Harley-Davidson moving production off shore to circumvent tariffs ...

12346

Replies

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    edited July 10 #152

    Kellercl said:

        "I just need to stick with the fishing sections of this forum, I can't stand the stupidity anymore...  economic growth  was fantastic the last 10 years.  What on God's green earth are you all smoking?  I am not exaggerating when I say  made well over a $100,000 in capital gains over the last decade by simply tracking the SP500...  Jesus people.              No economic growth?  In the last 10 years the SP500 has over doubled in value.  

    Edit
    Since 2008 (10 years) the SP500 is up triple....  just saying.  If you all didn't benefit in the last 10 years, that would be  your own silly fault."

    -----------------------------------

    We'll certainly miss the comedy provided by someone unable to differentiate between stock market performance in a historically low interest rate evironment and poor economic growth.
    GDP in 2009 was -8, in 2018 is was +2. 

    Unemployment in 2009 was 9%, in 2018 we have 4%.

    The SP500 tripled in value in the same time period.

    The truth is you are ignorant on the facts and simply want to believe in nonsense based on nothing more than party affiliation.  Sad!

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    kellercl said:
    A lot of people will disagree with you saying that Roosevelt’s policies helped. 
    Ask anyone who ran afoul of the National Recovery Act. 
     Or the confiscation of privately held gold. 
     Or trying to stack the Supreme Court. 
    Either way, you are simply mistaken, yet again.  The great depression did not continue into the 1950s as you previously claimed.  Do you ever admit to your numerous errors?  For the record that isn't a real question, but rather rhetorical.  I am continually astounded at how inaccurate people's understanding of historical fact is.  Pickup a text book and get off the internet.    
    FYI, the national recovery act, WPA and other Roosevelt era programs were ended because of the war. The monetary policies from the 30’s plus the end of the war had great effects on the economy. 
     
    Still doesn't change the fact that your comment about the great depression lasting into the 1950s is complete and utter BS.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,756 Admiral
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • Joe McJoe Mc Posts: 710 Officer
    mplspug said:
    Don't own or want a bike.  Don't care.
    So what are you doing on this thread???
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG

    You have a very active imagination, SJM.

    I did blame tariffs for deepening the Great Depression.  Apparently you've seen the error in your ways on that topic, but if you'd like to come back to that topic, I'm more than happy to do so.

    I never said anything about Obama except to point out that nobody, except you, is saying GDP growth during the Great Recession -- a completely different topic -- was either a "monumental achievement" or "escapes any fault".

    If you'd like to discuss the anemic growth during the Obama administration -- or the cause of the depression in the first place -- I'd be happy to, but tariffs isn't going to come up in the conversation.

    But let's not confuse the topics in an attempt to point out some imagined hypocrisy or attempted diversion with the familiar "but Obama" refrain. 

    Thanks...Mike
    You and tariffs are like the small child who is afraid of an imagined evil lurking in the dark.

    Expanding your knowledge will only cause this baseless fear to vanish.

    Until then any discussion seems pointless.
    ------------------------------
    "From 1871 to 1913, “the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent and gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain and well above the U.S. average in the 20th century,” noted Alfred Eckes Jr., chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission under President Reagan."


    https://books.google.com/books/about/Opening_America_s_Market.html?id=CMndjwEACAAJ&hl=en


    This might come as a surprise, but our economy (and our government's primary source of revenue) is quite different now than it was then, as are the global markets.  If you were hoping to expand my knowledge, you're going to have to try a bit harder, and might try someone other than Eckes.  If you'd like I can send you my copy that very book, too. lol

    Down to the old "this time is different" argument?

    Rather dubious company, don't you think?

    https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640

    "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
    ---Ecclesiastes 1:9 



    In the event you're remotely interested, I'm disputing the argument as an oversimplification that's also without causation made by a reformed globalist.  I'm happy to go into it in detail if you'd like.

    Incidentally, your book and Bible quote isn't really helping the argument on the historical effects of tariffs vis-a-vis the Great Depression.

    As an aside, have you read that book?  Was it good?

  • sjm1582002sjm1582002 Posts: 4,261 Captain
    kellercl said:

    Kellercl said:

        "I just need to stick with the fishing sections of this forum, I can't stand the stupidity anymore...  economic growth  was fantastic the last 10 years.  What on God's green earth are you all smoking?  I am not exaggerating when I say  made well over a $100,000 in capital gains over the last decade by simply tracking the SP500...  Jesus people.              No economic growth?  In the last 10 years the SP500 has over doubled in value.  

    Edit
    Since 2008 (10 years) the SP500 is up triple....  just saying.  If you all didn't benefit in the last 10 years, that would be  your own silly fault."

    -----------------------------------

    We'll certainly miss the comedy provided by someone unable to differentiate between stock market performance in a historically low interest rate evironment and poor economic growth.
    GDP in 2009 was -8, in 2018 is was +2. 

    Unemployment in 2009 was 9%, in 2018 we have 4%.

    The SP500 tripled in value in the same time period.

    The truth is you are ignorant on the facts and simply want to believe in nonsense based on nothing more than party affiliation.  Sad!

    I thought that the GDP for the USA in 2008 was more like +$14 trillion.

    Or are you the straight man?


      







     
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Seriously?


  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    and some perspective:


  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,756 Admiral
    2009 was one heck of a hole to dig out of. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • sjm1582002sjm1582002 Posts: 4,261 Captain

    You have a very active imagination, SJM.

    I did blame tariffs for deepening the Great Depression.  Apparently you've seen the error in your ways on that topic, but if you'd like to come back to that topic, I'm more than happy to do so.

    I never said anything about Obama except to point out that nobody, except you, is saying GDP growth during the Great Recession -- a completely different topic -- was either a "monumental achievement" or "escapes any fault".

    If you'd like to discuss the anemic growth during the Obama administration -- or the cause of the depression in the first place -- I'd be happy to, but tariffs isn't going to come up in the conversation.

    But let's not confuse the topics in an attempt to point out some imagined hypocrisy or attempted diversion with the familiar "but Obama" refrain. 

    Thanks...Mike
    You and tariffs are like the small child who is afraid of an imagined evil lurking in the dark.

    Expanding your knowledge will only cause this baseless fear to vanish.

    Until then any discussion seems pointless.
    ------------------------------
    "From 1871 to 1913, “the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent and gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain and well above the U.S. average in the 20th century,” noted Alfred Eckes Jr., chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission under President Reagan."


    https://books.google.com/books/about/Opening_America_s_Market.html?id=CMndjwEACAAJ&hl=en


    This might come as a surprise, but our economy (and our government's primary source of revenue) is quite different now than it was then, as are the global markets.  If you were hoping to expand my knowledge, you're going to have to try a bit harder, and might try someone other than Eckes.  If you'd like I can send you my copy that very book, too. lol

    Down to the old "this time is different" argument?

    Rather dubious company, don't you think?

    https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640

    "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
    ---Ecclesiastes 1:9 



    In the event you're remotely interested, I'm disputing the argument as an oversimplification that's also without causation made by a reformed globalist.  I'm happy to go into it in detail if you'd like.

    Incidentally, your book and Bible quote isn't really helping the argument on the historical effects of tariffs vis-a-vis the Great Depression.

    As an aside, have you read that book?  Was it good?

    I enjoyed it and would give that book 4 out of 5 stars as it has plenty of history about less well known economic crashes..

    The authors did come under some criticism after it was published......though I forget the reasons.

    "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth."
    ---Abraham Lincoln
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 7,466 Admiral
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    Trade agreements are negotiated not dictated.


    That's how. 



    There is an art to actually accomplishing something other than  destroying something that's not perfect instead of working to make it better.  That requires the thinking of an adult. A sane adult.
    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • sjm1582002sjm1582002 Posts: 4,261 Captain
    and some perspective:


    "Barely perceptible economic growth"?



  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,100 Admiral
    edited July 10 #164
    Gardawg said:
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    Trade agreements are negotiated not dictated.


    That's how. 



    There is an art to actually accomplishing something other than  destroying something that's not perfect instead of working to make it better.  That requires the thinking of an adult. A sane adult.
    Isn't the current trade row the result of other countries undermining trade agreements/getting unfair access to markets?
    What's a country to do, let the offenders eat the good faith country's lunch in the global markets?
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 7,466 Admiral
    Gardawg said:
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    Trade agreements are negotiated not dictated.


    That's how. 



    There is an art to actually accomplishing something other than  destroying something that's not perfect instead of working to make it better.  That requires the thinking of an adult. A sane adult.
    Isn't the current trade row the result of other countries undermining trade agreements/getting unfair access to markets?
    What's a country to do, let the offenders eat the good faith country's lunch in the global markets?
    the current trade row is fabricated for political gain … it will result in decreased overall trade for everyone 

    the long term outlook is not good … IMO

    … I do not like that  but I still think it is 
    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • sjm1582002sjm1582002 Posts: 4,261 Captain
    Gardawg said:
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    Trade agreements are negotiated not dictated.


    That's how. 



    There is an art to actually accomplishing something other than  destroying something that's not perfect instead of working to make it better.  That requires the thinking of an adult. A sane adult.
    Free trade has only been possible because the US Navy patrols the world's sea lanes, keeping them open and safe.

    It never existed before.

    For the last seventy years American taxpayers and American companies have been taxed so that the US Navy can complete that mission. Which not only greatly benefits our foreign competitors but places American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

    The days where the USA provides this lucrative and unappreciated subsidy to an undeserving world are coming to a close.

    We will then see just who can "compete" at what.












  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG

    and some perspective:


    "Barely perceptible economic growth"?



    I'll leave the politically motivated pejoratives alone.  The facts are the facts:  GDP contracted in 2008 and 2009 and expanded in each of the following years.  Stock indices (i.e., S&P500) grew during this period as well.  Those are the facts, and they are (I hope) not in dispute....Mike

    p.s. thanks for the book recommendation -- I'll pick it up. 
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,086 AG
    Maybe the GDP should have the government spending from dept subtracted in order to have a factual comparison.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    I agree, Battery.  That would be a very interesting view and discussion.  Please feel free to construct it and comment on it. 
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 7,466 Admiral
    Before the US Navy there was the British Navy who kept the sea lanes open to trade. Their nation depended on trade.  Trade depended on peace.  

    That's one of the reasons given for globalization.  Every nation is dependent on every other nation so we won't have any more world wars. 
    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    edited July 10 #171
    Gardawg said:
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    Trade agreements are negotiated not dictated.


    That's how. 



    There is an art to actually accomplishing something other than  destroying something that's not perfect instead of working to make it better.  That requires the thinking of an adult. A sane adult.
    Free trade has only been possible because the US Navy patrols the world's sea lanes, keeping them open and safe.

    It never existed before.

    For the last seventy years American taxpayers and American companies have been taxed so that the US Navy can complete that mission. Which not only greatly benefits our foreign competitors but places American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

    The days where the USA provides this lucrative and unappreciated subsidy to an undeserving world are coming to a close.

    We will then see just who can "compete" at what.

    That is an overly simplistic and naive view of the goals of free trade and our US Navy to affect foreign policy.   Even if he gives you +1 for toughness, Eckes wouldn't approve of your message.  If you'd like I can quote him.  ;)

    It's fair to say there are many ways to affect change, and that Trump's way is a clear divergent from recent free-trade policies.  It is hardly a foregone conclusion that it will yield the results the advocates of this policy seem to think it will, or instead trend towards the more recent historical results when they were last tried.  I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'm betting on the latter and hoping for the former....Mike

    p.s. tariffs are paid for by the American taxpayers and American companies (who will undoubtedly pass most of it along to the taxpayers), so I'm not sure how this changes that dynamic at all.
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,100 Admiral
    Gardawg said:
    Gardawg said:
    Gardawg said:
    at the end of WWII the US had the only functioning industrial base in the entire world.

    things have changed 

    now we have to compete


    Your absolutely right. 
    But when some markets block your products or place high tariffs or duties on them, what should be done?
    Trade agreements are negotiated not dictated.


    That's how. 



    There is an art to actually accomplishing something other than  destroying something that's not perfect instead of working to make it better.  That requires the thinking of an adult. A sane adult.
    Isn't the current trade row the result of other countries undermining trade agreements/getting unfair access to markets?
    What's a country to do, let the offenders eat the good faith country's lunch in the global markets?
    the current trade row is fabricated for political gain … it will result in decreased overall trade for everyone 

    the long term outlook is not good … IMO

    … I do not like that  but I still think it is 
    I'm not sure the anti-dumping measures the EU has imposed and extended on Chinese steel were triggered by a fabrication for political gain.
    Inequitable trade deals and blatant cheating surely can't be good for everyone either.
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 7,466 Admiral
    The trade war will be just as successful as Trumps'  promise of better and cheaper health insurance for all. To be fair Trump has kept some of his promises. Like rolling back environmental protections. Now coal companies can dump poison into the waterways near their mines.  And he has protected American industries like the formaldehyde industry.


    The Environmental Protection Agency is suppressing a bombshell report warning that most Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor to risk developing leukemia or other diseases, a former agency official and a current one told Politico.

    A draft health assessment of the chemical was finished before Donald Trump became president — yet the EPA has yet to release the findings.

    “They’re stonewalling every step of the way,” said the current EPA official, who was not named by Politico. The official was referring to the formaldehyde study as well as other assessments of chemicals by the agency’s scientifically independent Risk Information System.

    Former EPA head Scott Pruitt, who resigned Thursday in the face of multiple ethics investigations, was asked about the assessment at a Senate hearing in January.

    “It’s my understanding that the EPA has finalized its conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and other cancers,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told Pruitt. The EPA chief responded: “You know, my understanding is similar to yours.”

    Keeping the health assessment under wraps fuels criticism that the EPA, increasingly peopled by political appointees with corporate connections, appears more concerned about shielding industries than protecting the environment and the health of Americans from toxic chemicals. 


    But hey, what's a little cancer for everyone ? Isn't that better than a corporation losing money?


    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-suppressing-formaldehyde-health-assessment_us_5b4189e1e4b05127ccf2dd3d?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003


    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    edited July 10 #174
    You forgot, he opened national parks to mining and drilling, too.  Let's not shortchange these significant accomplishments.
  • sjm1582002sjm1582002 Posts: 4,261 Captain
    "Overly simplistic and naive".......but entirely accurate and correct.

    Mount Rushmore is not populated with admirers of a failed trade policy based on fantasy.





  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    edited July 10 #176
    Not to get overly dramatic, but I could say accurately and correctly that "we never declared war on Vietnam", but that doesn't mean we didn't "kill millions", it just means I oversimplified the facts and made a naive pronouncement.

    On a related note, it's not 1927 any more, and half those guys also admired slavery.  Teddy did love the navy and would have certainly approved of your message.  :)
  • sjm1582002sjm1582002 Posts: 4,261 Captain
    Let's try to stay on the subject.

    There is no disputing the primary role of the US Navy since Japan's defeat in WW2 and who has paid for it.

    There is no disputing the fact that each and every one of our foreign competitors has greatly benefited by the USA performing  that mission.

    There can be no disputing the fact that the enormous cost for that formidable undertaking, borne soley by American taxpayers and companies, both lowers the standard living of American taxpayers and weakens American companies ability to compete against foreign competitors.

    Every trade policy has benefits and costs. 

    Pretending otherwise only demostrates a lack of understanding.

    There are no magic carpet rides in the real world.

  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,100 Admiral
    Let's try to stay on the subject.

    There is no disputing the primary role of the US Navy since Japan's defeat in WW2 and who has paid for it.

    There is no disputing the fact that each and every one of our foreign competitors has greatly benefited by the USA performing  that mission.

    There can be no disputing the fact that the enormous cost for that formidable undertaking, borne soley by American taxpayers and companies, both lowers the standard living of American taxpayers and weakens American companies ability to compete against foreign competitors.

    Every trade policy has benefits and costs. 

    Pretending otherwise only demostrates a lack of understanding.

    There are no magic carpet rides in the real world.

    Absolutely.  One side is going to benefit more in every trade deal, that side should be America.  
     
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,756 Admiral
    And don’t forget that the United States since 1946 provided the protection of Western Europe. Thus allowing those countries to have their expensive social programs while we kept the Soviets of their backs. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG

    Let's try to stay on the subject.

    There is no disputing the primary role of the US Navy since Japan's defeat in WW2 and who has paid for it.

    There is no disputing the fact that each and every one of our foreign competitors has greatly benefited by the USA performing  that mission.

    There can be no disputing the fact that the enormous cost for that formidable undertaking, borne soley by American taxpayers and companies, both lowers the standard living of American taxpayers and weakens American companies ability to compete against foreign competitors.

    Every trade policy has benefits and costs. 

    Pretending otherwise only demostrates a lack of understanding.

    There are no magic carpet rides in the real world.

    Nobody is disputing the facts you state as such in this post, and nobody is disputing every trade policy has benefits and costs.

    In fact, I don't I disagree with a single word, except perhaps to note the "magic carpet ride" provided by the Navy has been going on for 80 years now.

    But it's not nearly all of the story.  Since you have some affinity for Eckes, here it is in his own words:

    In my own research I have found confirmation that U.S. negotiators have on many occasions accepted less than optimal commercial outcomes in order to achieve foreign policy priorities. Given this country’s role in world affairs, it was perhaps inevitable that our trade diplomats should wear foreign‐policy glasses when negotiating trade issues.

    Source: https://www.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FMF-eckes-revised-final-10-18-16-2016.pdf

    That paper, authored during this past presidential election cycle, will probably appeal to you.  Eckes is an insightful guy (and a fair presenter of facts) even if we happen to disagree on some of the policy finer points.

    In an attempt to further discussion on the subject, please allow me to ask you a very pointed question -- how do you defend deferring the cost of the US Navy against the backdrop of a trade deficit with tariffs....when tariffs are borne by the US consumer.  I can't get there from there, so perhaps you might demonstrate your understanding on the topic by discussing this, and perhaps help me come to understand just how you see this playing out.  Or, look over the horizon, and presume for a moment we could roll the clock back to 1900's tax laws there was no income tax and tariffs and duties were the primary income of the federal government -- how would we ever hope to both generate revenue and compete on the global playing field with industries protected from competition by tariffs.    How do we end the magic carpet ride and where does it lead?

    Thanks...Mike


  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Absolutely.  One side is going to benefit more in every trade deal, that side should be America.  
     
    I'm guessing you're not a dealmaker by day.
Sign In or Register to comment.