Current events discussion

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Paul Krugman would be the most prominent example of the "don't worry about the debt" economists. I don't even know who the most recent Noble Prize winning economists are, but I'd bet dollar to donuts that they also fall into the "don't worry about the debt" crowd.

Krugman is the econ0mists' equivalent of heroin-user Robert Kennedy being worried about COVIUD vaccines and fluoride.

Krugman's solution: "he notes that other countries have had similarly high or even higher debt levels before, including Britain after World War II. Second, he thinks stabilizing debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) is economically simple—it “just” requires reducing the federal deficit by 2.1 percent of GDP every year (that’s about $600 billion right now). Third, he concludes that Republicans who express concern about the debt usually advocate tax cuts that worsen the debt outlook, so why should anyone else bother?"

Would you trust him to handle your finances?

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

No, it's actually from a post that Spokey made.
View attachment 61613
He failed to show an example of ANY economist saying massive debt is a good thing, and he very clearly said that just because they have degrees, they are not always right.
And that was directly referencing the universal consensus of economists regarding tariffs, not whether they prefer vanilla over chocolate.
Obviously, he knows better than they do.
But is unable to answer the question of who pays a tariff...

And we aren't China.
The tariffs under Trump failed to do what he intended.
We have proof of that.

He intends to do the same thing he did in 2018, which failed that time.
Why is there an assumption that the results of doing the same thing in 2025 will be different?

What evidence do we have that tariffs failed under Trump? Are they also failing under Biden? Are you being disingenuous and holding Trump accountable for the economic slump caused by Covid?

https://data.bls.gov/generated_file...S3000000001_2014_2024_all_period_M10_data.gif

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

That's my point "experts" play party lines these days to and when you factor that in with normal human error...it's just not the best idea to blindly accept "facts"

It's not even facts. It's opinions from one of the most politically divided disciplines. Keep in mind economics is a liberal arts degree.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Krugman is the econ0mists' equivalent of heroin-user Robert Kennedy being worried about COVIUD vaccines and fluoride.

Krugman's solution: "he notes that other countries have had similarly high or even higher debt levels before, including Britain after World War II. Second, he thinks stabilizing debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) is economically simple—it “just” requires reducing the federal deficit by 2.1 percent of GDP every year (that’s about $600 billion right now). Third, he concludes that Republicans who express concern about the debt usually advocate tax cuts that worsen the debt outlook, so why should anyone else bother?"

Would you trust him to handle your finances?

Krugman is also in favor of social programs like socialized medicine and college. It is possible for somebody to wrong about one issue and right about another.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

What evidence do we have that tariffs failed under Trump? Are they also failing under Biden? Are you being disingenuous and holding Trump accountable for the economic slump caused by Covid?

https://data.bls.gov/generated_file...S3000000001_2014_2024_all_period_M10_data.gif

Well, Trump backed down when we were threatened with retaliatory tariffs.
Overall, the tariffs made life more expensive for the average American.
Manufacturing jobs DECREASED in the US under Trump.
NO country has stopped people from LEAVING to come to the US, and no country has curbed the drug trade coming to the US.

None of the stated goals or benefits of the tariffs were achieved.
I usually say if you set goals and do not achieve them, and it costs you in the end, you have failed.

It's not even facts. It's opinions from one of the most politically divided disciplines. Keep in mind economics is a liberal arts degree.

But math is a science.
Unless we are going to go with the conspiracy theories that all the numbers have been faked simply in order to make Trump look bad?

Was it fakery when Canada threatened us with dollar-for-dollar tariff matching, and Trump backed down?
Was it fakery when mfg jobs declined under Trump? Weren't they supposed to skyrocket from the tariffs?

"U.S. total annual imports increased 12% under Trump as opposed to 32% under Biden. But at the same time, the US’s total annual exports grew by less than 4% between 2016 and 2020 while increasing 41% from 2020 to 2023."

All lies just to make Trump look bad, and no one in the GOP can see the the lies?

Krugman is also in favor of social programs like socialized medicine and college. It is possible for somebody to wrong about one issue and right about another.

Yes, but you are talking about comparing hard facts and figures of money, versus the general success of a program.

A CEO can be of the opinion that his company is doing great, but if the numbers say otherwise, their opinion means jack.
The NUMBERS show that Trump's tariffs did not do what was claimed they would do. So unless the numbers are all fake, the tariffs simply did not work.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

All lies just to make Trump look bad, and no one in the GOP can see the the lies?

You're the only one making this about politics...

Had biden put a serious threat of 25% tariffs to bring Canada and Mexico to the table about immigration and drugs...I would've felt the same about the tariffs as I do now...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You're the only one making this about politics...

Had biden put a serious threat of 25% tariffs to bring Canada and Mexico to the table about immigration and drugs...I would've felt the same about the tariffs as I do now...

That's cool, but given the prior failures of tariffs once we moved to the tax system we have now, what makes you think Trump doing the exact same thing will yield better results?

You are CONVINCED they will work THIS time around.
What is inspiring this confidence in a different outcome?

Here is a non-partisan group's analysis of current-day tariffs. Please contrast your personal analysis with theirs, and tell me which parts they are getting wrong:

Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Tariffs

The Trump tariffs are the largest US tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1993 and amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,500 in 2026.

taxfoundation.org

• President-elect Trump has promised to impose tariffs of 25 percent on all imports from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10 percent tariff on all imports from China when he takes office. If imposed permanently, we estimate these tariffs would generate $1.2 trillion in tax revenue from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis. In the long run, we estimate the tariffs would reduce GDP by 0.4 percent and employment by 344,900 jobs. Our estimates do not capture the effects of retaliation, nor the additional harms that would stem from starting a global trade war.
• Academic and governmental studies find the Trump-Biden tariffs have raised prices and reduced output and employment, producing a net negative impact on the US economy.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

That's cool, but given the prior failures of tariffs once we moved to the tax system we have now, what makes you think Trump doing the exact same thing will yield better results?

You are CONVINCED they will work THIS time around.
What is inspiring this confidence in a different outcome?

Here is a non-partisan group's analysis of current-day tariffs. Please contrast your personal analysis with theirs, and tell me which parts they are getting wrong:

Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Tariffs

The Trump tariffs are the largest US tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1993 and amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,500 in 2026.

taxfoundation.org

• President-elect Trump has promised to impose tariffs of 25 percent on all imports from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10 percent tariff on all imports from China when he takes office. If imposed permanently, we estimate these tariffs would generate $1.2 trillion in tax revenue from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis. In the long run, we estimate the tariffs would reduce GDP by 0.4 percent and employment by 344,900 jobs. Our estimates do not capture the effects of retaliation, nor the additional harms that would stem from starting a global trade war.
• Academic and governmental studies find the Trump-Biden tariffs have raised prices and reduced output and employment, producing a net negative impact on the US economy.

Again you're too wrapped up in your own bs to understand the benefits of tariffs aren't always economic...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Did anyone answer Rob's who pays the tariffs question yet? I know when he repeats specific question over and over exactly the same that he has his notes on his desk and CNN talking points as well as talking points from the view and especially that dude, Rachel Maddow. What an awful person that is. Oh and that Kaitlan Collins. She blows too. Either way... he already has his responses and if he doesn't get to respond he is gonna stroke out.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Lol

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I'm still not seeing how this slavery. Perhaps you're misusing the word slavery? And of course this all based on the assumption that JP Morgan, the Rothschilds, et al are "more alien" than the rest of us.

I don't control your eyes man. According to that theory or whatever of creation of the human race from Sumer and anunnaki, humans were created as lesser beings to mine gold, created as a less intelligent and less capable worker species, so that's literally a designed a slave. If you're genetically created or manipulated for the purpose of mining gold say for bankers then you're a designed worker slave.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Did anyone answer Rob's who pays the tariffs question yet? I know when he repeats specific question over and over exactly the same that he has his notes on his desk and CNN talking points as well as talking points from the view and especially that dude, Rachel Maddow. What an awful person that is. Oh and that Kaitlan Collins. She blows too. Either way... he already has his responses and if he doesn't get to respond he is gonna stroke out.

Nobody has. And I'm sure with good reason, as a correct answer will contradict what Trump keeps repeating.
You'd never admit he is lying by contradicting his claims with facts. That would ruin your narrative.

Again you're too wrapped up in your own bs to understand the benefits of tariffs aren't always economic...

Got it. So instead of providing a valid argument that will dispute what all the economists say about Trump's tariffs, you'll spin off on some nonsense about the "non-economic" benefits of the tariffs.

And if I ask what the "non-economic" benefits are, you'll spin off on some OTHER tangent that has nothing to do with it, until we circle back around to the original claim that making goods more expensive for US citizens will cause Mexico, et al, to stop sending us drugs, and to keep people from illegally sneaking into our country.

While you continue to refuse to even answer the most basic question of who pays the tariff fees.

In one year tariffs took $40 billion more out of our pockets when we bought stuff, the taxes on those products didn't fall, we didn't get more for our money, and national security wasn't improved a bit.

HUGE success though, because TRUMP did it.
And they applauded.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

nonsense about the "non-economic" benefits of the tariffs

Ffs...I'm really surprised nobody has to remind you breathe if you this fckn stupid

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Nobody has. And I'm sure with good reason, as a correct answer will contradict what Trump keeps repeating.
You'd never admit he is lying by contradicting his claims with facts. That would ruin your narrative.

YOU are the only one here with an agenda. Your narrative is to claim Trump is lying about everything, to put the right in a bad light and that is what you are doing since July of 2021.