What part is false Salmo, the part about Tariffs not being inflationary or your boy Fuentes endorsing Harris?

Tariffs are one cause of inflation, but not the only cause.

Never heard about the Fuentes endorsement of Harris. Seems like an odd endorsement from the Holocaust denier.

No tariffs don't cause inflation. Go back and read what I wrote. Better yet, I'll explain it in greater detail in terms that even a 5th grader can understand. This is math, not politics. This is an absolute certainty, no room for opinion. My Marriam-Webster Dictionary issued in 1984 defines Inflation as "an increase in the volume of money relative to available goods and services." Inflation is caused by government printing money to cover for deficit spending. You mentioned this fact already in this very thread.



A tariff is a tax on an imported good or service. It thus does indeed raise the price of said good or service by the amount of the tariff. This is easily understood and weaponized by the liars in the media and economic profession. In fact a tariff is exactly neutral to inflation as a whole. Why? Let's take an example.

There is a shoe that has a price of $50 at the dock coming into the US. The US Government slaps a $14 tariff on it, so now the cost at the dock is $64. Assuming the business passes that through and neither attempts to profit from or absorb it, that is, they take no deliberate action to attempt to exploit it or be damaged by it, the entire $14 shows up on the shelf price. That sounds inflationary. It isn't. Why not?

Because all inflation is caused by the emission of credit by printing money, and the US Government is running a fiscal deficit-that is, emitting credit by printing money. This is the infamous Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate in economics, statement: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena."

So where does the $14 go? It goes directly to the Federal Government and reduces inflation generated by the federal government's deficit spending by the exact same amount the price increase at the consumer increases it.

Again, tariffs are a zero when it comes to inflation-they neither help or hurt it as a function of imposing and collecting them because there is exact balance, to the penny, of both inflationary and deflationary forces. When you say that tariffs cause inflation you are only looking at the inflationary side of the $14 on the shoe that you see and not the deflationary side of the $14 that reduces the government deficit and thus money printing that is unseen.

However, to the extent a tariff incentivizes jobs and production to come back to the United States they are deflationary and benefit consumers by lowering inflation pressure in that producing a good or service in the United States instead of overseas means all of the tax revenue generated by the activity happens here in the United States and tax revenue of course decreases the deficit and thus drives inflation down.

So tariffs are directly neutral to inflation but because they have the intended effect of incentiving jobs here in America, additional taxes will be collected on these jobs in America that goes right to the Federal Government and causes less money to need to be printed to cover the deficit and that causes deflation. The inflation that we have had over the last 4 years isn't because of Trump's proposed tariffs, the inflation we have had is because of money printed at the Federal Reserve to fund deficit spending. Here we are, the Federal Reserve's own statistics (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CURRCIR), since Jan-1-2020 until today the money supply has increased 33%, since our goods and services supply didn't increase by 33% instead prices on goods and services has gone up 33%. It's not tariffs, it's the Federal Reserve part of the Federal Government doing the inflation. The only place where the volume of money increases from is the Federal Reserve, it's the only place inflation can come from. Not tariffs.



So no, this isn't an alternative fact. This is just one of hundreds of issues you are about as knowledgeable as a 5th grader on. You have deep knowledge on one topic of fisheries but on every other subject your knowledge is shallow and you are as ignorant as a 5th grader. Except I know some 5th graders who aren't as shallow as you are in your general knowledge areas.

So instead of handwaving it away as "alternative facts" why don't you address my actual argument and the math. Or maybe admit that on this topic, you are out of your depth.



Try getting your news from somewhere other than ABC, CBS, MSNBC & CNN. Try these places...

https://www.newsweek.com/nick-fuentes-slams-donald-trump-supporters-it-cult-1979186
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl...w/112655203.cms
https://nationalzero.com/2024/09/17/nick-fuentes-endorses-kamala-harris/
https://www.rawstory.com/nick-fuentes-2669567900/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/neo-nazi-commentator-nick-fuentes-accepts-liberals-are-right/
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-in...lection-1927860
https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch...t-takeover-2028

I think Flatbrim/ Fish Prince is playing everybody. He is really a Democrat and voted for Harris.

RIP Salmo G.



Streamer

Apples and oranges. Ukraine is not in NATO and was never intended to be a part of NATO. The Declaration of Sovereignty of Ukraine and the Minks Agreements both speak to the intention of Ukraine being a neutral state. When the US pushes for Ukraine to violate this by talks of joining NATO, there will be pushback from Russia. The US war machine is using Ukraine as the proxy with Russia. The US wanted this war and started this war with Russia.

Historically, the Baltic countries were only under Russian control for short periods of time unlike Ukraine which was considerably longer. Russia has much more of a claim to Ukraine than it does to the Baltic countries, so it is quite and assumption to make that Putin would try to take them, especially being under NATO control. Again, apples and oranges.



Frankly, it would seem better if we just minded our own business as it is not our role to be involved in this. We should also exit NATO as well and not concern ourselves in frivolous overseas wars.



I have a friend that is black.


Streamer

It is interesting to me that no one ever talks about Trump's advanced age. He is slowing down mentally and is very overweight and out of shape. Too many cheeseburgers and Coke. He will be 82 if he lasts the full four year term. He had to
take time off during the campaign because of "exhaustion". Will he even be here in four years and, if he is , will he be functional? Vance better be ready to go and up to speed to take over when/ if the time comes. Something to consider.

Thanks Zak for the Milton Friedman primer. We 5th graders appreciate it. And here I thought increasing prices of goods was inflationary. So perhaps not always the case.

Hundreds of issues, eh? There is so much to know in this world.

Streamer,

I once thought isolationism would be a preferred strategy for the US. But I wasn't yet up to 5th grade level knowledge (to use FP's term) of world affairs. US interests are so inextricably tied to points all around the planet that isolationism is counter to our needs and interests. I think isolationism would lead to a world where allied forces opposed to us would become large and powerful enough to take us down. That's an outcome to be avoided IMO.

[/quote]
The inflation that we have had over the last 4 years isn't because of Trump's proposed tariffs, the inflation we have had is because of money printed at the Federal Reserve to fund deficit spending. [/quote]

Puzzle pieces missing. Tarriff...Tax? No difference. Funny how the voting public rallies around one but chastises the other. What matters is where the proceeds go. In the pockets of millionaires? Deficit? Social programs? I don't trust Trump. I see him and his cronies getting a big windfall one way or another if more tariffs are implemented.
One thing not mentioned is we had a pandemic in 2020 that killed over 3 million people, caused supply issues, and shut down the world for a period of time. The relief spending came to assist a recovery. Know one knows what would have happend without that cash infusion. It was the major cause of the inflation. Econ 101, Supply and Demand. I know lots of people and business owners that took that cash that didn't need to. Trump won because everything costs more and the Dems caught the blame. Prices may fall a little but the price increases are here to stay. Not even Trump can produce pre pandemic prices. People are such idiots to think so. One thing it did do, is artificially inflate the stock market to the point where we are at today. Mark my words, a stock market correction is looming and Trump will get the blame if he is in office, even though he had nothing to do with it. If you haven't already, one should consider reaping the market gains since 08 and moving investments. I have. Time to end this discussion and go fish for something!

Salmo,

At least at one point you thought somewhat correctly on the issue. To clarify, avoiding unnecessary wars and alliances is starkly different than isolationism. War isn’t necessary to ensure free trade and commerce. War is necessary for the military industrial complex, though. NATO is nothing more than a guaranteed contract for corporate interests at the taxpayer expense. The US also pays proportionally more than other countries and receives the least benefit.

When you factor in the lives lost, families destroyed and tax dollars spent on these wars and the hardships they create, it isn’t worth it. Being an old school lib hippy, I’m surprised that you seem to endorse interventionism and war. I’m equally surprised at your Rich G-esque paranoia of the rest of the world coming together to collectively to take us down. It won’t happen. Did Rich share some mushrooms with you lately?


Streamer

Stock market has gone up along with everything else 33% due to inflation. It's not going back down. This is bad investment advice. I just sold 100 oz of gold and 2000 oz of silver yesterday and am putting it back into the stock market. Now I've got $1 million in index funds and when Trump leaves office in 4 years it will be worth $1.6 million to $2 million.

So just for the sake of argument, what would you recommend buying with the $320,000 I just got from the gold and silver other than the index funds (I already have $660,000 in index funds). Whatever I am buying should outperform the stock market with the same or less risk. I can only think of one asset that has outperformed the market, bitcoin, but it is way too risky. I have $36,000 in bitcoin, that's enough for me. So no bitcoin, too risky. No gold, no silver, return is generally to low although this last year it wasn't. Real Estate return is too low. Bonds returns are way to low. So what do you recommend buying that will outperform the index funds over the next 4 years?

If one was to reap the market gains as you suggest, what do you do with the money? Hold it as cash? Also bad idea.

I’d buy land in NE Montana. Mostly for bird hunting, with a bit of big game hunting, fishing, or lite fun farming. Make sure the land is on or near the oil and gas fields, and wait for the the right offers to sell access start coming in.

But mostly for my bird hunting.

Nice. So when the DoD/CIA runs a PsyOP on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and they will be running PsyOPs lying that Trump tariffs are causing inflation, you can pull out your newly minted knowledge, be smarter than a 5th grader on this topic and impress your friends.



1 down 99 to go. We will turn you from a specialist into a generalist after all! You don't need to know everything, if I can teach you 100 things, that should be enough.

FP,

You're such a tool. I"ve liked a little Friedman ever since reading, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." However, just yesterday I heard several Congressmen refer to the coming price increases due to tariffs as inflation. Are they stuck at 5th grade level? So that got me to wondering who is in charge of definitions. A lot of terms, rightly or wrongly, become defined by common usage. When prices go up, regardless of reason, many, maybe most, say that's inflation. I try to stay above 5th grade reading level, but I'm not an expert in everything. The government wants inflation to stay in the range of 2 - 3%. Does that mean they want to expand the money supply by that same 2 - 3% annually? Or are there possibly causes besides expanding the money supply that directly contribute to inflation? I'd dive into that question, but at the moment I'm not that interested.

I believe that PsyOps do exist, but mostly I think they exist in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Since you appear to think Trump isn't guilty of the crimes and things he has been charged with, it makes me wonder how far down the conspiracy theory tunnel you are.

Streamer,

I'm partly old school anti-war hippy, but studying the ways of the world has hopefully made me a bit wiser. I opposed Bush jr's war in Iraq because it was undeniably a direct invastion by the US of a sovereign nation. The fact that we dislike Saddam is irrelevant; we dislike (usually, except that Trump idolizes them) all tyrant dictators. And now we have Russia, a dictatorship, invading the sovereign democratic nation of Ukraine. Color me opposed to the invasion of sovereign nations. That is why I favor supporting Ukraine's defense. When you factor in the human cost of 60 million free Ukrainians becoming subjects of totalitarian Russia, worth becomes a more complicated term.

I agree that war isn't necessary for free trade and commerce. I don't agree that NATO is nothing more than a guarantee for the military industrial complex, although it does help the MIC. IMO, NATO exists to keep free countries free, mainly free from Russian aggression since that was considered the primary threat to freedom when it was chartered. And here we are with Russian aggression against Ukraine. I don't see how having Russia retake former Soviet states makes the world either a better or safer place. I think a world with fewer democracies makes the world less safe for remaining democracies, including the US.

After the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine shipped all its nukes to Russia because of the agreement by Russia, the US, and I think maybe UK, agreed to protect Ukraine. Silly Ukraine and US to think Russia wouldn't double cross. I'm thinking we have failed our word to help protect Ukraine, since we're giving them weaponry to defend itself, but not enough to "win" this war. This gets me to thinking we should ship a bunch of nukes to Ukraine to improve its self defense posture and let Putin ponder that over breakfast. How's that for a RichG-esque sequence?

They either have a 5th grade understanding of this or they are lying. Either explanation works for me.



Yes, that is how it works.



No because by definition, inflation is when the value of the dollar goes down so the prices of everything all go up together all at once. Nothing other than the amount of dollars in circulation controls the value of a dollar so if more dollars are printed then all dollars are inflated to be worth less. If one good or one class of goods (like imported goods) price goes up this is not inflation or even evidence of inflation because it is not all goods going up at once or the value of the dollar declining.

If you want to bitch about the price increases due to the tariffs, why not just call them price increases due to the tariffs? Then you would be accurate and I wouldn't say a thing. Why lie and say that this is inflation? The reason is they are trying to confuse the issue by conflating the tariffs which reduce inflation with the inflation problem itself. I also think a further reason is that if they bitch about the price increases you can then bring up the tax revenue deficit reducing inflation aspect of these tariffs that reduces the prices on all other goods to take the wind out of their complaint. Also keep in mind that these congressmen are all 100% on board with the inflation rate as they are indirectly responsible for it by approving the federal reserve appointees, so of course they are trying to blame the price increases from inflation on anyone but them. First their scapegoat was big greedy business and now it's the Trump tariffs. It's anyone elses fault but theirs.



Most of what you read and view in the news are PsyOPs. You obviously do not recognize them as such. Intentional dissemination of misinformation or disinformation through legitimate news sources, as part of a psychological operation (psyop) aimed at influencing public opinion, undermining an enemy’s will to fight, or achieving strategic objectives. This phenomenon involves the laundering of misinformation through trusted third-party news outlets, making it more difficult to detect and attribute. The DoD/CIA runs PsyOPs in our legitimate news media all the time. Quite a bit of COVID nonsense was a PsyOP, the anti-Trump hysteria is a PsyOP, Ukraine war is a PsyOP and the inflation issue is another PsyOP. I hope you are not handwaving away the very real practice of PsyOPs with the Conspiracy Theorist slur, it is very real... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(United_States)

Yeah, PsyOps are the Republican false narrative spread over the past several years that the 2020 election was stolen even though no evidence to that effect has ever been produced, and that Biden infrastructure initiative is bad because Biden did it, all Rs voted against it, and then those same Rs claim credit when infrastructure investment happens in their districts; the economy is bad even when it's good during a D administration; and over-exaggerating the adverse effects of illegal immigration during D administrations but falling silent on it during R administrations; and the DOJ is weaponized when an R is prosecuted but isn't if a D or liberal is prosecuted; and on down the line.

Just the other day during Trump's first post-election interview, when asked what his first action as prez will be, Trump didn't even mention the words tariff or deportation. It's beginning to look like some of Trump's advisors, who have half a brain, are letting him know that his proposed tariffs will be devastating to the economy and deporting 11 million people isn't logistically or fiscally feasible. So Trump just replied that "there will be a lot of firsts," without naming a single action. It's kinda' looking like Suzie Wiles is going to be acting president who gets things done while Trump is playing golf, to the extent he remains physically viable. Oh, and Bobby Kennedy. Looks like there just might be another Kennedy semi-presidency.

If RFK is appointed Health "Czar", since he is already promoting eating healthier foods and getting rid of the bad stuff, does that mean that Trump will have to stop eating cheese burgers and drinking the Diet Coke? If so, good old Uncle Don will not like that. That is not a good idea, Bobby, if you want the job.

On the mass deportation of people that Trump promised to start on day one, that will not likely happen. The ACLU and maybe other humanitarian groups will file a lawsuit(s) against the Trump administration. Plus the cost will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It could be tied up in courts also. Let the chaos begin.

Flat out wrong. There is an extensive history of known Psyops conducted by the US government. It isn’t a false narrative or conspiracy. Also, no evidence was ever presented in court, those cases were dismissed for lack of standing simply because courts historically do not like to be involved in election cases. Do you even read bro?



This is true.



More illegals came during the Biden administration that deliberately turned a blind eye to the problem and swept it under the rug. They did nothing other than send a large number of them to swing states. Oh and ID is no longer needed to vote. All a coincidence, right Salmo?



There is a disproportionate number of Republicans indicted/charged over Democrats. You probably believe it’s because Democrats = perfect and Republicans = bad. Everything against Trump was proven to be bullschit. The Russia Hoax, Steele Dossier, Stormy Daniels, bogus fraud charges, statutes of limitations and old schit brought up, January 6th non-sense, etc. Trump could have gone directly after Hillary Clinton for her problems but chose not to because he said it would be bad for our country. Democrats don’t show that level of prudence and instead wait for it to bite themselves in the a$$ down the road.



You apparently have a mental block on this tariff thing. Perhaps you should re-read what FP posted. Maybe the 100th time will sink in for you unless your comprehension truly is capped at a 5th grade level. Wouldn’t surprise me.

Bobby Kennedy and other former Democrats are joining together with Trump for a reason. The Democrats moved so far left they abandoned the reasonable moderates of their party. But instead of addressing Bobby’s entirely sound points, you use as hominems and resort to him as a kook or a looney the same way a 5th grader would.


Streamer