A funny thing I noticed is that though when travelling to America, the exchange rates made it seem like prices in Japan doubled (not that bad, in reality, but, the FEEL), there's a kind of disconnect with domestic prices, which didn't really change. So in comparing types of tax, tariffs fit into that POV--one could raise or lower them according to their supposed affect.
So many countries have a lot of grief over exchange rates. Blame it on foreign currency denominated debt pushed on them by the United Nations Mob, but it's there. All the instances of hyper-inflation seemed to have some connection with foreign exchange rates or imported materials such as oil, or a necessary export to domestic consumption ratio such as with Weimar (to pay the reparations) and much of world impoverishment seems somehow have an international connection.
Given all the angst in the U.S. about "BRICS", mentally it makes some sense.
And remember, it's not just the price level, it's the whole impoverishment of moving all jobs elsewhere, even if balanced by all the cheap stuff, and vice-versa if we reverse the globalized trade regime.
Part of the plan seems to be to replace the income tax--that would cushion the blow--the increased production, and associated increased supply of goods and services, from eliminating the income tax altogether, traditionally would have driven down prices, and up employment, although we haven't seen a boom-to-good jobs correlation since 1989, except for now, this 2018-2024, interrupted, boom period.
For Twitter/Bluesky, the timing was driven by the fact that I had effectively stopped posting for months due to interruptions, but I now delivered a prototype and I am now back to “marketing mode.” And my Twitter econ timeline collapsed, and everyone seems to be now on Bluesky. The issue with Bluesky is that the nuclear blocking forces everyone to be politer, which discourages some of the non-mainstream commenters. The free marketeers might be fine hanging out with MAGA on Twitter, but the quality of discussion isn’t there.
Since this text is the ending section of an inflation primer, the price level is the primary focus. Building up industry behind tariff walls is a reasonable strategy (Canada did it, which is one of the first things that pissed off the prairie populists.) Problem is that tariffs are a Trump thing, and an anathema to most economists. Nobody in their right mind is going to make a massive investment in fixed capital because of a policy that is only supported by a lame duck President whose administration is going to be at best a [redacted]show.
Twitter--the timing, though . . .
A funny thing I noticed is that though when travelling to America, the exchange rates made it seem like prices in Japan doubled (not that bad, in reality, but, the FEEL), there's a kind of disconnect with domestic prices, which didn't really change. So in comparing types of tax, tariffs fit into that POV--one could raise or lower them according to their supposed affect.
So many countries have a lot of grief over exchange rates. Blame it on foreign currency denominated debt pushed on them by the United Nations Mob, but it's there. All the instances of hyper-inflation seemed to have some connection with foreign exchange rates or imported materials such as oil, or a necessary export to domestic consumption ratio such as with Weimar (to pay the reparations) and much of world impoverishment seems somehow have an international connection.
Given all the angst in the U.S. about "BRICS", mentally it makes some sense.
And remember, it's not just the price level, it's the whole impoverishment of moving all jobs elsewhere, even if balanced by all the cheap stuff, and vice-versa if we reverse the globalized trade regime.
Part of the plan seems to be to replace the income tax--that would cushion the blow--the increased production, and associated increased supply of goods and services, from eliminating the income tax altogether, traditionally would have driven down prices, and up employment, although we haven't seen a boom-to-good jobs correlation since 1989, except for now, this 2018-2024, interrupted, boom period.
For Twitter/Bluesky, the timing was driven by the fact that I had effectively stopped posting for months due to interruptions, but I now delivered a prototype and I am now back to “marketing mode.” And my Twitter econ timeline collapsed, and everyone seems to be now on Bluesky. The issue with Bluesky is that the nuclear blocking forces everyone to be politer, which discourages some of the non-mainstream commenters. The free marketeers might be fine hanging out with MAGA on Twitter, but the quality of discussion isn’t there.
Since this text is the ending section of an inflation primer, the price level is the primary focus. Building up industry behind tariff walls is a reasonable strategy (Canada did it, which is one of the first things that pissed off the prairie populists.) Problem is that tariffs are a Trump thing, and an anathema to most economists. Nobody in their right mind is going to make a massive investment in fixed capital because of a policy that is only supported by a lame duck President whose administration is going to be at best a [redacted]show.
Summed up in a few seconds:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxuBaHlXsYrWluWQ_mtkedasTVlpFqvoDF?si=Epxb2tsZjPLJqdrk