This. In other words, he is letting Mexico and Canada know that their Daddy is back in charge. And if they don't get to work on this and make the changes he wants, Tariffs and Consequences.
Tariffs "Across the Board"
26,298 Views |
220 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Gordo14
So now that Trump has followed through with tariffs on multiple countries, are we allowed to talk about their impact? Or can Red Pear just set us straight one more time?
This administration makes a whole lot more sense if you stop assuming there's some genius plan and realize that we have delusional geriatric narcissist at the wheel. I mean Trump really argued Canada should build the Keyston XL pipeline last week and then tariffed them this week.
I'm still waiting for the great big thing we are supposedly getting for burning our political capital and alliances and now very much tariffing our way into a recession (from what was a very healthy economy in January).
And for the record, negotiating in bad faith - the mystical thing many of you think Trump is doing - is a terrible strategy. I mean it sounds great from your couch, but you don't treat your partners like they are inferior to you. It has serious long term consequences.
I'm still waiting for the great big thing we are supposedly getting for burning our political capital and alliances and now very much tariffing our way into a recession (from what was a very healthy economy in January).
And for the record, negotiating in bad faith - the mystical thing many of you think Trump is doing - is a terrible strategy. I mean it sounds great from your couch, but you don't treat your partners like they are inferior to you. It has serious long term consequences.
The starting question you have to ask: Are you ok with the rest of the world continuing to benefit from our largesse now that we are $36T in debt with no end in sight? If your answer is yes, then there is no reason to discuss further because anyone who answers yes to that is an imbecile not worth talking to. We simply can't afford to float the planet and operate Bretton Woods anymore as the sole Western superpower.
If you are not ok with the status quo, that's where the debate can start. Trump is putting tariffs in place partially because other counties have hit us with tariffs for years and he's simply trying to get them to stop. In other cases, he's putting tariffs in place to force strategic change on one issue or another. In yet other cases, he's using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to alter trade deals.
We can certainly debate that. Most people acknowledge there will certainly be near term pain as a result with the intent to get medium to long term gains. His admin has acknowledged that since he announced tariffs and he did so himself tonight more than once.
It remains to be seen if he will get the medium to long term benefits he thinks we can get from this. But, the bottom line is that Americas status quo is unsustainable and something has to change.
Unfortunately, what really needs to happen never will. We could forego all of this tariff business if we would cut spending but no one is going to do that. DOGE is nice and fun and admirable as far as temporarily (Democrats will resume all of their unethical and corrupt money laundering once they regain control) stopping some corruptness, but it's rounding error at the end of the day.
Thus, in the absence of spending cuts tariffs are his other play.
If you are not ok with the status quo, that's where the debate can start. Trump is putting tariffs in place partially because other counties have hit us with tariffs for years and he's simply trying to get them to stop. In other cases, he's putting tariffs in place to force strategic change on one issue or another. In yet other cases, he's using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to alter trade deals.
We can certainly debate that. Most people acknowledge there will certainly be near term pain as a result with the intent to get medium to long term gains. His admin has acknowledged that since he announced tariffs and he did so himself tonight more than once.
It remains to be seen if he will get the medium to long term benefits he thinks we can get from this. But, the bottom line is that Americas status quo is unsustainable and something has to change.
Unfortunately, what really needs to happen never will. We could forego all of this tariff business if we would cut spending but no one is going to do that. DOGE is nice and fun and admirable as far as temporarily (Democrats will resume all of their unethical and corrupt money laundering once they regain control) stopping some corruptness, but it's rounding error at the end of the day.
Thus, in the absence of spending cuts tariffs are his other play.
YouBet said:
The starting question you have to ask: Are you ok with the rest of the world continuing to benefit from our largesse now that we are $36T in debt with no end in sight? If your answer is yes, then there is no reason to discuss further because anyone who answers yes to that is an imbecile not worth talking to. We simply can't afford to float the planet and operate Bretton Woods anymore as the sole Western superpower.
If you are not ok with the status quo, that's where the debate can start. Trump is putting tariffs in place partially because other counties have hit us with tariffs for years and he's simply trying to get them to stop. In other cases, he's putting tariffs in place to force strategic change on one issue or another. In yet other cases, he's using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to alter trade deals.
We can certainly debate that. Most people acknowledge there will certainly be near term pain as a result with the intent to get medium to long term gains. His admin has acknowledged that since he announced tariffs and he did so himself tonight more than once.
It remains to be seen if he will get the medium to long term benefits he thinks we can get from this. But, the bottom line is that Americas status quo is unsustainable and something has to change.
Unfortunately, what really needs to happen never will. We could forego all of this tariff business if we would cut spending but no one is going to do that. DOGE is nice and fun and admirable as far as temporarily (Democrats will resume all of their unethical and corrupt money laundering once they regain control) stopping some corruptness, but it's rounding error at the end of the day.
Thus, in the absence of spending cuts tariffs are his other play.
Paragraph by paragraph:
1.) Debt must always be taken in context. Context to the economy, context to tax revenue, context of deficit, context of inflation etc. Big numbers mean nothing in the context if other big numbers. For the record, I am in support of a careful cut in spending and letting tax receipts increase as the economy continues to grow, but I think it's safe to say that having a healthy manageable deficit is good for a country like ours - growing. But instead Congress is working on a tax cut that will add 19T to the total debt load right now. And we've got DOGE bragging about saving $5,000 cutting a handful of microsoft subscriptions or killing the NWS. So clearly it's not about debt. Besides the trade deficit has **** all to do with our national debt. I knoe Trump calls a trade deficit a subsidy so I can understand your confusion, but let's do a simple exercise... we buy crude from Canada (deficit) refine it into gasoline and export it to Latin America at a higher price than the crude oil we bought. Now should America decrease our deficit with Canada knowing that the result is we know will export less to Latin America. Donald Trump is emphatically yes. But it goes to show he is completely incapable of thinking about the world in a multilateral way - a clear manifestation of his narcissism.
2. Sounds like a sloppy poorly thoughtout plan. Want to know how I know? Because he keeps wrecklessly throwing **** at the wall (ugh... 25% on Canada) then taking it off for literally nothing. Then putting it back on a month later only for Luttnick to already try to sort of walk it back. He already said Canada can't do anything about it yesterday before implementing them. Half the people on here were saying he's so genius he'd never do it. So whats the plan? Forcing "strategic change" on a fully integrated economy like ours with Canada is just hilarious- especially when we clearly beenefit the most from the arraignment. American companies have generally speaking out competed Canadian companies across the board under the free trade agreement we had. What is our plan to grow avocados better than Mexico? Again, you don't get leverage by bring a parasite. If it was strategic maybe targetting certain specific industries makes sense... But even then, you should target say China's specific industries and maybe focus on your comparative advantages which in our case are higher up the value chain with Mexico and Canada. We don't have infinite workers to literally do everything, so incintivizing everything in America is counterproductive. The point is you just mystically assume there is a plan, but the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. And not only that, you've failed to address the long term consequences of our behavoir. Why would Canada build the Keystone XL pipeline when they could wake up with 30% tariffs tomorrow? Why would they be an amicable partner across the spectrum of country relations with us? If you could put a price on that over the next 2 decades, what is it worth?
3. I'm pretty confident he has little vision about how this will play out. About the extent of his strategy is "I will tariff them into submission". What that means and how that actually, ultimately helps the American people is not even close to where he is. And you might be ok with this "short term pain"... Maybe it's a decade maybe its 5 years but I am sure it'll be euphoric on the other side... Is I doubt the American voter will be ok with it, when frankly the economy was doing great just 2 months ago... A simple look at GDP data (which includes trade deficits), the stock market, real median wages, etc. Everything was going well before the Canada and Mexico Tariffs.
4. How is that the bottom line. Who says it was unsustainable? You? We were absolutely in a position of economic flourishing that had no signs of letting up before the tariffs. Just thoughtful management was all we needed. But we were bored so we had to gamble with the US economy in a way that you admit may not work out because you think things were unsustainable. That's where we are at.
5. And now we're just making things up pretending it strengthens our argument. Again the debt has nothing to do with the trade deficit except that arguably a higher trade deficit lowers interest rates (because governments around the world need to have a home for their excess dollars) and weakens the dollar (which ironically also stimulates investment in America). And most of the national debt comes from Trump's COVID stimulus and Bush's Great Recession stimulus. The funny thing is I actually agree with how both Presidents handled the situations, but to blame the debt on Democrats corruption seems a bit weak on the sources. Also it's rich given this administration wants to use tax payer dollars to buy cryptocurrencies to give cryptobros exit liquidity and made a ****coin to grift money off his followers. And that's just the beginning.
Republicans need to go back to Reagan or the party will be dead forever. Trump is as far from Reagan as Bernie Sanders is at this point.
Bring back the dementia patient with the inability to string together coherent sentences in English that took mid-day naps while "working" 10-4. At least he and his administration of incompetent DEI hires weren't intentionally trying to crash the economy.Gordo14 said:
This administration makes a whole lot more sense if you stop assuming there's some genius plan and realize that we have delusional geriatric narcissist at the wheel. I mean Trump really argued Canada should build the Keyston XL pipeline last week and then tariffed them this week.
I'm still waiting for the great big thing we are supposedly getting for burning our political capital and alliances and now very much tariffing our way into a recession (from what was a very healthy economy in January).
The last 8 years have done more to shake my faith in representative democracy than anything I could have imagined. We sure know how to pick them.
The more tariffs Trump implements, the more genders the next democratic presidential candidate can promise to codify into the constitution and still win.
Midterms are going to be a bloodbath for Republicans.
Gordo14 said:YouBet said:
The starting question you have to ask: Are you ok with the rest of the world continuing to benefit from our largesse now that we are $36T in debt with no end in sight? If your answer is yes, then there is no reason to discuss further because anyone who answers yes to that is an imbecile not worth talking to. We simply can't afford to float the planet and operate Bretton Woods anymore as the sole Western superpower.
If you are not ok with the status quo, that's where the debate can start. Trump is putting tariffs in place partially because other counties have hit us with tariffs for years and he's simply trying to get them to stop. In other cases, he's putting tariffs in place to force strategic change on one issue or another. In yet other cases, he's using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to alter trade deals.
We can certainly debate that. Most people acknowledge there will certainly be near term pain as a result with the intent to get medium to long term gains. His admin has acknowledged that since he announced tariffs and he did so himself tonight more than once.
It remains to be seen if he will get the medium to long term benefits he thinks we can get from this. But, the bottom line is that Americas status quo is unsustainable and something has to change.
Unfortunately, what really needs to happen never will. We could forego all of this tariff business if we would cut spending but no one is going to do that. DOGE is nice and fun and admirable as far as temporarily (Democrats will resume all of their unethical and corrupt money laundering once they regain control) stopping some corruptness, but it's rounding error at the end of the day.
Thus, in the absence of spending cuts tariffs are his other play.
Paragraph by paragraph:
1.) Debt must always be taken in context. Context to the economy, context to tax revenue, context of deficit, context of inflation etc. Big numbers mean nothing in the context if other big numbers. For the record, I am in support of a careful cut in spending and letting tax receipts increase as the economy continues to grow, but I think it's safe to say that having a healthy manageable deficit is good for a country like ours - growing. But instead Congress is working on a tax cut that will add 19T to the total debt load right now. And we've got DOGE bragging about saving $5,000 cutting a handful of microsoft subscriptions or killing the NWS. So clearly it's not about debt. Besides the trade deficit has **** all to do with our national debt. I knoe Trump calls a trade deficit a subsidy so I can understand your confusion, but let's do a simple exercise... we buy crude from Canada (deficit) refine it into gasoline and export it to Latin America at a higher price than the crude oil we bought. Now should America decrease our deficit with Canada knowing that the result is we know will export less to Latin America. Donald Trump is emphatically yes. But it goes to show he is completely incapable of thinking about the world in a multilateral way - a clear manifestation of his narcissism.
2. Sounds like a sloppy poorly thoughtout plan. Want to know how I know? Because he keeps wrecklessly throwing **** at the wall (ugh... 25% on Canada) then taking it off for literally nothing. Then putting it back on a month later only for Luttnick to already try to sort of walk it back. He already said Canada can't do anything about it yesterday before implementing them. Half the people on here were saying he's so genius he'd never do it. So whats the plan? Forcing "strategic change" on a fully integrated economy like ours with Canada is just hilarious- especially when we clearly beenefit the most from the arraignment. American companies have generally speaking out competed Canadian companies across the board under the free trade agreement we had. What is our plan to grow avocados better than Mexico? Again, you don't get leverage by bring a parasite. If it was strategic maybe targetting certain specific industries makes sense... But even then, you should target say China's specific industries and maybe focus on your comparative advantages which in our case are higher up the value chain with Mexico and Canada. We don't have infinite workers to literally do everything, so incintivizing everything in America is counterproductive. The point is you just mystically assume there is a plan, but the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. And not only that, you've failed to address the long term consequences of our behavoir. Why would Canada build the Keystone XL pipeline when they could wake up with 30% tariffs tomorrow? Why would they be an amicable partner across the spectrum of country relations with us? If you could put a price on that over the next 2 decades, what is it worth?
3. I'm pretty confident he has little vision about how this will play out. About the extent of his strategy is "I will tariff them into submission". What that means and how that actually, ultimately helps the American people is not even close to where he is. And you might be ok with this "short term pain"... Maybe it's a decade maybe its 5 years but I am sure it'll be euphoric on the other side... Is I doubt the American voter will be ok with it, when frankly the economy was doing great just 2 months ago... A simple look at GDP data (which includes trade deficits), the stock market, real median wages, etc. Everything was going well before the Canada and Mexico Tariffs.
4. How is that the bottom line. Who says it was unsustainable? You? We were absolutely in a position of economic flourishing that had no signs of letting up before the tariffs. Just thoughtful management was all we needed. But we were bored so we had to gamble with the US economy in a way that you admit may not work out because you think things were unsustainable. That's where we are at.
5. And now we're just making things up pretending it strengthens our argument. Again the debt has nothing to do with the trade deficit except that arguably a higher trade deficit lowers interest rates (because governments around the world need to have a home for their excess dollars) and weakens the dollar (which ironically also stimulates investment in America). And most of the national debt comes from Trump's COVID stimulus and Bush's Great Recession stimulus. The funny thing is I actually agree with how both Presidents handled the situations, but to blame the debt on Democrats corruption seems a bit weak on the sources. Also it's rich given this administration wants to use tax payer dollars to buy cryptocurrencies to give cryptobros exit liquidity and made a ****coin to grift money off his followers. And that's just the beginning.
Republicans need to go back to Reagan or the party will be dead forever. Trump is as far from Reagan as Bernie Sanders is at this point.
1 and 2: I'm not confused. I'm merely sharing what Trump is thinking in light of the fact that we are not going to address the elephant in the room which is debt. He may say we are, but we won't. Congress won't allow it and the people won't allow it because half the country is sucking on the teat of the taxpayers and getting a free ride. And unless you are talking about Trump's no tax on tips or overtime (which are dumb ideas), you are mischaracterizing this "tax cut". It's not a new tax cut; it's a continuation of the cuts already in place. But we all realize the left likes to project that we are doing new tax cuts so that Democrats will think the rich are getting more cuts. I'm all for increasing taxes on the bottom half of the country who literally pay nothing and in many cases get money back. We need more people with skin in the game; not fewer.
3: I'm not arguing for tariffs and Trump's vision could certainly backfire. We are going to find out.
4 and 5: I'm not making up anything. My argument is that the larger problem we have is our debt and if we addressed that then we would could forego tariff moves as I stated originally. Basic math says what we are doing is unsustainable. Interest on our debt is now our #3 line item with annual spending and it's going to dramatically increase. And the fact that you are assigning all debt blame to Bush and Trump just exposes your left wing bias. It's laughably obtuse and/or lying to selectively leave out Obama and Biden who share equal blame with our debt situation. Remember the CHIPS Act, the Infrastructure Bill, and the "Inflation Reduction Act"? All massive spending under Biden with almost no ROI....with the latter law actually increasing inflation. I supported the CHIPS Act because I believe it's a national security issue in light of the Taiwanese monopoly on chip making, but I'll be shocked if anything materializes from it.
Too many MAGA fans will pretzel brain themselves into defending Trump's policies thinking he's playing 4D chess negotiating deals. There have been a number of justifications for his tariff hikes (debt reduction, reduce trade deficits, reduce reciprocal tariffs, increase US manufacturing, we're somehow getting cheated, etc.) that just don't hold up to scrutiny with a basic understanding of macroeconomics. To quote the Chief Global Strategist of JPM, "The trouble with tariffs, to be succinct, is that they raise prices, slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Other than that, they're fine."
His policies make much more sense when you drop the guise that he's some sort of genius and realize he's a narcissistic sociopath with no moral compass.
His policies make much more sense when you drop the guise that he's some sort of genius and realize he's a narcissistic sociopath with no moral compass.
themissinglink said:
Too many MAGA fans will pretzel brain themselves into defending Trump's policies thinking he's playing 4D chess negotiating deals. There have been a number of justifications for his tariff hikes (debt reduction, reduce trade deficits, reduce reciprocal tariffs, increase US manufacturing, we're somehow getting cheated, etc.) that just don't hold up to scrutiny with a basic understanding of macroeconomics. To quote the Chief Global Strategist of JPM, "The trouble with tariffs, to be succinct, is that they raise prices, slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Other than that, they're fine."
His policies make much more sense when you drop the guise that he's some sort of genius and realize he's a narcissistic sociopath with no moral compass.
And I'll say it again...I'm not advocating for tariffs. Damn good chance they backfire.
And since you can't restrain your TDS...I'll raise you Trump's narcissism (valid because who isn't in DC?) and sociopathy (absurd) with Biden and almost any elected Democrat now in office. A collective group of absolute racist buffoons who approach all issues under the lens of identity politics backed by literal state funded propaganda to carry their water all the while they fleece us. We don't care about that though.
I don't have TDS. I'm willing to call a spade a spade. And I won't argue with you on the idiocy of the Biden admin. We've been presented with 2 really bad choices. See my post further up about about my losing faith in representative democracy due to the last 8 years. Just because the Democrats also have terrible ideas, doesn't make the Republican's terrible ideas any less terrible.YouBet said:themissinglink said:
Too many MAGA fans will pretzel brain themselves into defending Trump's policies thinking he's playing 4D chess negotiating deals. There have been a number of justifications for his tariff hikes (debt reduction, reduce trade deficits, reduce reciprocal tariffs, increase US manufacturing, we're somehow getting cheated, etc.) that just don't hold up to scrutiny with a basic understanding of macroeconomics. To quote the Chief Global Strategist of JPM, "The trouble with tariffs, to be succinct, is that they raise prices, slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Other than that, they're fine."
His policies make much more sense when you drop the guise that he's some sort of genius and realize he's a narcissistic sociopath with no moral compass.
And I'll say it again...I'm not advocating for tariffs. Damn good chance they backfire.
And since you can't restrain your TDS...I'll raise you Trump's narcissism (valid because who isn't in DC?) and sociopathy (absurd) with Biden and almost any elected Democrat now in office. A collective group of absolute racist buffoons who approach all issues under the lens of identity politics backed by literal state funded propaganda to carry their water all the while they fleece us. We don't care about that though.
I just don't understand people. We could have had Ron DeSantis over this. I'll never get it.
I still believe in representative democracy, but I absolutely believe our method of it is absolutely broken with our 2 party system. We're all voting for the lesser of 2 idiots every time because a primary process that panders to the far fringe of the idiots for each party base. Europe's various parliament systems seem to be much more representative of its populations than what we've been doing. Now theyre often are grid locked by decision making and compromising too so it has its faults if you are wanting a quick action government, but that is only achievable if most everyone is on the same page or you consolidate power at the top.themissinglink said:I don't have TDS. I'm willing to call a spade a spade. And I won't argue with you on the idiocy of the Biden admin. We've been presented with 2 really bad choices. See my post further up about about my losing faith in representative democracy due to the last 8 years. Just because the Democrats also have terrible ideas, doesn't make the Republican's terrible ideas any less terrible.YouBet said:themissinglink said:
Too many MAGA fans will pretzel brain themselves into defending Trump's policies thinking he's playing 4D chess negotiating deals. There have been a number of justifications for his tariff hikes (debt reduction, reduce trade deficits, reduce reciprocal tariffs, increase US manufacturing, we're somehow getting cheated, etc.) that just don't hold up to scrutiny with a basic understanding of macroeconomics. To quote the Chief Global Strategist of JPM, "The trouble with tariffs, to be succinct, is that they raise prices, slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Other than that, they're fine."
His policies make much more sense when you drop the guise that he's some sort of genius and realize he's a narcissistic sociopath with no moral compass.
And I'll say it again...I'm not advocating for tariffs. Damn good chance they backfire.
And since you can't restrain your TDS...I'll raise you Trump's narcissism (valid because who isn't in DC?) and sociopathy (absurd) with Biden and almost any elected Democrat now in office. A collective group of absolute racist buffoons who approach all issues under the lens of identity politics backed by literal state funded propaganda to carry their water all the while they fleece us. We don't care about that though.
ranked choice would go a long way towards giving people sick of both fringes more of a voice, but both sides have convinced their voters its evil (in areas where they are currently in power), so I doubt it ever gets traction.
I agree conceptually, but it appears that it's easily gamed - - a portion of opponents just place protest ranking votes in favor of the fringe candidates that are the lowest threat to their preferred candidate to improve electability.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
ranked choice would go a long way towards giving people sick of both fringes more of a voice, but both sides have convinced their voters its evil (in areas where they are currently in power), so I doubt it ever gets traction.
How is that gaming the system. Thats exactly what a ranking of preferred candidates is. The person you like the least to represent you is at the bottom of your ranking.I bleed maroon said:I agree conceptually, but it appears that it's easily gamed - - a portion of opponents just place protest ranking votes in favor of the fringe candidates that are the lowest threat to their preferred candidate to improve electability.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
ranked choice would go a long way towards giving people sick of both fringes more of a voice, but both sides have convinced their voters its evil (in areas where they are currently in power), so I doubt it ever gets traction.
Why can't we just vote on who we want instead of this bs. You can't believe that Murkowski represents Alaska very well.cajunaggie08 said:How is that gaming the system. Thats exactly what a ranking of preferred candidates is. The person you like the least to represent you is at the bottom of your ranking.I bleed maroon said:I agree conceptually, but it appears that it's easily gamed - - a portion of opponents just place protest ranking votes in favor of the fringe candidates that are the lowest threat to their preferred candidate to improve electability.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
ranked choice would go a long way towards giving people sick of both fringes more of a voice, but both sides have convinced their voters its evil (in areas where they are currently in power), so I doubt it ever gets traction.
RogerFurlong said:Why can't we just vote on who we want instead of this bs. You can't believe that Murkowski represents Alaska very well.cajunaggie08 said:How is that gaming the system. Thats exactly what a ranking of preferred candidates is. The person you like the least to represent you is at the bottom of your ranking.I bleed maroon said:I agree conceptually, but it appears that it's easily gamed - - a portion of opponents just place protest ranking votes in favor of the fringe candidates that are the lowest threat to their preferred candidate to improve electability.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
ranked choice would go a long way towards giving people sick of both fringes more of a voice, but both sides have convinced their voters its evil (in areas where they are currently in power), so I doubt it ever gets traction.
Based on what?
Aside from you wanting her to be more hard right, what evidence do you have that she doesn't represent Alaska well?
Remember the good ole days when misinformation trolls only came from fanatical college rivals?
beerad12man said:
I just don't understand people. We could have had Ron DeSantis over this. I'll never get it.
I would have happily voted for him.
Trump caved on Tariffs again. Looking forward to April 2nd where we get to discuss how brilliant this administration's tariff "strategy" is. Maybe we'll break this trend one way or another in the next 4 years. All part of the plan.
Trump on two astronauts stuck in space: "Maybe they'll love each other, I don't know. But they've been left up there. Think of it. And I see the woman with the wild hair. Good solid head of hair she's got. There's no kidding. There's no games with her hair." pic.twitter.com/6a2JHVXFNO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 6, 2025
He's got this.
I thought we were talking about tariffs....
from trump's truth social account today:
at this point you have to wonder whether the success of the economy the during his first administration happened in spite of him, and was kept on the rails only because of the competent people surrounding him keeping his more destructive impulses in check.
it's remarkable that trump has made tariffs the cornerstone of his economic policy when he fundamentally doesn't understand how they work, even at the most basic level. he still believes the other country pays the tariff.Quote:
After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl.
Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!
at this point you have to wonder whether the success of the economy the during his first administration happened in spite of him, and was kept on the rails only because of the competent people surrounding him keeping his more destructive impulses in check.
Normally the president has far less impact on the economy than most people think. While many people think the president's decisions will directly impact the stock market, gas prices, and inflation, there are so many variables and influences on markets that the president really has to go way out of the norm (war, major trade agreements, wildly changing fiscal policy) to make a difference. Even if they do make a difference, most of the time it takes awhile to show to in a meaningful way. I would argue that the economy did well on Trump's first term because (1) he was lucky and (2) he juiced it with a couple impactful changes, namely stimulus and tax cuts that were purposely designed to front load the positive impact to a good chunk of the electorate. He did it by adding even more debt while now revising history to somehow blame the other side - any basic chart will show you that both Republicans and Democrats have been doing that for quite some time now, but he has somehow convinced his legion that data no longer matters and everything the media reports is a lie.
I can't imagine trying to be a US manufacturer right now and trying to plan your capital spend and supply chain strategy for the next 4 years.
I can't imagine trying to be a US manufacturer right now and trying to plan your capital spend and supply chain strategy for the next 4 years.
IowaAg07 said:
I can't imagine trying to be a US manufacturer right now and trying to plan your capital spend and supply chain strategy for the next 4 years.
"And here's why that's really good, actually..."
neither can i. these are long term investments, and if the next president is just going to undo the tariffs anyway (or if your tariff strategy changes day to day like it does now) what incentive do you have to make the investment today? the result is economic slowdown.IowaAg07 said:
I can't imagine trying to be a US manufacturer right now and trying to plan your capital spend and supply chain strategy for the next 4 years.
What Im seeing is the manufacturers are just baking in price increases that will remain in place regardless of whether the tariffs actually take effect or not. Just like last time.
April 2nd is going to be quite the show. Curious how it will all play out. One thing is for sure - "globalism" is dying. Many countries seem to be moving to the political right and adopting a nationalist tone; prioritizing economic matters on the homefront. After the fallout from Covid, I can see why manufacturing will be moving back home and why tariffs are on the table. It's going to be painful medicine for awhile. I think we do alright longer term though.
TTUArmy said:
April 2nd is going to be quite the show. Curious how it will all play out. One thing is for sure - "globalism" is dying. Many countries seem to be moving to the political right and adopting a nationalist tone; prioritizing economic matters on the homefront. After the fallout from Covid, I can see why manufacturing will be moving back home and why tariffs are on the table. It's going to be painful medicine for awhile. I think we do alright longer term though.
"Globalism" doesn't have to die - it's a choice. A choice that will likely result in a permenant decline in quality of life as we just generally will have less access to resources, things, and opportunity.
I would also argue that I actually see clear signs of the global move to the right reversing already... Due in large part to the Trump administration. And frankly, the global movement right has really been in the direction of ex-conservatives who are really authoritarians in conservative clothing. Most of these "right wing" movements - including MAGA - are aiming to destroy democratic institutions and end the game we call democracy.
But let's do a quick survey of right wing movements... In Germany, the AfD got crushed despite Trump, Vance, and Elon all trying to exert their influence on that election. A quick glance at Hungary where Orban's party is polling in second right now after dominating Hungarian politics for well over a decade. And in Canada, on January 20th it was an absolute certainty the conservatives would win. They were up by like 20+% in the polls. Then Donald Trump started doing his 51st state bull**** and tariffs. Now the liberals are up by 5% in the polls. The world is watching Trump, Elon, and Vance, and outright rejecting it. It's truly incredible how quickly they burned through their goodwill and political capital and weakened America across the globe. They keep making shortsighted, poorly-evaluated, half-assed decisions (in front of as many tv cameras as possible) and it's hurting us harder and faster than any administration ever has. The consequences of this month and a half will play out over years and decades so you'll be able to pretend that they are unrelated, which is nice for you.
TTUArmy said:
April 2nd is going to be quite the show. Curious how it will all play out. One thing is for sure - "globalism" is dying. Many countries seem to be moving to the political right and adopting a nationalist tone; prioritizing economic matters on the homefront. After the fallout from Covid, I can see why manufacturing will be moving back home and why tariffs are on the table. It's going to be painful medicine for awhile. I think we do alright longer term though.
It just seems the pivot to "painful medicine for a while" has been really fast from a guy that spend the last 6 months of his campaign telling us how many things he would fix on day one.
Looks like he's also now pivoting again on how he wants to tariff Canadian goods....is that 3 this week alone?
How can any business (or country we trade with) possibly make any type of decision in this environment?
I think anti-immigration sentiment has been a bigger factor in the move to the right internationally than economic nationalism. Not saying economic nationalism hasn't played a part, but I think the major drivers of things like Brexit and AfD rise in Germany is due to a historically permissive immigration policy.TTUArmy said:
April 2nd is going to be quite the show. Curious how it will all play out. One thing is for sure - "globalism" is dying. Many countries seem to be moving to the political right and adopting a nationalist tone; prioritizing economic matters on the homefront. After the fallout from Covid, I can see why manufacturing will be moving back home and why tariffs are on the table. It's going to be painful medicine for awhile. I think we do alright longer term though.
Tariffs still poll poorly in the US.
Americans have rapidly moved on tariffs, now strongly believing they'll be harmed by them through higher costs pic.twitter.com/puIGK012FJ
— Polling USA (@USA_Polling) March 6, 2025
CBS News Poll: Do you favor or oppose new US tariffs on goods from...
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 5, 2025
🇨🇳 China: 56-44: (+12)
🇲🇽 Mexico: 44-56 (-12)
🇪🇺 Europe: 40-60 (-20)
🇨🇦 Canada: 38-62 (-24)
73% of Americans say new tariffs on imported goods would make prices higher.https://t.co/MjEEtBruf9 pic.twitter.com/I4wXeWqafK
Meh...stay flexible I guess. It will get sorted out...hopefully sooner, rather than later.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:It just seems the pivot to "painful medicine for a while" has been really fast from a guy that spend the last 6 months of his campaign telling us how many things he would fix on day one.TTUArmy said:
April 2nd is going to be quite the show. Curious how it will all play out. One thing is for sure - "globalism" is dying. Many countries seem to be moving to the political right and adopting a nationalist tone; prioritizing economic matters on the home front. After the fallout from Covid, I can see why manufacturing will be moving back home and why tariffs are on the table. It's going to be painful medicine for awhile. I think we do alright longer term though.
Looks like he's also now pivoting again on how he wants to tariff Canadian goods....is that 3 this week alone?
How can any business (or country we trade with) possibly make any type of decision in this environment?
TTUArmy said:Meh...stay flexible I guess. It will get sorted out...hopefully sooner, rather than later.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:It just seems the pivot to "painful medicine for a while" has been really fast from a guy that spend the last 6 months of his campaign telling us how many things he would fix on day one.TTUArmy said:
April 2nd is going to be quite the show. Curious how it will all play out. One thing is for sure - "globalism" is dying. Many countries seem to be moving to the political right and adopting a nationalist tone; prioritizing economic matters on the home front. After the fallout from Covid, I can see why manufacturing will be moving back home and why tariffs are on the table. It's going to be painful medicine for awhile. I think we do alright longer term though.
Looks like he's also now pivoting again on how he wants to tariff Canadian goods....is that 3 this week alone?
How can any business (or country we trade with) possibly make any type of decision in this environment?
Hard to stay flexible when you have to FID capital investment. Unless you just don't spend capital. Maybe that's good for the economy?
Hard to stay flexible on a +$2B investment of chemical plants, what i design, when the decision of tariffs can actually sway things.
Especially since a lot of chemicals are fungible and i can make it here or somewhere else mostly easily.
~egon
Especially since a lot of chemicals are fungible and i can make it here or somewhere else mostly easily.
~egon
Your arguments would work better if you would not inject absurd b.s. like the following into them:
We literally had Democrats including Hillary Clinton making public comments about "re-educating" Republicans. "Something must be done about them."
But your absurd ass is on here parroting lies about "Democracy is dying!"
Clown world take. Quit lying and stick to your economic takes.
Quote:
Most of these "right wing" movements - including MAGA - are aiming to destroy democratic institutions and end the game we call democracy.
We literally had Democrats including Hillary Clinton making public comments about "re-educating" Republicans. "Something must be done about them."
But your absurd ass is on here parroting lies about "Democracy is dying!"
Clown world take. Quit lying and stick to your economic takes.
Featured Stories
See All
Validity of A&M's 10-3 record to be tested in Saturday's SEC opener
by Olin Buchanan
23:58
17h ago
2.0k
Scouting Report: Texas A&M vs. Louisiana State
by Tom Schuberth
Three Things: Transfer portal season officially begins on Friday
by Jason Howell
flakrat
Kiffin playing games with the Assistants coaching Ole Miss
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29
nikator
Kiffin playing games with the Assistants coaching Ole Miss
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
19