In reply to Boost_Crazy :
You're wrong in many areas. But in the end this isn't poker. And taking crazy chances with everyone else's money is too big a risk when the evidence is strongly against you. Ask a Harley employee.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
You're wrong in many areas. But in the end this isn't poker. And taking crazy chances with everyone else's money is too big a risk when the evidence is strongly against you. Ask a Harley employee.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I've been lurking for many years and have never gotten involved because I never felt I could bring anything more to the conversations. And I don't think I can bring anything more to this one either. But everything you have written so far about this subject has reflected what I think so perfectly that I had to post. It is so refreshing to read/hear something that shows honest reflection and logic rather than opinion. Thank you.
In reply to markwemple :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
You're wrong in many areas. But in the end this isn't poker. And taking crazy chances with everyone else's money is too big a risk when the evidence is strongly against you. Ask a Harley employee.
I'm skipping over your other post where you double down on calling people dumb.
I'll address this one. How am I wrong? I didn't express an opinion on what I thought was the correct course of action. I simply stated that there is more than one course of action, and each has it's own risk/reward. But make no mistake, it is a poker game. We are already sitting at the table (we are engaged in world trade.) There is a finite number of chips. Harley Davidson is already playing. They are a chip. That sounds bad, because it is. But it's reality. The alternative is to not play. Stay stateside. I'm sure someone else would be happy to copy their bikes and sell them as their own. This is how many of our trade partners see it, and they have been playing to win for quite some time. Some have been bending the rules a bit, maybe an ace up their sleeve from time to time.
Right or wrong, the current administration has decided to push their chips in. Not because they are stupid. They either feel they have the winning hand, or their opponent has been stealing the pot with a weak hand. Predictable is bad in poker, and this administration has been anything but predictable.
Now, you could argue that it's wrong to take the chance, and it would be a sound argument. Keep folding for now, and wait it out. But you cannot argue the outcome, because it hasn't happened yet.
I can argue that it's stupid to travel the path that caused the great depression. I can argue that it's stupid to ignore the advice the vast majority of respected experts are giving. And I also think it's safe to quote a professor's opinion of a student when it appears they all share that opinion.
Lest we also forget what nation is lending us money at essentially zero interest. Would it be smart to piss off a generous banker?
I'm going with expert opinion as I'm not an expert in this area. A bit of an historian. But no expert.
In reply to markwemple :
When in the last 15 years have the so-called experts been right about anything?
In reply to T.J. :
A lot more right than wrong. Unless you believe in things like "fake news"
Suprf1y said:wvumtnbkr said:
Curious to see where this ends up...
I can't see how it's going to do what it's intended purpose is and think it's going to hurt you significantly more than it's going to benefit you.
For sure. I think there will be some big bumps in the road!
I could be wrong. But I don’t think there is one instance of trade escalations in history that came out better than it started. History also shows us that the knock on effects of these actions take decades to undo.
In reply to markwemple :
Okaay. Good luck.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
The last part of your comment is also what I've heard. That's what really concerns me. The last great depression took the biggest war in history and possibly our greatest prresident 15 years to undo and over 60 million dead. Not poker.
In reply to T.J. :
So you're the kind of guy who hired the local teenager to do serious plumbing?
Has Fogger Jr returned under a nom de plume?
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to markwemple :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
You're wrong in many areas. But in the end this isn't poker. And taking crazy chances with everyone else's money is too big a risk when the evidence is strongly against you. Ask a Harley employee.
I'm skipping over your other post where you double down on calling people dumb.
I'll address this one. How am I wrong? I didn't express an opinion on what I thought was the correct course of action. I simply stated that there is more than one course of action, and each has it's own risk/reward. But make no mistake, it is a poker game. We are already sitting at the table (we are engaged in world trade.) There is a finite number of chips. Harley Davidson is already playing. They are a chip. That sounds bad, because it is. But it's reality. The alternative is to not play. Stay stateside. I'm sure someone else would be happy to copy their bikes and sell them as their own. This is how many of our trade partners see it, and they have been playing to win for quite some time. Some have been bending the rules a bit, maybe an ace up their sleeve from time to time.
Right or wrong, the current administration has decided to push their chips in. Not because they are stupid. They either feel they have the winning hand, or their opponent has been stealing the pot with a weak hand. Predictable is bad in poker, and this administration has been anything but predictable.
Now, you could argue that it's wrong to take the chance, and it would be a sound argument. Keep folding for now, and wait it out. But you cannot argue the outcome, because it hasn't happened yet.
The problem is that it's not really like a game of cards. Every country doesn't have a static hand, they all have big adjustable hands and the ability to "gang up" on one player if they so choose. It's much more a big multi-player game of chess where you're trying to guess at what they other players will do.
My concern is that the US is thinking tariffs will act like sanctions in trying to change the behavior of trading partners. Sanctions don't tend to work well without large scale cooperation with allies because almost every good or service is replaceable from a global perspective. It's a little like getting banned from one restaurant in town.
My feeling is that the biggest overlooked concern is that there will be some level of coordination, either behind the scenes or overt, against the US tariffs. I think the US has the economic and political might to win individual battles against individual industries or countries, I don't think we have what it takes to battle a group of major trading partners all at once. Imagine very targeted global tariffs against certain companies/products. Tariffs on domestic motorcycle production hits Wisconsin. Bourbon production hits Kentucky. Pork hits Iowa. All of a sudden foreign countries are intentionally crippling individual states/regions in an effort to change the political climate in the US and thus change the results of the national political scene. I'm very uncomfortable going down that rabbit hole.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to frenchyd :
In reply to Boost_Crazy : This is a can’t win situation. We. impose tariffs on steel they respond with tariffs on pork and soy beans. Our farmers who are already at or below the cost of production are hurt as a result.
Meanwhile other countries impose tariffs on Harley Davidson motorcycles and Bourbon. OPEC floods world oil markets with more oil.
Pretty easy to see where all of this leading to.
.
Maybe so. It's a big poker game. We've been folding our hands, being blead down a little at a time. Can't lose too bad if you keep folding. Can't win either though. Our opponent's stacks are getting bigger , ours has been shrinking. Maybe we got a good hand, or maybe the bluff is good enough to get some of our chips back. Or maybe we lose big. But anyone telling you that they know what will happen must be a psychic because we haven't turned the cards over yet.
Is it wise to play the game? That's a very valid question, and I don't think there is a "right" answer. If we keep folding, nothing bad will happen, at least not suddenly. It would be hard for history to point out the mistake. If we play the hand, it will be pretty obvious if it was a good or poor choice. I can tell you that we didn't build up our stack of chips by folding.
I could be wrong but I suspect the fundamental reason for the tariffs is an attempt to bring the budget somewhat close to balanced.
We basically gave a 1 &1/2 Trillion dollar tax break and the middle class can’t make that up!!
Harley moving production out of US to make up for tariffs. Just announced. Won't be shocked if many companies do this.
In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :
The EU, Canada and Mexico are doing this.
Plus we have a trading surplus with many nations we have imposed tariffs against. How does that make sense.
Granted the company is struggling because No one under thr age of 45 wants one of their bikes and the boomers are ageing out.
It's also a work around. Not just to save money but to reduce the sale price.
Having recently purchased a few items from overseas expensive enough to require paying import duties on, it does seem like our tariffs are lower than they should be - at least relative to other countries. But going from 2.5% to 25% seems a bit excessive and more like a political play. Whether or not that play will have the desired effect remains to be seen.
It may seem strange but I prefer to act in good faith and not bad faith
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to markwemple :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Outside of the nuts in DC, I haven't heard 1 economist say it was a good idea. Tons saying it isn't. Most are saying that the China deal may have been worth a thought 20 years ago, but we are way past that.
Do you mean the tariffs themselves or trying to equalize trade overall? I don't think many people, even those imposing them, think tariffs are good. Maybe people who stand to benefit directly (US auto workers in this case.) But there are a lot of people outside of D.C. that see the benefits of equalizing trade. Long term. If it works. And tariffs are a tool.
I also think the cause of the trade imbalance is important. Americans like cheap stuff. They don't like to work for low wages, but are happy to buy from countries that do. In that case, that's just basic economics.
But there are other factors at play, depending on the countries in question. Some already disproportionally tax our goods. Some use state sponsored "companies" to dump product onto the market, with the goal of forcing competition out of business. Others have much stricter rules for US companies doing business in their country than we do for their business in ours. To be fair, I'm sure other countries could say the same about us, but overall we appear to be on the short side of things. That said, we are doing pretty well, and it's understandable that many feel that we shouldn't rock the boat.
When you factor in that concept with the goal of maximizing profits quarterly at all costs, that's realy what has been pushing manufacturing off our shores. Companies and the economy worked pretty darned well when we were paying good wages, and "shareholder value" was not the word of the day. When shareholder value became a big thing (from various reasons, but since the mid-90's, companies have been more focused on that than long term thinking)- then you saw jobs leave en-mass. We want to blame NAFTA for jobs moving south, but that misses some key things. Yes, there are many key parts of NAFTA that moved cheap jobs to Mexico, but at the same time, expensive jobs stayed in Canada... The search for cheap workers even happens here in the US- before many companies moved to Mexico, they moved from Union places to non-Union places searching for higher profit margins. (and lets not start a Union debate, I know that's a complicated issue, too- I'm pointing out that the search for cheap labor happens IN the US as well)
Anyway, this whole issue is far more complicated than a simple tariff set up will solve. And I also think that IF we were going to strong arm China into behaving, we missed that opportunity by about 20 years- once they have developed a reasonable internal economy, the threat of tariffs on them vs. us has greatly diminished.
BTW, the issue of tech transfer isn't just our government vs. China's government- much of that has to do with companies desperately trying to get into the China market. To the point they will do virtually anything to get into there. And then complaining about what they fully accepted to do. Again, pointing out that this whole issue is far deeper than just simple yes or no.
My gut tells me that trying to bully our trading partners into fixing issues that partially stem from our own fixation with money isn't going to work out all that well.
In reply to alfadriver :
Well said
In reply to alfadriver :
Well said
In reply to Slippery :
I think to a point they don’t understand what they’re asking for. There seems to be a habit of saying whatever comes to mind, pulling a number out of thin air, and then a reluctance to back down and admit an idea is bad. It looks like there’s no one that both understands economics and has an ability to sway the powers that be. We’re in a time where a catchy sound bite or meme can guide policy without any input from actual experts.
markwemple said:In reply to T.J. :
So you're the kind of guy who hired the local teenager to do serious plumbing?
No, not at all, but the fact that you would even type that is why I made an attempt to cease further interaction with you in this thread. It is not productive and you are either not interested or not capable of an actual discussion. Like I said before, good luck.
You'll need to log in to post.
