Trade Wars and Tariffs

[05_never_again]

If he does, he needs to explain how this addresses the trade deficit he claims is unacceptable.

He thinks that a $100b trade deficit means that we're losing $100b, as though it is a negative P/L figure. A wealthy country is going to buy more stuff from a poor country than a poor country is going to buy from a wealthy country, which is a simple concept, but he doesn't seem to understand that. If he thinks that we can have an equal balance of trade or a trade surplus with a country like Vietnam, I mean...

If a zero/zero deal was agreed to, his supporters would probably come out and say he won and love the deal. But it would conflict with what they've said about trade deficits.

 

[Majors]

why isn't this idiot in jail like the leftists said he would be?

the left is about to get embarrassed and proven wrong again by this idiot

Feel another Trump was right again coming.

 

[whodeycin85]

Suck it losers. Temu Barbie has a new bag. Screw your 401ks.

Love seeing the resentment class poke their heads up..

 

[BeardedVol]

He thinks that a $100b trade deficit means that we're losing $100b, as though it is a negative P/L figure. A wealthy country is going to buy more stuff from a poor country than a poor country is going to buy from a wealthy country, which is a simple concept, but he doesn't seem to understand that. If he thinks that we can have an equal balance of trade or a trade surplus with a country like Vietnam, I mean...

If a zero/zero deal was agreed to, his supporters would probably come out and say he won and love the deal. But it would conflict with what they've said about trade deficits.

For whatever reason, Trump believes trade is a zero-sum game; it's Dunning-Kruger in real time. His supporters want to believe he's right because if his economic policy fails then the entire basis for disregarding every negative aspect of him as a person, or as a politician collapses.

 

[NorthDallas40]

If a zero/zero deal was agreed to, his supporters would probably come out and say he won and love the deal. But it would conflict with what they've said about trade deficits.

This is exactly how it’s going to go down and when posters trot out that idiocy here it needs to be called out and relentlessly mocked. It’s “winning” the wrong conflict or at least not the conflict which was labeled as the core issue.

 

[05_never_again]

For whatever reason, Trump believes trade is a zero-sum game; it's Dunning-Kruger in real time. His supporters want to believe he's right because if his economic policy fails then the entire basis for disregarding every negative aspect of him as a person, or as a politician collapses.

His thoughts about trade are just as economically illiterate as a lot of leftist thoughts about taxation. Which makes sense, because what Trump is doing was pretty standard progressive thought for a long time, especially those tied to unions.

 

[volbound1700]

Do you REALLY -- I mean TRULY -- believe that Trump would not tariff our staunchest enemies, for any reason? He bashes them left and right. He's antagonistic towards our allies about tariffs. It makes no sense that he'd NOT tariff our enemies.

I heard Trump is a KGB spy. We know have a KGB in the highest level.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I think India makes most of our meds. We shouldn't, by law, be using Chinese anything for weapons. Hell in thr FAA we couldn't use Chinese made stainless steel washers in our radars because they were so low quality. I dont think (don't know) many of their products make it into our weapon systems.

China makes (or made?) most of the PPE. Remember what happened 5 years ago?

We almost lost our entire steel industry as a direct result of China.

We don’t need to be dependent on anything from them other than Dollar Tree inventory. No doubt though, much of that includes toxic materials in the raw materials. Eff the CCP. Crush them Donnie!

 

[volbound1700]

He thinks that a $100b trade deficit means that we're losing $100b, as though it is a negative P/L figure. A wealthy country is going to buy more stuff from a poor country than a poor country is going to buy from a wealthy country, which is a simple concept, but he doesn't seem to understand that. If he thinks that we can have an equal balance of trade or a trade surplus with a country like Vietnam, I mean...

If a zero/zero deal was agreed to, his supporters would probably come out and say he won and love the deal. But it would conflict with what they've said about trade deficits.

Looks like he already got a deal from Vietnam:

Loading…

www.seattletimes.com

 

[NorthDallas40]

Looks like he already got a deal from Vietnam:

Loading…

www.seattletimes.com

How much more goods did they agree to import to offset the trade deficit which is actually the metric his method was quantifying?

 

[volbound1700]

How much more goods did they agree to import to offset the trade deficit which is actually the metric his method was quantifying?

Probably none but we will see. I have no idea what Trump really wants. However, he did kill that 5.1% or whatever Tariff on US goods that Vietnam had in place (5% isn't much in scheme of things. There is a 3% charge by USA on everything to cover port inspection and receiving fees).

 

[n_huffhines]

If he does, he needs to explain how this addresses the trade deficit he claims is unacceptable.

No matter what the result is, he has multiple conlficting pitches for the tariffs that he can't reconcile. Like, if we do agree with our partners to slash tariffs, then how is he going to grow government through tariff revenue? These two wins cannot co-exist.

And here's the part that makes me feel like a permanent win is impossible to bank on until he's out of office. Say all our trading partners lower their tariffs, which is a very tangible measurement that can't be disputed...Trump gets bored a few months later and just starts saying "Country X is manipulating currency and heavily subsidizing their exports. If they don't transport their most famous national painting to a museum in the US and stop manipulating, tariff."

 

[Vol423]

For whatever reason, Trump believes trade is a zero-sum game; it's Dunning-Kruger in real time. His supporters want to believe he's right because if his economic policy fails then the entire basis for disregarding every negative aspect of him as a person, or as a politician collapses.

That's quite a reach.

 

[05_never_again]

Looks like he already got a deal from Vietnam:

Loading…

www.seattletimes.com

Yeah, I know. That article asks a great question though, which is will it be enough for him. Navarro has already talked about how tariffs aren't really the big issue with Vietnam, it's the "non-tariff cheating," and he doesn't want to have trade deficits anymore. I don't see how it is even possible, much less desirable, to have no trade deficit with a nation like Vietnam.

And there's also the issue @n_huffhines pointed out which is that part of the rationale for tariffs is growing revenue. A zero/zero deal doesn't grow government revenue. Would Trump be OK with that? He has conflicting objectives here and it isn't clear what he ultimately wants to get out of this.

There's also a geopolitical angle to this, again, with goals that conflict. We'd love to have Vietnam more in our orbit to be a thorn in the side of China. Does dropping a tariff like this on them help achieve that goal?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Then the admin should be truthful in their communications of their methods and stop gas lighting us because that actually hurts support for this debacle from people actually dissecting the methods

At the end of the day, support will come from results. It sounds like the EU just agreed to a 0 for 0 tariff scheme with us. Not sure how that will affect VATs, but if the 0 for 0 is true and it helps trade balance, adds jobs, etc...

If it improves the average person's life, then they will support it. Very few people, at the end of the day, will get hung up on the math used to improve their lives.

If it doesn't improve things, people will generally lost support for him. This isn't complicated.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Their products (rare earth metals) make it into almost every high tech device. China dominates the world's market for rare earth metals. That is the biggest achilles heel for the US.

To be fair Ill take their rare earth minerals over their actual components.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Do you REALLY -- I mean TRULY -- believe that Trump would not tariff our staunchest enemies, for any reason? He bashes them left and right. He's antagonistic towards our allies about tariffs. It makes no sense that he'd NOT tariff our enemies.

What does Russia import other than wh0res and vodka?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Actually, this is a great time to pick up some real bargains on the market . Once the dust settles and the tariffs get renegotiated, the market will skyrocket

If the plants are being built and jobs are being created, after the uncertainty passes, the market will get on board.

 

[Vol423]

To be fair Ill take their rare earth minerals over their actual components.

The danger is that they quit selling them to us. Then all that fancy military equipment we have becomes useless.

 

[FLVOL_79]

The danger is that they quit selling them to us.

Thats why were are taking over Greenland though right?

 

[Vol423]

Thats why were are taking over Greenland though right?

That is one of several reasons that Greenland is important.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No matter what the result is, he has multiple conlficting pitches for the tariffs that he can't reconcile. Like, if we do agree with our partners to slash tariffs, then how is he going to grow government through tariff revenue? These two wins cannot co-exist.

And here's the part that makes me feel like a permanent win is impossible to bank on until he's out of office. Say all our trading partners lower their tariffs, which is a very tangible measurement that can't be disputed...Trump gets bored a few months later and just starts saying "Country X is manipulating currency and heavily subsidizing their exports. If they don't transport their most famous national painting to a museum in the US and stop manipulating, tariff."

By that logic, no foreign policy can ever be claimed as a success because it may be used again in the future? If any president scores a win, but has to be president again in the remainder of his term, we can't call any of his wins wins?

 

[Ritzwatch]

What does Russia import other than wh0res and vodka?

Uhhh, I don't know. That was as far as I ever made it down my shopping list.....

 

[Orange_Crush]

The danger is that they quit selling them to us. Then all that fancy military equipment we have becomes useless.

Yep.

This is all about getting the US access to the materials we need for sovereignty and the manufacturing to use them. We can't be dependent on other countries for the things we need to survive.

Again, look at Europe saber rattling war against Russia, while having to buy energy from Russia. If China owns all the material to make computer chips, and is the only one making computer chips, we're screwed. If China is the only one making necessary pharmaceuticals, we're screwed.

To use a recent example. If China is the only ones making face panties, how will we shut the country down again?

 

[lawgator1]

I think it would be helpful if there were objective measures in place to know when a trading partner has done enough to have tariffs relaxed or eliminated. But apparently, no one knows what the criteria is, or has even actually thought about it.