Trump wants to increase tariffs On china again .

a reply to: dubiousatworst

Cool anyone can say that.

How do you not understand the CPI is the gauge for inflation ?

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: luthier

I don't understand economics?!?

Im done. I was an Econ double major.

You'll have to excuse some of our users, if it goes against their agenda and views, you'll encounter the whole, fingers in the ear tralalalalalla...

a reply to: luthier

Consumer Price Index is a flawed measure, as it is dependent on a basket of goods. The main influence that causes inflation is M3, not tariffs. Sure tariffs can increase inflation in the short term, but only if there is no source of a replacement good available locally.

The reason Trump is threatening to print money is because it will tank the Yuan, as it is pegged to the dollar, and in order to maintain the trade levels that China requires (aka their dependency on imports of foreign raw materials). If China is forced to re-peg at a higher exchange rate to greenbacks, they lose their ability to import these raw materials. That is why they buy US debt in the first place, to use it as a vehicle to import raw materials.

a reply to: Arnie123

This isn't about an agenda or views its basic logic...

Protectionism is not a free market ideal. It is sometimes necessary when employment is low to protect remaining job infrastructure.


As a negotiation tool it fails. It's very simple why..in 6 years maximum another politician or Congress can change any political work used in market intervention and propose a new philosophy.

This is why most economists favor limiting the interaction between government and pricing.


Of you folks are threatened by facts and unwilling to debate ACTUAL topics and not political spin let's do it.

I dont support any political party. I do support people like rand Paul, justin Amash etc who support limiting the budget and limiting intervention into the market. But I dont support them enough to go against my beliefs where they cross over.

I just dont get how you dont see this is a point and spend government.

Sure he says we need to to combat china. But we dont need to become china to win. We just have to outlast them with innovation and watch their inflation reach unheard of levels.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: luthier

Consumer Price Index is a flawed measure, as it is dependent on a basket of goods. The main influence that causes inflation is M3, not tariffs. Sure tariffs can increase inflation in the short term, but only if there is no source of a replacement good available locally.

The reason Trump is threatening to print money is because it will tank the Yuan, as it is pegged to the dollar, and in order to maintain the trade levels that China requires (aka their dependency on imports of foreign raw materials). If China is forced to re-peg at a higher exchange rate to greenbacks, they lose their ability to import these raw materials. That is why they buy US debt in the first place, to use it as a vehicle to import raw materials.

Cool.

I don't think you quite grasp cpi and ppi and greatly reliant on material and supply chain from china and its allies.

I understand trumps reckless behavior. I just dont support a government that believes it has power to make radical unilateral changes. Congress is in control of monetary policy. Because of the direct relationship of imports over the CPI and PPI it should be obvious tariffs need support in Congress where the people effected by the tariffs have a voice.

I didn't during Clinton, Bush, or obama either before I get some liberal schill comment.

Ps by imports I also mean raw material and supply chains. For instance a company buying cnc or braiding machines. Or someone who is relying on raw goods for their American business.

originally posted by: Phoenix
The American worker was betrayed and left behind by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

In 1980 a full time worker making $10 an hour could afford a modest but reliable auto, pay for 2 bedroom apartment, afford groceries and take a driving vacation once a year. That was me as a young person starting out so dont tell me it was untrue, I lived it!

Fast forward 40 years and starting wages in many if not most locals are still $10 an hour but prices have far outpaced that wage. With domestic demand will come better wages.

Our politicians allowed circumstances/policy that brought this situation forth and its refreshing to see one actually doing something after all this time for the worker.

Where in the USA are most locals on $10 per hour?? Walmart starts at $15 in my town, McDonalds at $12. And they hire literally anyone that can show up. Actual jobs pay for people with a couple brain cells pay double that.

Folks the only way out of this is to hand over the market totally like china or to decide we want businesses to control pricing as much as possible and use long term strategy with short term oversight into strategic defense movements.

We want to outlast china and watch their yuan fizzle to pennies. Not become them imo.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: midnightstar

We have a fairly balanced economy. Our industry is heavily automated to compete with Asian wages and to keep the CPI low for inflation.

Made in USA would be a massive inflationary experience for the us until we completely automate everything and AI gets closer to AGI.

We've gone the rounds on this before, but it's worth noting (again), that a large scale increase in domestic manufacturing (and therefore jobs) also results in wage gains across the board for everyone selling their labour-- which offset the inflationary trend (in fact, I'd argue that the offshoring is artificially deflationary). Again, this is assuming we have the political stones to ride out the market readjustments and let markets normalize. Otherwise, we're looking at short term pain with no real benefit.

You'll argue that manufacturing requires fewer jobs with more automation, and I'll give first-hand accounts that demonstrate large-scale automated-manufacturing still requires many higher-skilled jobs as you now need people who program, produce, repair, and maintain your automated industrial line. So I may only need 200 unskilled workers working on my line to produce the same number of widgets that used to require 700 people before automation, but I now require 150 skilled workers in addition, and it is still a net gain of 350 workers for the US job market, and because those workers are better paid, my payroll doesn't decrease by 50%. It is still preferable to offshoring those jobs and gutting the supply/demand curve for labour.

You're still 100% right about the deficit -runing and the deregulation of financial arms which are poisoning the well. We need higher interest rates, too.

a reply to: luthier

Protectionism is not a free market ideal. It is sometimes necessary when employment is low to protect remaining job infrastructure. 


As a negotiation tool it fails. It's very simple why..in 6 years maximum another politician or Congress can change any political work used in market intervention and propose a new philosophy

I mean, it could fail, because China can place retaliatory tariffs on US goods and those companies will wail to their politicians and we will fall on our own sword (like we have for 30 years), but since we are running a giant trade deficit, they have no external leverage. Their industries are already over-capacity to market, and noone buys more "stuff" at higher price points than the US consumer. So ultimately, they need our market more than vice versa. Even if you continue importing everything here, there are no shortage of other countries who'd be thrilled to expand their industry and undersell Chinese product/material with MFN-status during a Chinese trade war.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

What you missed with your housing market example in 2008 was that the banks misrepresented the packaged loans as being safe when they weren’t, it was a failure of the ratings agencies. The banks knew they were mislabeled too and placed bets on them going bankrupt. All while continuing to sell extremely risky securities as AAA rated products.

a reply to: jjkenobi

It varies heavily by area. Where I live people can afford rent on a 7.45 min wage. In other areas of the country you need to make 30 an hour with two roommates and a 2 hour commute to pay the same percent in rent.

The dollar does not have equal buying power even within the same state.

Case in point the median annual income in the US is 31k per year that’s less than the minimum wage in several states. In other places in the US entry level jobs pay over 6 figures.

a reply to: RadioRobert

And where do you get that skilled labor? These people wanting factory jobs have none of those skills.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why are you scared of China?

I'm not afraid of China. Their economy is an even bigger house of cards than ours is. I am afraid of what China is doing to our economy while we help them because it's good for the giant MNC's who buy our politicians.

If a giant boxstore comes into town and undercuts local businesses by selling at under market prices, forces those other businesses to close, then jacks their prices back to full- market and lowers wages to take advantage of the new glut of labour on the market, we would all recognize it as unhealthy.

And that is exactly what China has done to Western industries by dumping a glut of steel (for just one example) to artificially depress prices and drive other countries' smelters out of the market completely. And the big MNCs love the resulting flooded labour market. It is not healthy or sustainable, and it is terrible from a national security/defense industrial base standpoint who need those strategic materials.

On direct consumer good sales, I don't particularly care, but there is no real reason to favour Chinese "stuff" over Malaysian or Philippine or whoever's stuff. There are no end of countries who'd be thrilled to do business and who are not openly antagonistic.
We have bent over backwards for China for fifty years in the hopes to get access to their potential consumer markets, but their markets remain closed. MNCs reap the benefits of lower costs and higher margins here domestically, but the consimer "gains" are undercut by wage stagnation and a glut of labour.

Alot of good points being posted .
Bot about bots . Sure some bots do work and even a few auto pickers .
But 95 % of every thing is still done the old fashion way by hand NO bot will pick tomatoes or strawberrys for a long time .
As for AI who is saying we even have AI ? we dont . Best AI out there has the brains of a rat .Long way to go to human lv .
Most bots are clunky power hungry and brake down prone . The best they got selling in large amounts is that clunky dog looking bot .
Besides we still need a good power supply or one heck of a extension cord lol .

No battery made would run a human sized bot for much over a hour so how you going to use it to pick even if it can ?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: RadioRobert

And where do you get that skilled labor? These people wanting factory jobs have none of those skills.

There will always be unskilled labour at factories. Even highly-automated factories. You also need people to push brooms, run a cafeteria, security, etc at your plant even if it was 100% automated. It is true that far fewer are required than in manufacturing "glory days", but manufacturing still creates low-skill jobs.

Engineers typically come from schools or from related fields.

By increasing demand for both, you raise the price for all labour in the job market. You also make college degrees/trade schools more attractive because there is a place for those people to go.

Domestic production, 200 unskilled jobs, and 150 skilled jobs is still a net gain. Saying it isn't as great as when it employed 700 unskilled labourers is entirely missing the point.

Just announced China has their team on the way to straighten this little issue out.

MAGA!!! Cleaning up messes from the past.

At one time ( in my own life time the US was the leader in Exports EVEN OIL all the way up to the mid 1970s .
We could be again . You say we need there plastic junk more then they need what we have ?
We need there oil ?
No we dont we are one of the very few country's who has EVERY THING we need at home .
Oil no problem ( reopen the many shut down refinery's . Reopen ( start pumping the many many caped wells )
You guys should look up a oil well map . Hardly a state with out a oil well .

The rest wages cost some ares will always be more as people are willing to pay more to live there cost does very per area alot .
Loans well once again no housing bobble in my life time . The banks will not repeat it as that scame was a once in every 100 years things . The money has been taken and there is nothing much left for them to scame for .
and NOT even the Government could be bought off a second time .

a reply to: midnightstar

Should have let the banks go under, but also shouldn't have basically mandated they make high-risk loans in the first place...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Those 200 unskilled jobs aren’t sustainable though. Every time I read this stuff all I ever hear is people wanting to create excuses to be lazy. And I get it, lots of people don’t want to have to spend years learning and retraining, but that’s the price if innovation and competition.

Competitiveness means better, faster, and cheaper.

Much of this is moot - within 10 years, most of these great factory jobs people are talking about are going to be automated. Automation is the real threat for jobs, not China. While automation will also create new jobs, it won't create nearly as many that will be lost, and the factory jobs (along with call centers and drivers) will be most impacted. 10% of jobs this year alone will be lost to automation.

People are focused on the wrong thing.