Messages

1

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: May 14, 2025, 08:53:40 AM »

I’m sure this is just nothing and not a big deal or anything.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lp3qla3tck2a


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If all you do is post a link to something on Bluesky, that actually communicates to me that you think it is basically nothing and not a big deal or anything.

I’m not sure what this means. Can you not click on the link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not taking the time to click on the link to see what it says.

2

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: May 13, 2025, 08:52:53 PM »

I’m sure this is just nothing and not a big deal or anything.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lp3qla3tck2a


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If all you do is post a link to something on Bluesky, that actually communicates to me that you think it is basically nothing and not a big deal or anything.

3

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Tariff caused shortages

« on: May 02, 2025, 08:58:48 AM »

I want to hear about fireworks

Almost zero effect on fireworks this year. If the tariffs stick around until next year, wholesale prices will double.

There are a lot of fireworks that have been produced that importers have declined to have shipped to the US and they are just sitting in containers in China. If the tariffs are not removed, I don't see many fireworks needing to be imported and, if that happens, the factories in China are going to be hurting.

Are those next year's fireworks sitting in containers? What happens to the wholesalers and retailers if the tariffs aren't dropped? Do they go under, import a lot less, raise prices, or all of the above? What's kind of the drop dead date before things get really serious for the supply chain if the tariffs aren't dropped?

I would say they are fireworks for sales after the July 4th season and next year. There are states (Kansas is now one of them) that have year-round sales and there are states that allow sales at New Year's.

If the tariffs are not dropped, prices will increase most definitely. The price increases we are looking at are going to reduce demand substantially, in my opinion, which will lead to reduced sales and imports. The drop in the quantity of sales will outpace the increase in price and lead to lower revenue. We are at our limit currently on pricing for fireworks and any further increases is going to hammer demand. Prices are quite elevated compared to 2019 and it is much more than just the effects of inflation.

We (brothers and myself) are not dependent on fireworks for our livelihood. It is a side hustle/hobby for us, so we can just ride out these bad times and be alright. It won't be great, but I could see us being better off on the other side when tariffs are dropped if it causes other fireworks stands to drop out of the market.

If you are dependent on fireworks for your livelihood, then I would be looking at ways to generate some income in case the tariffs are not dropped. If the tariffs stick around, 2026 will not be pretty for fireworks. There are a lot of companies, especially small to medium size importers, that are dependent on current sales to pay off previous orders. I could see a lot of them getting wiped out. It's similar to how Social Security is set up where if there was no current Social Security taxes, there would be no money to pay previously promised benefits.

A drop dead date for the 2026 season would probably be January 1. The good news is that there are a lot of fireworks already produced. The difficulty will be getting them all shipped over here. The transit time isn't too long, but there are limits on the number of fireworks containers that can be on any one ship. If the tariffs are removed, everyone is going to be trying to ship product here at the same time and it will create a huge bottleneck.

I know every industry thinks that their industry is special and shouldn't be subject to tariffs, but I think it is especially true for fireworks. We are never going to produce fireworks in the US. As I stated earlier, the public won't stand for the explosions and deaths that result. Additionally, China is the only place for us to get fireworks. There are other countries that produce fireworks, but they are unsafe, terrible or both. One wholesaler we buy from has started a line that is Made in Brazil, but the cakes from there suck. There is nothing to gain by putting tariffs on fireworks, except to raise prices for US consumers.

It is ironic, but not really with this president, that Trump claims to be all about the US and patriotism, but he is going to make is nearly impossible to celebrate the 4th of July in the way we traditionally have celebrated it. Moreover, 2026 is the 250th birthday of our country and Trump is poised to crap all over it.

4

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Tariff caused shortages

« on: May 01, 2025, 03:48:31 PM »

Firework manufacturing reshoring sounds like a great thing.

Good jobs.

working at the Blackcat factory all day sounds amazing.

And the thing about it is that even if the wages were good and conditions not terrible, the American public would not tolerate the explosions that occur every year.

5

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Tariff caused shortages

« on: May 01, 2025, 11:03:21 AM »

I want to hear about fireworks

Almost zero effect on fireworks this year. If the tariffs stick around until next year, wholesale prices will double.

There are a lot of fireworks that have been produced that importers have declined to have shipped to the US and they are just sitting in containers in China. If the tariffs are not removed, I don't see many fireworks needing to be imported and, if that happens, the factories in China are going to be hurting.

6

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: European Club Soccer Thread! (EPL, Champions League, Europa, etc... :D )

« on: April 16, 2025, 09:16:52 PM »

No remontada today!

7

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: PORTAL KOMBAT

« on: April 15, 2025, 01:31:39 PM »

The main thing that needs to change is having long-term contracts.

Is there a prohibition against these? It seems like a no-brainer. At a minimum you tie up the NIL money to a 2-3 year commitment and they have to pay it back if they transfer early or don't hit certain performance metrics, etc. etc.

What's the advantage to the player in the scenario you describe?

Guaranteed cash for multiple years, with the ability to renegotiate if you perform above expectations--same as coaches.

how is it guaranteed cash if you have to pay it back if you don't hit certain performance metrics?

I don't think paying money back if you don't hit certain performance metrics will ever happen.

8

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: PORTAL KOMBAT

« on: April 15, 2025, 12:42:03 PM »

The main thing that needs to change is having long-term contracts.

Is there a prohibition against these? It seems like a no-brainer. At a minimum you tie up the NIL money to a 2-3 year commitment and they have to pay it back if they transfer early or don't hit certain performance metrics, etc. etc.

What's the advantage to the player in the scenario you describe?

If you end up not being very good, you still get your money.

In my mind I am also thinking long-term contracts where players are paid directly by the school. It's where it's all headed.

9

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: PORTAL KOMBAT

« on: April 15, 2025, 10:54:29 AM »

The main thing that needs to change is having long-term contracts.

10

Kansas State Football / Re: Wild Wildcats in NFL Draft

« on: April 11, 2025, 11:29:56 AM »

If someone would have asked me, how many wide receivers get drafted and signed as a free agent on any given year, I wouldn't have guessed anywhere close to 142 dudes. That seems like a ton of guys.

Yeah, that's nearly 5 WR per team. That's a lot.

Teams need a lot of bodies for camp and they all keep a WR or two on their practice squad.

11

Kansas State Football / Re: Wild Wildcats in NFL Draft

« on: April 10, 2025, 08:35:08 PM »

I really hope someone falls in love with DJamer and takes him earlier than late 3rd round. I think he could be beloved by a fan base if he falls to a team that prioritizes him.

He will be beloved by me if he gets drafted at 95.

12

Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: European Club Soccer Thread! (EPL, Champions League, Europa, etc... :D )

« on: April 09, 2025, 10:19:42 AM »

Arsenal on the doorstep of a champions league semi finals berth and @steve dave is no where to be found.

It was a magical game, but now I'm worried we're going to Arsenal this and Madrid are going to Madrid this. My brain is telling me we are clear favorites to make the semifinal and I see our odds of winning the Champions League 3/1, but my heart is telling me I'm setting myself up for heartbreak. Everyone has seen the Real Madrid European comeback movie before.

To be honest, I like our chances of winning the Champions League. This Arsenal team is set up to not squander a 3-0 advantage and our shortcoming has been scoring goals, not giving them up. We haven't given up three goals in a single game this season, I believe.

13

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 08, 2025, 10:44:01 AM »

It's not apples and apples. Particularly if there's additional steps in the supply chain, and knowing that the German VAT on average is 3x the average US sales tax, and is applied at every step.

So if the US is going to start assessing foreign on the basis of the VATs in their home country, is the US going to implement those same assessments on the US firms those foreign firms are competing against?

14

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 04:27:12 PM »

In 2024 the avg sales tax rate in these United States was 7.5% (coupled with lower tariffs then most trading partner countries). 

For EU countries - the average VAT is 21.8%. Even non EU Western Euro countries come in at a full % percentage above the average US sales tax. There's selected goods and services that have lower rates (sounds familiar). In the majority of cases, the reductions are in line with or exceed the avg US sales tax and in many situations like food, they are still substantially higher than the states and localities in the US that have reduced or eliminated taxes on food.

VATs, as well as sales taxes, are applied equally to imports and domestically-produced goods. That does not disadvantage US firms compared to domestic firms in other countries.

15

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 03:59:06 PM »

I have consistently used "and" . . . Tarriffs AND VATS

I am also very welcome to this fact: The United States does not have a national Value Added Tax (VAT) system; instead, it relies on state-level sales and use taxes, which are administered independently by each state

In the vast majority of instances, states and local governments are far more nimble in adjusting sales and use taxes then any central government and far more nimble in exempting goods from sales taxes entirely and/or exempted goods from sales taxes at certain points in the supply chain process.

In the US we have multiple states that have no sales tax at all . . . in other states there is a strong movement towards removing or greatly reducing sales taxes on consumables with a very high level of imported products in the chain.

How do VATs disadvantage US firms and/or increase the trade deficit?

Why do you keep leaving out "and tariffs"?

The combination is important.

You have tariffs and then embedded VATS at every point in the chain. That's the disadvantage.

Again, it's immaterial if domestically produced items have the VATS, because they are not facing the "in addition to" tariff component.

You are apparently going to completely ignore the national vs state/local component.

There are also a whole other series of factors that could impact trade deficits.  I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that the US is a relatively easy place to do business in, as compared to many of our "trade partner" countries.

From my perspective, I can see how tariffs disadvantage US firms. I cannot see how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantage US firms. Please explain to me how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantages US firms. Also, how do VATs alone or in combination with tariffs impact the trade deficit?

What is the relevance of the national vs local/state component?

Am I being punked . . . is this the Matrix?


What is confusing you here. National VATS cover the entire supply chain and are automatic are they not?

My company just ordered thousands of dollars in equipment. By virtue of where the seller exists in the supply chain, where we sit in the supply chain and the type of end user and the state they reside in, there's no sales tax at any point in the transaction.  In a national VAT environment, the same scenario is highly unlikely be it known or hidden.

Thus the "AND".  Tarriffs and VATS.

Once again, I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that US state and local government are more nimble than Euro or Asian G20 central governments, with likely noted exceptions of course.

If a country imposes a VAT on their own domestic goods and imposes the same VAT on imports I don't see how that disadvantages foreign firms.

Tariffs and VATS rolled into the pricing model of imported products seems to be a concept completely lost on you.


JW - What is the simple thing that this administration keeps saying will lower tariffs?

Again - I remain fascinated by #blueanongE who continually proclaim themselves as free market zealots, yet they clearly don't have a single problem with alleged treading partners not adhering to free market principles and thus #blueanongE weirdly thinks the the US should just sit and take it.

I am also still waiting for someone to explain to me how a $1.3 trillion dollar (all time record) trade deficit is good for the United States.  Oh, and don't be a total derp (which is hard for you guys I know) and say I am demanding there be no trade deficits.  But to look at the 2024 numbers and see (one example) the YoY $ increase in imports outpace the $ increase in exports by 2:1, even when building in inflation (which was and still is a thing, despite the protestations of #blueanongE) is concerning.

VATs are rolled into the pricing of domestic products as well, so there is no disadvantage to foreign firms.

I don't know what this administration keeps saying is the simple thing that will lower tariffs. Enlighten me.

I don't think I ever said that big of a trade deficit is a good thing. I said if we want to reduce the trade deficit, we should focus on reducing our budget deficit and the best place to start on that is the defense budget.

Please point me to the United States Government's VAT table for domestically produced goods.

Our alleged trading partners - automatic embedded VAT's across all segments of the supply chain and tariffs, in many cases very high tariffs.  Sales taxes are an end point tax, multiple transactions within the chain are very very often exempt from sales taxation.  Some states have no sales tax, other states often reduce or eliminate sales taxes on certain products (and obviously increase them on other goods and services).  I just gave you an anecdotal example of 3 steps within a particular chain, in this case distributor-reseller-end user, where no party will pay sales taxes out of that trifecta.  The end user, like hundreds of thousands of end users - including the government is sales tax exempt.

The administration says if other countries lower their tariffs the US will do the same.

#blueanon clearly has no appetite for any reduction in Federal spending . . . they've made that abundantly clear.

Well I guess you have your thoughts on VATs and I have mine.

16

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 03:20:13 PM »

I have consistently used "and" . . . Tarriffs AND VATS

I am also very welcome to this fact: The United States does not have a national Value Added Tax (VAT) system; instead, it relies on state-level sales and use taxes, which are administered independently by each state

In the vast majority of instances, states and local governments are far more nimble in adjusting sales and use taxes then any central government and far more nimble in exempting goods from sales taxes entirely and/or exempted goods from sales taxes at certain points in the supply chain process.

In the US we have multiple states that have no sales tax at all . . . in other states there is a strong movement towards removing or greatly reducing sales taxes on consumables with a very high level of imported products in the chain.

How do VATs disadvantage US firms and/or increase the trade deficit?

Why do you keep leaving out "and tariffs"?

The combination is important.

You have tariffs and then embedded VATS at every point in the chain. That's the disadvantage.

Again, it's immaterial if domestically produced items have the VATS, because they are not facing the "in addition to" tariff component.

You are apparently going to completely ignore the national vs state/local component.

There are also a whole other series of factors that could impact trade deficits.  I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that the US is a relatively easy place to do business in, as compared to many of our "trade partner" countries.

From my perspective, I can see how tariffs disadvantage US firms. I cannot see how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantage US firms. Please explain to me how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantages US firms. Also, how do VATs alone or in combination with tariffs impact the trade deficit?

What is the relevance of the national vs local/state component?

Am I being punked . . . is this the Matrix?


What is confusing you here. National VATS cover the entire supply chain and are automatic are they not?

My company just ordered thousands of dollars in equipment. By virtue of where the seller exists in the supply chain, where we sit in the supply chain and the type of end user and the state they reside in, there's no sales tax at any point in the transaction.  In a national VAT environment, the same scenario is highly unlikely be it known or hidden.

Thus the "AND".  Tarriffs and VATS.

Once again, I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that US state and local government are more nimble than Euro or Asian G20 central governments, with likely noted exceptions of course.

If a country imposes a VAT on their own domestic goods and imposes the same VAT on imports I don't see how that disadvantages foreign firms.

Tariffs and VATS rolled into the pricing model of imported products seems to be a concept completely lost on you.


JW - What is the simple thing that this administration keeps saying will lower tariffs?

Again - I remain fascinated by #blueanongE who continually proclaim themselves as free market zealots, yet they clearly don't have a single problem with alleged treading partners not adhering to free market principles and thus #blueanongE weirdly thinks the the US should just sit and take it.

I am also still waiting for someone to explain to me how a $1.3 trillion dollar (all time record) trade deficit is good for the United States.  Oh, and don't be a total derp (which is hard for you guys I know) and say I am demanding there be no trade deficits.  But to look at the 2024 numbers and see (one example) the YoY $ increase in imports outpace the $ increase in exports by 2:1, even when building in inflation (which was and still is a thing, despite the protestations of #blueanongE) is concerning.

VATs are rolled into the pricing of domestic products as well, so there is no disadvantage to foreign firms.

I don't know what this administration keeps saying is the simple thing that will lower tariffs. Enlighten me.

I don't think I ever said that big of a trade deficit is a good thing. I said if we want to reduce the trade deficit, we should focus on reducing our budget deficit and the best place to start on that is the defense budget.

17

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 02:20:50 PM »

I have consistently used "and" . . . Tarriffs AND VATS

I am also very welcome to this fact: The United States does not have a national Value Added Tax (VAT) system; instead, it relies on state-level sales and use taxes, which are administered independently by each state

In the vast majority of instances, states and local governments are far more nimble in adjusting sales and use taxes then any central government and far more nimble in exempting goods from sales taxes entirely and/or exempted goods from sales taxes at certain points in the supply chain process.

In the US we have multiple states that have no sales tax at all . . . in other states there is a strong movement towards removing or greatly reducing sales taxes on consumables with a very high level of imported products in the chain.

How do VATs disadvantage US firms and/or increase the trade deficit?

Why do you keep leaving out "and tariffs"?

The combination is important.

You have tariffs and then embedded VATS at every point in the chain. That's the disadvantage.

Again, it's immaterial if domestically produced items have the VATS, because they are not facing the "in addition to" tariff component.

You are apparently going to completely ignore the national vs state/local component.

There are also a whole other series of factors that could impact trade deficits.  I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that the US is a relatively easy place to do business in, as compared to many of our "trade partner" countries.

From my perspective, I can see how tariffs disadvantage US firms. I cannot see how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantage US firms. Please explain to me how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantages US firms. Also, how do VATs alone or in combination with tariffs impact the trade deficit?

What is the relevance of the national vs local/state component?

Am I being punked . . . is this the Matrix?


What is confusing you here. National VATS cover the entire supply chain and are automatic are they not?

My company just ordered thousands of dollars in equipment. By virtue of where the seller exists in the supply chain, where we sit in the supply chain and the type of end user and the state they reside in, there's no sales tax at any point in the transaction.  In a national VAT environment, the same scenario is highly unlikely be it known or hidden.

Thus the "AND".  Tarriffs and VATS.

Once again, I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that US state and local government are more nimble than Euro or Asian G20 central governments, with likely noted exceptions of course.

If a country imposes a VAT on their own domestic goods and imposes the same VAT on imports I don't see how that disadvantages foreign firms.

18

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 02:19:05 PM »

Wouldn't a vat (as described by dax) make a country's exports less competitive? A tariff on their own goods so to speak.

Most, if not all, countries with a VAT give a rebate on the VAT for exports.

19

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 12:24:15 PM »

I have consistently used "and" . . . Tarriffs AND VATS

I am also very welcome to this fact: The United States does not have a national Value Added Tax (VAT) system; instead, it relies on state-level sales and use taxes, which are administered independently by each state

In the vast majority of instances, states and local governments are far more nimble in adjusting sales and use taxes then any central government and far more nimble in exempting goods from sales taxes entirely and/or exempted goods from sales taxes at certain points in the supply chain process.

In the US we have multiple states that have no sales tax at all . . . in other states there is a strong movement towards removing or greatly reducing sales taxes on consumables with a very high level of imported products in the chain.

How do VATs disadvantage US firms and/or increase the trade deficit?

Why do you keep leaving out "and tariffs"?

The combination is important.

You have tariffs and then embedded VATS at every point in the chain. That's the disadvantage.

Again, it's immaterial if domestically produced items have the VATS, because they are not facing the "in addition to" tariff component.

You are apparently going to completely ignore the national vs state/local component.

There are also a whole other series of factors that could impact trade deficits.  I don't think I am going too far out on a limb here by saying that the US is a relatively easy place to do business in, as compared to many of our "trade partner" countries.

From my perspective, I can see how tariffs disadvantage US firms. I cannot see how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantage US firms. Please explain to me how VATs alone or in combination with tariffs disadvantages US firms. Also, how do VATs alone or in combination with tariffs impact the trade deficit?

What is the relevance of the national vs local/state component?

20

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 12:03:04 PM »

I have consistently used "and" . . . Tarriffs AND VATS

I am also very welcome to this fact: The United States does not have a national Value Added Tax (VAT) system; instead, it relies on state-level sales and use taxes, which are administered independently by each state

In the vast majority of instances, states and local governments are far more nimble in adjusting sales and use taxes then any central government and far more nimble in exempting goods from sales taxes entirely and/or exempted goods from sales taxes at certain points in the supply chain process.

In the US we have multiple states that have no sales tax at all . . . in other states there is a strong movement towards removing or greatly reducing sales taxes on consumables with a very high level of imported products in the chain.

How do VATs disadvantage US firms and/or increase the trade deficit?

21

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 11:37:13 AM »

I just did.

Why are you avoiding the combination of high tariffs and VATS, and also avoiding the application of VATS across the whole sequence by our "partners" in many cases?

In addition, it is relatively easy for state and local markets to adjust or get rid of sales taxes.  Often times its a simply city council vote, or a single session of a state legislature. This isn't the rough ridin' EU debating on the same for 6 years. Come on dude 

The long and the short of it is that Value Added Taxes are not tariffs and do not disadvantage US exporters relative to domestic companies in foreign countries. The same holds true for sales taxes. Inasmuch as there might be a miniscule disadvantaging of domestic firms vs importers in the US, this would be due to the potential tax pyramiding of sales taxes since sales taxes are an inferior form of a consumption tax compared to value added taxes.

You're welcome to claim VATs are tariffs and accept the implications that has on your understanding of international trade.

22

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 11:23:34 AM »

Tariffs are not going to make the trade deficit better and have a good chance of making the trade deficit worse.

JW . . . what is the easiest path to have the tariffs reduced per this current administration?

Negotiate trade agreements. The USMCA opened up Canadian and Mexican markets some. There may still be progress to be made on opening up these markets. There are talks scheduled in 2026 for USMCA.

I would be somewhat open to having counter tariffs put in place that are the same rate as tariffs placed on US goods. These tariff levels, though, are not on par with tariffs on US goods. Also, VATs do not count as tariffs anymore than sales taxes in the US count as taxes.

The best thing that could be done to reduce the trade deficit would be to reduce the government budget deficit. The best place to start reducing the government budget deficit would be to cut defense spending in half.

I clearly stated that the combination of VATS and tariffs skewed the market for US goods in foreign markets.  Also, the US did not have VATs in all or the vast majority of cases. That's the point. The fact that #blueanon keeps trying to water down VATS without this context is once again both fascinating and indicative of hyperpartisanship.

VATs apply to both domestic and imported goods. How does that disadvantage US goods?

Why are you not addressing the impact of sales taxes in the US as a form of a tariff?

23

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 11:19:30 AM »

Tariffs are not going to make the trade deficit better and have a good chance of making the trade deficit worse.

JW . . . what is the easiest path to have the tariffs reduced per this current administration?

Negotiate trade agreements. The USMCA opened up Canadian and Mexican markets some. There may still be progress to be made on opening up these markets. There are talks scheduled in 2026 for USMCA.

I would be somewhat open to having counter tariffs put in place that are the same rate as tariffs placed on US goods. These tariff levels, though, are not on par with tariffs on US goods. Also, VATs do not count as tariffs anymore than sales taxes in the US count as taxes.

The best thing that could be done to reduce the trade deficit would be to reduce the government budget deficit. The best place to start reducing the government budget deficit would be to cut defense spending in half.

24

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 11:11:46 AM »

For the record JW is on record saying that the US budget deficits and the interest that the US pays on its debts is not sustainable.

Please don't derp out and say something about Trump increasing those things. That's not the point. #blueanongE usuals are on record saying our deficits and the interest we pay on those borrowed dollars is irrelevant (that's how the justify blowing out the debt in order to artificially raise GDP for political gain)

And these tariffs are going to make the budget situation worse.

Absolutely on brand . . .and proof you didn't read the whole post.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. My logic is this: The budget deficit is unsustainable, tariffs make the budget deficit worse, therefore, don't implement tariffs. What is your logic?

25

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Mainstream Economics Thread

« on: April 03, 2025, 11:09:40 AM »

Tariffs are not going to make the trade deficit better and have a good chance of making the trade deficit worse.