Trump Tariffs Catch-All | Steel and Reciprocal Tariffs this week

  • Thread starter Thread starter evrheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 763
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
Trump's budget proposal for each year in his first term included cuts to SS. why can't they simply look at his history and understand that he doesn't give a fuck about SS?
Yeah, would totally be political suicide for a guy that got elected despite two impeachments, upteen felonies, etc etc etc and also happens to be a lame duck president.
No way would a guy who steals from his own charity take my social security to give himself a tax break.
And congressional republicans will do whatever he tells them to do.
 
And I was responding to a poster who said it was "completely false" that Biden's 5.25T in additional spending was in any way inflationary. Of course it was.
You are such an idiot. I never said that spending during the Biden presidency was not in any way inflationary. I'm on the record here multiple times about the causes of inflation and yes stimulus contributed to it, but in a secondary or even tertiary way compared to other causes. You are the one who said Biden's spending caused inflation.

We can put this to rest once and for all. Do you agree that 1) Trump's spending contributed to inflation in the same way Biden's did, and 2) those spending policies were lesser causes as compared to supply chain disruptions combined with the shift in preference from services to consumer goods? If so then we are in agreement.
 
This seems like something you convey in private; otherwise, it seems to invite Trump to kick you in the nuts because you've telegraphed you've got no choice but to stand there and take it with a stiff upper lip ...
Jeremy Hunt worked for Liz Truss. He doesn't have the UK's best interests at heart.
 
u
If it was such a no brainer why didn’t the last administration declare the cartel a terrorist organization as all hell was breaking out on the border with human trafficking and fentanyl? No, Biden was more interested in REMOVING the Houthi Rebels from having that designation - and that sure worked out well.
Whose Secretary of State was this?

1738704994893.png
 
"Keir Starmer should not retaliate if Donald Trump hits the UK with trade tariffs, the former chancellor Jeremy Hunt has warned, with ministers braced for the president’s latest round of economic measures.

The former chancellor told the Guardian the UK did not have enough economic firepower to start a trade war with the US, hours after Trump began one with China.

... “But our … goods exports to the United States account for less than 0.5% of US GDP. So we should be very realistic, we don’t have any leverage when it comes to that.” ..."


----
This seems like something you convey in private; otherwise, it seems to invite Trump to kick you in the nuts because you've telegraphed you've got no choice but to stand there and take it with a stiff upper lip ...
Jeremy Hunt is a Tory who wants the UK government to fall. He doesn't care if he draws a map and instruction plan to Trump to make the UK hurt, as long as the Conservatives regain power in the ashes.
 
I still haven't gotten past ChileG counting paper losses in his 401k from a single day as money Trump "cost him"
 


“President Donald Trump said Friday he will announce next week “reciprocal tariffs” affecting all U.S. trading partners, a potentially massive shift in the nation’s approach to foreign trade.

“I’ll be announcing that next week. Reciprocal trade so that we’re treated evenly with other countries. We don’t want any more or any less,” the president said, without offering details.

…“If India, China, or any other country hits us with a 100 or 200 percent tariff on American-made goods, we will hit them with the same exact tariff. In other words, 100 percent is 100 percent. If they charge US, we charge THEM — an eye for an eye, a tariff for a tariff, same exact amount,” he said in 2023.

On Friday, the president described his reciprocal approach as “pretty simple.” But unilaterally overhauling the existing U.S. tariff structure could run afoul of U.S. commitments to the World Trade Organization and would upend global trade patterns.

One former U.S. trade negotiator said the president’s plan would represent the most significant trade policy change since the late 1940s.

“Moving away from what is known as ‘unconditional MFN’ where each WTO member pledges to give to every other member the lowest rate they offer to any country is the biggest change in global trade since” 1947, said John Veroneau, a partner at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. …”
 
Continued

“… All WTO members are required to offer the same tariff rates to all other members, with a few exceptions such as in cases of national security. Switching to a reciprocal system would mean scores of different tariff rates for different trading partners.

Individual nations generally choose tariffs to protect industries or products of special importance.

The United States, for example, maintains a 35 percent import tax on pickup trucks made overseas, essentially closing the market to foreign-made models to protect domestic automakers’ most profitable business.

Matching other nations’ tariffs would cause the United States to erect high protective tariffs to defend products that it may not even produce, resulting in higher costs for consumers, according to trade analysts. …”
 
Continued

“… All WTO members are required to offer the same tariff rates to all other members, with a few exceptions such as in cases of national security. Switching to a reciprocal system would mean scores of different tariff rates for different trading partners.

Individual nations generally choose tariffs to protect industries or products of special importance.

The United States, for example, maintains a 35 percent import tax on pickup trucks made overseas, essentially closing the market to foreign-made models to protect domestic automakers’ most profitable business.

Matching other nations’ tariffs would cause the United States to erect high protective tariffs to defend products that it may not even produce, resulting in higher costs for consumers, according to trade analysts. …”
Screenshot 2025-02-07 at 3.31.52 PM.png
 
I kinda think in the "all things Trump" world that scores of separate tariffs for different countries and different goods is exactly the point.
We already have that. What Trump wants to do would actually simplify things from a user perspective (well, these days computers do it all so it doesn't matter). From an economic and consumer perspective, it's utter madness.

For instance, Bangladesh has something like 150% tariffs on apparel goods. Those don't really matter because nobody actually wants to export into Bangladesh. They don't have money. But now we would get 150% tariffs on Bangladeshi apparel. Prices of clothes will skyrocket. What will we get? Jack shit, because there's no American firm anywhere that exports substantial amounts of apparel to Bangladesh and no firm that wants to.

This is the stupidest possible way to do tariffs. I thought the Canada approach was the stupidest but again, I just don't have the imagination to keep up with these mooks.
 
I still haven't gotten past ChileG counting paper losses in his 401k from a single day as money Trump "cost him"
Why is that so hard to understand? Apparently he retired today and liquidated everything in his 401k to buy mason jars so he could bury the rest until trump is out off office.
 
And I was responding to a poster who said it was "completely false" that Biden's 5.25T in additional spending was in any way inflationary. Of course it was.
The $5 trillion number is spread out over a decade. It is not one year, or even four years.

The fact is that the US government spent a shit ton of money in 2020 and 2021 (over half of which was under Trump) and that money impacted inflation in 2021 and 2022 -- just as it did in Europe and Asia (who did the exact same thing in 2020 and 2021).

But as you can see from my link above, once we exited Covid, US spending reduced to more historical levels, while GDP boomed. There was no excess spending in 2022, 2023 and 2024.

Once we worked off the Covid-stimulus and supply chain issues, inflation abated.
 
We already have that. What Trump wants to do would actually simplify things from a user perspective (well, these days computers do it all so it doesn't matter). From an economic and consumer perspective, it's utter madness.

For instance, Bangladesh has something like 150% tariffs on apparel goods. Those don't really matter because nobody actually wants to export into Bangladesh. They don't have money. But now we would get 150% tariffs on Bangladeshi apparel. Prices of clothes will skyrocket. What will we get? Jack shit, because there's no American firm anywhere that exports substantial amounts of apparel to Bangladesh and no firm that wants to.

This is the stupidest possible way to do tariffs. I thought the Canada approach was the stupidest but again, I just don't have the imagination to keep up with these mooks.
I worked part of my career in textiles. Trust me, a 150% tariff on apparel from Bangladesh still wouldn’t make American made apparel competitive. The textile companies in this country that are still in business have carved out markets in industrial textiles and high end markets where quality concerns outweigh price (to a degree). American textiles companies do not compete against apparel products from countries in Asia and Central America because our labor costs are in some instances 10X greater than theirs. Apparel is considered primarily a commodity market. Such markets are areas American companies cannot compete in.
 
Such markets are areas American companies cannot compete in.
So let Bangledesh make this stuff and we buy it. I have no problem with that
Now personally I may decide to spend tons more on a quality shirt that will last longer..but most damn people buy their stuff at Target or Walmart and it is Very affordable
 
I worked part of my career in textiles. Trust me, a 150% tariff on apparel from Bangladesh still wouldn’t make American made apparel competitive.
Thanks for the comment. That's what I was saying, but it's always good to have confirmation from people with more subject matter expertise.

The idea that we would slap 150% tariffs on Bangladesh just because -- it's just so insane.
 
I still haven't gotten past ChileG counting paper losses in his 401k from a single day as money Trump "cost him"
It is basic finance theory that the market impounds all available public information. And if part of that information is that the American executive branch is run by a chaos monkey, then stocks will continue to price that in until Trump is out of office (and possibly beyond, depending on just how much ruination he wreaks). If the market goes up by X, it would have gone up by X + Y (Y being positive) but for Trump's tariff lunacy.

You shouldn't mock people for having more or less correct views when you are much more wrong.
 
Back
Top