Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

That is not why...

You don't even know what survivorship bias is. Probably one of the simplest of errors to conceptually understand and you still can't figure it out. 

You know nothing about statistics.

It's a carrot and stick policy. About time we started using the Stick.

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:16 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:16 am

Has FOX told you?

It makes no sense, right?

C'mon, Idiots....find the courage to admit it...
 

WHAT the FVUCK are you talking about ?

"C'mon, Idiots"???

YOU are trying to compare coffee prices from Brazil, in the same breath as:

-  WORLD and NATIONAL security? 
-  America's Economic STRENGTH and PROSPERITY?
-  Our Constitutional RIGHT and FREEDOMS?  ...and
-  Our DEMOCRACY itself?

As IF it was ALL on st same level? 

I'm beginning to think YOU are STUPIDER than I EVER THOUGHT !!!

PhiloBeddo » 18 Aug 2025, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 3:42 pm

It's a carrot and stick policy. About time we started using the Stick.

To what end?

Why?
 

CULTISTS OF THE PEACEFUL MARCH!

ALLONS-Y!

Slack jawed dot connecting cretins 

WTF???!!!!???

Blackvegetable » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

Slack jawed dot connecting cretins 

WTF???!!!!???

I feel the same way about the Jew Haters!    

I think you made some good points about the lame stream media. Best to read as much as possible from different sources.

Case in point: Transitory Inflation 

Talk about media lapdogs and this idiot of course.

Yes, Paul Krugman did initially express the view that the surge in inflation following the pandemic was likely to be transitory. He later acknowledged that the "transitory" inflation would last longer than initially expected, particularly as it became clear that inflation was more broad-based. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Initial Stance:Krugman, along with many other economists, initially attributed the post-pandemic inflation surge to supply chain disruptions and other temporary factors. They believed these factors would resolve themselves, causing inflation to subside relatively quickly."Team Transitory":Krugman became part of what was sometimes referred to as "Team Transitory," advocating that the inflation spike was not a sign of a fundamental shift in the economy.Shifting Perspective:As inflation persisted and became more widespread, Krugman acknowledged that it was lasting longer than initially anticipated.Acknowledging the Error:By January 2022, Krugman admitted that the "transitory" inflation would last longer than many on his side of the debate had expected. He even referred to it as "Long Transitory," according to his blog.
 

Lying mother ****!
 

Fuelman » 33 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

33 minutes ago

I feel the same way about the Jew Haters!    

I think you made some good points about the lame stream media. Best to read as much as possible from different sources.

Case in point: Transitory Inflation 

Talk about media lapdogs and this idiot of course.

Yes, Paul Krugman did initially express the view that the surge in inflation following the pandemic was likely to be transitory. He later acknowledged that the "transitory" inflation would last longer than initially expected, particularly as it became clear that inflation was more broad-based. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Initial Stance:Krugman, along with many other economists, initially attributed the post-pandemic inflation surge to supply chain disruptions and other temporary factors. They believed these factors would resolve themselves, causing inflation to subside relatively quickly."Team Transitory":Krugman became part of what was sometimes referred to as "Team Transitory," advocating that the inflation spike was not a sign of a fundamental shift in the economy.Shifting Perspective:As inflation persisted and became more widespread, Krugman acknowledged that it was lasting longer than initially anticipated.Acknowledging the Error:By January 2022, Krugman admitted that the "transitory" inflation would last longer than many on his side of the debate had expected. He even referred to it as "Long Transitory," according to his blog.

Lying mother ****!

it's because joe was in office...can't be making him / democrats look bad....  
 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 5:27 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 5:27 pm

I feel the same way about the Jew Haters!    

I think you made some good points about the lame stream media. Best to read as much as possible from different sources.

Case in point: Transitory Inflation 

Talk about media lapdogs and this idiot of course.

Yes, Paul Krugman did initially express the view that the surge in inflation following the pandemic was likely to be transitory. He later acknowledged that the "transitory" inflation would last longer than initially expected, particularly as it became clear that inflation was more broad-based. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Initial Stance:Krugman, along with many other economists, initially attributed the post-pandemic inflation surge to supply chain disruptions and other temporary factors. They believed these factors would resolve themselves, causing inflation to subside relatively quickly."Team Transitory":Krugman became part of what was sometimes referred to as "Team Transitory," advocating that the inflation spike was not a sign of a fundamental shift in the economy.Shifting Perspective:As inflation persisted and became more widespread, Krugman acknowledged that it was lasting longer than initially anticipated.Acknowledging the Error:By January 2022, Krugman admitted that the "transitory" inflation would last longer than many on his side of the debate had expected. He even referred to it as "Long Transitory," according to his blog.

Lying mother ****!

Since AI told you it has nothing to do with economics, why this kruginator krying jag?

Case in point: Transitory Inflation 

Slogans die hard...


 

Clearly MAGAts are dociIe, uninformed sheeple..

"Whatever,  Yam Daddy....the good it will accomplish is worth the cost."



**** idiots.

 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:20 am

Tariffs are an excellent tool for behavior modification as Brazil is finding out.

Tariffs are first and foremost a tool for raising money from the pockets of consumers. 

It helps if the bulk of those consumers are dumb enough to support the hand of the federal government reaching directly into their pockets.
 
 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:25 am

FYI:

Donald Trump's administration imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian coffee imports to the US primarily as a form of political pressure rather than for purely economic reasons.
Here's why:
Support for Jair Bolsonaro: Trump has repeatedly voiced his support for former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally who is currently on trial in Brazil facing charges related to plotting a coup after the 2022 election results and refusing to leave office quietly. Trump has characterized the case against Bolsonaro as a "witch hunt".
Disapproval of Brazilian Supreme Court: Trump has also criticized the actions of the Brazilian Supreme Court, particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the case against Bolsonaro and has taken steps to curb online speech. Trump views these actions as undermining free elections and freedom of speech.
Leverage in other areas: While Trump has historically cited trade deficits as a justification for tariffs, the US actually has a trade surplus with Brazil. Therefore, the coffee tariffs, among others, appear to be a tactic to exert influence on Brazil's internal political affairs and potentially to achieve other goals, such as limiting the influence of BRICS countries.
In essence, the tariffs on Brazilian coffee, and other Brazilian products, were implemented by the Trump administration as a means of expressing strong disapproval of the Brazilian government's actions against Bolsonaro and to pressure them to alter their stance on the matter.

So, let me understand AI's argument. 

Trump is peeved at Brazil, so I need to pay more for my coffee. 

That about capture your copy-paste?

 
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2025, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:11 am

7 Idiot Media enthusiast have chimed in, but not one has offered the Idiot Media talking points justifying a 50% tariff on a country with which we enjoy a trade SURPLUS.

"Why do you show us such withering disdain, Blackvegetable?"

I was calling for tariffs before the halfaqueahs became overnight enthusiasts. They used to call me a comnist for wanting tariffs.

But you see, I wanted PROTECTIONIST tariffs - like the old school FDR Democrats had always championed. That is, I did not want American workers competing with coolie labor - period. The conjobs were totally cool with that. They defended it, using downstream talking points from Heritage and CATO (Their source of the talking points was fox, of course).

I never wanted tariffs that were purely punitive to consumers, like the tariffs on Mexico's avocados, which comprise 90% of the avocados we consume and which are NOT unfairly competing with American avocados - or like the tariffs on Brazil's coffee, which represents 35% of America's coffee consumption and which does not in any way unfairly compete with all of those tons of coffee that America doesn't grow. 

If you look at what little there is of American grown coffee, you're looking at Puerto Rican and Hawaiian coffees - and if you can afford either of those, God bless you. Both are limited in quantity and both are highly prized. They are much more expensive than Brazilian and require no protections as they never have a surplus. So there isn't any unfair competition to punish and there aren't any American jobs being protected. There are just American pockets being picked by the federal government, and idiots gleefully defending it with other men's talking points. 

Tariffs are taxes. Trump is raising taxes on American consumers, and telling those consumers that he is punishing someone else. I'm not saying there is a great deal we can do about it. But we need not go to the felcher level of gayness by applauding it and defending it. 

The sad thing is, if Biden were doing it, they would all understand every word I am saying. They'd be following the bouncing ball. 

 
 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:20 am

Tariffs are an excellent tool for behavior modification as Brazil is finding out.

Tell us what behaviors Brazil has modified.
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2025, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:37 am

In the interest of what principle?

Good question.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/10/d3 ... fb8c8a.gif
 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:47 am

The tariff wars are not on my radar as I really don't give a **** but in the interest of what you are complaining about I thought a search was appropriate.

It was.

You gave the counter argument.

I find it weak and contrived - but there are two things that have to be taken into account:

1. I don't run the country - just my mouth; and
2. I don't know everything that goes into decisions like these.

THAT SAID, we are not protecting Americans with these tariffs. And that is what Trump promised the tariffs would be about. Indeed, the tariffs on Mexico and Brazil are going to be brutal to consumers, and I do mean brutal. And they protect zero American workers. And I suspect they will blow up in our face. No matter how big you are, no matter how much you have to spend, if you are more trouble than you are worth, people will find a work-around. 

No matter how much cheese is down a hole, if there are gators down that hole, people will decide the cheese ain't worth it. I believe - and I might be underestimating America's importance in the global market, but I BELIEVE - that even the USA can be written off. And I believe that the formula for predicting that write-off is blood simple: The minute our market is seen as more trouble than it is worth, other countries will stop doing business with us. And I think we are straddling that line. We are making the world so unpredictable that we are incentivising a hard, hard road for our trade partners. No one WANTS to stop doing business with us. But openly using our financial leverage to interfere in other nations' internal affairs gives every nation on earth a strong incentive to rely on our consumer market as little as they can get away with and to forge new trade alliances as quickly as they can. 

There are a lot of emerging markets out there. Giving producers an incentive to push the development of those markets is not in our long term interests. 

Trump promised to use tariffs to right wrongs on behalf of American workers. And the two tariffs I have mentioned, against Mexico and Brazil, are doing nothing of the kind. They are an unnecessary hardship on American consumers who are ALREADY being asked to reach in their pockets for the legitimate tariffs that we actually voted for.
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2025, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 8:54 am

He's making YOU pay.

Ding ding ding.

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 9:07 am

Nope, there is at least a year supply of Folgers Instant in the pantry

Which joint were you in?
 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2025, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2025, 9:13 am

"The Latte Factor"

Sounds like some people need to check in with themselves.

Keep your big government hands off my lattes.