|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
All about balance of trade?
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 All about balance of trade?He has also threatened Canada over its decision to recognise Palestine. Again, American consumers will pay extra because Canada objects to genocide. Are these decisions IN ANY WAY based on the national interests of the USA? I have not even heard an attempt to link them. They are purely the actions of a narcissist who uses taxpayers' money to take out his personal grievances. Oh, and one other reason; to show that he can. When will the Trump base realise that they are being used as economic cannon fodder? Answer:- probably never. Sic transit gloria Americana! |
||
|
jonheck 31-Jul-25, 09:48 |
Bobspringett |
||
|
Jon That impressed me a few weeks ago during the falling-out with Musk. Musk was complaining that he had spent millions to get Trump elected, but Trump wasn't rewarding him appropriately. Trump was telling Musk to mind his manners, or his contracts with the U.S. government might be cancelled. BOTH men's words showed that they both assumed government was a tool for dispensing rewards for personal favours or punishments for personal insults. The idea of public trust never even looked into a window, much less ruled their House. I'm starting to think the American Founding Fathers got it right, when they set up the Electoral College instead of a direct public vote. But back in those days, only 'gentlemen' could be elected to the Electoral College, and those Electors would choose a 'gentleman' in turn. How times have changed! |
||
|
jonheck 01-Aug-25, 03:24 |
Bobspringett |
||
|
Jon 03:14 1. <The recently announced tariff deal with S Korea is said to include a $350 billion investment by S Korea in US projects with trump picking the projects.> Yes, but WHO is going to make those investments? The South Korean government can't compel private companies to invest in USA. A similar problem presents itself with most of Trump's announced 'deals' that involve investment back into USA. Call me cynical, but I expect that planning these investments will take a year or more, organising financing for them will take even longer because no prudent bank will lend on the basis of the 'advantage' of a tariff that might be changed on a whim, then you need to get approvals, and then let contracts... I can see the process being stretched out to mid-November, 2028. Oh, what a co-incidence! But that doesn't matter, because the problem then becomes some-one else's. The deal falls through? So what will the next President do about it? Put up tariffs higher, and cause more inflation? Accept it, proving that Trump could get a deal out of those foreigners that his successor can't make stick? This is all about Trump getting his daily headline and adulation, with the reality being kicked down the road. 2. <Nothing to worry about there, think “trickle down” > The best explanation of 'trickle down' I have seen is a building with elegantly-dressed people in a party on the rooftop terrace, and one of them pissing over the edge into a bucket held by a beggar in the street below. |
||
|
jonheck 01-Aug-25, 06:32 |
Bobspringette I also like the idea of “Sponge Bobs” on every tier. The few Sponge's on top, clearly living a life of opulence, are soaking up most of the goodies being pored on their heads. Conditions get much worse, and “Trickle Down” more clearly demonstrates it’s fatal flaw, the farther down ya go. There is near no trickle down to the bottom, densely populated, lower layer. |
||
|
Tinkle Down But on a pissitive note, golden showers! If they are in to that sort of thing. Me, not so much. That is what we wanted, with full knowledge of what we were going to get. And my conservative friends remain ecstatic. African children dying from HIV and malnutrition because we are torching food and medicine paid for but not delivered? God be praised! Didn’t Jesus instruct us to “suffer the little children?” Whatever—close enough. Jesus must no doubt be beaming with joy up in heaven welcoming piled mounds of children succumbed to privation, MAGA. “Here’s another pile to come unto thee…” |
||
|
What effect are Trump's tariffs having? The immediate effect was to INCREASE imports into America and widen the trade deficit as importers tried to stock up before the tariffs kicked in. But as the tariff-free inventory is run down and new tariff-affected goods replace them, retail costs are starting to rise. Here is a BBC analysis of the story so far... www.bbc.com Of special interest to me was chart close to the end of the article, which showed the costs of imported goods, the cost of American goods competing against the tariff-affected imports, and the cost of American goods NOT competing with tariffs-affected imports. As one might expect, the prices of tariff-affected imports jumped significantly and suddenly. Domestic goods NOT competing against tariff-affected goods didn't change much, just some minor variations. The surprise (well, I wasn't surprised, because I predicted it!) was that the cost of American-produced goods competing with imports also jumped by almost as much as the rise in cost of the imports, at the same time. Why would that be, since they were not subject to tariffs? As I expected, the American manufacturers saw a chance to put up their prices because foreigners were no longer able to force prices down. Though I was surprised to see it happen so brazenly and openly, not even an attempt to pretend it was anything other than a snatch for cash! The big winners are shareholders, the big losers are consumers. This was why the LABOR government in Australia radically reduced Australia's tariffs back in the 1980's. It was just a consumption tax with the benefit going to businesses rather than the consumers of the public purse. The 'Free Enterprise' conservatives prophesied the destruction of the Australian economy, but what really happened was that domestic featherbedded industries folded, Australian workers found their wages could buy more, and the workforce moved to other industries where Australia was internationally competitive. Were there job losses? In some areas, yes and in other areas there were job gains as entrepreneurs saw more money in the pockets of consumers just aching to be spent on new products. Job creation in new sectors balanced losses in sectors that had been subsidised. |
||
|
Article in the Australian Broadcastiung Commission site. www.abc.net.au |
||
|
Bob |
