Trade Wars and Tariffs

#7,078
#7,078
lawgator1 said:
Ok, then by your logic the bragging by Trump that the tariffs would help reduce the debt was always utter b.s. and those who defended it are idiots. Correct?
Click to expand...
YES!!!

ETA: as many of us have said over and over we don’t have a revenue problem we have a spending problem
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, hog88, EasternVol and 1 other person
#7,080
#7,080
Orangeburst said:
and costs were passed on to the consumer.

****, you cant have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Yup, the Tariff was marked up to the companies normal acceptable margin and they profited even more off the consumer. Small percentage; but it was free money. Not many places were passing along the tariff at cost.

$10,000 in materials w/ tariff of 10%
$11,000 Total CoGs

Normal price at 40% margin = $16,666.67
With Tariffs at 40% margin = $18,333.33
 
#7,085
#7,085
Majors said:
Another example of Trump being who the Dems wanted to be. The current TDS now has those old democrats leading the malicious parent syndrome.
Click to expand...

I do love MAGA logic in action.

Show a clip of Pelosi suggesting that Congress, use their constitutional authority, to impose a tariff against China, from 30 years ago.

Then assume that means that Trump claiming an emergency under IEEPA last year, and slapping reciprocal tariffs on every country on the planet except Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea, is legitimate, and what Democrats were debating doing 30 years ago.

It's just so beautifully stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill and DuckInAPen
#7,092
#7,092
bamawriter said:
So, anyone wanna predict how Trump is going to justify tariffing the entire worls under Section 122, which requires "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits," when our total balance-of-payments is effectively zero?
Click to expand...
He says he can and for a bunch on here that’s all the proof needed.

I looked at that provision too it’s gonna be popcorn worthy and headed straight to the courts.
 
#7,093
#7,093
bamawriter said:
So, anyone wanna predict how Trump is going to justify tariffing the entire world under Section 122, which requires "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits," when our total balance-of-payments is effectively zero?
Click to expand...
fortune.com

Trump's plan B to impose new tariffs is also illegal because a balance-of-payments deficit doesn't exist, trade experts say | Fortune

"A balance of payments deficit is not the same thing as a trade deficit."
fortune.com fortune.com

While the U.S. has run a trade deficit for decades, it’s been offset by capital inflows as foreign investors pour billions into financial markets, resulting in a net balance of zero.

“Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, on which Trump’s 10% tariff is based, does not apply in the current macro environment,” said Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, in post on X on Friday. “A balance of payments deficit is not the same thing as a trade deficit. You cannot have a balance of payments [deficit] if you have a flexible exchange rate, as the US currently does.”

Similarly, economist Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, pointed out that the trade deficit is fully funded by the capital account surplus, adding that there is no overall balance-of-payments deficit to justify Trump’s newest tax on imports.

Bryan Riley, director of the National Taxpayers Union’s Free Trade Initiative, wrote in a blog post last month that Section 122 only makes sense under a fixed exchange rate, which hasn’t existed in the U.S. in more than 50 years.

Back then, when the dollar was pegged to gold, there was still a risk that the U.S. could suffer from shortages of reserves needed to cover international obligations.

But by the time the Trade Act was introduced in late 1973, the U.S. had already adopted a floating exchange rate system that was self-adjusting, eliminating the need for reserves to maintain a fixed dollar value. The bottom line is that “Section 122 was effectively rendered obsolete,” Riley explained.

“Section 122 only authorizes tariffs in the presence of a fundamental international payments problem,” he added. “Because the United States does not face such a problem, Section 122 cannot legally be used by President Trump to impose new tariffs
 
#7,095
#7,095
Orangeslice13 said:
You know nothing is going to happen here, right?
Click to expand...
Thus me saying “neither is likely to occur”, slice. We’re stuck with him thru 2028.

Now I absolutely believe the house will flip this year and I absolutely believe they will impeach him. And it’s going to be as much of a wasted effort as the prior two were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#7,096
#7,096
NorthDallas40 said:
Thus me saying “neither is likely to occur”, slice. We’re stuck with him thru 2028.

Now I absolutely believe the house will flip this year and I absolutely believe they will impeach him. And it’s going to be as much of a wasted effort as the prior two were.
Click to expand...
Ya that’s pretty much where I’m at , but to be honest I think gridlock is a good thing. Clearly we don’t have anyone in either party who should be accomplishing anything they “want “.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC and NorthDallas40
#7,098
#7,098
Orangeslice13 said:
Ya that’s pretty much where I’m at , but to be honest I think gridlock is a good thing. Clearly we don’t have anyone in either party who should be accomplishing anything they “want “.
Click to expand...
Grid lock will be a huge improvement. Every time Trump tries something he’ll get taken to court by House majority leadership. And they won’t put forth a single item on his agenda.

If we can hold the deregulation and energy policy changes and put everything else in grid lock at this point that’s a win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC and Orangeslice13
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top