• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Tarrifs on imports?

    So basically jacking up prices on all the things made overseas that are cheapest to buy in the US. That affects everyone, especially the poorer people that tend to shop places where that cheap imported stuff is sold because it’s a bigger percentage of their income. It’s gonna affect the middle class the most because they’re probably the biggest consumers. The rich DGAF because well, they’re rich.

    Quickest way to put even more people below the poverty line.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      things made overseas that are cheapest to buy in the US

      Things that are made overseas because American business owners outsourced the manufacturing jobs to the countries with the cheapest labour (and also the least worker protections)?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s becoming a problem for Americans because labor leverage abroad (particularly in China and India) have been improving as labor demand eclipses supply.

        African and Latin American states (particularly Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa) were supposed to be the next places to extract labor, but they keep going Woke, with socialist state governments making demands on exports that Western states don’t want to surrender.

        Imperials are running out of countries to exploit.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That affects everyone, especially the poorer people

      That’s a consequence of outsourcing as much as anything. Tariffs don’t have to mean making retail goods unaffordable for the bulk of the population. When you have domestic industry with room to grow, insourcing your demand can simply mean building out more capital and consuming more labor at home.

      But insourcing also means boosting wages and incentivizing immigration, things conservatives hate.

      So Trump’s pitch ultimately amounts to giving domestic producers with no intention of boosting production an opportunity to price gouge their clients with the blessing of the state.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Your assumption that things become unaffordable is incorrect, they just cost more.

        Prove that wages get boosted. That flies in the face of corporate methodology to cheapen wages and benefits along with product quality in the service of quarterly reports and profits.

        Price gouging is already happening. It doesn’t require trump’s ok to allow it.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Prove that wages get boosted.

          Wages rise when demand for labor exceeds supply. That’s Econ 101.

          That flies in the face of corporate methodology to cheapen wages and benefits along with product quality in the service of quarterly reports and profits.

          Wages are kept low by artificially stunting labor demand. That happens either by under-investing in new capital or cartelizing the hiring process.

          Price gouging is already happening.

          Gouging involves monopolizing supply of commodities. If we increase the supply of capital and the number of hiring firms, that monopolization becomes more difficult.

          But if we simply freeze out imports with trade laws, the existing firms can monopolize domestic supply more easily.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            While I mostly agree with you, econ101 is a pretty poor argument; early econ courses (like intro to micro and macro) are notoriously not grounded in reality.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              econ101 is a pretty poor argument;

              You can argue about the goals of economic policy, but that’s very different from arguing the effects.

              What is the response to rising labor demand? Do you

              • Independently raise wages to the bid price?

              Or

              • Form a cartel to fix wages below the clearing floor?

              The former is the “natural” response you learn about in 101, assuming a naive approach to the problem. The latter is what you learn works best in 201, when your goal is profit maximization.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            None of your replies have any basis other than broad opinion. It’s devoid of manufacturing ability, profiteering, or the corporate price gouging we already experience.

            You just wave a magic wand and suddenly the US can defray the manufacturing deficit and will suddenly throw money at the workforce. Must be a nice imaginary world you live in.

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s probably why he won’t win again. It would be amazing to have a convicted felon as president, he’d go from being a distraction to being the thing that causes serious unrest.

          • 3volver@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Okay so I’ll say he will win in 2024 so then I’ll be wrong as well. It would be crazy if he won as a convicted felon, after being impeached twice, after losing in 2020 by a landslide.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              He did not lose in 2020 by a landslide. That’s just not true.

              Biden won the election with 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the national popular vote, compared to Trump’s 232 electoral votes and 46.9% of the popular vote.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_elections

              So suggesting he has no chance of winning when he came that close four years ago and he’s likely not lost a huge number of fans is a little premature.

                • btaf45@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump did however lose the popular vote in a landslide and the electoral vote in a landslide.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Numbers are even worse when you consider swing states. AZ, GA, and PA swung Biden’s away by a net 40,000 votes. Razor thin margins, for any Dem candidate.

                People fixate on the popular vote, but California going Blue by an extra million votes doesn’t change anything

  • Heavybell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Income tax is such a bitch to deal with. I used to support the idea of replacing it with GST/VAT because then I’d not have to deal with it. But then someone pointed out that disproportionately benefits the rich (who mostly just hold wealth rather than spend it) and disadvantages the poor (who cannot avoid paying for things).

    So fuck it. Make it all income tax and get rid of the others! :P

    (In before this is also a bad idea somehow)

  • Melkath@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    And he will do it.

    He has to figure out this thing with a boat, a shark, and a battery…

    But once he works that one out, China will be paying our taxes.