Debate Drag-on Knight 91873 about Tariffs

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

TDS niggers called me a TES user, despite the fact I never used the tread, all because I took light jabs at their expense. No wonder HHH lives rent free in their heads, fuckers are the most mati faggots on this site.

The US politics thread treats me similarly for criticizing tariff policy. MAGA's gone nuts and deserve to lose the midterms over this scandal.

 

[Party Hat Wurmple]

The US politics thread treats me similarly for criticizing tariff policy. MAGA's gone nuts and deserve to lose the midterms over this scandal.

It's because you're still wrong. Trump's Tariffs are probably the single most successful foreign relations policy in US History. He's gotten literally everything he's wanted while maintaining good relationships with foreign countries. We knew there would be an economic punch from it, as there has to be in order to slow inflation, however our current situation has far less to do with tariffs than it does other factors.

My tinfoil hat theory is Democrats have pushed major corporations to speed up their automation and AI plans to further sabotage the Trump economy. I can't prove it and it's just schizo theory, but much like proving Democrats were colluding with Epstein-give it time.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

It's because you're still wrong. Trump's Tariffs are probably the single most successful foreign relations policy in US History. He's gotten literally everything he's wanted while maintaining good relationships with foreign countries. We knew there would be an economic punch from it, as there has to be in order to slow inflation, however our current situation has far less to do with tariffs than it does other factors.

My tinfoil hat theory is Democrats have pushed major corporations to speed up their automation and AI plans to further sabotage the Trump economy. I can't prove it and it's just schizo theory, but much like proving Democrats were colluding with Epstein-give it time.

lol no. All Trump's tariffs did was expose just how vulnerable the US military is to China refusing to export refined rare earths and got Russia, China, and India working together. Trump still has to allow for H1-B Indians and Chinese students into the US. That tariff revenue doesn't come from China or India or Vietnam, but from American importers needing foreign parts to run their businesses.

 

[Beaumont Sinclair]

All Trump's tariffs did was expose just how vulnerable the US military is to China refusing to export refined rare earths and got Russia, China, and India working together.

Yeah, Russia, China, and India were famously not working together until Trump. Are you new to politics?

That tariff revenue doesn't come from China or India or Vietnam, but from American importers needing foreign parts to run their businesses.

Point to me on the graph where prices have increased.
Importer Price Index

I swear to god, the "UBI, higher taxes, regulations, and union" crowd turn into freemarket lolberts when Trump's name is invoked. No principles other than media programming once so ever.

 

[>IMPLYING]

That tariff revenue doesn't come from China or India or Vietnam, but from American importers needing foreign parts to run their businesses.

Not the thread for it, but my autism compels me because that video was just hysteria shit, and it's nothing against you personally.

I've spoke in other threads aplenty about the tariffs, offering a pro-perspective and a anti-perspectives. Search by my name, "tariff", and you'll find them. I lean more towards "pro", but not necessarily because of Trump but because I think more nations ought to try and develop their own industries to make up for what they're lacking themselves if they can do so, but continue to import what is absolutely necessary if they can't get it themselves. I've bloviated about how we (UK) effectively elixated our own home-grown chemical fertiliser industry via reducing our own energy outputs and making nitrogen too expensive, this making us too reliant on Russian fertilisers which saw a spike in price (for reasons you well know) and now our farmers are forced to pay more for European fertilisers which would've struggled to compete with locally produced fertilisers which could undercut them, but that's neither here or there.

The potential price increases on some products is undeniable, however what that video is complaining about and saying will happen definitely won't happen because it already hadn't.

I did a lot of research into the subject of Trump's tariffs, and what few people seem aware of is that the tariffs which affected China had 1000+ exclusions, even prior to 2025. Graphics cards, CPUs and motherboards saw an extension on their exemption as late back as June this year, but saw special exclusion from the tariffs as early back as 2019 with Trump initial introduction of the tariffs and the Biden admin continued that exclusion in 2022.

This is why, more or less, GPUs and CPUs have remained consistent in price for the past 18 months, at the same level before and after Trump took office and his global tariff war. Games consoles saw increases because, despite electronics in general being excluded, video game consoles are in a separate category and so weren't. This will, maybe, drive a trend towards Sony and such turning their "consoles" into "pcs" to get around it, which stuff like the SteamDeck and Asus ROG actually abide by.

Trump has more or less tried to exclude raw materials and focused on complete products. Iron and nickel and tin aren't tariffed by themselves but steel and aluminium are, in the hope that the USA can eventually create their own steel and aluminium competitors to China thanks to being cheaper due to local production. Of course you can't really out-do China on worker wages and lack of regulation so optimally China ought to be excluded from the global market altogether since they already don't play by its rules, but that's neither here nor there again.

Again, not against you personally. Even pro=Trump people are woefully misinformed. Even supporting them, they see their value as a political tool rather than the potential for encouraging the growth of specific industries, or aren't even aware they won't notice them for the most part since fuels and raw resources are often excluded, which is meant to encourage the import of raw resources to be used in domestic manufacturing (which we probably won't see because of China/India still being the cheaper alternative).

TLDR: Your GPUs and CPUs are safe. Cryptofarms and AIfags are more responsible for price increases through mass purchase of cards, RAM, and chips driving down supply. If the Ai bubble bursts expect massive decreases or, worst-case scenario, massive increases to make up for lost revenue due to loss of demand.

 

[SBG]

Trump has more or less tried to exclude raw materials and focused on complete products.

Mostly when Trump was petitioned personally by business executives of some sort. It's only in the past couple days that he finally dropped tariffs on fertilizer that farmers needed, because Trump's White House hadn't been focusing on complete products.

The whole tariff system became a weird web of blanket tariffs and exceptions so that businesses have had to devote a ton of time to figuring out what all components they're wanting to use are tariffed and which aren't, as well as what countries they should be focusing on trade with like maybe India rather than China, only to have Trump pull the rug out from under them so that maybe they need to go with China again.

Not to mention how odd it was that he wanted to invoke national security concerns to do tariffs on coffee, until the backlash on affordability became such an issue that he's backing off it (maybe?).

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Not the thread for it, but my autism compel

Which led to the phrase, Trump Always Chickens Out. The purported claim of rebuilding American industry also isn't happening because these tariffs negotiated around so much no business wants to make long term plans. If anything, they're suing Trump over the constitutionality of this policy, which happens to be correct because tariffs are taxes and are a Legislative power. All to freak out American Soybean farmers.

 

[Beaumont Sinclair]

The purported claim of rebuilding American industry also isn't happening because these tariffs negotiated around so much no business wants to make long term plans.

America has earned over 8.7 trillion in new investments since our tariffs were announced.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

America has earned over 8.7 trillion in new investments since our tariffs were announced.

From who? Is it being used to pay down the national debt?

Just because Trump says something doesn't mean it's true.

 

[R00T]

people who can't even spell tariffs correctly are trying to justify them in the epstein thread. A classic tbh.

To be on topic, Summers has announced he will be stepping back from public commitments.
(archive)

I find it interesting that Fox News introduces Epstein as "disgraced financier" instead of "human trafficker." really takes the bite off of it. Summers will still be teaching. Can't wait to see some of the inevitable protests that occur in his class room.

 

[Barleys]

people who can't even spell tariffs correctly are trying to justify them in the epstein thread. A classic tbh.

Section 232 of the expansion trade act of 1962.
Section 201 of the trade act of 1974.
Section 301 of the trade act of 1974.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (this is whats currently being used)
Section 122 of the trade act of 1974.
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.
All of these can be backed up by Field V Clark 1892.
People who don't know the laws of their own country and how they are inacted. A classic tbh.
Congress has delegated the powers of certain broad sweeping tariffs since world war 2, and has only increased that power in the following years since. It is not unconstitutional and you're a retard for suggesting it. Hell even Biden utilized IEEPA to stay Trump's previous tariffs over China during his term.

 

[R00T]

Section 232 of the expansion trade act of 1962.
Section 201 of the trade act of 1974.
Section 301 of the trade act of 1974.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (this is whats currently being used)
Section 122 of the trade act of 1974.
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.
All of these can be backed up by Field V Clark 1982.
People who don't know the laws of their own country and how they are inacted. A classic tbh

you googled all of that but still couldn't be bothered to double check your spelling on tariffs. or that you were in the thread about Epstein being a pedophile and not a thread on tariffs. Continue to prove my point.

 

[Barleys]

you googled all of that but still couldn't be bothered to double check your spelling on tariffs. or that you were in the thread about Epstein being a pedophile and not a thread on tariffs. Continue to prove my point.

I was repsonding to a guy stating factually wrong information, why dont you get on his ass when he derailed the thread faggot, or do you not care to talk to him because he agrees with you.
Just admit you were wrong dumbass.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Mostly when Trump was petitioned personally by business executives of some sort. It's only in the past couple days that he finally dropped tariffs on fertilizer that farmers needed, because Trump's White House hadn't been focusing on complete products.

The whole tariff system became a weird web of blanket tariffs and exceptions so that businesses have had to devote a ton of time to figuring out what all components they're wanting to use are tariffed and which aren't, as well as what countries they should be focusing on trade with like maybe India rather than China, only to have Trump pull the rug out from under them so that maybe they need to go with China again.

Not to mention how odd it was that he wanted to invoke national security concerns to do tariffs on coffee, until the backlash on affordability became such an issue that he's backing off it (maybe?).

Spoiler: Raw autism i.e. I love the butterfly effect

The big thing we need to judge the viability of tariffs is what you said in the 2nd paragraph: a ton of time.

For industries to develop to fill the gap of viability caused by the tariffs increasing import costs, it'll take time for individuals and businesses to realise it's now something that can be done viably and do it. It's like the issue with payment processors and CDN providers, where people don't realise there's viability for an alternative and there's a problem with the current status quo until they feel personally impacted by it.

This is a topic independent of Trump, and it's one I find sincerely interesting because trying to judge and speculate on every individual knock-on effect is (rather sadly) something I find enjoyable.

The "globalised economy" we had prior to the 80s differs from the "globalised economy" after it, because the "global economy" prior was composed of 3 semi-separate markets with little overlap in terms of products even if there were occasionally trades of raw resources, those being NATO, China, and the Warsaw Pact.

The mass unemployment which afflicted the West in the 80s (after China was brought into their market, sans 70+ years of regulations/worker rights with an abundance of labour) didn't affect the Warsaw Pact because the markets/labour forces were segregated from one another by and large, meaning East German workers weren't suddenly competing with Chinese workers, nor were Warsaw Pact companies/businesses in competition with ones from NATO.

It was when Russia and Co joined with the rest of the world did all those knock-off companies in the USSR and friends die off, since their products were typically shit and the growth potential of these opened markets meant competitors quickly filled the gap to employ people, so these competitors both proliferated and proved a boon to the economy. The Warsaw pact didn't grow into superstar economies like China/NATO did since they were on the ass-end of the mass wage decrease + mass inflation that they were now suddenly apart of, meaning they saw decreased unemployment and a broader options of consumer goods but their situation didn't exactly elevate to mountainous highs like China initially did in the early to mid 80s. China was in a worse situation than any member of the Warsaw pact (except maybe central Asia) but the development in places like Shanghai is undeniable given they essentially took the overflow of wealth from the West and saw it get invested in developing Chinese infrastructure at rapid speed, since the cost of doing so was so little it was seen as a worthwhile investment for offshoring companies to further boost their own profits. Apple, for example, have invested over $400 billion in Chinese infrastructure.

As a small aside in what is otherwise aside: The Warsaw Pact was actually similar to modern China in terms of strategy, sans the inclusion of Western competition at all but still prioritising on exporting raw goods and materials over importing them. We've seen this go down badly (Khruschev trying to grow corn in Siberia) but we've seen it negatively impact the West. The Soviets at one time controlled 80% of the global sugar market via producing it (sugar beat is where most sugar comes from, not sugar cane) but also buying and hording it, which is why them taking it off the market served as the impetus for high fructose corn syrup taking the place of most conventional sugars in American products.

In theory, given enough time, American farmers could've seen this occur and trade some of their corn fields out for sugar beat and make more money selling that, whilst also taking some corn off the market thus increasing its value too and thus eliminating the need for corn subsidies since it'll actually be worth something, but since corn also sees uses in a ton of other industries (ethanol, corn starch, animal feed) the trickle down affect of this could've been bad, but at the same time, maybe not. "Subsidies" is another subject in of itself. Were they not in place during the 70s, would American farmers have traded corn out for sugar beat to meet demand and make a profit rather than stick with the reliable and government-funded maize? Who knows, but the cost of sugar and it not being available for purchase due to a lack of switch over contributed to the decision to substitute it for corn syrup and now Americans have got a bit shittier Coke than the rest of the world. A condemnation of Capitalism and sacrificing consumer good quality for the sake of reducing overheads, or a condemnation of Communism and lack of free market not allowing businesses and individuals to respond to changes in the economy as they occur - you be the judge.

Anyway, on the subject of tariffs again: China's imports are primarily fuel-related in order to keep their industry chugging along, which is why Trump's tariffs did initially hurt them and not insignificantly. Trump targeted their highest exports to the USA (sans electronics) and China reciprocated in targeting the USA's highest exports, except the USA primarily exports fuel and food to China, which caused their industrial output to slowdown significantly as fuels were seeing a huge price increases. When the tariffs are affecting complete products, the harm felt by most of the population isn't as severe as those affecting raw materials and goods which can turn into products or get used in some other process. China exempted some of the smaller necessities from tariffs, such as ethanol, but stuff like oil hurt them. It's still something they're being affected by: China's economy jolted by weakest factory output, retail sales growth in over a year.

The big issue is trying to shape the market in ways you want it to but doing little domestically to encourage it. We've seen Trump do stuff like push for steel and microprocessors but other things you raised, like coffee, would also require eliminating other things that make it viable over anything else. Why grow sugar/coffee/etcetera when corn is still far and away the most reliable crop to grow? And since it'll remain affordable, why not find uses for corn in everyday products to maximise its value? Another issue with steel and microprocessors and other major factory jobs is: (1) Automation may eliminate the jobs they'd be purported to bring (2) Literally any developing country outside of the USA and Europe will have cheaper workers and less stringent safety requirements and outside of potential infrastructure issues and safety, they will always opt to manufacture where it is cheapest. If China collapsed tomorrow, they'd opt into India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etcetera. If you want the jobs to come here, then you have make the viability of anywhere else impossible. The USA's biggest advantage is that it has the largest yet simultaneously wealthy consumer market of any one country on earth. If Apple couldn't sell its products in the USA due to manufacturing in China, Apple would shift manufacturing to India overnight. The biggest drawback to this is pissing off consumers though, but America doesn't really make full use of its importance in that regard. The tariffs have been profitable for the US government, but they're actually incredibly weak in terms of coverage hence why many of the "little people" haven't felt them.

To me the value of encouraging domestic industry is to make you less vulnerable to shortages and less reliant on foreign countries rather than the purely economic benefits/jobs but it's not really the driving force behind Trump's economic policy, hence why he was unforgiving on steel and auto-manufacturing tariffs yet will give leeway to anything else if enough people complain about it close to him.

Maybe he didn't exclude video game consoles because Baron is a PC gamer so he never got wind people were upset. Would explain the CPU/GPU exclusions too, besides AI shit.

TLDR: Corn subsidies and Communism are to blame for Americans having high fructose corn syrup in their coke.

To be thread relevant: Trump almost certainty kept in touch with Epstein for a few years longer than he said he cut off all contact but also possibly a couple years after Epstein's 2008 conviction given one of the leaked emails (possibly) reveals Trump had discovered one of his poached employees was now working at Epstein's residence through visitation to said residence, and told Ghislaine Maxwell to stop recruiting the girls on Epstein's behalf.

He probably knew of Epstein being a perv for underage teenage girls as far back as 2005 but kept business ties until sometime after October 2007 when it became more than obvious Epstein had a criminal-tier perversion instead of the probably more "acceptable" inclination for women for younger than himself. I expect Epstein had said to him, "She told me she was 18!"/"She looked 18!" after his 2005/2008 convictions. The 2007 Mar-a-lago ban indicated Trump was aware of Epstein being a full-on creep more or less but my Devil's advocate for Trump here is that it was unlikely he knew to the extent Epstein went/would go to get his "fix" (sex trafficking) and considered the girls in Epstein's convictions up to that point all being prostitutes meant Epstein wasn't "completely" culpable.

After the ban Trump probably considered the issue out of sight out of mind, and even after Epstein got done for soliciting another under-18 prostitute in 2008 Trump maintained ties but didn't completely cut him out until 2009-2011 (it's spotty the exact year) when he saw one of his employees at Epstein's residence who was (probably) recruited to be his masseuse by Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein was under house arrest for this 2008 conviction so girls would have to be brought to him if he wanted them. The final, definite cut-off of contact is 2011, when Epstein's sentence of house arrest and absence of the sex offender registry was contested and he officially received the label.

TLDR: Trump knew of Epstein being a perv in 2004/5, maintained contact until 2009/2010 (the earliest he could discover his employee being recruited by Maxwell on Epstein's behalf) or 2011 at the latest (when his employee spoke out publicly about Epstein and Epstein was officially registered as a sex offender) or anytime between those two dates.

Trump being a pedo himself is conjecture. Not impossible but also not a certainty and requires more hard evidence. What he is guilty of is lying about when he cut off contact with Epstein and stopped talking to him. He might've stopped "being his friend" in 2004 but kept business ties for far longer by probably viewing as most good-a-faith light as possible until he tried to creep on another member's daughter at Mar-a-lago and stealing his underage employees for handjobs during his house arrest.

 

[The Last Stand]

There isn’t enough internal supply to meet demand for the tariffs to have a long term positive effect.

 

[gagabobo1997]

Americans want prices to go down
Tariffs make prices go up
It is literally that simple. Trump's tariffs are mostly retarded and the retards on this website who defend them are niggers

 

[Shek$il]

Migger mindset:

Finally the hot young stud chad king Trump has stood up to Xi Jinping and tariffed the hell out of his country and told all those chinks to fuck off out of OUR colleges because here, we take care of America First.

(30 seconds later)

Our hot young chad king white savior struck a great deal with Xi Jinping to reduce tariffs on China and significantly increase Chinese students because Americans are stupid and have no skills. This is truly the path to America First.

Tariffs, foreign policy, H1-B, affordability, it's all so easy if you just work backwards from ZIONALD IS RIGHT!