Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Poor Strangelove.

[iam416]

Also, as I suspected, Canada and Mexico have waaay more to lose in a trade war.

But, I’m most happy that Progs are bemoaning how taxes increase costs for consumers. It’s good news. I trust they’ll remember this lesson the next time they think about making corporations pay their “fair share.”

[CGVT]

Holy shit. That's a reach. Even for you.

[lineygoblue]

One of the funniest things I've seen in a long time was Chuck Shumer holding up an avacado and telling our costs for "guac" are going to go up. Then he whips out a Corona and says that Mexican beer prices will go up ...

Make sure you put it back in your fridge, Chuck.

image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fimage-service%2Fversion%2Fc%3AYTZkNjU3NzYtZWVjZC00%3ANDQyNjgxYjktMmE1Mi00%2Fnytariffs250203_photos.jpg%3Ff%3DLandscape%2B16%253A9%26w%3D770%26q%3D1&w=1920&q=80.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

TBF, it's really too early to tell how much actual leverage Trump has with his threats of tariffs. Is it very little, as his detractors would have it or is it something of value that his supporters would have it. So far, reports from the leftist press seem to be acknowledging he got something from both Canada and Mexico. Window dressing to sooth the MAGA masses? Or are the concessions meaningful? If the characterization of those concessions are nothing more than PR, it's unlikely that the heads of state of Mexico and Canada would be acknowledging, even in typically vague diplomatic language, they got strong-armed. It seems the general perception is that they did.

What is completely predictable is how the left will present early arguments that will tend to denigrate what has happened so far as a result of Trump leveraging trade with Mexico and Canada. It appears he got concessions on border security for drugs, guns and immigration. Seems good to me even, as the press argues, wha he got is nothing that Biden didn't get. But, who really knows real outcomes when characterization of realities are presented and juiced by political bias on both sides of the political spectrum.

I haven't dug and I don't intend to but I'm pretty sure I could come up with factoids supporting the positive impact of Trump's tariffs. By the same token the leftis press and DSL, representing the left side of the political spectrum, will post factoids that support a negative view of outcomes ..... and CGVT will nod approvingly with a follow-on post.-

Well, the markets recovered on Monday from Sunday's pre-market dive and were even up in late afternoon trading. So, it appears Trump's tariff moves haven't upset the global economic outlook ..... yet.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Holy shit. That's a reach. Even for you.

How is that a "reach". A "tax" is a "tax" isn't it. Or...isn't it?

[THE_WIZARD_]

Chuck ia a dumbfuck. Pure and simple.

[iam416]

How is that a "reach". A "tax" is a "tax" isn't it. Or...isn't it?

Of course it is. Regulatory burdens of all types make things more expensive for consumers. It's blindingly obvious. The only question then -- and my point -- was whether or not you agree with regulatory burden -- ideally on net benefit grounds. Progs love making things way more expensive for customers if it serves their ends. But, if comes from DJT, then making things way more expensive for consumers causes Chuck Schumer to fret about avocados...and just a week ago, AOC to bemoan the huge jump in prices for coffee (lmao).

So, yeah -- it cracks me up when Progs talk about their oh-so-fucking genuine concern for consumer prices.

Now, for the DJT tariffs -- given what I know about him and his, to be charitable, performative nature -- I'm waiting to see what actually happens. In the main, though, like all taxes, I'm against them unless you can fully justify the net benefit and when it comes to hapless likes of Canada and Mexico then I'm not on board. China? That's a different analysis.

[Dr. Strangelove]

We got them to post a job opening. The war on drugs is won, my friend.

[Dr. Strangelove]

TBF, it's really too early to tell how much actual leverage Trump has with his threats of tariffs. Is it very little, as his detractors would have it or is it something of value that his supporters would have it. So far, reports from the leftist press seem to be acknowledging he got something from both Canada and Mexico. Window dressing to sooth the MAGA masses? Or are the concessions meaningful? If the characterization of those concessions are nothing more than PR, it's unlikely that the heads of state of Mexico and Canada would be acknowledging, even in typically vague diplomatic language, they got strong-armed. It seems the general perception is that they did.

What is completely predictable is how the left will present early arguments that will tend to denigrate what has happened so far as a result of Trump leveraging trade with Mexico and Canada. It appears he got concessions on border security for drugs, guns and immigration. Seems good to me even, as the press argues, wha he got is nothing that Biden didn't get. But, who really knows real outcomes when characterization of realities are presented and juiced by political bias on both sides of the political spectrum.

I haven't dug and I don't intend to but I'm pretty sure I could come up with factoids supporting the positive impact of Trump's tariffs. By the same token the leftis press and DSL, representing the left side of the political spectrum, will post factoids that support a negative view of outcomes ..... and CGVT will nod approvingly with a follow-on post.-

Well, the markets recovered on Monday from Sunday's pre-market dive and were even up in late afternoon trading. So, it appears Trump's tariff moves haven't upset the global economic outlook ..... yet.

For the record, almost all the stuff I post criticizing Trump on tariffs comes from traditional conservatives or libertarians. Dominic Pino at National Review and Scott Lincicome at the Cato Institute are two of the big ones. For example:

Trump Canada Tariff Threat Gains Nothing New | National Review

One of the elements both gentlemen talk about is uncertainty. Uncertainty causes businesses to be risk adverse and invest less. Trump can wake up any given day and make threats to countries we already have deals with, in writing, SIGNED BY TRUMP HIMSELF.

The idea that this comes exclusively from "leftist press" looking to smear Trump is pure horseshit. If anything he's being attacked far more from the principled right. Go read some Thomas Sowell and see if he has a positive view of tariffs.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Separate post for the meat of the above post by Dominic Pino:

******************************************

The “new commitments” are either pointless or not new. Does anyone seriously believe that Canada’s appointing a fentanyl czar will make any measurable difference in drug overdose deaths? The Canadian government had already announced plans to better coordinate federal law enforcement efforts at the border, with a statement specifically mentioning organized crime, fentanyl, and money laundering, in January.

The bigger issue for Canada is that Trudeau won’t be the prime minister anymore come next month, and Canada is headed for an election in which the Conservative Party led by Pierre Poilievre will almost certainly win a majority. Poilievre has also been campaigning on border security and fighting crime. Trump will have a natural ally on these issues as prime minister of Canada in a short time.

Instead of laying the groundwork for that beneficial relationship, Trump has put Poilievre in the awkward position of having to say that Canada will continue to exist and wonder why imports from his country would be taxed more than twice as high as those from China. “Fentanyl’s coming from China. It’s killing our people too,” Poilievre said.

Trump’s electoral mandate for border security was about to align with Poilievre’s electoral mandate for border security. Now, in the name of securing the border, Trump has blown up the trade agreement he negotiated during his first term in exchange for meaningless promises from a Canadian prime minister who won’t be in office in less than two months. If this is great negotiating, I’d hate to see what poor negotiating looks like.

Trump Canada Tariff Threat Gains Nothing New | National Review

[iam416]

The writers at the NRO are intellectually honest.

[Mike]

Speaking of NRO, Rich Lowry has a great piece on the Panama Canal. While everyone was paying attention to the tariff showdown, the Unites States convinced Panama to cancel their contracts with Chinese (Hong Kong) companies that are running the largest ports on each side of the canal. This is a massive win for the United States and the West. We are clearly "Under New Management".

[Dr. Strangelove]

Cassidy a yes on RFK and Todd Young a yes on Gabbard, which likely means these two absolute losers are set to be confirmed.

If so would likely mean Gaetz is the only one of Trump's first picks that not even he could drag across the finish line. Primarily because Gaetz is so deeply unpopular in Congress.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Waffle House goes woke, tries to undermine the Trump agenda.

Waffle House is placing a surcharge on every egg it sells | CNN Business