact. He's talking about stock market results and immediate futures prices.

Markets took a brief dive two months ago when China announced similar tariffs on U.S. products, but the stock market quickly stabilized.

Even then, industry experts said that the extended forecast is stable, simply because it takes a long time for producers to adjust production standards. Pigs are already being produced now for slaughter in April of 2019.

"You buy the rumor and sell the fact. The rumor price is going to go down," Meyer said. "You sell the fact that it'll probably be higher with time, and that's what I think will happen here. The real impact is not as great as the psychological impact."

With supply unlikely to dramatically change in the next year, don't expect prices to fluctuate much on a grand scale."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

America thrived and became an economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs--for decades. China has done very well by following an ardently protectionist trade policy.

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

I don't know about your grocery store, but I'm seeing cheap bacon. It won't last of course because farmers will cull their herds. Could be some good ribs for labor day though.

They have no choice but to sell it cheap, selling it under the price it took to raise it is still better than not selling it at all.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

America thrived and became an economic powerhouse behind the protection of high tariffs--for decades. China has done very well by following an ardently protectionist trade policy.

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

What the latest round of pork tariffs could do to your Iowa grocery bill

"But the retail pricing effect on the next 12 months is likely small
The long-range impact is likely smaller than what Steve Meyer, an economist for ag risk management firm Kerns and Associates in Ames, called the psychological impact. He's talking about stock market results and immediate futures prices.

Markets took a brief dive two months ago when China announced similar tariffs on U.S. products, but the stock market quickly stabilized.

Even then, industry experts said that the extended forecast is stable, simply because it takes a long time for producers to adjust production standards. Pigs are already being produced now for slaughter in April of 2019.

"You buy the rumor and sell the fact. The rumor price is going to go down," Meyer said. "You sell the fact that it'll probably be higher with time, and that's what I think will happen here. The real impact is not as great as the psychological impact."

With supply unlikely to dramatically change in the next year, don't expect prices to fluctuate much on a grand scale."

Price will not fluctuate much because the Govt subsidizes all Ag commodities so much to keep them from doing so.

But there will be a lot less hog operation in business in two years than there is now. That is the price that will be hidden from people like you.

 

[jc456]

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

I don't know about your grocery store, but I'm seeing cheap bacon. It won't last of course because farmers will cull their herds. Could be some good ribs for labor day though.

They have no choice but to sell it cheap, selling it under the price it took to raise it is still better than not selling it at all.

What the latest round of pork tariffs could do to your Iowa grocery bill


"But the retail pricing effect on the next 12 months is likely small
The long-range impact is likely smaller than what Steve Meyer, an economist for ag risk management firm Kerns and Associates in Ames, called the psychological impact. He's talking about stock market results and immediate futures prices.

Markets took a brief dive two months ago when China announced similar tariffs on U.S. products, but the stock market quickly stabilized.

Even then, industry experts said that the extended forecast is stable, simply because it takes a long time for producers to adjust production standards. Pigs are already being produced now for slaughter in April of 2019.

"You buy the rumor and sell the fact. The rumor price is going to go down," Meyer said. "You sell the fact that it'll probably be higher with time, and that's what I think will happen here. The real impact is not as great as the psychological impact."

With supply unlikely to dramatically change in the next year, don't expect prices to fluctuate much on a grand scale."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

They do more than add drama, they make it impossible for the leaders of other nations to give in.

 

[edward37]

As new tariffs take hold, more see negative than positive impact for the U.S.

77% dems say bad thing.

The poll doesn't differentiate tariffs on countries with manipulated currency and below cost prices, but it still strikes me as odd. The gop is now isolationist.

And look at the break between college and non-college educated. And white grads and non-grads

Strange days indeed.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

And if this isn't crazy it'll do until crazy comes along

 

[jc456]

China does so because they have a socialist market economy. Is that the model you would like to see the US adopt as well?

Should we become more like China?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

What the latest round of pork tariffs could do to your Iowa grocery bill

"But the retail pricing effect on the next 12 months is likely small
The long-range impact is likely smaller than what Steve Meyer, an economist for ag risk management firm Kerns and Associates in Ames, called the psychological impact. He's talking about stock market results and immediate futures prices.

Markets took a brief dive two months ago when China announced similar tariffs on U.S. products, but the stock market quickly stabilized.

Even then, industry experts said that the extended forecast is stable, simply because it takes a long time for producers to adjust production standards. Pigs are already being produced now for slaughter in April of 2019.

"You buy the rumor and sell the fact. The rumor price is going to go down," Meyer said. "You sell the fact that it'll probably be higher with time, and that's what I think will happen here. The real impact is not as great as the psychological impact."

With supply unlikely to dramatically change in the next year, don't expect prices to fluctuate much on a grand scale."

Price will not fluctuate much because the Govt subsidizes all Ag commodities so much to keep them from doing so.

But there will be a lot less hog operation in business in two years than there is now. That is the price that will be hidden from people like you.

they explain why the price doesn't change. No mention of subsidy in that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The US isn't going to be Jina, at least for awhile, thank God.

The thread morphed into a discussion about the effects of tariffs. Then it went off on JC's misunderstanding of full employment and the interplay between that and tariffs.

Then, the thread was hijacked by JC's interposing the irrelevancy of people who collect welfare and don't work. These people are not even counted as unemployed, nor do they have much to do with the effects of Tariffs. Perhaps their benefits should be cut, but that's irrelevant to tariffs and the gop.

Trump supporters contend tariffs will raise prices and cause companies to make goods here, which will increase employment and raise wages. Of course JC contended that tariffs might not increase costs, but .... let's ignore that. lol

But there is a certain logic to the tariff idea. It won't always work. For example steel. We already make all of the recycled steel we use, and we recycle all of the steel available for recycling. We do not make much of the steel that comes from those old style blast furnaces, because we don't have many since most have shut down since the 80s, and are hardly state of the art efficient today. And US Steel isn't gonna spend billions on a factory that would be bankrupt without tariffs that can be taken away by the next potus's pen.

Still, who's to say some kinds of jobs might come back? Some textiles .... maybe. Pretty low wages, and not much factory cost in maftring rugs or teeshirts. And a corp can always just put capital in a new corp, move back overseas, and bankrupt the old one. It's not like they didn't do that before.

BUT HERE'S THE MATH PART. NAIRU - Wikipedia

Simply put, there's no concrete % of what is full employment at every given point in time. However, the rate of inflation generally has an inverse correlation with the rate of employment. That's not always true. But it was the basis for the Phillips Curve, which if you're as old as I am, you may have heard of (-:

This newfangled Nairu thingajig is premised upon inflation rising as some point of employment that is called full employment, but the % will vary from time to time. Tariffs will raise prices. And we have about doubled the amount of inflationary spending in the federal government because when we spend more than we tax WE BORROW. That means there are more dollars in the economy because people LOAN US THIER MONEY FOR OUT DEBT. AND WE PAY THEM INTEREST FOR THAT. To get to give us money, we pay MORE interest.

And as prices go up, the Fed will also RAISE interest rates because the Fed HATES inflation above whatever figure the Nairu is. And that means people lose jobs because people will stop buying shit when the costs get high enough.

They're already screaming in Iowa and N Dakota losing millions Beef soybeans etc prices falling Farmers going bankrupt Wonder who they voted for?

Pork Tariffs Sour Industry Outlook • farmdoc daily

The 2018 outlook early this year was for modest profitability. Now, it has shifted to losses. The reasons are clear. Higher costs and lost exports as China has implemented a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork that goes into effect today, April 2, 2018.

I don't know about your grocery store, but I'm seeing cheap bacon. It won't last of course because farmers will cull their herds. Could be some good ribs for labor day though.

They have no choice but to sell it cheap, selling it under the price it took to raise it is still better than not selling it at all.

What the latest round of pork tariffs could do to your Iowa grocery bill


"But the retail pricing effect on the next 12 months is likely small
The long-range impact is likely smaller than what Steve Meyer, an economist for ag risk management firm Kerns and Associates in Ames, called the psychological impact. He's talking about stock market results and immediate futures prices.

Markets took a brief dive two months ago when China announced similar tariffs on U.S. products, but the stock market quickly stabilized.

Even then, industry experts said that the extended forecast is stable, simply because it takes a long time for producers to adjust production standards. Pigs are already being produced now for slaughter in April of 2019.

"You buy the rumor and sell the fact. The rumor price is going to go down," Meyer said. "You sell the fact that it'll probably be higher with time, and that's what I think will happen here. The real impact is not as great as the psychological impact."

With supply unlikely to dramatically change in the next year, don't expect prices to fluctuate much on a grand scale."

Too Much Pork, Tariffs Mean Too Few Buyers • farmdoc daily

The pork industry appears to be headed for a period of large losses in which excess pork supplies force prices below costs of production. In addition, demand will likely be weakened by reduced exports with tariffs in place on U.S. pork exports to China and Mexico. On a positive note, Chinese tariffs on U.S. grains and soybeans are helping to erode feed prices along with favorable growing season weather.

 

[jc456]

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

And if this isn't crazy it'll do until crazy comes along

no, the whole fking idea is to get to fair trade between all countries. No tariffs and free trading. IT IS WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

 

[Mac1958]

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

They do more than add drama, they make it impossible for the leaders of other nations to give in.

That's my guess too, but all we can do is hope for the best.
.

 

[edward37]

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the word "help".

If a temporary tariff war leads to mutual large-picture reduction of tariffs and more towards free trade, sure.

If tariffs remain where they are or keep escalating, a person would have to be pretty under-informed to thinks that's good.
.

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

They do more than add drama, they make it impossible for the leaders of other nations to give in.

Trump as a big shot in RE could bully all his people around Leaders of countries will not look weak to their people and trump doesn't realize it yet but he's in a different league now Not many leaders will take his crap

 

[Harpy Eagle]

IMHO the Chinese will sell our debt first before giving in ,,,

Yeah, that's a card they hold. They won't just sit there and take it, and yet they are on the weaker end of this, and they're nothing if not pragmatic.

I know what Trump is trying to do, but holy shit, this better be resolved fairly soon.
.

it's a game of chicken and it was needed.

I can agree with that to a point, but Trump's behaviors sure do add drama to the process.
.

They do more than add drama, they make it impossible for the leaders of other nations to give in.

Trump as a big shot in RE could bully all his people around Leaders of countries will not look weak to their people and trump doesn't realize it yet but he's in a different league now Not many leaders will take his crap

He was not even very good at that. Trump Inc did not really take off till it was reorganized as a holding company and Trump stopped making business decisions. The thing that Trump has been most successful at is selling himself and his name.

He tried to bully his way into Atlantic City by building the biggest and fanciest casino...that did not work out so well.