aTmAg said:

---

It's odd referring to fiscal policy as loose or tight. As if there is an interest rate of their own that they set. They don't.

Government simply interferes and impedes on progress. The more they interfere the less productivity we enjoy and the lower the supply of goods. Government should never TRY to increase interference. They should simply get the hell out of the way and let the economy thrive.

---

Loose meaning - government spending a lot
Tight meaning - government reigning in spending

Nothing more.

I understand the need for targeted tariffs but I view them as a necessary evil. I tire of people trying to convince us they're good without acknowledging the harm they usually do.

Musk has been more honest than any politician. If we're going to improve things, it's going to require some temporary and potentially acute pain. Taxes or pseudo taxes (tariffs) will need to go up and, government spending will need to go down, and a lot of people will need to lose their jobs.

Every critic of tariffs needs to be asked what the effect of corporate taxes is.

If they aren't consistent, you know they aren't really criticizing tariffs, they just don't like Trump.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

I agreed with this 6 years ago because the American consumer does pay the tariff.

But Trump proved to me he knows how to effectively use tariffs and the threat of tariffs. He is trying to make our manufacturing more robust and decrease dependency on Chyna for anything he can.

I support the bludgeoning of our foes and rebuilding manufacturing in America that rebuilds towns and communities full of people that are like minded. And I am willing to pay more for it if I must.

---

Like most of us on here, complaining about "INFLATION!!!!" is nothing more than tribal politics at its finest. For most in the true middle class and higher, the tears cried about inflation were crocodile tears at best. If a few hundred bucks more in gas and groceries cripples you to the point that your life if truly changed, you've made some poor choices in life and now need to make better ones.

As can be seen by all of your stars, people have no problem paying more for everything, so long as it's for the reasons they support. No different than liberals the past four years and it looks like no different for many a republican the next four years. As you said, "like-minded" goes along way in how one sees there being less in the bank accounts,

---

I would argue the main difference between the right and the left on inflation is that the left spent months denying any inflation was taking place, then claimed it was transitory once that was proven to be false, then blamed business owners and Trump as the reason inflation was out of control once that was proven to be false. There was zero accountability. People like Elon and Trump are telling you up front that this is necessary, but it won't be all sunshine.

---

Great points. The left, because they just won't budge to save their lives, denied the obvious. Yet another reason they deserved to lose.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's odd referring to fiscal policy as loose or tight. As if there is an interest rate of their own that they set. They don't.

Government simply interferes and impedes on progress. The more they interfere the less productivity we enjoy and the lower the supply of goods. Government should never TRY to increase interference. They should simply get the hell out of the way and let the economy thrive.

---

Loose meaning - government spending a lot
Tight meaning - government reigning in spending

Nothing more.

---

If government didn't spend it than the private sector would. Money is spent either way. Government merely spends it on wasteful things that society doesn't need or want while the private sector spends it more wisely. If congress was somehow able to spend it as wisely as the private sector (in fantasyland), then the fact that congress was doing the spending would have no effect on inflation at all. Only Fed policy would.

The only way that fiscal policy can effect inflation is by being a drag chute on the economy and lowering supply. They could do that by not spending any money at all, but by regulate the CRAP out of everything and produce the same result.

aTmAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's odd referring to fiscal policy as loose or tight. As if there is an interest rate of their own that they set. They don't.

Government simply interferes and impedes on progress. The more they interfere the less productivity we enjoy and the lower the supply of goods. Government should never TRY to increase interference. They should simply get the hell out of the way and let the economy thrive.

---

Loose meaning - government spending a lot
Tight meaning - government reigning in spending

Nothing more.

---

If government didn't spend it than the private sector would. Money is spent either way. Government merely spends it on wasteful things that society doesn't need or want while the private sector spends it more wisely. If congress was somehow able to spend it as wisely as the private sector (in fantasyland), then the fact that congress was doing the spending would have no effect on inflation at all. Only Fed policy would.

The only way that fiscal policy can effect inflation is by being a drag chute on the economy and lowering supply. They could do that by not spending any money at all, but by regulate the CRAP out of everything and produce the same result.

---

I don't know what you think you are arguing against. I stated that fiscal cannot create inflation. Made no points about government vs private. Sometimes you tend to get in the weeds. Zoom out and understand that I was explaining what happens when loose monetary policy meets fiscal dominance.

sam callahan said:

---

Every critic of tariffs needs to be asked what the effect of corporate taxes is.

If they aren't consistent, you know they aren't really criticizing tariffs, they just don't like Trump.

---

The opposite should be true as well

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Every critic of tariffs needs to be asked what the effect of corporate taxes is.

If they aren't consistent, you know they aren't really criticizing tariffs, they just don't like Trump.

---

The opposite should be true as well

---

Not really.

Corporate taxes directly leads to higher prices, the taxes are passed to the consumer. If it becomes too costly to produce something, goods can come from elsewhere to undercut domestic production, leading to even less production domestically and thus less taxes as well.

Tariffs have a short term effect on price, as they are paid by the exporting country and only passed on in higher prices if the domestic consumer is willing to pay them. Often, the exporting country had been operating from a lower cost basis and will absorb a portion or all of the tariffs themselves.

On top of that, the tariffs often lead to less consumption of imported goods domestically, and long term allow domestic production the ability to ramp back up and compete against the imported goods. More domestic production at lower tax rates often leads to a domestic economic boom that takes in more taxes due to the increased tax base. More domestic jobs means more income taxed and also leads to more tax revenue, even at lower tax rates.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's odd referring to fiscal policy as loose or tight. As if there is an interest rate of their own that they set. They don't.

Government simply interferes and impedes on progress. The more they interfere the less productivity we enjoy and the lower the supply of goods. Government should never TRY to increase interference. They should simply get the hell out of the way and let the economy thrive.

---

Loose meaning - government spending a lot
Tight meaning - government reigning in spending

Nothing more.

---

If government didn't spend it than the private sector would. Money is spent either way. Government merely spends it on wasteful things that society doesn't need or want while the private sector spends it more wisely. If congress was somehow able to spend it as wisely as the private sector (in fantasyland), then the fact that congress was doing the spending would have no effect on inflation at all. Only Fed policy would.

The only way that fiscal policy can effect inflation is by being a drag chute on the economy and lowering supply. They could do that by not spending any money at all, but by regulate the CRAP out of everything and produce the same result.

---

I don't know what you think you are arguing against. I stated that fiscal cannot create inflation. Made no points about government vs private. Sometimes you tend to get in the weeds. Zoom out and understand that I was explaining what happens when loose monetary policy meets fiscal dominance.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

The FED and the government have to work together to maintain stable prices.

---

That implies that government should be looking at prices and taking some sort of action if prices get out of whack. That is not the case.

The government should merely get the hell out of the way and let the free market do it's magic. Their job is to protect us from foreign enemies, corruption, and crap like that. Not concern themselves with prices at all (other than keeping their own costs down).

The Fed should merely ensure that it's keeping the aggregate prices stable and that's it. Not concern itself with unemployment or anything else.

aTmAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's odd referring to fiscal policy as loose or tight. As if there is an interest rate of their own that they set. They don't.

Government simply interferes and impedes on progress. The more they interfere the less productivity we enjoy and the lower the supply of goods. Government should never TRY to increase interference. They should simply get the hell out of the way and let the economy thrive.

---

Loose meaning - government spending a lot
Tight meaning - government reigning in spending

Nothing more.

---

If government didn't spend it than the private sector would. Money is spent either way. Government merely spends it on wasteful things that society doesn't need or want while the private sector spends it more wisely. If congress was somehow able to spend it as wisely as the private sector (in fantasyland), then the fact that congress was doing the spending would have no effect on inflation at all. Only Fed policy would.

The only way that fiscal policy can effect inflation is by being a drag chute on the economy and lowering supply. They could do that by not spending any money at all, but by regulate the CRAP out of everything and produce the same result.

---

I don't know what you think you are arguing against. I stated that fiscal cannot create inflation. Made no points about government vs private. Sometimes you tend to get in the weeds. Zoom out and understand that I was explaining what happens when loose monetary policy meets fiscal dominance.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

The FED and the government have to work together to maintain stable prices.

---

That implies that government should be looking at prices and taking some sort of action if prices get out of whack. That is not the case.

The government should merely get the hell out of the way and let the free market do it's magic. Their job is to protect us from foreign enemies, corruption, and crap like that. Not concern themselves with prices at all (other than keeping their costs down).

The Fed should merely ensure that it's keeping the aggregate prices stable and that's it. Not concern itself with unemployment or anything else.

---

Again, you are arguing from an idealistic puritive point of view that I don't necessarily disagree with. I'm talking about "the way the structure of our FED and government ACTUALLY ARE TODAY", and that the fiscal regime can expand or contract the regime of the FED but cannot in its own initiate inflation.

And as long as we have mandatory spending, especially at the critically high levels it is today, there is no amount of "getting out of the way" that can change much. The government is permanently loose fiscal.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Tariffs are definitely inflationary.

If they get instituted like his last term, hopefully price increases are offset by things like lowering corporate tax rate and slashing regulations.

---

That logic works if companies pass those savings along to the consumer. Otherwise they pass along the cost of the tariff and keep the cost savings from lower taxes and regulation for themselves.

If someone is invested in the stock market to a certain degree it doesn't matter. They benefit from the increased corporate earnings. If someone is not in that position…well they bear a burden.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Every critic of tariffs needs to be asked what the effect of corporate taxes is.

If they aren't consistent, you know they aren't really criticizing tariffs, they just don't like Trump.

---

The opposite should be true as well

---

Not really.

Corporate taxes directly leads to higher prices, the taxes are passed to the consumer. If it becomes too costly to produce something, goods can come from elsewhere to undercut domestic production, leading to even less production domestically and thus less taxes as well.

Tariffs have a short term effect on price, as they are paid by the exporting country and only passed on in higher prices if the domestic consumer is willing to pay them. Often, the exporting country had been operating from a lower cost basis and will absorb a portion or all of the tariffs themselves.

On top of that, the tariffs often lead to less consumption of imported goods domestically, and long term allow domestic production the ability to ramp back up and compete against the imported goods. More domestic production at lower tax rates often leads to a domestic economic boom that takes in more taxes due to the increased tax base. More domestic jobs means more income taxed and also leads to more tax revenue, even at lower tax rates.

---

We don't have an employment problem. We don't need more domestic jobs. I think we should bring in specific industries (pharma, tech, etc) for the sake of national security, but our unemployment rate isn't a problem we should be trying to solve with tariffs.

As for tariffs making domestic companies more competitive… You talk about "ramping back up", but that apparently wasn't enough to keep the jobs in the first place so what's going to be different this time? Plus you have to expect that if foreign-made prices go up, so will domestic-made prices. Why? Because they can.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Every critic of tariffs needs to be asked what the effect of corporate taxes is.

If they aren't consistent, you know they aren't really criticizing tariffs, they just don't like Trump.

---

The opposite should be true as well

---

Not really.

Corporate taxes directly leads to higher prices, the taxes are passed to the consumer. If it becomes too costly to produce something, goods can come from elsewhere to undercut domestic production, leading to even less production domestically and thus less taxes as well.

Tariffs have a short term effect on price, as they are paid by the exporting country and only passed on in higher prices if the domestic consumer is willing to pay them. Often, the exporting country had been operating from a lower cost basis and will absorb a portion or all of the tariffs themselves.

On top of that, the tariffs often lead to less consumption of imported goods domestically, and long term allow domestic production the ability to ramp back up and compete against the imported goods. More domestic production at lower tax rates often leads to a domestic economic boom that takes in more taxes due to the increased tax base. More domestic jobs means more income taxed and also leads to more tax revenue, even at lower tax rates.

---

We don't have an employment problem. We don't need more domestic jobs. I think we should bring in specific industries (pharma, tech, etc) for the sake of national security, but our unemployment rate isn't a problem we should be trying to solve with tariffs.

As for tariffs making domestic companies more competitive… You talk about "ramping back up", but that apparently wasn't enough to keep the jobs in the first place so what's going to be different this time? Plus you have to expect that if foreign-made prices go up, so will domestic-made prices. Why? Because they can.

---

For someone who merely reads the reported job number, this might sound like truth. For someone who understands that the last 4 years have been heavy government and part time workers and that domestic private employment is still at pre COVID levels, this statement is verifiably false.

We are a consumption society. All of the inputs we need to produce the things we do produce come from overseas. Our manufacturing base has been decimated over decades while we pivoted to low cost goods and inputs of goods originating from overseas. We've helped those countries expand their economies while devaluing our currency to support our consumerism, slowly eroding the purchasing power and stability of our middle class.

We don't need more gross employment. We need employment of people who actually produce things the rest of the world wants that we can sell to the world and bring in tax revenue from. We need less administration and more production.

BigRobSA said:

---

Of course it will be...liberal policies always are.

---

good to see our concerned conservative is back to hating Trump

Jeeper79 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Every critic of tariffs needs to be asked what the effect of corporate taxes is.

If they aren't consistent, you know they aren't really criticizing tariffs, they just don't like Trump.

---

The opposite should be true as well

---

Not really.

Corporate taxes directly leads to higher prices, the taxes are passed to the consumer. If it becomes too costly to produce something, goods can come from elsewhere to undercut domestic production, leading to even less production domestically and thus less taxes as well.

Tariffs have a short term effect on price, as they are paid by the exporting country and only passed on in higher prices if the domestic consumer is willing to pay them. Often, the exporting country had been operating from a lower cost basis and will absorb a portion or all of the tariffs themselves.

On top of that, the tariffs often lead to less consumption of imported goods domestically, and long term allow domestic production the ability to ramp back up and compete against the imported goods. More domestic production at lower tax rates often leads to a domestic economic boom that takes in more taxes due to the increased tax base. More domestic jobs means more income taxed and also leads to more tax revenue, even at lower tax rates.

---

We don't have an employment problem. We don't need more domestic jobs. I think we should bring in specific industries (pharma, tech, etc) for the sake of national security, but our unemployment rate isn't a problem we should be trying to solve with tariffs.

---

We've had a net reduction in full time jobs except for GOVERNMENT jobs during Biden's tenure.

We have a HUGE employment problem!

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Of course it will be...liberal policies always are.

---

good to see our concerned conservative is back to hating Trump

---

I hate nobody...



....well, the Dutch, but I digress...


...I don't hate Trump. I'm a conservative and tariffs are the antithesis of conservative policy. So, since I'm not a liberal. I dislike when anyone, R or D, resorts to fiscally liberal idiocy like tariffs when conservative principles would prevail. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

BigRobSA said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Of course it will be...liberal policies always are.

---

good to see our concerned conservative is back to hating Trump

---

I hate nobody...



....well, the Dutch, but I digress...


...I don't hate Trump. I'm a conservative and tariffs are the antithesis of conservative policy. So, since I'm not a liberal. I dislike when anyone, R or D, resorts to fiscally liberal idiocy like tariffs when conservative principles would prevail. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

Why the Dutch? Because the created the first central bank?

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Of course it will be...liberal policies always are.

---

good to see our concerned conservative is back to hating Trump

---

I hate nobody...



....well, the Dutch, but I digress...


...I don't hate Trump. I'm a conservative and tariffs are the antithesis of conservative policy. So, since I'm not a liberal. I dislike when anyone, R or D, resorts to fiscally liberal idiocy like tariffs when conservative principles would prevail. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

Why the Dutch? Because the created the first central bank?

---

A joke, from Austin Powers.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's odd referring to fiscal policy as loose or tight. As if there is an interest rate of their own that they set. They don't.

Government simply interferes and impedes on progress. The more they interfere the less productivity we enjoy and the lower the supply of goods. Government should never TRY to increase interference. They should simply get the hell out of the way and let the economy thrive.

---

Loose meaning - government spending a lot
Tight meaning - government reigning in spending

Nothing more.

---

If government didn't spend it than the private sector would. Money is spent either way. Government merely spends it on wasteful things that society doesn't need or want while the private sector spends it more wisely. If congress was somehow able to spend it as wisely as the private sector (in fantasyland), then the fact that congress was doing the spending would have no effect on inflation at all. Only Fed policy would.

The only way that fiscal policy can effect inflation is by being a drag chute on the economy and lowering supply. They could do that by not spending any money at all, but by regulate the CRAP out of everything and produce the same result.

---

I don't know what you think you are arguing against. I stated that fiscal cannot create inflation. Made no points about government vs private. Sometimes you tend to get in the weeds. Zoom out and understand that I was explaining what happens when loose monetary policy meets fiscal dominance.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

The FED and the government have to work together to maintain stable prices.

---

That implies that government should be looking at prices and taking some sort of action if prices get out of whack. That is not the case.

The government should merely get the hell out of the way and let the free market do it's magic. Their job is to protect us from foreign enemies, corruption, and crap like that. Not concern themselves with prices at all (other than keeping their costs down).

The Fed should merely ensure that it's keeping the aggregate prices stable and that's it. Not concern itself with unemployment or anything else.

---

Again, you are arguing from an idealistic puritive point of view that I don't necessarily disagree with. I'm talking about "the way the structure of our FED and government ACTUALLY ARE TODAY", and that the fiscal regime can expand or contract the regime of the FED but cannot in its own initiate inflation.

And as long as we have mandatory spending, especially at the critically high levels it is today, there is no amount of "getting out of the way" that can change much. The government is permanently loose fiscal.

---

My point still stands with how the FED and government ACTUALLY ARE TODAY.

The congress should simply cut government as much as it can regardless of what the Fed does or what prices are. If that's only by 1% then that's still better than by 0.5%, -1%, or -10%. They should do so, not because of inflation, but because we want as strong of an economy as possible.

Likewise, the Fed should slow down the printing presses. Regardless of what congress does. They do this simply because inflation is too high.

There is no need to "work together".

Empower published an article this week entitled 'Walmart's Warning' which mentioned BofA and Goldmans economists saying these tariffs will increase annual inflation by 0.3% to 0.4%. This equates to a $0.01 to $0.02 total increase per $1.00 over the next 4 years. This is negligible when you consider the Fed's target inflation is between $0.08 and $0.13 per $1.00 over the next 4 years.

Maybe Wal-Mart could go back to the slogan that actually built their company.

Made In The USA.

LOYAL AG said:

---

This argument assumes there will be tariffs. Trump has been clear that he is using them to leverage American companies to return production to the states to create jobs. If those companies do that their products won't face tariffs.

Having said Wal Mart and Amazon are the kings of "Made in China" so I'm confident he sees tariffs on Chinese products as a threat to his business and he's right.

Then you have the reduction in energy costs that will come from his focus on reducing to cost of production of oil and gas which is deflationary. That will to some degree offset potential tariffs.

---

Trump isn't entirely against 'Made in China' since that's where he had his special edition Bible printed and bound since he could get it done, including shipment to the States, for $3 per Bible, then selling plain versions for $60 and autographed ones for around $1000.

Improved technology and drilling techniques are the primary drivers of lowering drilling costs. During the early 'aughts' the average cost of producing a barrel of shale oil was over $80/bbl, slowing down development. It's now about half of that, that reduction being the prime mover in increased production since then. Lowering costs even more though is more likely to increase stock buy-backs, pay down debt, and produce an investor friendly balance sheet. Reducing the price of refined products is likely low on the list.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Of course it will be...liberal policies always are.

---

good to see our concerned conservative is back to hating Trump

---

I hate nobody...



....well, the Dutch, but I digress...


...I don't hate Trump. I'm a conservative and tariffs are the antithesis of conservative policy. So, since I'm not a liberal. I dislike when anyone, R or D, resorts to fiscally liberal idiocy like tariffs when conservative principles would prevail. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

Why the Dutch? Because the created the first central bank?

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

GE said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

GE said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364963029112

I bet he's wrong. Many people will be disputing that.

---

Tariffs, in and of themselves, are ALWAYS inflationary. It's kind of the whole point of tariffs… make things more expensive on purpose to affect behavioral changes. If they're not inflationary then they didn't work.

---

Depends on how you use them. If Europe has 100% tariff on Ford and GM but we have no tariff on Mercedes and BMW then tariff Europe until they remove their tariff on Ford and GM.

---

You're missing the point. That only works because tariffs are inflationary. You're basically trying to leverage inflation against inflation, but it's still inflation.

---

If we tariff them and then remove the tariff once they agree to remove their tariffs on American made cars, then we are in a better position overall compared to status quo, even if prices temporarily go up until they're taken off.

---

That only works because… and I know this will blow your mind…

Tariffs are inflationary.

---

So you aren't trying to make the point that tariffs are not a useful tool, just that they are in some cases inflationary?

Exactly. Outrageous inflation and the MSM whitewashed over it for 4 years.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Amazon and Walmart online have basically ruined themselves with cheap chinese garbage and knockoffs of American IP. I don't buy anything there because it's mostly crap with inflated false reviews intended to deceive their customers. One big scam market. It's basically the online version of times square street hustlers selling fakes

---

Most of that garbage can be found on AliExpress for a fraction of the price if anybody is in a situation where money is tight.

On the non-grocery side of things, Wal Mart seeks cheap Chinese crap that's headed to a landfill within 6 months of purchase. 99% of it should have never been produced, let alone imported. Let Wal Mart burn to the ground.

Gonna be wild watching both sides flip their narratives on inflation.

rgvag11 said:

---

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364963029112

I bet he's wrong. Many people will be disputing that.

---

The CEO also incorrectly assumes inelastic demand for the Made in China supply chain he's curated.

Elites think we're stupid and cannot find alternative sources for products at a lower (non- tarriffed) price.