I don't think he reads or comprehends what he types.
Patrick is really quite intelligent, and sometimes comprehends what I type better than what I thought I was typing... and busts me on it.
But ONE thing I know about Patrick... he will never admit to being wrong... and will go in circles, literally forever, to prevent himself from being viewed as wrong. He knows better, but when he gets backed into a corner, the argument changes into one of semantics where even though we can all see what he said and what he meant, he'll feign from being wrong by saying it wasn't exact, and he said "also" something else.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: But we're not... we've been losing by sending money all over the world... taxpayer money, for many projects that have nothing to do with us, or don't benefit us in any way.
I don't have to support all the foreign spending we engage in just because I don't support tariffs. I agree we waste money across the world, but tariffs don't directly address that issue.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You've been stating on here that tariffs are going to hurt us and emphatically stating that we're going to pay for it. I'm merely stating that it is a tool to get countries to comply... and so far, it's worked really well.
I think that's a matter of perspective. They have worked quickly so far, but are already generating externalities and price increases. Whether or not "quick but destructive" is the same as "really well"....I don't know if I'd make that call yet.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: With Canada, Mexico, and Colombia... the cost will NOT be fully felt by the consumer, because like I said, there's tons of other options for our products and retail will always look to be competitive by selling the lowest priced products. Sure, lumber and aluminum futures will go up, but that can quickly be replaced in a matter of 1-2 weeks from other sources and the effect on us at that point would be negligible... but the effect it would have on Canada would be devastating. For us... it would be a mild increase in cost... realistically 10%, where as for Canada... it would mean a near-immediate halt in consumption of their product... which would be an enormous loss to them.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Again, the only one here that matters economically to the United States is China... a tariff on China would be devastating for China of course, but it would also hurt the United States because many people would still buy the product... but many would not.
But let's not fool ourselves and pretend like a tariff on Canada is going to end the world as we know it for the United States. We just went through insane inflation over the past couple of years... absolutely no one would even notice a tarrif on Canada... and again, retail outlets and grocery stores would merely shift where they purchase their goods from.
China is the only country that's been strategic... by making themselves the #1 producer and owner of the supply chain... everything from batteries and solar, to electronics. It would suck... but equally devastating for them.
The tariffs on one country do not exist in an independent system from the tariffs on other countries. You can't insulate them from each other the way you are doing. Production doesn't just flip from one country to another that quickly, and the US requires steady imports of goods. China may be the most impactful by itself, but they ALL matter, especially if you are going to go after China. The impacts of one tariff do not evaporate once you pass another.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-28-2025).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: Would be a shame to this point if coffee prices already spiked to historic highs in response to even the threat of tariffs, right? Why do you want to hurt Canada? I'm so confused by that. Why would we hurt ourselves a little to hurt them a lot? What is the goal there?
This is what the kids call a "strawman." Who says I want to hurt Canada?
Here's what I know...
- Canada has a very porous border that easily allows illegal migrants to cross, but very strict one if you're a while American tourist or Canadian citizen... and people stream back and forth between the two illegally all the time. Canada oddly enough lets in migrants that snuck into our country, but in that same vein, they don't stop (as they should) all illegals from coming into our country as well. Of course, that's equally our job, but
- Canada already has a tariff on everyone. They literally charge a tax on anything not made in Canada. This directly resulted in tons of manufacturing moving to Canada for the sole purpose of being able to make it in Canada, and it not being additionally taxed in Canada AND the United States. They did this intentionally, against NAFTA, and continue to do it against the USMCA. Like Patrick argues semantics, Canada states this isn't a tariff, but it's effectively one, and is completely against the agreement. The only reason why Canada lost a lot of manufacturing is because Mexico undercut absolutely everyone because they have a joke of a minimum wage.
As for "Coffee Prices?" I think you mean Arabica coffee prices, which is a small portion of coffee that I almost never drink anyway, nor do most people, and there are plenty of places where coffee is imported from. The market will level itself.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
The tariffs on one country do not exist in an independent system from the tariffs on other countries. You can't insulate them from each other the way you are doing. Production doesn't just flip from one country to another that quickly, and the US requires steady imports of goods. China may be the most impactful by itself, but they ALL matter, especially if you are going to go after China. The impacts of one tariff do not evaporate once you pass another.
I'm either not explaining this well, or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.
With regard to things made in Mexico, Canada, and particularly Colombia (what this thread is based on). There is NOTHING that comes from Colombia, that we don't ALREADY ALSO get from other countries. Production absolutely can be increased rapidly... and even in the case of produce (we use bananas as the example), production for produce like this is already higher than demand, and when there's an increased demand signal from the United States (by means of a grocery store shopping for a better / lower price), the various suppliers will shift their product to those willing to pay a higher price. What this may mean is that other countries may see a slight increase in banana prices, but within a week or two, prices of bananas would drop quickly at the grocery store.
China is the only real issue here... because there are things made in China that we cannot get other places.
Canada is a non issue... their biggest exports are oil, lumber, aluminum, and produce. Oil... that's not something Trump would tax. And if Canada decided they were going to increase the price of it... well, that gets sold on the global market so no one would buy it since you have dozens of oil exporters (and it would literally devastate them, and barely hurt everyone else). Lumber? We already have ton of forests that we could harvest quickly (pivot within a week) to make up for the shortage. Same with aluminum... we also mine our own aluminum and can simply buy it from other countries as well at a lower increased cost than tariff'd Canada aluminum.
As I said, it's a tool. And it's worked so well, that Trump hasn't even instituted a single tariff yet. Literally the threat of it has made these countries comply ... countries who's economies wouldn't even exist without the United States.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Patrick is really quite intelligent, and sometimes comprehends what I type better than what I thought I was typing... and busts me on it.
But ONE thing I know about Patrick... he will never admit to being wrong... and will go in circles, literally forever, to prevent himself from being viewed as wrong. He knows better, but when he gets backed into a corner, the argument changes into one of semantics where even though we can all see what he said and what he meant, he'll feign from being wrong by saying it wasn't exact, and he said "also" something else.
I still love the guy, but yeah...
A little crow at the dinner table never killed anyone. Most of us have had to eat crow from time to time (myself included) but, when the evidence is clearly present, eat it and move on with life.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is what the kids call a "strawman." Who says I want to hurt Canada?
Maybe I'm missing something, but when you say things like: "…the effects will be far more painful for them, than it will be for us." "…it would be devastating for them." "…which would be an enormous loss to them." it sounds an awful lot like you are considering an action that would hurt them, be devastating for them, and result in an enormous loss for them. My question was why would you want those things to happen...that doesn't seem to me to fit the definition of a strawman.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Here's what I know...
- Canada has a very porous border that easily allows illegal migrants to cross, but very strict one if you're a while American tourist or Canadian citizen... and people stream back and forth between the two illegally all the time. Canada oddly enough lets in migrants that snuck into our country, but in that same vein, they don't stop (as they should) all illegals from coming into our country as well. Of course, that's equally our job, but
- Canada already has a tariff on everyone. They literally charge a tax on anything not made in Canada. This directly resulted in tons of manufacturing moving to Canada for the sole purpose of being able to make it in Canada, and it not being additionally taxed in Canada AND the United States. They did this intentionally, against NAFTA, and continue to do it against the USMCA. Like Patrick argues semantics, Canada states this isn't a tariff, but it's effectively one, and is completely against the agreement. The only reason why Canada lost a lot of manufacturing is because Mexico undercut absolutely everyone because they have a joke of a minimum wage.
That first point has nothing to do with tariffs, and we have more illegal immigration and smuggling going from the US into Canada than vice versa. Canada has historically been very willing to work with us on border security...why would we hurt them economically in a way that does nothing to further that goal? The second is untrue, and is specifically untrue for countries within the USMCA. There is a whole schedule of how we put tariffs on each other in that agreement...one we not only agreed to, but drove negotiations towards. I get that Canada has been found in violation of those...but those violations were/are being handled by the mechanisms in place for the USMCA. Mechanisms that -again- we not only agreed on but drove towards. We can compel Canada into compliance there without tariffs...we've already proved that. What would hurting ourselves to hurt them worse accomplish here?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: As for "Coffee Prices?" I think you mean Arabica coffee prices, which is a small portion of coffee that I almost never drink anyway, nor do most people, and there are plenty of places where coffee is imported from. The market will level itself.
That goalpost just moved from "the cost will NOT be fully felt by the consumer" and "No one would even notice a tariff on Colombia except Colombia" to "The market will level itself."
Arabica is 80% of all coffee imported to the US. Starbucks, McDonalds, Peet's, Dunkin' Donuts, Caribou...all 100% arabica. The majority of Folger's and Maxwell House's coffee are arabica beans. So yes, "coffee prices."
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm either not explaining this well, or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.
With regard to things made in Mexico, Canada, and particularly Colombia (what this thread is based on). There is NOTHING that comes from Colombia, that we don't ALREADY ALSO get from other countries. Production absolutely can be increased rapidly... and even in the case of produce (we use bananas as the example), production for produce like this is already higher than demand, and when there's an increased demand signal from the United States (by means of a grocery store shopping for a better / lower price), the various suppliers will shift their product to those willing to pay a higher price. What this may mean is that other countries may see a slight increase in banana prices, but within a week or two, prices of bananas would drop quickly at the grocery store.
China is the only real issue here... because there are things made in China that we cannot get other places.
Canada is a non issue... their biggest exports are oil, lumber, aluminum, and produce. Oil... that's not something Trump would tax. And if Canada decided they were going to increase the price of it... well, that gets sold on the global market so no one would buy it since you have dozens of oil exporters (and it would literally devastate them, and barely hurt everyone else). Lumber? We already have ton of forests that we could harvest quickly (pivot within a week) to make up for the shortage. Same with aluminum... we also mine our own aluminum and can simply buy it from other countries as well at a lower increased cost than tariff'd Canada aluminum.
As I said, it's a tool. And it's worked so well, that Trump hasn't even instituted a single tariff yet. Literally the threat of it has made these countries comply ... countries who's economies wouldn't even exist without the United States.
If production can just be ramped up in other countries (as if comparative advantage didn't exist), what's up with the increased coffee prices? The plans for Tide to go up in price, as well as just about everything in Walmart? You are speaking theoretically about something that is happening in real time, right now. If you reduce comparative advantage, you decrease output, and you increase price. Again, suggesting otherwise is eerily similar to Bernie Sanders' MMT nonsense. You can't just theorize away actual changes to output and consumption.
I agree that it's a tool, but I don't think "he hasn't even used it yet" is as good of a point as you think. Without even levying an actual tariff, this administration has already driven the price of a consumer good to record highs...over being stiffed on landing 2 airplanes. "Worked so well" is not how I would describe that. "Worked so quickly"...sure.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-28-2025).]
Maybe I'm missing something, but when you say things like: "…the effects will be far more painful for them, than it will be for us." "…it would be devastating for them." "…which would be an enormous loss to them." it sounds an awful lot like you are considering an action that would hurt them, be devastating for them, and result in an enormous loss for them. My question was why would you want those things to happen...that doesn't seem to me to fit the definition of a strawman.
The part you're missing is where I did not say "I want these countries to suffer." Perhaps you're making this assumption, I don't know why.
If someone says they want to beat me up, and I remind them that I'm ****ing huge and would kick their ass... it doesn't mean that I want to kick their ass, it just means that I would do so if needed and letting them know of the threat.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: That goalpost just moved from "the cost will NOT be fully felt by the consumer" and "No one would even notice a tariff on Colombia except Colombia" to "The market will level itself."
I'm failing to see the huge distinction here. You're taking both of these and trying to compare them equally. Let me state it as clearly as possible. We get almost nothing of any real significance from Colombia, yet we are Colombia's major trading partner. A tariff on Colombian products would completely destroy their economy, it would be barely noticeable to us in the United States. I don't need another quote, and a reframing / requestion of what I said. I can't be any more clear. What are you not understanding here?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Arabica is 80% of all coffee imported to the US. Starbucks, McDonalds, Peet's, Dunkin' Donuts, Caribou...all 100% arabica. The majority of Folger's and Maxwell House's coffee are arabica beans. So yes, "coffee prices." And it's not limited to coffee. Proctor and Gamble is explicitly saying it will respond to tariffs with price hikes. So are Walmart, Lowes, and AutoZone. I understand that we can economically overwhelm other countries, but it is not free and consumers will feel it if we do it with tariffs.
I think you're confused... Arabica coffee comes from Ethiopa, Yemen, the middle east, etc. Hence the name "ARABica." The fact that some of it comes from Colombia is wildly insignificant. If their product suddenly becomes non-cost effective, guess what, we'll get it from somewhere else.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: That first point has nothing to do with tariffs, and we have more illegal immigration and smuggling going from the US into Canada than vice versa. Canada has historically been very willing to work with us on border security...why would we hurt them economically in a way that does nothing to further that goal? The second is untrue, and is specifically untrue for countries within the USMCA. There is a whole schedule of how we put tariffs on each other in that agreement...one we not only agreed to, but drove negotiations towards. I get that Canada has been found in violation of those...but those violations were/are being handled by the mechanisms in place for the USMCA. Mechanisms that -again- we not only agreed on but drove towards. We can compel Canada into compliance there without tariffs...we've already proved that. What would hurting ourselves to hurt them worse accomplish here?
So you're saying that tariffs are bad, and there's ways we can compel someone to do something.
What I see... - No tariffs have been issued. - We have been able to compel other countries to do what we want as it pertains to our borders and economy.
What am I missing?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: If production can just be ramped up in other countries (as if comparative advantage didn't exist), what's up with the increased coffee prices? The plans for Tide to go up in price, as well as just about everything in Walmart? You are speaking theoretically about something that is happening in real time, right now. If you reduce comparative advantage, you decrease output, and you increase price. Again, suggesting otherwise is eerily similar to Bernie Sanders' MMT nonsense. You can't just theorize away actual changes to output and consumption.
I'm having a hard time understanding how the Democrat-view of Modern Monetary Theory of printing money and the debt doesn't matter, has anything to do with me stating that a company... specifically a grocery store, can chose to purchase products from another source based on price. Are you aware that most retailers have an army of purchasing agents that are actively looking for new products, or prices for cheaper common goods? The reason why many of these companies come up with their own brands (like WalFlu from Walgreens vs TheraFlu) is because they can source the manufacturing and production of said product from an even cheaper place. Best case, they still sell the old product with the other product and no one buys it. Worst case, they remove that product entirely from their shelves and go with the cheaper alternative.
A tariff of only a week will result in debilitating ramifications to the country for which the tariffs are being imposed. As I've repeatedly said... with products (particularly produce) that's made all over the world, you can easily find an alternative source for these products quickly. We'll use your example of coffee. Should arabica coffee become too expensive coming from Colombia... we can absolutely purchase it from somewhere else that also produces coffee from the arabica bean. Your continuned inference to this and MMT makes absolutely no sense at all. You can literally grow more coffee... which is not immediate, of course, but the United States (remember, we're talking about the United States) can simply offer a slightly higher buying price for the arabica coffee from somewhere else, and OTHER countries will get less and suffer (not really my problem), because those suppliers will sell to the United States first because they can make more than selling to other countries. They can also extent the growing season, harvest more with less waste, and sell less to their local economy and export more. Or... Colombia ends up having to sell their product cheaper now to the other country... at a slightly increased price.
Any disruption by such products from tariffs imposed on Colombia, for example... would be very temporary for the United States almost totally unfelt. Literally, no one would even notice in the United States if the liberal media wasn't reporting on it every second. But it would be devastating to Colombia.
A tariff on China would be quite a bit more severe for us, but at least... equally devastating to China.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I agree that it's a tool, but I don't think "he hasn't even used it yet" is as good of a point as you think. Without even levying an actual tariff, this administration has already driven the price of a consumer good to record highs...over being stiffed on landing 2 airplanes. "Worked so well" is not how I would describe that. "Worked so quickly"...sure.
Look, you've been going back and forth several times here. You're basically trying to make a point that's either irrelevant, or totally fabricated. Here are some loose facts and observations:
- In every case I can think of, a tariff on another country will be significantly more severe for them, than it will be for us. - I do not enjoy harming another country, never said that I did, and your belief that I do stems from your own internal bias. - No tariffs have been issued. - The threat of a tariff caused two countries already to fall in line... one of them spectacularly so. - You don't like Trump.
I think you're confused... Arabica coffee comes from Ethiopa, Yemen, the middle east, etc. Hence the name "ARABica."
OMG... Todd Todd Todd, stop it. You know nothing of what you're talking about. Do some research on the types of coffee and where they're grown. You are the one who's "confused".
OMG... Todd Todd Todd, stop it. You know nothing of what you're talking about. Do some research on the types of coffee and where they're grown. You are the one who's "confused".
"It is believed that arabica beans from the coffea arabica plant originate from southwestern Ethiopia in the Illubabor and Kaffa provinces. However, many experts credit Yemen for popularizing the bean more than 700 years ago because they cultivated the crop and distributed it abroad to other countries[1].
Today, arabica coffee is the most widely consumed type of coffee and accounts for about 60% of the world’s coffee production."
Seriously, Don? Please provide an example of where I've stated even once about how a tariff on imported Canadian goods would be "damaging" to the US.
And still nothing.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
But ONE thing I know about Patrick... he will never admit to being wrong... and will go in circles, literally forever, to prevent himself from being viewed as wrong.
Come on... provide an example and prove that I was "wrong". There are supposedly unlimited examples in this thread. Let's see one, just one!
Arabica coffee is predominantly grown in Central and South America, with some major producing countries being Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica.
Come on... provide an example and prove that I was "wrong". There are supposedly unlimited examples in this thread. Let's see one, just one!
See, that's the thing, you have to actually admit to being wrong, otherwise you've never formally been wrong, in your mind. So literally anything I say, will result in a never-ending back and forth from you. The most recent however, is the next response here...
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: And of course you purposely don't bother with... Where is Arabica coffee grown?
Hey Patrick... you have to read the whole thread, rather than pick out a single sentence to attack. It was very clear to everyone here engaged in this discussion, that I said a lack of coffee from Colombia would be totally unfelt in the United States, because it is grown all over the world, and dozens of other countries. What you picked out seems to be because you didn't read the whole thing.
Hey Patrick... you have to read the whole thread, rather than pick out a single sentence to attack. It was very clear to everyone here engaged in this discussion, that I said a lack of coffee from Colombia would be totally unfelt in the United States, because it is grown all over the world, and dozens of other countries. What you picked out seems to be because you didn't read the whole thing.
LOL... who's dancing now, Todd?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
He knows better, but when he gets backed into a corner, the argument changes into one of semantics where even though we can all see what he said and what he meant, he'll feign from being wrong by saying it wasn't exact, and he said "also" something else.
Originally posted by Patrick: LOL... who's dancing now, Todd?
See, this is what I'm talking about... you do this constantly. And it's intentional. You know full well you're wrong here... but you just keep it going. That's "troll" behavior.
"A tariff of only a week will result in debilitating ramifications to the country for which the tariffs are being imposed. As I've repeatedly said... with products (particularly produce) that's made all over the world, you can easily find an alternative source for these products quickly. We'll use your example of coffee. Should arabica coffee become too expensive coming from Colombia... we can absolutely purchase it from somewhere else that also produces coffee from the arabica bean."
So, why do you do this? What do you get out of it... it's trolling right? Just be honest about it. You're mad Trump won, and this is how you get out your frustration. I'd like to know this, because otherwise I won't waste my time.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-28-2025).]
You know full well you're wrong here... but you just keep it going.
Oh Todd Todd Todd...
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
As for "Coffee Prices?" I think you mean Arabica coffee prices, which is a small portion of coffee that I almost never drink anyway, nor do most people...
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
Arabica is 80% of all coffee imported to the US. Starbucks, McDonalds, Peet's, Dunkin' Donuts, Caribou...all 100% arabica. The majority of Folger's and Maxwell House's coffee are arabica beans. So yes, "coffee prices."
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I think you're confused... Arabica coffee comes from Ethiopa, Yemen, the middle east, etc. Hence the name "ARABica."
Arabica coffee is predominantly grown in Central and South America, with some major producing countries being Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica.
It hardly matters in a discussion of world trade where a product (a plant in this case) was originally cultivated. When people think of major potato exporting countries for example, do they immediately think of southern Peru and extreme northwestern Bolivia? Doubtful, but it appears you would!
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The part you're missing is where I did not say "I want these countries to suffer." Perhaps you're making this assumption, I don't know why.
If someone says they want to beat me up, and I remind them that I'm ****ing huge and would kick their ass... it doesn't mean that I want to kick their ass, it just means that I would do so if needed and letting them know of the threat.
Canada didn't say they want to beat us up? So if you roll around telling people that you're huge and going to kick their ass when they didn't threaten you, and that you'll make them suffer...maybe you really don't see the message you are sending?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm failing to see the huge distinction here. You're taking both of these and trying to compare them equally. Let me state it as clearly as possible. We get almost nothing of any real significance from Colombia, yet we are Colombia's major trading partner. A tariff on Colombian products would completely destroy their economy, it would be barely noticeable to us in the United States. I don't need another quote, and a reframing / requestion of what I said. I can't be any more clear. What are you not understanding here?
Would Columbia be the only one who noticed, or would it be just coffee drinkers...or is it just nothing of any real significance? That goalpost is just a-hoppin' down the line.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think you're confused... Arabica coffee comes from Ethiopa, Yemen, the middle east, etc. Hence the name "ARABica." The fact that some of it comes from Colombia is wildly insignificant. If their product suddenly becomes non-cost effective, guess what, we'll get it from somewhere else.
Sometimes you just...say things...and you do it with such confidence. It's magical. Brazil and Columbia are the #1 and #2 producers of arabica beans. Yemen is 36th. Wait until you find out where most SWISS cheese comes from
No one is arguing we wouldn't get it from somewhere else. I'm saying we will pay more. Are you agreeing with that now?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm having a hard time understanding how the Democrat-view of Modern Monetary Theory of printing money and the debt doesn't matter, has anything to do with me stating that a company... specifically a grocery store, can chose to purchase products from another source based on price. Are you aware that most retailers have an army of purchasing agents that are actively looking for new products, or prices for cheaper common goods? The reason why many of these companies come up with their own brands (like WalFlu from Walgreens vs TheraFlu) is because they can source the manufacturing and production of said product from an even cheaper place. Best case, they still sell the old product with the other product and no one buys it. Worst case, they remove that product entirely from their shelves and go with the cheaper alternative.
See? You can throw a reasonable sounding explanation at almost anything. "The stores will just choose another supplier at the same price." "The government will just print more money." If that's the case why are the stores already planning on raising their prices? Why did the USSR's economy not flourish? It's because Keynesian economic policy has panned out to be largely bullshit. You can't account your way around actual capital reduction and have it pan out in the real world.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: A tariff of only a week will result in debilitating ramifications to the country for which the tariffs are being imposed. As I've repeatedly said... with products (particularly produce) that's made all over the world, you can easily find an alternative source for these products quickly. We'll use your example of coffee. Should arabica coffee become too expensive coming from Colombia... we can absolutely purchase it from somewhere else that also produces coffee from the arabica bean. Your continuned inference to this and MMT makes absolutely no sense at all. You can literally grow more coffee... which is not immediate, of course, but the United States (remember, we're talking about the United States) can simply offer a slightly higher buying price for the arabica coffee from somewhere else, and OTHER countries will get less and suffer (not really my problem), because those suppliers will sell to the United States first because they can make more than selling to other countries. They can also extent the growing season, harvest more with less waste, and sell less to their local economy and export more. Or... Colombia ends up having to sell their product cheaper now to the other country... at a slightly increased price.
Any disruption by such products from tariffs imposed on Colombia, for example... would be very temporary for the United States almost totally unfelt. Literally, no one would even notice in the United States if the liberal media wasn't reporting on it every second. But it would be devastating to Colombia.
A tariff on China would be quite a bit more severe for us, but at least... equally devastating to China.
...and what if I don't want to pay more for coffee, laundry detergent, and food so that the US can chest thump about how tough it is to a country that doesn't matter? I DO drink nice coffee, and I already pay quite enough for it. What if I don't give a hot damn how tough Columbia thinks we are, and would rather focus on the conservative economic principals that made our country rich and strong?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You don't like Trump.
That's not fair. I don't like Trump's policies, and I don't need his brand of politics to feel strong. I get you are comforted by those things and put off by the fact that I don't need them, but that doesn't mean my issues go beyond reason.
"It is believed that arabica beans from the coffea arabica plant originate from southwestern Ethiopia in the Illubabor and Kaffa provinces. However, many experts credit Yemen for popularizing the bean more than 700 years ago because they cultivated the crop and distributed it abroad to other countries[1].
Today, arabica coffee is the most widely consumed type of coffee and accounts for about 60% of the world’s coffee production."
"Arabica comes from this connection to Arabia, where the plant gained widespread popularity."
I LOVE how confidently wrong you are about this. Nobody asked you where they originally came from...that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-28-2025).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Oh Todd Todd Todd...
You're still doing it. No idea what you're even going on about here... I don't even know what your point is.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
That's not fair. I don't like Trump's policies, and I don't need his brand of politics to feel strong. I get you are comforted by those things and put off by the fact that I don't need them, but that doesn't mean my issues go beyond reason.
You're kind of wasting my time now... and you're desperately trying to find a "gotcha." As I've said from the beginning... the threat of tariffs work. Colombia folded, and folded HARD. Trump didn't even have to impose them. I'm completely unaffected, and even if I was, I'd be perfectly fine dealing with it, if it meant we could protect our interests.
I LOVE how confidently wrong you are about this. Nobody asked you where they originally came from...that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.
Dude... Patrick is literally arguing that he thinks I don't know where Arabica coffee comes from, or where it gets his name, or that it's grown in multiple places.
He's absolutely not arguing the same thing you are, I can 100% assure you. He's at a whole lower, much more childish level... trust me.
It does! It perfectly demonstrates how I feel about Todd's comments. They're laughable. Would you prefer I was angry, as you've incorrectly accused me of being previously?
It does! It perfectly demonstrates how I feel about Todd's comments. They're laughable. Would you prefer I was angry, as you've incorrectly accused me of being previously?
I see no reason to debate the obvious.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-28-2025).]
It does! It perfectly demonstrates how I feel about Todd's comments. They're laughable. Would you prefer I was angry, as you've incorrectly accused me of being previously?
You feel very strongly about politics... even if you never really discuss why or have anything of benefit to actually contribute to a discussion or debate. You have this problem with multiple people... where you go around and around idiotically never actually saying anything, but desperately trying to goad the other person into a retarded back and forth about something stupid that you intentionally misrepresent.
It's clear and obvious that you are in fact very upset with the way things have turned out... as Blackrams stated.
It's more like "multiple people" in P&R have a "problem" with me... because I don't share their extremist right-wing view of the world. For that I make no apologies.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
You feel very strongly about politics... even if you never really discuss why or have anything of benefit to actually contribute to a discussion or debate.
Maybe I should be pulling a page from the Todd book of political "debate" and just fabricate corroborating info.
In regards to feeling "strongly about politics"... no, not really. But...
I won't deny I've always felt Trump was a tool, and I had no idea how the American people could've ever elected him as POTUS in 2016.
Back then he was more of a curiosity to me, but he's currently making statements and decisions that could very well affect my way of life. So yes, I'm now a lot more outspoken with how I feel about Donald Trump.
Maybe I should be pulling a page from the Todd book of political "debate" and just fabricate corroborating info.
In regards to feeling "strongly about politics"... no, not really. But...
I won't deny I've always felt Trump was a tool, and I had no idea how the American people could've ever elected him as POTUS in 2016.
Back then he was more of a curiosity to me, but he's currently making statements and decisions that could very well affect my way of life. So yes, I'm now a lot more outspoken with how I feel about Donald Trump.
Yes, the... "I don't really care, but... here's all the reasons why I actually do."
Arabica coffee is predominantly grown in Central and South America, with some major producing countries being Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica.
Do you think CPEC will punish us ? Coffee Producing Exporting Countries.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You feel very strongly about politics... even if you never really discuss why or have anything of benefit to actually contribute to a discussion or debate.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: In regards to feeling "strongly about politics"... no, not really.
Then why do you participate in political threads ? Even among you compatriots from Canada about Canadian politics.
Why do not offer suggestion of how problems can be solved better ? It seems you do not care, except for the biatching trolling.
