The First 100 days

You still haven't answered how Mexico is paying for the wall. I fully understand how the US consumer pays for the wall but that wasn't Trump or your assertion. You're too smart to actually believe this logic would carry weight in any economics course.

So, that response deserves this image.

 

Of course it would. I have a BA in Economics with Honors from COLA and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from Yale. There is a formalized term for these very decisions in economics - Opportunity Cost.

In your scenario, Mexican firms evaluate the (opportunity) cost of maintaining their operating/profit margins versus maximizing revenues/earnings/and cash flow. The problem with your premise is that it's not an economic decision at all. Ultimately, cash flow and earnings are the only metrics fiduciarally responsible managers maximize in an efficient market. They wouldn't just "pass along the cost to consumers." They don't have the market power to do so (other Mexican firms would just undercut them) and it doesn't make any sense, because it would hurt their bottom line if they tried. Mexican companies would produce at the prevailing tariff price and the Treasury would collect the tariff tax to build the Wall.

What you are suggesting are agents acting irrationally/inefficiently, which is a characteristic of Behavioral Economics. Empirically, we've observed this to occur time to time. If the Mexican managers are acting irrationally, then there is also cost - an opportunity cost of Mexican lost/transferred revenues perfectly captured by US companies that these manager are paying for to satisfy their irrationality (e.g. preserving operating/profit margins).

Other things to consider with tariffs - there is some deadweight loss when international production drops, domestic production increases, and tariff revenues are collected. However, much of the deadweight loss assumes international, in this case Mexican, imports are perfect substitutes for domestic goods in everything except cost. That's how you're taught it academically. In the real world, especially with Mexico, that is decidedly NOT the case and DWL from price increases are much softer in reality because peoples' demand preferences between quality and value are relatively elastic. Additionally, tariff revenues are being invested to reduce domestic macroeconomic supply costs of illegal immigration further reducing or completely eliminating net dead weight losses.

 

Ex200
You have brought reality into this. Reality I would have no way of considering
And if I kinda understand if we here in USA semi equal the playing field we, the actual workers, can compete

 

Thanks. The whole ethical use of tariffs are another completely different spirited discussion we've had here on WM. That's an economic philosophy discussion.

My post above is not philosophy, it's empirical macroeconomic law.

 

Thanks for the educated reply. In turn, I'll reciprocate the effort.

Are you assuming demand for Mexico imports in inelastic? Looking at our top imports from Mexico you can make a case that they are nearly all very elastic. In fact, they are some of the biggest elastic sectors of our economy, both for consumers and businesses making capital purchases.

What is missing in the analysis is the impact to our exports market. Mexico is our 2nd largest export market ($236B in 2015). The one thing we can be sure of is a Mexican response in kind to tariffs. Here are the market segments that would be most harmed.

It's our ag export that would be most effected. Mexico is our 3rd largest agriculture export market. There's a good chance that it would force corn and soybean prices to crash further. Dairy, Pork and Beef industries would also see major drawbacks.

 

First, you're moving the goal posts. I was responding to the "Mexico won't pay for the Wall because they will pass the cost of the tariff to American consumers," argument. But if you want to go there, demand for American products are relatively inelastic. Our products are not being purchased abroad because of their pricing value. Are there comparable substitutes? Sure. But the US is a massive manufacturer of many of these goods, and Mexico would have to be willing to pay a hell of a lot more for quality comparable German/Japanese substitutes.

I think you double posted an older version here...see above.

These are just my thoughts and not economic cannon here. But why would prices crash? US Agriculture already depends on artificial price floors. The amount of affect of a Mexican tariff on US and global agriculture prices could just replace the amount of USDA price floors/supports. E.g. Current soybean bushel is ~$10.50. $10.50 is already well above the efficient market clearing price. USDA's Risk Management Agency would just reduce their price floor insurance and subsidies by whatever amount the Mexican tariff affects the global commodity price. If anything, the tariff puts upward pressure on global and domestic commodity prices. Mexico, albeit the 3rd largest ag export market in 2015, is still roughly just 10% of total ag-exports. They're not going to collapse anything. And who exactly would they buy corn or soybeans from? China?

 

Trump has no conflicts of interest. The law is clear. Suck on Bloomberg's titty until you turn purple because the argument is irrelevant.

 

JF
You can't make this stuff up
and don't need to.
SMH

 

I just checked if this was photoshopped. It's not:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...rder-rate-is-terribly-increasing-Its-not.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160918_Why_is_Philly_s_homicide_rate_going_up_.html

Folks, when journalists and scientists lecture you on truth about something political...take it with a salt iceberg. They have an agenda, and part of it is to discredit Trump at every possible opportunity. Investment in the most arcane "investigative journalism projects" are simply political vendettas.

 

You just saved the meme police some work. Which makes you sort of like Charles Bronson in Death Wish

 

The author's, who wrote both articles, explanation in the comment section is a complete convulsion of mental and statistical gymnastics.

 

Canada need its own Canuck-version of Trump

 

Another data point: 36% approve, 44% disapprove.

 

Now that the last Q is in ......

 

Trump got off to a faster start than we knew



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/26/c_136012736.htm

 

Apparently he will apply a 20% tax on electonic fund transfers (western union, etc) to Mexico.

 

The USA holds incredible leverage over Mexico. This gives Trump the advantage he needs to get paid. I think the 20% comment yesterday was only a shot across the bow. It had an immediately negative economic impact on Mexico. Mexico will pay for it one way or the other.

 

Why is the idea that Mexico should pay for the wall so objectionable in the first place? Mexico's border security negligence is forcing our hand.

We import roughly 1 million barrels of oil a day from Saudi Arabia.* This totaly is not the same thing:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/04/investing/obama-oil-tax/

*http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

 

Unbelievable! SH, we can now actually gauge our opinion on action now that the ball is rolling. We don't need your made up polling anymore. Is that all you got left to hang on to? I am happy with every decision he's made so far. He's working his *** off and it's refreshing to see a President do that. Now I'm waiting patiently on what happens to Obamacare and it's repeal and replace to see if my monthly premium go down. Right now I'm paying more a month than what many get paid on their monthly check.

 

wow, just now catching this ....

The “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens” (US Govt) will start publishing weekly lists of crimes committed by illegal aliens inside the US.

-- and will “provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States”
-- and will publish quarterly reports on the immigration status of all prisoners inside the country.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

 

The red here began with NAFTA
Ross Perot was right, back in '92

 

It isn't that simple.

It seems reasonably clear that the president can't withhold Federal funds without Congressional authorization. But can Congress do that? That's a more nuanced question.

It is a long-standing rule that Congress can put constraints on funds that it provides to the States under the Spending Clause. For example, Congress can say it will help fund schools, so long as the State runs the schools in ways Congress requires. The Court characterizes this as a permissible "condition" of the Federal funding. But it is equally clear that Congress cannot impose conditions that are not connected to the funding. The Court calls this impermissible "coercion" in contrast to a permissible "condition".

Remember back to the Obamacare provision that penalized states that refused to expanded Medicare by stripping them of all Medicare funding. The issue was whether this was a constitutionally permissible "condition" or constitutionally forbidden "coercion". Congress/Obama argued that it was a condition because they were withholding Medicare funds based on a State's refusal to expand Medicare. The challengers argued that this was not a close enough nexus. They said that the purpose of the existing Federal funding was to provide coverage for disabled people, single parents, deeply impoverished parents, etc. The ACA tried to expand coverage to all people (parents or not) who earn up to 125% of the poverty levels. The issue boiled down to whether this was enough of a nexus.

In the opinion (link), the Supreme Court interpreted the germaneness requirement very narrowly. The opinion is a jumbled mess of concurrences and dissents, but all of the relevant discussions are clustered under Part IV of each opinion. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court's opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito issued decisions that dissented from the Court's judgment, but concurred in the analysis of this particular issue. All told, that's 4 conservative votes, 1 centrist vote, and 2 liberal votes for the idea that not even Congress can withhold Federal funds for reasons that aren't closely and logically related to what the funds being withheld were granted for in the first place.

So, to enforce a requirement that the State use its own resources to help the Federal government enforce Federal deportation laws, Congress can restrict germane funding. If the Court is intellectually honest, this would not include all funding, or even all funding related to law enforcement. At a minimum, it would have to be funding related to immigration enforcement, and would probably have to be limited more narrowly to funding related to deportation. I don't think there is any such funding, and if there is it isn't much.

Could individual justices abandon principle and flip flop sides to get the result they want, logic be damned? Of course they could. And I would predict that Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg would do just that. Thomas and Alito would basically be saying "Obama can't do it, but Trump can" and Sotomayor and Ginsberg would basically be saying the opposite. Those flip flops would be a wash, with the same 2-2 result in both cases.

It is clear that Breyer and Kagan would vote their conscience, having established their intellectual honesty by voting to strike down the ACA provision. There is zero doubt that they would also strike down any Trump overreach. That's 4 votes.

Thus, the question is what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy would do. I find them both to be intellectually honest, resolving most cases on their merits instead of basing their opinions on political outcomes. Thus, I think it is likely that any overreach by Trump on this issue would be stricken down 6-2.

For what it's worth -- this is an inherently conservative position, with which I very much agree. Enforcement of Federal law is a Federal issue that should be accomplished by Federal agents using Federal funds. The Federal government should not have the authority to coerce States to cooperate. Anyone who thought Obamacare was an overreach but supports Trump on this issue is a hypocrite.

 

Swamp lower--

Trump let go Obama's hand-picked head of Border Patrol - Mark Morgan.
Morgan was infamous for his support of sanctuary cities and ignoring illegal immigration. Which kind of makes you wonder what the heck he did believe in doing. In any event, he gone.

 

CNN freaking out

 

That's not a real caption is it?

If it's real, it's sad. There was a time where keeping you promise was THE MOST IMPORTANT thing a man should do. Ask Captain Call. Children should absolutely learn they need to obsess over keeping their promise.

This CNN caption would be campaign commercial gold in 2020.

 

Seems so long ago now ....