Trade Wars and Tariffs

#901
#901
jmacvols1 said:
seems the soft data (most likely being manipulated by leftist organizations) is not matching up with what is actually happening with hard data.

why is spending soaring if confidence is supposedly "tumbling".....leftist media trying to talk up a recession?
Click to expand...
What hard data are you referring to (not a guy's tweet)? Every report I see suggests the opposite of what you're claiming.

Meanwhile defaults ballooning on most forms of consumer credit. Continued spending in the face of growing defaults is not a good thing and itself a manipulation of the data to make a feel good story out of a red flag.
 
Last edited:
#902
#902
McDad said:
Does this mean you would force a laborer to remain in the fields even if they wanted to go to work in a factory?
Click to expand...
no. but just because something is done of free will doesn't mean there are no consequences, or that there is no moral/ethical gray area.

I think you are presenting a false narrative based on the situation we have been discussing. the factory is a relatively new thing for the community, and its not a locally grown industry that has developed to the point of hiring the farmer in a local economy they have been a part of.
 
#903
#903
LouderVol said:
no. but just because something is done of free will doesn't mean there are no consequences, or that there is no moral/ethical gray area.

I think you are presenting a false narrative based on the situation we have been discussing. the factory is a relatively new thing for the community, and its not a locally grown industry that has developed to the point of hiring the farmer in a local economy they have been a part of.
Click to expand...
If you aren't wanting to force someone's labor choices, are you wanting to restrict their choices?
 
#904
#904
McDad said:
Perhaps my discussion about labor outside the US is more talking past each other than talking with each other. If so, this might clarify.

I am not looking at foreign labor as a moral issue. Is there a moral component? Yes. I am looking at it from an economic perspective. KInd of a "what is best for me given the limited options I have". I think the person who is best equipped to make those decisions are the people themselves.
I live in a poor county in Tennessee. Lot's of agriculture and forestry. If i feel like it is in my best interests to work retail at Walmart instead of in forestry, why should anybody stand in my way? Even in restricted societies and countries, if the individual has options for work, who are we to say they shouldn't do one type of work over another?
Click to expand...
economically I think its inflationary, and not representing good/sustainable growth.

and the example you gave gives a great example. lets assume your community's economy is relatively stable, poor, but stable. walmart moves in, and you get a job there. walmart destroys multiple local mom and pop stores, restaurants, and services. Those people lose their job and either move away, or can no longer afford to go to Walmart. based on the decrease customer base Walmart decides it too will leave. where does that leave you and your community?

you made more money in the short run, but was part of a system that created a net loss in the end, giving you less stability over time.
 
#905
#905
lawgator1 said:
Can tariffs between states be that far off? It is theoretically unconstitutional but one can easily imagine a MAGA governor deciding there's a loophole and instituting tariffs on imports from California, aligning himself with Trump-onomics.
Click to expand...
California essentially has done this for a while. they have created several standards that any products that sell in their state have to abide by. those standards cost money that would otherwise not be there. rising the costs across the nation because California has increased standards on vehicles, building supplies, appliances so on and so forth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, SpaceCoastVol and Vol423
#906
#906
LouderVol said:
economically I think its inflationary, and not representing good/sustainable growth.

and the example you gave gives a great example. lets assume your community's economy is relatively stable, poor, but stable. walmart moves in, and you get a job there. walmart destroys multiple local mom and pop stores, restaurants, and services. Those people lose their job and either move away, or can no longer afford to go to Walmart. based on the decrease customer base Walmart decides it too will leave. where does that leave you and your community?

you made more money in the short run, but was part of a system that created a net loss in the end, giving you less stability over time.
Click to expand...
Is the choice of my labor and where I use it, only a net negative to an area?
 
#907
#907
McDad said:
If you aren't wanting to force someone's labor choices, are you wanting to restrict their choices?
Click to expand...
I don't really see it as restricting their choices if its a choice they never had before. they aren't owed that factory, or a job in it.

especially when the restriction you are talking about actually has happened in this country. that factory job in Vietnam didn't come out of nowhere, it was some American losing their previous job, so its not a net gain of a job.

at some point whether you boil it down to my stance on national economics or personal economics some level of extra protection or 'greed' will certainly apply. I think the model we operate on of more cheap(er) goods = more better is an extremely flawed model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#908
#908
McDad said:
Is the choice of my labor and where I use it, only a net negative to an area?
Click to expand...
depends entirely on how its used.

I think dealing with an entity like these sweat shops it is far more likely to be a net negative. I won't say it can't be a net positive, but I struggle to see how.
 
#909
#909
LouderVol said:
I don't really see it as restricting their choices if its a choice they never had before. they aren't owed that factory, or a job in it.

especially when the restriction you are talking about actually has happened in this country. that factory job in Vietnam didn't come out of nowhere, it was some American losing their previous job, so its not a net gain of a job.

at some point whether you boil it down to my stance on national economics or personal economics some level of extra protection or 'greed' will certainly apply. I think the model we operate on of more cheap(er) goods = more better is an extremely flawed model.
Click to expand...
It seems to me you are approaching expanding arenas of restriction.
restriction based on local interest, national interests, moral interests, greed, model viability, etc.

Am i missing something?
 
#910
#910
McDad said:
It seems to me you are approaching expanding arenas of restriction.
restriction based on local interest, national interests, moral interests, greed, model viability, etc.

Am i missing something?
Click to expand...
I have been framing my responses based on the conversation around the "sweat shops" that make our cheap goods. I think that situation lends itself to multiple arenas of possible issues that should be addressed.

if you want to have a more narrow discussion, I am open to it.
 
#911
#911
hog88 said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because men will also go the route of greed...and slavery is the cheapest form of labor...which allows the product to be cheaper....if you treat everyone in what world with the same guidelines set as the US...then prices would be higher cuz pay and regulations will be the same.... Cheaper labor equal cheap products..take Nike..thier shoes in Vietnam cost 23 dollars to make..they sell for 150 on avg. The labor is 1.50 per shoe meaning 1% of that cost is labor..now of the same pay and building requirements were equal then either the shoes will cost much more....the company could keep the same 150 PP but the greed of men wins out more often then not.
 
#912
#912
whodeycin85 said:
Because men will also go the route of greed...and slavery is the cheapest form of labor...which allows the product to be cheaper....if you treat everyone in what world with the same guidelines set as the US...then prices would be higher cuz pay and regulations will be the same.... Cheaper labor equal cheap products..take Nike..thier shoes in Vietnam cost 23 dollars to make..they sell for 150 on avg. The labor is 1.50 per shoe meaning 1% of that cost is labor..now of the same pay and building requirements were equal then either the shoes will cost much more....the company could keep the same 150 PP but the greed of men wins out more often then not.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true.
 
#914
#914
LouderVol said:
I have been framing my responses based on the conversation around the "sweat shops" that make our cheap goods. I think that situation lends itself to multiple arenas of possible issues that should be addressed.

if you want to have a more narrow discussion, I am open to it.
Click to expand...
The sweat shop may be the better option for people in that area. People, if they can, are going to act in their own economic best interests. Any they will do that whether or not we like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#915
#915
Economic opportunity is part of the recipe to raise standards of living.
 
#916
#916
Ashevolle said:
What hard data are you referring to (not a guy's tweet)? Every report I see suggests the opposite of what you're claiming.

Meanwhile defaults ballooning on most forms of consumer credit. Continued spending in the face of growing defaults is not a good thing and itself a manipulation of the data to make a feel good story out of a red flag.
Click to expand...
that 'guy' has a PhD in Economics and just gave the hard data.

go over to leftist Yahoo finance and just read the headlines on all the doom and gloom they are pushing based on fairy dust, on what 'might' or 'could' happen as a result of tariffs. Trump raised tariffs in his first term and we had the best economy in decades. Reciprocal tariffs kick-in tomorrow...in the morning look outside for the leftist media will be telling you the sky is falling.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol
#918
#918
McDad said:
Economic opportunity is part of the recipe to raise standards of living.
Click to expand...
opportunity goes beyond having more money. they also need a place to spend it, and in a manner that doesn't just offset their gains.

I forget the exact quote: "better to be making minimum wage today, than a billionaire at the end of the world"
 
#919
#919
LouderVol said:
opportunity goes beyond having more money. they also need a place to spend it, and in a manner that doesn't just offset their gains.

I forget the exact quote: "better to be making minimum wage today, than a billionaire at the end of the world"
Click to expand...
Are these places were discussing similar to the corporation towns that America saw back in the day?
 
#924
#924
McDad said:
Are these places were discussing similar to the corporation towns that America saw back in the day?
Click to expand...
thats certainly one example.

but in the case of the sweat shops taking workers out of a field, that isn't going to be a heavily developed area. less options to spend money.

i am also thinking of the O Brother Where Art Thou "Well ain't this a geographical oddity, two weeks from everywhere". Sometimes only Dapper Dan will do, and Dapper Dan may not be available everywhere.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top