Tractors and (upcoming) tariffs?

[DieselBound]

Blue Mule: Warp Speed!

Still missing the underlying cause. I suggest tracking down and reading Sir John Glubb's "The Fate of empires" (here, I'll make it easy for folks: https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf)

Ruling classes always pit the masses against each other. As they say, if you don't understand history you're doomed to repeat it.

 

[bvanek]

The markets today are much different than those of 1930. We were a manufacturing country back then whereas now we are simply a consuming country with much less base manufacturing. A vast majority of what U.S. consumers buy today comes from China. Just try to find something that doesn't! It's not easy.

If you look back at the past 20 - 30 years, as manufacturing became concentrated in a few countries (mainly Korea then China) due to favorable labor rates and those countries governments incentives to have companies set up shop there, we have been slowly funneled into our goods coming from those areas. I know this firsthand as I worked for the international division of Frigidaire for 23 years and personally witnessed this happen, especially in Korea in the late 1980's then Mexico in the late 1990's. In that time however, tariffs have come and gone with little to no negative direct consumer impact. This has been for several reasons, the main one in recent times being that China has absorbed tariffs without raising prices. This is due to the gross trade imbalance between China and the U.S. today. So much of their economy rides on our purchasing power that they can't afford to sour that relationship. Further, tariffs can cause companies to relocate their manufacturing back in the USA or other more favorable countries like Mexico or even Thailand.

In the short term, U.S. consumers may see some impact from this policy however in the long term several positive outcomes are probable. One is that prices will come down due to competition. Once you remove the unfair advantage China has held for 30 years on trade, other areas will step up and compete for our business. Second, the quality will improve. Have you noticed the slow decay of quality in the last 10 - 15 years? Nothing lasts. We buy Christmas lights and they go bad every year so we buy them again. More money for China. We buy microwave ovens that used to last 15-20 years but now if you get 5 you're lucky. But we buy them again and China gets more money. However Finally, and I think more importantly, we as a nation need to get our eggs out of one big basket and diversify where our goods are made. What happens when anyone becomes dependent upon one source for the vast majority of what they need to live and survive? That one source has power over you that can be used against you. If that costs us a little more but releases us from a potential stranglehold and returns jobs to America, then the cost is justified.

Well said

 

[jyoutz]

In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded consumption for the first time in 62 years

We were not energy independent then or now, even though we actually produce more now than in 2019. A lot of US oil is exported because the type of oil isn’t what many refineries were designed to use. And we import oil that is compatible with the refineries.

 

[GWagon]

1st amendment.

Not an unlimited public forum. You have to follow rules set by the website.

 

[kw00]

We were not energy independent then or now, even though we actually produce more now than in 2019. A lot of US oil is exported because the type of oil isn’t what many refineries were designed to use. And we import oil that is compatible with the refineries.

Partially true. Most of the oil we produce is favorable for refining, but we have spent years importing inferior oil and have adjusted our refineries accordingly. With a consistent change the refineries will retool. (The cost of that is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, but it does require downtime.) And that doesn't change the fact that we WERE independent on paper, because the exports exceeded the imports. It turns out other countries refineries needed more of our petroleum products than we needed of theirs. By any reasonable definition that is independence.

 

[jyoutz]

Partially true. Most of the oil we produce is favorable for refining, but we have spent years importing inferior oil and have adjusted our refineries accordingly. With a consistent change the refineries will retool. (The cost of that is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, but it does require downtime.) And that doesn't change the fact that we WERE independent on paper, because the exports exceeded the imports. It turns out other countries refineries needed more of our petroleum products than we needed of theirs. By any reasonable definition that is independence.

So since we are producing more today than 2019, are we independent under your definition today?

 

[vanatic2]

I too paid into Social Security for many years. Even though I'm 75, and collecting, I'm still paying into the system because I remain self-employed as a farmer. They recalculate my benefit every year, based on the new addition to my earnings record. Because there were a few very lean years in that history, my benefit has been known to increase because I still work.
But I take exception to your assertion that if I had put that money into a private investment, I'd be better off. The truth is that it seemed like every time I managed to collect some savings, something came along to drain it away again. Those lean years I mentioned. The barn needs a new roof, the car dies, or weather cuts production. Something. The forced savings imposed by the government are keeping me solvent, now that I have enough "experience" that I can't do some of what I once could.
And BTW, the money that was "stolen" from Social Security was actually "borrowed." It became part of the National Debt. I seem to remember reading somewhere that we owe the largest portion of the National Debt to ourselves.

I too have paid into Social Security since a young age (16 for me). I was forced to retire early at 62 due to back problems. Fortunately, I had a good 401k that I started at age 26 and so am not entirely reliant upon Social Security however had I been, it would have been near impossible to live as I have been. Having done extensive research into how to manage that early retirement, considering the reduced SS benefit coupled with the high cost of healthcare until I quality for Medicare, I discovered some interesting information.

First, had the average worker been able to invest the same 12.4% of income that the government takes for SS in an IRA at a modest 8% return, most would easily top the $1 million mark by age 65. Further, rather than be at risk for the fund becoming insolvent, we would not be facing that issue as the markets have consistently posted positive returns for decades. Once you reach retirement age, it should be treated as any private IRA thus allowing you to withdraw funds to meet your financial needs and desires, rather than be pigeonholed into what they determine you may have. Plus, it's all yours or your heirs, not the governments. Finally, as it stands, once you pass away, whatever money is left is kept by the government, except in the case of survivor benefits which are often not at the full rate being paid to the original SS recipient. How many people die young and never collect benefits? If they had an IRA, it would at least go to their family or chosen heirs.

Though I agree that many people wouldn't have done this on their own, if we were required to have that same 12.4% withdrawn from our paychecks but deposited in an approved IRA that we could manage how we invest (aggressive or conservative) we would be far better off. I am NOT at all for the government managing this or many other areas of our lives as they have proven to be remiss in much of their fiduciary duties.

 

[jyoutz]

I too have paid into Social Security since a young age (16 for me). I was forced to retire early at 62 due to back problems. Fortunately, I had a good 401k that I started at age 26 and so am not entirely reliant upon Social Security however had I been, it would have been near impossible to live as I have been. Having done extensive research into how to manage that early retirement, considering the reduced SS benefit coupled with the high cost of healthcare until I quality for Medicare, I discovered some interesting information.

First, had the average worker been able to invest the same 12.4% of income that the government takes for SS in an IRA at a modest 8% return, most would easily top the $1 million mark by age 65. Further, rather than be at risk for the fund becoming insolvent, we would not be facing that issue as the markets have consistently posted positive returns for decades. Once you reach retirement age, it should be treated as any private IRA thus allowing you to withdraw funds to meet your financial needs and desires, rather than be pigeonholed into what they determine you may have. Plus, it's all yours or your heirs, not the governments. Finally, as it stands, once you pass away, whatever money is left is kept by the government, except in the case of survivor benefits which are often not at the full rate being paid to the original SS recipient. How many people die young and never collect benefits? If they had an IRA, it would at least go to their family or chosen heirs.

Though I agree that many people wouldn't have done this on their own, if we were required to have that same 12.4% withdrawn from our paychecks but deposited in an approved IRA that we could manage how we invest (aggressive or conservative) we would be far better off. I am NOT at all for the government managing this or many other areas of our lives as they have proven to be remiss in much of their fiduciary duties.

What you say is logical, but SS isn’t an IRA and was never intended to be. That is a conversation that the nation needs to have.

 

[Williy]

When the govment stole from the railroad retirement: My
father-in-law's neighbor worked the same job as my father-in=law the neighbor retired just before the govment stole
some of their retirement because my father-in-law received
$400 a month less than the neighbor after the govement
stole from the RR retirement fundand they both started
the same year. On retirement $400 makes a big difference

willy

 

[kw00]

So since we are producing more today than 2019, are we independent under your definition today?

I can't read it for you:

... the exports exceeded the imports. It turns out other countries refineries needed more of our petroleum products than we needed of theirs. By any reasonable definition that is independence.