Because Kamala

[17thfabn]

At least he didn't turn the frogs gay.

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/29/democrat-kamala-harris-surrenders-north-carolina-withdraws-nearly-2-million-planned-ad-spend-state/
 

Quote

 

Democrat presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris is waving the white flag in North Carolina, surrendering the state to former President Donald Trump as her campaign withdraws nearly $2 million in planned ad buys from television stations statewide one week before the election.

The more than $1.7 million in canceled ad buys by Harris’s campaign in North Carolina suggests that her team believes, given polling data and early vote data, that the Tar Heel State is no longer in play for her.

 

I guess the accepted wisdom is that Harris was at a disadvantage from the get-go. IMHO, Hurricane Helene was the coup de grace. Had she and FEMA done smart things, she would have had a shot at winning NC.

[rmgill]

Wait, we were assured that Asheville was a sweep for Harris! What could have gone wrong there? 

[Stargrunt6]

Report from the Kamala rally

https://youtu.be/cdAUUP9-Fwk

 

Edited October 29, 2024 by Stargrunt6

[Skywalkre]

On 10/24/2024 at 1:54 AM, Rick said:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25247867-23-nobel-economists-sign-letter-saying-harris-agenda-vastly-better-for-us-economy

I wonder if any of the above "experts" were awake during the economy when Trump was President vs the last four years.

They're making the statement based in large part on what both candidates have said about what they'd like to do going forward.

Trump's fascination with tariffs isn't winning over many economists, and for good reason.  There have been questions raised if he legitimately understands how they even work.  His idea of dropping income tax in favor of increased tariffs, which he's mentioned before his appearance on Rogan, is just comically idiotic.  It would be a disaster for the country just as we're starting to finally get over COVID-induced inflation.

[Mr King]

They really do not comprehend memes

 

Edited October 30, 2024 by Mr King

[Rick]

11 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

They're making the statement based in large part on what both candidates have said about what they'd like to do going forward.

Trump's fascination with tariffs isn't winning over many economists, and for good reason.  There have been questions raised if he legitimately understands how they even work.  His idea of dropping income tax in favor of increased tariffs, which he's mentioned before his appearance on Rogan, is just comically idiotic.  It would be a disaster for the country just as we're starting to finally get over COVID-induced inflation.

Show me an economist that has ran a small business before becoming an economist then I will put more faith in said economist. It has been demonstrated that Trump on the economy was better than Harris/Biden on the economy. I admit to not following this as closely as you and rmgill have but from what I read most of the tariff talk is on China. 

[rmgill]

I will take a tariff war with China which is entirely warranted over taxes on unrealized capital gains. What do those economists say about that policy? Or do they just gloss over that? 

[Stargrunt6]

13 hours ago, Mr King said:

They really do not comprehend memes

 

Just when you think they are the hip party, they are juat as corny as your teacher who turns his hat sideways and tries to rap lessons.

[Ivanhoe]

2 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Just when you think they are the hip party, they are juat as corny as your teacher who turns his hat sideways and tries to rap lessons.

 

[17thfabn]

22 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Trump's fascination with tariffs isn't winning over many economists, and for good reason.  There have been questions raised if he legitimately understands how they even work.  His idea of dropping income tax in favor of increased tariffs, which he's mentioned before his appearance on Rogan, is just comically idiotic.  It would be a disaster for the country just as we're starting to finally get over COVID-induced inflation.

Tariffs worked in 1860 why not in 2024?

Legend has it that the U.S. federal government  was funded by tariffs in the good old days. I find it hard to believe there was enough tariff revenue to fund even the much smaller government of that era. 

[DKTanker]

Tariffs are ultimately paid by the consumer when purchasing foreign goods or from higher pricing from domestic suppliers.  Tariffs sound really great, "We're going to fuck over China." Under the breath, "By having those poor suckers who voted for us pay higher prices no matter if they buy domestic or foreign."   If you want to make domestic supply more competitive remove barriers that tend to make the domestic supply less competitive.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Tariffs worked in 1860 why not in 2024?

Legend has it that the U.S. federal government  was funded by tariffs in the good old days. I find it hard to believe there was enough tariff revenue to fund even the much smaller government of that era. 

More from excise taxes.  Tariffs are paid for by the consumer, not the seller being taxed by a government.  Tariffs tend to reduce imports thus making domestic products, which aren't subject to tariff taxes, more expensive.  If you think about it, tariffs are a great way to screw over your own people while telling them the lie that you're screwing over the foreign supplier.

Edited October 30, 2024 by DKTanker

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Legend has it that the U.S. federal government  was funded by tariffs in the good old days. I find it hard to believe there was enough tariff revenue to fund even the much smaller government of that era. 

No legend about it. 


What are EXCISE TAXES? 

1820-1862 82% of federal income was Customs Duties

From 1862 to 1913 48.8% was Customs Duties and 39.8% was excise taxes. 

Data source:
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc815472/m1/5/

There's a Federal Excise tax on firearms and Ammo (FAET). 2023's revenue on JUST that sector was $1 Trillion. 

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Tariffs are ultimately paid by the consumer when purchasing foreign goods or from higher pricing from domestic suppliers.  Tariffs sound really great, "We're going to fuck over China." Under the breath, "By having those poor suckers who voted for us pay higher prices no matter if they buy domestic or foreign."   If you want to make domestic supply more competitive remove barriers that tend to make the domestic supply less competitive.

Yeah, I'm sure that's going to work great when some countries are simply subsidizing certain sectors in order to get rid of international competition and achieve monopoly/near-monopoly. Are we going to 'compete' by working for a bowl of rice or do we start subsidizing ourselves? 

I'm even more sure there will be no issues with supply chain of stuff from e.g. China when you guys go to war with them over Taiwan. None at all.

The West&Co as a whole should have a mostly self-sufficient market economy (especially in strategic areas), only allow those that are West-adjacent/can be easily put in their place to participate. Trade doesn't have 'civilizing' effect, only the boot on their neck (or the threat of it) does.

[rmgill]

When/If we go to war with China, they're going to suffer more because we'll be intercepting and stopping ALL of their marine based commerce. Their exports will grind to a halt short of what can be shipped out through Russia. 

[urbanoid]

Just now, rmgill said:

When/If we go to war with China, they're going to suffer more because we'll be intercepting and stopping ALL of their marine based commerce. Their exports will grind to a halt short of what can be shipped out through Russia. 

Yes, but you want to be able to replace the stuff you've been buying from them, which means you either need to produce it yourself and/or have an allied/safe country to do so. 

E.g. you want enough advanced chips and rare-earth metals needed to produce them to... produce the missiles to kill them. And quite a lot would be needed for civilian needs too.

[rmgill]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Yes, but you want to be able to replace the stuff you've been buying from them, which means you either need to produce it yourself and/or have an allied/safe country to do so. 

IT'll mean a shortage of some things, but we'll find a way. We have a lot of latent capacity in the US. 

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

E.g. you want enough advanced chips and rare-earth metals needed to produce them to... produce the missiles to kill them. And quite a lot would be needed for civilian needs too.

Rare Earth metals come from Canada. We have Chip fabs here. 

But if it means china snags the Taiwanese Chipfabs....well, no...

[bojan]

Never mind rare earths if you get a scurvy.

Quote

China produces about 70% of the global vitamin C market.

 

[17thfabn]

4 minutes ago, bojan said:

Never mind rare earths if you get a scurvy.

 

U.S. has Florida, California and Arizona for citrus fruit.

[urbanoid]

13 minutes ago, rmgill said:

IT'll mean a shortage of some things, but we'll find a way. We have a lot of latent capacity in the US. 

Rare Earth metals come from Canada. We have Chip fabs here. 

But if it means china snags the Taiwanese Chipfabs....well, no...

China is a problem largely because it became a 'factory of the world', the US led the way in making them one and everyone else followed. It's a clearly self-inflicted problem, so maybe it would be worth it to at least correct it partially, to make sure you don't get caught with your pants down during the war? 

Keeping them as a primary supplier of anything vital is literally the same idiocy as making Russia a primary supplier of hydrocarbons to the EU. Yeah, we got away with that, but it would have been far less painful if they weren't one in the first place. And oil and gas were still far easier to replace than rare earth metals and the processing capacity - apparently China extracts 60% of them and processes 90%. Free trade didn't civilize Russia and clearly the same is true for China, so maybe we should let those liberal (in the classic sense of the word) fairytales die a well-deserved death? 

China should have been sanctioned and divested from with the excuse of Tienanmen or any other large crackdowns/human rights violations/whatever against domestic opposition since then, it's not like they were needed to keep the Soviets in check anymore. 

[Mr King]

Quote

PRESIDENT TRUMP: "How do you like my garbage truck? This truck is in honor of Kamala and Joe Biden."

 

[Roman Alymov]

19 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Keeping them as a primary supplier of anything vital is literally the same idiocy as making Russia a primary supplier of hydrocarbons to the EU. Yeah, we got away with that, but it would have been far less painful if they weren't one in the first place.

  I'm sorry but you have not, at least not yet. Access to cheap (de-facto free, as money were coming back to Western assets) and stable energy supply was one of the few competitive advantages of European industry vs. Asian one (not only Chineese). Now we see China&Co continue to grow, while industry of Germany is in trouble. May be it will be fixed, may be not - who knows.  But without this decades of free energy China's dominance would have came sooner, not later.

Germany’s economy goes from bad to worse ( https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/10/15/how-the-german-economy-went-from-bad-to-worse?ysclid=m2wipyqgqy191560714 )

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, Mr King said:

It is stunning to see US politicians labeling each other almost "new Hitler" and calling half of country's citizens "garbage". 

[Tim Sielbeck]

38 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

U.S. has Florida, California and Arizona for citrus fruit.

And Texas.  Ruby Reds anyone?