I think it was always going to end this way. Better late than never. Everyone knows DJT is a natural-born whack-job who takes advice from folks on the fringes. What's most disturbing and shocking is the acquiescence and negligence of our "Article 1" branch of government and the ruling GOP in all of this - how despicable that they feel like they can't speak up! Alpha males, my foot.
So, if the average increase to the American consumer is $1,700 per year, why is the $2,000 rebate so off the mark? I am not sure how much the Yale study is estimating for “lost output and slower growth”. Someone has to be wrong.
The rebate will never happen. The tariffs are an excuse to cover the shortfall in tax revenue created by the recent tax cuts. I can’t wait for the chaos that will occur when the Supreme Court steps in.
Fair question. A lot of the "cost" the YBL accounts for is the result of lower GDP growth, which affects employment and income. Some people will work and earn less, which is part of the "cost." They explain it all here ~ https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-november-17-2025 Other analyses find more or less that same thing....
Again Trump is playing games with the office he won on the last election.By using tariffs he gets to play games with the world on what cost the public has to pay on everything we purchase and, in the process the market is left in the dark.Trump being Trump.
I believe tariffs could have made a difference in the aftermath of China into WTO in December 2001. So we hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs to China from 2002-2009…but since 2010 we’ve added manufacturing jobs at a slow and steady pace that I believe is largely related to the fracking revolution. Now that the fracking industry is mature and we’ve added back the value added manufacturing jobs…there just aren’t a lot of jobs to add when automation constantly subtracts manufacturing jobs in North America.
An irony is that manufacturing jobs and union membership peaked in 1979…so MAGA Republicans want a return to the Carter economy!! The initial round of manufacturing layoffs happened in the Reagan recovery as Big 3 automakers determined it was cheaper to pay overtime than to hire a new union worker because of health care costs (that was actually the time to switch to single payer health care). So manufacturing jobs declined even as we made more vehicles as the economy expanded. Then after NAFTA the Big 3 saw a manufacturing rebound thanks to the SUV craze which looked good until Bush finished negotiating China into the WTO. And then a combination of foreign automakers developing CUVs and high energy prices and a jobless recovery and weak labor market led to the SUV bust and GM/Chrysler bankruptcies.
So Trump would have been correct about higher prices leading to higher wages from 2002-2009 because the Bush saw China’s rise as keeping inflation low. Higher wages means more disposable income for workers…but it can also lead to inflation. I actually think Tony Blair was more eloquent and overt on this dynamic as he made no secret he wanted to ship manufacturing jobs overseas and out of the UK. Bush had to win Ohio and he had be for a strong dollar and his policies really made zero sense as a coherent agenda…which is why Bush was both a neoconservative and a neoliberal!!!! 😆
I think it was always going to end this way. Better late than never. Everyone knows DJT is a natural-born whack-job who takes advice from folks on the fringes. What's most disturbing and shocking is the acquiescence and negligence of our "Article 1" branch of government and the ruling GOP in all of this - how despicable that they feel like they can't speak up! Alpha males, my foot.
So, if the average increase to the American consumer is $1,700 per year, why is the $2,000 rebate so off the mark? I am not sure how much the Yale study is estimating for “lost output and slower growth”. Someone has to be wrong.
The rebate will never happen. The tariffs are an excuse to cover the shortfall in tax revenue created by the recent tax cuts. I can’t wait for the chaos that will occur when the Supreme Court steps in.
Fair question. A lot of the "cost" the YBL accounts for is the result of lower GDP growth, which affects employment and income. Some people will work and earn less, which is part of the "cost." They explain it all here ~ https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-november-17-2025 Other analyses find more or less that same thing....
Again Trump is playing games with the office he won on the last election.By using tariffs he gets to play games with the world on what cost the public has to pay on everything we purchase and, in the process the market is left in the dark.Trump being Trump.
I believe tariffs could have made a difference in the aftermath of China into WTO in December 2001. So we hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs to China from 2002-2009…but since 2010 we’ve added manufacturing jobs at a slow and steady pace that I believe is largely related to the fracking revolution. Now that the fracking industry is mature and we’ve added back the value added manufacturing jobs…there just aren’t a lot of jobs to add when automation constantly subtracts manufacturing jobs in North America.
An irony is that manufacturing jobs and union membership peaked in 1979…so MAGA Republicans want a return to the Carter economy!! The initial round of manufacturing layoffs happened in the Reagan recovery as Big 3 automakers determined it was cheaper to pay overtime than to hire a new union worker because of health care costs (that was actually the time to switch to single payer health care). So manufacturing jobs declined even as we made more vehicles as the economy expanded. Then after NAFTA the Big 3 saw a manufacturing rebound thanks to the SUV craze which looked good until Bush finished negotiating China into the WTO. And then a combination of foreign automakers developing CUVs and high energy prices and a jobless recovery and weak labor market led to the SUV bust and GM/Chrysler bankruptcies.
So Trump would have been correct about higher prices leading to higher wages from 2002-2009 because the Bush saw China’s rise as keeping inflation low. Higher wages means more disposable income for workers…but it can also lead to inflation. I actually think Tony Blair was more eloquent and overt on this dynamic as he made no secret he wanted to ship manufacturing jobs overseas and out of the UK. Bush had to win Ohio and he had be for a strong dollar and his policies really made zero sense as a coherent agenda…which is why Bush was both a neoconservative and a neoliberal!!!! 😆