Yet the staement was incorrect for ll the reasons amply stated above!

 

Also I wanted to address the topic of multi varied, multi layered, multi factored. I used an example, to work from simple to complex. When I did it, it was somehow an intellectual sin, or otherwise illegitimate.
To disprove my contention, an example of a “pothole” was used. And, presumably, that simple example to explain something more complex was completely legitimate.
That is the type of intellectual dishonesty that makes having a worthwhile debate almost impossible.

 

It’s totally incorrect. Of course consumers incur costs related to tariffs. Saying they don’t is like saying increase in the cost of raw materials or shipping or labor or anything else doesn’t impact what a consumer pays for a product. Of course all of those things do because they increase the cost of manufacturing and delivering the product.

Trump also has made very clear he has no intention of taking any tariff to 0, he has said repeatedly tariffs are going to “make us so rich”, meaning he intends them to be collected. These are simply a tax on those who buy the goods in question. In the end every road leads back to us paying more for products.

 

Because Trump is a moron! BTW, 6 mths from now he will probably be singing another tune. Mark my words. Vervatim... "What tariffs I never liked tariffs!" Fake news!
I'm so utterly sick of his bull****. Worse yet is the cadre of sycophants that follow him like flies attracted to pig excrement. What a truly pathetic excuse for a government. Biden might have been impaired by dementia but at least his cadre could effectively run the government with competence in his stead.

 

If Trump is in fact a moron, as you claim, how do you rationalize the vast majority of voting Americans reelecting him into office for a second term? Are you proposing the vast majority of voting Americans are morons, as well? There’s nothing wrong with being in the vocal minority, such as yourself, so long as you know your place and can respect the majority-rules concept of our populist win, as well as the procedural concept of our electoral win.

As far as tariffs and Mercedes go, if you can’t afford a new Mercedes, or any new product for that matter, with an imposed tariff then buy a cheaper new product or a used product (which theoretically will increase in price commensurate to its new counterpart). It’s simple capitalism and demand dictating what price the market will bear. Are you suggesting Americans will no longer buy new cars because of tariffs?

This whole circular argument is silly and nonsensical.

 

out of this entire circular argument I would have to assume that I am probably the top 1% of people on this particular form that will be affected by the tariffs. We are currently building a multi-million dollar medical office in central florida. We will hands down be affected.

that said, having spent the majority of my life and a manufacturing Midwest City that was destroyed by china, unions, and the epa.. I will gladly pay a little bit more today for the future of our nation.

the ignorant unions could never see the forest for the trees. The EPA does not seem to care if Chinese slave labor are taking baths every day and mercury and lead.

entire message sent via voice text while driving

 

Ah, it seems a new voice has joined our "silly and nonsensical" discussion, eager to opine on electoral mandates and the bracing simplicities of capitalism. How... invigorating. Let's dissect this contribution with the attention it presumably seeks.

Firstly, your passionate defense of a hypothetical future president, predicated on a supposed "reelection by the vast majority of voting Americans," is quite the preemptive strike. You inquire how one might "rationalize" such an event if the individual were, as you put it, a "moron" – a descriptor you've rather generously attributed to my prior sentiments. Let's be clear: electoral success, especially in a system as nuanced as the US Electoral College, is a rather blunt instrument for measuring an individual's intellectual acuity, moral fiber, or even the soundness of their policies. History, I'm afraid, is replete with popularly supported figures whose tenures were, in retrospect, less than stellar. To equate votes with a validation of character or intellect is a remarkably simplistic, almost willfully naive, reading of democratic processes. Furthermore, the suggestion that critiquing a leader equates to labeling the entirety of their supporters "morons" is a tired rhetorical gambit designed to stifle dissent. Voters' motivations are manifold and complex. As for "knowing one's place" as a "vocal minority" – in a functioning republic, the "place" of any citizen is to engage critically and vocally, irrespective of election outcomes. Respect for procedural wins does not necessitate a vow of silence or an abandonment of critical faculties.

Now, to your rather familiar-sounding lecture on tariffs and Mercedes: "if you can’t afford a new Mercedes... with an imposed tariff then buy a cheaper new product or a used product." This, again, is a breathtaking oversimplification of tariff impacts, reducing systemic economic policy to a mere personal budgeting problem for luxury goods. It conveniently ignores that tariffs often affect a wide array of goods, not just high-end automobiles, and their impact ripples through the economy, influencing overall purchasing power, constricting consumer choice across the board, and often leading to domestic producers raising their own prices – a crucial point about market dynamics correctly identified at the start of this particular branch of the exchange.

You do make a fleetingly accurate observation that used product prices "theoretically will increase in price commensurate to its new counterpart" under such conditions. A small island of economic orthodoxy in a sea of rather broad generalizations. Bravo.

However, your assertion that "It’s simple capitalism and demand dictating what price the market will bear" fundamentally mischaracterizes tariffs. Tariffs are, by definition, government interventions in the market, explicit distortions of "simple capitalism," not organic outcomes of it. They are levies imposed to alter trade flows and prices, often with complex and far-reaching consequences that extend well beyond whether one individual can still afford their preferred German import. And your question, "Are you suggesting Americans will no longer buy new cars because of tariffs?" is a rather flamboyant straw man. No one here has posited such an extreme outcome. The discussion – before these rather... elemental contributions – was about the mechanisms and distribution of tariff burdens, not the outright cessation of commerce.

You conclude that "This whole circular argument is silly and nonsensical." On that, we might find a sliver of agreement, though perhaps not for the reasons you imagine. Introducing such reductive reasoning and misattributed claims, as you have, certainly does little to elevate the discourse beyond the realm of the "silly."

Perhaps before offering further lessons on "simple capitalism" or electoral theory, a more thorough engagement with the actual points of discussion – and a less presumptive attribution of claims – might be in order.

 

I appreciate the safety first acknowledgment!

 

Your grandiose and weasel-worded response, several paragraphs in length, summed up my point very eloquently…. Tariffs can affect prices, yet amazingly the prices will still ultimately reflect what the market will bear. So if you are priced out of that shiny new 2026 AMG EQS (or whatever they are calling it then), you’ll move down to a lesser model EQS, or perhaps abandon the brand entirely and test the waters with a Lexus.

TRUMP 2028!

(Gotcha). 🤯

 

When will people learn, if it's not the Chinese or Japanese or Korean slave labor it will be the Vietnamese, Ugandan or whatever companies can exploit next to maximize their profit. The point is that low cost manufacturing in a developed country is dead duck, never coming back, kaput! No one in NJ is going to take a job sowing shirts for 50 cents an hour ever again! You can levy tariffs of a million percent! The whole excercise is a futile, stupid and ultimately entirely counter productive. Even more deeply stupid is the whole idea of thevendetta again education particularly elite institutions. In a world where labor migrates to the lowest denominator the only hope for a developed country is to continue to be an innovator, where ideas become reality. The overwhelming amount of innovations in this country were not from native born, they were from migrants attracted to our institutions of higher learning!

 

Ok so 1.5 % of the voting population constitutes a vast majority? Got it.

Thank for this post though, as it provided the forum members with opportunity to read another post by J_Boxer.

Keep up the good work.

 

Because they are even stupider than him! Lest you forget, Hitler was popularly elected too! Worked out great for them didn't,t it?

 

By a strikingly similar percentage of the eligible voters.

 

I don't disagree at all.

Oh, absolutely lol. We have a huge number of aggressively stupid people in this country. Trump knows that too which is why he has sought to marginalize educated, experienced voices and promoted loud, ignorant extremists such as RFK Jr. He has made it cool to be uneducated and ill informed, and not cool to be educated and well informed. Well educated, informed people don't vote for him.

Do you understand why as consumers we don't want that? Especially when it accomplishes nothing. People will still buy new cars, it will just be more difficult and expensive for them to do so, which is not what somebody who cares about the economy or the financial health of Americans should want. We want to encourage people to buy things, that benefits the economy.

Since you don't care about being taxed as a buyer, why not just raise taxes? These tariffs are just another tax.

 

Ah, emailforbrett, your latest contribution. It certainly arrives with a familiar... enthusiasm. You declare my detailed analysis "grandiose and weasel-worded," only to then, with quite the gymnastic feat of interpretation, claim it "eloquently summed up" your own rather brief and elemental take. If you genuinely believe my exploration of tariff mechanisms merely parrots your line that "prices will still ultimately reflect what the market will bear," then, with all due respect, you haven't just missed the nuances; you've missed the entire conversation we were actually having.

Perhaps, emailforbrett, if unpacking a few paragraphs of reasoned economic argument – what you dismiss as "grandiose" – proves too challenging a cognitive load, your intellectual energies might be more fruitfully applied to less demanding subject matter. One must, after all, choose one's discussions with an eye towards one's own capacity for comprehension.

Now, let's be absolutely clear, shall we? That old chestnut, "what the market will bear," isn't some get-out-of-jail-free card for serious analysis. The market bears what it's forced to. And tariffs? They're the ones doing the forcing. These aren't gentle nudges from the invisible hand; they are deliberate, often clumsy, government interventions. They twist markets. They choke choice. They stifle competition. And yes, they very often result in consumers "bearing" inflated prices or insultingly diminished value. To boil down all the complex, damaging ripple effects – and we're talking domestic price opportunism, rising input costs, the works – to that one simplistic phrase? That's not just an oversimplification; it's an attempt to sidestep the substance of trade economics altogether. It's like diagnosing a raging fever by sagely observing, "The patient is warm." Insightful.

And your example – being priced out of a top-tier AMG EQS and simply opting for a Lexus – really does shrink a systemic issue down to a rather privileged inconvenience, doesn't it? The actual concern, for those of us looking beyond our next luxury car purchase, is about the wider economic fallout: how tariffs hit everyday goods, how they strain domestic industries that rely on global parts, the risk of trade wars, and the erosion of overall purchasing power for everyone. These are the points that seem to have completely bypassed your analysis.

Then, of course, there's the sudden, rather non-sequitur, political battle cry: "TRUMP 2028!", capped with a triumphant "(Gotcha). 🤯". One truly has to search for the relevance of this in a discussion about tariff impacts. Unless, of course, the aim was to pivot from an economic argument you were struggling with to a domain where, perhaps, conviction needs no justification? If that was the 'gotcha,' then noted. A curious tactic, but noted.

You deem the argument "silly and nonsensical." You know, emailforbrett, sometimes when a complex issue appears merely "silly," it might just be that one isn't viewing it with the necessary depth. Indeed, consider my articulated points, if you will, as a high-value imported good. If engaging with them – understanding the intellectual 'tariff' their rigor imposes – renders them too costly for your current conceptual budget, then by all means, feel free to seek out a 'cheaper alternative' in the marketplace of ideas. There are certainly plenty of less demanding notions available for consumption. No one will fault you for opting for what the 'market' of your own comprehension 'will bear.'

 

Still munching on popcorn enjoying this discussion. J_Boxer, it is rare to see such a nuanced and thorough discussion on a message board. Well done. Question for you since you are the last person in the world who takes the time to write a series of thoughtful and well reasoned responses in such a forum....I'm going to blow the minds of Oldmanandhis car and mb2timer who are sure I'm a lunatic communist lib...in theory, I like tariffs. I remember the 1970's and 1980's prior to the middle class being hollowed out, and income inequality was much less. People in my hometown could get a blue collar or white collar job and work for decades at the same local company, and make a secure living at either. Of course, all those companies are now long gone, with the jobs sent overseas. Remember how Nafta was going to raise the living standard of everyone involved, like Mexico? Of course it didn't--we raced to the bottom all over the world in search of the absolute cheapest labor, all while corporate chiefs congratulated and enriched themselves for being so smart at cost cutting. I would rather pay more for everything and have my neighbors have the chance to make a real living. Of course, it is not as simple as this teeter totter idea, but big picture that is what has happened over the past forty years. We live in the age of plenty with all of us having many times the consumer goods we had in previous decades. Remember in the 1970's and even 1980's people usually had one nice car and one not so nice car? Now, I have four. Remember when the local CEO had a nice house and drove a rare MB and had a lake house somewhere a couple hours away? Now the CEO has seven house, eight cars, two boats, a plane, and a helicopter. Somehow we all survived in the 1970's without Amazon and an endless supply of ultra cheap goods arriving at our homes based on a whim or impulse. The Walmarts and Apple's of the world have enriched themselves, their top employees, and shareholders in a way that would have made JP Morgan blush. I have no sympathy for their profits being crimped, or blown apart by tariffs. Of course, Trump is incorrect that foreign countries will pay tariffs--that's just silly. It will be partly the retailer, and mostly the consumer. And I'm okay with that. Thoughts?

 

And MB2Timer and Oldmanand his car, what are you guys even doing here? Neither of you have driven an EQS. Neither of you have owned an ev. I don't recall either of you having made a valuable or helpful comment about the purpose of this forum--to support drivers of the EQS. It is sort of creepy to have you both constantly lurking. You guys should send your Twitter cut-and-pasted zingers directly to each other in direct messages and keep us out of the loop.

 

nath_h, thank you for the rather generous words and for injecting such a thought-provoking, if indeed unconventional, perspective into this... lively discussion. Your aim to "blow the minds" of certain other contributors is ambitious; perhaps a rigorous exploration of the ideas will serve that purpose even more effectively.

You state a preference, "in theory," for tariffs, evoking a past era of perceived greater economic stability and equality for the American middle class. The concerns you raise – the hollowing out of that middle class, the explosion of income inequality, the unsettling consequences of a global race for the cheapest labor – are not only valid but are at the heart of much contemporary socio-economic anxiety. Many share your nostalgia for a time when a single job at a local company could provide a secure life, and many also share your disdain for the almost cartoonish levels of executive enrichment that have accompanied decades of globalization. Your willingness to personally "pay more for everything" to see your neighbors thrive is, on a human level, quite commendable.

The critical question, however, is whether tariffs – a rather blunt and often indiscriminate instrument – are truly the most effective, or even a net beneficial, means to achieve those desired ends. You rightly acknowledge "it is not as simple as this teeter totter idea," and that is precisely where the seductive simplicity of tariffs collides with their complex and frequently perverse real-world outcomes.

While the theoretical allure of tariffs is the protection of domestic jobs and industries, their historical application reveals a rather messy ledger:

1. The Consumer Burden (Which You Acknowledge): You correctly state that consumers largely bear the cost. This isn't trivial. While those with comfortable means (like yourself, with four cars by your own admission) might willingly absorb these costs, a broad-based increase in the price of "everything" disproportionately punishes lower-income households. For them, it's not a matter of forgoing a luxury, but potentially of struggling with essentials. This can exacerbate the very inequality you lament.
   
2. Economic Efficiency and Innovation: Tariffs can shield inefficient domestic industries from foreign competition, reducing their incentive to innovate, improve productivity, or control costs. This can lead to a less dynamic economy overall, ultimately harming consumer choice and long-term competitiveness. Is propping up potentially uncompetitive industries a sustainable path to widespread prosperity, or does it merely delay necessary, albeit sometimes painful, economic evolution?
   
3. Retaliation and Export Industries: Trade is rarely a one-way street. Tariffs imposed by one nation often invite retaliatory tariffs from others. This can devastate export-oriented domestic industries, leading to job losses in those sectors – precisely the outcome you seek to avoid. The "neighbors" whose jobs are saved in a protected industry might be offset by neighbors losing jobs in an export industry.
   
4. The "Race to the Bottom" and Corporate Accountability: Your critique of corporations chasing cheap labor globally is potent. However, are tariffs the optimal tool to ensure corporate accountability or fair labor standards? Or do they simply shift sourcing around, potentially benefiting some domestic players while doing little for global labor standards and still raising costs for consumers? Perhaps more targeted policies – international labor agreements, domestic regulations, corporate tax reforms that incentivize domestic investment and fair wages – might address these issues more directly than broad import taxes.
   
5. Nostalgia vs. Present Realities: The economic landscape of the 1970s and 80s was shaped by a multitude of factors beyond just trade policy: different technological levels, different geopolitical alignments, stronger union density in some sectors, different demographics, and a less interconnected global financial system. While the outcomes you describe (stable jobs, less inequality) are desirable, attempting to recreate that past solely or primarily through the blunt instrument of tariffs in today's vastly different globalized and technologically advanced world is a challenging proposition. The "good old days" are rarely as simple to recapture as they seem in retrospect.
   

You express no sympathy for corporate profits being "crimped, or blown apart by tariffs," especially for giants like Walmart or Apple. This sentiment is understandable, given the scale of their success and the perceived disparities. However, it's worth considering that the impact of tariffs on these giants also flows through to their vast supply chains, their employees (to some extent), and ultimately, their prices, which, as we've agreed, are paid by consumers – many of whom are the very people struggling in the "hallowed-out middle."

So, while your desire for a more equitable society with robust domestic employment is one I, and many, would share, the critical analysis lies in whether tariffs are the surgical tool required or more of a cudgel with significant, often unintended, collateral damage. The "big picture" you speak of is indeed vast, and the challenge is to find policies that genuinely uplift the many without disproportionately burdening them in new ways.

A fascinating line of thought, nath_h, and one that certainly moves the discussion beyond simplistic soundbites. I appreciate you sharing it.

 

Wow. The comments about Hitler, and the support for those comments in this thread, really solidify the attitudes of those on that side of the argument. Anyone who whips up a crowd with that type of language, is justifying that a person and their supporters can be taken out by any means necessary. I don’t include J_Boxer in that crowd, at least up to now he hasn’t shown any propensity to entertain such thoughts. He is obviously intelligent, reasonable, and logical. He has a very fine grasp of vocabulary, and grammar. He organizes his thoughts very well, and is obviously a good writer. The danger there is going from logic, to demagoguery. Many well spoken and well written intellectuals have fallen in that hole. If I ever get to that place, I certainly hope that I don’t either.
OM&HC has every right to be in this discussion. The circular guy too, I am drawing a blank by his name, but I will find out and remember him. I have driven full Evs and hybrids. But we really aren’t talking about the benefits and detriments of the EQS in this thread, now are we? We are talking ostensibly about tariffs, but the core of the thread is rationalizing, and justifying TDS. Let’s be honest. It’s just thinly veiled attacks (not very effective at that) about Trump and MAGA. I studied economics, and I have a very good understanding of the basics. I have found that so many on the left are willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant on the topic. If I can educate a person lacking in that knowledge, so much the better. But I have found that it is almost impossible to educate a closed mind.

PS: emailforbrett is the forum member I was thinking about.

 

MB2timer, your latest contribution is... a multifaceted one. I'll acknowledge the rather generous, if qualified, assessment of my own contributions to this discussion.

Indeed, invoking figures like Hitler or resorting to demagoguery debases any serious discourse, and the descent from logic to such tactics is a pitfall any thinking person should strive to avoid. On that, we can certainly agree.

However, your assertion that the "core of the thread is rationalizing, and justifying TDS" and consists of "thinly veiled attacks about Trump and MAGA" is where your analysis veers sharply into mischaracterization. When I, or others, have challenged arguments presented here – including your own initial, rather unorthodox, claim that tariffs do not affect consumers – it has been on the basis of their economic reasoning, their logical coherence, or their factual accuracy. Pointing out flawed economic arguments is not "TDS"; it is a commitment to substantive discussion. To dismiss legitimate critique as mere political animus is a convenient, but ultimately evasive, tactic.

You mention your study of economics and your "very good understanding of the basics," alongside a frustration with those you deem "willfully ignorant" or possessing "closed minds." It’s a noble aim to educate. Yet, it was your own initial premise – that consumers could simply sidestep the impact of tariffs – which invited considerable, and I believe, reasoned, correction from multiple participants precisely because it overlooked those "basics." True education, after all, is a two-way street, involving openness from all parties.

Ultimately, MB2timer, this isn't about "thinly veiled attacks." It's about a desire for coherent, evidence-based discussion on significant economic issues. If the arguments presented are weak or fallacious, they will be challenged, regardless of any perceived political undertones you might wish to ascribe to those challenges.

 

If he talks like Hitler, acts like Hitler then it must be Trump!

 

J_Boxer. You continue to criticize my first post you disagreed with. But you haven’t critiqued my 2nd and 3rd posts which were rebuttals to your rebuttal.

 

MB2timer, your latest post (#72) claims I haven't critiqued your "2nd and 3rd posts" – your rebuttals. This suggests you might have overlooked my detailed reply in post #70. So, let me refresh your memory and show you exactly how your main rebuttal points were indeed addressed, with the clarity you appreciate.

Yes, I've often referred to your initial tariff claim from post #22 (that consumers aren't affected if they simply choose not to buy the tariffed product). That was a flawed starting point which, unfortunately, caused much of the later confusion in this discussion and clearly needed correction.

Now, your "2nd and 3rd posts" – what I take to be your main rebuttals, primarily found in your post #69 with supporting points from your posts #49 and #52 – were precisely what my reply in post #70 tackled. Let's go through it step-by-step:

1. Regarding Your Concerns about Extreme Rhetoric and Demagoguery (from your Post #69): In post #69, you spoke out against "comments about Hitler" and warned about the dangers of demagoguery. My response in Post #70 directly addressed this by stating: "Indeed, invoking figures like Hitler or resorting to demagoguery debases any serious discourse, and the descent from logic to such tactics is a pitfall any thinking person should strive to avoid. On that, we can certainly agree." My reply directly agreed with you on that important principle.
   
2. Regarding Your Accusation of "TDS" and Politically Motivated Attacks (from your Post #69): You claimed the thread was basically about "TDS" and "thinly veiled attacks about Trump and MAGA." My response in Post #70 directly challenged this: "However, your assertion that the 'core of the thread is rationalizing, and justifying TDS' ... is where your analysis veers sharply into mischaracterization. When I, or others, have challenged arguments presented here... it has been on the basis of their economic reasoning... Pointing out flawed economic arguments is not 'TDS'; it is a commitment to substantive discussion. To dismiss legitimate critique as mere political animus is a convenient, but ultimately evasive, tactic." This directly addressed your attempt to reframe substantive disagreements as purely political.
   
3. Regarding Your Claims of Economic Expertise and Frustration with "Closed Minds" (from your Posts #49 and #69): You mentioned your economics background (in #69), your view on economists (in #49), and your frustration with "ignorant" or "closed minds." My response in Post #70 engaged with this: "You mention your study of economics and your 'very good understanding of the basics,' alongside a frustration with those you deem 'willfully ignorant' or possessing 'closed minds.' It’s a noble aim to educate. Yet, it was your own initial premise – that consumers could simply sidestep the impact of tariffs – which invited considerable, and I believe, reasoned, correction from multiple participants precisely because it overlooked those 'basics.' True education, after all, is a two-way street, involving openness from all parties." This addressed your claims of expertise by pointing back to your own basic error on tariffs, thereby questioning the foundation of your critiques of others.
   
4. Regarding Your Defense of Simple Analogies (from your Post #52): In post #52, you took issue with my critique of your cigarette example. While post #70 focused on broader themes, the principle was clear: the issue with your cigarette example wasn't its simplicity, but that it just doesn't apply to most tariff situations. A good simple analogy clarifies; a bad one just confuses. My "pothole" example showed a real, unavoidable market effect, fitting the point about your first flawed argument.
   
5. Regarding Your Defense of Specific Tariff Strategies as "Novel" (from your Post #49): You argued that certain uses of tariffs were "novel" and that economists missed the point. My response in post #70, by highlighting your initial error on tariff basics, clearly implied that a solid grasp of foundational principles is needed before one can confidently pronounce on complex "novel" strategies or dismiss standard economic analysis.
   

So, MB2timer, your claim that your rebuttals (your "2nd and 3rd posts") went unaddressed is clearly incorrect. My reply in post #70 was a direct and detailed engagement with your main arguments.

Perhaps you should re-read that response carefully. If, after doing so, you still believe a key substantive point from your rebuttals was genuinely overlooked – and not just countered in a way you happened to disagree with – I am open to discussing it further with reason. Otherwise, your assertion simply doesn't hold up.

 

Whenever the word "tariff" occurs they pop up. They did this to a thread in the W223 forum also.

 

With regard to EVs in general, and the EQS in particular, there are trends showing they are rapidly falling into disfavor. At my local dealership, every EV has been cleared from inventory. Not because they sold, but because they couldn’t even be given away(a slight exaggeration). They were all turned back to MB.
In California, the 2035 deadline for all EV was struck down by the state congress. Someone finally figured out it was all a pie in the sky pipe dream.
At this point, anyone who thinks EVs are going to save the world is on thin ice, that is rapidly thinning further.
If you like your EV, you can keep your EV. If you like your EV lease, you can keep your EV lease. If you have a Tesla, or Tesla dealership, and you live or work too close to Antifa, maybe not.