Economics has me 100% convinced that erecting a trade barrier between two countries will lower their combined total wealth. But I don’t see that it necessarily makes each of them poorer; one could gain some while the other loses a lot. Nor do I see how it says anything at all about the wealth of any individual or group in either country. The “rising tide” theory is nonsense. Wealth isn’t like water, naturally seeking level. Wealth tends to draw more wealth to itself. No scalar measure of “the” economy can account for this.
On the accounting identity, Stephen Gordon (an economist at the University of Laval who runs the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative blog) has a good explanation. Imports are subtracted from total consumption, investment, and government expenditure **to figure out how much of that is domestic**, because that can't be measured directly. https://x.com/stephenfgordon/status/1839822699943866725
Because of anti-science anti-logic trans, anti-merit anti-justice identity politics, and anti-dissent anti-free speech corporate statist blob (and now anti-wiping out the only Jewish state in the world for a people who would have no home despite their existence pre-dating their colonizer’s religion by millennia in favor of oppressive theocracy) I have been told I am in The Far Right. Fine. That being typed, I agree with you.
Just because I’m “on the Far Right” I owe Trump nothing. I’m reluctantly voting for him because the other option is worse. The other option is a non-senile surrogate. The other option lies more than Trump does. (Although a material portion of Trump’s “lying” is him being incorrect or unable to properly articulate his position. Is communication style and quality reminds me of my father in that, my dad says something, I disagree with the foundations before he even gets to his point, and three minutes later it ends with me working simultaneously backward but forward to his point with him saying “that’s what I meant/you know what I mean” and me saying “I don’t know what you mean/Why didn’t you just say that?”) With the new establishment/Leftist blob I wouldn’t even call it lying. That implies intent. There just isn’t a concern for truth. The concept o truth is not recognized. There is only a concern for power and truth isn’t a currency when it only gets in the way of what you want. In that world, I think so many people have lived that way for so long they wouldn’t know how to talk with truth in mind. Those concerned with truth aren’t at dinner parties. If being full of shit works and society’s high tide via the appropriate people recognizing truth keeps things going, then truth is optional or maybe even a tool of the enemy …until enough people reject it and society craters.
If Left, Right, everybody… would be honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world where we would disagree with those supposedly on our “side”. (If the world began operating this way I would so quickly and powerfully get an unbreakable mental boner that it would launch through my wall, burying into my neighbor’s brick chimney.) Personally, I’ll lose friends or family relationships over losing respect for myself and eating a bowl of nonsensical shit. It’s ok. Life’s short. I’m not breaking relationships over the politics of a straw ban or the economics of value-added taxes. But if you think “sustainability” includes body acceptance and positivity for the hyper-consumptive morbidly obese yet you’re raising a trans 8 year old since it was a toddler, you’re out of your mind. That’s not logical, sane, healthy, or sustainable. There’s gonna be a lot of kids seeking vengeance on their parents as adults for either being so stupid or self-righteous to ruin their lives with obvious insanity. Morbidity obese people need to be respected as human beings and we all need to be educated on the ubiquity of sugar and processed foods and the influence those companies have on government. Trans people need to be treated for mental ailments, not have fantasies indulged. If adults want to have at themselves, that’s their prerogative. Kids are kids. Theyre templates with personalities who need a framework of thought to empower themselves to forge through life, not get plugged into Big Medicine and Big Pharma from birth. We all need to be educated on ways to find value and purpose and live a life of self-actualization while being aware of influence Big Medicine and Big Pharma have on government and our kids. And we need to be committed to better families, communities, and a society. Not a political party or a side. I’m only voting for Trump. But I’m committed to the best way forward. And that includes agreeing with your article and criticizing Trump whenever possible.
You clearly didn’t read what I wrote. What you wrote does not contradict or invalidate what I wrote.
But I’ll play along.
Trump was addressing former VA gov Ralph Northam’s statement, when discussing a state bill increasing access to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, there could be cases a physician would deliver an infant who is deformed or non viable. “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and family desired. And then a discussion would ensure between the physician and the mother.” I got that quote from the bastion of MAGA-ism, CNN.
I remember this story when it happened in 2019. Based on the governor’s comments, the bill would allow for post-birth abortion. Now, to be fair, the governor may have misspoke. But he did say “the infant would be delivered”. Without reading the bill, I don’t believe the bill allows for frivolous post-birth abortion, or maybe any kind. But if you’re pushing 3rd trimester abortion and you use postbirth language like the governor did, it’s totally fair to demand follow-up and assume there’s a possibility. That’s just called being a diligent. If there’s loopholes to terminate live life, you gotta expose this.
Ultimately, there’s a shitload of context that you can add to Trump’s comments, but technically, he wasn’t wrong about that. Although, he was wrong because he said governor of West Virginia not Virginia.
This is all pointless because I don’t deny Trump misspeaks and lies. The impetus for my comment was agreeing with Matt and his article, which, in its entirety, disagrees with a main tenet of Trump’s trade rhetoric. So it’s pointless to respond to my comment that trump lies, especially citing a circumstance when Trump noted something the governor of VA explicitly states. If you’ve been following politics for… all of history and especially lately … plenty of people (including Kamala) boldly say they do things they don’t or they don’t do things they do. At worst, Trump mischaracterized the situation. And you know what - HE SHOULD NOT HAVE! While I think it’s fair for him to do so given what opponents are doing, he still shouldn’t do it. He should’ve cite that bill and others like it without wading into gray area. OR he could cite the gray area. That builds credibility and shows you’re interested in the details.
Well, I’m not playing along with the insanity of “I don’t deny Trump misspeaks and lies” followed with “at worst he mischaracterized the situation” over a bill you admit to not reading (but think it’s fair to “assume the possibility” that it includes executing babies.)
I’m not sure if this is a good faith comment that’s obtuse or tribal trollish opposition. It feels like talking to one of my kids when they're frustrated that they're not getting their way and disagree with anything I say even if it's something they want. An objective person reads this as an advertisement for an individual that makes a black hole not seem so dense.
I have no interest in bad faith discussion. (And this one's dead as anyone's credibility that said our current senile president - who isn't running again because he's senile yet shepherding us through a multi front global cold and hot war - is "sharp as a tack".)
These comments can sit and anywhere between 0-7 people can read them for exactly what they are and what I wrote. Not intentional misreadings or restatements of what's right there.
I don't “assume the possibility that it includes executing babies". I'm saying, even though I didn't read the bill, I assume the bill DOES NOT include the possibility of executing babies! The former governor 'f'ed up explicitly saying THAT IT DOES! Therefore, “At worst [Trump] mischaracterized the situation” because it occurred as he said. The governor was campaigning for the bill and said it! That's not me making excuses for Trump. That's what happened. While I could leave it at that, I'm maintaining I wish Trump wouldn't have used that as an opportunity to paint the picture that the goal is post birth abortions. he could've just cited the bill as it was, and others like it. While his opponents certainty mischaracterize and straight up lie about him and their positions on numerous topics so as not to put off the ignorant voting public from their true agenda - I don't want Trump or anyone to act that way. Ultimately, I wish you'd've picked a better example of a Trump lie, so I could agree with you that it is a lie and we could all go home happy.
The irony is, no occupation lies more than politician, yet Trump, once he became a politician, became known as a liar. If he were in the club, no one would say shit about his lies or misstatements. He's a mid-major compared to the Blue Blood lying pros in politics. But he's not in the club, so he's the enemy. Now Eric Adams is finding out he's out of the club - and every other municipal politician is finding out what happens when you go against The Family. If you go along with the borderless society, you're good to go. If you go along with the agenda, you're not standing in the 2020 debate with Biden bringing up the Hunter laptop story telling the truth but Biden - the well-documented plagiarist and previously infamous liar, even for a politician - has 50 Intelligence officials claim it's Russian disinformation. It's so obvious. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be hilarious. I don't give a shit about Trump. I want the least lying leadership who doesn't detest the citizenry. I'd prefer to have someone better than Trump. But that's not the choice.
You want people to be "honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world" yet you think Kamala is worse than an unhinged would-be autocrat who spews a nonstop stream of lies and who appeals to his followers' worst instincts. I'm not seeing the logic here.
I don’t agree with your characterizations, especially relative to the current administration which is the Biden/Kamala/BigLeft admin. To reply to you ending your statement on “yet you think Kamala is worse”, the answer is “yes”.
What would justify someone not being “honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world"? It speaks loudly pulling on that thread.
My point was, Trump is the antithesis of “honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world.” He spews lies and crazy-ass conspiracy theories, and he wouldn’t know sustainable if it bit him on the backside.
This isn't an election where I can pick whoever I want. It's essentially a binary choice. Reluctantly, I choose Trump and all his many gilded orange man Long Island-trash flaws over communism. I don't want Trump. I didn't vote for him the past two elections. This is the choice. A choice, by the way, the Leftists want because they know Trump is so naturally unlikeable - and they've spent millions of dollars and years painting him as the worst most lethal person in human history - that they can push their communist agenda through, and people will go along. "Go along, Jerry. Go along."
What’s your reasoning …besides it doesn’t fit what you want to believe or people to think?
So the VP debate is coming up, so we’ll just stick with that. Walz was picked because he’s in love with the CCP, loves a good lockdown, the smell of his city burning against, and putting tampons in men’s bathrooms (It’s gotta be a litmus test to show you’re in the club. No sane person believes this society crushing bullshit.)
Walz taught his students about supposed virtues of communism after receiving extraordinarily favorable treatment in China. (Communism for thee, but not for me.)
"It means that everyone is the same and everyone shares," Walz said at the time, according to archived clippings from the Alliance Times-Herald. "No matter how long I live, I'll never be treated that well again," he told the Alliance Times-Herald after he returned to the U.S. "They gave me more gifts than I could bring home. It was an excellent experience."Walz and his wife, Gwen, even married on the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre so that Walz could "have a date he'll always remember," she said.
There is no such thing as equity. When the radicals claim everyone is equal in China - they are speaking of everyone but the Elite. And anybody who chose to "honeymoon" on the anniversary date of the horrific 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre isnt sane. (See tampons in mensrooms.)
1) I don’t care if you do don’t read what I wrote. I don’t care who reads it. I’m not needy. Matt addressed a type of person. I had thoughts. It felt good to respond. I have zero expectations anyone will read it. If no one reads, I’ll somehow survive.
2) You can’t call what I wrote a rant without reading it. (Also, rants are lengthy by nature, so a "pro" can’t rant in brief.)
Yes, Trump says it because it sounds good. But I fear that he also sees it as worth doing because he thinks it will help his base and hurt the blue state types who hate him.
And sure, even if it's overall an economic negative, it seems plausible that the benefits are preferentially located amoung the sort of people likely to vote Trump.
“ It simply makes the United States an undesirable place to locate an airplane factory.”
That’s just simply false. It would cause Airbus to move even more production to its Mobile, AL factory to serve America’s huge appetite for commercial aircraft.
The point is you have raised all the costs of production, including inputs for domestic manufacturing. This makes it more expensive to produce the final product domestically.
You distort prices for the final product and then you tax the inputs that then go into that final product. This is worse than a world where you just distort the price of the final product and don’t increase input costs.
> He’s a mercantilist who believes that countries get rich by accumulating money, so he believes it’s good to export (foreigners give you money) and bad to import (you give foreigners money), and tariffs are a perfect tax because they raise revenue while deterring people from engaging in the bad activity of giving money to foreigners.
Matt nails it here. Never forget: Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man. The median MAGA person looks at Trump and sees Scrooge McDuck - literally swimming in a sea of gold coins. MAGA types actually believe Trump is a billionaire in the sense that he has at least one billion dollars in cash and cash equivalents. That's why the New York verdicts offend Trump so much - it lifts the veil on his personal finances. When the Court orders Trump to pay $500 million, he can't just open his checkbook and write a check for the amount, because it would bounce from here to Neptune. Sure, he *CAN* raise the funds necessary, but it would look bad to his voters if he had to sell Trump National Doral to pay his court fines.
Eh, I think that the fines offend him because while he is a billionaire, he's not a decibillionaire or a centibillionaire and $500M is a LOT of his net worth.
I think the big picture concern is that our chronic budget and trade deficits are related and are an indication that America, as a whole, consumes more than it produces. This doesn’t seem sustainable, except that we (so far) get away with it because of the dollar’s status as the reserve currency.
To a large extent, we “balance” our trade by exporting Treasury bills and newly printed dollars instead of products. Again, this is a sweet deal for us as long as we can get away with it. Workers who lose their jobs “making things” are redeployed providing services, further enhancing our standard of living.
But, again, is this situation sustainable? Are we heading for a Day of Reckoning? And if we need to change, how do we change? I would suggest, as I think Matt alludes to, that reducing the budget deficit would be the key to reducing the trade deficit.
A national sales tax is a great idea, especially now that we can use technology to make it less regressive. Exempting groceries or reducing/exempting the tax based on income would be pretty easy to do at the point of sale of an electronic transaction. You would be collecting the tax from the payment processors, too. Obviously, it is not popular but people would adjust to it over time.
Better to do it as a value added tax, so that it gets divided proportionally among the steps of production, rather than entirely being imposed at the point of sale.
Not directly. Obviously, a high enough tariff reduces imports to zero, so that no matter how counterproductive it is to local economy, the end result is a non-negative trade balance - so tariffs can reduce trade deficits if you pursue them strongly enough.
But I think the issue is that at reasonable levels, so much importing is done for intermediate stages of goods later destined for export, and so much exporting is of raw materials for goods later destined for import, that pushing down on one of these import levers often pushes corresponding exports down even more.
In any case, as i understand it the big problem isn’t too many imports - it’s not enough investment in productive capital at home. Punishing imports doesn’t directly make people start making more stuff here - it just makes stuff more expensive, which might encourage people to start making some stuff here if they can do it almost as cheaply as abroad, but if not, people just end up having less stuff without making much more.
I think the most important mechanism here is about exchange rates: a tariff reduces demand for foreign currency, while increasing demand for domestic currency, which appreciates the domestic currency making exports more expensive. This, plus the point that is alluded to (I think) about trade deficits being fundamentally about capital flows and the forces that generate them. The header seems to suggest this discussion will be in the piece, but then it isn't!
I was with you until the final section on financial flows. Indeed they need to add up.
You are telling a story however that
1. US buys tons of stuff from China
2. CHina buys much less stuff from US
3. US soaks up the extra Chinese savings generated by the CCP's suppression of CHinese domestic consumption
If that surplus savings was being plowed into infrastructure that would pay dividends decades in advance as when the US imported lots of British and Dutch excess savings to build the costly railroads then you'd have a case for trade deficits.
But this is not a close approximation for what is happening. The US being a post industrial country is not apt to be making large capital investments. There's relatively little building. Democrats appropriate funds but have trouble "investing" them (no transfer payments are not "investment") So the extra savings we import from China must necessarily push down our own savings rate. This is how it MUST work for capital flows to balance.
Pushing down our savings rate is achieved by
1. higher sovereign debt
2. higher household/ corporate debt
3. higher unemployment
No one wants the 3 and 2 is sketchy as well so we've decided on 1. as the least bad option.
So effectively the US is running up massive budget deficits to finance mostly transfer payments that are used to buy all the crap from China since the US plays the role of consumer of last resort. Put differently the US political economy in effect imposes a implicit tax on manufactures and an implicit subsidy on consumers; it NECCESARILY the inverse of what China does. To say you want "free trade" with China is to advocate this.
Cass is asking whether this policy is particularly wise or sustainable. And I think Matt is losing the argument here as our own politics in BOTH parties are coming around to the view that it would be better if
1. Chinese conumers bought much more stuff
and
2. the US made much more stuff either for its own market, CHina's or both, even if that meant shifting away from so much consumption in the short run.
You bring trade back into balance and you stop worrying so much about who makes what where. The problem in other words is not the trade, it's the persistent imbalances.
I was with you until the final section on financial flows. Indeed they need to add up.
You are telling a story however that
1. US buys tons of stuff from China
2. CHina buys much less stuff from US
3. US soaks up the extra Chinese savings generated by the CCP's suppression of CHinese domestic consumption
If that surplus savings was being plowed into infrastructure that would pay dividends decades in advance as when the US imported lots of British and Dutch excess savings to build the costly railroads then you'd have a case for trade deficits.
But this is not a close approximation for what is happening. The US being a post industrial country is not apt to be making large capital investments. There's relatively little building. Democrats appropriate funds but have trouble "investing" them (no transfer payments are not "investment") So the extra savings we import from China must necessarily push down our own savings rate. This is how it MUST work for capital flows to balance.
Pushing down our savings rate is achieved by
1. higher sovereign debt
2. higher household/ corporate debt
3. higher unemployment
No one wants the 3 and 2 is sketchy as well so we've decided on 1. as the least bad option.
So effectively the US is running up massive budget deficits to finance mostly transfer payments that are used to buy all the crap from China since the US plays the role of consumer of last resort. Put differently the US political economy in effect imposes a implicit tax on manufactures and an implicit subsidy on consumers; it NECCESARILY the inverse of what China does. To say you want "free trade" with China is to advocate this.
Cass is asking whether this policy is particularly wise or sustainable. And I think Matt is losing the argument here as our own politics in BOTH parties are coming around to the view that it would be better if
1. Chinese conumers bought much more stuff
and
2. the US made much more stuff either for its own market, CHina's or both, even if that meant shifting away from so much consumption in the short run.
You bring trade back into balance and you stop worrying so much about who makes what where. The problem in other words is not the trade, it's the persistent imbalances.
I've only paid for Matt's while I have the free version of Noah's. But my impression is that Noah gives a lot more posts away for free (maybe 1/5 are paywalled, if that?) *and* Noah let's free subscribers still like and post comments. That's even irrespective of who's writing you prefer.
But if your point is that they are both writing about the same things at times, yeah, I'm noticing that too.
I appreciate this article this morning. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. Even from a pure mercantilist perspective, plenty of our imports are inputs (like the aforementioned steel and lumber) and therefore it's a drag on exports if we tax them.
But man, I am getting tired of "don't worry, the very stupid thing this candidate said won't actually happen" as a defense.
Economics has me 100% convinced that erecting a trade barrier between two countries will lower their combined total wealth. But I don’t see that it necessarily makes each of them poorer; one could gain some while the other loses a lot. Nor do I see how it says anything at all about the wealth of any individual or group in either country. The “rising tide” theory is nonsense. Wealth isn’t like water, naturally seeking level. Wealth tends to draw more wealth to itself. No scalar measure of “the” economy can account for this.
This seems to be missing the obvious point I have seen - it allows him to dole out exceptions to whoever bribes him
On the accounting identity, Stephen Gordon (an economist at the University of Laval who runs the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative blog) has a good explanation. Imports are subtracted from total consumption, investment, and government expenditure **to figure out how much of that is domestic**, because that can't be measured directly. https://x.com/stephenfgordon/status/1839822699943866725
Because of anti-science anti-logic trans, anti-merit anti-justice identity politics, and anti-dissent anti-free speech corporate statist blob (and now anti-wiping out the only Jewish state in the world for a people who would have no home despite their existence pre-dating their colonizer’s religion by millennia in favor of oppressive theocracy) I have been told I am in The Far Right. Fine. That being typed, I agree with you.
Just because I’m “on the Far Right” I owe Trump nothing. I’m reluctantly voting for him because the other option is worse. The other option is a non-senile surrogate. The other option lies more than Trump does. (Although a material portion of Trump’s “lying” is him being incorrect or unable to properly articulate his position. Is communication style and quality reminds me of my father in that, my dad says something, I disagree with the foundations before he even gets to his point, and three minutes later it ends with me working simultaneously backward but forward to his point with him saying “that’s what I meant/you know what I mean” and me saying “I don’t know what you mean/Why didn’t you just say that?”) With the new establishment/Leftist blob I wouldn’t even call it lying. That implies intent. There just isn’t a concern for truth. The concept o truth is not recognized. There is only a concern for power and truth isn’t a currency when it only gets in the way of what you want. In that world, I think so many people have lived that way for so long they wouldn’t know how to talk with truth in mind. Those concerned with truth aren’t at dinner parties. If being full of shit works and society’s high tide via the appropriate people recognizing truth keeps things going, then truth is optional or maybe even a tool of the enemy …until enough people reject it and society craters.
If Left, Right, everybody… would be honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world where we would disagree with those supposedly on our “side”. (If the world began operating this way I would so quickly and powerfully get an unbreakable mental boner that it would launch through my wall, burying into my neighbor’s brick chimney.) Personally, I’ll lose friends or family relationships over losing respect for myself and eating a bowl of nonsensical shit. It’s ok. Life’s short. I’m not breaking relationships over the politics of a straw ban or the economics of value-added taxes. But if you think “sustainability” includes body acceptance and positivity for the hyper-consumptive morbidly obese yet you’re raising a trans 8 year old since it was a toddler, you’re out of your mind. That’s not logical, sane, healthy, or sustainable. There’s gonna be a lot of kids seeking vengeance on their parents as adults for either being so stupid or self-righteous to ruin their lives with obvious insanity. Morbidity obese people need to be respected as human beings and we all need to be educated on the ubiquity of sugar and processed foods and the influence those companies have on government. Trans people need to be treated for mental ailments, not have fantasies indulged. If adults want to have at themselves, that’s their prerogative. Kids are kids. Theyre templates with personalities who need a framework of thought to empower themselves to forge through life, not get plugged into Big Medicine and Big Pharma from birth. We all need to be educated on ways to find value and purpose and live a life of self-actualization while being aware of influence Big Medicine and Big Pharma have on government and our kids. And we need to be committed to better families, communities, and a society. Not a political party or a side. I’m only voting for Trump. But I’m committed to the best way forward. And that includes agreeing with your article and criticizing Trump whenever possible.
Trump was famously concerned with the truth when he claimed Virginia wanted to legalize post-birth abortions.
You clearly didn’t read what I wrote. What you wrote does not contradict or invalidate what I wrote.
But I’ll play along.
Trump was addressing former VA gov Ralph Northam’s statement, when discussing a state bill increasing access to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, there could be cases a physician would deliver an infant who is deformed or non viable. “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and family desired. And then a discussion would ensure between the physician and the mother.” I got that quote from the bastion of MAGA-ism, CNN.
I remember this story when it happened in 2019. Based on the governor’s comments, the bill would allow for post-birth abortion. Now, to be fair, the governor may have misspoke. But he did say “the infant would be delivered”. Without reading the bill, I don’t believe the bill allows for frivolous post-birth abortion, or maybe any kind. But if you’re pushing 3rd trimester abortion and you use postbirth language like the governor did, it’s totally fair to demand follow-up and assume there’s a possibility. That’s just called being a diligent. If there’s loopholes to terminate live life, you gotta expose this.
Ultimately, there’s a shitload of context that you can add to Trump’s comments, but technically, he wasn’t wrong about that. Although, he was wrong because he said governor of West Virginia not Virginia.
This is all pointless because I don’t deny Trump misspeaks and lies. The impetus for my comment was agreeing with Matt and his article, which, in its entirety, disagrees with a main tenet of Trump’s trade rhetoric. So it’s pointless to respond to my comment that trump lies, especially citing a circumstance when Trump noted something the governor of VA explicitly states. If you’ve been following politics for… all of history and especially lately … plenty of people (including Kamala) boldly say they do things they don’t or they don’t do things they do. At worst, Trump mischaracterized the situation. And you know what - HE SHOULD NOT HAVE! While I think it’s fair for him to do so given what opponents are doing, he still shouldn’t do it. He should’ve cite that bill and others like it without wading into gray area. OR he could cite the gray area. That builds credibility and shows you’re interested in the details.
Well, I’m not playing along with the insanity of “I don’t deny Trump misspeaks and lies” followed with “at worst he mischaracterized the situation” over a bill you admit to not reading (but think it’s fair to “assume the possibility” that it includes executing babies.)
I’m not sure if this is a good faith comment that’s obtuse or tribal trollish opposition. It feels like talking to one of my kids when they're frustrated that they're not getting their way and disagree with anything I say even if it's something they want. An objective person reads this as an advertisement for an individual that makes a black hole not seem so dense.
I have no interest in bad faith discussion. (And this one's dead as anyone's credibility that said our current senile president - who isn't running again because he's senile yet shepherding us through a multi front global cold and hot war - is "sharp as a tack".)
These comments can sit and anywhere between 0-7 people can read them for exactly what they are and what I wrote. Not intentional misreadings or restatements of what's right there.
I don't “assume the possibility that it includes executing babies". I'm saying, even though I didn't read the bill, I assume the bill DOES NOT include the possibility of executing babies! The former governor 'f'ed up explicitly saying THAT IT DOES! Therefore, “At worst [Trump] mischaracterized the situation” because it occurred as he said. The governor was campaigning for the bill and said it! That's not me making excuses for Trump. That's what happened. While I could leave it at that, I'm maintaining I wish Trump wouldn't have used that as an opportunity to paint the picture that the goal is post birth abortions. he could've just cited the bill as it was, and others like it. While his opponents certainty mischaracterize and straight up lie about him and their positions on numerous topics so as not to put off the ignorant voting public from their true agenda - I don't want Trump or anyone to act that way. Ultimately, I wish you'd've picked a better example of a Trump lie, so I could agree with you that it is a lie and we could all go home happy.
The irony is, no occupation lies more than politician, yet Trump, once he became a politician, became known as a liar. If he were in the club, no one would say shit about his lies or misstatements. He's a mid-major compared to the Blue Blood lying pros in politics. But he's not in the club, so he's the enemy. Now Eric Adams is finding out he's out of the club - and every other municipal politician is finding out what happens when you go against The Family. If you go along with the borderless society, you're good to go. If you go along with the agenda, you're not standing in the 2020 debate with Biden bringing up the Hunter laptop story telling the truth but Biden - the well-documented plagiarist and previously infamous liar, even for a politician - has 50 Intelligence officials claim it's Russian disinformation. It's so obvious. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be hilarious. I don't give a shit about Trump. I want the least lying leadership who doesn't detest the citizenry. I'd prefer to have someone better than Trump. But that's not the choice.
You want people to be "honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world" yet you think Kamala is worse than an unhinged would-be autocrat who spews a nonstop stream of lies and who appeals to his followers' worst instincts. I'm not seeing the logic here.
I don’t agree with your characterizations, especially relative to the current administration which is the Biden/Kamala/BigLeft admin. To reply to you ending your statement on “yet you think Kamala is worse”, the answer is “yes”.
What would justify someone not being “honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world"? It speaks loudly pulling on that thread.
My point was, Trump is the antithesis of “honest, curious, unafraid, and committed to a sane, healthy, sustainable world.” He spews lies and crazy-ass conspiracy theories, and he wouldn’t know sustainable if it bit him on the backside.
This isn't an election where I can pick whoever I want. It's essentially a binary choice. Reluctantly, I choose Trump and all his many gilded orange man Long Island-trash flaws over communism. I don't want Trump. I didn't vote for him the past two elections. This is the choice. A choice, by the way, the Leftists want because they know Trump is so naturally unlikeable - and they've spent millions of dollars and years painting him as the worst most lethal person in human history - that they can push their communist agenda through, and people will go along. "Go along, Jerry. Go along."
If you don’t want communism, it seems that the democrats might be a good option.
What’s your reasoning …besides it doesn’t fit what you want to believe or people to think?
So the VP debate is coming up, so we’ll just stick with that. Walz was picked because he’s in love with the CCP, loves a good lockdown, the smell of his city burning against, and putting tampons in men’s bathrooms (It’s gotta be a litmus test to show you’re in the club. No sane person believes this society crushing bullshit.)
Walz taught his students about supposed virtues of communism after receiving extraordinarily favorable treatment in China. (Communism for thee, but not for me.)
"It means that everyone is the same and everyone shares," Walz said at the time, according to archived clippings from the Alliance Times-Herald. "No matter how long I live, I'll never be treated that well again," he told the Alliance Times-Herald after he returned to the U.S. "They gave me more gifts than I could bring home. It was an excellent experience."Walz and his wife, Gwen, even married on the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre so that Walz could "have a date he'll always remember," she said.
There is no such thing as equity. When the radicals claim everyone is equal in China - they are speaking of everyone but the Elite. And anybody who chose to "honeymoon" on the anniversary date of the horrific 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre isnt sane. (See tampons in mensrooms.)
They’re eating the cats~
Nothing wrong with that. We eat cows.
I don’t.
Brad, pro tip: if you want people to read your rant, make it much much shorter.
1) I don’t care if you do don’t read what I wrote. I don’t care who reads it. I’m not needy. Matt addressed a type of person. I had thoughts. It felt good to respond. I have zero expectations anyone will read it. If no one reads, I’ll somehow survive.
2) You can’t call what I wrote a rant without reading it. (Also, rants are lengthy by nature, so a "pro" can’t rant in brief.)
I ready every word because it's part of the job!
Sir, this is a Wendy's
My trans child will take a square-pattied burger and call it circle.
Sounds like a fun game to play with dad, especially when he plays along by making it all about politics!
The ultimate irony would be Trump tariffs on foreign oil driving up the price of gas.
Yes, Trump says it because it sounds good. But I fear that he also sees it as worth doing because he thinks it will help his base and hurt the blue state types who hate him.
And sure, even if it's overall an economic negative, it seems plausible that the benefits are preferentially located amoung the sort of people likely to vote Trump.
“ It simply makes the United States an undesirable place to locate an airplane factory.”
That’s just simply false. It would cause Airbus to move even more production to its Mobile, AL factory to serve America’s huge appetite for commercial aircraft.
The point is you have raised all the costs of production, including inputs for domestic manufacturing. This makes it more expensive to produce the final product domestically.
You distort prices for the final product and then you tax the inputs that then go into that final product. This is worse than a world where you just distort the price of the final product and don’t increase input costs.
> He’s a mercantilist who believes that countries get rich by accumulating money, so he believes it’s good to export (foreigners give you money) and bad to import (you give foreigners money), and tariffs are a perfect tax because they raise revenue while deterring people from engaging in the bad activity of giving money to foreigners.
Matt nails it here. Never forget: Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man. The median MAGA person looks at Trump and sees Scrooge McDuck - literally swimming in a sea of gold coins. MAGA types actually believe Trump is a billionaire in the sense that he has at least one billion dollars in cash and cash equivalents. That's why the New York verdicts offend Trump so much - it lifts the veil on his personal finances. When the Court orders Trump to pay $500 million, he can't just open his checkbook and write a check for the amount, because it would bounce from here to Neptune. Sure, he *CAN* raise the funds necessary, but it would look bad to his voters if he had to sell Trump National Doral to pay his court fines.
Eh, I think that the fines offend him because while he is a billionaire, he's not a decibillionaire or a centibillionaire and $500M is a LOT of his net worth.
I think the big picture concern is that our chronic budget and trade deficits are related and are an indication that America, as a whole, consumes more than it produces. This doesn’t seem sustainable, except that we (so far) get away with it because of the dollar’s status as the reserve currency.
To a large extent, we “balance” our trade by exporting Treasury bills and newly printed dollars instead of products. Again, this is a sweet deal for us as long as we can get away with it. Workers who lose their jobs “making things” are redeployed providing services, further enhancing our standard of living.
But, again, is this situation sustainable? Are we heading for a Day of Reckoning? And if we need to change, how do we change? I would suggest, as I think Matt alludes to, that reducing the budget deficit would be the key to reducing the trade deficit.
A national sales tax is a great idea, especially now that we can use technology to make it less regressive. Exempting groceries or reducing/exempting the tax based on income would be pretty easy to do at the point of sale of an electronic transaction. You would be collecting the tax from the payment processors, too. Obviously, it is not popular but people would adjust to it over time.
Better to do it as a value added tax, so that it gets divided proportionally among the steps of production, rather than entirely being imposed at the point of sale.
I like this piece a lot, but does it explain why tariffs do not reduce trade deficits?
Not directly. Obviously, a high enough tariff reduces imports to zero, so that no matter how counterproductive it is to local economy, the end result is a non-negative trade balance - so tariffs can reduce trade deficits if you pursue them strongly enough.
But I think the issue is that at reasonable levels, so much importing is done for intermediate stages of goods later destined for export, and so much exporting is of raw materials for goods later destined for import, that pushing down on one of these import levers often pushes corresponding exports down even more.
In any case, as i understand it the big problem isn’t too many imports - it’s not enough investment in productive capital at home. Punishing imports doesn’t directly make people start making more stuff here - it just makes stuff more expensive, which might encourage people to start making some stuff here if they can do it almost as cheaply as abroad, but if not, people just end up having less stuff without making much more.
I think the most important mechanism here is about exchange rates: a tariff reduces demand for foreign currency, while increasing demand for domestic currency, which appreciates the domestic currency making exports more expensive. This, plus the point that is alluded to (I think) about trade deficits being fundamentally about capital flows and the forces that generate them. The header seems to suggest this discussion will be in the piece, but then it isn't!
I was with you until the final section on financial flows. Indeed they need to add up.
You are telling a story however that
1. US buys tons of stuff from China
2. CHina buys much less stuff from US
3. US soaks up the extra Chinese savings generated by the CCP's suppression of CHinese domestic consumption
If that surplus savings was being plowed into infrastructure that would pay dividends decades in advance as when the US imported lots of British and Dutch excess savings to build the costly railroads then you'd have a case for trade deficits.
But this is not a close approximation for what is happening. The US being a post industrial country is not apt to be making large capital investments. There's relatively little building. Democrats appropriate funds but have trouble "investing" them (no transfer payments are not "investment") So the extra savings we import from China must necessarily push down our own savings rate. This is how it MUST work for capital flows to balance.
Pushing down our savings rate is achieved by
1. higher sovereign debt
2. higher household/ corporate debt
3. higher unemployment
No one wants the 3 and 2 is sketchy as well so we've decided on 1. as the least bad option.
So effectively the US is running up massive budget deficits to finance mostly transfer payments that are used to buy all the crap from China since the US plays the role of consumer of last resort. Put differently the US political economy in effect imposes a implicit tax on manufactures and an implicit subsidy on consumers; it NECCESARILY the inverse of what China does. To say you want "free trade" with China is to advocate this.
Cass is asking whether this policy is particularly wise or sustainable. And I think Matt is losing the argument here as our own politics in BOTH parties are coming around to the view that it would be better if
1. Chinese conumers bought much more stuff
and
2. the US made much more stuff either for its own market, CHina's or both, even if that meant shifting away from so much consumption in the short run.
You bring trade back into balance and you stop worrying so much about who makes what where. The problem in other words is not the trade, it's the persistent imbalances.
I was with you until the final section on financial flows. Indeed they need to add up.
You are telling a story however that
1. US buys tons of stuff from China
2. CHina buys much less stuff from US
3. US soaks up the extra Chinese savings generated by the CCP's suppression of CHinese domestic consumption
If that surplus savings was being plowed into infrastructure that would pay dividends decades in advance as when the US imported lots of British and Dutch excess savings to build the costly railroads then you'd have a case for trade deficits.
But this is not a close approximation for what is happening. The US being a post industrial country is not apt to be making large capital investments. There's relatively little building. Democrats appropriate funds but have trouble "investing" them (no transfer payments are not "investment") So the extra savings we import from China must necessarily push down our own savings rate. This is how it MUST work for capital flows to balance.
Pushing down our savings rate is achieved by
1. higher sovereign debt
2. higher household/ corporate debt
3. higher unemployment
No one wants the 3 and 2 is sketchy as well so we've decided on 1. as the least bad option.
So effectively the US is running up massive budget deficits to finance mostly transfer payments that are used to buy all the crap from China since the US plays the role of consumer of last resort. Put differently the US political economy in effect imposes a implicit tax on manufactures and an implicit subsidy on consumers; it NECCESARILY the inverse of what China does. To say you want "free trade" with China is to advocate this.
Cass is asking whether this policy is particularly wise or sustainable. And I think Matt is losing the argument here as our own politics in BOTH parties are coming around to the view that it would be better if
1. Chinese conumers bought much more stuff
and
2. the US made much more stuff either for its own market, CHina's or both, even if that meant shifting away from so much consumption in the short run.
You bring trade back into balance and you stop worrying so much about who makes what where. The problem in other words is not the trade, it's the persistent imbalances.
"The SEC is well-established and knows what it’s doing."
You are darn right! Here, it just means more.
S-E-C! S-E-C!
I need to pick as to whether I subscribe to Noah or Matt.
I've only paid for Matt's while I have the free version of Noah's. But my impression is that Noah gives a lot more posts away for free (maybe 1/5 are paywalled, if that?) *and* Noah let's free subscribers still like and post comments. That's even irrespective of who's writing you prefer.
But if your point is that they are both writing about the same things at times, yeah, I'm noticing that too.
I appreciate this article this morning. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. Even from a pure mercantilist perspective, plenty of our imports are inputs (like the aforementioned steel and lumber) and therefore it's a drag on exports if we tax them.
But man, I am getting tired of "don't worry, the very stupid thing this candidate said won't actually happen" as a defense.