How tariffs will jack up the prices of automobiles..

[stryder]

While there's a lot of fluff(propaganda) about Trump's plans for an insular state with the intention of driving an economy. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a little more deeply rooted with dismantling any future Democratic opposition.

The reasoning being that many of the aspects of Globalism were likely done by Democrats, they made deals, they made concessions. Concessions to American Conservatives is the appearance of weakness capitalistically. So they moan and attack Democrats for "having done such things to America" (with the typical "shame on you" stereotyping)

The problem is that this actually creatives a repetitive cycle. Conservatives get in and trash the place to make it incompatible with Democrats (often putting more effort into the trashing than the actual replacement with a better fiscal model) so eventually the public gets fed up with everything being wrecked and lets the Democrats back in. Who then can go out of there way to try to re-stabilise international ties through concessions and the posed weakness the Conservatives hate, thus starting the whole cycle again.

The question should be for all of you... "What can Americans do to get off the merry-go-round?"

[stryder]

On the subject of Automotive Tariffs.

What if a company Rented it's entire rolling stock of Rentable Cars from Canada? It would hypothetically mean it could rent out non-US cars in the US allowing foreign cars to negate the Tariffs since they were never sold there.

Further to that the Rolling stock of the rental company could be sold when it reaches it's EOL at which point the tariff could be applied, however it would suffer a severe markdown due to being second-hand.

In fact simplifying that further. Canada could just stop selling NEW cars to the US and only send it's old Jalopy's instead (or least last years models or "refurbished"/Seconds).

[Zinjanthropos]

We were about to start looking for a new vehicle to replace pickup but now plan to fix whatever needs fixing, cheaper than buying new or used.

[C C]

Globalization relies on choke points being protected, as well piracy being curtailed across shipping routes in general. The United States Navy can no longer secure all those lanes to the extent that it did in the past, due to the reduction in the number of its vessels.

After WWII, the US seduced most of the world to be on its side during the Cold War by policing the oceans and waterways, and thereby enabling a robust era of global trade to be possible. The side effect of that, though, was that it allowed economic rivals to arise. China is among those that is heavily dependent upon globalization.

After the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, globalization increased to ever more massive levels. But the original reason that the US protected shipping lanes, provided military defense to others, and so-forth was now gone or unnecessary. Especially since competitors (particularly China) were growing fat from it.

Even Biden retained Trump's original tariffs on China, though relaxed those on allies. (Why Biden is keeping Trump’s China tariffs in place)

As the US Navy shrinks in size, and piracy resurges and chokepoints are fouled by neighboring conflicts, and other factors... deglobalization has become the trend now, regardless of tariffs. China could use its own expanding military fleets to protect its ships, and Europe and other sectors could increase their own navies. But they've been freeloading reliant on or addicted to US protection for so long that the latter might be a difficult [negative] momentum to overcome.

Ironically or seemingly in contradiction to being a supporter of deglobalization, Trump now wants the Navy to build more ships. But the extra workforce is just not available. Also, the reason he offers for the turnaround is "jobs" rather than a return to stoutly securing the shipping lanes, as in the days of old. 

Trump has promised to build more ships. He may deport the workers who help make them.
https://www.propublica.org/article/us-na...nald-trump

"Still, experts say that these robust efforts have so far resulted in nowhere near enough workers for current needs, let alone a workforce large enough to handle expanded production. “We’re trying to get blood from a turnip,” said Shelby Oakley, an analyst at the Government Accountability Office. 'The domestic workforce is just not there.' In the meantime, the industry is relying on immigrants for a range of shipyard duties..."
- - - - - - -

360° view of policies needed to secure shipping chokepoints
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/360...hokepoints

"Decades of harmony on the high seas lulled many into forgetting that geographic chokepoints can significantly limit global commerce [...] In recent years, chokepoints have roared back onto the scene and have lived up to their name..."
- - - - - - -

Peter Zeihan: So the Americans came to a conclusion when they were facing down Stalin in the middle of Europe [...] the solution was to bribe everybody to use our Navy to patrol the global oceans so that any one of our allies could go anywhere at any time and interact with any other player, access any material, and especially access the American market, which was really the only one to survive the war. The catch was you had to let the Americans write your security policies.

And so never forget that from the very beginning, the very concept of globalization for the United States was never about economics or trade. It was about security. We pay you to be on our side. And that worked. And after 40, 45 years, the Cold War ended because the Soviet system could not compete, because the Americans not only held the security upper hand, but it created this alliance of economies that were massively larger. [...] We’re no longer in a world where the U.S. economy is as large as everybody else put together.

Based on how you do the math, the rest of the world combined is three or four times the size of the United States. So doing indirect economic subsidization, as the U.S. had for 45 years, became less and less tenable over the next 30. And we’re now in an environment where some of these countries, China, for the most part, are so overextended and so dependent on globalization that the only way they can survive is as the United States increases support, not decreases.

[...] The idea of globalization is no longer benefiting the United States because we’ve never viewed it the same way as everyone else. ... When politics shifts, those factional alliances don’t make sense anymore. And so they have to evolve. ... And if you look at what has happened so far, none of it supports globalization.

So, for example, unions have largely fallen out of the Democratic coalition. The Trump coalition was fairly successful at drawing them out. They are very anti-free trade...

[...] And we are now entering a world where the people who traditionally have done most of the consuming people, 45 and under the folks who are having kids and buying homes and cars, they just don’t exist in the necessary numbers to sustain the system...

[...] So we no longer have the security parameters to make this [globalization] work because the Americans aren’t interested. We no longer have the economic basis to make this work because we don’t have enough young people to consume. ... that is more than enough time to kill any remnants of the globalized system. --Deglobalization: There’s No Stopping It Now

[Syne]

Oh, so it's benevolent to use poorer countries for your own gain? I see.
Companies only go to poorer countries in order to game the system by using their relatively poor economies against them. And there's a huge financial incentive to make sure those countries remain poorer. Doesn't sound at all benevolent to me.
Now if those countries were steadily progressing towards Western standards of living and prosperity... but they know that, if they progress to much, Western companies will find the next developing economy to exploit.

[Magical Realist]

As already posted, globalization is a major cause for the reduction of world poverty rates and of a marked rise in the quality of life in poorer countries. There's no denying the facts:

"In the ongoing debate about the benefits of trade, we must not lose sight of a vital fact. Trade and global integration have raised incomes across the world, while dramatically cutting poverty and global inequality.

Within some countries, trade has contributed to rising inequality, but that unfortunate result ultimately reflects the need for stronger safety nets and better social and labor programs, not trade protection.

Merchandise trade as a share of world GDP grew from around 30 percent in 1988 to around 50 percent in 2013. In this period of rapid globalization, average income grew by 24 percent globally, the global poverty headcount ratio declined from 35% to 10.7%, and the income of the bottom 40 percent of the world population increased by close to 50 percent.

This big picture evidence is buttressed by compelling micro-econometric studies on pro-poor income and consumption gains.

The 2001, US-Vietnam free trade agreement reduced poverty in Vietnam by increasing wage premiums in export sectors, spurring job reallocation from agriculture, forestry and fishing into manufacturing, and stimulating enterprise job growth.

A study of 27 industrial and 13 developing countries finds that shutting off trade would deprive the richest 10 percent of 28 percent of their purchasing power, but the poorest 10 percent would lose 63 percent because they buy relatively more imported goods.

In many developing countries, export growth has been associated with greater gender equality. Exporting firms generally employ a significantly higher share of women than non-exporters. In Cambodia’s export-oriented garment sector, which is one of the main providers of wage employment in Cambodia, 85 percent of all workers are women."

https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developme...er-incomes

[Syne]

Within some countries, trade has contributed to rising inequality, but that unfortunate result ultimately reflects the need for stronger safety nets and better social and labor programs, not trade protection.

And you think these poor countries have robust safety nets and social programs? 9_9

[Magical Realist]

Within some countries, trade has contributed to rising inequality, but that unfortunate result ultimately reflects the need for stronger safety nets and better social and labor programs, not trade protection.

And you think these poor countries have robust safety nets and social programs? 9_9

LOL Synthia now all worried that third world countries don't have safety nets and social programs for their poor. I thought you conservatives were deadset against all that..

[Syne]

I'm holding you to your own leftist standards, hypocrite. You're the people who want all the safety nets and social programs, yet you're completely uncaring so long as exploiting poor countries benefits you personally.

I am against social safety nets, but I'm also for an even playing field where people in those countries have something resembling the opportunities we enjoy. You apparently don't care if those poor countries have either. You use them not have social safety nets as a political cudgel and you don't bat an eye at their rising inequality (something leftists are vocally against).

So next time you think you've got a hypocritical gotcha, look in the mirror first, moron.

[Magical Realist]

I am against social safety nets

That's what I thought liar. So quit arguing for something you don't support and then blaming me for calling you on it.

I'm also for an even playing field where people in those countries have something resembling the opportunities we enjoy. You apparently don't care if those poor countries have either.

Then you should be all for globalization as I already showed twice how it creates jobs for poor countries and raises the standard of living overall. How is having higher paying jobs and a steady income NOT the same as the opportunities we enjoy? Do you think capitalism doesn't work in poor countries? You're an idiot if you do.