| |
| ▲ | caminante 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric? It's like you're asking people to explain something that happened as if there's no explanation beyond your hatred of Trump. Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production) that could explain how tariffs aren't necessarily inflationary? > Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more... You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports. | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production) Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs. Please go into detail on one of those, including what you're talking about (e.g. what is "increased USCMA compliance"?) AI datacenters have increased energy costs in the localities where they're based and raised memory prices by eating up all the supply. > You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports. So.. you were agreeing with my point then? I don't understand why you'd call my thoughts "not coherent" then agree with it. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs. Haha! I haven't seen someone try to dismiss counterarguments as "magic." I should've said that more when I got answers wrong on my tests in high school. > So.. you were agreeing with my point then? If not "magic," then the objector "actually agrees" with you. | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I asked you to elaborate since you didn't explain anything, hence the use of "magic" which is sometimes referred to as hand waving. I'll take your non-response as a sign that you're not interested in elaborating for reasons. | |
| ▲ | lovich 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy, which I agree with ‘hypeatei needs explaining, but even assuming those do offset the tariffs you’re still incorrect. Tariffs definitionally are inflationary. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | >You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy Huh? You're not reading what I said and instead are relying on accusations. It's also weird to say direct behaviors triggered by tariffs don't play into realized inflation. That's mental gymnastics. >Tariffs definitionally are inflationary. No. Weird thing to be confidently incorrect about. Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up. Weird (okay, not all that weird, but ironic, in context) thing to be confidently incorrect about. Outside of the overtly ideology-over-description Austrian School of economics, which has a different jargon designed to advance their ideology, the general definition of (unqualified) inflation in economics is a sustained increase in general price levels. And belief that the Austrian School usage is just the “economic meaning” is a pretty good sign that someone doesn't understand even Austrian School economics beyond rote recitation of doctrines and aphorisms. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wait. We agree. Saying it needs to be a sustained increase is consistent with what I said above. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, we do not agree. The introduction of tariffs does, assuming no additional countervailing policy changes, result in sustained general price increases. (Over time, adaptation to the tariffs will, in cases where there aren't hard reasons preventing this, become more diffuse across products than they are initially at introduction, but the net long-term effect is still a general price increase.) | | |
| ▲ | caminante 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > assuming no additional countervailing policy changes When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing? This is tautological. It's like you're making a point that doesn't flow from the original discussion and point raised that economists missed the mark on how much Trump's tariffs would cause extreme inflation for everyday US citizens. They still can (TBD), but haven't to the extent predicted. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > > assuming no additional countervailing policy changes > When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing? Anyone who disagrees that tariffs are inflationary. If you enact them, price level increases are produced which are sustained unless some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces a deflationary effect which offsets the inflationary effect of the tariffs. | |
| ▲ | lovich 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do tariffs increase the price paid for an item? No one can continue discussing with you if base facts can’t be agreed upon. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lovich 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do tariffs increase the price I pay for an imported item subject to tariffs? Yes or no? No quibbling about other shit. Does the price increase? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
