Aristides Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 Just now, gatomontes99 said: Lmao...wow. You need to take an economics course bad. https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/competitive_markets/supply-and-demand-curves-explained.html/ Notice, the cost to produce has no role in the price the consumer pays. Tariffs and price controls are very socialist. Of course costs have a role in prices. The price of gas goes up and down with the price of oil. You aren't going to sell at less than your cost to produce. Parts manufacturers are saying these tariffs will shut down auto production because profit margins for both parts and vehicle manufactures are less than 25%. One result in Canada will be that you will be able to buy a luxury Japanese or European car for the same price as a Chev. How can that be good for GM. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 5 minutes ago, Aristides said: Tariffs and price controls are very socialist Tariffs are taxes. Taxes aren't socialist. Price controls are, but no one is talking about that. You lied here to try and bolster your argument. No one is talking about price controls. I talked about the Supply/Demand curve. I even gave you a link to read about it because you clearly don't know what it is. 8 minutes ago, Aristides said: The price of gas goes up and down with the price of oil. And the price of oil goes up and down based on the Supply relative to Demand. 9 minutes ago, Aristides said: You aren't going to sell at less than your cost to produce. Uh, yeah, they do. Once an oil well is established, the oil comes out of the ground from pressure. If the oil rig is shut down, the natural pressure will push the oil horizontally. The rig my not produce again. So, yes, oil companies do lose money on oil they produce if Demand drops. It depends on the well, but most traditional wells need $55/barrel to break even. Fracking wells are closer to $75/barrel. 14 minutes ago, Aristides said: Parts manufacturers are saying these tariffs will shut down auto production because profit margins for both parts and vehicle manufactures are less than 25%. You just disproved yourself. I said the cost to produce is unrelated to the cost to consumers. You just said the producer is eating the cost. That aligns with what I said and not your earlier statement that the cost will be passed on. 16 minutes ago, Aristides said: One result in Canada will be that you will be able to buy a luxury Japanese or European car for the same price as a Chev. How can that be good for GM. And you are back to saying the cost will always be passed on. Again, it's dependent on Supply, demand and price elasticity. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
West Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 5 hours ago, CdnFox said: The conversation is starting to get a little silly. The idea that tariffs are inherently good or inherently bad is simply not a valid point of view. Tariffs are exactly like medicine, is medicine good or bad? The right medicine and the right dosage can be extremely good. The wrong medicine in the wrong dosage can be fatal. So it is with tariffs. Tariffs properly applied where appropriate can help a nation protect its interest and grow its economy. Tariffs in the wrong places can cause an economic slowdown or worse. Ceases to become are tariffs good or bad, the question we should be asking is are all of these tariffs appropriate? Will they achieve what they seek to achieve? What is the short medium and long-term intent and can the tariffs he has put in place achieve that? It feels to me that his goals are two fold, to increase revenues in the short term to pay for tax cuts and other things, and to try to drive industry back to the united states over the medium to long term. I feel like he might achieve the first one temporarily, but if the drives the economy into recession then he'll lose revenues due to reduced economic activity. I don't think there's any chance he will substantially drive business back to the us. This has been tried before in US history and it absolutely did not work, nor is it likely to. Money is already fleeing the market and investors will sit on their cash in safe investments and that means that there's no growth or construction or jobs or spending and the economy starts to die a sort of heat death. I have never heard of successfully increasing your economic wealth by reducing your client base. So i'm going to hope he takes the short term cash grab and then starts severely easing back on tariffs and encourages trade again and looks to other ways to increase america's economic activity . To simplify it "Orange man bad therefore tarrifs bad" Quote
West Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Tariffs are taxes. Taxes aren't socialist. Price controls are, but no one is talking about that. You lied here to try and bolster your argument. No one is talking about price controls. I talked about the Supply/Demand curve. I even gave you a link to read about it because you clearly don't know what it is. And the price of oil goes up and down based on the Supply relative to Demand. Uh, yeah, they do. Once an oil well is established, the oil comes out of the ground from pressure. If the oil rig is shut down, the natural pressure will push the oil horizontally. The rig my not produce again. So, yes, oil companies do lose money on oil they produce if Demand drops. It depends on the well, but most traditional wells need $55/barrel to break even. Fracking wells are closer to $75/barrel. You just disproved yourself. I said the cost to produce is unrelated to the cost to consumers. You just said the producer is eating the cost. That aligns with what I said and not your earlier statement that the cost will be passed on. And you are back to saying the cost will always be passed on. Again, it's dependent on Supply, demand and price elasticity. Exactly. Tarrifs are a form of taxation. They have no problem taxing CO2, which undoubtedly contributed to inflation here in Canada, but don't like this one. Strange Quote
West Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 24 minutes ago, Aristides said: Tariffs and price controls are very socialist. Of course costs have a role in prices. The price of gas goes up and down with the price of oil. You aren't going to sell at less than your cost to produce. Parts manufacturers are saying these tariffs will shut down auto production because profit margins for both parts and vehicle manufactures are less than 25%. One result in Canada will be that you will be able to buy a luxury Japanese or European car for the same price as a Chev. How can that be good for GM. Tarrifs are just the price of doing business. You need the infrastructure, ie highways, to transport your goods and those are paid through taxation. What you can say is that tariffs shift the burden back to those who heavily use the infrastructure ie foreign businesses using sea ports to transport their goods into another country. Quote
Aristides Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 6 minutes ago, West said: Tarrifs are just the price of doing business. You need the infrastructure, ie highways, to transport your goods and those are paid through taxation. What you can say is that tariffs shift the burden back to those who heavily use the infrastructure ie foreign businesses using sea ports to transport their goods into another country. Yes they are a cost of doing business and affect prices accordingly. Shipping cost are also a cost of doing business. Are you trying to say the economies of those port cities don't benefit from all the goods that are shipped through them? Port and rail infrastructure is paid for by the companies that use them, not taxpayers. They are not hospitals or schools. Quote
Hodad Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 (edited) 10 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: To borrow from last years trend, "tell me you know nothing about economics without saying I know nothing about economics." The cost to the producer can be passed along IF the consumer is willing to pay it. However, ever cost to consumer increase results in less demand. How much less depends on the necessity of the product, the consumers' excess cash on hand and several other factors. It is not automatic that a producer can pass on costs. Two good examples are diamonds and eggs. Diamonds have a very low price elasticity. Increased prices result in severe drops in demand because a diamond is not necessary. But eggs can go up because they are a necessary food item. Believe it or night, the rise in the cost of eggs is more likely to reduce demand in cars than it is eggs. Tell us without telling us? You just did! Lol A. You have it backward. Low price elasticity (as you described Diamonds) means that demand is not very responsive to changes in price. B. Diamonds and eggs are both famously inelastic. Again, meaning that demand stays relatively consistent even as prices increase--but obviously for very different reasons. You should probably request a refund from Google University. Meanwhile, cost, price and price elasticity are all different things. Don't conflate them. If costs go up, prices will go up not necessarily linearly, but with big tariffs on consumer goods it's both obvious and significant. The degree to which demand is affected or not affected by changes in price is the elasticity. -- Low elasticity doesn't mean the prices haven't gone up, it just means people are still paying the higher price. And high elasticity doesn't mean that prices don't go up, it just means potential consumers fall out of the market more quickly. High elasticity and falling demand can restrain cost-driven price increases by shifting pressure to margins instead of price, but even that flexibility is limited to the size of the margins. If the seller has to raise the price of blenders to remain profitable in the face of increased costs, the consumer can indeed choose not to pay the higher price. Demand goes down, creating downward pressure on price, but only within margins. Sellers can't sustainably sell below cost. The consumer who can't bear or chooses not to bear the increased prices and falls out of the market is also worse off, being denied the utility of the blender. Even though they didn't pay the higher price in dollars they indeed "pay the price" for artificial cost increases. Edited April 5 by Hodad 1 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 1 hour ago, Aristides said: Some are but but the really wealthy will be snapping up distressed businesses and properties at bargain basement prices. What are they going to buy? What is going to be going up in value after this cataclysm? Some industries will be dead, and it's going to be tough to predict exactly what recovers sooner. Of course. Utilities, infrastructure and such would be safe, but would you buy any retail stocks? Stocks? Just an example. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Hodad Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 (edited) 8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Just curious. Does anyone want to tackle this question. If tariffs are so bad, why is China, who applies more tariffs to foreign goods than any other nation, about to become the world #1 economy? Why is China about to become the world's #1 economy? Because Trump is actively destroying the current #1. Edited April 5 by Hodad 1 1 Quote
Aristides Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: What are they going to buy? What is going to be going up in value after this cataclysm? Some industries will be dead, and it's going to be tough to predict exactly what recovers sooner. Of course. Utilities, infrastructure and such would be safe, but would you buy any retail stocks? Stocks? Just an example. The assets of all those people having to sell them off. People with money to spend can benefit greatly at the expense of those who are forced to sell. I'm not buying or selling any stocks until I see conditions that might result it them going up. I think we are a long way from that if Trump stays on the same course. I'd rather miss the bottom on the way up than the way down. Edited April 5 by Aristides Quote
West Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Aristides said: Yes they are a cost of doing business and affect prices accordingly. Shipping cost are also a cost of doing business. Are you trying to say the economies of those port cities don't benefit from all the goods that are shipped through them? Port and rail infrastructure is paid for by the companies that use them, not taxpayers. They are not hospitals or schools. Sure you could do tolls. But those would just be another tax (and annoying if you don't have extra change in your vehicle to get across) Air ports, sea ports, highways etc don't pay for themselves. At the end of the day this free trade stuff has resulted in a neglect of critical infrastructure. Many major cities are seeing the effects of it now with inadequate planning to ensure the critical infrastructure is replaced on schedule. Edited April 5 by West Quote
Matthew Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 (edited) 9 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Does anyone want to tackle this question. If tariffs are so bad, why is China, who applies more tariffs to foreign goods than any other nation, about to become the world #1 economy? No problem, bud. They have 1.4 billion people and a mixed economy with a large, decades-long poltical program of intense economic development. That many people going from agricultural poverty to high tech manufacturing in a 50 year span means it will eventually overtake US gdp. However the average person in China is still quite poor by currect US standards. US GDP per capita is 83k, while China's GDP per capita is 12k. So if you're argument is that tarrifs are good because look how great China's citizens are faring, that's going to be a weak argument. Finally, they have the most diversified economy in the world and manufacture goods for every corner of the world. Tarrifs on imports mean very little to China because they domestically manufacture so much. It's basically a luxury tax for them. The 12% share they export to the US is important but they are not utterly dependent upon it. Edited April 5 by Matthew Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 29 minutes ago, Matthew said: No problem, bud. They have 1.4 billion people and a mixed economy with a large, decades-long poltical program of intense economic development. That many people going from agricultural poverty to high tech manufacturing in a 50 year span means it will eventually overtake US gdp. However the average person in China is still quite poor by currect US standards. US GDP per capita is 83k, while China's GDP per capita is 12k. So if you're argument is that tarrifs are good because look how great China's citizens are faring, that's going to be a weak argument. Finally, they have the most diversified economy in the world and manufacture goods for every corner of the world. Tarrifs on imports mean very little to China because they domestically manufacture so much. It's basically a luxury tax for them. The 12% share they export to the US is important but they are not utterly dependent upon it. They domestically manufacture so much because they make imports so costly that they can't be competitive and make money. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
gatomontes99 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 1 hour ago, Hodad said: Tell us without telling us? You just did! Lol A. You have it backward. Low price elasticity (as you described Diamonds) means that demand is not very responsive to changes in price. B. Diamonds and eggs are both famously inelastic. Again, meaning that demand stays relatively consistent even as prices increase--but obviously for very different reasons. You should probably request a refund from Google University. Meanwhile, cost, price and price elasticity are all different things. Don't conflate them. If costs go up, prices will go up not necessarily linearly, but with big tariffs on consumer goods it's both obvious and significant. The degree to which demand is affected or not affected by changes in price is the elasticity. -- Low elasticity doesn't mean the prices haven't gone up, it just means people are still paying the higher price. And high elasticity doesn't mean that prices don't go up, it just means potential consumers fall out of the market more quickly. High elasticity and falling demand can restrain cost-driven price increases by shifting pressure to margins instead of price, but even that flexibility is limited to the size of the margins. If the seller has to raise the price of blenders to remain profitable in the face of increased costs, the consumer can indeed choose not to pay the higher price. Demand goes down, creating downward pressure on price, but only within margins. Sellers can't sustainably sell below cost. The consumer who can't bear or chooses not to bear the increased prices and falls out of the market is also worse off, being denied the utility of the blender. Even though they didn't pay the higher price in dollars they indeed "pay the price" for artificial cost increases. Omg. Just no. For fuçks sake, audit a college course on economics some time. Just a basic one. I can't fix all the wrong information up there. I just don't have the time. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said: Omg. Just no. For fuçks sake, audit a college course on economics some time. Just a basic one. I can't fix all the wrong information up there. I just don't have the time. I have a degree in economics, dummy. That's why it takes about a half second to recognize that you have no farking clue what you're taking about. This is you: "Diamonds have a very low price elasticity. Increased prices result in severe drops in demand because a diamond is not necessary." You literally have the definition of price elasticity backward. You googled it, but you didn't understand it. And even a basic course someone would have taught you about the Veblen effect, where paradoxically price increases to luxury goods can even increase demand. Diamonds are a classic example of an inelastic luxury. You Google some nonsense and then pop into this forum strutting around telling people to take a course while you are farking drowning while everyone watches. A Dunning Krueger case study right before our eyes. Tell you what. Why don't you re-enroll in Google University and go search up 1. The definition of price elasticity, and 2. The price elasticity of diamonds. Then come back here and post them in the thread. I expect we'll all see again that you're not man enough to own your mistakes, but will instead tuck your tail between your legs and slink off. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 Just now, Hodad said: I have a degree in economics, dummy. Oh ok. And RoboSmith is telling the FBI how computers work. There is no way you have a degree in economics and then post the stuff you post. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 14 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Oh ok. And RoboSmith is telling the FBI how computers work. There is no way you have a degree in economics and then post the stuff you post. As predicted, you are not up to the challenge. Slink away! Quote
CdnFox Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: These are reciprocal tariffs. If it wasn't for the other country having a tariff on our goods, we would be competitive. If we weren't competitive, why would they need a tariff on us? They're not tho. Trump calls them that but his math is that if there's a trade deficit that' the same as a tariff. So canada for example sells more goods and services to the states than it buys FROM the states, and half of that would be in what he calls 'tariffs'. He's also called it a 'subsidy'. But the fact is all of that surplus is in energy. So the us buys our energy because it needs energy. Oil and electricity flow south. So its not a subsidy in the slightest. In fact, trump would be FURIOUS if we refused to sell the us that energy. When you take energy out of the mix, we buy more than we sell from america. SO we could 'fix" the 'Subsidy" tomorrow by turning off the power and gas, and ontario threatened to do just that and trump freaked out. Trump's tariffs were so generalized and the net was cast so wide he tariffed penguins. Tariffs are meant to be a scalpel, not a chainsaw. And he keeps flip flopping and has no obvious plan, which causes the business world to pull back their investments until there's stability and they know what's happening. That's really bad. That is a 'just ad water' recession mix. He needs to back up and be far more targeted and specific, and he also needs to say "this is it. this is what i'm doing, and i won't be flip flopping tomorrow". Business can then adjust and move forward and put cash back into the markets. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
User Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 3 hours ago, Hodad said: As predicted, you are not up to the challenge. Slink away! It is simply amazing that you can say stupid crap like this knowing you are hiding from people on here with the ignore feature. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 (edited) Most of the Nobel Laureates in Economic Sciences since 1969 have been American. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262901/nobel-prize-winners-in-economics-by-nationality/ What a humiliation for the country that produced them to inflict such a moronic tariff formula on the world. An amateurish effort - grade F. Edited April 5 by SpankyMcFarland 2 Quote
Nationalist Posted April 5 Report Posted April 5 7 hours ago, I am Groot said: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-streets-biggest-tech-bull-warns-of-3500-iphones-as-economic-armageddon-looms-from-trump-tariffs-122638699.html So what? I have never bought an iPhone. Over priced junk. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Aristides Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: So what? I have never bought an iPhone. Over priced junk. Whatever, you still bought something made in Asia that would cost twice as much if made in the US. Quote
Legato Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 44 minutes ago, Aristides said: Whatever, you still bought something made in Asia that would cost twice as much if made in the US. Yeah but you have to buy it twice, first one broke. 1 Quote
Aristides Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 17 minutes ago, Legato said: Yeah but you have to buy it twice, first one broke. So did you, including whatever you are using to post here. 1 Quote
Matthew Posted April 6 Report Posted April 6 10 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: They domestically manufacture so much because they make imports so costly that they can't be competitive and make money. No, they manufacture a lot because they have infinite cheap highly repressed labor and 76 years of intense government projects to build up industries. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.