When our companies have to pay tariffs to sell their goods to other countries isn't that just a form of extortion?

[scourge165]

41 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

When you resort to name calling you have reached the lowest level of metal capacity of debate..reguardles of the endless amount of words you use in your posts

Please, spare me the righteous indignation now. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Is that what "many now believe?"

https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-hawley-tariff-and-the-great-depression/#:~:text=Modern measurements of

 

 

No, we should listen to the guy who proved the saying "the house always wins," is...ACTUALLY not true. Not when HE is President...

Does this mornings Great Depression end at noon ? 

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Does this mornings Great Depression end at noon ? 

3 PM eastern time. Try to compose your emotions.

[TylerDurden]

There are four pages in this thread and I haven't seen anyone take issue with the OP's original premise that companies pay tariffs to sell their goods in other countries. 

That's not how it works. The importer pays the tariff. That cost is then passed on to the consumer in nearly every instance. So the tariffs make products/raw materials more expensive to import for US-based companies/consumers, decreasing demand, thereby reducing the promised (grossly overstated) revenue potential from tariffs and creating an inflationary environment. 

Also, these things aren't happening in a vacuum. The world is vast and resource-rich. The US isn't the only supply option for many things.

Tariffs have their place, but what Trump is doing is nonsensical. It won't deliver anything he's say it will and, more likely than not, will have the opposite impact on our trade +/- and will slow our economy, or worse. 

Edited Thursday at 03:00 PM by TylerDurden

[scourge165]

11 hours ago, Offthemat said:

It’s been a long time since I’ve heard anyone claim that tariffs were the cause of the depression.  Most economists today recognize that the Fed probably deserves the most blame, while an untimely tax increase  and the tariffs didn’t help, they were enacted after the depression had already begun.  Here’s a link to your NPR that might help you.  Odd that the Fed seems to be up to their old tricks, again. 
 

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5318076/tariffs-great-depression-explainer

Quote

 

"Certainly not," says Gary Richardson, economics professor at the University of California, Irvine and former historian of the Federal Reserve System.

"The depression started when tariffs were low. So the tariffs or the thought of having tariffs were not a cause of the Great Depression," Richardson tells NPR.

 

I hope you can at LEAST stop posting bogus nonsense like this.

The "depression" started after they PASSED Smoot-Hawley. There was no Depression at that point and it wasn't until 23 countries responded with the THREAT of tariffs or actual tariffs that the US was plunged into a great depression. 

 

 

I cited unemployment, inflation, GDP expansion at the time congress passed tariffs. All three were doing exceptionally well(as they are now).

I pointed out how it wasn't until AFTER we passed them that those three indicators started ticking up...and then finally how they SKY-ROCKETED in the FEW MONTHS after they were passed...with unemployment going from ~2.4% to 12.5% in the months after Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley into Law despite not wanting and economists BEGGING him not to.

 

Only Trump and MAGA could take such a historically and objectively AWFUL event and intentionally implement it again. And do it all based on a lie. the lie that that we pay these massive tariffs.

[Offthemat]

11 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Is that what "many now believe?"

Scholarly historians, like yourself, have an advantage over me. 

 

14 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

No, we should listen to the guy who proved the saying "the house always wins," is...ACTUALLY not true. Not when HE is President...

It’s easy to figure what the carried interesters are after, but why do you suppose the President is doing this?

[Paul158]

4 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

There are four pages in this thread and I haven't seen anyone take issue with the OP's original premise that companies pay tariffs to sell their goods in other countries. 

That's not how it works. The importer pays the tariff. That cost is then passed on to the consumer in nearly every instance. So the tariffs make products/raw materials more expensive to import for US-based companies/consumers, decreasing demand, thereby reducing the promised (grossly overstated) revenue potential from tariffs and creating an inflationary environment. 

Also, these things aren't happening in a vacuum. The world is vast and resource-rich. The US isn't the only supply option for many things.

Tariffs have their place, but what Trump is doing is nonsensical. It won't deliver anything he's say it will and, more likely than not, will have the opposite impact on our trade +/- and will slow our economy, or worse. 

What if the companies move here. Start up our old factories (or build new ones) that are just sitting here empty. Hire several thousand to several hundred thousand American employees. Produce those products here and avoid the tariffs. I would hope the Trump administration would provide some really nice, juicy incentives for those companies to come to America.

[scourge165]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

Scholarly historians, like yourself, have an advantage over me. 

Really just anyone who has any deductive reasoning skills and is willing to go beyond the wiki or first "Britania online" page can figure this out quite easily. 

Smoot-Hawley was the catalyst. 

If you use the date it was SIGNED into Law by Hoover, you're missing...all Historical context.

 

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s easy to figure what the carried interesters are after, but why do you suppose the President is doing this?

The "carried interesters?" You keep using that term as though it's a super clever one.

 

I think Trump is dumb enough to look at the 1870s and think we can go back to a time when we had no income tax and replace that with tariffs and that's a realistic outcome.

It's a fantasy. 

And I think he wants to force interest rates down. 

[scourge165]

6 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

What if the companies move here. Start up our old factories (or build new ones) that are just sitting here empty. Hire several thousand to several hundred thousand American employees. Produce those products here and avoid the tariffs. I would hope the Trump administration would provide some really nice, juicy incentives for those companies to come to America.

Your hopes would be dashed as he has said he won't.

In fact, when Biden signed the Chip act and Taiwan Semiconductor agreed to build 3 new Fabs in the US in what is...going to be at the heart of the next industrial revolution, AI, Biden provided 6.5B dollars to get TSM to spend 65B dollars here.

Trump has trashed that deal.

The Chips Act and it's one of the most successful pieces of legislation in the past 10-20 years. 

[scourge165]

27 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Does this mornings Great Depression end at noon ? 

I know you have trouble reading, but if you follow Smoot-Hawley, it was about a year and a half from the passing of the tariffs until we were right in the midst of substantial tariffs. 

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Your hopes would be dashed as he has said he won't.

In fact, when Biden signed the Chip act and Taiwan Semiconductor agreed to build 3 new Fabs in the US in what is...going to be at the heart of the next industrial revolution, AI, Biden provided 6.5B dollars to get TSM to spend 65B dollars here.

Trump has trashed that deal.

The Chips Act and it's one of the most successful pieces of legislation in the past 10-20 years. 

Do you know if Taiwan Semiconductor has started building their factories here? If they have are they in production now?

[TylerDurden]

20 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

What if the companies move here. Start up our old factories (or build new ones) that are just sitting here empty. Hire several thousand to several hundred thousand American employees. Produce those products here and avoid the tariffs. I would hope the Trump administration would provide some really nice, juicy incentives for those companies to come to America.

They won't, at least not as the PR stunts promise. The finances don't work for a variety of reasons. This is one of the ruses that politicians play. Hold a presser promising thousands of jobs, give away millions in tax dollars, if not billions...then, nothing. 

Recall the Foxconn fiasco. It's a story the continues to be repeated. Photo ops with shovels, 1/10th of the promises are delivered, if that. For instance, during the last Trump administration, he touted steel tariffs as a huge win because there was a slight uptick in US steel jobs, but that was outstripped by job losses in steel-related industries. It was a net loss - certainly nothing to celebrate. 

There certainly will be some industries that already have infrastructure in place may decide to ramp up production on a temporary basis, but that's window dressing. Car manufacturers, for instance, could increase production on a line or two for a short time, but it won't be a repatriation of production. 

I do understand the emotional element of this and I am not going to discount that factor in the decisions that are being made, because it appeals to a large portion of the voter pool. The US, historically, was a big producer of goods and entire regions were propped up by those industries and people long for the same environment. 

Edited Thursday at 03:29 PM by TylerDurden

[Paul158]

17 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Your hopes would be dashed as he has said he won't.

In fact, when Biden signed the Chip act and Taiwan Semiconductor agreed to build 3 new Fabs in the US in what is...going to be at the heart of the next industrial revolution, AI, Biden provided 6.5B dollars to get TSM to spend 65B dollars here.

Trump has trashed that deal.

The Chips Act and it's one of the most successful pieces of legislation in the past 10-20 years. 

I just read where they (TSM) want to invest another 100 billion dollars for new (5) FABs here in America. Dated March 3,2025

Edited Thursday at 03:36 PM by Paul158
missed a word

[scourge165]

11 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Do you know if Taiwan Semiconductor has started building their factories here? If they have are they in production now?

Yes. They already had some here, but they've got one in Washington, they have a couple in Arizona that are working.

One that's coming online next year. 

It's the different type of lithography machines from ASML that dictate what each is capable of. The newest one is capable of the 2NM chips as well as the high end Nvidia GPUs.

They have another scheduled to come on line in '27 that they've been building.

 

The ones that they promised to build under Trump...those probably won't be started for a couple years. 

[scourge165]

8 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I just read where they want to invest another 100 billion dollars for new (5) FABs here in America. Dated March 3,2025

Ok...so...why ask and then answer before I answer?

 

Yeah, they were already investing 65B dollars here over the next(and past) few years. 

The 100B comes with absolutely NONE of the "really nice juicy incentives," you were speaking off and they won't start building until Trump is out of office if they do.

 

Being as Trump is now charging 32% tariffs on Taiwan and has said he's going to put tariffs on the semiconductors at a later date, I doubt you'll see any of that money. Sorta like FoxConn(though in THAT case, Trump did think it was worth paying the company to move BEFORE they moved). 

 

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Yes. They already had some here, but they've got one in Washington, they have a couple in Arizona that are working.

One that's coming online next year. 

It's the different type of lithography machines from ASML that dictate what each is capable of. The newest one is capable of the 2NM chips as well as the high end Nvidia GPUs.

They have another scheduled to come on line in '27 that they've been building.

 

The ones that they promised to build under Trump...those probably won't be started for a couple years. 

That is some good news for current production and for the future. How will Americas stability be with all those factories or FABS on-line?

[scourge165]

21 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

They won't, at least not as the PR stunts promise. The finances don't work for a variety of reasons. This is one of the ruses that politicians play. Hold a presser promising thousands of jobs, give away millions in tax dollars, if not billions...then, nothing. 

Recall the Foxconn fiasco. It's a story the continues to be repeated. Photo ops with shovels, 1/10th of the promises are delivered, if that. For instance, during the last Trump administration, he touted steel tariffs as a huge win because there was a slight uptick in US steel jobs, but that was outstripped by job losses in steel-related industries. It was a net loss - certainly nothing to celebrate. 

There certainly will be some industries that already have infrastructure in place may decide to ramp up production on a temporary basis, but that's window dressing. Car manufacturers, for instance, could increase production on a line or two for a short time, but it won't be a repatriation of production. 

I do understand the emotional element of this and I am not going to discount that factor in the decisions that are being made, because it appeals to a large portion of the voter pool. The US, historically, was a big producer of goods and entire regions were propped up by those industries and people long for the same environment. 

FoxConn was EXACTLY what I thought of. 

 

On the other hand, because there was such a massive demand for Nvidia's GPUs, TSM was motivated to invest 65B and spend them here(with some of that coming from the Chips Act). 

Threatening someone and they'll start spending that money when they're doing with the billions they're already planning on spending...which is 2029, that's quintessential Trump and it's what people better HOPE happens here. 

Some way for him to save face when things turns really bad for him. 

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, scourge165 said:

Ok...so...why ask and then answer before I answer?

 

Yeah, they were already investing 65B dollars here over the next(and past) few years. 

The 100B comes with absolutely NONE of the "really nice juicy incentives," you were speaking off and they won't start building until Trump is out of office if they do.

 

Being as Trump is now charging 32% tariffs on Taiwan and has said he's going to put tariffs on the semiconductors at a later date, I doubt you'll see any of that money. Sorta like FoxConn(though in THAT case, Trump did think it was worth paying the company to move BEFORE they moved). 

 

I was just curious about what you were talking about so I just Iooked it up. Trying to stay informed. It popped up right away. All this technology stuff is a little out of my wheelhouse. No disrespect intended.

[scourge165]

11 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

That is some good news for current production and for the future. How will Americas stability be with all those factories or FABS on-line?

Well...if you destroy the economy and crush the industry at a pivotal time, a time when China is investing 1T Yuan in AI, then it's probably not going to help with American stability.

 

I think America was MORE stable when those companies were growing, in good shape, TSM made the decision to expand their production away from just Taiwan to Japan, Germany(countries that used to be allies) and then America where they'd already said they PLANNED to build more in the future.

 

So do I think this changed America's "stability?" Yes. I think it made it substantially less stable. 

Edited Thursday at 03:59 PM by scourge165

[Offthemat]

11 hours ago, scourge165 said:

The part people often get wrong is they ignore that the tariffs were passed BEFORE the market crash.

What dates do you have for the crash and passing of Smoot/Hawley?  Because I’m getting October 1929 for the crash and June 1930 for passing and signing of Smoot/Hawley.  Also showing that S/H raised tariffs from ~40% to ~60%.  How do the acceptable pre S/H rates compare to Trump’s?

[scourge165]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

What dates do you have for the crash and passing of Smoot/Hawley?  Because I’m getting October 1929 for the crash and June 1930 for passing and signing of Smoot/Hawley.  Also showing that S/H raised tariffs from ~40% to ~60%.  How do the acceptable pre S/H rates compare to Trump’s?

Congress pass Smoot-Hawley in May of 1929(May 28th to be exact)

THAT is what led to everything else. If you're going by when Hoover signed it into law, I believe as an economist, you're being intellectually dishonest. The economic implications of tariffs start long before the day they're ACTUALLY imposed.

23 of the Nations Economies had either responded with tariffs or threatened tariffs by that Oct when the Market Crashed.

 

Mind you, ALL of this comes after the league of Nations had a massive economic summit to discuss the end of tariffs...and here is why;

 

Edited Thursday at 05:39 PM by scourge165

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

What if the companies move here. Start up our old factories (or build new ones) that are just sitting here empty. Hire several thousand to several hundred thousand American employees. Produce those products here and avoid the tariffs. I would hope the Trump administration would provide some really nice, juicy incentives for those companies to come to America.

You should have voted for Bernie Sanders if you wanted this.

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I know you have trouble reading, but if you follow Smoot-Hawley, it was about a year and a half from the passing of the tariffs until we were right in the midst of substantial tariffs. 

I know you have trouble comprehending but you said the Great Depression was happening Theis morning. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, Paul158 said:

3 PM eastern time. Try to compose your emotions.

Will do. It’s hard though.  

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, scourge165 said:

Congress

Got it.  The House passed it in May of 1929.  After Hoover asked them to devise a tariff to help farmers, who were already experiencing the depression.  They didn’t follow his guidance.  It wasn’t until June, 1930 that the Senate passed it.  The farmers were experiencing pressure from tariffs imposed by Europe due to their farmers increased/over production and the higher interest rates imposed by the fed in early 1928. 
 

I said from the beginning that tariffs didn’t help matters during the depression, but to say they were the cause of it is just wrong.  There is plenty of blame for the Fed.  The stock market was so crazy that people were borrowing from the bank to buy stocks on margin.  Waited too long and overreacted.
 

 The best thing about this is Trump’s inclusion of trade barriers and currency manipulation in the formula.  And he’s let it be known that tariffs can be lifted if fair agreements can be reached, but few will move without being prodded.