6 ms·

I think people keep saying crap like this: Prices can absolutely come down without killing the economy. It's done by doing smart things that republicans were ma

I think people keep saying crap like this: Prices can absolutely come down without killing the economy. It's done by doing smart things that republicans were making talking points: * Drill for oil, lower the price of gas, prices at the store come down. * Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas. * Create pipelines so that instead of "flaring" Natural gas, we transport it cheaply to be used for electricity generation * Change the tariff structure so that American goods are worth something against Chinese imports that raises the value of the dollar which lowers the cost of goods * Stop the insane energy policies that raise gas prices by 45 cents per gallon (in CA for example) for 0.0001% change in climate NONE of these were democrat talking points.

mike_d 2y ago
> * Drill for oil, lower the price of gas, prices at the store come down. Strategically and economically stupid. Buy oil when everyone has it, sell oil when everyone else has ran out. > * Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas. The US military is the largest socialist jobs program in the world and is the single greatest creator of skilled labor for our economy. > * Change the tariff structure so that American goods are worth something against Chinese imports that raises the value of the dollar which lowers the cost of goods Lets say you make widgets for $9 and sell them to me for $10 (a healthy 10% profit). The government comes along and tells you there is a $2 tariff on widgets. Are you going to sell me widgets at $8 (a $1 loss) or raise the price to $12? Tariffs are a tax on goods paid by the buyer and a way to de-incentivize overseas production. But here is the problem - do you want to make 39 cents an hour sewing soccer balls or do you want to pay 10x for that soccer ball so that an American can have a livable wage doing the sewing for you? The "American Dream" is exploitation of cheap overseas labor because of our superior economic position. Regardless of how you feel about that morally, Trump's economic plan is to try and figure out how to on-shore the lowest paid factory jobs.
- thenayr 2y ago
  [dead]
- TheCycoONE 2y ago
  > The US military is the largest socialist jobs program in the world and is the single greatest creator of skilled labor for our economy. This sounds an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. Wars are destructive and any amount spent on that destruction is lost from the economy no matter how many people you hire in the process. Surely funding schools would be a more direct way of creating skilled labour.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    What about the microwave oven and the thousands of other products the military has indirectly created?
    - hirako2000 2y ago
      It isn't military that's in question. It's their engagements. The U.S defense budget would be a fraction of its budget if used for defense. There is an upside in wining wars. But since the U.S has been losing them, it's funding jobs that provide no value. Would better be spent elsewhere. The Japanese unique economic boom after WWII was mostly due to having little to know defense budget. Germany's was less impressive but also benefited from focusing on the economic performance.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  > Trump's economic plan is to try and figure out how to on-shore the lowest paid factory jobs. Not necessarily. Tariffs are a limited tax, in this case maxing out at 100%. Making soccer balls from China cost twice as much is not going to bridge the gap between viable and non-viable for onshore production. It really only bridges the gap where the off vs on shore savings are much closer, which tends to apply to more complex manufacturing processes, which incorporate more automation in the process, as cost gaps between developed and undeveloped countries tend to be greatest in the cost of labor. Automation is often cheaper in more developed countries, in fact. Onshoring those kinds of jobs/infrastructure would provide a range of national security and economic benefits. I genuinely don't understand how tariffs have become so poorly understood and divisive. Every argument about them I see framed seems either highly biased or pure misinformation, from both sides. They are not free tax money, but they also can have benefits for low and middle class people.
  - bagels 2y ago
    1/2 of the claimed benefits are just lies: China isn't going to be paying the tariffs, but maybe it will spark some limited increase in US manufacturing. The thing it will do is increase prices (inflation).
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      Of course, the increase in manufacturing will be limited. Is there a policy that can increase it without limit? I also think its disingenuous to call tariff induced price increases inflation. That's like calling a sales tax inflation. Maybe its technically correct, maybe not, but if your going to apply it here, make sure you are also applying it to carbon/gas taxes, environmental regulations (they also increase costs), and capital gains taxes (they lower asset supply).
      - bagels 2y ago
        Most people don't care why the prices went up, they just want them to not go up. Distinction on definition really doesn't matter.
seadan83 2y ago
Oil production is at all time highs (AFAIL). Further, drilling locally for oil does not directly reduce local prices. It is still shipped abroad to the highest bidder. That is ignoring the refinement issues that not all oil is equal and needs to be refined. 'Just' stop wars short of surrendering is easy to say. No evidence Republicans actually could deliver or prevent. Just talk. The tariffs were largely kept in place between Biden and Trump. The criticism here would apply equally to both but also ignores trade wars. The pipeline bit is perhaps viable, but a drop in the bucket (with respect to at least the keystone XL [1]) [1] https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-895299166310 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-895299166310 "Even if the Keystone XL pipeline had been completed, the amount of oil it was designed to transport would have been a drop in the bucket for U.S. demand, experts noted. The U.S. used nearly 20 million barrels of oil a day last year, while global consumption of oil was near 100 million barrels. The pipeline would have contributed less than 1% to the world supply of oil, according to AP reporting. “The total volume of additional supply is negligible in a market that uses 100 million barrels of oil every day,”"
- hokumguru 2y ago
  I think the way I am interpreting the parent comments is that whether or not these Republican promises are true or viable is beside the point. The right still has them as talking points, where the left has failed miserably. Talking about any potential solutions seems to have enticed American voters more than trying to sweep it under the rug.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Conventional oil drilling peaked in the 70s exactly as predicted in peak oil. It was made up for with fracking, except fracking has always lost money.
- hirako2000 2y ago
  > Just' stop wars short of surrendering is easy to say Also easy to observe that it would be better than conducting wars and surrendering anyway.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
arrosenberg 2y ago
> Stop the insane energy policies that raise gas prices by 45 cents per gallon (in CA for example) for 0.0001% change in climate You mean the gas taxes that fund road maintenance? That tax is a tyranny imposed by how much we rely on cars, not by climate change.
- throw_that_away 2y ago
  It's funny how other states must use magic wands to fix their roads, obviously since the gas prices are not jacked up as high elsewhere.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    I don’t understand the sarcasm. Comparable states like Texas and New York charge far more in tolls than California. Many states have far fewer roads (with less usage), or they underfund their road maintenance, don’t repair them, and then rely on federal funds to make emergency repairs after something critical breaks.
    - aydyn 2y ago
      Underlying the sarcasm is the assertion that California is not fiscally responsible with its budget. Understand now?
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        Nope, still don’t get it. We aren’t any more or less responsible than other states, just much bigger.
        aydyn 2y ago
        You sure about that?
        arrosenberg 2y ago
elif 2y ago
>Drill for oil Current admin did this at record rates >Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas The US is a net exporter of energy so the instability is helpful >Create pipelines We have already entered the late stage hydrocarbon era. Massive imminent domain projects for a decade or two of utility are I advised >Change the tariff We cannot go to a pre-globalization time. Alea iacta est. The only way for tariffs to work against BRICS would be a unilateral tariff which would affect all American commerce.
- ToDougie 2y ago
  What countries aren't using tariffs? Biden used tariffs. Biden kept Trump tariffs. I paid a tariff for my BMW. Germany was probably pretty happy about that. I liked their product enough, so I was happy, too. Go read some Peter Navarro. He explains desperately how important it is to be protectionist (to a limited extent) with certain industries. Especially if they link to security and health of the nation. You do not want a hostile nation to make all of your pharmaceuticals. You do not want them to hold you hostage over your lack and their surplus of steel. This is basic, basic stuff. And the whole point is that other countries are not engaging in fair trade practices. If they aren't engaging in fair trade, then they can't engage in this fabled myth of "free trade". This is literally the Trump trade doctrine. He has spelled it out and acted on it. If the CCP hadn't manipulated the price of steel to wipe out American steel producers, they wouldn't be subject to extreme tariffs. Simple, simple stuff.
  - cake_robot 2y ago
    Trump campaigned on BROAD BASED tariffs, not the targeted actions you're describing. Maybe he's bluffing but the effects are very different.
    - ToDougie 2y ago
      Explaining the minutia does not make for the best campaign trail rhetoric. But I can assure you, after speaking extensively in person with members of the Trump trade team, that their strategy is deep and sophisticated. When he speaks of broad-based tariffs, he is using one of his framing techniques that he unironically explains in the Art of the Deal. With all that said, the tariffs have me concerned, but allowing our industrial base to continue to evaporate has me more concerned.
raydev 2y ago
You didn't cover the global supply chain.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
These are nice TV soundbites, but reflect a clear lack of understanding of how these issues (gas prices, wars, tariffs, etc.) work. But I guess that explains why people voted for Trump. - Drill for oil: oil production is at all all-time high. Drilling more doesn't drop local prices. - Stop the wars: 100% agree we should end all wars. Except that Trump has no control over this. Also, the one thing that both parties agree on is increasing the military budget (Congress voted for more than Biden proposed).
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Saying stop the wars is nice. Saying it while you cheer the people starting the wars with a badge of "Best Friends Forever" is just cynical and disgusting.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    It’s incomprehensible to me how people don’t think through what Trump says. Even more incomprehensible that even if Trump’s policies were sound that Americans would vote to have such a reprehensible person as their leader.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> * Stop the insane energy policies that raise gas prices by 45 cents per gallon (in CA for example) for 0.0001% change in climate Climate change aside, you do realize that States decide on gas taxes, not the Federal government, right? Which means that neither Trump nor Harris can do anything about what gas taxes CA decides to add, or any other State.

mike_d 2y ago

> * Drill for oil, lower the price of gas, prices at the store come down. Strategically and economically stupid. Buy oil when everyone has it, sell oil when everyone else has ran out. > * Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas. The US military is the largest socialist jobs program in the world and is the single greatest creator of skilled labor for our economy. > * Change the tariff structure so that American goods are worth something against Chinese imports that raises the value of the dollar which lowers the cost of goods Lets say you make widgets for $9 and sell them to me for $10 (a healthy 10% profit). The government comes along and tells you there is a $2 tariff on widgets. Are you going to sell me widgets at $8 (a $1 loss) or raise the price to $12? Tariffs are a tax on goods paid by the buyer and a way to de-incentivize overseas production. But here is the problem - do you want to make 39 cents an hour sewing soccer balls or do you want to pay 10x for that soccer ball so that an American can have a livable wage doing the sewing for you? The "American Dream" is exploitation of cheap overseas labor because of our superior economic position. Regardless of how you feel about that morally, Trump's economic plan is to try and figure out how to on-shore the lowest paid factory jobs.

thenayr 2y ago
[dead]
TheCycoONE 2y ago
> The US military is the largest socialist jobs program in the world and is the single greatest creator of skilled labor for our economy. This sounds an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. Wars are destructive and any amount spent on that destruction is lost from the economy no matter how many people you hire in the process. Surely funding schools would be a more direct way of creating skilled labour.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  What about the microwave oven and the thousands of other products the military has indirectly created?
  - hirako2000 2y ago
    It isn't military that's in question. It's their engagements. The U.S defense budget would be a fraction of its budget if used for defense. There is an upside in wining wars. But since the U.S has been losing them, it's funding jobs that provide no value. Would better be spent elsewhere. The Japanese unique economic boom after WWII was mostly due to having little to know defense budget. Germany's was less impressive but also benefited from focusing on the economic performance.
BobbyJo 2y ago
> Trump's economic plan is to try and figure out how to on-shore the lowest paid factory jobs. Not necessarily. Tariffs are a limited tax, in this case maxing out at 100%. Making soccer balls from China cost twice as much is not going to bridge the gap between viable and non-viable for onshore production. It really only bridges the gap where the off vs on shore savings are much closer, which tends to apply to more complex manufacturing processes, which incorporate more automation in the process, as cost gaps between developed and undeveloped countries tend to be greatest in the cost of labor. Automation is often cheaper in more developed countries, in fact. Onshoring those kinds of jobs/infrastructure would provide a range of national security and economic benefits. I genuinely don't understand how tariffs have become so poorly understood and divisive. Every argument about them I see framed seems either highly biased or pure misinformation, from both sides. They are not free tax money, but they also can have benefits for low and middle class people.
- bagels 2y ago
  1/2 of the claimed benefits are just lies: China isn't going to be paying the tariffs, but maybe it will spark some limited increase in US manufacturing. The thing it will do is increase prices (inflation).
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    Of course, the increase in manufacturing will be limited. Is there a policy that can increase it without limit? I also think its disingenuous to call tariff induced price increases inflation. That's like calling a sales tax inflation. Maybe its technically correct, maybe not, but if your going to apply it here, make sure you are also applying it to carbon/gas taxes, environmental regulations (they also increase costs), and capital gains taxes (they lower asset supply).
    - bagels 2y ago
      Most people don't care why the prices went up, they just want them to not go up. Distinction on definition really doesn't matter.

seadan83 2y ago

Oil production is at all time highs (AFAIL). Further, drilling locally for oil does not directly reduce local prices. It is still shipped abroad to the highest bidder. That is ignoring the refinement issues that not all oil is equal and needs to be refined. 'Just' stop wars short of surrendering is easy to say. No evidence Republicans actually could deliver or prevent. Just talk. The tariffs were largely kept in place between Biden and Trump. The criticism here would apply equally to both but also ignores trade wars. The pipeline bit is perhaps viable, but a drop in the bucket (with respect to at least the keystone XL [1]) [1] https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-895299166310 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-895299166310 "Even if the Keystone XL pipeline had been completed, the amount of oil it was designed to transport would have been a drop in the bucket for U.S. demand, experts noted. The U.S. used nearly 20 million barrels of oil a day last year, while global consumption of oil was near 100 million barrels. The pipeline would have contributed less than 1% to the world supply of oil, according to AP reporting. “The total volume of additional supply is negligible in a market that uses 100 million barrels of oil every day,”"

hokumguru 2y ago
I think the way I am interpreting the parent comments is that whether or not these Republican promises are true or viable is beside the point. The right still has them as talking points, where the left has failed miserably. Talking about any potential solutions seems to have enticed American voters more than trying to sweep it under the rug.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Conventional oil drilling peaked in the 70s exactly as predicted in peak oil. It was made up for with fracking, except fracking has always lost money.
hirako2000 2y ago
> Just' stop wars short of surrendering is easy to say Also easy to observe that it would be better than conducting wars and surrendering anyway.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

arrosenberg 2y ago

> Stop the insane energy policies that raise gas prices by 45 cents per gallon (in CA for example) for 0.0001% change in climate You mean the gas taxes that fund road maintenance? That tax is a tyranny imposed by how much we rely on cars, not by climate change.

throw_that_away 2y ago
It's funny how other states must use magic wands to fix their roads, obviously since the gas prices are not jacked up as high elsewhere.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  I don’t understand the sarcasm. Comparable states like Texas and New York charge far more in tolls than California. Many states have far fewer roads (with less usage), or they underfund their road maintenance, don’t repair them, and then rely on federal funds to make emergency repairs after something critical breaks.
  - aydyn 2y ago
    Underlying the sarcasm is the assertion that California is not fiscally responsible with its budget. Understand now?
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Nope, still don’t get it. We aren’t any more or less responsible than other states, just much bigger.
      - aydyn 2y ago
        You sure about that?
        arrosenberg 2y ago

elif 2y ago

>Drill for oil Current admin did this at record rates >Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas The US is a net exporter of energy so the instability is helpful >Create pipelines We have already entered the late stage hydrocarbon era. Massive imminent domain projects for a decade or two of utility are I advised >Change the tariff We cannot go to a pre-globalization time. Alea iacta est. The only way for tariffs to work against BRICS would be a unilateral tariff which would affect all American commerce.

ToDougie 2y ago
What countries aren't using tariffs? Biden used tariffs. Biden kept Trump tariffs. I paid a tariff for my BMW. Germany was probably pretty happy about that. I liked their product enough, so I was happy, too. Go read some Peter Navarro. He explains desperately how important it is to be protectionist (to a limited extent) with certain industries. Especially if they link to security and health of the nation. You do not want a hostile nation to make all of your pharmaceuticals. You do not want them to hold you hostage over your lack and their surplus of steel. This is basic, basic stuff. And the whole point is that other countries are not engaging in fair trade practices. If they aren't engaging in fair trade, then they can't engage in this fabled myth of "free trade". This is literally the Trump trade doctrine. He has spelled it out and acted on it. If the CCP hadn't manipulated the price of steel to wipe out American steel producers, they wouldn't be subject to extreme tariffs. Simple, simple stuff.
- cake_robot 2y ago
  Trump campaigned on BROAD BASED tariffs, not the targeted actions you're describing. Maybe he's bluffing but the effects are very different.
  - ToDougie 2y ago
    Explaining the minutia does not make for the best campaign trail rhetoric. But I can assure you, after speaking extensively in person with members of the Trump trade team, that their strategy is deep and sophisticated. When he speaks of broad-based tariffs, he is using one of his framing techniques that he unironically explains in the Art of the Deal. With all that said, the tariffs have me concerned, but allowing our industrial base to continue to evaporate has me more concerned.

raydev 2y ago

You didn't cover the global supply chain.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

These are nice TV soundbites, but reflect a clear lack of understanding of how these issues (gas prices, wars, tariffs, etc.) work. But I guess that explains why people voted for Trump. - Drill for oil: oil production is at all all-time high. Drilling more doesn't drop local prices. - Stop the wars: 100% agree we should end all wars. Except that Trump has no control over this. Also, the one thing that both parties agree on is increasing the military budget (Congress voted for more than Biden proposed).

pvaldes 2y ago
Saying stop the wars is nice. Saying it while you cheer the people starting the wars with a badge of "Best Friends Forever" is just cynical and disgusting.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  It’s incomprehensible to me how people don’t think through what Trump says. Even more incomprehensible that even if Trump’s policies were sound that Americans would vote to have such a reprehensible person as their leader.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> * Stop the insane energy policies that raise gas prices by 45 cents per gallon (in CA for example) for 0.0001% change in climate Climate change aside, you do realize that States decide on gas taxes, not the Federal government, right? Which means that neither Trump nor Harris can do anything about what gas taxes CA decides to add, or any other State.