Trade Wars and Tariffs

[volbound1700]

Nope. Never said all tariffs are bad. Some definitely make sense. Trumps approach unfortunately does not.

Fair enough. I agree that Trump's tariffs have been bad for a variety of reasons:

1. Quick Application/Withdrawal and impact to long-term order/trade
2. Targeting wrong nations sometimes and too many nations all at once. A smaller set point and focus would be helpful. I really think we should only be hitting the low labor nations: China, India, Southeast Asia
3. Tariffs on goods you can't acquire in USA market (nor will ever be able to require) are downright stupid

 

[Vol423]

LMAO Trump is shaking down NVidia and AMD. Demanding 15% of export sales value of chips sold to China to be paid to the US somehow

Clearly unconstitutional. There is a provision in the Constitution directly forbidding taxation of exports. It won't end up happening.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Clearly unconstitutional. There is a provision in the Constitution directly forbidding taxation of exports. It won't end up happening.

I see no way it can stick. However right as it was being announced the hosts on The Big Money Show on Fox Business were falling all over themselves commenting on how shrewd it was. They for some reason didn’t dwell as much on the most recent 90 day delay on China tariffs

 

[tbh]

What is moving the needle the most is a scale on the graph that represents seven points out of 100.

Did it move down? Yep. But barely a tick.

I see the graph scale graphically exaggerating the drop, and that's a great point. Going back to my question...what are your thoughts on the actual root cause(s) of the decline?

 

[GroverCleveland]

I see the graph scale graphically exaggerating the drop, and that's a great point. Going back to my question...what are your thoughts on the actual root cause(s) of the decline?

As small as it is at this point, is it possible to even identify causes? That may change, but not enough data at this point for me.

 

[Vol423]

I see no way it can stick. However right as it was being announced the hosts on The Big Money Show on Fox Business were falling all over themselves commenting on how shrewd it was. They for some reason didn’t dwell as much on the most recent 90 day delay on China tariffs

It's shrewdly illegal, and any shareholder for NVidia or AMD can litigate it. Zero chance it sticks.

 

[tbh]

As small as it is at this point, is it possible to even identify causes? That may change, but not enough data at this point for me.

I'm sure one could venture a guess, but no worries, my friend. I'm just curious what folks think about what's driving the dip.

 

[LouderVol]

It's shrewdly illegal, and any shareholder for NVidia or AMD can litigate it. Zero chance it sticks.

IF Trump were savvy there are probably ways to word things to get around it. but I seriously doubt he is.

Like call it a "user fee", or call it some green initiative carbon tax where you aren't taxing the actual item or the explicit exporting of it. or you know, just have them make donations equalling 15% to the Big Guy Cheeto.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I expect 3.1 for core. Just enough to keep it under Biden....

Nailed it....

 

[Vol423]

IF Trump were savvy there are probably ways to word things to get around it. but I seriously doubt he is.

Like call it a "user fee", or call it some green initiative carbon tax where you aren't taxing the actual item or the explicit exporting of it. or you know, just have them make donations equalling 15% to the Big Guy Cheeto.

Yeah. User fees on exports have already been specifically shot down by the courts also. They look past the wording on this issue and instead look at the end result. There is zero chance Trump would ever call something a carbon tax. However, that wouldn’t fly either. It’s a tax, and you can’t tax exports.

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah. User fees on exports have already been specifically shot down by the courts also. They look past the wording on this issue and instead look at the end result. There is zero chance Trump would ever call something a carbon tax. However, that wouldn’t fly either. It’s a tax, and you can’t tax exports.

with a friendly Congress there absolutely is.

we have endured far worse than taxes on exports in my life time. I don't think that would even crack the top 10 oversteps in my life.

 

[Vol423]

with a friendly Congress there absolutely is.

we have endured far worse than taxes on exports in my life time. I don't think that would even crack the top 10 oversteps in my life.

You don’t seem to be getting it. Taxes on exports are specifically forbidden in the Constitution, and the courts have interpreted that repeatedly very broadly to include basically any monetary payment connected to exports. Congress is irrelevant In this instance.

 

[MontyPython]

Peter Navarro - the architect of Trump's tariffs - is a donkey.

There is no specific, publicly available survey or data that precisely quantifies the percentage of American economists who agree with Peter Navarro’s tariff policies as of August 13, 2025. However, multiple sources indicate broad disagreement among economists with Navarro’s claims, particularly his assertion that tariffs act as tax cuts, create jobs, and have minimal negative impact on consumers.

For instance, economists like Şebnem Kalemli-Özcan from Brown University have stated that research shows consumers ultimately bear the cost of tariffs, a view described as a near-consensus among economists. Similarly, Mark Zandi of Moody’s has called Navarro’s revenue projections of $600–$700 billion annually “not even in the realm of possibility,” estimating a much lower revenue range. The Tax Policy Center, Tax Foundation, and other analyses project significantly lower tariff revenues and highlight negative economic effects, like reduced GDP and consumer price increases, contradicting Navarro’s optimistic claims. Conservative economists like Art Laffer and Jessica Riedl, as well as institutions like the Yale Budget Lab and Penn Wharton Budget Model, also dispute Navarro’s projections, emphasizing higher consumer costs and economic disruption.[](https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/tariffs-are-tax-cuts-top-trump-trade-official-peter-navarro-doubles-down-on-wild-argument-disputed-by-scores-of-economists/)[](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/tariffs-will-likely-raise-much-less-money-than-white-house-projects-economists-say/6208400/)[](https://www.factcheck.org/2025/04/independent-analyses-contradict-navarros-6-trillion-plus-tariff-revenue-estimate/)

While no exact percentage is provided, the consistent criticism from mainstream, conservative, and nonpartisan economists suggests that agreement with Navarro’s tariff policy is likely very low, potentially in the single digits, given the near-universal acknowledgment among economists that tariffs increase consumer costs and risk economic downsides. For a precise percentage, a targeted survey of economists would be needed, but no such data is referenced in available sources.