Welcome To Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals

Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals is the LARGEST online community & discussion forum for professional sign-makers and graphic designers.

 


  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tariffs

Discussion in 'General Chit-Chat' started by ddarlak, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    I have no idea where you found that figure, considering its higher than the entire federal budget. Be very careful for what you wish for and when doing fuzzy math. We spend a minuscule FRACTION of the amount you think is spent on actual "social welfare".

    Are you prepared to fully care for your parents and older relatives, their medical care, etc.?

    It's estimated that the average American has about 200 times what they contribute to Medicare spent on them in their old age. You ready to absorb that cost for anyone you love or YOURSELF?

    Or perhaps you have time in your highly successful business day to care for your disabled parent or relative? How about your brother or other relative who is injured off fighting for our "national interests" abroad?

    I guess we should back to the good old days when seniors ate pet food, died in the streets and the poor were sent off to farms to work just to eat.

    I love how a business who is undoubtedly taking advantage of every known tax break, shelter, credit, subsidy, depreciation, etc... NEVER looks at what benefits they get from the government as a form of socialism, but decries it for those in need.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
     
    • I Appreciate You I Appreciate You x 1
  2. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    When a significant number of lenders in rural states are loaning up to 300% on the perceived worth of farm properties, a couple of bad turns in the weather, yields, commodity prices, interest rates, etc... can lead to bank failures and beyond. Remember that little thing we had called the Dust Bowl? It wasn't a college football game in January.

    While not on a scale with the U.S., Russia is definitely a world player on several agricultural fronts and in the top five producers for several of the commodities that China has now reduced its purchases of from the U.S.

    The point is not whether or not they are in the same league as us in farming, its whether or not they have room for expansion, which they do and whether any growth in their economy and influence with China at our expense is a threat to our national security. Putting more money in their pockets to engage in election interference here and abroad seems to jeopardize ours and other allie's security.

    https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Agricultural-Equipment
     
  3. Gino

    Gino Premium Subscriber

    32,091
    1,959
    113
    Jun 7, 2006
    PA
    I don't believe the question is if they have the room for expansion, but do they have the capability and monies to do it ?? According to that article you provided, they cannot afford it, nor do they have the ability to provide the machinery or know-how to do it. The whole article is based upon potentials and all hypotheticals. Much of the ground dedicated to it isn't even fertile land. They have literally a fraction of land suitable as that of the United States. Remember, they were a starving country and continent just a few short years ago, so of course, anything they can muster up on their own is gonna look good, statistically We've been sending them so much over the last few decades, it wasn't even funny. Your article is like saying their decision making skills are as good as a squirrel that's crossing the street.
     
  4. rossmosh

    rossmosh Active Member

    609
    132
    43
    Oct 9, 2014
    New Jersey
    I'm not going to get into politics. I'm just going to talk tariffs.

    Tariffs are typically implemented to make a market correction or to penalize another country. So for example, let's say I sell widgets I manufacture in Indiana. It costs me $1 to make them there. China calls me up and says "Hey man, I can make your widget for $.25. Same stuff. Shipping will add another $.10 but you'll drop your costs by $.65. Awesome right?" So the American business owner thinks about it for a second, and says "screw it. Let's do it." The result is the American business owner closes his factory and opens an office with just administrative staff and a lot of people lose their jobs. The infrastructure to make that property is either sold off, potentially heading back to China or South America, or just destroyed.

    Now the only reason China can afford to make the product for $.25 is because it's literally China. It's the government subsidizing the manufacturing, wages, and shipment costs. It's clearly an unfair advantage. It's a massive manipulation of the market which creates a ridiculously unfair advantage.

    So what a lot of governments might do is they'd see a trend. They'd say "Wow, China is stealing a lot of our manufacturing jobs. This is really helping build up their economy. Maybe we should step up and do something about it." So they look into it and theoretically decide to implement tariffs. So now your $.35 item is $.75. Because the difference isn't that significant, you might just say "I'm sticking to the way we've done it for years. Screw China."

    This is how tariffs are typically implemented and the way they should be. The problem with these tariffs are, they are 30 years too late. Manufacturing in the US is pretty much dead. To rebuild would require the investment of billions if not trillions. The vast majority coming from private business. If I'm the CEO of some huge company, I'm not spending $300m on a new plant unless the government is paying for most of it AND I know the tariffs are going to be implemented long term. Otherwise, I invest all this money, a new president comes in, gets rid of these tariffs, and now I'm not able to compete. It just doesn't make sense.

    So what these tariffs ultimately are are three things. First, a tax increase on Americans. It's that simple. Second, it's a short term way to flex against China. Third, it's a way to artificially boost purchasing.

    Now the third is important because it actually reflects on these numbers in the economy. So let's pretend I'm Grimco. I buy ACM panels from China. Normally I get 12 shipments a year spread out. With the tariffs I do a little math and realize doing this would be stupid. I can do 1 big shipment, before the tariffs come into place, and save 25%. Money is cheap at the moment, so I get a little loan from the bank, make a bulk purchase, and bring it in. I then tell all my customers "Hey listen, in a few weeks prices are going up so you better buy now." So now every shop instead of buying 5 sheets, buys 15 because they'll use them eventually. And the cycle just keeps continuing until one point things just slow down a bit. You realize that the price increase is coming but you just don't need to stock up anymore. Also, people are going to slowly realize these 2-20% price increases add up. So that 3-5% annual price increase you did has left you behind. You're actually making less this year than you did the previous year. So you've got to increase your prices, but you realize you can't because your competition down the road is already 5% lower than you and going another 5% higher might hurt your business.

    And this is how inflation and bubbles occur. Buying based on theoretical demand. Demand slows. Prices are inflated. People can't afford stuff anymore and slowly but surely you see the decline/burst. Now to be clear, I'm not saying categorically there will be a big burst or that we're going to see some massive recession. But I do know that these trends are basic economic theories and ideas.

    Just to go political for a second, we have to be extremely careful when digesting the information from Washington at the moment. The tariffs have been explained incorrectly from Day 1 from this administration and I recommend being extremely cautious. People generally do what they need to, to justify their decisions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • I Appreciate You I Appreciate You x 1
  5. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    "The whole article is based upon potentials and all hypotheticals. " There is no way someone could have read the report and come to that conclusion. The entire first six or seven paragraphs spell out the increased investments, boosts in sales, growth in equipment sales to aid in putting more acreage into production. There are actual multi-year statistics based on reported crop yields, equipment procurements, investment commitments, etc.

    According to this data, the Russians have plenty of arable land they could put into production with the newly secured contracts they have signed with China and other countries.

    "Russia’s agricultural market has immense potential, with 220 million hectares (544 million acres) and the potential to feed two billion people, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). However, this potential is not fully developed, as only 38% of Russian land is fertile and only 13% is cultivated. According to Russia’s Ministry of Agriculture, there are more than 10 million hectares (25 million acres) of unused, arable land in Russia."

    You guys aren't violating your oath to tribalism and your bias by admitting that this stuff is happening. Ignoring that its all part of your new

    It's right there in the second through seventh paragraphs. The money to pay for it is already coming from the increased sales to China and others at our farmer's expense. plus, with oil prices going up, they have more revenues from their largest industry as well as more exports.
     
  6. Gino

    Gino Premium Subscriber

    32,091
    1,959
    113
    Jun 7, 2006
    PA
    You are nuts. How in the world do you read those kinda statistics ?? You might try reading a sentence at a time. Digesting it and then move onto the next sentence. Your apparent skimming and glossing over this has got you by the short hairs, sonny.

    with 220 million hectares (544 million acres) and the potential to feed two billion people, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). However, this potential is not fully developed, as only 38% of Russian land is fertile and only 13% is cultivated.

    Russia’s Ministry of Agriculture, there are more than 10 million hectares (25 million acres) of unused, arable land in Russia.

    The whole thing is based upon couldas, wouldas and ifs.

    It will all be GMO stuff.

    There is an acute need for modernized agricultural machinery in Russia, but equipment purchase growth is further constrained by high credit costs and geopolitical uncertainty.

    Ya see, when you site this stuff, you think everyone is gonna just take your word for it. It's about 93% false or just wishful thinking, but from our side to your ears and mouth, not theirs.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. ams

    ams Very Active Member

    2,143
    268
    83
    Oct 28, 2010
    Virginia
    Until Republicans run the government, nothing will change.
     
    • OMG / Wow! OMG / Wow! x 1
  8. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    Which party has been in charge for the last three years?

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

    Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
    Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
    Clinton got it to zero.
    Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
    Obama halved it to 600 billion.
    Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

    Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.”
     
  9. HulkSmash

    HulkSmash Major Contributor

    8,134
    131
    63
    Sep 10, 2010
    Denver.

    Attached Files:

    • Hilarious! Hilarious! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. ams

    ams Very Active Member

    2,143
    268
    83
    Oct 28, 2010
    Virginia

    China is a currency manipulator.
     
  11. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    Nearly all countries manipulate their money supply as well as prop up certain industries to gain strategic advantages.

    Remind us of which of the two political parties championed global trade back in 80's and pressured Clinton into signing NAFTA as well as push other forms of globalization?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM
  12. Gino

    Gino Premium Subscriber

    32,091
    1,959
    113
    Jun 7, 2006
    PA
    Let's go one further.......... what official was kept waiting while clinton fooled around with a cigar ??
     
  13. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    I'm sure one of my oldest friends about to get a double masectomy will be thrilled to hear that your new messiah has cured cancer and she can forego the surgery and chemo. How about a display of his ability to walk on water?

    The single most important factor in reducing cancer death rates is early detection. Since 2010 and the passage of the ACA, ALL health insurance policies are required to offer free preventative care and early detection testing and lab work to patients. Is it just a coincidence that after nine years of that practice being in place, we are seeing drops in cancer fatalities. NO. It's common sense and was its intended effect when passed.
     
  14. HulkSmash

    HulkSmash Major Contributor

    8,134
    131
    63
    Sep 10, 2010
    Denver.
    Oh toad man. You know it was a meme, but of course i forgot, no jokes with the libs. Everything is serious business. As i said, the disorder is beyond real.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Hilarious! Hilarious! x 1
  15. unclebun

    unclebun Very Active Member

    I'd say that rather than touting early detection for the drop in cancer deaths, the blame should go to big pharma for coming out with new immunotherapies in that time period, making possible cures of stage 4 lung cancer and other cancers previously untreatable. I say blame because that seems to be the word used when talking about what pharmaceutical companies do nowadays.

    Now if we're talking about the amazing powers of the current president, I understand that he is able to cause soldiers from another country halfway around the world to shoot down passenger airliners. However he was unsuccessful at getting an actor cancelled last night while watching a football game.
     
  16. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    Actually, I was merely being sarcastic in an attempt at gallows humor.

    I would call falsely claiming responsibility for anything as amorphous as cancer death rates as the Stable Creamsicle Genius ACTUALLY tried to do serious mental illness as well as a few other things. But why quibble over just another lie from him when there are over 15,000 of them floating around out there.

    After losing multiple loved ones to cancer and more currently sick, I'm acutely aware of the whats and whys of death rates, advances in treatments and how early detection dramatically helps survival rates.
     
  17. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    When you publicly threaten to blow up 52 of a country's cultural sites, it tends to put their military on edge and high alert.

    Especially just a few days after you violated both domestic and international law by conducting an extraconstitutional assassination in a third party country and killed some of your own allies in the process. Many military leaders tend to view that as the act of a crazy person acting unpredictably.

    Have you seen WarGames? That cute DEFCON level thingy is real and ours fluctuates as well depending on the current threat level.
     
  18. Texas_Signmaker

    Texas_Signmaker Very Active Signmaker

    3,377
    1,251
    113
    Oct 21, 2016
    Frisco, TX
    m
    I heard they hide their military power in their culture sites so people wouldn't destroy them. Trumps mention of it was a threat to let them know that WE know where they are hiding. Pretty smart if you ask me.
     
  19. TimToad

    TimToad Very Active Member

    2,464
    600
    113
    Jun 13, 2013
    CA
    Sure, why not? It's not one of your family members who got blown out of the sky. Do you have any idea how big Tehran is? It is one of the biggest cities on earth. You'd have to flatten it and kill MILLIONS of people to take out all of their weapons.

    You've got to be kidding on that old wive's tale about hiding weapons systems in mosques and shrines. FFS, these people have ICBM's, huge missile arrays, hundreds of tanks, jet fighters, etc.. You can't hide the kind of weaponry capable going beyond their borders in a mosque. Use your head and some common sense dude.

    The sanctions were working, the deal was working. They were provoked and now a plane full of people are dead.

    I think you have Iran confused with some other country. They have one of the biggest armed forces on earth, open armaments in plain view, bases, forts, all manner of modern weaponry. Thanks to Drumpf's walking away from a nuclear agreement that we AND most of our allies worked years on securing and they were abiding by, they have ramped up their nuclear program again and will have revenge on their minds until it is exacted.

    Pretty smart? Somehow I don't think pissing off most of the region including the Saudis, Russians, Chinese, etc. and our allies as well as putting the final nail in the coffin of diplomacy with this soon to be nuclear power is all that smart.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. GAC05

    GAC05 Major Contributor

    5,471
    602
    113
    Dec 27, 2005
    Guam USA
    Really?
     

Share This Page

 


Loading...