Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 180K
  • Politics 


Despite Trump’s temper tantrum announcement, the U.S. has not officially implemented the Sec. 122 worldwide tariff increase from ten to 15%.
 


“… Trump's tariff order argued that a serious balance of payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual U.S. goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4% of GDP and a reversal of the U.S. primary income surplus.

Some economists, including former International Monetary Fund First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, disagreed with the Trump administration's alarm.

"We can all agree that the U.S. is not facing a balance of payments crisis, which is when countries experience an exorbitant increase in international borrowing costs and lose access to financial markets," Gopinath told Reuters.…”
 
nycfan said:


“… Trump's tariff order argued that a serious balance of payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual U.S. goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4% of GDP and a reversal of the U.S. primary income surplus.

Some economists, including former International Monetary Fund First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, disagreed with the Trump administration's alarm.

"We can all agree that the U.S. is not facing a balance of payments crisis, which is when countries experience an exorbitant increase in international borrowing costs and lose access to financial markets," Gopinath told Reuters.…”
Click to expand...

“…
Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank, agreed, noting that a balance of payments crisis occurred when a country could not pay for what it was importing or was unable to service foreign debt. That was fundamentally different from a trade deficit, he added.

Brad Setser, a currency and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a senior adviser to the U.S. Trade Representative in the Biden administration, took a somewhat contrarian view, arguing in lengthy X posts on Sunday that the Trump administration may have a reasonable case that there is a "large and serious" balance of payments deficit.

He noted that the current account deficit was far higher than when then-president Richard Nixon erected tariffs in 1971 to address a balance of payments crisis, and the U.S. net international investment position is much worse. This "gives the administration a real argument," in favor of its tariffs, Setser wrote.…”
 
Thanks trump, due to your tariffs my bonus is 40% lower this year. Add that to the inflation and the estimated $1700 per household that tariffs have cost in pricing and he's really fucked my family.

But the cult is still happy that he owned the libs in his state of the union lie.
 
It's really sad how many voted for this and now everyone's suffering.

Hopefully they wake up.
 
nycfan said:
He noted that the current account deficit was far higher than when then-president Richard Nixon erected tariffs in 1971 to address a balance of payments crisis, and the U.S. net international investment position is much worse. This "gives the administration a real argument," in favor of its tariffs, Setser wrote.…”
Click to expand...
I would bet on short odds that the Supreme Court would bless these 122 tariffs, at least the first round.
 
Given tariffs and his Cuba Bay of Pigsesque fiasco, heihs no win "Dad, get me out of this" part of "Lawyers, guns and money."
 


🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/everyon...e?st=heXdnp&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… Coercive diplomacy might produce the occasional headline-grabbing concession. But leverage decreases when partners have alternatives. India’s deal with Europe was a direct response to U.S. tariffs on India whipsawing from 26% to 50% and finally back to 18% in less than a year. Europe’s regulatory machine is slow and bureaucratic, but for long-term decisions, slow and predictable is preferable to fast and erratic. When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney refers to China as “more predictable” than the U.S., it’s a sign that something has gone deeply wrong with U.S. trade policy.

… The world isn’t deglobalizing. It’s reglobalizing around partners who commit to rules rather than those who wield tariffs like a club. The long-term cost of these tariffs isn’t measured in revenue collected. It’s measured in partnerships formed without us and the rise of a trading system that no longer needs U.S. participation to function.“
 
nycfan said:


🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/everyon...e?st=heXdnp&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… Coercive diplomacy might produce the occasional headline-grabbing concession. But leverage decreases when partners have alternatives. India’s deal with Europe was a direct response to U.S. tariffs on India whipsawing from 26% to 50% and finally back to 18% in less than a year. Europe’s regulatory machine is slow and bureaucratic, but for long-term decisions, slow and predictable is preferable to fast and erratic. When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney refers to China as “more predictable” than the U.S., it’s a sign that something has gone deeply wrong with U.S. trade policy.

… The world isn’t deglobalizing. It’s reglobalizing around partners who commit to rules rather than those who wield tariffs like a club. The long-term cost of these tariffs isn’t measured in revenue collected. It’s measured in partnerships formed without us and the rise of a trading system that no longer needs U.S. participation to function.“
Click to expand...

Nobody predicted this. Nobody I tell you.
 
IMG_5433.jpeg

Imports and exports were both down, but the trade deficit with China (which peaked at more than double the 2025 deficit during Trump 1.0) is the lowest it’s been since 2005 (though the total trade is much higher now and in 2025 v. 2005 U.S. exports to China are 2.5x higher, while imports from China only increased about 1.25x — e.g. the raw trade imbalance amount is the same but the imbalance was much more favorable to China by comparing percentage of imports and exports — so if you consider the trade deficit bad, arguably the 2025 trade deficit is a lot better for the USA than raw numbers alone suggest).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top