LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What if Joe Biden Was Non Compos Mentis The Last Two Years Of His Term?

Saint_Ann said:
You seem obsessed with it. Why don't you ask him? :)
Click to expand...
He’s not the one I’m talking to. You’re the one who brought it up, so I’m asking you.

It’s odd that Trump would bring up a point in the only debate against his opponent with no intention of doing anything about it, right?
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
He’s not the one I’m talking to. You’re the one who brought it up, so I’m asking you.

It’s odd that Trump would bring up a point in the only debate against his opponent with no intention of doing anything about it, right?
Click to expand...
So we can agree that he didn't promise to do something about it like you adamantly stated? :)
 
Hel_Books said:
They increase the cost of goods so, yes, all other things being equal, prices must rise. Of course, all other things aren't always equal! For instance, tariffs may reduce economic activity (fewer cars made if steel is expensive, fewer houses built if lumber is expensive) and that business slowdown (possibly even a recession) may lead to lower prices. Or prices may not rise, but importers may shift to less expensive, lower quality suppliers. Or government may panic and introduce subsidies to counteract increasing prices. Or people may decide simply to stop buying some imported goods: tariffs on Italian handbags may just reduce the demand for Italian handbags. Or people may delay purchases, which might slow down economic activity in exchange for inflation later on down the line. Or businesses may decide to carry on as usual, temporarily, taking a loss on the assumption that whoever instituted the tariffs will back down and remove them very soon.

Tariffs are taxes. The result of increasing taxes is not always easy to predict, but pretending it won't increase prices is a risky gamble.
Click to expand...
the classic “tariffs always raise prices, except when they don’t, which is often, but still somehow bad anyway” argument. You’ve essentially written an economic horoscope: vague, self-contradictory, and designed to sound smart while saying everything and nothing.

Yes, tariffs can increase costs. But that’s not the end of the story, it’s the beginning of a negotiation. Tariffs are leverage, not just taxes. They’re tools of statecraft meant to correct structural trade imbalances, protect domestic industry, and pressure foreign producers who profit from subsidies, currency manipulation, and slave labor. Ignoring that context is either naive or deliberately misleading.

You admit “all other things aren’t equal,” then stack your hypotheticals in the most pessimistic way imaginable, recession, product substitution, consumer withdrawal, government panic. That’s not analysis; that’s an anxiety spiral.

And the claim that businesses will “just take a loss” while waiting for tariffs to go away? That’s not how private industry works. They adjust, with innovation, sourcing shifts, or passing marginal costs to price-insensitive market segments. We’ve seen that in practice during multiple tariff regimes.

Also: your premise completely ignores the long-term strategic value of re-shoring key industries, which actually stabilizes prices and strengthens national security. Try calculating the cost of not having a steel industry in a global crisis.

In short: tariffs aren’t magic, but they aren’t chaos either. Pretending they're nothing but blunt instruments that guarantee inflation is like saying fire departments raise water bills, technically true, but catastrophically missing the point.
 
Rightguide said:
the classic “tariffs always raise prices, except when they don’t, which is often, but still somehow bad anyway” argument. You’ve essentially written an economic horoscope: vague, self-contradictory, and designed to sound smart while saying everything and nothing.

Yes, tariffs can increase costs. But that’s not the end of the story, it’s the beginning of a negotiation. Tariffs are leverage, not just taxes. They’re tools of statecraft meant to correct structural trade imbalances, protect domestic industry, and pressure foreign producers who profit from subsidies, currency manipulation, and slave labor. Ignoring that context is either naive or deliberately misleading.

You admit “all other things aren’t equal,” then stack your hypotheticals in the most pessimistic way imaginable, recession, product substitution, consumer withdrawal, government panic. That’s not analysis; that’s an anxiety spiral.

And the claim that businesses will “just take a loss” while waiting for tariffs to go away? That’s not how private industry works. They adjust, with innovation, sourcing shifts, or passing marginal costs to price-insensitive market segments. We’ve seen that in practice during multiple tariff regimes.

Also: your premise completely ignores the long-term strategic value of re-shoring key industries, which actually stabilizes prices and strengthens national security. Try calculating the cost of not having a steel industry in a global crisis.

In short: tariffs aren’t magic, but they aren’t chaos either. Pretending they're nothing but blunt instruments that guarantee inflation is like saying fire departments raise water bills, technically true, but catastrophically missing the point.
Click to expand...
Tariffs always raise prices on consumers.

Your need to rationalize them in a post this long is evidence.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
He’s not the one I’m talking to. You’re the one who brought it up, so I’m asking you.

It’s odd that Trump would bring up a point in the only debate against his opponent with no intention of doing anything about it, right?
Click to expand...

And another thing you lied about, I didn't bring up eating cats and dogs, you did. :)

SgtSpiderMan said:
When did Trump try to implement anything to stop people from eating dogs and cats??
Click to expand...
 
Saint_Ann said:
So we can agree that he didn't promise to do something about it like you adamantly stated? :)
Click to expand...
No, we don’t agree to that because it isn’t what Trump said.

You seem really obsessed with making up your own reality about Trump.
 
Saint_Ann said:
You can't even keep straight what you've said or what you're arguing about. :)
Click to expand...
You seem confused, I’m happy to recap. You claimed Trump said that people were eating dogs and cats but didn’t say he would do anything about it. Trump did say he would do something about it and never has.
 
Rightguide said:
Because what you just said is a lie. Tariffs do not "always' raise prices.
Click to expand...
They do. If you raise prices on someone, prices increase. And you have issues admitting that...even though you raised hell about it before.

Companies are absorbing that cost right now with excess inventory. P&G admitted today that it's coming to consumers now.


Fucking fess.up
 
ll74 said:
They do. If you raise prices on someone, prices increase. And you have issues admitting that...even though you raised hell about it before.

Companies are absorbing that cost right now with excess inventory. P&G admitted today that it's coming to consumers now.


Fucking fess.up
Click to expand...
Prove it! A simple search found the following;

1. The Reagan Semiconductor Tariffs (1986)​

  • Tariff type: 100% tariffs on Japanese semiconductor imports.
  • Goal: To punish Japan for allegedly dumping DRAM chips below market price.
  • Effect on prices: Prices did not rise significantlyfor consumers because:
    • South Korean and Taiwanese producers quickly filled the gap.
    • Tech manufacturers absorbed short-term costs to maintain market share.
    • It helped build up the U.S. semiconductor industry without long-term price spikes.

2. Trump’s 2018 Steel & Aluminum Tariffs (short-term case)​

  • Tariff: 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum from several countries.
  • Prediction: Major price hikes in cars, appliances, and construction.
  • What happened:
    • Initial steel prices rose briefly, but global oversupply and substitutes stabilized costs.
    • U.S. Steel and other producers increased production, softening supply pressure.
    • Consumer prices in related sectors saw only modest or delayed impact.
  • Caveat: Longer-term effects are debated, but inflation was not driven by these tariffs.

3. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff (misunderstood)​

  • Tariff: Huge increases on over 20,000 imported goods.
  • Myth: It caused the Great Depression and massive inflation.
  • Reality:
    • Prices didn’t rise — they fell dramatically during the Depression.
    • Tariffs contributed to lower international trade, but deflation, not inflation, dominated the economy.
    • Consumer prices fell due to collapsing demand, not tariff costs.

4. Tariffs on Luxury Goods (Various Periods)​

  • Example: Tariffs on imported luxury cars, wine, handbags (especially during trade retaliations).
  • Effect: No widespread inflation because:
    • Goods are discretionary, not essential.
    • Consumers either substitute domestic products or simply reduce spending.
    • Tariff costs are not broadly distributed across the economy.

5. UK Corn Laws Repeal Reversal Argument (1804–1846)​

  • While the Corn Laws were repealed to lower food prices, prior to that, Britain's tariffs on imported grain didn't lead to runaway prices, because:
    • Domestic production was strong.
    • The tariff effect was mitigated by subsidies and internal logistics.
    • Prices were often more influenced by weather and war than by the tariffs themselves.

⚖️ Summary:​

Tariffs can raise prices — but they don’t always. Outcomes depend on:
  • Availability of substitutes.
  • Ability of businesses to absorb or redistribute costs.
  • Trade volume of the targeted good.
  • Domestic production and competition.
 
Rightguide said:
Prove it! A simple search found the following;

1. The Reagan Semiconductor Tariffs (1986)​

  • Tariff type: 100% tariffs on Japanese semiconductor imports.
  • Goal: To punish Japan for allegedly dumping DRAM chips below market price.
  • Effect on prices: Prices did not rise significantlyfor consumers because:
    • South Korean and Taiwanese producers quickly filled the gap.
    • Tech manufacturers absorbed short-term costs to maintain market share.
    • It helped build up the U.S. semiconductor industry without long-term price spikes.

2. Trump’s 2018 Steel & Aluminum Tariffs (short-term case)​

  • Tariff: 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum from several countries.
  • Prediction: Major price hikes in cars, appliances, and construction.
  • What happened:
    • Initial steel prices rose briefly, but global oversupply and substitutes stabilized costs.
    • U.S. Steel and other producers increased production, softening supply pressure.
    • Consumer prices in related sectors saw only modest or delayed impact.
  • Caveat: Longer-term effects are debated, but inflation was not driven by these tariffs.

3. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff (misunderstood)​

  • Tariff: Huge increases on over 20,000 imported goods.
  • Myth: It caused the Great Depression and massive inflation.
  • Reality:
    • Prices didn’t rise — they fell dramatically during the Depression.
    • Tariffs contributed to lower international trade, but deflation, not inflation, dominated the economy.
    • Consumer prices fell due to collapsing demand, not tariff costs.

4. Tariffs on Luxury Goods (Various Periods)​

  • Example: Tariffs on imported luxury cars, wine, handbags (especially during trade retaliations).
  • Effect: No widespread inflation because:
    • Goods are discretionary, not essential.
    • Consumers either substitute domestic products or simply reduce spending.
    • Tariff costs are not broadly distributed across the economy.

5. UK Corn Laws Repeal Reversal Argument (1804–1846)​

  • While the Corn Laws were repealed to lower food prices, prior to that, Britain's tariffs on imported grain didn't lead to runaway prices, because:
    • Domestic production was strong.
    • The tariff effect was mitigated by subsidies and internal logistics.
    • Prices were often more influenced by weather and war than by the tariffs themselves.

⚖️ Summary:​

Tariffs can raise prices — but they don’t always. Outcomes depend on:
  • Availability of substitutes.
  • Ability of businesses to absorb or redistribute costs.
  • Trade volume of the targeted good.
  • Domestic production and competition.
Click to expand...
Taxes on producers lead.to.taxes.on consumers.

The only way they don't is if consumers absorb the costs.

P&G has openly stated that they have absorbed costs until now and will now transfer that costs (25% rise) to consumers going forwar ld along with 7k job cuts.
 
Rightguide said:
Your failing ability to do so is old and well-known.
Click to expand...
All you've posted is that producers of goods absorb costs to avoid raising prices on consumers.

The cost of tariffs eventually transfer to consumers.
 
ll74 said:
All you've posted is that producers of goods absorb costs to avoid raising prices on consumers.

The cost of tariffs eventually transfer to consumers.
Click to expand...
What I posted refutes what you said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Could Be Much Of What "Biden" did Was Illegal
5 6 7
Replies
153
Views
3K
HumpDayHoratio
HumpDayHoratio
P
Congressman introduces articles of impeachment against Trump
2
Replies
42
Views
716
Politruk
P
Rightguide
The 64 Ways Biden Gutted American Border Security
2 3
Replies
51
Views
1K
Justplainjeff
J
Rightguide
AG Barr Supports Trump's Firing Of IG Atkinson
Replies
12
Views
718
dp4shelly
D
Colonel Hogan
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But this is what it looks like.
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
7K
Colonel Hogan
Colonel Hogan
Back
Top