That’s not what will happen. I live in Brazil and there is a 60% import tax on everything over $50, it’s been the same for years and the reasoning is to protect the economy, it doesn’t really do that on the whole and it hasn’t shrunk the government here, public jibs are the best jobs here and pay the highest salaries. This is going to backfire on Trump if he does it.
I feel investors should focus on under-the-radar stocks, considering the current rollercoaster nature of the stock market, Because 35% of my $270k portfolio comprises plummeting stocks that were once revered. I don't know where to go here out of devastation.
The safest approach I feel to tackle it is to diversify investments. By spreading investments across different asset classes, like bonds, real estate, and international stocks, they can reduce the impact of a market meltdown.
@@HopesKruses It's often true that people underestimate the importance of financial advisors until they feel the negative effects of emotional decision-making. I remember a few summers ago, after a tough divorce, when I needed a boost for my struggling business. I researched and found a licensed advisor who diligently helped grow my reserves despite inflation. Consequently, my reserves increased from $275k to around $750k.
@@LucaMurgia-j7b MARGARET MOLLI ALVEY is a highly respected figure in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her credentials, as she possesses extensive experience and is a valuable resource for individuals seeking guidance in navigating the financial market.
I find this discussion on proposed tariffs very informative and quite insightful. Too bad so many of our elected officials would rather give us 10 sec soundbites vs digging into the real issues and proposing smart and thoughtful proposals on how to truly improve our messed up tax system. Kudos Erica
Erica touched on it lightly on the end but I feel she is missing the entire point of why Trump is considering this. The goal is to have the US be self sustainable at least as much as possible, to reduce government, reduce useless government spending, no more of the US military protecting the world if they don’t spend their fair share and no more involvement in foreign wars. So yes when you consider the huge amounts of spending that he wants to stop and the tariffs I do believe there is enough wiggle room at the very least.
The lady is correct. Let's put a 25% tariff on steel. Suddenly the price of steel goes up 25%. And that's without US manufacturers raising prices. That creates jobs in the steel industry. But now steel is 25% higher and that raises the prices on all manufactures that make products out of steel. So the price of cars, stoves, washing machines, bikes, water heaters, etc. goes up. When that happens consumers decide to buy less. As for cars, stoves and the like consumers decide to get as much life our of cars and appliances as they possibly can. As a result the sales of those items decline. Therefore the jobs that where created in the steel industry can be just a fraction of the jobs lost in the auto and appliance industry. But worse still the higher prices cause workers to demand higher wages. The higher wages then causes American companies to relocate to countries were wages are lower thus causing even more job losses in the US. *Headline: Trump steel tariffs raised prices, shriveled up demand, led to job losses, some Michigan workers say*
@Tony38533 You seem like a reasonable guy, so I'll push back on you a little bit (since you can handle it). I read your talk about tarrifs comment too. I will concede that putting tarrifs on steel and lumber sounds like a bad idea because of all the down stream effects. But what about tarrifs on imported vehicles? We put the tarrif at the end of the supply chain to mitigate the down stream effects. The problem with doing nothing is the US becomes increasingly dependent on other countries for essential goods (insulin, antibiotics, etc). We are unable to quickly start manufacturing wartime goods if we go to war. The US is increasingly becoming a consumer economy rather than a producer economy. The problem with Biden bringing chips manufacturing to the USA using government subsides is that it's completely unnecessary if we just use Tarrifs. I argue that giving government money to TSMC is more inefficient than putting Tarrifs on their chips. (In this case, it could be a bad example because of the national security reasons for doing it) Less governnment spending is better in my opinion. Yes, prices will rise, but I argue that wages will rise faster. There will be a sense of pride in seeing the Made in the USA label.
@@landonschlangen I don't agree about tariffs being preferable to subsidies in most cases. Tariffs are unwieldy, and they create responses from nations that are designed to target things we care about. A subsidy, while not ideal, is at least more predictable and constrained. Regarding key industries that we need to protect, I think it's easy for a nation that creates many things to exaggerate the importance of this. Singapore comes to mind as an example of a country that can produce relatively little of what it consumes and yet is doing very well, even having higher per capita GDP than us. For security, I think that we generally do much better to rely on a wide network of friends with low trade barriers than we do to stock up on industries we think we can't survive without. I prefer to take the approach of making the US as friendly to business as possible so that we can attract investment. One key way to attract which is being overlooked this election is worker skills. We can do much more to help Americans adapt to changing economic demand so that they qualify for well-paying jobs that are in demand. Tariffs are effectively a way of pretending the world isn't what it is. And they generally result in a smaller economy, because they make us globally uncompetitive in the industries they affect, which can be hard to limit. We should try to make ourselves more competitive, not less.
@@landonschlangen Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism said that the free movement of labor is essential to a free market. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I it was believed that a nation was under performing if the imports exceeded the exports. Under mercantilism it was thought that the only way to justify a trade imbalance where imports exceeded exports would be if gold accumulation equaled to or exceeded the difference of imports minus exports. (Trump believes that if a nation is importing more than it is exporting then that nation is in decline.) But in the 1700's Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, came along to say BS to such thinking. If for example Country X can produce steel at one quarter of what Country Z can produce steel then how does it benefit Country Z to produce it's own steel if Country Z can buy steel at one quarter of the price from Country X? If Country Z needs 10 million pounds of steel to make the cars and appliances sold in Country Z and it costs Country Z 4 million dollars to produce one million pounds of steel then it costs Country Z 40 million dollars to produce 10 million pounds of steel. The cost of that steel must be added to the costs of cars and appliances. But if country Z can buy that same amount of steel from Country X at only10 million dollars for ten million pounds of steal it would be a savings of 30 million dollars. It would be as if Country X gave Country Z 30 million dollars worth of steel for free. Country Z's consumers would greatly benefit if Country Z bought steel from Country X. And that's basically what Adam Smith said. Smith said that it is nonsense to think that a nation is losing wealth when that nation can acquire products and services at a much cheaper price that they themselves and can produce such products and services. Queen Elizabeth I greatly restricted immigration because when immigrants are hired they earn money and send that money back to their homelands. As a result of her policies England had to adopt a system of indentured servitude where if a worker wanted to learn a trade then an employer could require him to sign a contract that would bind him to work there for a number of years at an agreed upon wage. Adam Smith said that was ridiculous, he said it's better to hire say, German workers who specialized in building ships and bridges. The German workers would then make English companies more profit and pass their expertise on to English workers. The colonists in America understood those principles and my own German ancestors, who were stone masons, came to the US with Degraffenrige in about 1710. But your argument is great and deserving of consideration because that national defense argument is very strong. If I am to argue against it I would compare and make analogies to education. If student D is to compete with student A, who is more accomplished, then how do we help student D? It would do little to help student D if we; gave him the answers to the tests, made his tests easier, gave him extra credit from spelling his name correctly or other such measures. Although it would fair and more effective to get him a tutor. But if student D doesn't put the extra effort into improving then it won't help much. So let's say that Country A is far more superior at producing computers than is Country D. And let's argue that the defense of a nation greatly dependent on computers. If country D buys computers from country A then if there is war between Country A and D then country A will have a huge advantage. But if we had relied on say 75% tariffs to keep the computer makers in Country D afloat then that woulds be like knocking off 75% of Student A's grade to make student D competitive with student A. That will not help student D and it will do little to help country D. If you want to help country D then you entice citizens in country A, who excel in making computers, to come and train workers and manufactures in Country D. That's like hiring a tutor for student D. And in so doing you don't alter trade just like yo don't alter the tests for students. Only through strong competition can you measure the true progress of the manufacturers in Country D. And when the manufacturers in country D are as accomplished or excel in making computers, then and only then will country D be equally or better prepared for war when it comes to computer technology.
But no one mentions the tariffs that our allies have on us one time like come on we buy wine for it from Italy. We pay tariff’s like let’s wake up people and this was even before Donald Trump‘s first time Trump already imposed tariffs they worked we all know that as citizens because we made more money our country was doing better tariffs work and that’s just the bottom line. The whole world uses them to make money. America has just stopped using them because we wanted to be the nice guy and try and push the world to do free trade, but no one wants to do free trade cause they make too much money from tariffs
Let's talk tariffs. ( We'll talk about a tariff on 2x4x8 pressure treated lumber.) We will just refer to the lumber as boards. So, here we go, *the producers (sellers) of boards are willing to produce and sell more boards as the price rises and fewer boards as the price falls. That's the law of Supply and it forms the supply curve.* However *the buyers of boards are willing to buy more boards as the price falls and fewer boards as the price rises. That's the law of demand and it forms the demand curve.* Condition 1) In this condition the only boards that are for sale are boards produced ONLY in the United States. The supply and demand curves meet at the point where sellers and buyers both agree on a price. In this example the sellers are willing to sell 2.70 million boards if the buyers agree to buy the boards at the price of $4.90 per board. So $4.90 becomes the price (called the equilibrium price) and so at the price of $4.90 the selling and buying begins. Sellers sell 2.70 million boards and buyers buy 2.70 million boards at the price of $4.90 inside the US. *(US producers making and selling 2.70 million boards at a cost of $4.90 per board and US buyers are buying 2.70 million boards at a price of $4.90 per board)* Condition 2) Four other countries also produce those boards and 3 of the countries produce the boards at a cheaper price. So the world price is $3.75 per board. Now Our President who we will call President Liberal makes trade agreements with other countries and at that point free trade begins. Now that we have free trade, the new price of boards is $3.75 per board. But here is the problem, US producers can NOT sell boards above the new world price of $3.75 because consumers will NOT buy the boards at the price of $4.90 when they can get the boards at the price of $3.75. Now *(remember the law of supply: sellers will sell more boards as the price rises but they will sell fewer boards as the price falls.)* Therefore at the price of $3.75 US producers will only sell 1.1 million boards at that price. But also *(remember the law of demand: buyers will buy more boards as the price falls but buyers will buy fewer boards as the price rises)* so buyers are now willing to buy 4.20 million boards at the price of $3.75. So here is what happens; local sellers cut production back to 1.1 million boards and the country imports 3.1 million boards. And total consumption is 4.2 million boards at a price of $3.75 per board. And so everyone is happy except the US producers because they are now selling 1.6 million fewer boards. And until they can hire cheaper labor or find cheaper ways of producing boards the US lumber mills are stuck at producing 1.1 million boards. *(US producers are selling 1.1 million boards at $3.75 per board, US is importing 3.1 million boards at $3.75 per board and US consumers are buying 4.2 million boards at $3.75 per board.)* Condition 3) Now the US elects a new President whose name is President MAGA. Well the US producers got pissed at losing all that business so the wealthy lumber mill owners have made a new friend in the white house. The wealthy lumber mill owners invite President MAGA to a country club, they wine and dine him with some beautiful women, flatter the hell out of him and President MAGA goes back to the White House and puts a 25% tariff on boards. At that point all of the boards imported will have a tax of (3.75 x 0.25 = 0.81) 81 cents on each board imported. That tax of 81 cents on each imported board will be paid to the US government and it will be added to the cost of each imported board. So now the new price in the US is now at (3.75 + 0.81 = 4.56) $4.56 for each board. Now at the new price of $4.56 the US suppliers are willing to provide 2.2 million boards. However at the price of $4.56 buyers are only willing to buy 3.2 million boards. So now here is the new condition; US producers are selling 2.2 million boards and the US is now only importing 1 million boards and the price on American consumers is $4.56 and the government is getting $810, 000.00 in tax revenue paid by US consumers. *(US producers are selling 2.2 million boards at $4.56 per board, US is importing 1 million at $3.75 per board, a tax of 81 cents per board is added to the imported boards and the 1million boards are sold at a price of $4.56 per board and US consumers are buying 3.2 million boards at a price of $4.56 per board)*
And now we can mention some more factors to show how tariffs quickly multiply in effect. The industries which use wood as an input to create things such as homes and furniture are quite numerous, and the jobs supported by these industries far outnumber the jobs held by board producers. Each of these industries will see an increase in their production costs with tariffs on boards, and this will make them less competitive against foreign companies. They collect less revenue overall and are able to sustain fewer workers. It becomes even more difficult for them when nations respond with tariffs of their own.
Where from will USA buy rare earth ? How much will a car or a mobile phone cost if it's all made in USA. American oligarchy will get very reach under Trump.
Well, she’s forgetting that they’re using the tariffs to replace the income tax. Therefore, the average citizen will have more money to spend. and comparing the 1890s to early 1900 economy is not a fair comparison sure it’s 2% consumption, but the population currently is far larger so we consume 10 times more. That being said if they don’t cut the government spending significantly, none of it will work.
She talks about how Americans would be aftected by income tax replaced tariffs. Go to 9:06 literally called “Lower Income Americans” watch the whole video next time before leaving dumb comments.
@@dylanjackson4614 well then low income people better start figuring out how to increase it because I’m gonna save more in taxes that I’m going to spend on higher prices for products for sure., Do the math for yourself if you have to spend 10% 20% on certain products but you don’t have to pay income tax anymore which one’s better for you. Do you get money back every year? Because I sure don’t. The fact is, I don’t buy much Chinese stuff anyway if I can avoid it, I will buy American if we all collectively do that. We will become a stronger nation even if you have to spend a bit more it’s worth it in the long run.
@ the only thing you should doubt is that it’s going to work without government spendings reduction, a serious one. because frankly, it won’t work without that and they know it
I believe it all hinges on what you do with the profit from the tariff. If it’s reinvested in the corporations that the tariffs are imposed on to streamline and more efficient manufacturing it could be a good thing in combination with lowering the government budget 10% a year.
In the comment below I talked about inflation and I said that some of the inflationary pressures created in the Trump administration contributed to the inflation we saw in the first two years of the Biden administration. Some of the Causes of Inflation that occurred in the first 2 years of the Biden administration were; 1) Trump's trade war has created large divisions in trade relations between countries and it has resulted in many lost opportunities for beneficial trade. 2) The tariffs imposed by Trump's has raised the prices of goods like metals and that raises the prices of everything made with metals. 3) Trump and the GOP's huge tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations is basically corporate welfare. Corporations on welfare don't need to compete or try to keep prices low. 4) Trump's mishandling of COVID created disruptions in supply chains causing prices to rise as fewer delivered goods created shortages thus resulting in higher prices. 5) Trump and the GOP has fought against energy alternatives thus keeping oil prices high and that causes an increase in the prices of all products that need to be transported. *6) Because of Trump and the GOP the EPA and the environment has been damaged. Increased CO2 is causing weather extremes and we are now dealing with trillions of dollars in damage to property, the infrastructure, general health and the like due to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, mudslides, high winds, etc. Damage like that of the Amazon warehouse and thousands of other businesses due to extreme weather must be paid by consumers which mean businesses must charges higher prices.* 7) Because of Trump's mishandling of COVID the oil companies shut down refineries and laid off 20,000 workers. When Biden took office and the economy began improving the oil companies refuse to restart the oil refineries and that caused a huge shortage of oil and gas which drove up the price of gas and the price of everything that has to be transported. 8) Because of Trump's continued support of Putin it gave Putin the wealth and power to attack the Ukraine thus causing global instability which causes the price of oil to stay high. 9) Unemployment rose to 14% under Trump due to Trump's mishandling of COVID. Trump then signed huge trillion dollar giveaways to try and stay in office. Those Trillions dollar giveaways contributed to inflation. 10) Because of Trump tax breaks to the wealthy Trump relied heavily on deficit spending and that drives up prices. Go back and read number 6 above. I started posting the above comment long before hurricane Helene ever formed. But my comments are long and most people don't read them, so it has always been my hope that the people who do read them, if they agree, they will restate them so others will get the messages. But too often people who do read my comments and will restate them will see something that they don't agree with and they will disregard the entire post. But here's the point that I want to make in this post. When Helene hit it should have made people realize that climate change is real and that it is a huge mistake to keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at huge amounts. Helen should have made people think twice about voting red. Sine 1980 I've been arguing with people about putting more EVs on the road and relying more on solar and wind energy. And I get the same BS arguments from the right about things like how you can't travel 500 miles without a recharge and recharges take time making EVs impractical. Then they go on to ignore my argument that an EV is a great extra car for doing short distance trips like; shopping, to restaurants, to the grocery store, to church, etc. But now to the point that I want to make, when Helene hit Republicans diverted attention away from the climate change debate to create lies and spread misinformation about FEMA. The GOP and the Russian trolls refocused the public's attention away from the things that would make the voters think. And I knew it would work because You Tube became flooded with misleading videos about immigration, FEMA, the economy and so on. My point is the same as in the last comment, the voters were duped.
Manufacturing price would not reduce in long run, because labour charges not going low at the first place and in the long run. Does Trump mention low salary job if all people deported?
If US policymakers could consult only one economist in the world to guide them through Trump's second presidency, they should choose Michael Pettis, a renowned expert on international trade especially as it pertains to China where he's long taught finance at Peking University. Pettis can tell policymakers specifically how the US can intervene in trade in ways that truly benefit the country as a whole. Fortunately, Pettis is always lucid enough for laymen to understand not only in his books and prolific blog on Twitter X but also in his interviews and talks many of which are on UA-cam. Moreover, his claims are more reliable than those of other economists because his are grounded in history not just theory. As a self-described "junkie for economic history," he insists that being versed in economic history is a superpower for an economist. Listening to him one soon learns that the details of tariffs -- exactly how they're applied and to whom -- make all the difference. One also learns that the US would benefit if it placed a modest tax on incoming foreign capital.
Fair tax and terrifs coupled with the removal of federal income taxes ensure everyone becomes taxed equally. Are you all about equality, or more about protecting the income streams protected from income tax?
@@charlesmclellan4676 and cutting the corporate tax rate further when evidence shows it directly benefits the ultra wealthy as companies use the extra money to buy more stock and give executive level staff huge bonuses while the working class gets fucked? Sounds like a real great plan the Trumpster has lmao
What about a non-essentials sales tax? Over $16 trillion of taxable events happen in the US every year. I'm not sure what amount of that is essentials vs non-essentials, but if we put a 5% sales tax on even $5 trillion worth of goods, that's getting us over 10% of the way to our $2.2trillion. Combined that with a VAT on luxury goods like Rolexs, yachts, Ferraris, $100,000,000 homes, and we could very easily get another 10-20% of the way there. And the Left should like this, because it doesn't impact lower income folks nearly as much as luxury item buyers.
My idea is that job training, and cost of living loans to get through that training/education, should be deductible. If a company pays for it, proof of the training and noticeable increase in wages in that field (construction, medical, education, manufacturing, etc) would show up on the trainee’s W2. That would allow said company to write off those expenses they paid for the training even if the employee jumps ship to another company in same field. This would incentivize investment in people and gaining of skills, our most valuable asset! Increases in wages from low skill low wage workers into high skill high wage workers. The risk belongs to the company making the investment in terms of “will they cut it” (will they remain in this field and be employable at a higher wage?) with such incentives they can afford to take the risk in paying for training! Increased wages=increased taxes Better chance of manufacturing returning Is anyone talking about this sort of thing??
They have domestic factories so they can get around a some tariffs in some cases. Toyota built domestic factories so they are not paying tariffs for some of their cars and trucks for this reason. This is another possibility, not brought up is, foreign companies building local factories, to get around tariffs as well. So far we have heard of selective industry tariffs, but there will be other things with the tariff that have to happen, I agree. We will have to see what is actually being proposed. Imo, a government audit is most important than anything right now.
Well, she’s forgetting that they’re using the tariffs to replace the income tax. Therefore, the average citizen will have more money to spend. and comparing the 1890s to early 1900 economy is not a fair comparison sure it’s 2% consumption, but the population currently is far larger. Also, if you can lower the government budget by 10% a year, there’s even more profit from the tariffs, right?
replacing IT with tariffs makes government revenue very unpredictable and unstable... as the revenue would have to be dependent on the flow of imports. The major irony here is Trump wants America to be `self-sustaining', though his policies make the US Economy / US Gov heavily dependent on other countries lol
@ you just making this shit up as you go along with no proof why don’t you vote for the last administration they think we can tax our way out of a debt problem?
She talks about how Americans would be aftected by income tax replaced tariffs. Go to 9:06 called “Lower Income Americans” watch the whole video before commenting 🤦🏻♂️
@@tmerb well it’s early yet we will see. I don’t really agree with that decision so far we will see if he’s just using it as a negotiation tool or how much he actually does.
Good let’s shrink the government so we can fund it with tariffs. Gov too bloated as it is
Especially since the gov has created monopolies like food
@@MikeCollado7 what? Lol
@ if tariffs wont be enough to cover replacing the income tax. Then shrink the government so it will be enough.
That’s not what will happen. I live in Brazil and there is a 60% import tax on everything over $50, it’s been the same for years and the reasoning is to protect the economy, it doesn’t really do that on the whole and it hasn’t shrunk the government here, public jibs are the best jobs here and pay the highest salaries. This is going to backfire on Trump if he does it.
@@MikeCollado7 And when government grows?
I feel investors should focus on under-the-radar stocks, considering the current rollercoaster nature of the stock market, Because 35% of my $270k portfolio comprises plummeting stocks that were once revered. I don't know where to go here out of devastation.
The safest approach I feel to tackle it is to diversify investments. By spreading investments across different asset classes, like bonds, real estate, and international stocks, they can reduce the impact of a market meltdown.
@@HopesKruses It's often true that people underestimate the importance of financial advisors until they feel the negative effects of emotional decision-making. I remember a few summers ago, after a tough divorce, when I needed a boost for my struggling business. I researched and found a licensed advisor who diligently helped grow my reserves despite inflation. Consequently, my reserves increased from $275k to around $750k.
@@ShellyHuerta This is considerable! think you could suggest any professionals/advisors? I'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation.
@@LucaMurgia-j7b MARGARET MOLLI ALVEY is a highly respected figure in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her credentials, as she possesses extensive experience and is a valuable resource for individuals seeking guidance in navigating the financial market.
@@ShellyHuerta I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon. Thank you.
I find this discussion on proposed tariffs very informative and quite insightful. Too bad so many of our elected officials would rather give us 10 sec soundbites vs digging into the real issues and proposing smart and thoughtful proposals on how to truly improve our messed up tax system. Kudos Erica
Erica touched on it lightly on the end but I feel she is missing the entire point of why Trump is considering this. The goal is to have the US be self sustainable at least as much as possible, to reduce government, reduce useless government spending, no more of the US military protecting the world if they don’t spend their fair share and no more involvement in foreign wars. So yes when you consider the huge amounts of spending that he wants to stop and the tariffs I do believe there is enough wiggle room at the very least.
What about the raised cost of tech components that are needed for new medical equipment?
Erika York is the most insightful economist in the world today!!
Did any of you pro-tatiff listeners hear the last five minites?
Some of us don't pay taxes because we earn little, so i hope necessities don't get taxed.
NO TAX v FLAT TAX NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH TARRIFFS.
The lady is correct. Let's put a 25% tariff on steel. Suddenly the price of steel goes up 25%. And that's without US manufacturers raising prices. That creates jobs in the steel industry. But now steel is 25% higher and that raises the prices on all manufactures that make products out of steel. So the price of cars, stoves, washing machines, bikes, water heaters, etc. goes up. When that happens consumers decide to buy less. As for cars, stoves and the like consumers decide to get as much life our of cars and appliances as they possibly can. As a result the sales of those items decline. Therefore the jobs that where created in the steel industry can be just a fraction of the jobs lost in the auto and appliance industry. But worse still the higher prices cause workers to demand higher wages. The higher wages then causes American companies to relocate to countries were wages are lower thus causing even more job losses in the US.
*Headline: Trump steel tariffs raised prices, shriveled up demand, led to job losses, some Michigan workers say*
@Tony38533 You seem like a reasonable guy, so I'll push back on you a little bit (since you can handle it). I read your talk about tarrifs comment too. I will concede that putting tarrifs on steel and lumber sounds like a bad idea because of all the down stream effects. But what about tarrifs on imported vehicles? We put the tarrif at the end of the supply chain to mitigate the down stream effects.
The problem with doing nothing is the US becomes increasingly dependent on other countries for essential goods (insulin, antibiotics, etc). We are unable to quickly start manufacturing wartime goods if we go to war. The US is increasingly becoming a consumer economy rather than a producer economy.
The problem with Biden bringing chips manufacturing to the USA using government subsides is that it's completely unnecessary if we just use Tarrifs. I argue that giving government money to TSMC is more inefficient than putting Tarrifs on their chips. (In this case, it could be a bad example because of the national security reasons for doing it) Less governnment spending is better in my opinion.
Yes, prices will rise, but I argue that wages will rise faster. There will be a sense of pride in seeing the Made in the USA label.
@@landonschlangen I don't agree about tariffs being preferable to subsidies in most cases. Tariffs are unwieldy, and they create responses from nations that are designed to target things we care about. A subsidy, while not ideal, is at least more predictable and constrained.
Regarding key industries that we need to protect, I think it's easy for a nation that creates many things to exaggerate the importance of this. Singapore comes to mind as an example of a country that can produce relatively little of what it consumes and yet is doing very well, even having higher per capita GDP than us. For security, I think that we generally do much better to rely on a wide network of friends with low trade barriers than we do to stock up on industries we think we can't survive without.
I prefer to take the approach of making the US as friendly to business as possible so that we can attract investment. One key way to attract which is being overlooked this election is worker skills. We can do much more to help Americans adapt to changing economic demand so that they qualify for well-paying jobs that are in demand. Tariffs are effectively a way of pretending the world isn't what it is. And they generally result in a smaller economy, because they make us globally uncompetitive in the industries they affect, which can be hard to limit. We should try to make ourselves more competitive, not less.
@@landonschlangen Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism said that the free movement of labor is essential to a free market. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I it was believed that a nation was under performing if the imports exceeded the exports. Under mercantilism it was thought that the only way to justify a trade imbalance where imports exceeded exports would be if gold accumulation equaled to or exceeded the difference of imports minus exports. (Trump believes that if a nation is importing more than it is exporting then that nation is in decline.) But in the 1700's Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, came along to say BS to such thinking. If for example Country X can produce steel at one quarter of what Country Z can produce steel then how does it benefit Country Z to produce it's own steel if Country Z can buy steel at one quarter of the price from Country X?
If Country Z needs 10 million pounds of steel to make the cars and appliances sold in Country Z and it costs Country Z 4 million dollars to produce one million pounds of steel then it costs Country Z 40 million dollars to produce 10 million pounds of steel. The cost of that steel must be added to the costs of cars and appliances. But if country Z can buy that same amount of steel from Country X at only10 million dollars for ten million pounds of steal it would be a savings of 30 million dollars. It would be as if Country X gave Country Z 30 million dollars worth of steel for free. Country Z's consumers would greatly benefit if Country Z bought steel from Country X. And that's basically what Adam Smith said. Smith said that it is nonsense to think that a nation is losing wealth when that nation can acquire products and services at a much cheaper price that they themselves and can produce such products and services.
Queen Elizabeth I greatly restricted immigration because when immigrants are hired they earn money and send that money back to their homelands. As a result of her policies England had to adopt a system of indentured servitude where if a worker wanted to learn a trade then an employer could require him to sign a contract that would bind him to work there for a number of years at an agreed upon wage. Adam Smith said that was ridiculous, he said it's better to hire say, German workers who specialized in building ships and bridges. The German workers would then make English companies more profit and pass their expertise on to English workers. The colonists in America understood those principles and my own German ancestors, who were stone masons, came to the US with Degraffenrige in about 1710.
But your argument is great and deserving of consideration because that national defense argument is very strong. If I am to argue against it I would compare and make analogies to education. If student D is to compete with student A, who is more accomplished, then how do we help student D? It would do little to help student D if we; gave him the answers to the tests, made his tests easier, gave him extra credit from spelling his name correctly or other such measures. Although it would fair and more effective to get him a tutor. But if student D doesn't put the extra effort into improving then it won't help much. So let's say that Country A is far more superior at producing computers than is Country D. And let's argue that the defense of a nation greatly dependent on computers. If country D buys computers from country A then if there is war between Country A and D then country A will have a huge advantage. But if we had relied on say 75% tariffs to keep the computer makers in Country D afloat then that woulds be like knocking off 75% of Student A's grade to make student D competitive with student A. That will not help student D and it will do little to help country D.
If you want to help country D then you entice citizens in country A, who excel in making computers, to come and train workers and manufactures in Country D. That's like hiring a tutor for student D. And in so doing you don't alter trade just like yo don't alter the tests for students. Only through strong competition can you measure the true progress of the manufacturers in Country D. And when the manufacturers in country D are as accomplished or excel in making computers, then and only then will country D be equally or better prepared for war when it comes to computer technology.
@@Tony38533 Thanks for the discussion :)
@@landonschlangen I should thank you. You made excellent points.
But no one mentions the tariffs that our allies have on us one time like come on we buy wine for it from Italy. We pay tariff’s like let’s wake up people and this was even before Donald Trump‘s first time Trump already imposed tariffs they worked we all know that as citizens because we made more money our country was doing better tariffs work and that’s just the bottom line. The whole world uses them to make money. America has just stopped using them because we wanted to be the nice guy and try and push the world to do free trade, but no one wants to do free trade cause they make too much money from tariffs
I don’t think he’s going to be extreme with the tariffs. Trump says a lot of hyperbolic stuff.
I agree but essentially he is using the tariffs as a bargaining chip. He’s going to threaten to use them to drive business back into the us.
@@charlesmclellan4676the cost of labor will prevent most of that unless the govt supports specifics industries.
There are now more bureaucrats in the dept of agriculture now than farmers . In 1905 bureaucracy was less .
In 1905 the country was smaller and had less people so there's that 😂😂 history buffoon
This is obviously not true, but there are still WAY too many bureaucrats in the USDA (and govt at large). (100k ish in USDA vs 3.4m farmers)
So inflation is rampant now without the Tariff plan
Let's talk tariffs. ( We'll talk about a tariff on 2x4x8 pressure treated lumber.) We will just refer to the lumber as boards. So, here we go, *the producers (sellers) of boards are willing to produce and sell more boards as the price rises and fewer boards as the price falls. That's the law of Supply and it forms the supply curve.* However *the buyers of boards are willing to buy more boards as the price falls and fewer boards as the price rises. That's the law of demand and it forms the demand curve.*
Condition 1) In this condition the only boards that are for sale are boards produced ONLY in the United States. The supply and demand curves meet at the point where sellers and buyers both agree on a price. In this example the sellers are willing to sell 2.70 million boards if the buyers agree to buy the boards at the price of $4.90 per board. So $4.90 becomes the price (called the equilibrium price) and so at the price of $4.90 the selling and buying begins. Sellers sell 2.70 million boards and buyers buy 2.70 million boards at the price of $4.90 inside the US.
*(US producers making and selling 2.70 million boards at a cost of $4.90 per board and US buyers are buying 2.70 million boards at a price of $4.90 per board)*
Condition 2) Four other countries also produce those boards and 3 of the countries produce the boards at a cheaper price. So the world price is $3.75 per board. Now Our President who we will call President Liberal makes trade agreements with other countries and at that point free trade begins. Now that we have free trade, the new price of boards is $3.75 per board. But here is the problem, US producers can NOT sell boards above the new world price of $3.75 because consumers will NOT buy the boards at the price of $4.90 when they can get the boards at the price of $3.75. Now *(remember the law of supply: sellers will sell more boards as the price rises but they will sell fewer boards as the price falls.)* Therefore at the price of $3.75 US producers will only sell 1.1 million boards at that price. But also *(remember the law of demand: buyers will buy more boards as the price falls but buyers will buy fewer boards as the price rises)* so buyers are now willing to buy 4.20 million boards at the price of $3.75. So here is what happens; local sellers cut production back to 1.1 million boards and the country imports 3.1 million boards. And total consumption is 4.2 million boards at a price of $3.75 per board. And so everyone is happy except the US producers because they are now selling 1.6 million fewer boards. And until they can hire cheaper labor or find cheaper ways of producing boards the US lumber mills are stuck at producing 1.1 million boards.
*(US producers are selling 1.1 million boards at $3.75 per board, US is importing 3.1 million boards at $3.75 per board and US consumers are buying 4.2 million boards at $3.75 per board.)*
Condition 3) Now the US elects a new President whose name is President MAGA. Well the US producers got pissed at losing all that business so the wealthy lumber mill owners have made a new friend in the white house. The wealthy lumber mill owners invite President MAGA to a country club, they wine and dine him with some beautiful women, flatter the hell out of him and President MAGA goes back to the White House and puts a 25% tariff on boards. At that point all of the boards imported will have a tax of (3.75 x 0.25 = 0.81) 81 cents on each board imported. That tax of 81 cents on each imported board will be paid to the US government and it will be added to the cost of each imported board. So now the new price in the US is now at (3.75 + 0.81 = 4.56) $4.56 for each board. Now at the new price of $4.56 the US suppliers are willing to provide 2.2 million boards. However at the price of $4.56 buyers are only willing to buy 3.2 million boards. So now here is the new condition; US producers are selling 2.2 million boards and the US is now only importing 1 million boards and the price on American consumers is $4.56 and the government is getting $810, 000.00 in tax revenue paid by US consumers.
*(US producers are selling 2.2 million boards at $4.56 per board, US is importing 1 million at $3.75 per board, a tax of 81 cents per board is added to the imported boards and the 1million boards are sold at a price of $4.56 per board and US consumers are buying 3.2 million boards at a price of $4.56 per board)*
super in depth
And now we can mention some more factors to show how tariffs quickly multiply in effect. The industries which use wood as an input to create things such as homes and furniture are quite numerous, and the jobs supported by these industries far outnumber the jobs held by board producers. Each of these industries will see an increase in their production costs with tariffs on boards, and this will make them less competitive against foreign companies. They collect less revenue overall and are able to sustain fewer workers. It becomes even more difficult for them when nations respond with tariffs of their own.
Where from will USA buy rare earth ? How much will a car or a mobile phone cost if it's all made in USA. American oligarchy will get very reach under Trump.
You have to reduce the size of the Government in order for this to work properly.
now it's not a question of Can, but Will
I think any plan is possible
the important thing is the balance
legacy? his. aftermath? not his.
Tariffs replacing income taxes is an idiotic idea. Both of the tax plans for both candidates are terrible. I can’t support either of them
Corps dont pay income tax. Who does? Middle class.
Well, she’s forgetting that they’re using the tariffs to replace the income tax. Therefore, the average citizen will have more money to spend. and comparing the 1890s to early 1900 economy is not a fair comparison sure it’s 2% consumption, but the population currently is far larger so we consume 10 times more. That being said if they don’t cut the government spending significantly, none of it will work.
Exactly.
She talks about how Americans would be aftected by income tax replaced tariffs. Go to 9:06 literally called “Lower Income Americans” watch the whole video next time before leaving dumb comments.
@@dylanjackson4614 well then low income people better start figuring out how to increase it because I’m gonna save more in taxes that I’m going to spend on higher prices for products for sure.,
Do the math for yourself if you have to spend 10% 20% on certain products but you don’t have to pay income tax anymore which one’s better for you. Do you get money back every year? Because I sure don’t. The fact is, I don’t buy much Chinese stuff anyway if I can avoid it, I will buy American if we all collectively do that. We will become a stronger nation even if you have to spend a bit more it’s worth it in the long run.
@@marcgraham6438 I doubt that.
@ the only thing you should doubt is that it’s going to work without government spendings reduction, a serious one. because frankly, it won’t work without that and they know it
I believe it all hinges on what you do with the profit from the tariff. If it’s reinvested in the corporations that the tariffs are imposed on to streamline and more efficient manufacturing it could be a good thing in combination with lowering the government budget 10% a year.
In the comment below I talked about inflation and I said that some of the inflationary pressures created in the Trump administration contributed to the inflation we saw in the first two years of the Biden administration. Some of the Causes of Inflation that occurred in the first 2 years of the Biden administration were;
1) Trump's trade war has created large divisions in trade relations between countries and it has resulted in many lost opportunities for beneficial trade.
2) The tariffs imposed by Trump's has raised the prices of goods like metals and that raises the prices of everything made with metals.
3) Trump and the GOP's huge tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations is basically corporate welfare. Corporations on welfare don't need to compete or try to keep prices low.
4) Trump's mishandling of COVID created disruptions in supply chains causing prices to rise as fewer delivered goods created shortages thus resulting in higher prices.
5) Trump and the GOP has fought against energy alternatives thus keeping oil prices high and that causes an increase in the prices of all products that need to be transported.
*6) Because of Trump and the GOP the EPA and the environment has been damaged. Increased CO2 is causing weather extremes and we are now dealing with trillions of dollars in damage to property, the infrastructure, general health and the like due to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, mudslides, high winds, etc. Damage like that of the Amazon warehouse and thousands of other businesses due to extreme weather must be paid by consumers which mean businesses must charges higher prices.*
7) Because of Trump's mishandling of COVID the oil companies shut down refineries and laid off 20,000 workers. When Biden took office and the economy began improving the oil companies refuse to restart the oil refineries and that caused a huge shortage of oil and gas which drove up the price of gas and the price of everything that has to be transported.
8) Because of Trump's continued support of Putin it gave Putin the wealth and power to attack the Ukraine thus causing global instability which causes the price of oil to stay high.
9) Unemployment rose to 14% under Trump due to Trump's mishandling of COVID. Trump then signed huge trillion dollar giveaways to try and stay in office. Those Trillions dollar giveaways contributed to inflation.
10) Because of Trump tax breaks to the wealthy Trump relied heavily on deficit spending and that drives up prices.
Go back and read number 6 above. I started posting the above comment long before hurricane Helene ever formed. But my comments are long and most people don't read them, so it has always been my hope that the people who do read them, if they agree, they will restate them so others will get the messages. But too often people who do read my comments and will restate them will see something that they don't agree with and they will disregard the entire post.
But here's the point that I want to make in this post. When Helene hit it should have made people realize that climate change is real and that it is a huge mistake to keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at huge amounts. Helen should have made people think twice about voting red. Sine 1980 I've been arguing with people about putting more EVs on the road and relying more on solar and wind energy. And I get the same BS arguments from the right about things like how you can't travel 500 miles without a recharge and recharges take time making EVs impractical. Then they go on to ignore my argument that an EV is a great extra car for doing short distance trips like; shopping, to restaurants, to the grocery store, to church, etc. But now to the point that I want to make, when Helene hit Republicans diverted attention away from the climate change debate to create lies and spread misinformation about FEMA. The GOP and the Russian trolls refocused the public's attention away from the things that would make the voters think. And I knew it would work because You Tube became flooded with misleading videos about immigration, FEMA, the economy and so on. My point is the same as in the last comment, the voters were duped.
Manufacturing price would not reduce in long run, because labour charges not going low at the first place and in the long run. Does Trump mention low salary job if all people deported?
If US policymakers could consult only one economist in the world to guide them through Trump's second presidency, they should choose Michael Pettis, a renowned expert on international trade especially as it pertains to China where he's long taught finance at Peking University. Pettis can tell policymakers specifically how the US can intervene in trade in ways that truly benefit the country as a whole. Fortunately, Pettis is always lucid enough for laymen to understand not only in his books and prolific blog on Twitter X but also in his interviews and talks many of which are on UA-cam. Moreover, his claims are more reliable than those of other economists because his are grounded in history not just theory. As a self-described "junkie for economic history," he insists that being versed in economic history is a superpower for an economist. Listening to him one soon learns that the details of tariffs -- exactly how they're applied and to whom -- make all the difference. One also learns that the US would benefit if it placed a modest tax on incoming foreign capital.
Fair tax and terrifs coupled with the removal of federal income taxes ensure everyone becomes taxed equally.
Are you all about equality, or more about protecting the income streams protected from income tax?
Then you're comfortable raising the corporate tax rate by that logic then?
@@consciousness3466 why?
@@consciousness3466the whole point of this tariff plan is to drive business in the us. Raising corporate tax does the exact opposite.
@charlesmclellan4676 it doesn't work, did you forget when Trump tried this in 2018? It impacted consumers and drove up domestic prices
@@charlesmclellan4676 and cutting the corporate tax rate further when evidence shows it directly benefits the ultra wealthy as companies use the extra money to buy more stock and give executive level staff huge bonuses while the working class gets fucked? Sounds like a real great plan the Trumpster has lmao
What about a non-essentials sales tax? Over $16 trillion of taxable events happen in the US every year. I'm not sure what amount of that is essentials vs non-essentials, but if we put a 5% sales tax on even $5 trillion worth of goods, that's getting us over 10% of the way to our $2.2trillion. Combined that with a VAT on luxury goods like Rolexs, yachts, Ferraris, $100,000,000 homes, and we could very easily get another 10-20% of the way there. And the Left should like this, because it doesn't impact lower income folks nearly as much as luxury item buyers.
Tariffs will only pass all taxes onto the working class. Rich people will just go buy expensive stuff outside the country to avoid the higher prices.
If rich people want to enjoy the foreign manufactured stuff, they'll have to pay duties on it when they bring it in to the US.
My idea is that job training, and cost of living loans to get through that training/education, should be deductible. If a company pays for it, proof of the training and noticeable increase in wages in that field (construction, medical, education, manufacturing, etc) would show up on the trainee’s W2. That would allow said company to write off those expenses they paid for the training even if the employee jumps ship to another company in same field.
This would incentivize investment in people and gaining of skills, our most valuable asset! Increases in wages from low skill low wage workers into high skill high wage workers. The risk belongs to the company making the investment in terms of “will they cut it” (will they remain in this field and be employable at a higher wage?) with such incentives they can afford to take the risk in paying for training!
Increased wages=increased taxes
Better chance of manufacturing returning
Is anyone talking about this sort of thing??
Adam Smith pointed out that free trade makes all nations richer, and thatt will always be the case.
Unfortunately, he failed to realize that there will never be free trade.
@@darkgalaxy5548 Smith was a very insightful man. I'm betting he well realized the reality of the influence of politics on Economics.
Amazon would be fkd.
Not to mention Walmart
They have domestic factories so they can get around a some tariffs in some cases. Toyota built domestic factories so they are not paying tariffs for some of their cars and trucks for this reason. This is another possibility, not brought up is, foreign companies building local factories, to get around tariffs as well. So far we have heard of selective industry tariffs, but there will be other things with the tariff that have to happen, I agree. We will have to see what is actually being proposed. Imo, a government audit is most important than anything right now.
Well, she’s forgetting that they’re using the tariffs to replace the income tax. Therefore, the average citizen will have more money to spend. and comparing the 1890s to early 1900 economy is not a fair comparison sure it’s 2% consumption, but the population currently is far larger. Also, if you can lower the government budget by 10% a year, there’s even more profit from the tariffs, right?
replacing IT with tariffs makes government revenue very unpredictable and unstable... as the revenue would have to be dependent on the flow of imports.
The major irony here is Trump wants America to be `self-sustaining', though his policies make the US Economy / US Gov heavily dependent on other countries lol
@ you just making this shit up as you go along with no proof why don’t you vote for the last administration they think we can tax our way out of a debt problem?
She talks about how Americans would be aftected by income tax replaced tariffs. Go to 9:06 called “Lower Income Americans” watch the whole video before commenting 🤦🏻♂️
@@tmerb well it’s early yet we will see. I don’t really agree with that decision so far we will see if he’s just using it as a negotiation tool or how much he actually does.
Sure at the expense of middle class Americans
Federal withholding going towards my net pay would be awesome...