By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Eu companies should set up shop in the UK if they want to pay lower tariffs.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
Pyro as Bill said:

Trump is 100% right, these billion dollar companies that use tax loopholes to steal poor people's money and exploit the needy should pay more tax.
Nah just kidding but it's great that Trump is teaching people how self harming it is to tax the productive.

The tariffs are clearly a cover for the US to protect supply lines in the event it kicks off with China. Hopefully Trump doesn't become a prophet.

What? Tariffs are infamously regressive taxes on consumption. They're not direct taxes on production. 

One of the things we discovered after two (arguably many more than two) world wars is that the best way to prevent war is to be economically entangled with your adversaries. It's pretty much the basis of "Pax Americana." Disentangling from the world into Autarky makes total war more likely, not less. 



sc94597 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Trump is 100% right, these billion dollar companies that use tax loopholes to steal poor people's money and exploit the needy should pay more tax.
Nah just kidding but it's great that Trump is teaching people how self harming it is to tax the productive.

The tariffs are clearly a cover for the US to protect supply lines in the event it kicks off with China. Hopefully Trump doesn't become a prophet.

What? Tariffs are infamously regressive taxes on consumption. They're not direct taxes on production. 

One of the things we discovered after two (arguably many more than two) world wars is that the best way to prevent war is to be economically entangled with your adversaries. It's pretty much the basis of "Pax Americana." Disentangling from the world into Autarky makes total war more likely, not less. 

Are consumption and production linked in any way?

If the US loses steel and aluminium production then we'll all ("the West") pay the price. The scariest prospect is that China and US (Chimerica) come to terms and carve the world up. I don't want to see Australia become the new Poland.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

"but i dont want to pay more for my Nintendos"

tough shit. you probably pay 70Eur DIGITALLY every year for the "new" Fifa or CoD already. You deserve to be "punished"/pay the true value.

Edit - SNES games were £60 in the 1990s. You people are spoilt



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
sc94597 said:

What? Tariffs are infamously regressive taxes on consumption. They're not direct taxes on production. 

One of the things we discovered after two (arguably many more than two) world wars is that the best way to prevent war is to be economically entangled with your adversaries. It's pretty much the basis of "Pax Americana." Disentangling from the world into Autarky makes total war more likely, not less. 

Are consumption and production linked in any way?

If the US loses steel and aluminium production then we'll all ("the West") pay the price. The scariest prospect is that China and US (Chimerica) come to terms and carve the world up. I don't want to see Australia become the new Poland.

Of course, but the implications and effects of taxes on consumption, production, capital, and resource value are different. Same thing with the various regressive and progressive versions of these taxes. And again for pigouvian vs. revenue accruing taxes. 

Or do you think the Bradford X tax has the same implications and effects as a Land Value Tax? 

If the U.S wanted to protect critical industries economy-wide tariffs isn't the way to do it. Targeted tariffs coupled with investment subsidies and R&D subsidies is the general recommendation. Now which looks more like what Trump is doing? What is he doing to the CHIPs act, for example?



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Are consumption and production linked in any way?

If the US loses steel and aluminium production then we'll all ("the West") pay the price. The scariest prospect is that China and US (Chimerica) come to terms and carve the world up. I don't want to see Australia become the new Poland.

Of course, but the implications and effects of taxes on consumption, production, capital, and resource value are different. Same thing with the various regressive and progressive versions of these taxes. And again for pigouvian vs. revenue accruing taxes. 

Or do you think the Bradford X tax has the same implications and effects as a Land Value Tax? 

If the U.S wanted to protect critical industries economy-wide tariffs isn't the way to do it. Targeted tariffs coupled with investment subsidies and R&D subsidies is the general recommendation. Now which looks more like what Trump is doing? What is he doing to the CHIPs act, for example?

US debt is funding China's potential war machine just like Germany's cheap energy funded Russia's.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Just to be clear and consistent and not be hypocritical, we all oppose retaliatory tariffs, right?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:

Just to be clear and consistent and not be hypocritical, we all oppose retaliatory tariffs, right?

The person who punches back in self defense does not have the same level of blame as the one who started the fist fight. 

That's a meaningful difference, and not hypocritical. 



Pyro as Bill said:

US debt is funding China's potential war machine just like Germany's cheap energy funded Russia's.

US debt has very little to do with China. 

Pyro as Bill said:

Eu companies should set up shop in the UK if they want to pay lower tariffs.

That wouldn't work, because it would increase the trade deficit with the UK, so the UK would get hit with a higher trade deficit and EU would get a lower trade deficit as things evened out. Because that's how the tariffs were calculated, based on who was selling more goods to who. 



Pyro as Bill said:

Just to be clear and consistent and not be hypocritical, we all oppose retaliatory tariffs, right?

No we don't oppose it.  You can't just let someone bully you into paying them arbitrarily higher taxes.  The point of imposing retaliatory tariffs is to motivate them to remove theirs.  

They didn't start the fight but they can't just lay down and take it.  You comment is kinda like saying sell defense when your attacked is hypocritical.   

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question.