Tariffs - the most beautiful word in the dictionary

You might be a little too sensitive. Too much emotion doesn't help any problem. Gaza is bombed out. There is little to "save".
There are over two million people living in Gaza. You don't think they are worth saving?

sometimes it's more helpful to lighten up a little.

From the BBC:

The UN agency said it verified the details of 8,119 people killed in Gaza from November 2023 to April 2024.

Its analysis found around 44% of verified victims were children and 26% women. The ages most represented among the dead were five to nine-year-olds.

About 80% of victims were killed in residential buildings or similar housing, the agency added.


"Lightening up" isn't a great approach to this problem IMO.
 
That's racist isn't it? I listened to Count Basie live once, so I've got that going for me...
The only thing you've got going for you is that you're old and will be dead soon. Going by your attitudes, I'd guess you're maybe 120 or 130, but probably not. Thankfully, still old though.
 
Yeah, I was using "" to express the irony we non-Americans likely feel at its use.
I say we pass the moniker to Starmer! Or, just to piss Trump off, to Trudeau! ;)
I had a few issues with Starmer and certainly his number two. However, watching this horror show unfold is making our guys look like highly educated, dignified, elder statesmen.
 
There are over two million people living in Gaza. You don't think they are worth saving?



From the BBC:

The UN agency said it verified the details of 8,119 people killed in Gaza from November 2023 to April 2024.

Its analysis found around 44% of verified victims were children and 26% women. The ages most represented among the dead were five to nine-year-olds.

About 80% of victims were killed in residential buildings or similar housing, the agency added.


"Lightening up" isn't a great approach to this problem IMO.
I still remember those little Arab kids, running happily in the street, from my time in the Middle East. The little girls were all so colourfully dressed and the little boys were a bit cheeky, but friendly. Poor things. And their parents.
 
Okay, which lucky punter picked "recession within the first year" in the Trump Economy Sweepstake?
If you picked "Stagflation", you're still in with a shout.

Anyone got any real clue as to why he is so keen on trashing the US economy? I know his cronies are doing their best to spin it, mainly all the current bad news as being Biden's fault, of course, but they're also saying that this is just a period of "transition". From what, to what? From an okay economy to recession??
 
Okay, which lucky punter picked "recession within the first year" in the Trump Economy Sweepstake?
If you picked "Stagflation", you're still in with a shout.

Anyone got any real clue as to why he is so keen on trashing the US economy? I know his cronies are doing their best to spin it, mainly all the current bad news as being Biden's fault, of course, but they're also saying that this is just a period of "transition". From what, to what? From an okay economy to recession??
I think it is an attempt to bring jobs back to America.

They have more or less full employment so I don't know who would do the "new " jobs.

Maybe it is why he seems keen to lay off as many existing workers as possible to create a pool of workers to fill the places he foresees.

Apparently he has always believed in tariffs and we know that doesn't give two shits about anyone other than himself and the country he thinks he embodies.

He is happy for the economy to nosedive as he imagines a bright (Aryan?) future in a few years(with an Iron Dome).
 
Okay, which lucky punter picked "recession within the first year" in the Trump Economy Sweepstake?
If you picked "Stagflation", you're still in with a shout.

Anyone got any real clue as to why he is so keen on trashing the US economy? I know his cronies are doing their best to spin it, mainly all the current bad news as being Biden's fault, of course, but they're also saying that this is just a period of "transition". From what, to what? From an okay economy to recession??
1. Who knows?
2. He had always liked tariffs and had a problem with our trade deficit without really understanding either.
3. He wants to slow the economy down so the Fed will be forced to lower interest rates
4. He's nuts.
 
Anyone got any real clue as to why he is so keen on trashing the US economy?
He is trying to remold the US into the country of his imagining, but does not have much of a grasp on economics.
. . . a period of "transition". From what, to what?
He sees tariffs as a way to force all manufacturing, mining etc to be in the US. This will, of course, result in a huge recession, since the US cannot cost effectively make a lot of consumer goods. (And tariffs drive up prices of American manufactured goods as well.) So the cycle will go:

-High tariffs drive up cost of consumer goods
--Rich people don't care
--Middle class people lose money; they start depleting their savings to continue to buy what they need
--The poor simply starve/do without.

-Fewer people buying goods = fewer manufacturing jobs
--Unemployment rises
--Overall US economic output goes down

-Higher tariffs are needed as US companies fail and foreign companies become the sole source for some goods
--Consumer goods rise in price again
--Return to top of list

From an okay economy to recession??

That will be the effect, but not the plan.
 
He is trying to remold the US into the country of his imagining, but does not have much of a grasp on economics.

He sees tariffs as a way to force all manufacturing, mining etc to be in the US. This will, of course, result in a huge recession, since the US cannot cost effectively make a lot of consumer goods. (And tariffs drive up prices of American manufactured goods as well.) So the cycle will go:

-High tariffs drive up cost of consumer goods
--Rich people don't care
--Middle class people lose money; they start depleting their savings to continue to buy what they need
--The poor simply starve/do without.

-Fewer people buying goods = fewer manufacturing jobs
--Unemployment rises
--Overall US economic output goes down

-Higher tariffs are needed as US companies fail and foreign companies become the sole source for some goods
--Consumer goods rise in price again
--Return to top of list



That will be the effect, but not the plan.
Agreed.

But isn't there also the issue of the revenue from the tariffs - effectively a new purchase tax levied on the whole population - funding the tax cuts he (and the tech bros) intend to make?

Another point about all this is that I don't believe business will invest in reshoring production unless the tariff wall is seen to be an enduring feature of the US economy. The capricious nature of Trump's decisions makes this a very unreliable assumption, to put it mildly. Even if Trump swears he will stick to it, his word is proven to be worthless. Furthermore, since most economists agree tariffs are a terrible idea, how likely is it that they will outlast Trump? That being the case, who, for instance, is going to invest $500m in a car plant taking 3 yrs to build and paying back over the next 5, on the basis of what we have seen to date? Only a moron with money to burn, surely? Like Musk, perhaps, but not General Motors, I suspect.


And then, regarding investment, there is also the little matter of the rule of law in the USA. I read, for example, that business is worried about the new appointment to the antitrust division of the DoJ, fearing that its activities may be directed towards rewarding Trump's friends and attacking his perceived foes, rather than on the basis of any actual trust-related activity. Antitrust enforcement is just one example. There are good reasons to be worried about other areas of regulation and the law as well. If business cannot rely on rational, and thus predictable, application of the law, that is yet another risk for any investment decision.

I think most businesses will sit on their hands.
 
I think most businesses will sit on their hands.
I agree. You'll get some investment, for sure, but nowhere near the levels envisioned by Trump. And nowhere near enough to likely offset the job-losses that the tariffs will result in, as like last time. And like last time, revenue received will possibly be needed just to help keep the affected industries, e.g. farmers, from crashing, meaning little to no surplus to fuel the rest of the government. Meanwhile income and corporation tax receipts will be vastly lower. This will definitely fuel the Republican narrative that the size of the government clearly needed cutting as it was too large and too expensive, even though it was their tax cuts and their tariff policies that would have meant insufficient tax receipts.
And so the deficit will climb. And I predict that the $4tn hike they have asked for will be breached in a couple of years, with possibly another $4tn to get them through to the end of Trump's term.

And this isn't even taking into account any downturn in the economy, and possible recession, that will exacerbate matters.


But it's okay, 'cos Trump clearly wants to support those in need, exampled by his "purchase" of a Tesla to support the cash-strapped Musk.
Btw, are Presidents allowed to endorse one car manufacturer over another? It clearly breaks any code of ethics one would like to think the office of the President should abide by, but we know that Trump doesn't care about ethics. But is it illegal for him to do so?
 
I watched his address, very, very well put together. It is two hours long and I watched all of it.
A few things struck me.

He is a good speaker, this surprises me since we see only tend to see snippets on the News and he comes across as a showbiz egotist. He did not come across like that here.
He constantly trashed the opposition by referring to unfavorable statistics (apparently) associated with the Biden administration.
The individual monologues were well written.
The human story interjections were effective.
I was unaware they could bring civies into the house, again a clever tactic and made the human stories real.
A god reference that was lapped up.
Near assassination reference which was lapped up.
The humour worked, poked fun at himself, lapped up.
Kennedy reference which was lapped up.

The stand up sit down routine surprised me, we do not do that over here, PM question time only perhaps.

No content surprises except the Putin references, all negative, I thought they were buddies.

The Democrat side of the house held signs up a lot, one read "lies."
Be good to go through the points I was not aware of to fact check.

Truth, stretching truths, lies and damn lies.
 
1. Who knows?
2. He had always liked tariffs and had a problem with our trade deficit without really understanding either.
3. He wants to slow the economy down so the Fed will be forced to lower interest rates
4. He's nuts.
With some of these things, you look for the person or people who put the idea into Trump's head, and there you'll find the answer. The tariffs seem to be something that Trump came up with on his own, and the answer could simply be that he's an idiot and/or he's completely nuts.

Alternately, it's a part of some scheme that will enrich himself and his cronies.
 
Meanwhile back in the UK we are not amused and "disappointed." by tariffs.

From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2gprz84rlt - if scroll down a bit

That is probably because Trump gave Starmer the impression a trade deal was on the table and then took it off as soon as he out of sight.

This negotiation has been in motion since 2020 so five years? the UK got awful twitchy after Brexit so wanted to a deal quickly to steady the ship so I think five years later we can regard this as a "negative" development.
 
Yeah, I think under Biden it was never a priority, as trade was reasonable under the default terms - maybe not as good as could have been, but not disasterous to either side - and there was no real growth potential for the US as far as the UK market was concerned: the two main areas the US would focus on would be agriculture and opening up the NHS. Well, the former is pretty much a non-starter due to food standards, both in terms of what the USA put into their foods, and also animal welfare; and the NHS is (well, never say never, unfortunately) simply not up for negotiation.

Trump might say that he wants one, but would simply try to bully the UK on both these areas, and no progress would be made. We're just not that desperate for US products in those markets. Even now he keeps saying we need to buy more US goods... but has he ever come up with something that we actually want?
 
On the Putin point, What do Russia get out of the cease fire?

Time to find another large tranche of (maybe not-) willing conscripts, time to rearm from N.Korea (or wherever else they're getting their stocks of ammo), plus their own factories will have time to produce. In a month it's likely that they will be in a better position than Ukraine (mostly due to numbers) to then try a major offensive at the end of the 30-days, to gain as much ground prior to any true negotiation.
Basically, just from population considerations, Russia would be able to reinforce much better during a ceasefire.
 
But isn't there also the issue of the revenue from the tariffs - effectively a new purchase tax levied on the whole population - funding the tax cuts he (and the tech bros) intend to make?
Yes, that's his claim. But keep in mind that if tariffs are effective in reducing/eliminating foreign imports, there will be no tariff income after a while. Thus any change to the deficit will be very short term.
 
With some of these things, you look for the person or people who put the idea into Trump's head, and there you'll find the answer. The tariffs seem to be something that Trump came up with on his own, and the answer could simply be that he's an idiot and/or he's completely nuts.

Alternately, it's a part of some scheme that will enrich himself and his cronies.
Tariffs, AFAICT, came from the pickled brain of Peter Navarro and a team of Heritage Foundation minions, who recommended tariffs in Project 2025 not as a negotiating tactic (as many are now assuming it to be) but as a longterm path towards some sort of balance in trade, reshoring, blah blah blah. Remember these P2025 folk are the same ones who want to abolish the Federal Reserve, switch to consumption taxes over income taxes (i.e. the most regressive tax possible wrt the working and middle class American), abolish the FTC and CFPB, etc. Trump's take on all this is...I have no idea if he even has one or if he means anything he says or just likes the attention he gets from randomly pulling on levers and picking fights. I have a feeling he will manage to subvert both P2025 and modern progressive policy, just leaving a smoldering tire fire.
 
Back
Top