LOL Tennessee

TNECD has offered on average $22K for each new job under grant agreements in Montgomery County, more than 3.5x what is offered in Memphis....(These are for out of state companies coming to TN). If Amazon wanted to build a new warehouse, why should they get 3.5x as much from the state building it in a more well to do area?

Why should Memphis have to fix the state's infrastructure. No other area in the state has to do that. Memphis had to spend millions to fill potholes on state roads that TDOT wouldn't fill or reimburse.
If I give you $5000 budget every year for 30 years to do a specific job, and you did it twice half-assed in that entire 30 year period and the other 28 years you either pocketed the money for yourself or spent it on dumb things that aren't needed, do you think I should still give you the $5000 each year?

The companies are the ones who want to move in the first place, regardless of what the state does.....Their employees don't want to live in a dying city overrun by crime, with the worst schools ever, with nothing else there except an overrated Beale Street and a NBA team that won't even be there in a decade....
 
@Rickyvol77

Please know my defense of some of these disparities is not meant to absolve the grift, cronyism and corruption that was rampant when Herenton ran the city...
I understand, i'm not arguing with you, just debating points, I respect your positions..

It makes more more mad that a city like Memphis was in the 1950s-60s became what it is today because of leftist policies and corrupt politicians..

It's why some don't understand why I complain about NYC, LA, SF, Detroit, Chicago etc. because I knew what the cities ONCE were and should be again
 
If I give you $5000 budget every year for 30 years to do a specific job, and you did it twice half-assed in that entire 30 year period and the other 28 years you either pocketed the money for yourself or spent it on dumb things that aren't needed, do you think I should still give you the $5000 each year?

The companies are the ones who want to move in the first place, regardless of what the state does.....Their employees don't want to live in a dying city overrun by crime, with the worst schools ever, with nothing else there except an overrated Beale Street and a NBA team that won't even be there in a decade....

Yes, the companies are going to move where they are going to move. But Amazon, for example, shouldn't be offered 3.5x as much to put the exact same fulfillment center in Montgomery County. It's one reason there is a over reliance on local PILOTs here. They are used to close the state funding gap for competitive projects.

It's a poor city. Every dollar spent on PILOTs, pothole repair on state roads, reimbursement differences for housing state inmates, traffic control on interstates is one less dollar spent on policing the parts of the city that need policing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
Yes, the companies are going to move where they are going to move. But Amazon, for example, shouldn't be offered 3.5x as much to put the exact same fulfillment center in Montgomery County. It's one reason there is a over reliance on local PILOTs here. They are used to close the state funding gap for competitive projects.

It's a poor city. Every dollar spent on PILOTs, pothole repair on state roads, reimbursement differences for housing state inmates, traffic control on interstates is one less dollar spent on policing the parts of the city that need policing.
That's a fair statement I don't disagree...but I still believe the state is tired of sending Memphis tons of money for literally no changes
 
The only ground your stance has depends on which direction the goods are coming from. Europe? i'll give you some latitude. Far East anywhere? Not a chane in hell anyone in the US will ever be comptetively priced on anything. But, the fact remains in either case....Forign entities are not footing the bill nor absorbing tariffs to import goods into the US. Trump Admin can gas light you all they want. THe importing company pays that tariff at the docks or they do not get their containers, then it is rolled into consumer pricing, and most people never even notice, because the end market price on everyday goods change very little from a 10% tariff to a 20% tariff.

If the exporting company was absorbing tariffs how come my client can't get their goods delivered to the job until they pay the tariff? That is the very first transaction at port monetarily cause it ain't been absorbed or paid by anyone else.
Where is the inflation? What you are talking about is very inflationary. It is correct that the check is written on the importer side but the cost most of the time is baked into the wholesale price paid by the producer. No doubt they are still making money just not as much.
No doubt tariffs have affected prices some but it is minimal.
 
The irony of you trying to make 'protectionism' out to be a 'free market principle' while calling me a "commie" is fantastic.
Free market does not mean chaos and giving the store away. I was never for free trade, we will always be on the losing end of that because we will be the only ones who comply and be totally taken advantage of. NAFTA was garbage. I believe in fair trade.
 
Where is the inflation? What you are talking about is very inflationary. It is correct that the check is written on the importer side but the cost most of the time is baked into the wholesale price paid by the producer. No doubt they are still making money just not as much.
No doubt tariffs have affected prices some but it is minimal.
Well let's see. Because of tariffs what I was quoting for $12/sf I now quote for $14/sf. The developer pays that. It goes into the final cost of hte devleopment. That goes into the final monthly rental rate. It might be $25 extra. Might be $250. There is no absorption. Baking it into the wholesale price as you say is precisely passing it on and raising your price. No export country is gonna say sure, we'll be happy to pay that extra tariff and that be the end of it. That cost will find its way to the consumer. It always does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
Free market does not mean chaos and giving the store away. I was never for free trade, we will always be on the losing end of that because we will be the only ones who comply and be totally taken advantage of. NAFTA was garbage. I believe in fair trade.
Lol, looks like someone doesn't understand 'free market principles'.
 
just because it was bad before doesn't justify bad now.

the point should be to remove ALL gerrymandering, not just some of it. all yall are doing is opening yourself up to constant redistricting battles based on who is in charge, its disgusting.
It has always been that way, it was just one sided. The come apart is because the road goes both ways now.
The real issue is that all of the blue states have already been gerrymandered to the hilt and there is nowhere for them to go to make it anymore one sided. The South and Midwest however have a lot of room to carve out the blue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
Well let's see. Because of tariffs what I was quoting for $12/sf I now quote for $14/sf. The developer pays that. It goes into the final cost of hte devleopment. That goes into the final monthly rental rate. It might be $25 extra. Might be $250. There is no absorption. Baking it into the wholesale price as you say is precisely passing it on and raising your price. No export country is gonna say sure, we'll be happy to pay that extra tariff and that be the end of it. That cost will find its way to the consumer. It always does.
There is truth in what you say in the short term but over time markets adjust and that is not true. Look at the oil market. Right now oil is high because an important supply has been restricted. But even as we speak supply sources and delivery methods are adjusting. If the the Strait never opens eventually oil would be sourced differently, refineries would adjust, and the price would go down just as if the Strait opened tomorrow.
Much of the oil a century ago came from the Appalachian Basin, not anymore. The market is very resilient over the long haul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
Lol, looks like someone doesn't understand 'free market principles'.
It isn't exactly like you googled. In the little video he didn't mention what happens if exporters lose market share. They will reduce their price to retain market share, simple as that, Google Boy.
Who pays the tariff is completely dependant on the commodity.

Who Bears the Cost of Tariffs?

Tariff incidence is the technical term for how the costs of a tariff are split between foreign exporters and domestic importers. While importers pay the duty, the “economic burden” of the tariff can be shifted onto exporters if they lower their export prices. We illustrate this effect through a simple example: Suppose foreign exporters charge $100 for a good, and the importing country decides to levy a 25 percent tariff on it. If the foreign price remains unchanged at $100, the duty paid is $25, increasing the import price to $125. In this case, the tariff incidence falls entirely on the importer; in other words, there is 100 percent pass-through from tariffs to import prices, and therefore on U.S. consumers and firms.

In contrast, the exporter might lower its price in order to avoid losing market share. If foreign exporters respond to the tariff by lowering their price to $80 (i.e., $100 divided by 1.25), the price paid by importers will remain $100 (with $20 in duties paid to the government). In this case, 100 percent of the tariff incidence falls on foreign exporters, who now receive $20 less for the same good; in other words, there is zero pass-through from the tariff since the import price is unchanged.
 
@Rickyvol77

Please know my defense of some of these disparities is not meant to absolve the grift, cronyism and corruption that was rampant when Herenton ran the city...
Man I was there as a kid when Ford Sr was in charge. His funeral home got busted selling and financing expensive caskets to the black community then digging them up. He was re elected no problemo.
 
This is so hilarious. When Dems don't get their way they kick and scream bloody murder.

It would be hilarious if Memphis the "Sinkhole City" did secede. Or maybe the state could make it a big psyche ward, Trump said he wanted to bring back insane asylums.
 
Yeah man, I'm sure Memphis is definitely not the primary source of tax revenue from Shelby County considering that is represents more than 2/3s of the total population of the county, and has a higher residential and commercial tax base than all of the towns in Shelby county combined.

Definitely not Memphis.



View attachment 830842
Now do the various parts of Memphis you dolt. There are only a few neighborhoods that are providing the bulk of it, and Orange Mound ain't one.
 
Yes, that one. His son Ford jr is a Fox News contributor who appears on the Five.
He said the other day that his wife is a white woman when discussing racial marriages.
Harold Ford jr looks almost white as me but he seems to be a democrat tru & thru.
I don't get all the love for that racist prick.
 
It has always been that way, it was just one sided. The come apart is because the road goes both ways now.
The real issue is that all of the blue states have already been gerrymandered to the hilt and there is nowhere for them to go to make it anymore one sided. The South and Midwest however have a lot of room to carve out the blue.
its not one sided.

There are more all red states than there are all blue states.

R:
1. Alaska
2. Arkansas (4)
3. Idaho (2)
4. Montana (2)
5. Nebraska (3)
6. North Dakota
7. Oklahoma (5)
8. South Dakota
9. Utah (4)
10. West Virginia (2)
11. Wyoming

D:
1. Connecticut (5)
2. Delaware
3. Hawaii (2)
4. Maine (2)
5. Mass (9)
6. New Hampshire (2)
7. New Mexico (3)
8. Rhode Island (2)
9. Vermont
 
Now do the various parts of Memphis you dolt. There are only a few neighborhoods that are providing the bulk of it, and Orange Mound ain't one.

The suggestion wasn't to carve Memphis up and give away parts of it you dolt, it was to give up the entirety of Memphis.
 
It isn't exactly like you googled. In the little video he didn't mention what happens if exporters lose market share. They will reduce their price to retain market share, simple as that, Google Boy.
Who pays the tariff is completely dependant on the commodity.

Who Bears the Cost of Tariffs?

Tariff incidence is the technical term for how the costs of a tariff are split between foreign exporters and domestic importers. While importers pay the duty, the “economic burden” of the tariff can be shifted onto exporters if they lower their export prices. We illustrate this effect through a simple example: Suppose foreign exporters charge $100 for a good, and the importing country decides to levy a 25 percent tariff on it. If the foreign price remains unchanged at $100, the duty paid is $25, increasing the import price to $125. In this case, the tariff incidence falls entirely on the importer; in other words, there is 100 percent pass-through from tariffs to import prices, and therefore on U.S. consumers and firms.

In contrast, the exporter might lower its price in order to avoid losing market share. If foreign exporters respond to the tariff by lowering their price to $80 (i.e., $100 divided by 1.25), the price paid by importers will remain $100 (with $20 in duties paid to the government). In this case, 100 percent of the tariff incidence falls on foreign exporters, who now receive $20 less for the same good; in other words, there is zero pass-through from the tariff since the import price is unchanged.
you missed some key pieces to that statement. it only works IF exporters lower their prices the same. If the exporters don't lower their prices, that increase is passed on to the consumer

the vast majority are not lowering their prices. The best I have seen is one manufacturer who is splitting the tariff costs evenly.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top