Tag Archives: Trump

News

Donald Trump’s plan to introduce tariffs is just a tax on consumer goods

4 Comments
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

What are the consequences of adopting tariffs for all of the people who are affected? What happens next, after stage one?

Here’s a lesson in basic economics from Joe Carter, writing for the Acton Institute.

He writes:

Both Sanders and Trump propose increasing tariffs on goods imported from other countries — and increase them significantly.* This isn’t that surprising for Sanders, a socialist who, on the issue of economics, is one of the most ill-informed candidates in modern history. But Trump should (and probably does) understand the detrimental impact tariffs have on the poor. And yet he has proposed an economy-crippling, poverty-increasing tariff.

In 2012, Trump proposed a tariff on China of 25 percent. In 2016 he bumped it up to 45 percent. (He later tried to lie and say he never proposed the 45 percent increase, but there is audio of him making the proposal.) A tariff is simply a tax on imports or exports, so Trump is proposing to raise taxes on imported goods by 25 to 45 percent. (To keep this point in mind, I’ll hereafter refer to tariffs as “taxes.”)

You might be thinking, “ So what? That’s a tax the Chinese have to pay.” But that’s not the way tariffs works. China doesn’t pay the tax — you do. If a tariff on Chinese goods is increased by 25 to 45 percent then you pay 25 to 45 percent more for those goods.

Here’s a way to think about it. Imagine there are two hamburger stands in town. One is owned by the mayor’s wife, Veronica, and one is owned by a woman who lives in the next town over, Betty.

Of the two, Betty makes the tastier burger. She is also able to charge $1 a burger since she is able to buy her supplies in her own hometown for much cheaper. Veronica’s burgers aren’t quite as good and cost more to make. She has to charge $1.30 per burger.

The mayor decides to implement a new tax of 45 percent on producers (like Betty) who don’t live in the city limits. Since Betty’s profit margin is already low, she has to pass the bulk of the 45-cent tax on to her customers. Instead of $1 she now has to charge $1.35.

So who is better off in this scenario? The only winner is Veronica. Since her burgers are now cheaper, she is likely to sell more. And who is worse off? The customers who now have to pay 30 to 35 cents more for every burger. That is money they could have used to buy other products or services. Now they have to spend additional money on this new tax.

The same principle applies to taxes on goods and services imported from other countries. Customers simply have to pay more for goods and services they used to get much cheaper.

To understand how Trump’s tax increase would affect consumers, take a trip to Target or Wal-Mart and add 45 percent to almost all the prices. That’s money that comes directly out of your pocket into the hands of the federal government — all to punish you for buying goods that are cheaper to make in China.

Harvard University economist Greg Mankiw explains what most professional economists agree on. The economic benefit of free trade tied for first place, with 93% agreement:

The recent debate over the stimulus bill has lead some observers to think that economists are hopelessly divided on issues of public policy. That is true regarding business cycle theory and, specifically, the virtues or defects of Keynesian economics. But it is not true more broadly.

My favorite textbook covers business cycle theory toward the end of the book (the last four chapters) precisely because that theory is controversial. I believe it is better to introduce students to economics with topics about which there is more of a professional consensus. In chapter two of the book, I include a table of propositions to which most economists subscribe, based on various polls of the profession. Here is the list, together with the percentage of economists who agree:

  1. A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93%)

  2. Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93%)

He is the author of his “favorite textbook”, which is published by Harvard University Press.

This is not controversial among professional and academic economists. Economists across the ideological spectrum understand that free trade lowers the prices of consumer goods, and allows individuals, families and businesses to get more quality for their dollars. We can do better than Donald Trump and his naive, populist economic pablum.

Related posts

News

David French: it’s time for Rubio and Kasich to drop out

Leave a comment

I’ve always been a bit annoyed at David French for backing that horrible RINO Mitt Romney in 2012. It made me think that he was very liberal, because Mitt Romney is moderate. But lately, I’ve been reading David French columns, and I’m not so sure that he is moderate.

Look at this one from National Review. You would expect him to back a moderate conservative like Rubio or a moderate liberal like Kasich, if he was moderate, right?

Well, he doesn’t:

[…][B]ecause normal political rules didn’t apply to Trump, other candidates falsely believed they were immune as well. But it turns out that when you don’t attack the front-runner, he tends to remain the front-runner. It turns out that when you start an epic losing streak, it’s virtually impossible to come back. It turns out that when you make crass personal attacks, it diminishes you more than the target. It turns out that math is still math, and building strategies around winning your first big state halfway through the primaries looks not just foolish, but vain.

Can we wake up yet? Can we do math? Can we do politics? Here’s what our actual political experience tells us: Donald Trump is not going to beat himself, he will win a four or even a three-man race, and he is entirely capable of winning the GOP nomination with roughly 35 percent of the vote — indeed, he’s doing it now.

Here’s what the math says: John Kasich and Marco Rubio, you have no hope of becoming the GOP nominee. Even if you win your home states, the only thing that will do is maintain the four-person dynamic under which Trump thrives. Even if you are fortunate enough to work cooperatively to deny Trump an absolute majority of delegates, do either of you — in your right mind — believe that a convention dominated by Trump and Cruz delegates is going to unite behind you? They’d sooner riot (and I’m only partially joking).

We’ve given the multi-candidate “blind ambition tour” exactly 23 states and one territory to work, and here’s the score: Trump 15, Cruz 7, Rubio 2, and Kasich . . .  zero. I think that’s a sufficient sample size. Let’s try something else. Let’s try uniting around the person who’s beaten Trump more than anyone else — a person who happens to be a constitutional conservative, who would replace Justice Scalia with a judicial superstar, who is unquestionably pro-life, who is unyielding in his defense of religious liberty, and who actually understands the dynamics of the global economy, trade policy, and national security.

[…]After 24 contests, the pattern is emerging. Cruz battles Trump for first, while Rubio and Kasich tend to battle each other for last. This is true in the South, the West, the Northeast, and the Midwest. Can conservatives finally get serious? Can we finally unify, now, before Trump starts sweeping winner-take-all states with 35 percent of the vote? If not, then a foolish GOP will richly deserve its fate.

This seems to make sense to me. And it’s likely that Rubio and Kasich voters would break for Cruz more than they would for Trump.

A recent Monmouth poll said this:

With all the discussion about hands in this election, Monmouth decided to test how Rubio and Cruz would do mano a mano against Trump. Although Rubio is struggling to make the delegate threshold in a four-way race, he would virtually tie Trump in a hypothetical two-person contest – 46% for Rubio and 45% for Trump. Cruz, though, does better, beating Trump 48% to 41% head to head. In the Rubio-Trump contest, both Cruz and Kasich voters would split at more than 2-to-1 for Rubio. However, in the Cruz-Trump matchup, Rubio voters would go 3-to-1 for Cruz, while Kasich voters would split at half for Cruz and less than 1-in-5 for Trump with another 1-in-4 saying they would not vote at all.

Seems to me that if Kasich, and especially Rubio, dropped out, then we could get a real conservative to run against Hillary. And Cruz does much better against Hillary than Trump does.

Two polls from Wednesday show that:

Trump performs poorly against Clinton in the general election
Trump performs poorly against Clinton in the general election

If we were really serious about beating Hillary in November, seems to me that we should be putting pressure on Rubio and Kasich to get out. This isn’t the time for big egos. We need to beat Hillary.

News

Trump donated to group that promotes homosexuality to 5-year-olds

20 Comments
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

So I blogged a bit about Trump on Monday, listing out all of his positions, and I want everyone to understand what I think of people who vote for Trump.

What I infer that Trump supporters believe:

  • They are in favor of adultery and frivolous divorce, they don’t think it’s anything that needs to be repented of.
  • They think that a person can be a Christian without ever having read the Bible or attended a theologically-sound church.
  • They think that constantly bragging about wealth is consistent with Christianity.
  • They are in favor of abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, including partial-birth abortion.
  • They are in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, because they do “wonderful things”.
  • They are in favor of using taxpayer money to bailout banks.
  • They are in favor of tariffs, which raise prices for consumers.
  • They are in favor of using government to seize private property to benefit private businesses.
  • They think that dictators who murder journalists and dissenters are “strong leaders”.
  • They support single-payer universal healthcare, even though this leads to rationing and waiting lists in Canada and the UK.
  • They support making “forward motion” on the gay agenda.
  • They think that someone who fails constantly at business, including four bankruptcies and lawsuits claiming fraud is a “successful businessman”.
  • They think that someone who donates huge amounts of money to Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton is sincere when he speaks conservative-sounding words, while having nothing at all in the way of a conservative record.
  • They think that Bush lied us into the Iraq war, and that WMDs were never found in Iraq.
  • They think in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is no right or wrong party.
  • They don’t want to condemn white supremacy or David Duke.
  • They want to see radical pro-abortion judges nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • They belief that taxpayer money should be distributed to certain businesses that lobby the government for handouts, e.g. – the ethanol lobby.

I assume that Trump supporters agree with most or even all of these things, and surprisingly, under questioning, they often admit to it.

And here’s the latest thing that I assume most Trump voters support – promoting homosexuality to 5-year-olds in the public schools.

Life Site News explains:

Donald Trump donated $30,000 to homosexual activists, including a $20,000 grant to an organization that promoted “fisting” to middle school students, recommended books excusing homosexual pedophilia, and proclaimed its mission is “promoting homosexuality” in the public schools to children as early as kindergarten.

According to a 990 form filed with the IRS, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $20,000 to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 2012 and another $10,000 to Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

Kevin Jennings founded GLSEN (originally the Gay and Lesbian School Teachers Network) in 1990. He and other homosexual teachers formed Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) nationwide and drew up curricula that began shaping children’s values in accordance with the LGBT perspective from the age of five.

GLSEN has been upfront about its goals and desire for mainstream respectability. In 1997, Jennings said, “I can envision a day when straight people say, ‘So what if you’re promoting homosexuality?’”

GLSEN recommends children face “saturation” in its viewpoint beginning in kindergarten. GLSEN activist Jaki Williams taught a workshop on “Inclusive Kindergartens” at a 1997 regional conference. “Children in the kindergarten age are ‘developing their superego’…That’s when the saturation process needs to begin,” Williams, a New York teacher, said.

They go into all the details of what GLSEN does. They basically market homosexuality to young children in the schools, when their parents are not there to counter any of it.

I will mention one thing from the post – “fisting”, since it has to do with the Planned Parenthood that Trump and all of his supporters support:

But at the 2001 GLSEN conference, Planned Parenthood distributed “fisting kits.”

Why else would people be supporting him for President when there are more conservative candidates like Ted Cruz, who have a proven record?

By they way, I actually asked one of my evangelical Christian friends who is a Trump supporter whether he supported the practice known as “fisting”. He never denied it. I’m not sure if that means that he and all the other Trump supporters are engaging in fisting with each other, or whether they merely donate money to encourage others to do it, or whether they just support it verbally. It seems to me that it has to be something along those lines.

I’ll never forget how one Trump supporter implied that there was something wrong with my chastity after I asked him whether adultery was wrong. That’s why I just assume that Trump supporters are into all the same stuff he is. I think now that Trump’s record is out in the open, it’s safe to assume that they know about these things and support them.

My candidate is Ted Cruz:

How to get kissed: Heidi Cruz helping her husband
How to get kissed: Heidi Cruz helping her husband

Ted Cruz married one woman – a Harvard Business graduate, who works harder than practically anyone reading this blog. That’s why he chose her – for her ability and character. Does character matter to Christians and conservatives any more? Or are we all in for the hedonistic Playboy Sexual Revolution culture, now?

Related posts