Advancing Time: Tariffs Are A Way Of Putting A Finger On The Scale

Advancing Time: Tariffs Are A Way Of Putting A Finger On The Scale: Tariffs are a way of putting a finger on the scale, metaphorically speaking. While we are hearing the negatives about how they raise prices ...

Tariffs Are A Way Of Putting A Finger On The Scale

Tariffs are a way of putting a finger on the scale, metaphorically speaking. While we are hearing the negatives about how they raise prices for consumers, they also have the positive effect of making products made in our country more competitive in our local market.

It is wise to remember that companies in many other countries are not burdened by paying workers healthcare costs or in many cases, any type of benefits. This gives them a tremendous advantage even before factoring in wages that are often a fraction of those paid in more developed societies. Also, if you add in subsides they are getting from their government it is game over

This all flows back to the importance of where and what consumers buy matters a great deal when it comes to a nation's economic health. Considering that free trade is not necessarily fair trade, makes using a finger to balance the scale even more necessary. This becomes very clear when looking at China's plan to export millions of low-cost EVs into countries. With our domestic manufacturers unable to compete, without tariffs, they would go out of business.

How can a company in America that is forced to pay high wages, provide expensive medical coverage, and pay for benefits such as paid holidays and vacations even think about competing with those that don't? To make matters worse, countries such as China, that under stand the value of providing workers with jobs, tip the scale even further. They do this by giving companies subsidies in many forms, some less visible than others. 

While people involved in giving investment advice such as  Rick Rule take the stand tariffs are simply a tax around 18 and a half minutes into this video, that view is a bit simplified. What Rule fails to take into account is that fair and free trade are not the same thing. Cheap goods entering a country may help lower costs to consumers but they have a hidden cost.

The claim that tariffs are a tax has some merit. Still, if you agree that there is no such thing as a free lunch, then you should be open to the idea that entitlements need to be paid for in some way or form.  

In short, we need productive jobs, this means jobs that build things and create wealth, not simply keeping people occupied. Without people in America working and paying taxes, outsourcing the production of the goods we use to other countries is not sustainable. Trade deficits bleed a country of its wealth and result in debt.

When a county, like China, subsidies production which lowers cost, they crush the fairness we expect when it comes to trade. Plugging the holes in a trade system that is not as transparent as we tend to think is not easy. An example of this is how China exploits the rules by using Mexico as a way to get goods into America by sidestepping tariffs. 

Tariffs are a way to protect domestic producers and halt jobs from being pilfered by exploiting nations like China. History has many examples of empires being created by those who understand the power of selling far more than you buy. Fortunately for America, China has squandered its opportunity to accumulating great wealth through stupidity and corruption. The evidence of China's missteps are visible in its ghost cities and first-class infrastructure in the middle of nowhere.   

Some economic watchers have warned that increasing the number and amount of tariffs could escalate into a global trade war with massive ramifications. This occurred during the Great Depression, I think the danger of this is overblown. Most rational people understand the best result of trade is to create a win-win situation. Trade imbalances generally fail to accomplish this.

 

(Republishing this article is permitted with reference to Bruce Wilds/AdvancingTime Blog)

Advancing Time: Fox Grilled Vice President Kamala Harris On Issues

Advancing Time: Fox Grilled Vice President Kamala Harris On Issues:   Vice President Kamala Harris was grilled by Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier on 'Special Report. In just over a 25-minutes, ...

Fox Grilled Vice President Kamala Harris On Issues

 

Vice President Kamala Harris was grilled by Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier on 'Special Report. In just over a 25-minutes, they discussed immigration, the economy, responding to U.S. adversaries, and more. Prior to the event, there was a great deal of fanfare about Harris's courage to enter the lion's den and face what was predicted to be a tough interview that might well decide the Presidential election. 

Immediately after the interview, the left-tilting media rushed to paint a picture of a triumphant Harris not only surviving the ordeal but dispelling all doubt as to her ability to field tough questions. Also, it seems, that claims Baier was overbearing and rudely interrupted Harris were also put out there to create sympathy for Harris. 

Surprisingly, this important interview was a bit difficult to find on the internet, but when located and watched in its entirety, viewers may come away with a different opinion than what many newsgroups alleged. Many of the almost 20,000 comments below the interview video focused on her not answering the questions, blaming everything on Trump, and telling Baier, "come on, be honest, you know what I mean." Below are a few of those comments:

*She spent 27 minutes blaming a man who hasn't been in office almost 4 for yrs for everything. 

*Always Trump's fault yet she's been VP for 4 years. Deflect, deflect. I LOVED how he pushed her but she still didn't answer his questions. 

*I am not a Trump supporter. With that being said, it is beyond infuriating watching her refuse to take responsibility for ANYTHING.

*The woman who never earned a single vote in a primary is concerned about "democracy." You just can't make this up.

*When your main platform is to criticize the opposition, it simply means you have no platform.   

There is no reason to bore you with more, here is the link to the interview, decide for yourself.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk

 

(Republishing this article is permitted with reference to Bruce Wilds/AdvancingTime Blog)

Advancing Time: MISINFORMATION, Using Doublespeak As Censorship

Advancing Time: MISINFORMATION, Using Doublespeak As Censorship:   The word of the day is misinformation. Those using it are often trying to censor speech and opinions, which they call "dangerous,&quo...

MISINFORMATION, Using Doublespeak As Censorship

 

The word of the day is misinformation. Those using it are often trying to censor speech and opinions, which they call "dangerous," in an effort to silence those they oppose. Labeling the views of those you oppose as misinformation that must be squelched is a way of utilizing "doublespeak" as a form of censorship. 

The claim someone is spreading misinformation diminishes the message of your opposition or detractors. It implies they are lying or simply do not know what they are talking about. When put in context, it also reinforces the idea "me good, them bad" even though it requires no proof the accuser is telling the truth.  

Doublespeak is defined as language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. This can be in the form of euphemisms, such as "downsizing" for layoffs and "servicing the target" for bombing a location. Doublespeak is primarily used to make the truth sound more palatable. The flaw in what you have read is this is not just about doublespeak but something far more sinister, it is about something bordering on straight-out lies.

The term "doublespeak" flows from concepts in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. This term, as well as "Newspeak" are not used in the novel but are descriptions of the misleading type of speech often used to deceive. Screaming that something is misinformation and those spreading it are awful immediately paints them as unreliable or dishonest. At the same time, it is a way of elevating the speaker or writer to a higher plane of honesty.

Declaring a message as misinformation and not directly answering a question are powerful weapons in burying the truth and spreading propaganda. It opens the way for someone to take us down the path where they can spout scripted platitudes and prepared sound bites. Sadly, this has become our world, and it seems, polarization will continue to only make it worse. This is a reason to be wary of those slick talkers gifted in promoting their agenda. 

(Republishing this article is permitted with reference to Bruce Wilds/AdvancingTime Blog)

Advancing Time: The Fed And Its Muddy Path Forward

Advancing Time: The Fed And Its Muddy Path Forward: The Fed's biggest failure is seen in not forcing the government to cut spending and allowing it to pile up massive debt. The Fed's ...