Post New

Here's DonOld Trump's answer. Please state the question to win (and while you're at it, convince me this old fart isn't a raving lunatic):

TRUMP: "So I had a great relationship with President Xi of China – really very close relationship. Now, look, he likes China, I like us, so – but I don’t want to sound foolish. He was my dear, dear friend. He’s a tough guy. He’s a fierce person. I say, very smart.

You know, when you say, he’s smart, the fake news goes crazy. He said, President, Xi is smart. And I say, yeah, well, he controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. He’s smart.

But we had a very good relationship with China until COVID. And when that came in, it was a whole different ballgame, as far as I was concerned. You know, we made a great China trade deal, maybe better than the USMCA, and I’d never talk about it, because what happened with COVID, for the whole world – $60 trillion in, you know, deaths – 70 million, 60 – nobody even knows how many deaths. And it all came out of Wuhan.

So it changed my relationship. But I think I have a great relationship with China. I had one before, and they respected us, but they respected us because they no longer thought we were fools. They used to think we were fools.

Because we built China, they would take over $500 billion a year and use it for their military and other things. And we got nothing out of that. We got some cheap product. We got – you can buy 19 pencils instead of two.

Who the hell cares? You can buy 16 dolls for your daughter instead of two nice dolls. And we got very little out of that relationship. They got a tremendous military power, and they still have it today.

But I believe we will have a very good relationship with China and with a lot of other countries that we’re not getting along with too well today. And things are going to straighten out. We’re going to get them straightened out very quickly. Very important that we get along with the rest of the world.

You know, we have things today called nuclear weapons. I rebuilt our whole military, including our nuclear capability. And so I got very familiar with it. And I say this often because I had an uncle who was the longest-serving – I believe the longest-serving.

I was told that by MIT. But he was their 39, I guess, or 41 years longest-serving professor in the history of MIT. And nuclear was something he knew a lot about. We used to talk about it.

I’d say, Uncle John, there’s no way. He was telling me about this incredible power that was being unleashed, potentially. And I say, Uncle John, you could never – and you know what? He was very modest, because I’ve seen the destructive capability.

And this world is going to have to get along, because if that’s ever unleashed, we already have too many countries that have at least remnants of it, some of it. But probably five countries, if you think. And Kim Jong-un, when I was – went to the White House after winning in 2016, I sat with President Obama, which is a ritual. And you sit and you talk.

And I said, What’s the biggest problem? He said, North Korea is the biggest problem. I don’t think it’s solvable. I said, Have you tried calling him or talking to him? And actually, the answer was yes, and he wasn’t responded to. But I did, and we were very safe. It started off a little rocky, if you remember. Little Rocket Man, I called him, and he called me things too.

He’s got a red button on his desk. I said, I have a bigger red button, and my red button works, I said. And then it started getting a little nicer, and then one day I got a call that they’d like to meet. And it was a great thing.

We had a great meeting. We had two meetings – actually, two great meetings, summits. And we had no problem with them. Now they have a problem because they’re not liking this administration.

They don’t respect this administration at all. So we have to get along. We have to get along. We can’t have World War III. You’re going to end up in World War III, just like you should have never had Russia go in. It would have never happened if a competent person led us. It would have never happened. He led them into it.

And I’m not blaming Biden. But you know what? What he was saying was exactly the wrong thing. I said, we’re going to have an invasion because of a lot of the rhetoric. It was stupid rhetoric. But it would have never happened. Not only for that reason, oil was down low. You know, oil was almost at $100 a barrel.

So Putin is one of the only people – I mean, it’s – nothing’s easy in life. But Putin at $100 a barrel – war works. At $40 a barrel, it didn’t work at all. So we’re going to get back to an intelligently run place, a place where other countries aren’t using the word – nuclear.

That word was never talked about during my – because I knew the power of it. And I talked to Putin about it. I talked to President Xi about it. I think we were going to do – you remember the talk where we were going to reduce nuclear capability substantially – all three of us.

We’re going to start it. We’re going to reduce very substantially. And then we had the election, and after the election, they didn’t talk about that or anything else, frankly. But we have to be very, very careful, because the destructive capability of nuclear – when people talk about global warming, I say the ocean is going to go down one hundredth of an inch within the next 400 years.

That’s not our problem. Our problem is nuclear warming. And we’d better be smart, and we’d better have smart people at the top that know how to deal, because these people don’t know how to deal. Putin came out today.

He endorsed Kamala. And I didn’t know. Was I supposed to call him up and say, thank you very much, I appreciate it. But he endorsed Kamala. I have a feeling. I don’t know. I don’t know exactly what to say about that. I don’t know if I’m insulted or he did me a favor.

But we have to get along with the world. We can’t have war because of the destructive capability. You can be the head of the biggest bank wherever the hell Jamie is sitting. You can be the head of the biggest bank in the world, and a couple of nukes in your bank doesn’t mean a thing.

You got to get along. This is such an important job. It’s a dangerous job too, a very dangerous job. If you look at statistically, being President is very dangerous. That throbbing feeling I have, oh, that throbbing feeling. No, it’s a very dangerous job, and you have to do it right. And if you don’t do it right, bad things will happen to the world, things like you’ve never seen before. Okay, thank you very much."

Here's the question: "How can we better institutionalize trade policy and national security policy to be coordinated?"

White Billionairres and the Left....

LOL match made in heaven.

...they respected us, but they respected us because they no longer thought we were fools. They used to think we were fools.


Oh, Donnie, who are you kidding? Just yourself. Putin and Xi know exactly how to manipulate you with a little flattery. You are such a useful idiot for our enemies. Nobody but your deluded cult respects you.

When I saw you play kiss kiss with Putin, I just about puked. You're not a tough guy. And your years in business show that you only make money by cheating, not by the 'art of the deal'. You are sad loser and let us hope you have one last huge loss this November.

LMAO!

That is Trump's brilliant 'weave', you know, the one his many English professor friends told him was BRILLIANT!

What a delusional narcissist.

How can you righties listen to that shit and say: that guy gets my vote.

You are sad loser and let us hope you have one last huge loss this November.

Well, I hope there are a few more huge losses after that, one for each of the remaining undecided law suits!

Please state the question to win

Is Melania OK?

How can you righties listen to that shit and say: that guy gets my vote. - ges

---------------

Once again: Trumps policies are better for the economy and for our security.

As for Kamala, "Joy" is not a policy, nor is a slogan like "opportunity economy". I hope Kamala's handlers will tell her what her policies are so she can tell the voters on Tuesday.

Once again: Trumps policies are better for the economy

Are they, really?

Let’s pick one: large tariffs on most imported goods. That’s going to trigger a bout of inflation that will make the covid inflation look tame.

How is that good for the economy?

Once again: Trumps policies are better for the economy

No, they are not, as has been pointed our repeatedly here.

How is that good for the economy? - pete

----------------------------


Not just any old tariff, but ones that punish an adversary, assist an ally, or promote domestic employment.

Mark Cuban? Becky Quick and co. destroyed him on CNBC last week over Harris’ plan to tax unrealized gains.

but ones that punish an adversary,

No tariff has ever punished an adversary. All they do is raise the price of the goods. That is inflationary. At best, the pre-tariff price might fall a bit, and the higher post-tariff price might create a small drop in quantity sold in the US. But that just frees up product to be sold elsewhere in the world. (Refer to microeconomics to understand the price and quantity affect of tariffs.) Hardly punishing — annoying might be a better description.

Sometimes, a tariff can promote domestic employment. But we have only 4.something percent unemployment. That is remarkably low. So a tariff can’t help With that. If there is an attempt to increase domestic manufacturing, that will only add to inflation pressures as wages rise to encourage the already employed to switch jobs.

So I ask again, Michael, how do these tariffs help the economy?

—Peter

So I ask again, Michael, how do these tariffs help the economy?

—Peter

-------------------

I gave you my answer. That you dismiss my reasons is not unexpected. So we disagree, imagine that.

I have to respect that. I don’t think even Sarah Palin could have made such a nutritious salad out of such a short question.

That you dismiss my reasons is not unexpected.

But you didn’t give reasons, you just made claims.

Again, let’s address just one.

How do tariffs “punish” the foreign country?

I don’t think even Sarah Palin could have made such a nutritious salad out of such a short question.

Nutritious? Nugatory and nutty, but definitely not nutritious!

How do tariffs “punish” the foreign country?

Well, because they raise the cost of foreign products to the importing companies who buy them, they might be less likely to buy them, or they might demand a lower base cost, or they might look to other countries' non-tariffed exports instead.

"Once again: Trumps policies are better for the economy and for our security."

Repeating things that are not true doesn't help make them true. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Once again: Trumps policies are better for the economy and for our security.

We gave the economy a quick look, where I can spell out reasons Trump's tariffs are a bad idea and all you can do it repeat your claims with no supporting reasons or logic. How about a look at national security.

Let's start with our relationships with Putin, Xi, and Kim? There's three countries who aren't exactly our friends AND who do (or might) have nuclear weapons we'd rather not see in our skies.

What is Trump's position? Cozy up to them, and let them do whatever they want to other countries.

Putin, you want Ukraine? Fine with us.
Xi, you want to claim the South China Sea as your sovereign territory? Cool. Have at it.
Kim, continue to improve your missiles by lobbing them over Japan so you can learn how to get them to the US? Go for it.

So how is that being tough on these countries? How is that supporting our allies? How is that keeping America safe? Frankly, it sounds like the Neville Chamberlain approach to foreign relations - let them do what they want in exchange for easily broken promises to leave us alone.

--Peter

How do tariffs “punish” the foreign country? - Pete

---------------

They raise the cost to adversaries for access to American markets.

Ask Joe, he knows.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/us/politics/bid...

Biden Announces Tariffs on Chinese Metals Routed Through Mexico

The measure aims to close a loophole that officials said allowed metals made partly in China to come into the United States duty free.

They raise the cost to adversaries for access to American markets.

Do you know how that works, Michael?

The foreign company making the product has to pay the tariff to import the product. But then the tariff simply gets added to the price the buyer of the product must pay. The foreign company isn't paying the tariff, their buyer is paying the tariff. That works if you're trying to protect a domestic industry from foreign competition. But what if there is no domestic industry?

Cell phones are all made in China and the far east. (OK, Apple is expanding production into India, I think. That's the near east.) There is no US manufacture of cell phones.** So if you put a tariff on cell phones, consumers don't have an alternative. They must pay the higher price or go without. The same is true of most electronics.

If you put a 100% tariff on everything imported from China, you're not punishing China, you're punishing US consumers.

--Peter


**I found one cell phone maker that I've never heard of who makes phones in the US. Well, some of the phone. Pieces of it still come from the far east.

If you put a 100% tariff on everything imported from China, you're not punishing China, you're punishing US consumers.

That's not true. As with any tax, a tariff will land on both producers and consumers, depending on the price elasticities of demand and supply. For all but purely inelastic goods, both consumers and producers will bear some of the cost of the tariff.

Repeating things that are not true doesn't help make them true. - Umm

---------------

Please apply this to the present "Fact of Life" hoax under construction.

Won't the effect be to price them out of the market? If you have a 100% tariff, that doubles the price of the item. Suddenly it will be cheaper to buy from somewhere else. So consumers won't pay for the tariff because they won't buy the product at all, opting for cheaper alternatives.

It's not a hoax, Mike. He said it. Perhaps you are referring to the tone with which he said it? He -arguably- was lamenting the shooting. But he also was -in effect- saying that there's nothing we can do about it (i.e. "fact of life"). He also said "we have to be prepared for it", but wasn't more specific than that. No proposals, calls for restrictions, nothing. Just “We don’t have to like the reality that we live in, but it is the reality we live in. We’ve got to deal with it.”

Verbatim.

Won't the effect be to price them out of the market? If you have a 100% tariff, that doubles the price of the item. Suddenly it will be cheaper to buy from somewhere else. So consumers won't pay for the tariff because they won't buy the product at all, opting for cheaper alternatives.

For extremely large tariffs on products for which there are alternatives, sure. You can always create a large enough tariff that operates the same way as a ban.

The various tariff plans that are getting floated by Trump aren't structured that way - he's talking about a 10% across-the-board tariff and a 60% tariff on China.

So consider a product like smartphones, where something like 80% of the global market is manufactured in China. Producers that manufacture in China aren't going to suddenly forego the US market entirely, but they're unlikely to be able to get US consumers to eat 100% of the tariff themselves. So if a phone was priced at $500, it's unlikely that the producer is going to be able to charge $800 and still sell as many. Instead, they'll raise the price to somewhere lower than $800, but north of $500. In a world where consumers and producers were equally price elastic, you'd see them land at perhaps $650 - so consumers end up paying $150 more for the phone, producers earn $150 less for the phone, fewer phones are sold, and the government pockets the $300.

That's a large enough tariff that you'd see massive investments in relocating manufacturing capability to avoid it - but that takes time, and may not be feasible (you can't necessarily recreate Chinese manufacturing milieu in, say, Canada).

For extremely large tariffs on products for which there are alternatives, sure.

OCD: "for which there are no alternatives, sure."

If you put a 100% tariff on everything imported from China, you're not punishing China, you're punishing US consumers.

--Peter

-------------

I never said anything about putting a tariff on any particular product or country.

You guys are reacting as if Trump will put a tariff on everything from everywhere... Sheesh.

“We don’t have to like the reality that we live in, but it is the reality we live in. We’ve got to deal with it.”

Verbatim. - 1pg

-------------

Verbatim??? What do you mean? The words "fact of life" are not in the quote you are using to support the assertion he said "fact of life"?

Color me confused. But after all, I am a poorly educated MAGA and am easily taken advantage of...

Here's the full quote from Vance. As is usual, the media types aren't being honest:

“I don’t like that this is a fact of life,” Vance said. “But if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets. And we have got to bolster security at our schools. We’ve got to bolster security so if a psycho wants to walk through the front door and kill a bunch of children they’re not able.”

And here's how the AP reported it (and what is being parroted here)

https://x.com/stclairashley/status/183187446475541...

If our sparring partners relied on better sources for their information, they'd be far more knowledgeable than they are. 

For all but purely inelastic goods, both consumers and producers will bear some of the cost of the tariff.

I would argue that cell phones are pretty inelastic. And there aren't a lot of choices for producers of microchips and other electronics. So they're pretty inelastic as well.

I also pointed Michael to microeconomics in an earlier post to gain an understanding of the details.

But more generally, a significant tariff on virtually everything imported from China--which is my understanding of Trump's proposal--would cause disastrous effects on the US economy. I went into that up thread, but it would almost certainly cause significant inflation in consumer goods, with no corresponding inflation of wages.

--Peter

So consumers won't pay for the tariff because they won't buy the product at all, opting for cheaper alternatives.

What is your alternative for cell phones? Microchips?

And it's still probably inflationary, as the alternative suppliers are probably going to have higher prices, even if they're cheaper than the old price plus the tariff.

--Peter

bighairymike: You guys are reacting as if Trump will put a tariff on everything from everywhere... Sheesh.

Well, kinda' because that's exactly what he said he'll do. Maybe you're just not paying attention.

He has said he wants to impose up to 20% tariffs on all imported goods, with up to 60% tariffs on all imported Chinese goods. He's on record calling for 100% tariffs on nations that snub the dollar.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elect...

You guys are reacting as if Trump will put a tariff on everything from everywhere... Sheesh.

Well, that's exactly what he proposed. 10% tariff on every imported good, and 60% tariff on China.


During his [Trump's] 2024 campaign, he proposed a 10% tax hike on all US imports and a 60% tariff on imports from China.
https://www.morningstar.com/economy/what-trumps-pr...

Mike: You guys are reacting as if Trump will put a tariff on everything from everywhere... Sheesh.

Well, Trump did say if a country was going to leave the US dollar as a reserve and go to the Yuan that he would threaten them with tariffs and they'd stay with the dollar.

I would argue that cell phones are pretty inelastic. And there aren't a lot of choices for producers of microchips and other electronics. So they're pretty inelastic as well.

But it's not "cell phones." It's "new cell phones made in China."

I agree that few people will eschew having a cell phone altogether, but most people will be able to lengthen their replacement cycle for getting new phones. And there's a non-trivial portion of the cell industry that's outside of China (we import about 20% of new cell phones from Vietnam). So it's not completely inelastic, especially over any timeframe of more than a year, as production moves in response to the tariffs.

So if Apple wants to continue to sell the same number of iPhones under the new tariffs as before, it can't simply jack up the price by 60%. It will have to eat some of that tariff cost.

we import about 20% of new cell phones from Vietnam

Not for nuthin’ but cell phones assembled in Vietnam are made with about 90% Chinese parts.

https://www.asiapacific.ca/publication/despite-de-....

He has said he wants to impose up to 20% tariffs on all imported goods, with up to 60% tariffs on all imported Chinese goods

He won't do it, but he just spews whatever bullshit he thinks his idiot base will enjoy hearing.

So if Apple wants to continue to sell the same number of iPhones under the new tariffs as before, it can't simply jack up the price by 60%.

But I never claimed that. I claimed that the price was inelastic, not perfectly inelastic. Apple won't have to split the tariff 50/50 with the American consumer, it will be able to pass more than half of it along. It will eat a bit of the tariff, and it will sell somewhat fewer units. If you want to move on to 2nd order affects, Android phones will be similarly affected. But because they are generally lower priced to begin with, there will be some shift from Apple to Android phones. That will increase demand for Android phones, allowing those makers to pass a bit more of the tariff along to end users than microecon might otherwise suggest.

And that's still inflationary to the US consumer.

We don't need to nail down the exact effects to know that broad tariffs across the board will increase consumer prices. Some will be affected more (the products like cell phones with steeper, less elastic, demand curves) some will be affected less (products with more elastic demand curves). But ALL will be affected in some way, causing inflation.

We're getting buried in the weeds here and missing that bigger picture.

--Peter

"You guys are reacting as if Trump will put a tariff on everything from everywhere... Sheesh."

:::Facepalm:::

Trump sure loves his low information voters....... No wonder you think his economic policies will be better for America. You don't even know what they are.

Trump sure loves his low information voters....... No wonder you think his economic policies will be better for America. You don't even know what they are

In their defense, Trump rarely does anything he say's he'll do (contrary to the delusional MAGA dictum "promises made promises kept" - He Built The Wall?! Gimme a break).

"You guys are reacting as if Trump will put a tariff on everything from everywhere... Sheesh."

Well, he has said that.

But, I don't think he will really do it. Remember...he LIES about everything. He just tries to find something that he thinks his base will like; something to get votes. He does this same shit over and over again.

The MAGA base acts like every word that comes out of Trump's lying pie hole is handed down by God.

You think it might be a cult?

Most microchips are not made in China. I'm retired from the semiconductor industry. TSMC is Taiwan. There are fabs all over the world (including several in the USA), but very few in China (and I would be surprised if any western country used Chinese microchips). Intel, Microchip, AMD...they have fabs in various places, but not China.

And those are the difficult bits of technology, requiring cleanrooms and various tools (lithography, furnaces, etc). We could move the PC boards, screens, cases (cellphones, computers, etc) relatively cheaply. China makes some of those components, but they are mostly assembly of the finished product.

Without looking up the nitty-gritty details, I believe the US tried once before to use tariffs to generate significant revenue. The Hawley-Smoot (sp?) tariff bill from the -I think- 1930s. From my dusty memory of history, it didn't work and the US continued to wallow in the Depression.

I have always thought of them as either a form of sanction, or to provide domestic companies a leg-up, by increasing the prices of foreign goods, thereby making domestic goods more attractive, which in turn raises sales of domestic goods.

But after all, I am a poorly educated MAGA and am easily taken advantage of...

Be fair. You replied to my post, and I have never said that of you. That statement may be true of the general MAGA population, but it is not true of all of them.

The "fact of life" was also uttered by Vance, and it consistent with the verbatim quote I provided. Specifically, elsewhere in the questioning, he said "“I don’t like that this is a fact of life,”

Those two statements are completely self-consistent. They do not contradict each other. In one he said "I don't like it", but he's still resigned himself to the idea that this reality cannot be changed.

Append from here what albaby said about that notion...

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.