Leaderboard

As I've said a number of times- perception and reality are not in line with things always. There were a lot of studies done on the effect of the Trump tariffs and in aggregate it was found that the tariffs increased costs for average American households by about $830 per year, accounting for direct costs and efficiency losses. And yes I agree that those numbers are most likely higher now and will agree to that until I see something that might argue otherwise. Here is the chart that shows a bunch of the studies. **EDIT** The emojis are the html code copying it here. I didn't do that and they don't represent any feelings for me. I'm too lazy to go back and look up everything to change the code. Here is the article it is from: https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-would-do-so-again This article talks about the impact but does note that too many things don't understand the way tariffs work in their studies: https://carnegieendowment.org/china-financial-markets/2021/01/how-trumps-tariffs-really-affected-the-us-job-market?lang=en This article talks about the Trump tariffs (and refers to them by Biden as well since he left on many of the Trump tariffs): https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/ Table 1 Numerous studies document how Trump-era tariffs have harmed the US economy Study Tariffs covered Impact measured Estimated impact American Action Forum (2022) Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on imports from China Tariff costs (i.e., tax burden) $51.1 billion total tariff cost in 2022 Amiti et al., (2021) Tariffs imposed in 2018–19 and Chinese retaliation A) Decline in US stock prices (firm equity value) Decline in aggregate US welfare A) $4.12 trillion cumulative loss in firm equity value 3.0% decline in aggregate welfare Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein (2019) Safeguards on solar panels and washing machines Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (lists 1–3) Additional tariff costs and economic deadweight (efficiency) losses $106.07 billion total annual tariff cost (averages to $831 annual cost per household) Caldara et al. (2020) Tariffs imposed in 2018 Decline in aggregate US investment as a result of higher trade policy uncertainty 1.5% decline in US investment in 2018 Caliendo and Parro (2022) Tariffs imposed on Chinese imports A) Decline in aggregate US real wages Decline in aggregate US real income C) Decline in aggregate US households' welfare A) 0.16% decline in US real wages 0.14% decline in US real income C) 0.1% decline in US households' welfare Carter and Steinbach (2020) Retaliation from tariffs imposed in 2018 Decline in US agricultural and food exports Over $15.6 billion in trade with retaliatory countries lost Cavallo et al. (2021) Tariffs imposed on Chinese imports since 2018 Tariff pass-through to import and retail prices Tariffs passed "almost fully" through to US import prices, yet only marginally to retail prices, suggesting that retailers are absorbing most of the cost. For instance, a 20% tariff is associated with an 18.9% increase in the price paid for an affected good by US importers, but only a 0.7% increase in the relative retail price for the good. Congressional Budget Office (2020) Tariffs imposed between January 2018 and January 2020 Loss in output and higher consumer prices Per household cost of $1,277 in 2020 (from lower output and higher prices) Fajgelbaum et al. (2021) Safeguards on solar panels and washing machines Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (lists 1–3) Tariffs on European Union imports A) Increase in import prices (gross costs) Economywide loss in output (net costs) A) $114 billion annual increase in import costs Economy-wide net annual losses of $24.8 billion Flaaen, Hortaçsu, Tintelnot (2020) Safeguards on washing machines A) Tariff pass-through Increase in consumer costs A) Pass-through of 108–225 percent, due to increase in prices of domestic brands and complementary goods (e.g., dryers) $1.5 billion annual cost to consumers Gerarden et al. (2024) Tariffs on solar panels, including: Obama-era antidumping and countervailing duties; and Trump-era Section 201 (safeguard) tariffs and Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports A) Change in welfare from 2010 to 2020 Change in employment (job-years and wages) from 2010 to 2020 A) Loss of $56.6 billion in US welfare (including loss of $65.5 billion in local environmental benefits from solar panel adoption) relative to scenario with no tariffs. Loss of 370,100 job-years and and $15.8 billion in total wages, driven by losses in solar panel installation jobs. Handley, Kamal, and Monarch (2020) Tariffs imposed in 2018–19 A) Additional tariff costs for US firms exposed to import tariffs, per worker Decline in export growth A) $900 tariff cost per worker overall and $1,600 per worker for manufacturing firms Decline in US exports in 2019 is equivalent to a 1.5% tariff on the average export Tariffs Hurt the Heartland (2022) Tariffs imposed from February 2018 to April 2021 Additional tariff costs $94 billion total tariff cost since 2018 Tax Foundation Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports A) Additional tariff costs Loss in economic output (GDP) A) $79 billion annual tariff cost (averages to $625 per household) Decline in long-run GDP of 0.2 percent Trade Partnership (2019) Tariffs imposed or announced as of November 2018, plus foreign retaliation A) Loss in national income (net) Net US job loss A) Annual decline of $62.3 billion in net national income Net loss of 934,700 US jobs US International Trade Commission (2023) Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs A) Tariff pass-through (Sec. 301) Effect on prices (Sec. 232) C) Effect on downstream production (Sec. 232) A) Full pass-through of Section 301 tariffs to prices paid by US importers. Section 232 tariffs led to a weighted-average steel price increase of ~2.4% and a weighted-average aluminum price increase of ~1.6% C) Downstream (i.e., steel- and aluminum-consuming) industries in the US experienced a $3.48 billion decline in production (measured by value) because of the Section 232 tariffs.

The betting market would have Trump at 100% if it weren’t for the risk of the steal.

Pro tip: distrusting every person in every single institution that makes our country livable turns you into an antisocial freak. Do you not realize that your friends and neighbors work for some of those organizations? Why didn't you include the Police and DOJ above? Do you know any cops? Are they all into destroying your freedom, or are they normal people living their lives? How do you propose to eliminate these institutions? What do you think happens if you're successful? You see malice everywhere, in everything. Sorry your life experiences have led you to that conclusion, but that's not the world I live in. Is there corruption in those institutions? Yes. Are they overrun with people that hate you and everything about America? Is every employee a mindless slave? No. Not even close. I used to be into conspiracy theories. I spent years believing many of the same things you do. But then I realized that most people are like me. They just want to be left alone to live their lives, to do what's best for themselves and their kids, and don't really GAF about what others do, as long as it's not interfering with their lives. Maybe someday you'll figure that out. Until then, I'll keep calling you a fascist and a terrorist, because that's how you come off. You're no better than a radical muslim that wants everything to burn. You're probably worse, because you pretend you actually want a better nation, while hating half the population and hoping for a reckoning.

You can post all the nonsense you want and I can goto the gas station and grocery store and see the reality. once again with your derp derp fake centrist crap

Not just that but made a joke about getting shot....to parents whose son was killed in battle.

This is every geek club righty that defends Trumps words and pretends that he meant something other than he said. It is so sad and pathetic to watch.

Abuses? Do you really have your head thst far up your arse? How many reporters had there homes raided under Trump? Zero....but dozens under Biden How many political opponents did Trump prosecute? One...Biden prosecuted several including Trump and under ridiculously flimsy grounds which will all be thrown out. How many whistleblowers did Trump retaliate against? Zero....but dozens have been under Biden. You bootlick for an administration which has acted more authoritarian than any administration ever because you are brainwashed into believing lies about Trump. Really unbelievable how effective our government has become at controlling the minds of a large portion of the public.

Here ya go. Lololol

Thanks for finding this out! Now I'm not voting for Trump. I'm outraged!

Something like that? I mean try to sound certain if you're just going to make things up tard.

The senators decide funding and the governor has power too. My point is that Pennsylvania won’t be decided on the fracking issue. You make it sound like it’s completely unreasonable for anyone in that state (or anywhere else to support Harris.) IMO she’s the only choice a reasonable person could make.

squidson - you are the most pathetic soyboy @ fft

It’s not that hard to refute you, to be honest. Pennsylvania just elected a Democratic governor and Senator, both of whom have similar stances to fracking that Kamala has (was against it now for it) and both of whom have way more influence in terms of stopping or slowing down fracking if they wanted to than the President would. There are about a zillion good reasons to vote for Harris over Trump and economic issues are one of them. And she’s ahead in Pennsylvania.

I am actually surprised as well. I have never read the Bible, but I have heard it refers to the earth as flat and round. Idk which is true in the Bible. Yes, flat earthers are more likely to be conservative. I am not a conservative myself, but I can appreciate their general distrust for anything that comes from official sources.

A lot of people refuse to believe this. Even if a court determined the evidence was true, there would still be people who wouldn't accept it. They would rather live in a world where their own government was responsible for the single worst terrorist act on our soil. I personally can't stand that this is a reality. Most people don't believe this as of now. Think about it though. If you take evidence like this and add everything up, it's as least possible. Then ask yourself, if our government was willing to go to these lengths, how does this change your perspective of what's happening right now? https://x.com/KevinRyan911/status/1838550397113229648?s=19

Whoever workshopped and went with "Opportunity economy/agenda" should be barred from helping with any future campaigns. It just doesn't accomplish what they think it accomplishes.

Hope he's not like a guy in my league, lol. Here's how things go with that guy.... Him: Hey, I'll trade you Lamb for Robinson. Me: Ok, deal. Him: Well, wait.... Him: How about Lamb for Robinson AND.....

I don't agree but as I said to Tim it doesn't matter. That is not the general perception and memory people have of that time. Until Covid the perception is we were very prosperous under Trump and the exact opposite under Kamalatoe/Biden.

Medical events? 2 people fainted, and then grandma swaysalot said he enjoyed the fainting and fainting is good because it helps you lose weight

Not a player, but Bill Belichick

Schiff is a lying POS who harmed our country over Trump/Russia and that was confirmed by the Inspector General

He's trying to "gotcha" those of us who have an issue with biological males competing against biological females. We have those concerns for a variety of reasons but he latches on to one that he thinks makes us look like our concerns aren't justified to try to pull a "gotcha", especially against those of us who have made him look foolish in the past. It's his M.O. if you haven't been paying attention. Instead of laying out a clearly understood position and debating from that position, he just tries to pull a gotcha. All the time.

Bad sportsmanship IMO.

I don't think anyone particularly cares if there is an "Indigenous Day". But to put it on the same day as Columbus Day is DEFCON 1 level stupid. To support these on the same day is to say that you wish our country was never founded. If you fall into this camp, feel free to move to a reservation or, better yet, an indigenous tribe somewhere like the Khoe San in South Africa, and leave the rest of us to celebrate the beginning of the greatest country in the history of Earth.

Actually, the simple concept is that if you allow this man to compete with women, you've set precedent for future (more capable) men to do the same. You've also introduced a process where somebody has to make some decision of whether or not every trans man "sucks" enough to compete with women. That's both unmanageable, and not exactly making the trans person feel good about themselves, which is the argument by the Left of why they should be allowed to compete with women. I honestly don't know why you bump these yip yip topics of yours.