Trade Wars and Tariffs



Hopefully we got a good deal, but when I read one of the bullet points is "Ensure strong industrial base, protections for steel" then this is just a bullet list from a mouthpiece for the admin, and I have no idea what's in the deal. Just because we got a deal doesn't mean it's better. See NAFTA vs. USMCA.
 
Historically, it's normal for presidents to divest to avoid controversy.

Divest and move the capital where instead?

Historically there aren’t a whole lot of presidents that were businessmen outside of practicing law or farming. Did the Bushes sell off their global interests? Did JFK return the bootlegging profits? Many of them have been career politicians that accumulated much of their wealth from BEING the POTUS (Obama).
 
So the people that bought the most Trump crypto get direct access to the leader of the free world that they wouldn't otherwise have, and you are saying that's NOT corrupt? I admire your dedication

He’s giving a speech. Is that even direct access?The big players would already have access through their existing business relationships.

As is typical, the Leftists are screeching at something that isn’t there. Russia. Russia. Russia.
 
If I'm understanding it correctly, we are maintaining Trump's 10% tariff across the board on the UK, we've just lifted it on steel and aluminum. Auto tariffs? We are going from 27.5% to 10%. That's it.

You gotta be fkn kidding me.
 
Last edited:
If I'm understanding it correctly, we are maintaining Trump's 10% tariff across the board on the UK, we've just lifted it on steel and aluminum. Auto tariffs? We are going from 27.5% to 10%. That's it.

You gotta be fkn kidding me.
It's not a deal. It's more of a deal to begin negotiating. 4d chess or something.
 
Divest and move the capital where instead?

Historically there aren’t a whole lot of presidents that were businessmen outside of practicing law or farming. Did the Bushes sell off their global interests? Did JFK return the bootlegging profits? Many of them have been career politicians that accumulated much of their wealth from BEING the POTUS (Obama).

I picked one of the names you mentioned and did some very basic research to find out the answer is yes. LOL.

I suggest everybody ignore Thunder and just peek every once in a while. Life is much better on VN without him wasting your time on rants that could have been replaced by a Google search that he kept to himself.

1746722980069.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
Hopefully we got a good deal, but when I read one of the bullet points is "Ensure strong industrial base, protections for steel" then this is just a bullet list from a mouthpiece for the admin, and I have no idea what's in the deal. Just because we got a deal doesn't mean it's better. See NAFTA vs. USMCA.
Reading details of the deal on Yahoo Finance, the UK got the good deal on steel. Tariffs on their steel dropped to zero. UK was also quick to point out they would not change their food standards to accommodate our beef exports or other foods.

US removes steel, aluminum tariffs on the UK​

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in his own press conference, explained that US tariffs on British steel and aluminium will be reduced to 0%.
"That is a deal that will protect British businesses and save thousands of jobs in Britain," Starmer said.

 
$2.5 billion market cap isn’t very large. How should it be valued? Every new business begins with nothing. Amazon. Apple. Netflix. Facebook/Meta.

Official Trump was created when he wasn’t the POTUS. So the influence peddling accusation rings hollow. Also, he knows that his participation will be scrutinized like no other, so I’m bet that it’s being built following the letter of the law.

Trump’s a promoter, a brand, an entrepreneur, a developer. What other office holders should be limited in their business dealings? Law is the profession of most members of Congress. AND THEY’RE MAKING THE LAWS.
eh, thats like saying the Clinton Foundation was legit because neither was president at the time.

value is low when no one is in office, but higher when they are in office, despite the individuals being "divested".

its all around shady, Trump just does it more in the open than anyone else has.
 
Reading details of the deal on Yahoo Finance, the UK got the good deal on steel. Tariffs on their steel dropped to zero. UK was also quick to point out they would not change their food standards to accommodate our beef exports or other foods.

US removes steel, aluminum tariffs on the UK​

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in his own press conference, explained that US tariffs on British steel and aluminium will be reduced to 0%.
"That is a deal that will protect British businesses and save thousands of jobs in Britain," Starmer said.


How sick would 0% tariff on steel be? You think that would help with US manufacturing. JFC.
 
I picked one of the names you mentioned and did some very basic research to find out the answer is yes. LOL.

I suggest everybody ignore Thunder and just peek every once in a while. Life is much better on VN without him wasting your time on rants that could have been replaced by a Google search that he kept to himself.

View attachment 740640

Apparently you don’t know that divesting isn’t the same thing as a “blind trust”. A swing and a miss by you. LOL.
 
Last edited:
eh, thats like saying the Clinton Foundation was legit because neither was president at the time.

value is low when no one is in office, but higher when they are in office, despite the individuals being "divested".

its all around shady, Trump just does it more in the open than anyone else has.

If you're president for 8 years and you had all your $ in a mutual fund, you would expect your $ to double. What are the numbers on people we're casting aspersions upon?
 
I am not against any trade deals that grant more favor to America. The issue has been with the approach and we'll see if there is any progress with China this weekend in Geneva. I would say a trade deal there is considerably more important.
I think the UK is important because they are still probably the "second" leader of the free world, and with all their colonies they still have a good bit of influence. and it sets the table that we haven't totally isolated ourselves from the major players.

so the China deal will be more dollars, but the UK is probably the most important.
 
eh, thats like saying the Clinton Foundation was legit because neither was president at the time.

value is low when no one is in office, but higher when they are in office, despite the individuals being "divested".

its all around shady, Trump just does it more in the open than anyone else has.

I wouldn’t put the Clinton Foundation (a cough cough “charity”) in the same universe as Trump lending his name to a legit business initiative in an emerging, for profit industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
If you're president for 8 years and you had all your $ in a mutual fund, you would expect your $ to double. What are the numbers on people we're casting aspersions upon?
I get the first part. just with the clarification that neither the clinton foundation nor Trump coin is a mutual fund or some other vehicle that will naturally accrue interest over time. because I would agree a mutual fund-esque type of situation would be ideal. I don't think that is what is being used by pretty much any of them.

not sure what the "what are the numbers on people we're casting aspersions upon?" is about though.
 
Seems to me there are more than a few that call out both sides for criminal activity
Off the top of my head these are guys I know have called out both presidents Biden and Trump…..
@utvolpj
@McDad
@volfanhill
@BigOrangeMojo
@LouderVol
@Vol737
@Vol423
@hogg88
And several others….




I’m just extremely tired of the “oh yeah, well your guy is .000001% worse” bull **** that gets thrown around by the hacks.
I don't know how anyone with a modicum of objectivity looks at the elected politicians and the parties and comes to the conclusion there is any difference. They talk a different game. They float some stupid ideas. But the end result in my life is barely perceptible regardless of who is president. I have two key issues; taxes and spending. Neither side is serious about tax policy reformation or reducing spending. So, I find myself not caring too much about the debates here. I like to talk about ideas, though.
 
I get the first part. just with the clarification that neither the clinton foundation nor Trump coin is a mutual fund or some other vehicle that will naturally accrue interest over time. because I would agree a mutual fund-esque type of situation would be ideal. I don't think that is what is being used by pretty much any of them.

not sure what the "what are the numbers on people we're casting aspersions upon?" is about though.

I'm talking about people who got wealthier while they were president. Did they beat the market?
 
I think the UK is important because they are still probably the "second" leader of the free world, and with all their colonies they still have a good bit of influence. and it sets the table that we haven't totally isolated ourselves from the major players.

so the China deal will be more dollars, but the UK is probably the most important.

It's the most important trade deal because it's the first, and now we know what Trump's looking to do. The takeaways are not great:

- Increased protectionism is here to stay.
- Increased tariff taxes on American consumers are here to stay.
- Trump's looking to make deals for favored industries, it's not some sort of 4-D chess move to end up with freer trade. Can't dole out favors and specifically help myself and my friends if I allow freer trade across the board.

I tell you what, we're sure showing the Marxists how to centrally plan an economy from the top down. It's fkn great.
 
I picked one of the names you mentioned and did some very basic research to find out the answer is yes. LOL.

I suggest everybody ignore Thunder and just peek every once in a while. Life is much better on VN without him wasting your time on rants that could have been replaced by a Google search that he kept to himself.

View attachment 740640

So he didn’t “divest”.
 
If I take all my holdings out of Company X where I made my fortune and put it in a blind trust, did I not divest?
No. You didn't. Furthermore, I'm not even sure you understand the mechanics of what you're suggesting. "If I take all my holdings out of Company X where I made my fortune and put it in a blind trust", as you worded it, would mean selling all of the stock or other equity interest in a business that you started and ran. The resulting cash would then be put in a blind trust.

Theoretically, you could not divest of your ownership but instead place the business in a blind trust. A founder of a business would naturally be reluctant to do that as he would have zero control over the company or knowledge of its operations.

Most former presidents were life-time politicians who just had stock portfolios, real estate and other purchased assets. They didn't run global business operations of companies they founded.
 
Last edited:
It's the most important trade deal because it's the first, and now we know what Trump's looking to do. The takeaways are not great:

- Increased protectionism is here to stay.
- Increased tariff taxes on American consumers are here to stay.
- Trump's looking to make deals for favored industries, it's not some sort of 4-D chess move to end up with freer trade. Can't dole out favors and specifically help myself and my friends if I allow freer trade across the board.

I tell you what, we're sure showing the Marxists how to centrally plan an economy from the top down. It's fkn great.

But you'll get that Rolls-Royce you've always wanted tariff-free!
 
Advertisement

Back
Top