Economy Trump's April 2nd Tariffs

[Last Samurai]

If they're doing that then the UK and Australia should get negative tariffs seeing as we buy more from them than they do from us.

Those countries that the USA has a trade surplus with only receive a 10% tariff

 

[Hellowhosthat]

??? They are ???

US is by far and and way your biggest importer at 20.6 and 2nd largest supplier at 12.9%

You buy more from China at 20.1% but they buy wayyyy less from you at 8.3%

So overall, US is your largest and more beneficial trading partner. Not sure how you're going to get China to make up the purchasing gap without major concessions to IP regulations and a major investment in your domestic R&D. OR you're going to have accept China buying European goods and then reselling them to Russia; including machinery, semi conductors and other dual purpose military applications

Sure but due to the tariffs the US will likely no longer be their most beneficial trading partner as the US wants to be more isolationist, so they will have to find other trading partners.

 

[Siver!]

Sure but due to the tariffs the US will likely no longer be their most beneficial trading partner as the US wants to be more isolationist, so they will have to find other trading partners.

There's no point pretending the US is going to continue to import goods at the same rate they used to. They aren't.

They aren't the same trading partner they were yesterday. Seems simple to me, too.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

There's no point pretending the US is going to continue to import goods at the same rate they used to. They aren't.

They aren't the same trading partner they were yesterday. Seems simple to me, too.

I think the other issue is that because America swings so violently left and right at the moment that even if the Dems get in next time and decide to get rid of the tariffs it's hard to trust that it won't switch again and be back in force in four years.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Sure but due to the tariffs the US will likely no longer be their most beneficial trading partner as the US wants to be more isolationist, so they will have to find other trading partners.

I'm not seeing where you make up the gap. The US is still a 16 trillion dollar a year consumer power. They still are going to be your largest buyer; Europe will just have to make concessions in some fashion

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I'm not seeing where you make up the gap. The US is still a 16 trillion dollar a year consumer power. They still are going to be your largest buyer; Europe will just have to make concessions in some fashion

If you're not buying things then we're not going to start selling things at a loss so you keep buying them. European countries would have to increase trade with each other and other developed nations.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

If you're not buying things then we're not going to start selling things at a loss so you keep buying them. European countries would have to increase trade with each other and other developed nations.

I'm thinking lowering EU regulations on FDI. But I'm all ears on how the EU Will mange to bridge that gap...especially if they think it will be China.

 

[Ludwig von Mises]

If you're not buying things then we're not going to start selling things at a loss so you keep buying them. European countries would have to increase trade with each other and other developed nations.

Lol

 

[Siver!]

I'm not seeing where you make up the gap. The US is still a 16 trillion dollar a year consumer power. They still are going to be your largest buyer; Europe will just have to make concessions in some fashion

At least part of the shortfall will have to be made internally.

I can see a real push on the whole "buy British" thing, and honestly, that's neither toxic nor negative for me. Imports will then have to come from Europe first, China second.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I'm thinking lowering EU regulations on FDI. But I'm all ears on how the EU Will mange to bridge that gap...especially if they think it will be China.

It's going to take time, but I don't see how they can see the US as a reliable trading partner at the moment.

It's slightly better for us in the UK because we're on the lower tariff and we might actually benefit because our goods will be cheaper for the US to import even though they're more expensive than they were originally and we'll probably get good deals on Chinese shit they had earmarked for the US too.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Lol

I thought you were heading back to the heavies?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

At least part of the shortfall will have to be made internally.

I can see a real push on the whole "buy British" thing, and honestly, that's neither toxic nor negative for me. Imports will then have to come from Europe first, China second.

Oh i highly doubt Europe can actually do that but I'd love see them push harder for a corporate centric / less regulatory/ lower taxation to stimulate that kind of growth.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's going to take time, but I don't see how they can see the US as a reliable trading partner at the moment.

It's slightly better for us in the UK because we're on the lower tariff and we might actually benefit because our goods will be cheaper for the US to import even though they're more expensive than they were originally and we'll probably get good deals on Chinese shit they had earmarked for the US too

Ok...

 

[aitkenmike]

They consider VAT to be a tariff

I wish it was as smart as this nonsense (which would still be utterly moronic), but as we have seen it is pants on head moronic.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

this wins the internet. how the fuck are you supposed to invoke tarrifs on a place that is only inhabited by penguins?

i guess those penguins will have to take their fentanyl business elsewhere.

 

[MrShady]

"The issue here is this is entirely based on trade balances. these effective tariff rates are just ratios of the trade imbalances. Nothing more. No other policy considerations like currency policy or unfair trade practices or non trade barriers.

But even setting that aside, it is dumb because we are a services and ideas based economy, so we are a net importer of physical goods, but are a net exporter of intellectual ones - We take in flows to our capital markets, via services transfers, and through our vast multinational corporations who employ a lot of people here supporting our subsidiaries overseas. None of that shows up on trade balance.

We have a bunch of very high paid jobs making Netflix subs and providing banking services and designing phones and stuff which balances out the cheap clothing and parts and stuff coming in. It is very nice that we are able to have one person working at netflix or something to buy the labor of dozens doing back breaking manual labor overseas in balancing out those payments. And we are at 4.1% unemployment. To the extent we want high tech manufacturing, we can do subsidies or more targeted policy to get it back. We are a super rich nation because we have a lot of individual people creating wealth on the order of dozens in another country and we benefit from that in trade.

It's dumb to base this whole thing on trade imbalances because that's based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how our economy works or why this is such a rich country. It discounts that we are paying for these trade imbalances with stuff we make for free. It also discounts situations where we import from one country and export to another, and the country we have a trade imbalance with has in turn a trade imbalance with a country we have a surplus with.

Basically, it's disappointingly wrong and lacking any nuance on how the economy actually works. It also is bad policy that is going to create a giant mess if its the case for more than a couple months."

 

[Damien Karras]

I get that Trump wants to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S with these tariffs even if the math doesn't add up: if you operated at 0% unemployment, an impossible scenario, there aren't enough jobs made available to produce domestically all the stuff America's consume. And I haven't even factored in the fact that I could take several years, in some cases decades, to bring some manufacturing sectors to America.

So let's say the goal is to implement full industrial self-reliance, the U.S still lacks most of the primary materials required as inputs for said products. Even those have been taxed at extremely high levels.

Now factor in U.S labor costs vs China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and all those other poor countries Trump punished the most with tariffs...


HOW IS THERE A SCENARIO WHERE THIS DOESN'T CAUSE HIGH INFLATION????

and this inflation will be purely on the whims of one man while Biden's inflation was the result of factors largely unrelated to him at all, and that was present all throughout the world, not to mention that the measures taken during his administration allowed the U.S to handle inflation better than anywhere else!

But good for you MAGA, you can go back to making dog bowls, toasters and plastic straws

 

[Cole train]

Hold on to your butts

 

[cincymma79]

When MAGA can't express sensible thoughts anymore, they shit out gibberish.

Here's a MAGA who thinks he's being cute or funny, but he's probably a 14 yr old. Or mentally retarded at the very least.

Story bro cool

 

[Streeter]

Why is such an issue. Trump not even doung equal tarrifs from what I seen he's mostly just terrifying other countries like 1/2 of what they are us.

I was upset till I looked into it more. It's not even really apricot as it looks like he's just terrifying half of what they are. Maybe I read it wrong but as I read it how is this a wrong thing. Are countries really upset were tarrifing them HALF as much as they charge us ?