Raising Tariffs and supporting private unions in order to end Gun Violence

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,458
I am fleshing out a theory right now. Jordan Peterson argues that the biggest determinatior of violence in a society is economic inequality. This is measured by something called the Gini Coefficent. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Based on this model, it explains why Scandavian countries with less restrictive gun laws have far less violence than England and France that have more restrictive gun laws yet they are all in Europe. Why England has far more income inequality that Norway and Denmark.



@Trotsky one of our most liberal posters agrees with him.
Correct me if I am wrong but tarrifs tend to make it more expensive to produce goods overseas. Thus, it incentives having those jobs in the U.S. Adam Smith himself was a proponent of tariffs.
Why because it helps the workers in developed countries compete with third world countries that can pay their workers 10 cents an hour due to many factors including a lack of labor laws.

On the other hand it makes the very rich less rich because this cuts into their bottom line.

So assuming trickle down economic is not true and the rich tend to amass wealth rather than let it trickle down to the working class, tarriffs are a good thing for the working class. Isn't true that the working class will have more work and the rich will take a hit?
If so and assuming Jordan Peterson is right along with Trotsky isn't imposing tarrifs a way to end gun violence? Thus, Donald Trump's trade policy is actually solving the problem of gun violence with out taking a single gun If so shouldn't this added benefit to Trump's trade be part of the conversation when discussing whether Trump raising tarrifs on China is a good idea? Discuss

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-through-on-threat-to-impose-china-tariffs

President Donald Trump will probably impose some of the tariffs he has threatened to slap on Chinese imports, though the broad impact on the world’s two largest economies will be negligible, according to a survey of economists.



However, economists do expect some reduction in America’s $375 billion trade deficit in merchandise with China, which would let Trump potentially claim a degree of success. Respondents see the gap narrowing to $350 billion next year and $300 billion in 2020, according to median estimates in the Bloomberg News poll conducted May 14-17.



Half of the 22 economists polled by Bloomberg expect Trump to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods this year. Such forecasts indicate skepticism that this week’s visit to Washington by Liu He, President Xi Jinping’s top economic adviser, will produce a lasting truce in talks with Trump or his administration.





Trump said Thursday he doubts the two nations can come to an agreement over trade, arguing that China has become “very spoiled” by the economic advantages it enjoys. The president met with Liu Thursday after Bloomberg News conducted the survey.



Trump is likely to follow through on at least some of his tariff threats to satisfy his political base of supporters in the lead-up to the midterm congressional elections in November, said Gregory Daco, U.S. chief economist at Oxford Economics.

“Looking at the political landscape, I think there will be some tariffs imposed on China, which will be followed by retaliation, but the U.S. tariffs will be very calculated so they don’t hurt the economy,” he said by phone.

620x-1.png

Daco expects the effect of the tariffs on U.S. growth and inflation to be “barely noticeable.” That’s in line with the median estimates in the Bloomberg survey for $50 billion in tariffs to produce a drag on economic growth of 0.1 percentage point and a similar boost to inflation. Still, Daco sees tensions between Beijing and Washington persisting, creating uncertainty for investors.

In China, the government will offset the drag from tariffs through measures such as fiscal spending or credit expansion, in order to meet the official growth target of about 6.5 percent, said Ding Shuang, head of Greater China economic research at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong.

concluded the Asian nation violates American intellectual property in a variety of ways, including by forcing U.S. companies to transfer technology. Last month, after Beijing promised to respond in kind, the president instructed his officials to consider tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese products.

None of the economists surveyed predict the Trump administration will impose tariffs on the full $150 billion under consideration. One respondent predicted the U.S. will apply duties to $100 billion in imports, while five economists don’t expect any new tariffs against China.

ZTE Lifeline
Trump raised eyebrows this week when he instructed his officials to extend a lifeline to Chinese telecom-equipment maker ZTE Corp., after the U.S. cut off the firm from its American suppliers for allegedly lying to the U.S. government. The move raised hopes that the two countries will avoid a trade war.

Trump has repeatedly complained about the U.S. trade deficit, arguing that other countries have taken advantage of America’s relatively open markets. Prominent economists from Lawrence Summers to Gregory Mankiw have criticized Trump’s preoccupation with cutting the U.S. trade gap, arguing the deficit isn’t the best indicator of economic health.

On a recent trip to Beijing, senior Trump administration officials presented a list of demands to their Chinese counterparts, including that the U.S. trade gap be reduced by $200 billion over the next two years.
 
Last edited:
I am fleshing out a theory right now. Jordan Peterson argues that the biggest determinatior of violence in a society is economic inequality


@Trotsky one of our most liberal posters agrees with him.
Correct me if I am wrong but tarrifs tend to make it more expensive to produce goods overseas. Thus, it incentives having those jobs in the U.S. Adam Smith himself was a proponent of tariffs.
Why because it helps the workers in developed countries compete with third world countries that can pay their workers 10 cents an hour due to many factors including a lack of labor laws.

On the other hand it makes the very rich less rich because this cuts into their bottom line.

So assuming trickle down economic is not true and the rich tend to amass wealth rather than let it trickle down to the working class, tarriffs are a good thing for the working class. Isn't true that the working class will have more work and the rich will take a hit?
If so and assuming Jordan Peterson is right along with Trotsky isn't imposing tarrifs a way to end gun violence? Thus, Donald Trump's trade policy is actually solving the problem of gun violence with out taking a single gun If so shouldn't this added benefit to Trump's trade be part of the conversation when discussing whether Trump raising tarrifs on China is a good idea? Discuss

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-through-on-threat-to-impose-china-tariffs


Sorry, I'm too tired to dig into this now, but it looks promising. I'll try to get back to you later.
 
Regardless of any reduction in violence, I'm all for reducing income inequality by taxing the shit out of people making tens of millions or more per year. If we have less murders then great! Fuck having a dude being worth 130 billion (or whatever the Amazon guy has).
 
It’s impossible to have economic equality. That’s a fantasy. Intelligent people will always be more wealthy than stupid people
 
It’s impossible to have economic equality. That’s a fantasy. Intelligent people will always be more wealthy than stupid people

I never argued for equality. I said reduce income inequality via raising tarrifs. Scandinavian countries and the North East Asian countries have much less income inequality than us.
 
Intelligent people will always be more wealthy than stupid people

Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian confirmed more intelligent than you
 
I am fleshing out a theory right now. Jordan Peterson argues that the biggest determinatior of violence in a society is economic inequality. This is measured by something called the Gini Coefficent. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Based on this model, it explains why Scandavian countries with less restrictive gun laws have far less violence than England and France that have more restrictive gun laws yet they are all in Europe. Why England has far more income inequality that Norway and Denmark.



@Trotsky one of our most liberal posters agrees with him.
Correct me if I am wrong but tarrifs tend to make it more expensive to produce goods overseas. Thus, it incentives having those jobs in the U.S. Adam Smith himself was a proponent of tariffs.
Why because it helps the workers in developed countries compete with third world countries that can pay their workers 10 cents an hour due to many factors including a lack of labor laws.

On the other hand it makes the very rich less rich because this cuts into their bottom line.

So assuming trickle down economic is not true and the rich tend to amass wealth rather than let it trickle down to the working class, tarriffs are a good thing for the working class. Isn't true that the working class will have more work and the rich will take a hit?
If so and assuming Jordan Peterson is right along with Trotsky isn't imposing tarrifs a way to end gun violence? Thus, Donald Trump's trade policy is actually solving the problem of gun violence with out taking a single gun If so shouldn't this added benefit to Trump's trade be part of the conversation when discussing whether Trump raising tarrifs on China is a good idea? Discuss

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-through-on-threat-to-impose-china-tariffs

I don't think tariffs are the answer, Adam Smith supported them in the case of infant industries. You use tariffs to help a nascent manufacturing sector develop by reducing the pressure of outside competition until they can compete but unfortunately our industries can't compete without tariffs not because our manufacturing isn't developed but rather because of the disparity between the wages between US workers and foreign ones.

That said, I do agree with the general idea that we should tackle wealth inequality as a way to tackle the issue of violence. One suggestion I've read that I find fascinating is one that I was turned on to by @Jack V Savage, namely the creation of a national sovereign wealth fund that would help fund an expansion of welfare programs including cash transfers. Or at least that's how I remember it, correct me if I'm off JVS.
 
Regardless of any reduction in violence, I'm all for reducing income inequality by taxing the shit out of people making tens of millions or more per year. If we have less murders then great! Fuck having a dude being worth 130 billion (or whatever the Amazon guy has).
So it's just that you want him to have less? I'd like someone to finally say that. Amazon was in the red for like 6 years. I don't think it would have been worth the effort if there wasn't a big payout on the other side. I don't like Jeff Bezos, but I've used Amazon 4 times this week.
 
So it's just that you want him to have less? I'd like someone to finally say that. Amazon was in the red for like 6 years. I don't think it would have been worth the effort if there wasn't a big payout on the other side. I don't like Jeff Bezos, but I've used Amazon 4 times this week.
Aren't they still in the red?

I've always wondered how a guy could get rich running a company that doesn't make a profit or pay taxes
 
I can't believe people think having all the wealth tied up in fewer and fewer hands is good for humanity.
 
So it's just that you want him to have less? I'd like someone to finally say that. Amazon was in the red for like 6 years. I don't think it would have been worth the effort if there wasn't a big payout on the other side. I don't like Jeff Bezos, but I've used Amazon 4 times this week.
It does make me wonder, should we have an income ceiling? That is, a point at which any additional income is taken as tax? I know that sounds horrendous but if it was was a high ceiling and if the taxes were used to fund social programs which reduced wealth inequality I think the net outcome could be very positive. If someone had their annual income capped at let's $50 million, is that really such a powerful disincentive to create wealth? I can't see myself not working hard just because I can't take more than eight figures a year.
I can't believe people think having all the wealth tied up in fewer and fewer hands is good for humanity.
To be fair, its often not that they think that's a good thing but rather that the solutions proposed to correct it can have unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits. I think its a fair concern and I say that as someone who strongly believes that addressing wealth inequality is very doable in the US and certainly overdue.
 
It's not just that violent crime correlates with wealth inequality, but wealth inequality in close geographic proximity.
 
I can't believe people think having all the wealth tied up in fewer and fewer hands is good for humanity.
It's not "fewer and fewer". There's more new millionaires each year than anywhere else. You're happy to patronize these places, you just don't want them to turn a profit?
 
It does make me wonder, should we have an income ceiling? That is, a point at which any additional income is taken as tax? I know that sounds horrendous but if it was was a high ceiling and if the taxes were used to fund social programs which reduced wealth inequality I think the net outcome could be very positive. If someone had their annual income capped at let's $50 million, is that really such a powerful disincentive to create wealth? I can't see myself not working hard just because I can't take more than eight figures a year.

To be fair, its often not that they think that's a good thing but rather that the solutions proposed to correct it can have unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits. I think its a fair concern and I say that as someone who strongly believes that addressing wealth inequality is very doable in the US and certainly overdue.
No, they've tried that in a lot of places. It didn't go well. To cap income would mean you have to be assured you'll make that much, otherwise it's not worth the risk.
 
No, they've tried that in a lot of places. It didn't go well. To cap income would mean you have to be assured you'll make that much, otherwise it's not worth the risk.
Why would you have to be assured to make that much? If I start a business sure there are risks but I don't see a $50 million income cap as a prohibitive barrier to starting and running that business.
 
All of my suggestions will be called socialist, communist, or the devils work but for shits and giggles you could try and emulate some small part of what makes those listed societies so successful (HINT not tariffs).

Or check out this funny picture

M7Jg3rZ.jpg
 
It's not "fewer and fewer". There's more new millionaires each year than anywhere else. You're happy to patronize these places, you just don't want them to turn a profit?

Half the wealth going to the top 1% half going to the other 99%. Seems balanced to me. The top 1% have been projected to control 66% of the wealth by 2030. Nope definitely not going to fewer and fewer.
 
Half the wealth going to the top 1% half going to the other 99%. Seems balanced to me. The top 1% have been projected to control 66% of the wealth by 2030. Nope definitely not going to fewer and fewer.
There's not some solid 1%, it's different people. You control their wealth. Just stop shopping there.
 
Back
Top