same old stan

[Lachlan]

So since Canada has had tariffs on us for years we shouldn't trust them?

I'm not sure what tariffs Canada may have on the United States or if they have a trade deficit with you. Either way however I don't mean tariffs which have been there for years. Small increases in tariffs over an extended period of time (I'm thinking years or decades) is different compared to slapping everyone with large increases in tariffs over a very short period of time which is what Trump has done. That is what I mean as an erosion of trust. I'm sure Trump could have negotiated better trade deals with everyone instead of arbitrarily slapping economic punishments on everyone including America's allies.

[Leo]

The idea is allegedly to force the US to up our production for domestic purposes. But one major roadblock to that is that would require more factories to be built, which is now way more expensive because of the tarrifs. Complete domestic self sufficiency is something that must be eased into. The stock market shows it

[Mack]

So since Canada has had tariffs on us for years we shouldn't trust them?

I'm not sure what tariffs Canada may have on the United States or if they have a trade deficit with you. Either way however I don't mean tariffs which have been there for years. Small increases in tariffs over an extended period of time (I'm thinking years or decades) is different compared to slapping everyone with large increases in tariffs over a very short period of time which is what Trump has done. That is what I mean as an erosion of trust. I'm sure Trump could have negotiated better trade deals with everyone instead of arbitrarily slapping economic punishments on everyone including America's allies.

How is it any different? We got fed up with unfair trade now we're making it fair. How is that wrong? Please explain

[Mack]

The idea is allegedly to force the US to up our production for domestic purposes. But one major roadblock to that is that would require more factories to be built, which is now way more expensive because of the tarrifs. Complete domestic self sufficiency is something that must be eased into. The stock market shows it

I know it's scary but we will be ok, they need us they will buckle

[Leo]

Time will tell. The truth is though we will always need foreign trade to some extent. I already gave the example of lumber because Canada has better wood and somewhere above 4x more trees than us. But think about cars. The large American auto makers are Ford, General Motors (GMC, Chevy), Jeep, Tesla, and Dodge. These brands are reputably less reliable than many foreign car makers, and driving the foreign car market out of the US will not make our cars better. It will just make people have to rely more heavily on cars that are worse. Why should we have to give up on our Hondas and Toyotas just to switch to a car that will last half as many miles? And even American auto makers are having trouble selling their cars right now because the price for parts is so high they're forced to jack the prices of the cars. Obviously there are good and bad cars from every brand, but just look at the average range of say a Ford f150 vs a Toyota Tacoma

[Most Lee Harmless]

Tariffs : would it not make more sense to place a tariff on what you export , thus increasing the cost to the country you wish to punish, than placing it on what you import from that country, thereby placing the cost on your own citizens?

Just a thought.

The goal is to hurt the companies not the nations

Companies will do what they always do when their costs increase : pass it on. Then use those increased costs as a reason to close a underperforming branch or two, reduce employee count, deny pay rises and generally look sad. Oddly, increased costs are never a reason to reduce dividends to shareholders. Who knew.


Regarding the issue of trust. There is another side to that. If, for example, the tariff on aluminium imports 'works' : the price is such it makes sense for a US company to process/manufacture it in the homeland. That will not build one single new aluminium plant. Why? Such plants takes many years to build and, most importantly, require massive amounts of energy to operate, so that infrastructure is an additional barrier/cost. There is a reason that countries with extensive cheap hydropower just happen to be among the top smelters. Any economic case to invest in such a project with such long and expensive lead times before a single cent is earned requires stability : that the demand and consequent prices remains at or above current levels until the plant is paid for.

Given how the implementation.of tariffs in the US has progressed, on then off then on but delayed then on then increased and who knows what tomorrow never mind in four years when the game of musical chairs spits out the next incumbent : I would suggest not trusting in this adminstration to bring about or maintain the needed stability is hardly rocket science. So, unless massively 'incentivised', i.e Federal underwriting of construction costs, federal guarantees on energy costs and hey, you know, shareholders are always more receptive to risk after a nice tax cut, nobody is going to be building new capacity anytime soon even if they want to.

Meanwhile the US still does not produce enough aluminium itself so imports there will be, at the new higher tariffed prices and it will not hurt Canada one tiny bit because for every tonne that the US can no longer afford to import then they have a tonne to sell to some-one else.

[Stan Rogers]

Something obvious to the rest of the free world is the USA should not be cutting education budgets.
A budget increase would help considerably.
The movie Idiocracy is being re-rated as a documentary instead of a comedy.

[Meliva]

Something obvious to the rest of the free world is the USA should not be cutting education budgets.
A budget increase would help considerably.
The movie Idiocracy is being re-rated as a documentary instead of a comedy.

doubtful. I don't think the problem with our education is we are not spending enough money, it's the money being spent is being mismanaged.

In 2021, the U.S. spent $20,387 per pupil on education, which is the 3rd highest among the 40 developed nations in the OECD.

Yet despite that, we are not doing very well, ranking in the 20's, our math was ranked 28th. So, despite spending more than anyone else save for 2, the results are not promising. Now could funneling more money improve this- maybe, but if they aren't managing the large amount of money they already get properly, giving them more will probably have minimal effect-most of it will probably just wind up wasted. Would be better to make things more efficient, so that the money goes further, rather then just funneling more and more money into a system that isn't working out all that well.

Too many people have this mindset that, if you throw enough money into a system or at a problem, it will eventually work out. The problem is that what good is giving money, when most of it doesn't actually get used for the right purpose, and just ends up in some bureaucrat's pocket, or spent on some frivolous idea that some politician in DC decides is a good idea?

[Most Lee Harmless]

I think the rest of the world is looking at this new administration tick every box on the 'WTF?' list and are wondering what was in that cookie they ate last night.

Sorry Ukraine, but you been Tango-ed.

[Stan Rogers]

Something obvious to the rest of the free world is the USA should not be cutting education budgets.
A budget increase would help considerably.
The movie Idiocracy is being re-rated as a documentary instead of a comedy.

doubtful. I don't think the problem with our education is we are not spending enough money, it's the money being spent is being mismanaged.

In 2021, the U.S. spent $20,387 per pupil on education, which is the 3rd highest among the 40 developed nations in the OECD.

Yet despite that, we are not doing very well, ranking in the 20's, our math was ranked 28th. So, despite spending more than anyone else save for 2, the results are not promising. Now could funneling more money improve this- maybe, but if they aren't managing the large amount of money they already get properly, giving them more will probably have minimal effect-most of it will probably just wind up wasted. Would be better to make things more efficient, so that the money goes further, rather then just funneling more and more money into a system that isn't working out all that well.

Too many people have this mindset that, if you throw enough money into a system or at a problem, it will eventually work out. The problem is that what good is giving money, when most of it doesn't actually get used for the right purpose, and just ends up in some bureaucrat's pocket, or spent on some frivolous idea that some politician in DC decides is a good idea?

I am sure you are correct in the fact much of the money spent gets siphoned off instead of providing supplies and hiring good teachers/paying a livable wage.
Teachers are your future.
then again, when I see university scholarships awarded on athletic prowess, I have to question what is really important to USA education .