General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Cyberfunk
A Different Bias
comments

Comments by "Cyberfunk" (@cyberfunk3793) on "A Different Bias" channel.

Previous
2
Next
...
All

@ The tariffs is what directs consumption and thus production towards domestic sources so they are obviously a good tool for the side with the trade deficit. There is no need to pretend anything, if tariffs stay on, Mexico's economy will pay for it, and US economy will benefit in the long run after the initial shock.
1
@Sir_Wufsalot Yeah all that was just word salad that had nothing to do with the obviou fact, that placing blanket tariffs on the trading partner with the trade surplus will obviously reduce that trade imbalance in the long run. Exception would be cases where the one with the surplus is producing something that the importing country will buy no matter the price and can't ever make itself due to climate or something like that. That situation doesn't apply between US and Canada, but might partially apply to some food products Mexico exports.
1
@Sir_Wufsalot "The EU economy needs the US less than vice versa." What are you talking about? US buys hundreds of billions more from EU than the other way around so obviously EU depends on US more. If US stops buying, German car makers are even more in trouble than they are now.
1
@Sir_Wufsalot Yes, the seller is who depends on the buyer, not the other way around. If the buyer stops buying, the seller will be in a recession. If EU stops selling German cars to America, they will just be better of and having more sales of their local brands. And even if US would not have the capacity to scale up it's own production it can easily buy more from Japan, Korea etc. EU can't easily sell more to other countries though as the demand just isn't there. It's exactly the win I know it is. I'm not talking about some short term effects like days and weeks, but long term effects on the economy over years and decades.
1
@Sir_Wufsalot "Life in the US will just be more shit for the coming years" Nope, Canadians and EU are the ones that will obviously be screwed if the sanctions will come and stay on. German car industry is already in deep trouble unable to compete with Chinese, if they lose the American market, Germany will be in recession. Same goes for Canada where 40% of their car part producing businesses have already considered moving to the US.
1
@Sir_Wufsalot These are substitutable goods, so obviously US doesn't need to deal with higher prices for all imported goods, just those that come from Canada. Most will have either a domestic equivalent, or a substitute from some other country. The higher prices are directly offset by the same amount of extra taxes collected, so the government can lower the taxes of people with the same amount, making the net effect of higher prices 0 for tax paying consumers. "I wasnt that confusing with academic words or weird jargon, but you so you" ?
1
To be honest, probably the bigger problem right now is on the demand side and not on the supple side in EU, US and UK: antivaxers simply don't wish to take the vaccines even when they are available.
1
@haveyaseenmiwhippet9069 Sue for what? 1000 is cheap in the US. "The average cost of an ambulance ride is $500 to $3,500+ without insurance. An ambulance ride with insurance costs $250 to $1,500+"
1
@verystripeyzebra It was ever top ranked only in one ranking by a think tank that compared 11 countries only. There are great systems in places like Singapore and I think it might have been Honk Kong that they probably didn't even include in the ranking (the dumb article I found doesn't even list the countries in it)
1
@verystripeyzebra Well no matter the source, it compared only 11 countries right?
1
@verystripeyzebra So now the goalposts move or wealthy city states like Singapore are not included in the world? Like I suspected the list of 11 doesn't include many places that would have been worth comparing to like the mentioned Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Austria, Finland, Israel, Belgium, Portugal etc.
1
@matt47110815 It's true, Canadian oil is only a few % of their whole consumption, totally irrelevant and they can replace it easily.
1
@ US refineries can deal with US oil but it might just be easier to import than to make the adjustments. if there are long term tariffs, then those adjustments to refineries will obviously be made. The issue with Canada isn't refineries but simply distance to northern states afaik.
1
@Ikkeligeglad Of course, no need to invest when the alternative is cheaper. But US already imports oil from other countries than Canada for the same reason, so they don't need to do much just because Canadian oil would become more expensive. If all oil imports had tariffs from tomorrow and companies knew they were permanent, then they would start investing in those refineries and use domestic supply instead.
1
@Ikkeligeglad "Because you think to narrow of profit" I'm not American but what do you think pays for the hospitals? Obviously that profit and US has been sponsoring Canadian economy and healthcare with their deficit.
1
@ Northern Europe.
1
@ Don't know if there are pipelines, but the reason why some oil comes from Canada is that some of the US northern states are closer to Canadan oil than to places like TX.
1
@The_Winsome_Pixie Maybe because I see lots of clueless people talking things that are completely false and I don't like it? Where I live doesn't have anything to do with it so Northern Europe is enough info.
1
@ "This heavier Canadian crude is delivered to refineries in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, Louisiana and Texas. The expansion of the TransMountain pipeline has led to additional sales to US West Coast refineries" "Canada’s crude oil production has outpaced the growth in pipeline capacity to markets outside of Canada. As a result, the price of WCS has remained at a significant discount to WTI. Canada’s oil producers have used rail transportation—a more expensive mode of oil transport than pipelines—to deliver crude oil to the United States, also requiring a larger price discount for U.S. refiners of WCS crude oil to remain economical. In addition, Western Canada has had difficulties accessing global markets due to limited pipeline infrastructure connecting the region to coastal ports. This challenge has resulted in oversupply, saturating the local market and reducing prices for WCS." Canada's imports to US are insignificant compared to total oil consumption and can be replaced by other sources fairly easily. The reason it's delivered to US is the oversupply and thus cheap price.
1
@ Yes well obviously I don't see any reason to share much about my location online especially when it has nothing to do with the argument. Don't know what you think was an appeal to authority, one of the quotes in the previous comment was from US energy Information administration so they should know.
1
@ I claim enough economic expertise to know that a country with a clear trade deficit and which is 10x larger isn't going to be on the losing side of any trade war. US might suffer, but the situation is much worse for Canada and if the tariffs aren't temporary, then devastating. Nobody I have seen claiming that the consumers are paying for the tariffs even bothers to mention the fact that the higher prices are obviously offset by the same amount of tariffs collected.
1
@The_Winsome_Pixie The problem is that Canada doesn't have the infrastructure to for example ship all that oil to somewhere else because it relied on America. That kind of stuff can take years to build and so does finding new trade partners and negotiating deals with them. How are you going to manage until then?
1
@The_Winsome_Pixie "How is it harder on Canada, if that’s the case? " Well obviously it's going to be harder for Canada to replace the 97% of their oil exports that previously went to US than for Americans to replace some 5% of their consumption (that comes from Canada) when they even self export oil. Same goes for the car industry in Canada that is totally reliant on US. Just look at the numbers and think about it.
1
@The_Winsome_Pixie Because that 60% of imports is only 5% of what US uses per day(they self produce much much more). They self export about as much as they import from Canada. It's a nothing burger for them, especially long term.
1
EU obviously yes, China obviously no. They are another threat to world peace and we in the west should also gradually raise tariffs on them until there is regime change and our trade is balanced.
1
Farage already screwed UK so he is moving onto bigger arenas to screw.
1
Well they do obviously or nobody would be using tariffs in the first place. Do you think EU is also just using them to hurt themselves? Many people like you talk about the tariffs without having any clue about the actual long term effects on the economy.
1
@ The fact that US has a trade surplus with them and if they stop trade completely US wins and they lose.
1
@ The consumer also pays taxes and obviously isn't the net payer of the tariffs in the long run, the economy of the exporting country is. "Countries use tariffs to deter people from buying the foreign goods and as leverage in negotiations with other countries." They do it because it's in their economic advantage. Without much tariffs we have now been sponsoring China since the 70s and raised hundreds of millions of them out of poverty.
1
@ "you are wrong" isn't an argument and you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
1
@ The fact that US is the one with trade deficit obviously.
1
@DavidMoxham957 US isn't protectionist at all so far, they have free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada for example. Standards has nothing to do with tariffs, nobody can import against EU regulations tariffs or not.
1
@ And Trump is likely betting on the punitive tariffs so he can apply even higher tariffs in return and who do you think wins every trade war? Obviously the side with the trade deficit.
1
@ Nobody is stopping them and Trump would probably like them to try that. They will obviously lose any trade war against a country that has a trade deficit with them.
1
@MikeThepiper We are talking about Canada, Mexico and China. US obviously has a clear trade deficit with all of them.
1
@trident6547 Again the economy of the exporting country pays the net results of tariffs in the long run. When the price is higher for the consumer due to a tariff, their tax burden is obviously reduced by the exact same amount because they government has collected that amount in tariffs and doesn't need to collect it from the consumer anymore. So the more immediate effect is neutral for the tax paying consumer but becomes obviously beneficial when you account for the fact that money isn't leaking abroad but is going to domestic production instead in the long run.
1
@ "Ypu should reallystop embarrassing yourself more " I went to business school and have enough courses in economics to understand these very basic things. It's definitely people like you that are embarrassing themselves, doing childish analysis that only accounts for immediate prices rather than long term effects on the economy as a whole.
1
@ The economy of the exporting country pays the effects of the tariffs in the long run. When the tariffs are applies, immediately the exporting company will reduce their margins to still be able to compete. In the long run, they will move production to the US so that no tariffs need to be paid and the company can still sell their products. For the tax paying consumer, it makes no difference if they pay 100 more for the product, when the government needs to collect 100 less from them as taxes as a direct results of the collected tariffs.
1
@MikeThepiper I'm not American nor do I live in the US. What matters is the total balance in case of a trade war. And lot of the services that US exports are such that replacing them isn't so easy. You can't just stop buying Microsoft licenses for example.
1
@DavidMoxham957 I don't care what someone claims to be untrue when they can't demonstrate it. And after saying brainfarts like: "both to keep standards up and to protect food security" you should just exempt yourself from the conversation.
1
@MikeThepiper His argument makes perfect sense, trade only benefits both sides when it's somewhat balanced. When there is a clear imbalance, the one with the deficit is sponsoring the other. That is how we lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty since the 70s: they kept their currency artificially low and thus enabled the huge trade surplus they have with us. We moved our production overthere to benefit their people instead of our own. It's the same thing with Canada obviously, if ALL trade stops today between US and Canada, Canada will suffer greatly while for the US it would be better than the current situation where they are sponsoring Canadian businesses.
1
@ No, the side with the huge trade deficit doesn't lose in a trade war because even if all trade stops, they are in a better situation than when they were when the war started.
1
@michaelmcnally2331 Of course I'm arguing long term effects, because that is what matters. It's totally irrelevant if some product costs a bit less or more when the same sum is completely compensated on the tax burden side due to the tariffs the government collects. The long term effects of encouraging domestic industry and production is what matters.
1
@DavidMoxham957 Yeah, "facts" like thinking EU is using tariffs to enforce food security 😂🤦‍♂
1
@michaelmcnally2331 I'm answering who pays for the tariffs, as in who benefits and who loses. I'm obviously not talking about whose credit card is being used to facilitate the transaction. I don't believe there are many people nitpicking over the physical transaction instead of what is relevant when they discuss "who is paying for the tariffs". The argument obviously is that the consumer will hurt because of them, due to the immediate price increases. But that argument doesn't see the forest from the trees and omits tax burden and overall economy.
1
@arctic_haze You are correct, recession for the exporting country.
1
@arctic_haze I said DOW would be up?🤦‍♂ Obviously if there is a trade war, there will be a shock to the markets that are already overvalued. But for America it will be a minor speedbump and long term very positive, while for Canada and Mexico it could be devastating.
1
@MikeThepiper Yes, we as in the west. I'm from EU, also a major customer of China and we also have a trade deficit with them.
1
@arctic_haze You must be the troll here if you can't tell the difference between what is good for an economy long term and daily fluctuations in the stock market.
1
@michaelmcnally2331 No it's not and you must be on some spectrum if you think that is what people are talking about when they talk about "who will pay for the tariffs". The conversation is about who pays as in who suffers, will the consumer end up suffering more because of the inflation will increase or are there other factors like tax reductions that will end up compensating for it. Nobody with any capacity is talking about the transactions, they are mainly concerned with inflation and the fact that tariffs are likely to increase that short term.
1

Previous
2
Next
...
All