POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Ravencroft·]

That was a pretty good dumpster fire they aired on tv last night.

[Ad Bot]

[Biostorm]

i'm a bernie supporter with donald Annoying Orange as my second option

AMA!

PS I didnt vote on super tuesday, but i did donate $2.70 to bernie and complained on reddit when he lost

repost because pageloss

also i don't answer shillary supporters

PS let's dispel the myth that obama doesn't know what he's doing

[SlayerZ99]

one problem is that I think Bernie could have one Massachusetts I really do. i think one of his biggest supporting groups in the millennials and when youre at college you either have to travel home and vote or get an absentee ballot

I know a ton of people at UMass didn't travel home and didn't have an absentee ballot so there goes a ton of votes

[Ipquarx]

trade deficit

I'd also just like to point out that this would not work in the slightest
trade deficit is not something like "Mexico owes us this much money"
It actually means "They sell us this much stuff more than we sell them." It means they might have the money to build the wall (And even then it doesn't mean that at all, selling that much stuff =/= having that much money), but Annoying Orange still has absolutely no way to actually get mexico to build it.

[Frequency]

I'd also just like to point out that this would not work in the slightest
trade deficit is not something like "Mexico owes us this much money"
It actually means "They sell us this much stuff more than we sell them." It means they might have the money to build the wall (And even then it doesn't mean that at all, selling that much stuff =/= having that much money), but Annoying Orange still has absolutely no way to actually get mexico to build it.

imposing tariffs on imports from mexico would have them, in essence, paying for the wall.

[Ipquarx]

imposing tariffs on imports from mexico would have them, in essence, paying for the wall.

Except literally not at all because tariff are imposed onto the buyer, not the seller (It's not mexico paying for it, it's the american people), and it would have to be an absolutely massive tariff of like 70%-100% of the original cost to even begin to pay for it

[Otis Da HousKat]

I find it troubling how the ideas of capitalism and American nationalism are conflated. Capitalism doesn't give a stuff about national identity or you keeping your manufacturing job. It will move where natural and human resources are cheapest. The jobs didn't magically disappear or get stolen, the owners of the business made a conscious decision to close shop in America and outsource labor in a foreign country.

Americans love to get down on their knees for capitalist richard, and it gladly forgets them right up the ass in return.

[Frequency]

Except literally not at all because tariff are imposed onto the buyer, not the seller (It's not mexico paying for it, it's the american people), and it would have to be an absolutely massive tariff of like 70%-100% of the original cost to even begin to pay for it

"Tariffs provide additional revenue for governments and domestic producers at the expense of consumers and foreign producers."

So when it costs more to purchase goods being imported from other countries, what happens?

"Governments may impose tariffs to raise revenue or to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, since consumers will generally purchase foreign-produced goods when they are cheaper."

Also, on the topic of putting Mexico in a position where they would be "paying" for the wall:

"Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]."

[Ipquarx]

"Tariffs provide additional revenue for governments and domestic producers at the expense of consumers and foreign producers."

So when it costs more to purchase goods being imported from other countries, what happens?

"Governments may impose tariffs to raise revenue or to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, since consumers will generally purchase foreign-produced goods when they are cheaper."

I don't think you realize what kind of effects a tariff actually have.

Now, I'm no expert on economics but thankfully there are tons of resources online that allow us to see what the actual result of such a tariff would be. If we look at http://faculty.washington.edu/danby/bls324/trade/tariff.html and scroll down to "A Tariff in a Large Country" (I'm sure we can all agree that the US is a large country) we see this infographic:


Basically this diagram shows how supply/demand (Supply is blue, demand is red) affects money coming in/being lost through tariffs. It shows that US consumers would be paying for a massive half of the total cost of the tariff, with Mexico paying the other half.
This diagram also has other kinds of consequences, one of which being that there is indeed an "Ideal" tariff amount to maximize profit to the US. I have no idea how the exact supply/demand and tariff percentage would affect profit in this specific case, so I can't say for sure, but chances are that such a large tariff would be well, well beyond what is the ideal. Tariffs are usually in the range of single-digit percentages, not half to 100%, such a substantial tariff would definitely not be ideal and the vast majority of the area would be outside the profit rectangle shown in the picture, and end up in just lost money entirely. There's only a limited amount of money to be made from Tariffs.

It would also quite drastically affect the Mexican economy and the country as a whole. The US makes up the bulk of Mexico's exports, 3/4ths of it in total. Such a large tariff would drastically lower that number, which means less money for the country as a whole. US exports alone make up almost a quarter of Mexico's total GDP. Imagine the entire country suddenly loosing over 10% of its money due to a massive tariff. The economy would not like that at all.

Then on top of that you have the fact that such a huge tariff would be a blatant violation of WTO rules, Mexico would be more than in the right to take action against this and be eligible to, in return, also Tariff US imports for an equivalent value. This wouldn't even make a dent in the total US GDP, but it would make up for a significant portion of the half of the cost that Mexico lost.

So in the end, no, they wouldn't end up paying that much at all. Most of the cost would be put onto US citizens and Mexico would get back a large chunk of what they lost by literally taking it back from the US.

"Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]."

All of these would be small-game kinda stuff. It would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost.

[Red Spy]

That was a pretty good dumpster fire they aired on tv last night.

[Frequency]

Basically this diagram shows how supply/demand (Supply is blue, demand is red) affects money coming in/being lost through tariffs. It shows that US consumers would be paying for a massive half of the total cost of the tariff, with Mexico paying the other half.

So this won't encourage consumers to support the domestic market?

there is indeed an "Ideal" tariff amount to maximize profit to the US. I have no idea how the exact supply/demand and tariff percentage would affect profit in this specific case, so I can't say for sure, but chances are that such a large tariff would be well, well beyond what is the ideal. Tariffs are usually in the range of single-digit percentages, not half to 100%, such a substantial tariff would definitely not be ideal and the vast majority of the area would be outside the profit rectangle shown in the picture, and end up in just lost money entirely. There's only a limited amount of money to be made from Tariffs.

Fortunately, Annoying Orange IS essentially an expert on economics, so in that respect I have reason to believe that he can make his plans work as POTUS.

It would also quite drastically affect the Mexican economy and the country as a whole. The US makes up the bulk of Mexico's exports, 3/4ths of it in total. Such a large tariff would drastically lower that number, which means less money for the country as a whole. US exports alone make up almost a quarter of Mexico's total GDP. Imagine the entire country suddenly loosing over 10% of its money due to a massive tariff. The economy would not like that at all.

Donald Annoying Orange has expressed that he's willing to be flexible. An excessively large tariff may not even come into play.

Then on top of that you have the fact that such a huge tariff would be a blatant violation of WTO rules, Mexico would be more than in the right to take action against this and be eligible to, in return, also Tariff US imports for an equivalent value. This wouldn't even make a dent in the total US GDP, but it would make up for a significant portion of the half of the cost that Mexico lost.

What exactly are the WTO rules as far as tariffs go?

All of these would be small-game kinda stuff. It would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost.

Well, the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Exercising every possible tool available to bring more money back into America will add up over time.

also here's an interesting thing i just read on reddit:

"We also give Mexico about half a billion dollars in "foreign aid" every year - reallocating that for a few years alone could pay for a significant portion of the wall."

[Planr]

ive now decided im gonna vote for kasich for pootis
he comes across as the most mature and respectable out of the bunch of them

i dislike rubio a lot but at least he looks like spiderman

[Nonnel]

i say we bring back george bush sr for a second term

[WaterOre]

repost because pageloss

also i don't answer shillary supporters

PS let's dispel the myth that obama doesn't know what he's doing

Could you give a brief nutshell on the policies on those three? All I know is that Bernie has comparably good but expensive policies, Hillary is a shill, and Annoying Orange has views similar to those of the conservatives from the 20's.

[Ipquarx]

So this won't encourage consumers to support the domestic market?

It will result in less sales, meaning they have to lower prices to bring back up sales. Not zero sales, but less in accordance with how much the price has increased, that's supply and demand.

Fortunately, Annoying Orange IS essentially an expert on economics, so in that respect I have reason to believe that he can make his plans work as POTUS.

He's not an economics expert, he's a businessman and an investor, there's actually a difference. One knows how to make and spot a successful brand/product, and the other one knows how different events influence the economy. There is some intercept but not nearly enough to make him an economics expert.

Donald Annoying Orange has expressed that he's willing to be flexible. An excessively large tariff may not even come into play.

Well then how does he plan on doing it in under 4 years?

What exactly are the WTO rules as far as tariffs go?

The rules state that the US and a bunch of other countries need to keep foreign tariffs less than a certain amount, which is in the single digits as far as I'm aware.

Well, the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Exercising every possible tool available to bring more money back into America will add up over time.

He's only got 4 years, and that's not much time at all in the big picture.