Ford’s Electrical Tariffs - Monday March 10, 2025

[farmaholic]

This interview with Lutnick may make it a little clearer about where some of the priorities are and the who and why of his view of the blame.

Most of the meat is in the first 5 minutes but a lot of the who to blame and what the "plan" is comes out in the rest of it. Also who is going to get torpedoed.

Try to listen to the whole thing without going tomato head or you won't hear the tells on the big plan as they see it.

Much clearer than listening to Trump daily.
Kind of Twisted and for sure lots of opportunity to go off the rails.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/commerce-secretary-lutnick-defends-trump-tariffs-let-dealmaker-make-his-deals/

You have to click on the screen and get past the ads and take the mute off.

I tried...
I must admit I have Double TDS infection. Both Trump and Trudeau Derangement Syndrome. One is gone, the other might take a while to cure. Hopefully we get a change of guard in Canada that makes a more cordial relationship with the USA and China. The change is loooong overdue.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I listened to it. If you ignore some of the obvious bluster and obfuscations, I believe the long-term goal is enviable and attainable.

I know for certain I would rather be on the inside of that experiment along for the ride, then on the outside looking in.

Time will tell if the American people have the patience for short-term pain for long-term gain.

And this of course is the problem with 4-year election cycles.
Anything with long-term benefits it's going to take a lot more than 4 years to manifest itself.

Taking drastic measures in the first few months while breaking all of the competition might just pay back in time for the next election.

And if It doesn't, protectionism is here to stay, it just might not look as prickly under the next administration.

[agstar77]

I listened to it. If you ignore some of the obvious bluster and obfuscations, I believe the long-term goal is enviable and attainable.

I know for certain I would rather be on the inside of that experiment along for the ride, then on the outside looking in.

Time will tell if the American people have the patience for short-term pain for long-term gain.

And this of course is the problem with 4-year election cycles.
Anything with long-term benefits it's going to take a lot more than 4 years to manifest itself.

Taking drastic measures in the first few months while breaking all of the competition might just pay back in time for the next election.

And if It doesn't, protectionism is here to stay, it just might not look as prickly under the next administration.

So what if in the short term a few Americans die because their Medicaid is cut or they go bankrupt because they lose their jobs. In the long run the wealthy will do better.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Agstar, if you were in the driver's seat, how would you turn the bus around without any collateral damage? Or do you think the current trajectory is sustainable?

It looks like the alternative is the entire country goes bankrupt and everyone loses their job and their Medicaid eventually.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

In the long run the wealthy will do better.

And sometimes you say the quiet part out loud.

[blackpowder]

Anyone care to admit that if the carbon thing or the gender thing hadn't been taken quite so far, we might not be dealing with Donny at all?

[chuckChuck]

Anyone care to admit that if the carbon thing or the gender thing hadn't been taken quite so far, we might not be dealing with Donny at all?

Huh? Do you really think that is connected to Trump bullying companies and his trading partners with his Trump tax to bring manufacturing back to the USA? Or stop the flow of fentanyl?

If you do, I have some swamp land near Mar Lago to sell to you!

[agstar77]

Agstar, if you were in the driver's seat, how would you turn the bus around without any collateral damage? Or do you think the current trajectory is sustainable?

It looks like the alternative is the entire country goes bankrupt and everyone loses their job and their Medicaid eventually.

First they need to collect taxes owing. The U.S. does not have a capital problem. They have a capital allocation problem. Lowering corporate taxes has never benefitted ordinary population.

[blackpowder]

I was about to attempt a response to Chuck. Thinking perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Then I thought no, it's an energy trap.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

First they need to collect taxes owing. The U.S. does not have a capital problem. They have a capital allocation problem. Lowering corporate taxes has never benefitted ordinary population.

Yes, because no one in the ordinary population needs the jobs that those corporations provide when they move their business to the lowest taxed jurisdiction.

Just tax the corporations as high as possible so they all leave, then we can all work for the government. Then we can follow Chuck's advice and just print money to pay for it all, because apparently that's the key to a great economy.