An alternative view on tariffs?

[nigel99 555]

I stumbled across this YouTube video and found it quite interesting. I realise it’s a 20 minute video, but the presenter lays out how this is a high risk but potentially viable solution to the US retaining its global role. 

I don’t understand history and global economics enough to know if it’s complete drivel. 

 https://youtu.be/1ts5wJ6OfzA?si=tMBqy0MuORPp5j2C

[BIGUN 1,372]

8 hours ago, nigel99 said:

global economics enough to know if it’s complete drivel. 

@13.44 minutes into the video, he specifically says, the authors did not lay out a plan, it was more like a cookbook with recipes. Tariff chaos is not a negotiating tool. And, let's not forget that it was American businessmen who shipped the jobs overseas for lower wages to increase their profits. I doubt they'll bring jobs back for $3,000/month when they can maintain a $100/month workforce and no HR headaches. 

The only thing we'll see (are seeing) here is a recession and a "We're winning HUGELY."  

[nigel99 555]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

@13.44 minutes into the video, he specifically says, the authors did not lay out a plan, it was more like a cookbook with recipes. Tariff chaos is not a negotiating tool. And, let's not forget that it was American businessmen who shipped the jobs overseas for lower wages to increase their profits. I doubt they'll bring jobs back for $3,000/month when they can maintain a $100/month workforce and no HR headaches. 

The only thing we'll see (are seeing) here is a recession and a "We're winning HUGELY."  

Yes I heard that part. You’re right nobody is going to want to buy a pair of Nikes made in the USA that cost 10x the current price.

The other issue is that anti US sentiment is high and Boycott USA movement is gaining a lot of traction. Our government has started pumping money into a Buy Aussie campaign and although not as strong as the Canadian and EU movements people are actively boycotting American products. Once supply chains shift, it’s going to be very hard to get them back. 

[gowlerk 2,241]

7 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Once supply chains shift, it’s going to be very hard to get them back. 

Exactly. Trump will be POTUS for 4 years. There may be some changes to production for some products but the price of building factories combined with a labour shortage in the US makes it very unlikely those kind of investments are going to happen. Instead the new taxes on imports will drive inflation. The damage will come fairly quickly and at a significant level.

[nigel99 555]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Exactly. Trump will be POTUS for 4 years. There may be some changes to production for some products but the price of building factories combined with a labour shortage in the US makes it very unlikely those kind of investments are going to happen. Instead the new taxes on imports will drive inflation. The damage will come fairly quickly and at a significant level.

True, although I was thinking about the boycott campaigns causing other nations to look elsewhere. For example my local supermarket sells American oranges. If consumer boycotts cause them to buy elsewhere, what is the incentive to go back?

[JoeWeber 2,795]

3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Yes I heard that part. You’re right nobody is going to want to buy a pair of Nikes made in the USA that cost 10x the current price.

 

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

[jakee 1,554]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

True, but they're also quite fond of the many billions of dollars they make each year and would prefer not to see that fall. So they may still be some knock on effect.

[JerryBaumchen 1,418]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

Hi Joe,

From back in the day:  In early 1964 there was a lot of rumors going around about the ParaCommander.  One was that it was going to cost ~$500; you could, at that time, by a Pioneer 28 ft 1.6 Lo-Po canopy for ~$190.

Then, in the Spring of '64, Security came out with the Crossbow.  This canopy was as close to the ParaCommander as they could make it; Pioneer had the license for the LeMoigne design.  The XBO canopy came on the market at $224.50.  Later that Summer, Pioneer brought their ParaCommander to the market at $225.

Hmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 2,241]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'll wait to see if the currently $160 a pair Nikes I wear now increase by much, same with the Apple products I use. Seems to me that both companies long ago priced according to the most the consumer will pay for the brand, not according to value. 

Yes, that seems to be the pricing strategy. Meaning as the cost increases the profit margin must go down as will the stock price. 

[nigel99 555]

Well here’s an alternative view on how tariffs work. Donny thinks that the drug dealers are paying tariffs on fentanyl.

[JoeWeber 2,795]

On 4/4/2025 at 9:40 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

From back in the day:  In early 1964 there was a lot of rumors going around about the ParaCommander.  One was that it was going to cost ~$500; you could, at that time, by a Pioneer 28 ft 1.6 Lo-Po canopy for ~$190.

Then, in the Spring of '64, Security came out with the Crossbow.  This canopy was as close to the ParaCommander as they could make it; Pioneer had the license for the LeMoigne design.  The XBO canopy came on the market at $224.50.  Later that Summer, Pioneer brought their ParaCommander to the market at $225.

Hmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen

If you believe Trump won't budge on Tariffs, right now might be a time to invest in high quality, little used, foreign imports that will likely increase in value on the used market. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,418]

40 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

If you believe Trump won't budge on Tariffs, right now might be a time to invest in high quality, little used, foreign imports that will likely increase in value on the used market. 

Hi Joe,

IMO anybody who invests anything on what they think Trump will do is a fool.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Jerry Baumchen

[normiss 840]

One of my favorite signs from the local protest.

[kallend 2,098]

22 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

If you believe Trump won't budge on Tariffs, right now might be a time to invest in high quality, little used, foreign imports that will likely increase in value on the used market. 

People in their 70s, 80s shouldn't be put in a position of having to make critical decisions to protect their retirement savings from the whims of a guy who bankrupted a casino..

[JoeWeber 2,795]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

People in their 70s, 80s shouldn't be put in a position of having to make critical decisions to protect their retirement savings from the whims of a guy who bankrupted a casino..

They need to get second jobs. We'll be needing lawn mowers and cantaloupe pickers shortly.

Edited yesterday at 07:15 PM by JoeWeber

[JerryBaumchen 1,418]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

They need to get second jobs. We'll be needing lawn mowers and cantaloupe pickers shortly.

Hi Joe,

If I wanted to work as a cantaloupe picker; I would have to re-locate down to the El Centro or the Yuma area.  Lots of low crops in those areas.

I 'think' I am OK; plus, the neighbor kid mows my lawn.  I gave him a 25% raise last year.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[nigel99 555]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

They need to get second jobs. We'll be needing lawn mowers and cantaloupe pickers shortly.

This is actually quite an interesting moral question in western society that has welfare (including Australia). Should people be ‘forced’ to work in manual/low paid jobs rather than welfare?

[JoeWeber 2,795]

35 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

This is actually quite an interesting moral question in western society that has welfare (including Australia). Should people be ‘forced’ to work in manual/low paid jobs rather than welfare?

No, begging is also an honorable profession and no one is being forced to eat. Until we live in a Star Trek economy where free food and booze comes out of the Gábōōzosandwichafier at the press of a button society won't be able to accommodate institutionalized slothism. 

[BIGUN 1,372]

6 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Should people be ‘forced’ to work in manual/low paid jobs rather than welfare?

Wisconsin Works is an interesting program. One can only be on Welfare for two years. During that two years, they must get job skills training. The state pays for childcare, food, training, etc. during this time of transition. They have additional means of getting people help . . . 

https://dcf.wisconsin.gov/w2/parents/w2

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,795]

5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Wisconsin Works is an interesting program. One can only be on Welfare for two years. During that two years, they must get job skills training. The state pays for childcare, food, training, etc. during this time of transition. They have additional means of getting people help . . . 

https://dcf.wisconsin.gov/w2/parents/w2

 

 

And then they can beg?

[BIGUN 1,372]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

And then they can beg?

Why it works is; they are paid while in training. Most people start making money and they like owning thier own lives.  

[wmw999 2,509]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Why it works is; they are paid while in training. Most people start making money and they like owning thier own lives.  

Paying while in training and child care are huge. They certainly were in the 1970's, when I worked for the Food Stamp office. Believe it or not, virtually every parent I dealt with was responsible, and trying to think of how best to provide for their children.

Nowadays housing and medical care are much more expensive; section 8 can only go so far, especially when it's probably next on the chopping block. Along with all the subsidized insurance plans.

No matter what, we really don't want to get back into the business of building poorhouses and workhouses. I'd rather have an individual abuse the system, than systematic abuse of individuals.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,554]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Why it works is; they are paid while in training. Most people start making money and they like owning thier own lives.  

It’s a plan that’s better than most. The only problem with a hard cutoff is it can’t take into account company towns that simply do not have any jobs or customer base for entrepreneurs when their company moves away or shuts down. It’s a story repeated across a hundred coal mining towns in Appalachia. It’s happening to a traditional steel making town an hour away from me right now. These places where private companies have extracted profits for decade after decade without investing a dime into the future take longer than 2 years to fix, and people have genuine ties to where they live which mean they may not want or be able to simply move somewhere else for the chance of work.
 

Ironically that’s an area where the rise of remote working could start to help, but I’ll leave you to guess who is irrationally opposed to expanding working from home because they don’t bellyfeel that it’s industrious enough.

[kallend 2,098]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Paying while in training and child care are huge. They certainly were in the 1970's, when I worked for the Food Stamp office. Believe it or not, virtually every parent I dealt with was responsible, and trying to think of how best to provide for their children.

Nowadays housing and medical care are much more expensive; section 8 can only go so far, especially when it's probably next on the chopping block. Along with all the subsidized insurance plans.

No matter what, we really don't want to get back into the business of building poorhouses and workhouses. I'd rather have an individual abuse the system, than systematic abuse of individuals.

Wendy P.

[JerryBaumchen 1,418]

17 hours ago, nigel99 said:

This is actually quite an interesting moral question in western society that has welfare (including Australia). Should people be ‘forced’ to work in manual/low paid jobs rather than welfare?

Hi Nigel,

It is a moral question.  I believe in welfare; but, not as a career choice.  I also acknowledge that some people simply cannot work.

My maternal grandmother was a perfect example.  In 1945, when she was 66, her husband died suddenly.  She had always been a farmer's wife.  The State of Washington gave her a small monthly stipend.  This kept her in the house & food, clothing, etc.  When she died in 1967, the State of Washington claimed everything that she had; which was really only the house.

I was quite happy with all of that.

Also, Ronald Reagan wanted anyone on welfare to work.  He advocated that they manually sweep the streets.  Move the garbage one way one day & move it back the next day; rinse & repeat.

I think that the question comes down to how much empathy one has for his fellow man/woman/children.

I know that I do not have the solution; but, I do care.

Jerry Baumchen