Boom. You can't out tariff us. Period. This Trump knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

LOL

You are pathetic.

---

Seems you missed this Yahoo article, though. Honest mistake I'm sure:

Trade war costing 300,000 jobs
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...194717808.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

Seems you missed this Yahoo article, though. Honest mistake I'm sure:

Trade war costing 300,000 jobs
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...194717808.html

---

That's fake news:

Quote:

---

Forecasting firm Moody’s Analytics estimates that Trump’s trade war with China has already reduced U.S. employment by 300,000 jobs, compared with likely employment levels absent the trade war.

---

I estimate Trump has saved 1,000,000 jobs.;)

Quote:

---

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/...post-right.png

J.P. Morgan estimates that President Trump’s tariffs will cost American families up to $1,000 next year. We have heard this before and we’ll hear it again. But the fact is that tariffs have not yet—nor will they likely—increase the cost of living.
Further, the myopic obsession with the price of goods ignores the more pressing problem: millions of Americans remain chronically unemployed, and millions more have been reduced to surviving on part-time McJobs and welfare. Turns out, cheap goods aren’t so cheap if you don’t have a job.
Crying Wolf

Every time President Trump threatens to impose more tariffs on China liberals lose their marbles. Tariffs will make Americans poor! Tariffs will turn America into a fascist dictatorship! Tariffs will—dare I say it—ruin Christmas!


Time and again, reality proves the doomsayers wrong. Tariffs have not increased the cost of living in America. This is obvious to anyone who paid attention back in 2018, when Trump imposed effective tariff rates of 40 percent on imported washing machines. What happened?
Nothing.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating. According to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) the cost of laundry equipment increased by 6.8 percent in 2018. The inflation rate was 2.44 percent. In 2019, the cost of laundry equipment decreased by 0.48 percent, compared to an expected inflation rate of 2 percent. Yes, washing machines prices rose slightly faster than inflation—but nowhere near 40 percent.


In any event, we don’t even know if tariffs caused the increase. Prices in 2012 rose by 8.56 percent. And guess what? There were no tariffs to blame. The 2018 price change may just be a random walk. Children find faces in clouds: economists find meaning in randomness.
The reason tariffs barely affect consumer prices is that they aren’t levied on retail prices. They are levied on the first sale price—the price paid to foreign vendors by American companies or their agents. As such, tariffs are applied on a very small base rate, which harms foreign producers without really affecting American consumers.
And of course, tariffs can be completely avoided by simply buying American-made products.


I will not go into too much detail on this point as I have written about it ad nauseam. Suffice it to say that the Washington Post does not appear to have the faintest understanding of how tariffs actually work—they really do seem to think tariffs are just sales taxes.
Lastly, global free trade is underpinned by the theory of comparative advantage. The problem for free traders—of which they are blissfully unaware—is that comparative advantage is domain-specific, meaning that it only applies when certain preconditions are satisfied.
One of these preconditions is that capital is immobile, i.e. industries cannot simply pick up and move from country to country. Obviously, capital is mobile—American factories move to China all the time. As such, comparative advantage does not apply and free trade lacks any sort of theoretical justification.
The only reason the Washington Post or Conservatism, Inc. support free trade is because they are ignorant, or on the payroll of the international banks who are profiteering America’s dispossession.
Upstairs, Downstairs

The free-trade brigade focuses exclusively on the effect of tariffs on consumption. In doing so, they miss the forest for the trees.
In reality, every consumer is also a producer, and therefore what harms producers—for example, moving millions of jobs to China—necessarily harms consumers down the road. In fact, production always precedes consumption for the simple fact that you cannot consume what you have not produced. You cannot spend what you do not earn.
You cannot reap what you do not sow.
The truth of this logic is readily apparent when you look at the actual data. Take, for example, NAFTA. In 1993, President Bill Clinton promised that the North American Free Trade Agreement would create “a million [American] jobs in the first five years.” How?
NAFTA would eliminate America’s tariff wall with Mexico so that both nations could trade freely. This would allow them to maximize their respective comparative advantages and produce more material wealth. Win-win. Right?
Wrong.
Multinational corporations relocated their factories en masse to Mexico—the prospect of saving billions by hiring low-cost Mexican labor was just too good to pass up. Conversely, very few industries moved from Mexico to America. In total, a net 840,000 American manufacturing jobs have been displaced by NAFTA and the resultant trade deficit.
On top of this, America lost all of the service jobs that depended upon those factories. This is because manufacturing is an anchor industry: factories, like mines or oilfields, generate new exportable wealth and in doing so support predicate industries.
Predicates, like restaurants or banks, are important because they diversify the economy and make it more efficient, however, they are not self-sustaining. This is why hairdressers and lawyers move to mining towns, but not vice versa.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that each dollar of manufacturing output supports roughly $1.48 in spinoff service output—this is called a multiplier effect. When the lost predicate jobs are accounted for it becomes clear that NAFTA cost America a net 2.1 million jobs.
The problem of offshoring is not unique to NAFTA. Market asymmetries have caused many millions of American jobs to move abroad. China is the biggest culprit and is responsible for the bulk of the 8 million American manufacturing jobs which have been lost—never mind the millions of predicate jobs.
We often forget about the other sectors which are vulnerable to offshoring, however. For example, over 1 million people in the Philippines work in call centers—most of whom service American clients. Likewise, hundreds of thousands of coding jobs have been offshored to India.
The list goes on and on.
To make matters worse, these millions of jobless Americans saturated the labor market. Some found new jobs, although they didn’t pay as well as the lost jobs. A study from Princeton University found that the average wage cut for displaced manufacturing workers was 17.5 percent—waiting tables does not pay as much as building cars!
Without tariffs to level the playing field between America and the Third World, multinational corporations will continue to move their factories, call centers, and laboratories abroad. At this point, very few industries are safe from the ravages of globalization.
America will hemorrhage jobs. Small towns will decay. And the middle class will die.
Tartini’s Trill

Some claim that offshoring has actually improved America’s economy because it has actually bolstered consumption—the benefit of cheap goods outweighs the harms caused by job loss.
The argument is devious but wrong. The only reason that America has been able to offshore production without simultaneously decreasing its consumption is that we have thus far been able to buoy our consumption by raffling off our assets and debt to Third World buyers.
For example, American sells $150 billion in real estate to foreigners every single year. Likewise, foreigners have bought up roughly 38 percent of all American corporate shares and 44 percent of our national public debt. In exchange, we got Halloween masks and saved a few bucks on our iPhones. We sold our souls for foreign luxuries.
Of course, this paradigm is not sustainable—soon we will run out of assets and debt to sell. When that happens, the bubble will burst and we will wish we had not spent our economic summer idly consuming while the Chinese worked hard, storing fat for the winter. Then, we will sing for our supper.
After all, the Devil always claims his prize.


https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/11/a...inese-imports/

---

Quote:

---

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/...post-right.png

President Trump’s tweet that he was delaying by two weeks an increase of tariffs on some $250 billion of Chinese imports is right out of the Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation (PON). Tweeted the President: “At the request of Vice Premier of China, Liu He, and due to the fact that the People’s Republic of China will be celebrating their 70th Anniversary on October 1st, we have agreed, as gesture of good will, to move the increased Tariffs on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods (25% to 30%), from October 1st to October 15th.”
This is laughable on its face but indicative of the sort of hard-bargaining both sides are engaging in. It’s laughable because only the communists in China are celebrating that 70th anniversary of their oppression of the Chinese people. It’s a communist dictatorship, after all, and any celebration will be carefully planned, managed, staged, and performed for a world press enamored by (and deceived by) claims that China has raised itself (all by itself) from third-world status to first-world challenger to the United States.

The PON rule? “Extreme demands followed up by small, slow concessions.” This strategy, according to Harvard Law, “protects dealmakers from making concessions too quickly.”
It’s not the only rule Trump is following. There’s the “delaying and stalling” technique, the “precondition” technique and the “withdrawn offer” technique, among others.
Consider: Delaying implementation of the increase gives negotiators on both sides time to come to terms before the new deadline. It provides additional incentive for the Chinese to hold serious conversations. It’s interesting to note that the Chinese negotiators are coming to Washington for those preliminary conversations, another tactic of making a minor concession in order to advance a major conversation.
China knows the rules. On Wednesday the communists published a short list of American products that would be exempt from its own tariffs (including shrimp, lubricants, alfalfa meal, and some other minor items) in response to Trump’s concession. Those tariffs were imposed by the communists last July as part of the “tit-for-tat” game being played out in the tariff war.
In addition the communists on Wednesday said they would be announcing more exemptions in coming weeks, provided that the United States continued negotiating in good faith.
On Thursday the Chinese communists let it be known, through its Ministry of Commerce, that “some Chinese companies were beginning to make inquiries about resuming purchases of American agricultural products.” This is aimed squarely at Trump’s need to reduce tariff pressure on American farmers before the upcoming election.
The Chinese have touted various changes they claim to have made to certain laws governing foreign investment and intellectual property without being specific.
It’s all part of a high-level game of poker, following standard negotiating tactics. But the ultimate strategy is not only “advertising what you have” but “having what you advertise.” In Trump’s case, he is holding the high cards: a stronger, larger, and more rapidly growing economy that is much less dependent upon exports than his opponents across the table.
There’s another factor to consider as well, as revealed by the Chinese communists’ response to the Hong Kong uprisings. They moved mightily to tamp down those protests knowing that they might just give encouragement to others in the homeland to challenge their communist dictatorship. The most current information available is that the communists ruling China face more than 200,000 such protests every year. That is a present reminder of just how tenuous their hold is over the peasantry.
Trump knows all of this. That’s why he greeted the news of the exemptions as a sign that China would soon compromise, saying that the trade war “was only going to get worse” if they didn’t come to the table, and considered the announcement as a sign that “they want to make a deal.” Said Trump: “They took tariffs off, certain types. I think it was a gesture. It was a big move. People were shocked. I wasn’t shocked.”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ing-strategies

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

As the U.S.-China trade war intensifies, an insurance company run by the Chinese government is stepping in to support Chinese exporters, providing low cost coverage and chasing down U.S. importers unwilling or unable to pay mounting tariffs.China Export & Credit Insurance Corp, known as Sinosure, has aggressively increased its insurance of Chinese exporters since last year, according to company sources and public data.
The government-led aid is being carefully watched by trade experts who say the practice may run afoul of World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments or be challenged by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has railed against what he says are China's unfair trade practices.
Sinosure has boosted the number of new clients by thousands since last August, often relaxing its standards to do so, company data and two Sinosure sources familiar with the standards say.
In some cases, local governments are even paying the premiums, the two sources say.
The insurance policies help cushion companies from the risk of export deals collapsing because of elevated duties on goods flowing between the world's No.1 and No.2 economies.


Last year, as the trade war started to bite, Sinosure's claim payouts surged more than 40% to nearly $2 billion, according to data from the company, which is owned by an investment company controlled by the finance ministry.
Payouts are poised to climb further this year with tariffs rising, according the company's internal estimates.
The payments stem from what one Sinosure official said was a growing number of U.S. buyers of Chinese goods who were unwilling or unable to pay higher prices for shipped goods. That has left some cargoes stranded at U.S. ports, and Chinese exporters on the hook.
"We're fulfilling our role as a policy insurer, not a for-profit commercial institution," said the official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media.
The Ministry of Finance, the ultimate parent of Sinosure, did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comments.


Dan Harris, a lawyer who represents U.S. importers, said he has received increasing requests for help dealing with Sinosure demands for payment on behalf of Chinese exporters.
"Before the trade war, I might go ... four, five months without getting a Sinosure email, now I'm getting four or five a week," said Harris, managing partner at international law firm Harris Bricken.
Sinosure did not respond to Reuters' requests for information about its push to support smaller exporters, but recent figures - some public and others disclosed to Reuters - provide an insight.
In 2018, the total sum insured by Sinosure jumped 16.7% to a record $612 billion, the fastest annual pace in six years. Premium income rose just 6%, reflecting the non-commercial nature of many of Sinosure's insurance policies.
Meanwhile, claims payouts surged 41% to nearly $2 billion, the highest in Sinosure's 18-year history, as loss recovery slumped 32% from the prior year, company disclosures show.
As a result, Sinosure saw its net profit tumble 42% last year to 359 million yuan ($50.5 million). That represents a return on equity of just 0.9%, according to Reuters calculations.
A Sinosure source said the situation has deteriorated in 2019 as the trade war escalates, with the United States by far the biggest source of risk.


In the first half of the year, non-payment cases involving U.S. buyers surged 80% in Fujian, hitting the region's fishing, textile and garment industries, said Sinosure. It has partnered with the local government to offer free insurance for small businesses.

Other cities and regions have also partnered with Sinosure subsidise or refund premiums for smaller exporters exposed to the U.S. tariffs, a Sinosure source said.
Sinosure said it paid $25,000 compensation to a fish exporter in Fujian province this year, after a U.S. buyer refused to pay the full bill for $89,000 worth of yellow croaker fish due to tariff hikes and complaints about the fish quality.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade...070812892.html

---

Bump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

Seems you missed this Yahoo article, though. Honest mistake I'm sure:

Trade war costing 300,000 jobs
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...194717808.html

---

M$M deepstate yahoo? Like the articles Zip quoted decrying the death of American solar workers. Lol.

Quote:

---

The fastest-growing job over the next decade sounds like something out of a science fiction novel.

Solar photo-voltaic installers (or, just solar panel installers) will be in demand through 2028, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest employment projections. The bureau expects today’s 9,700 workers in the field will grow to 15,800 over the next 10 years, or a boost of 63%. Those who hold the role, which involves assembling, installing and maintaining solar panel systems on rooftops or other structures, earn a median salary of over $42,000 a year.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/thes...xt-decade.html

Get the fuck on out with your bullshit, Zip.

LOL just as predicted. Fake news.

Never mind that your previous Yahoo article claimed the source as "two traders".

We are indeed in the Trumpian era, aren't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phill4paul

M$M deepstate yahoo? Like the articles Zip quoted decrying the death of American solar workers. Lol.

---

I'm not Zippy but don't blame me. I just cited the same "MSM deepstate yahoo" source as your buddy/alter-ego SS does, all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

LOL just as predicted. Fake news.

Never mind that your previous Yahoo article claimed the source as "two traders".

We are indeed in the Trumpian era, aren't we?

---

One article reported actual facts from actual sources: "according to company sources and public data.", "company data and two Sinosure sources familiar with the standards say.", "Dan Harris, a lawyer who represents U.S. importers, said he has received increasing requests", "company disclosures show.", "said Sinosure", and "Sinosure said" and hurts the MSM narrative.

The other is gueswork from a biased source that supports the MSM narrative.

Now do you see why I said you are pathetic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Privately run Chinese firms bought at least 10 boatloads of U.S. soybeans on Thursday, the country's most significant purchases since at least June, traders said, ahead of high-level talks next month aimed at ending a bilateral trade war that has lasted more than a year.The soybean purchases, which at more than 600,000 tonnes were the largest by Chinese private importers in more than a year, are slated for shipment from U.S. Pacific Northwest export terminals from October to December, two traders with knowledge of the deals said.


Benchmark Chicago Board of Trade soybean futures jumped to one-month highs on Thursday, with the actively traded November contract in its steepest rally since May.
Beijing this week renewed a promise to buy U.S. agricultural goods such as pork and soybeans, the most valuable U.S. farm export. Large agricultural product purchases are a key U.S. stipulation for a trade deal, but the two sides remain far apart on other issues..
Thursday's soybean deals were the largest among private Chinese importers since Beijing raised import tariffs by 25% on U.S. soybeans in July 2018 in retaliation for U.S. duties on Chinese goods. Duties were raised an additional 5% this month.
Other soybean purchases over the past year have been made almost exclusively by state-owned Chinese firms which are exempted from the steep import tariffs.
Beijing in July offered to exempt five private crushers from import tariffs on U.S. beans arriving by the end of the year, but very few deals took place before buying was suspended.
Earlier on Thursday Beijing said Chinese companies were inquiring about prices of agricultural goods.
"I'm impressed that the day they allow their commercial interests to come back and buy from the United States, here we've got this much sold immediately," said Jack Scoville, vice president with Price Futures Group in Chicago.


Also on Thursday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported China bought 10,878 tonnes of U.S. pork in the week ended September 5, the most in a single week since May.
U.S. meat traders have been anticipating a pork shortage in China due to an outbreak of African swine fever, a fatal pig disease that has reduced the Chinese herd by a third since it arrived in the country more than a year ago. China is therefore willing to make some U.S. purchases despite a 72% tariff.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-ahe...193044188.html

---

Bump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

I'm not Zippy but don't blame me. I just cited the same "MSM deepstate yahoo" source as your buddy/alter-ego SS does, all the time.

---

You believe their opinions, that's something I am not stupid enough to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

You believe their opinions, that's something I am not stupid enough to do.

---

So you post articles from sources that you don't believe to be true?

Wow, did I just get SS to admit to posting propaganda and items he doesn't read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

So you post articles that you don't believe to be true?

---

I posted a fact based article, you posted an opinion article.


Your troll skills are degrading right before our very eyes, soon you will be reduced to "sounds legit" and "k" like a certain other troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

I posted a fact based article, you posted an opinion article.


Your troll skills are degrading right before our very eyes, soon you will be reduced to "sounds legit" and "k" like a certain other troll.

---

So we're right back to whatever you post is fact, all else is fake news. k, sounds legit. lol

Goebbels would be proud.

But alas I must sleep now. It's been fun messing up your little narratives this evening. Till next time...

So much for the trade war-driven inflation that anti-Trump-ers have screamed about, both import and export prices in August declined more than expected, extending their annual declines to a fourth straight month.

• Import prices dropped 0.5% MoM (-2.0% YoY)
  
• Export prices dropped 0.6% MoM (-1.4% YoY)

The 4th month in a row of YoY deflation...
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...es/bfm9B77.jpg


So Trump remains right (for now), the US consumer is not paying higher prices due to his tariffs.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...-4th-month-row

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

So much for the trade war-driven inflation that anti-Trump-ers have screamed about, both import and export prices in August declined more than expected, extending their annual declines to a fourth straight month.

• Import prices dropped 0.5% MoM (-2.0% YoY)
  
• Export prices dropped 0.6% MoM (-1.4% YoY)

The 4th month in a row of YoY deflation...
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...es/bfm9B77.jpg


So Trump remains right (for now), the US consumer is not paying higher prices due to his tariffs.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...-4th-month-row

---

The last time you posted that, we pointed out that that does not include any tariffs in the prices. If the tariff is 15% and the price without tariffs went down 1.4% are you really paying less? You are actually paying 11.3% more than you were in the absence of tariffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

The last time you posted that, we pointed out that that does not include any tariffs in the prices. If the tariff is 15% and the price before tariffs went down 1.4% are you really paying less?

---

It's just one of many ways the costs are being absorbed.

Still waiting for any evidence of a dramatic rise and any proof tariffs caused it.

“But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisies to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.” — Karl Marx, addressing the Democratic Club, Brussels, Belgium; January 9, 1848

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

It's just one of many ways the costs are being absorbed.

Still waiting for any evidence of a dramatic rise and any proof tariffs caused it.

---

Been posted many times. You choose to ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

Been posted many times. You choose to ignore it.

---

WRONG.

Staffers from NPR (National Public Radio) went shopping at Walmart to confirm that Trump’s tariffs are already costing American consumers a lot of money. They couldn’t hide the results: The impact is hardly noticeable.
In announcing the results of a year-long study of prices at a local Walmart, NPR boldly announced: “Shoppers beware: the tariffs will bite.” The bite turned out to be a nibble.
In August 2018, NPR staffers began tracking the prices on some 70 items at a Walmart store in Liberty County, Georgia, ranging from toilet paper and black beans to lightbulbs and TVs. They learned that of those 70 common everyday items, only 24 of them saw increased prices, while 12 of them saw decreased prices, and the remaining 34 had no price changes.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...s-big-surprise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Staffers from NPR (National Public Radio) went shopping at Walmart to confirm that Trump’s tariffs are already costing American consumers a lot of money. They couldn’t hide the results: The impact is hardly noticeable.
In announcing the results of a year-long study of prices at a local Walmart, NPR boldly announced: “Shoppers beware: the tariffs will bite.” The bite turned out to be a nibble.
In August 2018, NPR staffers began tracking the prices on some 70 items at a Walmart store in Liberty County, Georgia, ranging from toilet paper and black beans to lightbulbs and TVs. They learned that of those 70 common everyday items, only 24 of them saw increased prices, while 12 of them saw decreased prices, and the remaining 34 had no price changes.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...s-big-surprise

---

Fake news. Zippy told me that all Americans will pay an extra $2k because of tariffs. And Zip knows more than everyone else so.....

^^^^^
NPR source article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...mart-in-1-year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by last line of NPR item

Walmart did not comment for the story, but in May, the company warned that "increased tariffs will lead to increased prices for our customers." Last month, Walmart Chief Financial Officer Brett Biggs said the company has been able to "thoughtfully manage pricing and margins."

"We spread the impact across hundreds of thousands of items we have in the market," Walmart U.S. CEO Greg Foran told reporters at the time.

---

This would explain why Great Value brand yogurt went from $1 to $1.24 for no reason several months ago. Creeping up prices on non-tariff items to prevent price shock on tariff items. If the yogurt isn't in NPR's 70 item basket then that increase to offset tariff increases isn't considered at all, thus making the 70 item Walmart basket study mostly useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

^^^^^
NPR source article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...mart-in-1-year



This would explain why Great Value brand yogurt went from $1 to $1.24 for no reason several months ago. Creeping up prices on non-tariff items to prevent price shock on tariff items. If the yogurt isn't in NPR's 70 item basket then that increase to offset tariff increases isn't considered at all, thus making the 70 item Walmart basket study mostly useless.

---

Quote:

---

24 of them saw increased prices, while 12 of them saw decreased prices

---

Guess they didn't spread it to those items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

^^^^^
NPR source article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...mart-in-1-year



This would explain why Great Value brand yogurt went from $1 to $1.24 for no reason several months ago. Creeping up prices on non-tariff items to prevent price shock on tariff items. If the yogurt isn't in NPR's 70 item basket then that increase to offset tariff increases isn't considered at all, thus making the 70 item Walmart basket study mostly useless.

---

WALMART is propagandizing for the ChiComs who they sold out to.


Where's the inflation?

Quote:

---

NPR, without explaining how, concluded that the overall costs of those 70 items tracked since last August have increased by three percent. Whether they used “weighted” averages, or just ran a simple addition-subtraction-division calculus, doesn’t really matter. In that same period of time, the favorite measure of price increases used by the Federal Reserve — the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, or PCE — shows price increases across the board and across the land at between 1.3 and 1.4 percent on an annual basis. If that is so, where is the impact of Trump’s tariffs? Shouldn’t PCE be higher? According to the U.S. Labor Department current inflation (read: price increases) rates have been steadily dropping. Its latest read is that price increases have slowed by one full percentage point since last August, when NPR began its Walmart shopping.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phill4paul

Guess they didn't spread it to those items.

---

Damaged floor model TVs? :tears:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

Damaged floor model TVs? :tears:

---

That's not what NPR was looking at.

The items with lower prices are proof it is all ChiCom propaganda brought to you by their corporate accomplices.

The Koch network is lamenting that their campaign against President Donald Trump’s tariffs and trade war has largely failed, as their talking points no longer carry much weight among a U.S. right-wing that increasingly supports “America First” economics.
“The argument that, you know, the tariffs are adding a couple thousand dollars to the pickup truck that you’re buying is not persuasive,” an unnamed senior Koch official said during a recent New York briefing.
“It doesn’t penetrate with the people that are willing to go along with the argument that you have to punish China,” they added.

The Koch network, which is run by globalist libertine ideologues who have supported NAFTA and open borders for decades, is having a difficult time pulling the wool over the eyes of Americans who actually value their national sovereignty more than the almighty dollar.


“I think that we were wrong about how to change this one. We made a bet that the kind of retail, running ads and rallies, that sort of thing, to talk about the coming harm of tariffs, which we know is coming, would be persuasive,” the same official said. “And we were wrong about that.”
The economic doom that the Kochs have claimed was coming has not manifested itself, and 67 percent of Americans believe that China needs to be cut down to size in terms of global trade. The influence-peddling campaign of the Koch network has done nothing to shape public opinion on the issue.
The Kochs are now tasked with devising a new angle to sell to the American public. They are going to start by assembling approximately 100 corporate chieftains to mount a PR campaign for the restoration of the status quo in trade. Their astroturfed network also aims to create 100,000 citizen lobbyists to convince legislators in Washington D.C. to push back against Trump’s agenda.

Meanwhile, the President is preparing to take his trade war to the next level as he remains undaunted by the immense institutional opposition to his policies.
“We cannot go back to a situation where [the U.S.] giving hundreds of billions of dollars to China becomes standard fare. Not going to happen,” Trump said at a North Carolina rally last week.
The Koch network hopes to soften Trump’s resolve if they do not bring an end to his presidency altogether. They have announced that they will not be giving money to assist President Trump’s re-election hopes in 2020, and plan to support Democratic politicians during that crucial election cycle.
Trump is aware of their malign influence and has called the Kochs out publicly as disloyal for their recent abandonment of the Republican Party:

The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018

….them richer. Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the American Worker – a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018

More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/global...fs-has-failed/

Chinese importers purchased roughly 600,000 tons of U.S. soybeans after deputy-level trade discussions between the U.S. and China last week.
Benchmark U.S. soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade jumped more than 1 percent because of the news, Reuters reported on Monday.
The soybeans will not be shipped out all at once. The roughly 10 boatloads of soybeans will make their way to China between October and December, according to Reuters.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-buys-60...174746057.html

More yahoo articles^^^^

Did you take your OATH? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Chinese importers purchased roughly 600,000 tons of U.S. soybeans after deputy-level trade discussions between the U.S. and China last week.
Benchmark U.S. soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade jumped more than 1 percent because of the news, Reuters reported on Monday.
The soybeans will not be shipped out all at once. The roughly 10 boatloads of soybeans will make their way to China between October and December, according to Reuters.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-buys-60...174746057.html

---

In December, they bought 13 million metric tons of soybeans. Then Trump added tariffs and they ended purchases. This is a drop in the bucket from what they bought before the trade war- only 200,000 metric tons a month.

https://moneyandmarkets.com/china-ha...hase-soybeans/

I've not taken the time to go through the whole thread, nor do I wish to engage in the never ending argument over whether the Orange Man is bad or good.

Just want to go on the record:

I support tariffs as a constitution means by which to raise revenue and promote domestic innovation and manufacturing.

I have for many years, I have in all the years here on this site, I will continue to hold that position in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

I've not taken the time to go through the whole thread, nor do I wish to engage in the never ending argument over whether the Orange Man is bad or good.

Just want to go on the record:

I support tariffs as a constitution means by which to raise revenue and promote domestic innovation and manufacturing.

I have for many years, I have in all the years here on this site, I will continue to hold that position in the future.

---

Tariffs are not the only allowable taxes according to the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

---

Note that there is a coma after "Taxes", not a colon. That means Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect "Taxes and Duties and Imposts and Excises".