I'm surprised its even 11 percent. Companies are just going to hold out until he is out of office.

Forum Troll said:

---

I'm surprised its even 11 percent. Companies are just going to hold out until he is out of office.

---

That number surprised me too. I find it hard to imagine thst many companies spedning the sort of capital required to tool up a maturing plant, all based on a 3.5 year POTUS

Forum Troll said:

---

I'm surprised its even 11 percent. Companies are just going to hold out until he is out of office.

---

Maybe. I think Vance is a big tariff fan too, and he's likely the replacement candidate.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Forum Troll said:

---

I'm surprised its even 11 percent. Companies are just going to hold out until he is out of office.

---

Maybe. I think Vance is a big tariff fan too, and he's likely the replacement candidate.

---

I think companies would need some sort of guarantee to invest millions with a long term ROI. Automation would make more sense for whatever industries can make that happen.

It would be interesting to see.the data by industry / type of labor

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

We have to bite the bullet at some point

---

No we don't.

---

So you've figured out a way to solve our financial issues with no taxpayer and economic turbulence? Please let us all know what it is.

---

step 1: undo his tariffs

wow that was easy!

pagerman @ work said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

We have to bite the bullet at some point

---

No we don't.

---

So you've figured out a way to solve our financial issues with no taxpayer and economic turbulence? Please let us all know what it is.

---

Tariffs do nothing to "solve our financial issues".

---

Then what does?

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

We have to bite the bullet at some point

---

No we don't.

---

So you've figured out a way to solve our financial issues with no taxpayer and economic turbulence? Please let us all know what it is.

---

step 1: undo his tariffs

wow that was easy!

---

That's it? You should call the white house and let them know.

aTmAg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

So in a nutshell, just replace Congress. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, what should Trump do?

---

He should have used his mandate to force congress to make actual cuts and make them permeant. The LAST thing he should have done is screw Americans over with tariffs. Now he has blown his mandate, his polls are at record lows, and he has no chance of making needed long term changes.

---

How does he "force" Congress? What long term changes can he make that he isn't?

jamey said:

---

Forum Troll said:

---

I'm surprised its even 11 percent. Companies are just going to hold out until he is out of office.

---

That number surprised me too. I find it hard to imagine thst many companies spedning the sort of capital required to tool up a maturing plant, all based on a 3.5 year POTUS

---

The tariff situation might change in 3.5 years, but the overall issue of relying on China and other adversaries will not. Smart companies will spend the money to secure a more controlled domestic supply chain to avoid the next Covid, the next war, the next trade disruption. If the cost is simply too high, they will still spend the money to move it to a more favored nation than China.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

We have to bite the bullet at some point

---

No we don't.

---

So you've figured out a way to solve our financial issues with no taxpayer and economic turbulence? Please let us all know what it is.

---

Tariffs do nothing to "solve our financial issues".

---

Then what does?

---

Real cutting of spending, specifically reforms to entitlements (which represent 65%+ of federal spending). A tremendous first step would have been a budget reverting to 2019 spending. Instead we get a defense budget that the administration proudly announces tops $1 trillion.

Tariffs aren't going to raise revenue in any significant, meaningful way. And any they do raise is transitory at best.

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

We have to bite the bullet at some point

---

No we don't.

---

So you've figured out a way to solve our financial issues with no taxpayer and economic turbulence? Please let us all know what it is.

---

step 1: undo his tariffs

wow that was easy!

---

the economy was floundering before the tariffs, so I'm not sure your idea fixes our financial issues.

Aggie95 said:

---

jamey said:

---

Forum Troll said:

---

I'm surprised its even 11 percent. Companies are just going to hold out until he is out of office.

---

That number surprised me too. I find it hard to imagine thst many companies spedning the sort of capital required to tool up a maturing plant, all based on a 3.5 year POTUS

---

The tariff situation might change in 3.5 years, but the overall issue of relying on China and other adversaries will not. Smart companies will spend the money to secure a more controlled domestic supply chain to avoid the next Covid, the next war, the next trade disruption. If the cost is simply too high, they will still spend the money to move it to a more favored nation than China.

---

Which will be great right up until the point that Trump decides that the new nation in question has too big a trade deficit (or too many penguins) and tariff bombs that country.

Jeeper79 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Stop buying products from China…

Tariffs become a non issue…

It's pretty simple…

---

If American corporations produced the same quality at a lower price then people would.

We need to shrink government to enable that to happen again, not add more government and raise prices even more.

It's pretty simple.

---

Tariffs are a bad idea, but we can't deregulate ourselves into competitiveness, either. The cost of labor in the US is just too high for most things.

---

The reason our cost of labor is so high is BECAUSE of government policy. Before our government regulated, taxed, welfared, and printed their asses off, American workers could live comfortably on $1/day (and even less). So much so that unskilled laborers by the millions came here to work and live for decades. It's our government that has pushed our cost of living through the roof through its policies.

---

It's because our standard of living is higher. We are the world's richest country, but that comes with its own cost. Our houses are bigger. We have 4 walls to call our own without resorting to multi-unit housing unless there are population density limitations. Our cars are bigger. We very often have two of them, and only very poor people or big city dwellers don't have one at all. We have more stuff. We have air conditioning everywhere. While nobody prefers drinking water straight from the tap anymore, nobody worries that it might kill you.

---

No.. the fact that we spend so much is ALSO government's fault. Do you think we'd have so many monster houses if the minimum down payment was still 20% and interest rates were not so artificially low for so long? Hell no.

If we had a non-intrusive government that let the interest rates be set by the free market so that people save and spend as nature dictates, then we wouldn't be so spendthrifty. The entire keynesian school pushes more spending. GDP looks "good" when we spend. The same thing for 0% auto financing. All of these idioitic policies push costs way up.

It's not that every American across the nation has suddenly decided to change mentality at the same time and spend nearly all they have. That is entirely due to government policy.

1) deregulation....massive deregulation....to bring back some mfg. And not idiotic EOs, actually be a leader and work with our majorities in the lege to make it happen. But we already make more now than ever before.

2) Gut spending, even military spending.

3) cut taxes for all, especially corporate taxes , which will help bring some mfg back.

I'm in mfg now as one of my jobs. We were already investing in our plant, to the tune of $100mm on top of buying the property outright, finally. For some of our raw castings, we get from U.S. and they're absolute trash. Mexico, same thing. We are going to source from Germany because they can actually cast good parts. Our components come from all over, for the entire engine. We get cylinder liners from China. They're outstanding. Rarely and issue. Our US made components are also trash, filled with porosity. Now, all our US material comes from Union states, but still, this idea that American products are superior isn't based on reality.

But, overall, we need to bring pharma, military, and tech mfg back either here or to more friendly countries.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

So in a nutshell, just replace Congress. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, what should Trump do?

---

He should have used his mandate to force congress to make actual cuts and make them permeant. The LAST thing he should have done is screw Americans over with tariffs. Now he has blown his mandate, his polls are at record lows, and he has no chance of making needed long term changes.

---

How does he "force" Congress? What long term changes can he make that he isn't?

---

If it's not written into law, then every DOGE saving will be erased within weeks of the next democrat president.

Trump's approval ratings was at his record levels. The democrats were on the ropes. They came off like idiots justifying USAID buying condoms for dead Palestinian kids and all of that crap. He had a golden opportunity that he has since squandered. He will now likely get crushed in the midterms and any chance to make real permanent cuts will be gone.

Correction said:

---

Here's some actual data from the Dallas Fed survey on how companies plan to deal with tariff cost increases:



"Pass costs increases onto customers" was the most common response at 76% of manufacturers surveyed.

"Relocate production to the US" was the least common at 11%.

---

This could be very misleading.
Of those 76% of manufacturers I would like to see a breakdown of what % of their manufacturing supply is affected by the tariffs. If a manufacturer is buying 1 or 2 parts that represent only 1-2% of their overhead the result would be inconsequential.
If their foreign parts supply is 80-100% of their process then yes the consumer will see a large increase. If the consumer is another manufacturer and that part is only 1-5% of their overhead then it would be inconsequential.
I need a better breakdown than this table indicates.
I already gave an example of clothing from China that as of 2022 was only ~27% of imports. That means there are ~ 73% of imports from other nations, two of which are India & Vietnam which were early on negotiating tariff deals.
Only time will tell.

BigRobSA said:

---

1) deregulation....massive deregulation....to bring back some mfg. And not idiotic EOs, actually be a leader and work with our majorities in the lege to make it happen. But we already make more now than ever before.

• During Trump's 1st term his administration's goal was eliminate 2 regs for each new reg. They actually eliminated 8 regs for each new reg.The new goal is eliminate 10 regs for each new reg. I believe they already have or are in process of exceeding the new goal in the EPA.
• ETA EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History

2) Gut spending, even military spending.

• agreed
• Maybe they could redirect their efforts to reduce the endless waste instead of increasing the DOD budget.

3) cut taxes for all, especially corporate taxes , which will help bring some mfg back.

• I could be wrong but I thought in some of the negotiations with manufacturers the corporate tax rate would be 15%.
• Corporate Tax Rate. A Lower Corporate Tax Rate for Domestic Manufacturing? The outcome of the 2024 US elections has provided some clarity regarding the direction of future corporate tax rates. During the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a 28% corporate tax rate, while President-elect Donald Trump supported corporate tax rates of 15% and 20%.

I'm in mfg now as one of my jobs. We were already investing in our plant, to the tune of $100mm on top of buying the property outright, finally. For some of our raw castings, we get from U.S. and they're absolute trash. Mexico, same thing. We are going to source from Germany because they can actually cast good parts. Our components come from all over, for the entire engine. We get cylinder liners from China. They're outstanding. Rarely and issue. Our US made components are also trash, filled with porosity. Now, all our US material comes from Union states, but still, this idea that American products are superior isn't based on reality.

But, overall, we need to bring pharma, military, and tech mfg back either here or to more friendly countries.

---

I agree completely

richardag said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

1) deregulation....massive deregulation....to bring back some mfg. And not idiotic EOs, actually be a leader and work with our majorities in the lege to make it happen. But we already make more now than ever before.

• During Trump's 1st term his administration's goal was eliminate 2 regs for each new reg. They actually eliminated 8 regs for each new reg.The new goal is eliminate 10 regs for each new reg. I believe they already have or are in process of exceeding the new goal in the EPA.
• ETA EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History

2) Gut spending, even military spending.

• agreed
• Maybe they could redirect their efforts to reduce the endless waste instead of increasing the DOD budget.

3) cut taxes for all, especially corporate taxes , which will help bring some mfg back.

• I could be wrong but I thought in some of the negotiations with manufacturers the corporate tax rate would be 15%.
• Corporate Tax Rate. A Lower Corporate Tax Rate for Domestic Manufacturing? The outcome of the 2024 US elections has provided some clarity regarding the direction of future corporate tax rates. During the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a 28% corporate tax rate, while President-elect Donald Trump supported corporate tax rates of 15% and 20%.

I'm in mfg now as one of my jobs. We were already investing in our plant, to the tune of $100mm on top of buying the property outright, finally. For some of our raw castings, we get from U.S. and they're absolute trash. Mexico, same thing. We are going to source from Germany because they can actually cast good parts. Our components come from all over, for the entire engine. We get cylinder liners from China. They're outstanding. Rarely and issue. Our US made components are also trash, filled with porosity. Now, all our US material comes from Union states, but still, this idea that American products are superior isn't based on reality.

But, overall, we need to bring pharma, military, and tech mfg back either here or to more friendly countries.

---

I agree completely

---

EPA regs are great to get rid of. Need a lot more, elsewhere.

Minimum wage, Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley , etc.

All unconstitutional usurpations of power not delegated to the feds and/or due to basstardization by SCotUS idiocy.

Wonder what this is supposed to mean

TRUMP SAYS WANTS TO MAKE SURE INDUSTRY IS HAPPY WITH TARIFF IDEA

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) May 5, 2025

jamey said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

jamey said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

It's situational. There are absolutely situations where the producing company will pay for the tariff.

Product A:
Made in China - Cost $5. Costs $2 to ship to US. Tariff of $7. Profit of 10% pre-tariff. ((5+2) *1.1)+7 = $14.70
Made in Taiwan - Cost $8. Costs $2 to ship to US. Tariff of $1. Profit of 10% pre-tariff ((8+2)*1.1)+1 = $12.00
Made in US - Cost $20, after profit.

Assume that consumer doesn't care if it comes from Taiwan or China. Who do you think pays for the tariff for goods made in China? Most likely - Consumer pays for $1, China pays for $6.

Its obviously way, way more complicated than that. The main issues are economies of scale, monopolistic pricing power, and trade patterns. But, in an international market with commodity level goods, and disparate tariffs for different countries, the consumer is not likely to pay 100% of the tariff from the country paying the highest tariffs.

I think that Krugman even goes into this a little bit in his Riksbank Prize work.

---

Trump said China, the country pays the tariff

That's a lie any way you want to slice it

He's not talking about secondary sourcing or anything else.


China pays the tariff, full stop.

---

He's factually correct

The reason they've cornered so much of the manufacturing globally, is because they manipulate the markets. Their government controls and subsidizes it. That is quite literally why we're in this situation.

Their financial system is very different than ours.

I'm not arguing for/against tariffs... it he's factually correct, and pointing out something a lot of people don't understand

---

You're playing games. China will pay a price. This isn't about who it hurts more or any of that. This is paying literal tariffs


That's not paying a tariff. Trump is trying to make it sound like US consumers won't see price upticks because China pays the literal tariff

---

I see your angle and your argument amounts to a hill of beans. Trump is talking about the big picture. Are you able to see the big picture?

BigRobSA said:

---

richardag said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

1) deregulation....massive deregulation....to bring back some mfg. And not idiotic EOs, actually be a leader and work with our majorities in the lege to make it happen. But we already make more now than ever before.

• During Trump's 1st term his administration's goal was eliminate 2 regs for each new reg. They actually eliminated 8 regs for each new reg.The new goal is eliminate 10 regs for each new reg. I believe they already have or are in process of exceeding the new goal in the EPA.
• ETA EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History

2) Gut spending, even military spending.

• agreed
• Maybe they could redirect their efforts to reduce the endless waste instead of increasing the DOD budget.

3) cut taxes for all, especially corporate taxes , which will help bring some mfg back.

• I could be wrong but I thought in some of the negotiations with manufacturers the corporate tax rate would be 15%.
• Corporate Tax Rate. A Lower Corporate Tax Rate for Domestic Manufacturing? The outcome of the 2024 US elections has provided some clarity regarding the direction of future corporate tax rates. During the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a 28% corporate tax rate, while President-elect Donald Trump supported corporate tax rates of 15% and 20%.

I'm in mfg now as one of my jobs. We were already investing in our plant, to the tune of $100mm on top of buying the property outright, finally. For some of our raw castings, we get from U.S. and they're absolute trash. Mexico, same thing. We are going to source from Germany because they can actually cast good parts. Our components come from all over, for the entire engine. We get cylinder liners from China. They're outstanding. Rarely and issue. Our US made components are also trash, filled with porosity. Now, all our US material comes from Union states, but still, this idea that American products are superior isn't based on reality.

But, overall, we need to bring pharma, military, and tech mfg back either here or to more friendly countries.

---

I agree completely

---

EPA regs are great to get rid of. Need a lot more, elsewhere.

Minimum wage, Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley , etc.

All unconstitutional usurpations of power not delegated to the feds and/or due to basstardization by SCotUS idiocy.

---

Agree again. Based on President Trump's 1st term and his administration's goal I believe we can expect a lot more.
His Administration will be fought by the unethical, corrupted Federal Judges. Paging Judge Roberts, get off your ass or resign.

Well, then....



......we'll just have to agree to agree!!!!1