The ultimate shrewdness is found not in the balance sheet, but in the qualitative excellence of the business.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trumps Tariffs?
TIA
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trumps Tariffs?
TIA
No. of Recommendations: 2
According to Milton Friedman, a conservative economic icon, imposition of tariffs (even if retaliatory in nature) is almost always a bad idea economically speaking.
However, Friedman did allow that there might be certain narrow circumstances in which tariffs might serve a useful function. I am not aware of what he thought those specific circumstances might be.
While acknowledging that tariffs in general are a bad idea economically, a la Friedman, there are situations in which it is conceivable they might be useful as levers in negotiating various trade deals with other countries, as Trump appears to be trying to do in his second term.
Whether that has a good or bad outcome, overall, can only be judged by the ultimate results. Obviously, anyone directly affected by tariffs is not going to be happy about the situation. Is there value to showing a foreign adversary such as China that we have a government that is willing to fight them on the economic front for whatever advantage we might be able to gain--with the unspoken but obvious inference that if push comes to shove, the Chinese should not make any assumptions about what the U.S. might be willing to do, or not do, in terms of a potential future military conflict (i.e. Taiwan)?
Trump is thinking outside of the box and trying different things. He is flexible and if something isn't getting the result he wants, he has shown a willingness to change course. This is very confounding to ProGlibs who tend to be very doctrinaire and inflexible in their thinking patterns.
So, let's see what happens and then everyone can judge for themselves whether the tariff juice was worth the squeeze.
I will say this: If ProGlibs and the Dem Party in general is now willing to adopt the philosophy of Milton Friedman, we would all be a lot better off.
But if they cherry pick simply to attack Trump, why is that? If we can agree that per Friedman tariffs are generally a bad idea economically, why are ProGlibs so unwilling to entertain other Friedmanesque ideas?
No. of Recommendations: 4
According to Milton Friedman, a conservative economic icon, imposition of tariffs (even if retaliatory in nature) is almost always a bad idea economically speaking. ~Marco100
Agreed!
Tariffs are a form of taxation that hurts consumers by increasing the cost of goods and reducing the variety of products available to them.
In "Capitalism and Freedom", Friedman explains that protectionist policies like tariffs ultimately lead to inefficiencies by encouraging resources to be used in ways that do not maximize economic productivity.
No. of Recommendations: 5
>>According to Milton Friedman, a conservative economic icon, imposition of tariffs (even if retaliatory in nature) is almost always a bad idea economically speaking. ~Marco100<<
Agreed!
The problem is that, following Friedman's prescription of outsourcing everything to where it can be had the cheapest, is that the USian factory workers who used to make a nice income, and pay significant taxes, lose their jobs and end up working at Walmart, at pay so modest they qualify for SNAP. No amount of tax cuts for the "JCs" is going to counter that trend for the Proles. But then, the Proles are just expendable meat, right? Right up until they use their vote as an anger management tool, and blow up the entire system.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trumps $40 Billion tax-payer funded bailout of Argentina...
or is it an example of wasteful government overreach,
which is unlikely to produce the intended effects in the long run?
TIA
No. of Recommendations: 2
Actually, a la Mamdani, the money to Argentina is "free." So it doesn't count. Because it's coming out of tax dollars from other people.
So, what's the problem?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Actually, a la Mamdani, the money to Argentina is "free." So it doesn't count. Because it's coming out of tax dollars from other people. So, what's the problem?
Very insightful thanks!
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, a la Mamdani, the money to Argentina is "free." So it doesn't count. Because it's coming out of tax dollars from other people.
So, what's the problem?
The problem is that's wrong, but other than that it's fine. They're loans, expected to be paid back. There could be some forgiveness down the road, but that isn't the deal.
