candide

U.S. tariffs are differentiated according to the specific good involved. It's 2.5% on cars but 25% on trucks. Keep in mind that, unlike UK, the EU is the second export market for the U.S., so it has a significant negotiating power. What will Trump demand in exchange of 0% tariffs (appart from chlorinated chicken)? Are you naive enough to think that Trump will not take advantage of the assymetric power of the U.S. to extort significant concessions from UK?

I have never denied any economic indicator. My point has always been that inflation and price of energy are global phenomenon which have affected each and every country, and are not specific to the U.S. And also posted the relevant data about it. This is the main reason why all incumbents have lost vote shares in these countries, or even have been outvoted as in UK. The "great" aspect of the U.S. economy is that no other large developed country, confronted with similar levels of inflation, has enjoyed so much post-pandemic GDP growth. Compared to 2019, growth in the U.S. has been around 2 times higher than Canada, 2.5 times higher than the Eurozone, and 3.5 times higher than UK or Japan. (I have posted the data several times, I can repost it if you wish.)

Ridiculous empty comment.

The obvious reason is the impact of post-Covid economic problems, in particular inflation, which has affected each and every developed country, whatever the political colour of incumbents. Archived FT article: https://archive.is/5yM7S

Exactly!

1. I 'm not arguing that tariffs may not have any benefits or other drawbacks that I didn't mention (such as other countries retaliating with tariffs), just pointing out that it contradicts Trump's promise to reduce inflation. Of course, if for some reason they are not extensively applied, the impact on inflation will be lower. 2. It's basically the law of supply and demand. When demand for jobs is higher than supply of manpower, wages increase. Of course, it can be tempered by the factors you evoke, but it also contradicts the stated objective of reducing inflation. In the mind of citizen, the satisfaction of having less immigrants may compensate for an increase of inflation, but that's another debate. 3. The previous tax cuts did not create much inflation because it was compensated by low priced imports, as you mentioned. However Chinese and other imports will be taxed more (again, in case the tariff policy is extensively applied), so it would not work for the new tax cuts. Not all the money made available will be spent on goods and services, that's true. So It's about how much demand and growth will be generated by tax cuts. If there is a low impact on growth, it won't generate much inflation. Actually, in case deporting immigrants may result in a decrease of the number of jobs, it will tend to reduce demand, so it may also compensate for the tax cuts effect. All in all, you may be right that tax cuts may not have a significant effect on inflation. To sum up, these promises tend to increase inflation and tend to contradict the other promise to reduce inflation. Their impact also depends on the extent to which the moderating factors mentioned may have an effect, and most of all on the extent to which these promises will be implemented. Depending on these uncertainties, they may not excessively increase inflation, but will certainly not contribute to reduce it. You may notice that I'm not the only one to make this 'wild' claim about inflation... https://apnews.com/article/trump-inflation-tariffs-taxes-immigration-federal-reserve-a18de763fcc01557258c7f33cab375ed

I think it's the same in U.S. Universities. It's usually not University students who target homosexuals and trans, It's other people (as you know).

More lame deflections. Better not waste other people's time with your irrelevant comments! 😀

I doubt that anyone would be ostracised by Oxford students for just being homosexual. There must be something else but there is no news about it, just that his ex-partner related an "incident".

Mainly a nice try at avoiding the issues I raised. 1. My point 1 was that tariffs lead to price increase. You avoided to consider this one. Are you denying that too? 2a. You are right about the possible role of productivity. However, it doesn't really work like you are presenting it. In order to increase productivity, it is necessary to reorganize, automatize, etc... and it takes time to do it. On top of it, it is not obvious that U.S. born may be more productive for jobs necessitating had work, such as harvesting grapes, or that there is any scope for increasing productivity in all jobs (ex jobs in shops, restaurants, etc..) In case the productivity increase you describe happens, it won't happen on short term. 2b. You assume that it will be easy to find Americans or legal immigrants to fill these jobs. This is not the case. Unemployment is already low, and the baby boomers are retiring while low-birth generations are join the job market. In simpler terms, there are not enough U.S. born people to just replace people who are retiring. 2c You also ignore the fact that if wages are increased for the unfilled jobs, other businesses will have to increase wages for the other jobs, in order to keep their employees (that's what happened in every developped country after the pandemic), in particular for "productive" people. 3. Tax cuts increase the amount of money available for spending, so it increases demand and growth (that's the stated objective), and increased demand tend to increase inflation. You can deny it as much as you want, increased demand tend to increase inflation. The only question is to which extent? At best, it will be limited but will certainly not lead to the promised lower inflation. Now consider how these three factors may interact: local producers will be facing strong demand on top of having to increase their wages because there is a lack of manpower, while businesses relying on imports for a large part of their business will have to increase their prices, on top of also likely having to increase the wages of the employees they want to keep.

Irrelevant deflection. All what I stated is basic economics. Are you claiming that tariffs don't lead to price increases to compensentate for the cost increase of imported goods? Are you claiming that when there are many vacant positions and not enough people to fill them, it doesn't cause wage inflation? Are you claiming that stimulating demand with tax cuts doesn't cause inflation?

You can add to it that the big oil companies funding the GOP have absolutely no interest in driving prices down, and that the OPEC will reduce production if prices go down, as they always did. After puting ethical concerns apart, the main problem of Trump's program is that it is inflationist (unless he just pretends to apply it, as he did to a large extent during his first mandate). 1. Tariffs will result in higher prices and fuel inflation. 2. Mass deportation will leave many jobs unfilled and induce wage inflation, and hence price inflation 3. Tax cuts will stimulate demand, which will also trigger inflation. I wonder how the voters, who voted Trump because they believed his fake promise to reduce inflation (which is currently already low), will react to an increase of inflation. How will they vote during the midterm elections?

Increasing national defense expenses would be useful. However, coordinating and optimising these expenses at the aggregated level is much more important.

Why should I care about it? I did not post it?

Trump policies are inflationist: - mass deportation will induce wage inflation, and hence price inflation, - tariffs will create price inflation, - tax cuts will stimulate demand and hence trigger inflation.

The name of the thread should be changed for: "After Trump win, MAGA fans are still posting ridiculous conspiracy theories"! 😀

Anywhere, If they commit similar crimes.

Ok. The second part of my post was also hypothetical.

Jail them! Apparently, they were dumb enough to proudly post their crimes on social media. It should help!

He chose to reply to my post about it, didn't he? 😁

The future is hypothetical, the past is fact. Fact is that after 4 years this hypothesis has not been verifed. 😃

That's exactly what your reply was. How interesting you comment may be, it has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing, which was about trade deals and negotiating power. You made assumptions about the benefits from trade deals made by the EU without any idea of what was in these trade deals. One consistent characteristic was that the EU was giving some access to its market for products in exchange for getting access to the partner's service market, and UK was clearly the main service supplier in Europe, in particular of financial services. The other aspect is that UK was a significant player in the EU and had an influence in the negotiations. Claiming that these trade agreements were made only in favour of France and Germany shows your ignorance about this topic.

Nauseus got an idea! 😃

Blah blah. You don't know what's in the trade deals and how they have been negotiated.

I reply for you. I checked the trade deals with NZ and UK had to give more access to agricultural imports than the EU, in exchange for the same access for its products than the EU. 😁 It confirms my initial claim. https://borderlex.net/2022/07/13/new-zealand-eu-and-uk-ftas-herald-healthy-new-competition-for-good-deals/ https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/uk-new-zealand-trade-deal-how-does-this-compare-to-the-eu-deal/