Comment: Your "bottom line" is, well,

(See in situ)


Your "bottom line" is, well,

Your "bottom line" is, well, forgive me for using the word, but, it's very ignorant.

If I were to tell you that you would not be affected if gasoline went from $4/gallon to $10/gallon, you would call me a liar. You DID say the people in Japan weren't affected, so......

..... I'm going to ahead and confidently call you a liar.

Tariffs on liquor didn't affect the average liquor consumer?
Tariffs on tobacco didn't affect the average tobacco consumer?
Tariffs on automobiles didn't affect the average automobile consumer?
Tariffs on jewelry didn't affect the average jewelry consumer?
Tariffs on clothing didn't affect the average clothing consumer?
Tariffs on oil didn't affect the average oil consumer?

Was that your idea of humor? You sure you want to hold that line?

Making YOU pay more, or go with less OBVIOUSLY, and self-evidently, affects YOU. Why would reality be any different in Japan?

A tariff on "X" obviously makes "X" cost more. The fact that "X" now costs more OBVIOUSLY has a negative affect on everyone who desires "X". People who desire "X" will now have to go with less "Y" than before, so they can still afford "X". The people are poorer to a specific degree that EXACTLY MATCHES the tariff on "X".

Having phrases the problem using variables, can we now get off of the empiricist/statistics crap and USE OUR BRAINS. If you have less than before, you are OBVIOUSLY, and by definition, poorer than before.

But, you are right, those Japanese citizens that, didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't drive, didn't believe in aesthetics, didn't want clothing, and had no need for transportation were not affected. Of course the only Japanese that fit that criteria were dead people. So, yes, dead people were spared the evils of tariffs, lol. The rest had to pay more, OBVIOUSLY.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."