Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
Despite producing tons of oil, the U.S. still imports a lot of oil. The stuff we produce can’t be refined by our refineries, so we ship it out to be refined and import foreign oil to refine here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evIAnt5mNGI
“An increase in tariffs of 10 percent on all imports would reduce America’s gross domestic product (GDP) by about 0.3 percent, while 60 percent tariffs on all imports from China would knock GDP down by another 0.3 percent, the CBO projects.
Meanwhile, the tariffs would “make consumer goods and capital goods more expensive, thereby reducing the purchasing power of U.S. consumers and businesses,” the CBO found. The productivity of American businesses would decline due to “limiting competition from imports and causing resources to be used less efficiently than they otherwise would have been used.”
The higher tariffs would lower the budget deficit by about $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years, the CBO also estimated. In other words, American consumers would be paying $2.7 trillion more in federal taxes over the next 10 years if Trump’s tariff plans are implemented”
https://reason.com/2024/12/23/trumps-tariffs-will-shrink-the-economy-and-reduce-investment-cbo-says/
“President Donald Trump moved forward Saturday with his plans for tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, ending a guessing game about how aggressively he would move to penalize America’s three largest trading partners.
The tariffs — as Trump has promised since after his election win — will be 25% duties on Canada and Mexico and 10% on China over issues of fentanyl and illegal migration.”
…
“tariffs on crucial energy imports from Canada will be lower, with 10% duties on those products. The carveout was an acknowledgment of US and Canadian energy interdependence.
Trump said the drug and migration issues constituted a national emergency and moved forward on the duties using authority in the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).”
…
“”Tariffs are simply taxes,” wrote Sen. Rand Paul, who is a vocal Trump advocate on other fronts. “Taxing trade will mean less trade and higher prices.”
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce added its own blistering statement that called Trump’s move “profoundly disturbing” and added that it “will have immediate and direct consequences on Canadian and American livelihoods.””
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/new-trump-tariffs-on-mexico-canada-and-china-set-to-start-tuesday-221835200.html
“A study this month by Warwick McKibbin and Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics concluded that the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China “would damage all the economies involved, including the U.S.’’“
For Mexico,’’ the study said, “a 25% tariff would be catastrophic. Moreover, the economic decline caused by the tariff could increase the incentives for Mexican immigrants to cross the border illegally into the U.S. — directly contradicting another Trump administration priority.’’
Cutler, now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said the extent of the economic damage will depend on how long the tariffs are in effect.
If it’s just a few days, “that’s one thing. If they are in place for weeks onto months, we’re going to see supply chain disruptions, higher costs for U.S. manufacturers, leading to higher prices for U.S. consumers,’’ she said. “It could have macroeconomic impacts. It could affect the stock market. Then internationally it could lead to more tension with our trading partners and make it harder for us to work with
them.””https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-says-trump-tariffs-184354384.html
“The U.S. economy grew at a 2.3% annualized rate in the final three months of 2024, the Commerce Department said on Thursday — closing out a year of strong growth.”
…
“The fourth-quarter growth figures are aslowdownfrom the 3.1% rate in the previous three-month period.”
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/30/us-economy-gdp-growth-q4-2024
“The current average credit card interest rate is 21 percent, but it didn’t get there overnight. In 2008, the average rate was 14 percent, at a time when the savings rate was much lower and consumers were overextended. In 2009, a Democratic supermajority in Congress passed the CARD Act, bringing a bevy of new regulations for credit card companies, such as requiring advance notice of any rate increases and limitations on fees for late payments.
Interest rates began rising immediately following the passage of the CARD Act and continued to rise as the risk-free rate—the Federal Reserve’s overnight lending rate, currently about 4.75 percent—fell to 0 percent throughout most of the 2010s. Objectively, credit card interest rates are high today, but they are arguably high as a direct result of legislation passed at the end of the 2000s. Capping credit card interest rates is simply an intervention to correct the results of previous interventions.”
…
“There is a reason that credit cards carry a higher average interest rate than mortgages (7 percent) or car loans (8 percent). Mortgages and car loans are secured lending—the bank has collateral in the event of a default which increases recovery rates. Credit card borrowing is unsecured lending—lenders rely on nothing more than trust in the borrower. When losses occur, they are total and catastrophic. Credit card lending is inherently risky.
The vast majority of borrowers are unprofitable at a 10 percent interest rate. If credit card interest rates were capped at 10 percent, it wouldn’t just disrupt individual finances—it could destabilize the entire credit system. Major credit card lenders, such as Capital One Financial, would likely terminate the accounts of millions of their less creditworthy customers, which could mean anyone with a credit score of 780 or lower. To the extent possible, they might introduce new fees to make up for the loss of interest revenue, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already taking a hard look at late fees, which can be large relative to small credit card balances.
Customers who lose access to credit would have to resort to cash or debit cards—and find that it is hard to function in modern society without a credit card. Even renting a car or getting a hotel room are activities that require a credit card.”
…
“Interest rates are prices—the price of money—and all prices are signals. Capping credit card rates might sound like a win for consumers, but in practice, it’s a lesson in unintended consequences. Policymakers must tread carefully, weighing the broader economic impacts before introducing well-intentioned but potentially devastating reforms.”
https://reason.com/2024/12/04/the-hidden-costs-of-capping-credit-card-interest-rates/
We should care about the economy. The economy is people’s lives.
We should think about where markets work best and where the government works better. We should consider the structure and incentives of a particular market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msX9sRTgf8Y
Why Central Banks Are Launching Digital Currencies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpu6G_UlSdM
“a one percentage point increase in imports from China caused a 1.9 percent decline in U.S. consumer prices, saving a representative American household roughly $1,500 a year”
…
“prices are not just about prices. When consumers have more purchasing power, they use it to buy goods and services in other, more high-productive sectors. Higher tariffs would lead to lost jobs, and inputs would become more expensive for American producers.
Some research suggests that competition from international trade can lead to better wages in new roles for U.S. workers. A 2017 paper by the economist Ildikó Magyari estimates that the American companies most exposed to Chinese imports expanded employment 2 percent more per year than other companies did. Some of these were manufacturing jobs—with higher wages, because they are in the stages of production where workers add more value—and some were complementary service jobs, in such areas as engineering, design, research and development, and marketing.
Apple offers a fascinating example. Trump has often complained that China is the biggest beneficiary of the iPhone, just because the devices are often assembled there. But when researchers Kenneth L. Kraemer, Greg Linden, and Jason Dedrick disassembled an iPhone 7 in 2018, they found that almost all of its value was captured by Western producers of parts, including hundreds of thousands of American researchers, designers, programmers, salespeople, marketers, retailers, and warehouse workers. China just got 1.3 percent of the price paid for an iPhone, and that offshoring made it possible to move U.S. labor to the more value-added parts of the supply chain.”
…
“more than a million American jobs depend directly on exports to Chinese consumers. About 0.5 percent of the U.S. work force would lose their jobs if the U.S. lost access to its third-largest goods exporting market.”
…
“more opportunities would be lost in the future, since protectionism reduces competition and innovation. If the United States shuts its doors to the best manufacturers of, say, electric cars, that may save some jobs in the short term, but it will turn the U.S. into a fenced-off auto show for more expensive and less efficient vehicles. American consumers will have to pay much more, and foreign consumers will be much less interested.”
…
“A United States bent on decoupling from China risks pushing many more innovators and entrepreneurs to the Far East. On paper there are good reasons to stop the export of sensitive technologies to geopolitical rivals, but what good does it do to fence in a geopolitical rival if cutting-edge producers feel the need to join that rival behind the fence?
One German producer of lasers and chip toolmakers, Trumpf, has faced increased obstacles and costly delays after the U.S. government pushed Germany to restrict its exports to China. In response, Trumpf moved some of its 3D-laser-cutting production to China.”
…
“This comes from a company in one of America’s closest allies, a country dependent on America’s security guarantees. Imagine how countries diplomatically closer to China will react if forced to choose between Beijing and Washington.”
…
“When economies slow, governments have a harder time keeping the populace satisfied. That often leads them to crack down on dissent. China is now doing the bare minimum to fit into the global order, and it has an awful human rights and civil liberties record at home. There is a great risk that a declining, more isolated, and less interdependent China could be much worse on both fronts.”
…
“If a rising power can see a future in which it prospers and is allowed to take its place in the established world order—or become so dominant that it can easily replace that order—it makes sense to hide its strengths and bide its time, as Deng Xiaoping encouraged the Chinese to do. But delay is defeat if further rapid growth seems impossible: if it suffers demographic decline, or if geopolitical rivals decide to starve it of resources or markets. Then the country must either accept that it will never realize its grand ambitions, or lash out.”
…
“Xi knows an invasion of Taiwan would result in an economic war with the West that would cause China tremendous pain. But what if China had already been deprived of those lucrative markets and had already lost access to investments and technologies it needs?”
https://reason.com/2025/01/18/the-real-threat-is-an-isolated-china/
“Any new tariffs imposed by the incoming Trump administration will function the same way as every other tariff: It will drain wealth from American consumers and businesses to enrich the U.S. Treasury. That’s what tax increases do, even when they are proposed by a Republican president and cheered by a crowd of Republican lawmakers, donors, and administration officials.
Indeed, study after study after study has found that the tariffs Trump levied during his first tenure were paid nearly entirely by American consumers and businesses.”
…
“The big change Trump is proposing this time around is the creation of a new “External Revenue Service” that will collect tariff revenue. The exact contours of that new agency are still unclear, but it is probably best thought of as a public relations maneuver rather than a meaningful policy change. After all, there’s already a governmental entity that handles tariff collection—that’s the “customs” in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Changing the name won’t change anything about the transactions that occur.”
https://reason.com/2025/01/20/trumps-external-revenue-service-is-a-public-relations-effort-it-wont-change-how-tariffs-work/