SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Tariffs: The Data is In /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1551733762 Message started by eau de sauvage on 03/04/19 at 13:09:22

Title: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by eau de sauvage on 03/04/19 at 13:09:22 On Saturday economists from Columbia, Princeton, and the New York Federal Reserve released a paper, “The impact of the 2018 trade war on U.S. prices and welfare,” that used detailed import data to assess the tariffs’ impact. (The paper, by the way, is a beautiful piece of work.) The conclusion: to a first approximation, foreigners paid none of the bill, U.S. companies and consumers paid all of it. And the losses to U.S. consumers exceeded the revenue from the new tariffs, so the tariffs made America poorer overall. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/opinion/how-goes-the-trade-war.html

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Serowbot on 03/04/19 at 14:48:15 Beginning to think MAGA can't possibly mean what he says it does...  :-?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/04/19 at 15:21:25 Anything from Paul Krugman is likely flat out wrong or distorted due to his coke bottle sized TDS glasses. This is no different. The only important line out of the whole thing is: Now, the numbers aren’t that big. The new paper puts the net welfare loss at $1.4 billion a month, or $17 billion a year; that’s less than 0.1 percent of U.S. GDP. Yea, .1%......  That's makes for a beautiful piece of work alright..... oh, and there's this very technical scientific term called 'probably' used in this sentence: By the way, in practice any manufacturing jobs added by the Trump tariffs are probably offset by losses of other manufacturing jobs. Krugman is famous for being wrong on virtually everything because his politics cloud his vision. Why don't you find a 3rd grader, give him crayons and tell him to write you an article on economics. Your odds of the kid getting closer to the truth than Krugman would be pretty good.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/04/19 at 15:21:43 2137203D25303D26520 wrote: Beginning to think MAGA can't possibly mean what he says it does...  :-? Make America Gag Aloud

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/04/19 at 15:28:33 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote: Anything from Paul Krugman is likely flat out wrong or distorted due to his coke bottle sized TDS glasses. This is no different. The only important line out of the whole thing is: Now, the numbers aren’t that big. The new paper puts the net welfare loss at $1.4 billion a month, or $17 billion a year; that’s less than 0.1 percent of U.S. GDP. Yea, .1%......  That's makes for a beautiful piece of work alright..... oh, and there's this very technical scientific term called 'probably' used in this sentence: By the way, in practice any manufacturing jobs added by the Trump tariffs are probably offset by losses of other manufacturing jobs. Krugman is famous for being wrong on virtually everything because his politics cloud his vision. Why don't you find a 3rd grader, give him crayons and tell him to write you an article on economics. Your odds of the kid getting closer to the truth than Krugman would be pretty good. What exactly are you disputing, the numbers or the guy who reported them? Because the numbers are facts.  Your opinion of Kruger doesn't enter into it or change them.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by verslagen1 on 03/04/19 at 16:11:31 Given, any tax is passed onto the consumer.  But tariffs are meant to equalize the cost of imported goods to domestic and he proves it so what is his point?  The rest is pure conjecture. And where are you grammar natzies? And I don't get how producing something domestically does harm?  Let's layoff all those minorities that just found jobs. Pure BS. Quote: Consider the following example: pre-tariff, the U.S. imports some good from China that costs $100. Then the Trump administration imposes a 25% tariff, raising the price to consumers to $125. If we just keep importing that good from China, consumers lose $25 per unit purchased – but the government raises an extra $25 in taxes, leaving overall national income unchanged. Suppose, however, that importers shift to a more expensive source that isn’t subject to the tariff; suppose, for example, that they can buy the good from Vietnam for $115. Then consumers only lose $15 – but there is no tariff revenue, so that $15 is a loss for the nation as a whole. But what if they turn to a domestic supplier – say, a U.S. company that will sell the product for $120. How does this change the story? Here the crucial thing is that producing a good domestically has an opportunity cost. The U.S. is near full employment, so the $120 in resources used to produce that good could and would have been employed producing something else in the absence of the tariff. Diverting them into producing what we used to import means a net loss of $20, with no revenue offset.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by eau de sauvage on 03/04/19 at 16:18:10 7F616E6F627F64790B0 wrote: What exactly are you disputing, the numbers or the guy who reported them? Same answer if you ask was Jim Jordon attacking Cohen's character, or disputing the facts?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/05/19 at 04:38:37 What exactly are you disputing, the numbers or the guy who reported them? Because the numbers are facts.  Your opinion of Kruger doesn't enter into it or change them. There's a reason why economics is not a science in the sense of chemistry or physics for example. There are too many variables and  one of those variables, people, make different decisions faced with the exact same circumstances. Economics becomes fodder for political spin. Face it, you might have read the Krugman article, but you didn't read the report so you have no idea what it really says now do you? No, you don't. You read what a liberal, Democratic columnist wrote who loathes Donald Trump and yet you believe it as if it's Gospel. And this is why we are where we are.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/05/19 at 04:46:24 33203736292422202B74450 wrote: Given, any tax is passed onto the consumer.  But tariffs are meant to equalize the cost of imported goods to domestic and he proves it so what is his point?  The rest is pure conjecture. And where are you grammar natzies? And I don't get how producing something domestically does harm?  Let's layoff all those minorities that just found jobs. Pure BS. Quote: Consider the following example: pre-tariff, the U.S. imports some good from China that costs $100. Then the Trump administration imposes a 25% tariff, raising the price to consumers to $125. If we just keep importing that good from China, consumers lose $25 per unit purchased – but the government raises an extra $25 in taxes, leaving overall national income unchanged. Suppose, however, that importers shift to a more expensive source that isn’t subject to the tariff; suppose, for example, that they can buy the good from Vietnam for $115. Then consumers only lose $15 – but there is no tariff revenue, so that $15 is a loss for the nation as a whole. But what if they turn to a domestic supplier – say, a U.S. company that will sell the product for $120. How does this change the story? Here the crucial thing is that producing a good domestically has an opportunity cost. The U.S. is near full employment, so the $120 in resources used to produce that good could and would have been employed producing something else in the absence of the tariff. Diverting them into producing what we used to import means a net loss of $20, with no revenue offset. Here's the problem Vers; in your example, you list a couple of possibilities, but certainly not all the possibilities. And tracking the positive and negative ramifications from an importer switching suppliers from a foreign one or perhaps sourcing a domestic one is difficult. I mentioned before economics is not an exact science for a lot of reasons and how different importers address changes in the marketplace is one reason for that.   From 40,000 feet, the economy is doing great. If the tariff has a negative impact, it seems to be tiny. What's not being discussed is its slow negative impact on China. That's good for the US. So perhaps you could say we are in a good position to take on China even if it harms us, apparently a tiny, tiny .01%. But a good topic to discuss. I have to head out but worth exploring more.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/05/19 at 07:18:06 625057464150477854475E350 wrote: What exactly are you disputing, the numbers or the guy who reported them? Because the numbers are facts.  Your opinion of Kruger doesn't enter into it or change them. There's a reason why economics is not a science in the sense of chemistry or physics for example. There are too many variables and  one of those variables, people, make different decisions faced with the exact same circumstances. Economics becomes fodder for political spin. Face it, you might have read the Krugman article, but you didn't read the report so you have no idea what it really says now do you? No, you don't. You read what a liberal, Democratic columnist wrote who loathes Donald Trump and yet you believe it as if it's Gospel. And this is why we are where we are. My, my, my you like to assume, don't you? When something doesn't fit your narrative you impose your will upon it. I DID read the paper - here you go, you should too: http://www.princeton.edu/~reddings/papers/CEPR-DP13564.pdf The fact is mark - these numbers are facts. Now, you face it mark - your boy trump is in way over his head.  His "great business skills" are bankrupting farmers, increasing costs, driving up inflation and putting more burden on the middle class.  Oh, but he did give that great big tax breaks to the 1% - so there's that... smh. It's funny - you tout your salesman prowess, yet don't seem to grasp the fundamental fact of how these tariffs are doing more harm than good.  Well, then again, you continue to support trump, so....

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/05/19 at 11:30:56 You did not read that report.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/05/19 at 12:15:27 053730212637201F332039520 wrote: You did not read that report. LOL what is it with you and assumptions?  Are you omnipotent??? Yes, I did. Did you?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/05/19 at 12:42:15 No. And neither did you.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/05/19 at 12:55:30 5C6E69787F6E79466A79600B0 wrote: No. And neither did you. You didn't read it, yet you make assumptions? Boy oh boy mark - didn't anyone ever tell you what happens when you ASSume? Well, I guess I can't expect much from a fervent trump supporter.  I should know better.  Oh well, I tried. Tell you what - read it and get back to me. Or don't.  It makes no difference to me.  I'm not the one making accusations.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/05/19 at 14:55:14 The fact you never read it before you made your post is more solid a truth than anything Krugman said about the article. Now, you may have read it since, but you hadn’t before. You and I both know that to be true. Are the figures in the article facts? I don’t know and neither do you. I instantly suspect them because Krugman like you, has a severe case of TDS. My guess is when I get home later this week, I could find another set of facts that don’t support this set of facts. Again, economics is less a science and more statistics manipulated as spin.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/05/19 at 15:51:19 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote: The fact you never read it before you made your post is more solid a truth than anything Krugman said about the article. Now, you may have read it since, but you hadn’t before. You and I both know that to be true. LMAO - mark, do you have any idea how dumb you sound? Let me ask you this - what makes you think I didn't read it? Are you following me????? Face it mark - you're wrong, I read it, you didn't - yet you tell me that I didn't.  Seriously, who the hell do you think you are?? Are the figures in the article facts? I don’t know and neither do you. I instantly suspect them because Krugman like you, has a severe case of TDS. Well mark, the numbers are garnered from the Fed, professors of economics and CEPR. If you're too lazy to read it, that's your fault.  Don't project that on me. My guess is when I get home later this week, I could find another set of facts that don’t support this set of facts. Again, economics is less a science and more statistics manipulated as spin. My guess is that you won't.  Since you're too lazy to read this paper, why the hell would you read another?  (oh, wait - you'll read one that is in favor of the tariffs and doesn't report the truth... right?). Tell you what - go ask the farmers how well they like these tariffs.  Go talk to the rust belt.  Go to Lordstown OH and ask the last 1500 left there how well they like these tariffs....(though not the only reason they got fired, but it sure ain't helpin') SMH

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/05/19 at 19:08:11 You didn't read it because it's 41 pages of very dry, technical language with economic formulas only a geek would read for recreation. You might be a lot of things, but a math, economy geek ain't one of them. I didn't read it because 1) if Krugman cited it, I suspect it and 2) I'm outta town working. Only one of us is being honest.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/05/19 at 19:46:53  I read it and have some issue with the NY Times article but the math presented in the actual paper appears sound.  Besides on more than one occasion on this forum it has been brought up that the "source" is to be considered irrelevant if the "information" is correct.  Initially when they assumed that the U.S. Government uses the tariff revenue to generate social welfare benefits equal to the tax burden I was wondering how that could be verified, but it can.  So without presenting the opposing assumption, and using the algorithms in the paper I was able to come up with an outcome that is in other sources as well, prior to looking them up.  The predicted number was almost exact (12.298 billion) to the actual verifiable data of 12.3 billion.  I'd put the full breakdown here but I doubt anyone would use it.  I put the actual WTO tariff breakdowns in another thread and those weren't used either.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/05/19 at 19:56:30 4E7C7B6A6D7C6B54786B72190 wrote: You didn't read it because it's 41 pages of very dry, technical language with economic formulas only a geek would read for recreation. You might be a lot of things, but a math, economy geek ain't one of them. I didn't read it because 1) if Krugman cited it, I suspect it and 2) I'm outta town working. Only one of us is being honest. So sorry for you mark - but you are just a sad, bitter person that projects your discontent on others. I read the report.  You refuse to believe it for the reasons I state above. Give it up - you don't know me.  You have no idea what I do.  You only want to project your ideas of who I am. That only resides in your head.  No in real life. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/05/19 at 19:59:00 2606040C1106630 wrote:  I read it and have some issue with the NY Times article but the math presented in the actual paper appears sound.  Besides on more than one occasion on this forum it has been brought up that the "source" is to be considered irrelevant if the "information" is correct. Agreed - to a degree.  The NYT article is an op-ed, so yeah, I can see why web might be pissy about it. But like you said, the numbers are what they are.  Initially when they assumed that the U.S. Government uses the tariff revenue to generate social welfare benefits equal to the tax burden I was wondering how that could be verified, but it can.  So without presenting the opposing assumption, and using the algorithms in the paper I was able to come up with an outcome that is in other sources as well, prior to looking them up.  The predicted number was almost exact (12.298 billion) to the actual verifiable data of 12.3 billion.  I'd put the full breakdown here but I doubt anyone would use it.  I put the actual WTO tariff breakdowns in another thread and those weren't used either.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/06/19 at 04:42:56 BS. You didn't read it when you said you did. I believe Eeg read it. You? No way.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/06/19 at 04:51:45 79595B534E593C0 wrote:  I read it and have some issue with the NY Times article but the math presented in the actual paper appears sound.  Besides on more than one occasion on this forum it has been brought up that the "source" is to be considered irrelevant if the "information" is correct.  Initially when they assumed that the U.S. Government uses the tariff revenue to generate social welfare benefits equal to the tax burden I was wondering how that could be verified, but it can.  So without presenting the opposing assumption, and using the algorithms in the paper I was able to come up with an outcome that is in other sources as well, prior to looking them up.  The predicted number was almost exact (12.298 billion) to the actual verifiable data of 12.3 billion.  I'd put the full breakdown here but I doubt anyone would use it.  I put the actual WTO tariff breakdowns in another thread and those weren't used either.   I've got other stuff to do today so I'll be honest and say I won't read it. Probably won't read it when I bet home either. It's just not that interesting to me and judgments on the effectiveness of Trump's tariff  is premature. And again, if it "costs" to hurt China, then let's decide if it's worth the cost.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/06/19 at 05:38:01 754740515647506F435049220 wrote: BS. You didn't read it when you said you did. I believe Eeg read it. You? No way. LOL - whatever helps you sleep at night mark.  But, just like everything you've written to/about me - you're wrong.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/06/19 at 07:21:29 "It's just not that interesting to me and judgments on the effectiveness of Trump's tariff  is premature."  Incidentally that is mentioned in the paper as they indicate that the "horizon timeline" is considerably shorter than standard since the tariff implementation has been so recent.  So the effects should be considered part of the initial reaction phase, and I believe the assessment and math in the paper is correct at this time, tariffs are costing the US more, however I don't think we have enough information to know what the adjustments phase will end up doing.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/06/19 at 10:07:06 Gee..... wonder why my friend TT didn't mention that important point. It's almost like he didn't read it......... I'm not the first one to use the 'big ship trying to turn' analogy for the US economy. There are too many moving parts to accurately predict cause/effect.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/06/19 at 12:01:39 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-china-trade-war-beijing-cuts-growth-target-after-tariff-impact-2019-3 Assume for a moment this is correct and the tariffs force China to make an adjustment to their policys that in the end are a net gain for us. Everyone gonna be happy then?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/06/19 at 13:22:18 "Assume for a moment this is correct and the tariffs force China to make an adjustment to their policys that in the end are a net gain for us."  There's little actual evidence to support this.  The article itself references one official source prediction, and weighs the rest on one person's viewpoint.  The survey information is state supplied from a well known provider of inaccurate information.    Would we be happy if these predictions were accurate?  I would hope so.  Is the source material for the opinion anywhere close to the information used in the other article?  Not at all.  I prefer to make my decisions based off of economic data vs economic opinion.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/06/19 at 14:47:53 Economics IS opinion from data.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/06/19 at 16:00:24 "Economics IS opinion from data."  I think economics is more of a study than an opinion by definition.  I can study things and not formulate an opinion.  I can also form an opinion without study.  Economics requires study to provide an accurate opinion, and I want accuracy more than I want ideas.  To clarify:  I prefer when formulating a strategy involving my personal application  of fund allocation, implementation and usage to utilize opinions that provide verifiable data versus ones that do not.  Specifically empirical data that can be verified through replication of results over opinions that have no, or minimal empirical data and can not be replicated.  My personal assessment of "economic opinion" sits in the category of opinion with little or no study, or empirical data.  My personal assessment of "economic data" is the collection of  empirical information specific to the economy being studied with opinion being optional.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/06/19 at 17:06:34 695B5C4D4A5B4C735F4C553E0 wrote: Gee..... wonder why my friend TT didn't mention that important point. It's almost like he didn't read it......... First of all - I'm not your friend. Second, you certainly are holding fast to your imagination - with no proof whatsoever. Not my fault you don't like facts. Sleep well mark. I'm not the first one to use the 'big ship trying to turn' analogy for the US economy. There are too many moving parts to accurately predict cause/effect.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/06/19 at 17:08:38 645651404756417E524158330 wrote: Economics IS opinion from data. Technically economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics focuses on the behaviour and interactions of economic agents and how economies work.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/06/19 at 18:24:09 Did you phone a friend to get that?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/06/19 at 19:27:13  Just Google "Economics" and most of the initial results will toss out the generic definition which is hard to change and still be correct.  The phrase "production, distribution and consumption of goods and services" is the basis of most of it, which is why its so easy to Google.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/06/19 at 20:09:36 59797B736E791C0 wrote:  Just Google "Economics" and most of the initial results will toss out the generic definition which is hard to change and still be correct.  The phrase "production, distribution and consumption of goods and services" is the basis of most of it, which is why its so easy to Google. A noble cause Eegore, but I think your tutelage falls on mark's deaf ears.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/06/19 at 20:11:41 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote: Did you phone a friend to get that? Hey mark, the year 2000 called, it wants it's catchphrase back. ;D ;D

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 05:08:32 766867666B766D70020 wrote: [quote author=370502131405122D01120B600 link=1551733762/30#31 date=1551925449]Did you phone a friend to get that? Hey mark, the year 2000 called, it wants it's catchphrase back. ;D ;D[/quote] Hey friend, Google the definition of irony and then apply it to someone who uses an out of date catchphrase in a lame attempt to take a shot at someone else who used an out of date catchphrase.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 05:22:22 78585A524F583D0 wrote:  Just Google "Economics" and most of the initial results will toss out the generic definition which is hard to change and still be correct.  The phrase "production, distribution and consumption of goods and services" is the basis of most of it, which is why its so easy to Google. Here's my point Eeg; here's the title of an article I saw this morning. So Far, Donald Trump’s Trade War Is an Utter Failure Now then, the article TT never read, points out that the impact of the tariffs according to their method of study, was .01% so far. I posted a note yesterday which pointed out China had made adjustments to their economic policies in part due to pressures from the tariff. That's good for the USA. However, this guy calls the tariffs an Utter Failure. Not a little bit of a failure, not a work in progress, but an utter failure. Multiple people with access to a wide variety of data come up with different opinions on what that data means. Hence my point that economics is opinion. Also, saw another article this morning how Whole Foods signed on to the socialist idea of a livable wage and boosted pay to $15 an hour for which they were roundly praised and predictions made of how that would positively impact not only the individual's personal 'economy' but the community's economy as a whole. Only problem, Whole Foods predictably cut hours so as to maintain their margins. Yet, two different people will have opposite takeaways from that episode. Again, economics is opinion. Finally, my friend TT was yacking about the 1950's tax rates and how we need to look at those again. That's a popular refrain with socialist today. However, a quick look at the data shows practically no one paid those 90% rates and the overall tax burden on individuals from a percentage point of view has changed very little. Yet, I guarantee we'll hear repeatedly the phrase soak the rich or pay their fair share etc...  Part of opinion is ignoring inconvenient facts. Confirmation Bias I believe it's called.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 05:48:42 546661707766714E627168030 wrote: [quote author=766867666B766D70020 link=1551733762/30#34 date=1551931901][quote author=370502131405122D01120B600 link=1551733762/30#31 date=1551925449]Did you phone a friend to get that? Hey mark, the year 2000 called, it wants it's catchphrase back. ;D ;D[/quote] Hey friend, Google the definition of irony and then apply it to someone who uses an out of date catchphrase in a lame attempt to take a shot at someone else who used an out of date catchphrase. [/quote] Oh my... you poor thing.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 06:02:06 The point that the conservatives on this post keep missing is this: What was the point of the tariffs in the first place?  What did trump hope to accomplish? So conservatives, if you ask yourself these two questions - and then answer them truthfully, you'll see that they have in fact, had the opposite effect that trump had wanted.  Look no further than the farmers. But then, most conservatives on this board don't care to answer the tough questions truthfully.  No surprise. Oh, and someone felt the need to bring up the 50's tax rates and how very few (if any) actually paid those high rates.  That is actually correct.  But once again, the conservative mindset doesn't care to find out why so few paid it.  Perhaps if they knew why, they they'd understand the need for them today.  Especially in this toxic environment of oligarchs.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 06:42:08 Oh, and someone felt the need to bring up the 50's tax rates and how very few (if any) actually paid those high rates.  That is actually correct.  But once again, the conservative mindset doesn't care to find out why so few paid it.  Perhaps if they knew why, they they'd understand the need for them today.  Especially in this toxic environment of oligarchs. People didn't pay them for the same reason you take any and all deductions available to you. And if by some miracle you fell into a ten million dollar a year income, you would hire someone and make sure you found a way around the new Democratic Socialist party's taxes too. Because don't lie yet again and tell us if you had 10 million, you'd fork over a huge percentage of it because you wouldn't. The real point of the tariffs was to impress upon China that pu$$y little Obama or Bush wasn't in charge anymore and they had a man to deal with. From that point of view, it's worked. We've got a great economy going at the moment, now's the time to strike. They are being forced to understand they can't call all of the shots anymore.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by MnSpring on 03/07/19 at 07:53:50 “…don’t lie yet again and tell us if you had 10 million, you’d fork over a huge percentage of it because you wouldn’t….” Of course the tt would, say, it would. (Never do it, but certainly say it) Just like the tt wants Trumps taxes, and everyone knows Trump has/had/used/etc, a/or rather large sums of money. YET, has no interest in Al Frankens Taxes, who was ‘Deeply In Debt’, after he won the first election, (by fraud), and a year later, on a 150,000.00 salary, became a Millionaire. The tt has absolutely  NO curiosity how that is done ?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 09:14:53 0C3E39282F3E29163A29305B0 wrote: Oh, and someone felt the need to bring up the 50's tax rates and how very few (if any) actually paid those high rates.  That is actually correct.  But once again, the conservative mindset doesn't care to find out why so few paid it.  Perhaps if they knew why, they they'd understand the need for them today.  Especially in this toxic environment of oligarchs. People didn't pay them for the same reason you take any and all deductions available to you. And if by some miracle you fell into a ten million dollar a year income, you would hire someone and make sure you found a way around the new Democratic Socialist party's taxes too. Because don't lie yet again and tell us if you had 10 million, you'd fork over a huge percentage of it because you wouldn't. LOL - and yet you still miss the why.  How do you get to make deductions mark?  By hoarding your money in offshore accounts?  Nope.  Think about the reasons why those companies and millionaires got those deductions back in the 50's.  Talk about being obtuse...   The real point of the tariffs was to impress upon China that pu$$y little Obama or Bush wasn't in charge anymore and they had a man to deal with. LOL - no, it really hasn't.  trump's pee pee looks even smaller than it did before.  Yeah, China suffered, but so did the US - in some ways more than China.  Now, trump's back at the table because he has no choice.  We're probably going to go back to square one... yeah... winning, huh? From that point of view, it's worked. We've got a great economy going at the moment, now's the time to strike. They are being forced to understand they can't call all of the shots anymore. Wait, you think these tariffs have helped the economy?  That's hilarious!

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 09:22:49 43605D7E7C6760690E0 wrote: “…don’t lie yet again and tell us if you had 10 million, you’d fork over a huge percentage of it because you wouldn’t….” Of course the tt would, say, it would. (Never do it, but certainly say it) Just like the tt wants Trumps taxes, and everyone knows Trump has/had/used/etc, a/or rather large sums of money. YET, has no interest in Al Frankens Taxes, who was ‘Deeply In Debt’, after he won the first election, (by fraud), and a year later, on a 150,000.00 salary, became a Millionaire. The tt has absolutely  NO curiosity how that is done ? Um, you realize that Franken wrote several books while in office (which is very legal), right? Naw - you don't care. You want to justify trump's failure by pointing to someone else.  Whatever... Here's a suggestion mn.  Why not once try to stay on point?  Why constantly hijack threads? This is about the trump tariffs, not his taxes.  I could fill up an entire forum with his tax dodging and probable corruption - but that's not the subject of this thread. It's funny really.... vers calls me out for being a troll, yet somehow he lets you go. Gee, I wonder why?.....

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by verslagen1 on 03/07/19 at 09:38:55 I guess you need reminding... 667562637C7177757E21100 wrote: [quote author=160807060B160D10620 link=1551300935/0#9 date=1551748619][quote author=61427F5C5E45424B2C0 link=1551300935/0#8 date=1551748177][quote author=475956575A475C41330 link=1551300935/0#5 date=1551409060]- let's just say that I gave what I got. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It was, YOU, that 'gave', first. [/quote] Um, no, sorry mn.  Once again you're wrong. No one is obligated to respond to any of my posts.  However, when they do, and it's worthy, I respond in kind. Sorry if you don't like it.  That's just the way it is. Now, do yourself a favor and go back in your history and look at all the times you called me or Sero or any other left leaning person out on a post that we didn't make, or one that you started and goaded us on. You're so full of hypocrisy it's nearly unreal. But then again, like I said before - I know who you are. [/quote] Tnt, you've spawned this troll culture, now you're gonna have to live with it.[/quote]

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 09:50:30 2A392E2F303D3B39326D5C0 wrote: I guess you need reminding... [quote author=667562637C7177757E21100 link=1551300935/0#10 date=1551798293][quote author=160807060B160D10620 link=1551300935/0#9 date=1551748619][quote author=61427F5C5E45424B2C0 link=1551300935/0#8 date=1551748177][quote author=475956575A475C41330 link=1551300935/0#5 date=1551409060]- let's just say that I gave what I got. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It was, YOU, that 'gave', first. [/quote] Um, no, sorry mn.  Once again you're wrong. No one is obligated to respond to any of my posts.  However, when they do, and it's worthy, I respond in kind. Sorry if you don't like it.  That's just the way it is. Now, do yourself a favor and go back in your history and look at all the times you called me or Sero or any other left leaning person out on a post that we didn't make, or one that you started and goaded us on. You're so full of hypocrisy it's nearly unreal. But then again, like I said before - I know who you are. [/quote] Tnt, you've spawned this troll culture, now you're gonna have to live with it.[/quote] [/quote] Well, fortunately vers, anyone with half a brain can figure out how to go back and look at the history of this forum and my comments (not to mention all the comments from mn, jog, you, mark, pg, etc.) But go right ahead and blame me - the truth doesn't care what you believe.  Your attitude and childishness is just par for the course of today's conservative.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by verslagen1 on 03/07/19 at 10:05:12 475956575A475C41330 wrote: Well, fortunately vers, anyone with half a brain can figure out how to go back and look at the history of this forum and my comments (not to mention all the comments from mn, jog, you, mark, pg, etc.) We all know you won't be doing that.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 10:10:56 The great American jobs machine is still roaring. Slowing global growth and trade friction may cloud the economic horizon, but U.S. small businesses in February went on an historic hiring binge. That’s according to the latest employment report from the National Federation of Independent Business, due out later today. NFIB has been conducting this monthly survey for decades. The organization’s chief economist William Dunkelberg reports that they’ve never seen results like these: Job creation broke the 45-year record in February with a net addition of 0.52 workers per firm (including those making no change in employment), up from 0.25 in December and 0.33 in January. The previous record was 0.51 reached in May 1998. NFIB also found a historic low in the percentage of business owners reducing employment—just 3% of survey respondents. “Owners are trying to hold on to the employees they have,” says Mr. Dunkelberg.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 10:15:36 4F5C4B4A55585E5C5708390 wrote: [quote author=475956575A475C41330 link=1551733762/30#44 date=1551981030] Well, fortunately vers, anyone with half a brain can figure out how to go back and look at the history of this forum and my comments (not to mention all the comments from mn, jog, you, mark, pg, etc.) We all know you won't be doing that.[/quote] Well, actually I already did. I posted several examples of it in another thread a while back.  You should pay more attention to the forum you admin.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 10:18:24 645651404756417E524158330 wrote: The great American jobs machine is still roaring. Slowing global growth and trade friction may cloud the economic horizon, but U.S. small businesses in February went on an historic hiring binge. That’s according to the latest employment report from the National Federation of Independent Business, due out later today. That's great news! NFIB has been conducting this monthly survey for decades. The organization’s chief economist William Dunkelberg reports that they’ve never seen results like these: Job creation broke the 45-year record in February with a net addition of 0.52 workers per firm (including those making no change in employment), up from 0.25 in December and 0.33 in January. The previous record was 0.51 reached in May 1998. NFIB also found a historic low in the percentage of business owners reducing employment—just 3% of survey respondents. “Owners are trying to hold on to the employees they have,” says Mr. Dunkelberg. Awesome!  Then why are trump's numbers in the toilet? This is all happening in spite of him, not because of him.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 10:34:05 ......and prove my point. A solid piece of economic news is twisted  to fit an opinion. TDS on full display. Which is to bad for my friend because he probably will be sick until 2024.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 10:40:20 053730212637201F332039520 wrote: ......and prove my point. A solid piece of economic news is twisted  to fit an opinion. TDS on full display. Which is to bad for my friend because he probably will be sick until 2024. So, which part do you have a problem with?  The part where trump's numbers are indeed in the basement?  The part about how our economy is doing well in spite of him.  Or the part about how you are not my friend? (BTW, I have a feeling that by 2024, trump will be in jail, having been convicted shortly after his massive loss in 2020.)

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 11:20:01 Odds are good he'll be your President until 2024.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/07/19 at 11:22:57 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote: Odds are good he'll be your President until 2024. LOL - if I were you, I'd find a different bookie!

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Serowbot on 03/07/19 at 11:27:05 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote: Odds are good he'll be your President until 2024. Putin will have to work a lot harder next time...

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/07/19 at 14:50:30 Keep believing that....

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/07/19 at 16:04:47  I think the issue is that few if any of you are willing to look at the numbers as numbers and review collaborative assessments.  Instead its about Trump.  People who like Trump will see the good things in tariff alterations, and the people who do not like Trump will see the bad.  In this forum I don't know of anyone who actually uses the empirical data to make a decision, instead they use empirical data to reinforce their attitude towards Trump, or Obama, or Hillary, or each other.  This very thread is an example.  It can go pages upon pages of bickering without one reference to the data presented as the original topic.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/08/19 at 04:41:50 That's not exactly true Eeg. I pointed out the ridiculousness of Krugman and the lack of emphasis on the .1% number. You pointed out the obvious fact fron the report its way to early in the game to declare victory or defeat. What happened was the Aussie put a paragraph from a TDS deranged NY Times loser. I don't know if he read the full report or not. I doubt it but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. TT waded in as if he'd read it which we all know he was lying about. I said I hadn't read it to that point and I skimmed through it. From there, TT did his usual Trump thing and that's where we are.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/08/19 at 05:42:06 "its way to early in the game to declare victory or defeat. "  This may be true, but verifiable data concludes, through multiple sources, that at this time it is defeat.  Without adjustments the current timeline will not become profitable.  The issue is that people hear "Trump is bad" when those numbers say the tariffs, at this time, are not beneficial to the majority of US interests.  When in actuality all the numbers are saying is that the current implementation of tariffs have had certain specific results.  We all know if this was an Obama era implementation it would be perceived as bad by Trump supporters and good by Hillary ones and that is only because people interpret best policy by who they like over what they do.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/08/19 at 05:47:08 18383A322F385D0 wrote:  I think the issue is that few if any of you are willing to look at the numbers as numbers and review collaborative assessments.  Instead its about Trump.  People who like Trump will see the good things in tariff alterations, and the people who do not like Trump will see the bad.  In this forum I don't know of anyone who actually uses the empirical data to make a decision, instead they use empirical data to reinforce their attitude towards Trump, or Obama, or Hillary, or each other.  This very thread is an example.  It can go pages upon pages of bickering without one reference to the data presented as the original topic.   Of course, you're right Eegore. Suffice it to say, the data shows that - as of today - the tariffs have not worked and have had the opposite effect that trump promised. That's the main point that I'm making.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/08/19 at 05:53:25 0A383F2E29382F103C2F365D0 wrote: That's not exactly true Eeg. I pointed out the ridiculousness of Krugman and the lack of emphasis on the .1% number. You pointed out the obvious fact fron the report its way to early in the game to declare victory or defeat. What happened was the Aussie put a paragraph from a TDS deranged NY Times loser. I don't know if he read the full report or not. I doubt it but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. TT waded in as if he'd read it which we all know he was lying about. I said I hadn't read it to that point and I skimmed through it. From there, TT did his usual Trump thing and that's where we are. LOL - you're funny mark.  You only wish I hadn't read it. Hey, why not just use your ripping retort "shut up" next time you're so frustrated? ;D Have a great weekend.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/08/19 at 06:06:49 This may be true, but verifiable data concludes, through multiple sources, that at this time it is defeat. That's not necessarily true. We jus saw yesterday record employment in small business. We currently are sitting on the lowest unemployment records along with a host of other positive economic news. Are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE there is any correlation between the two? That not a single business shifted to changes in the market (and a tariff is a change to the market) and actually came out ahead? I find that hard to believe. When in actuality all the numbers are saying is that the current implementation of tariffs have had certain specific results. When measured by specific criteria, that is true. As mentioned before, the economy is composed of countless variables.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/08/19 at 06:07:45 You only wish I hadn't read it. You didn't read it until after I said you hadn't read it. Guaranteed fact.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/08/19 at 06:30:37 "Are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE there is any correlation between the two?"  No, I never said that.  There businesses that have come out ahead, the reference paper indicates this, but its not about one business it's about global average.  This further proves my point, pro-Trump will focus on the good.  I said that the empirical evidence provided here can, and has, been verified by means of multiple sources.    Anyone can pull up countering information, and I would be glad to look it over, but in most cases its opinion without study and the source material doesn't show the method of how they reached their numbers.    So with the actual, as in useable, verifiable information that is currently available, Trump or no Trump, those numbers show tariffs have had negative impact that require adjustment to become profitable.  Anti-Trump hears "tariffs are bad"  Pro-Trump hears "needs adjustment"

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/08/19 at 09:41:36 023037262130271834273E550 wrote: You only wish I hadn't read it. You didn't read it until after I said you hadn't read it. Guaranteed fact. Really? Prove it.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/08/19 at 09:42:49 6747454D5047220 wrote: "Are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE there is any correlation between the two?"  No, I never said that.  There businesses that have come out ahead, the reference paper indicates this, but its not about one business it's about global average.  This further proves my point, pro-Trump will focus on the good.  I said that the empirical evidence provided here can, and has, been verified by means of multiple sources.    Anyone can pull up countering information, and I would be glad to look it over, but in most cases its opinion without study and the source material doesn't show the method of how they reached their numbers.    So with the actual, as in useable, verifiable information that is currently available, Trump or no Trump, those numbers show tariffs have had negative impact that require adjustment to become profitable.  Anti-Trump hears "tariffs are bad"  Pro-Trump hears "needs adjustment"     As always Eegore - very well put!

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by thumperclone on 03/08/19 at 09:44:16 yes I read the article how can a 25% cost increase to YOU and ME be of any value it is just  another form of taxation on US the consumer check the "made in" labeling on the products you purchase

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/08/19 at 10:01:01 You're looking at the hair loss and tiredness of a chemo patient and declaring the treatment a failure.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by thumperclone on 03/08/19 at 10:09:16 566463727564734C60736A010 wrote: You're looking at the hair loss and tiredness of a chemo patient and declaring the treatment a failure. there is none so blind than he who refuses to see

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/08/19 at 10:13:42 "You're looking at the hair loss and tiredness of a chemo patient and declaring the treatment a failure. "  Isn't that the same as saying: You're looking at the hair loss and tiredness of a chemo patient and declaring the treatment a success.  None of those symptoms can provide enough information to say success or failure, but in this case it's not symptom but verifiable data that is being analyzed - not symptoms.  So would it be more accurate to say: "You're looking at the verifiable data recording malignant cancerous cell growth of the patient and declaring the treatment a failure."  That could be similar to saying you are willing to acknowledge that the patient is in "Remission" but not acknowledging that remission can mean zero reduction.  Remission only means no growth or expansion of cancerous cells, yet because you like the Oncologist treating the patient the prospective treatment is good.  Remission is good, but treatment prospective is at 0% effectiveness according to verifiable data.  The numbers say 0% effective no matter who the Oncologist is.  So should we spend time associating care with the Oncologist we like, or the numbers that provide evidence that can be used for future treatment?  As it stands now the numbers say the patient has had an increase in cancerous growth.  That's it.  Yet we argue about the prospective outcome based off of our preference for the treating Oncologist.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/08/19 at 14:58:59 As it stands now the numbers say the patient has had an increase in cancerous growth.  That's it.  Yet we argue about the prospective outcome based off of our preference for the treating Oncologist. No, I know the growth is a temporary by-product of the cure (if we want to keep this analogy going) China's worried. That's good. That's an indication we're making progress. Fact is someone had to do something, pu$$y boy Obama wasn't going to, neither did Bush. Couldn't just sit back and keep getting $hit on.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/08/19 at 16:38:58 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote: As it stands now the numbers say the patient has had an increase in cancerous growth.  That's it.  Yet we argue about the prospective outcome based off of our preference for the treating Oncologist. No, I know the growth is a temporary by-product of the cure (if we want to keep this analogy going) China's worried. That's good. That's an indication we're making progress. Fact is someone had to do something, pu$$y boy Obama wasn't going to, neither did Bush. Couldn't just sit back and keep getting $hit on. Face it mark - you've lost this battle. Eegore is far and away more versed in this than you.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/08/19 at 17:00:54 "by-product of the cure"  This is where I have issue, you have already decided the "treatment" is a "cure".  How would you know with such a small sampling of treatment that the patient will be cured?  It is because you have already decided that the cure method works so all numbers after is simply a process towards victory.  Math doesn't care about victory, or cures, or death.  If a cancer patient presents with 50% cancer growth at 1% non-exponential (to avoid calculating mass and displacement of tissue for convenience) every week and we evaluate one month of a 12-month treatment program it should be safe to say we are looking at 8.34% of a total treatment program intended to eliminate not just growth but malignant cells altogether.  8.34 x 12 = 100.08    If the patient after 1 month presents with 54% total cancer growth it can be assumed that in 51 weeks they will reach 100.08% malignant cells and die.  Is there any other way that math - given the time sample - can possibly present another outcome?  Unless of course adjustments are made to treatment, or the body adjusts to the cancer.    Insisting that a cure is going to work with 8.34% of total data is no different than insisting that the cure won't work.  Insisting that there isn't enough information about tariff results to say they won't work is no different than saying there isn't enough information about tariff results to say they will.  Unless some factor, like Trump, alters the concept.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/09/19 at 05:55:15 You're making the mistake that economis is a science. It's not, or at the very least, the variables are so numerous as to be akin to quantum mechanics.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/09/19 at 08:21:50 "You're making the mistake that economis is a science. It's not, or at the very least, the variables are so numerous as to be akin to quantum mechanics."  I agree but you are removing the possibility for failure.  You say that its incorrect for anyone to say tariffs are bad because the sample is too small (short time horizon) but you can also say that the tariffs are good and just part of the cure.  With the exact, same, timeframe.  I mean you don't think cancer treatment is a science, yet with tremendous variables?    You are Pro-Trump so the verifiable math that shows a drop is just part of the process to improvement.  Others that are Anti-Trump say that the verifiable math that shows a drop is part of the process of failure.  I don't care who implemented the tariffs so I say the verifiable math that shows a drop is part of the process.  That's it.  The math shows given the time sample that tariffs, at this time, are not productive on the global average for the US.  At this time. If this trend continues the US consumer will pay more than standard inflation trends over time.  I think the issue is Pro-Trump will refuse to accept that the tariffs as they are now may not work, and the Anti-Trump will refuse to accept that the tariffs as they are now may succeed.  So instead of looking at empirical evidence for what it is and using it productively they argue about the evidence when they are really arguing over Trump.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/10/19 at 15:39:28 Game, set and match to Eegore.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 06:27:42 "You're making the mistake that economis is a science. It's not, or at the very least, the variables are so numerous as to be akin to quantum mechanics." I agree but you are removing the possibility for failure.  You say that its incorrect for anyone to say tariffs are bad because the sample is too small (short time horizon) but you can also say that the tariffs are good and just part of the cure.  With the exact, same, timeframe. I mean you don't think cancer treatment is a science, yet with tremendous variables?   You are Pro-Trump so the verifiable math that shows a drop is just part of the process to improvement. Others that are Anti-Trump say that the verifiable math that shows a drop is part of the process of failure. I don't care who implemented the tariffs so I say the verifiable math that shows a drop is part of the process.  That's it. The math shows given the time sample that tariffs, at this time, are not productive on the global average for the US.  At this time. If this trend continues the US consumer will pay more than standard inflation trends over time. I think the issue is Pro-Trump will refuse to accept that the tariffs as they are now may not work, and the Anti-Trump will refuse to accept that the tariffs as they are now may succeed.  So instead of looking at empirical evidence for what it is and using it productively they argue about the evidence when they are really arguing over Trump. I don't think it's true that pro-Trump supporters will refuse to accept bad outcomes. Look at Ann Coulter's attacks on Trump for his failure to deliver on his central campaign promise, building a wall. However, I'm not turning on Trump because I see no downside to his Presidency at the moment. Unlike Ann, I think Trump has pushed the wall issue appropriately. He's facing a situation where leftist are willing to cut off their nose (loose their country) to spite their face (claim a Trump defeat).   The tariffs had an impact on my company's business. Not much, but a slight negative impact. Regardless, our senior management is looking at the long term benefit if it's successful which is why we aren't judging its success yet. I hired Trump to slow the advance of Democratic liberalism which he's done.  I don't see any major mistakes Trump has made. When/if he does, I'll be the first to call him on it. He's had minor hiccups; the idea of a big military parade was stupid and I have not heard anything else since. I don't like the idea of a big July 4th thing in DC. Now, will the Trump haters ever admit in the future tariffs worked? Never. I read this morning wage growth has hit a 10 year high along with dozens of other record economic measurements. Fools like TT will still claim this is in spite of Trump.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/11/19 at 06:40:48  So would you be willing to accept that the current tariff system has verifiable data that shows, at this time, that they are not productive on the global average for the US.  Also if this trend continues the US consumer will pay more than standard inflation trends over time?  You have indicated so far the current tariff system is going to be successful, but have not provided any verifiable information about how you have come to this conclusion.    Even though you say that people shouldn't claim tariffs are a failure due to the minimal timeframe of study, you can say they are going to be a success with the same information.  To me the only reason this argument exists is because of who initiated the tariffs, Trump.  Simply because nobody is arguing over the algorithms, or the multi-source inputs, or the numbers in general, they are arguing over potential outcome.  I mean you won't even read the paper, but you know the long-term outcome?  How?

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by Eegore on 03/11/19 at 07:03:39 "I read this morning wage growth has hit a 10 year high along with dozens of other record economic measurements."  I did too, also I read 17 of the monthly labor reports over the past two days.  Also its one of the worst months of employment placement and job growth, so its all in what we want to look at.   Personally I verify with labor statistics: Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National): Data pulled on March 11, 2019 (9:58:56 AM) https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t25.htm  So is it good we have wage growth, which includes the influx of returning Federal workers by the way, or is it bad we have only added 20,000 jobs this past month instead of the well over 200,000 average from 2018?  Depends on what math you want to look at, or possibly if you like Trump or not.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 10:25:37 So would you be willing to accept that the current tariff system has verifiable data that shows, at this time, that they are not productive on the global average for the US.  Yes. Also if this trend continues the US consumer will pay more than standard inflation trends over time? Yes. You have indicated so far the current tariff system is going to be successful, but have not provided any verifiable information about how you have come to this conclusion.   I believe I did. I said China had made statements the tariff situation had caused them to downgrade their projections and I believe they lowered a borrowing rate to incentivize expansion. Not 100% positive about the details of either, but they were partly in response to the tariff's impact on their economy.   Even though you say that people shouldn't claim tariffs are a failure due to the minimal timeframe of study, you can say they are going to be a success with the same information. To me the only reason this argument exists is because of who initiated the tariffs, Trump.  Simply because nobody is arguing over the algorithms, or the multi-source inputs, or the numbers in general, they are arguing over potential outcome.  I mean you won't even read the paper, but you know the long-term outcome?  How? I don't know the long term outlook with certainty. It make sense to me that while we are in a strong position and growing, we should hit our trade enemy when he is slightly off his game. The old saying, always kick a man when he's down, never when he's up.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 10:30:03 So is it good we have wage growth, which includes the influx of returning Federal workers by the way, or is it bad we have only added 20,000 jobs this past month instead of the well over 200,000 average from 2018? I don't know. I read a lot was weather related. Our overall February sales were down (actually not down, just not as much growth as expected) as was my specific segment. The fluctuation in our product sales numbers can be weather related. How much of that had to do with job growth nationally? Not sure. We'll see what March brings.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/11/19 at 11:32:08 1A282F3E39283F002C3F264D0 wrote: "You're making the mistake that economis is a science. It's not, or at the very least, the variables are so numerous as to be akin to quantum mechanics." I agree but you are removing the possibility for failure.  You say that its incorrect for anyone to say tariffs are bad because the sample is too small (short time horizon) but you can also say that the tariffs are good and just part of the cure.  With the exact, same, timeframe. I mean you don't think cancer treatment is a science, yet with tremendous variables?   You are Pro-Trump so the verifiable math that shows a drop is just part of the process to improvement. Others that are Anti-Trump say that the verifiable math that shows a drop is part of the process of failure. I don't care who implemented the tariffs so I say the verifiable math that shows a drop is part of the process.  That's it. The math shows given the time sample that tariffs, at this time, are not productive on the global average for the US.  At this time. If this trend continues the US consumer will pay more than standard inflation trends over time. I think the issue is Pro-Trump will refuse to accept that the tariffs as they are now may not work, and the Anti-Trump will refuse to accept that the tariffs as they are now may succeed.  So instead of looking at empirical evidence for what it is and using it productively they argue about the evidence when they are really arguing over Trump. I don't think it's true that pro-Trump supporters will refuse to accept bad outcomes. Look at Ann Coulter's attacks on Trump for his failure to deliver on his central campaign promise, building a wall. However, I'm not turning on Trump because I see no downside to his Presidency at the moment. Unlike Ann, I think Trump has pushed the wall issue appropriately. He's facing a situation where leftist are willing to cut off their nose (loose their country) to spite their face (claim a Trump defeat).   The tariffs had an impact on my company's business. Not much, but a slight negative impact. Regardless, our senior management is looking at the long term benefit if it's successful which is why we aren't judging its success yet. I hired Trump to slow the advance of Democratic liberalism which he's done.  I don't see any major mistakes Trump has made. When/if he does, I'll be the first to call him on it. He's had minor hiccups; the idea of a big military parade was stupid and I have not heard anything else since. I don't like the idea of a big July 4th thing in DC. Now, will the Trump haters ever admit in the future tariffs worked? Never. I read this morning wage growth has hit a 10 year high along with dozens of other record economic measurements. Fools like TT will still claim this is in spite of Trump. There you go - ASSuming once again mark. As it stands right now - and you yourself have admitted to it - the tariffs have had a net negative effect on the country. If - and only if - this should turn around, then I'll be happy to admit that they are working. But be mindful of this, mark - the trump administration is already considering revising the tariffs.  Why?  Are his economic advisors "acting too fast"?  Shouldn't they be the smartest people in the room? It's easy to see why you haven't, and probably will never, turn on trump. You hate liberals that much.  Just own it and be done already.  No one is buying the trump love...

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by MnSpring on 03/11/19 at 15:51:39 7B656A6B667B607D0F0 wrote:  Just own it and be done already.   The fact that Ilhan Omar has proven, (many times, many ways) her pattern of anti-Semitic comments. (As well as the fact that she is a complete LIER.   concerning her Cab ride in D.C.) And I say: "So deal with it". It is countered  with a very, Very, VERY, lame, 'So then you have no proof?' Can you say the word, hypocrisy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 08:38:16 2D0E331012090E07600 wrote: [quote author=7B656A6B667B607D0F0 link=1551733762/75#80 date=1552329128] Just own it and be done already.   The fact that Ilhan Omar has proven, (many times, many ways) her pattern of anti-Semitic comments. (As well as the fact that she is a complete LIER.   concerning her Cab ride in D.C.) So... no proof yet, huh mn? And I say: "So deal with it". It is countered  with a very, Very, VERY, lame, 'So then you have no proof?' Can you say the word, hypocrisy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] Well mn, you're the one making the claim that she's anti-semitic.  Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 09:08:42 4F515E5F524F54493B0 wrote: Well mn, you're the one making the claim that she's anti-semitic.  Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it. WOW, Troll 101  !!!!! It is apparent that you are to LAZY to check out what is WELL Known. Here is a bit more of a challenge for you. Check out her LIES, about her DC cab ride. With THREE, different versions of events. (If they have not been taken down by now by the UL media)

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 09:21:03 72516C4F4D5651583F0 wrote: [quote author=4F515E5F524F54493B0 link=1551733762/75#82 date=1552405096]Well mn, you're the one making the claim that she's anti-semitic.  Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it. WOW, Troll 101  !!!!! It is apparent that you are to LAZY to check out what is WELL Known. Here is a bit more of a challenge for you. Check out her LIES, about her DC cab ride. With THREE, different versions of events. (If they have not been taken down by now by the UL media) [/quote] I don't know squat about her cab ride. That's not what I'm talking about. You said she was anti-semitic. You have to prove it. Otherwise, well, you're lying.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 09:58:08 223C33323F223924560 wrote: You said she was anti-semitic. Nop, I just repeated the numerous UL reports of what, SHE  did/said, which is very well documented. You are just to lazy to look yourself !

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 10:07:59 0B281536342F2821460 wrote: [quote author=223C33323F223924560 link=1551733762/75#84 date=1552407663] You said she was anti-semitic. Nop, I just repeated the numerous UL reports of what, SHE  did/said, which is very well documented. You are just to lazy to look yourself ! [/quote] LOL - no, you didn't. I asked you to show me the quote.  You didn't/can't. You're the one making the accusation. You have no proof of it. (kinda sounds like someone else I know). Tell you what - start a new thread, let's stop hijacking this one. You go ahead and provide the quote that you think is anti-semitic and we'll dabate it there. If not, well, maybe you should consider being quiet.

Title: Re: Tariffs: The Data is In Post by eau de sauvage on 03/12/19 at 16:33:33 In the original NYT article this was one of the reader's comments... Germany has a GDP of about $4 Trillion. They have a modest trade surplus of around $14 Billion. They have unemployment of about 3.4%. And they have faced the same globalization we have. They also don't have the poverty we have. They have good schools for the working class. They help with trade school or college. They have universal health care. We have parts of the US with infant mortality of a second world country - 12 to 14 / 100,000. After 35 years of trickle-down Reaganomics, we got an opioid crisis.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.