J.A.Prufrock

Now, let's be honest please. I have also clearly written that a major component I'm achieving the change we seek can come from increasing capacity in line with demand (the substitution effect). So, Mr Fain and I agree on that. Another thing that he and I agree on, is the part that you conveniently left out. We both acknowledge that achieving these seismic changes at the level required to restore balance, will not only take years, but require unprecedented focus and effort.

Sounds like the kind of effort that you might want a well thought-out plan for. Or that you might initially want to proceed with slowly at first, testing your theories. With plenty of consultation, building up buy-in and acceptance one success at a time.

As for my shitty conservative ideas, please let me know which specific ideas you are referring to. By that, I mean which of my ideas you consider to be so politically conservative. My ideas are always potentially shitty. 

As far as I can tell, US auto manufacturing is already running at capacity or near capacity. There's no manufacturing plant, all tooled up and ready to go, sitting idle somewhere. There is no glut of unemployed, skilled UAW members just waiting for a shot. We don't hear of the astonishingly high production over-capacity, currently dragging on the economy, needed to step up production of ever more widgets to the level required to return to equilibrium. Nope. That kind of magical thinking is better as the plot of some After School Special. 

Your cause is noble. But if these measures are successful, it will be the result of many years of intense focus reforming capital, production and labour (so, just the entire economy) catch levels not seen since Eisenhower. I personally believe success here will require even more in this case. I sincerely hope that it is successful. I will stand with you in the effort to do my part. But none of that detracts from the fact that we find ourselves here due to rushed, ill-planned, reckless decision making. 

"Hey, buddy. If we drive our car off the Cliff do you think we'll crash and die?"

"Well, I don't rightly know, pal. Let's try it and find out."

"Sounds good to me." 🤑

Godspeed, America.

They didn't buy it despite the price. They bought it because of the price. It's cheaper made overseas. Are you saying you expect Americans to pay more for products than they need to simply for reasons of patriotism? We could all patriot ourselves to death that way. Would that make you happy?

And your little fallacious tidbit suggesting that the foreign made goods that currently make up this unpatriotic trade imbalance are somehow deficient is absolutely laughable. (American automobiles are currently made using foreign parts of substandard quality?)

so, let me get this straight, not only are American automobiles unduly more expensive than their foreign made competitors, but they're also made using crap (foreign-sourced) parts. That sounds like the car I wanna buy.

And to get us out of this mess we're in, you support a plan that adds a tariff to goods Americans need by captivating the marketplace; huge sums of money being extracted from the value chain and diverted to government control; American manufacturers facing shock increases in demand without the time or capital needed to respond with increased capacity; and the global investment community (with all its apparently unused capital hiding under some pillow somewhere) patriotically riding into the rescue with fresh capital in support of expanding businesses that sell products of inferior quality at artificially high prices. Great. Would you like fries with that?

America, Fuck Yeah!

No, they are not. While they may be exaggerating in regards to American products with no comparable imports subject to tariffs, you our only considering the direct effects, and not the obvious wider effects. You are being equally dishonest in support of your agenda.

So, America does not imports eggs or chickens, using your example. Therefore, we would not expect to see a price increase on eggs and chickens as a direct result of tariffs (i.e., chickens and eggs aren't imported and subjected to tariffs anyway). However, suggesting that American products which may be unexposed to foreign competition are in anyway immune from the effects of tarrifs is both wildly incorrect and intellectually dishonest. The indirect, derivative inflationary effects of tariffs will spread throughout the economy as a whole - like waves emanating from a drop of water into a pond. The cost of replacing the trucks delivering eggs and chickens, has increased 25%. The price increase on foreign manufactured goods and raw materials will increase demand for comparable American made replacements. So, Americans will not only have to endure the direct price increases related to tariffs, but also the derivative increases related to the new (and instant) artificial supply scarcity that comes with these tariffs. It's not some cases of American manufacturers sitting around with nothing to do and happy for the new work to fulfil their capacity. Remember, your argument is that the trade imbalance has already run most of these small American manufactured goods companies out of business. The only manufacturers in America still capable of running are already running at near capacity without any tariffs. Add by imposing these tariffs you have just increased their demand by, what I'm assuming maybe, close to 100%. They don't have the capacity too quickly increase their production to meet this new existing total demand. And all that tariff money?... That went into the federal government's coffers. The American manufacturers, faced with this impossible-to-satisfy demand imbalance, don't even have the cash to invest in expanding their production capacity. These little cash they may have had before has now been sucked up into their wider derivative cost exposure - driven by the tariffs overall. And this results in price increases - from whatever POV you choose - to the American supply chain, and all the way down to the American consumer.

I'm not saying that this tariff ploy won't be successful , or even work at all. That it has not worked in the past, is not necessarily an indicator of it's potential for success today. I am definitely saying, however, that engaging in this policy (with this scope and at this speed) is significantly reckless behaviour. I am also saying that your cavalier tone in dismissing other people's well-founded concerns for the effects of these tariffs on the wider economy belies your actual intent - to rabble-rouse political support for a breathtakingly risky set of policies, and to assuage complex concerns using simplified explanations. While these reckless policies are a matter of bad political leadership - and we're talking of Nero proportions - your ramshackle defence lacks intellectual probity. It is apparent to me, from your other writings, that you not only know better, but that you can do better. Please. I implore you. Please.

I don't know if these tariffs, and their accompanying strategy, will be successful or not. I hope like hell they are.

We are standing on the beach, waiting for the tsunami.

I hope like hell they are!

Don't be an idiot. For every manufactured good with the same cost base, for example, a 10% tariff on the foreign good will result in a 10% price increase on that foreign good in America. And a 10% tariff on the same foreign good, will result in a 9% increase on the comparable good made in America. Congratulations, you have just raised the price for that good sold to all Americans. Good going!

And a moronic bigot decided to fabricate reported details of an article he brazenly linked in the same post.

Goldberg's article didn't include one classified detail from the chats - not a single one. I know this for a fact, because I read the report - which you were kind enough to link in your post. (Thanks for that, BTW.) So, I'm trying to figure out whether it's a matter of unintelligent reading comprehension on your part, or that you just didn't bother reading the article - linked right there in your post - at all.

One thing is for sure, though. While Goldberg didn't Leak any classified details, someone else in this case did. The United States Secretary of Defence, of all people, leaked the most highly classified details possible (full military strike plans) -  potentially putting troops in harm's way.  It is the height of irony!

The idea that you would inform them that they shared sensitive information with you is hilarious. What good is that supposed to do? You would have no way to tell them what they were doing until they had already done it. That's how time works, you see. First comes one thing, and then, only after that thing, comes another thing.  Your frantic apologia song and dance is fooling nobody. 

Ignorance is not a virtue.