You gotta spend money to make money, brah
Tariffs "Across the Board"
25,219 Views |
220 Replies |
Last: 26 days ago by Gordo14
I like this chart. I'd be curious on people's opinions on how GDP, budget deficit, cumulative debt, and trade deficit(s) impact each other. I do not believe that trade deficits impact budget deficits in a tangible way, but Trump seems to fixate on trade deficits as a means to close the budget deficit somehow.
Apparently informing consumers of the consequences of tariffs is "a hostile and political act". I thought the administration was proud of the tariffs and informing consumer of the impact would help us all buy American products.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/white-house-blasts-amazon-for-hostile-and-politic-tariff-move-143310062.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/white-house-blasts-amazon-for-hostile-and-politic-tariff-move-143310062.html
Story debunked already.
It has not been debunked. Whether or not Amazon was ever planning to implement such is debatable. The Administration calling a potential move a "hostile and political act" is not debatable. From the White House's own rapid response twitter page...
.@PressSec reacts to Amazon's announcement on tariffs: "This is a hostile and political act by Amazon... It's not a surprise because, as Reuters recently wrote, Amazon has partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm... This is another reason Americans should buy American." pic.twitter.com/jtXZYfR8rH
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 29, 2025
Do you think Amazon might not have ever considered implementing that because the selective implementation could have been viewed, even in their opinion, as "hostile and political."
I'm not debating the White House said what they said. But it begs the question, would selective implementation of such a metric be potentially hostile and political? The timing is certainly suspect.
Biden increased tariffs on China fairly significantly.
I'm not debating the White House said what they said. But it begs the question, would selective implementation of such a metric be potentially hostile and political? The timing is certainly suspect.
Biden increased tariffs on China fairly significantly.
- Steel and Aluminum: Tariffs on certain steel and aluminum products increased to 25%.
- Semiconductors: Tariffs on semiconductors are slated to rise to 50% by 2025.
- Electric Vehicles (EVs): Tariffs on electric vehicles have been significantly increased, reaching 100% in 2024.
- Batteries and Battery Components: Tariffs on lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts have also been increased, with further increases planned for other types of batteries and critical minerals.
- Solar Cells: Tariffs on solar cells have been raised to 50%.
- Ship-to-Shore Cranes: New tariffs of 25% have been implemented on ship-to-shore cranes.
- Medical Products: Tariffs on certain medical products like syringes, needles, and personal protective equipment (PPE) have been increased.
You said it was debunked? The press secretary used time during today's briefing to say she had discussed the rumor with the president and then went on to smear Amazon for the rumor. Maybe it was never going to happen, but if the White House is discussing it and responding to it by attacking the company, maybe there was some legs to potentially happening (even if in a prelim stage of discussion).
Why would the timing be potentially hostile and political if US voters want this and actually, it's a good thing consumers don't buy cheaper foreign made products? Shouldn't the administration be cheering that a company is helping consumers identify and not buy cheap Chinese *****
Biden's record on tariffs was terrible. Trump is making it worse. Just because the last guy was an imbecilic, doesn't mean the new guy should double down on his predecessor's dumbest policy decisions.
Why would the timing be potentially hostile and political if US voters want this and actually, it's a good thing consumers don't buy cheaper foreign made products? Shouldn't the administration be cheering that a company is helping consumers identify and not buy cheap Chinese *****
Biden's record on tariffs was terrible. Trump is making it worse. Just because the last guy was an imbecilic, doesn't mean the new guy should double down on his predecessor's dumbest policy decisions.
And to add to it, Temu is already doing it. Showing the price of the item, the tariff and then the total price.
Why is Amazon doing it 'bad' but other online retailers (albeit Chinese based ones) 'ok'?
~egon
Why is Amazon doing it 'bad' but other online retailers (albeit Chinese based ones) 'ok'?
~egon
Apologies, thought this was the Business & Investing forum.
It was debunked, Amazon never did or considered doing what the "Punchbowl News" story claimed they were doing and what the White House had to respond to - ergo, debunked.themissinglink said:
You said it was debunked? The press secretary used time during today's briefing to say she had discussed the rumor with the president and then went on to smear Amazon for the rumor. Maybe it was never going to happen, but if the White House is discussing it and responding to it by attacking the company, maybe there was some legs to potentially happening (even if in a prelim stage of discussion).
Why would the timing be potentially hostile and political if US voters want this and actually, it's a good thing consumers don't buy cheaper foreign made products? Shouldn't the administration be cheering that a company is helping consumers identify and not buy cheap Chinese *****
Biden's record on tariffs was terrible. Trump is making it worse. Just because the last guy was an imbecilic, doesn't mean the new guy should double down on his predecessor's dumbest policy decisions.
I think the reason the timing is suspect is highlighted by...my highlights.themissinglink said:
You said it was debunked? The press secretary used time during today's briefing to say she had discussed the rumor with the president and then went on to smear Amazon for the rumor. Maybe it was never going to happen, but if the White House is discussing it and responding to it by attacking the company, maybe there was some legs to potentially happening (even if in a prelim stage of discussion).
Why would the timing be potentially hostile and political if US voters want this and actually, it's a good thing consumers don't buy cheaper foreign made products? Shouldn't the administration be cheering that a company is helping consumers identify and not buy cheap Chinese *****
Biden's record on tariffs was terrible. Trump is making it worse. Just because the last guy was an imbecilic, doesn't mean the new guy should double down on his predecessor's dumbest policy decisions.
While terrible, Biden's trade policy wasn't on again/off again. He had a terrible policy and he stuck to it. It's hard to tell how committed Trump is to his even worse policy. I have no idea what the tariff rate will be in 60-90 days. The uncertainty alone is killing consumer and market sentiment.Sims said:I think the reason the timing is suspect is highlighted by...my highlights.themissinglink said:
You said it was debunked? The press secretary used time during today's briefing to say she had discussed the rumor with the president and then went on to smear Amazon for the rumor. Maybe it was never going to happen, but if the White House is discussing it and responding to it by attacking the company, maybe there was some legs to potentially happening (even if in a prelim stage of discussion).
Why would the timing be potentially hostile and political if US voters want this and actually, it's a good thing consumers don't buy cheaper foreign made products? Shouldn't the administration be cheering that a company is helping consumers identify and not buy cheap Chinese *****
Biden's record on tariffs was terrible. Trump is making it worse. Just because the last guy was an imbecilic, doesn't mean the new guy should double down on his predecessor's dumbest policy decisions.
Is this administrations policy that tariffs are a good thing and will help re-shore US manufacturing or is it just a tool to remove trade barriers? This administration likes to use both talk tracks but it can't be both.
themissinglink said:While terrible, Biden's trade policy wasn't on again/off again. He had a terrible policy and he stuck to it. It's hard to tell how committed Trump is to his even worse policy. I have no idea what the tariff rate will be in 60-90 days. The uncertainty alone is killing consumer and market sentiment.Sims said:I think the reason the timing is suspect is highlighted by...my highlights.themissinglink said:
You said it was debunked? The press secretary used time during today's briefing to say she had discussed the rumor with the president and then went on to smear Amazon for the rumor. Maybe it was never going to happen, but if the White House is discussing it and responding to it by attacking the company, maybe there was some legs to potentially happening (even if in a prelim stage of discussion).
Why would the timing be potentially hostile and political if US voters want this and actually, it's a good thing consumers don't buy cheaper foreign made products? Shouldn't the administration be cheering that a company is helping consumers identify and not buy cheap Chinese *****
Biden's record on tariffs was terrible. Trump is making it worse. Just because the last guy was an imbecilic, doesn't mean the new guy should double down on his predecessor's dumbest policy decisions.
Is this administrations policy that tariffs are a good thing and will help re-shore US manufacturing or is it just a tool to remove trade barriers? This administration likes to use both talk tracks because it can't be both.
Don't forget replacing income tax, which is the 3rd "reason" and has come from him directly.
In my mind, the various justifications for tariffs are mostly baloney, with the most preposterous to the least:
- Eliminating the income tax
- Fight the fentanyl war (?)
- Reduce illegal immigration?
- Reducing the budget deficit
- Reducing the trade deficit
- Creating more jobs in America (who's standing ready to work in textile mills again?)
- Reshoring all types of manufacturing
- Opening up free trade by removing trade barriers (we have to build trade barriers in order to reduce trade barriers?)
- Protecting our country's intellectual capital?
America has been the steadfast promoter of free trade for many decades (which created enormous wealth and success in OUR country), and now we're leading the charge against it? Services (70%+ of our economy) are completely ignored (which is the only positive in this situation). I miss the days of continuity and common sense.
- Eliminating the income tax
- Fight the fentanyl war (?)
- Reduce illegal immigration?
- Reducing the budget deficit
- Reducing the trade deficit
- Creating more jobs in America (who's standing ready to work in textile mills again?)
- Reshoring all types of manufacturing
- Opening up free trade by removing trade barriers (we have to build trade barriers in order to reduce trade barriers?)
- Protecting our country's intellectual capital?
America has been the steadfast promoter of free trade for many decades (which created enormous wealth and success in OUR country), and now we're leading the charge against it? Services (70%+ of our economy) are completely ignored (which is the only positive in this situation). I miss the days of continuity and common sense.
So, as of today, we have (at least temporarily) fully recovered the S&P500's swoon after April 2nd. One month to get back to even. What has been accomplished? Not much, as near as I can tell. The economic frictional costs have been significant, a solution is not yet in evidence, and the end game (even if we get trade deals beneficial to the US of the likes we've never seen) will have a tough time replacing the uncertainty, damage to relationships, loss of trust, and disruption to business that we've experienced. Numerous small businesses have been forced to close, and big business is dealing with a situation so fluid that it's hard to make rational capital investment decisions.
Anyone want to declare victory, or convince us that this is all part of a grand winning scheme that will benefit us all long-term?
Anyone want to declare victory, or convince us that this is all part of a grand winning scheme that will benefit us all long-term?
We haven't even started seeing the results of the significant shortages in certain sectors. Larger parties who could stockpile will be insulated for a little while, but things will likely get hairy over the next few months even if every tariff went away tomorrow.
This. This doesn't affect retailers yet, but it will happen more over time. Most majors are scrambling to find anything outside of China, but its not easy. Plus if the reciprocal tariffs come back with 40% + on other SE Asian companies one top of the roughly 30% higher costs as it is, you will see lots of empty shelves or very expensive consumer goods.Sapper Redux said:
We haven't even started seeing the results of the significant shortages in certain sectors. Larger parties who could stockpile will be insulated for a little while, but things will likely get hairy over the next few months even if every tariff went away tomorrow.
US suppliers who are holding domestic inventory are benefiting right now and many retailers are buying up that pre-tariff stock but that can only last so long.
De Minimis loophole officially closed today.
I'm not exactly sure how this work (and I don't think the president does either)? Do you just pay an additional tax for using the IP? Will this make my monthly Netflix bill go higher?
Trump now says he’ll tariff foreign films — declaring them a national security threat: pic.twitter.com/LKhdgSnLS3
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) May 4, 2025
How does this work? Would Star Wars have had a 100% tariff for being filmed in part in Tunisia? Does this mean every James Bond film will now be tariffed? How does one even quantify this?
Nobody knows, and especially Trump doesn't know.
I'm not even sure the administration knows how this works. Do we also need a tariff on TikTok and YouTube videos being made overseas?
Frankly, the blanket and arbitrary tariffs (in general, but this one in particular) probably hurts his legal arguments. My understanding is legislature has the power to implement tariffs but delegated tariffs to the executive branch only for "national security" reasons, and courts have overwhelmingly sided with the executive branch as you can call anything a "national security" threat. Steel, Aluminum, broad Chinese tariffs, etc, might be fine. I may disagree, but understand the argument of a national security threat. I'm not a lawyer, but calling movies made outside the US a "national security" threat certainly tests these limits. I guess the stretch argument is that it allows other countries to influence the message/propaganda.
Frankly, the blanket and arbitrary tariffs (in general, but this one in particular) probably hurts his legal arguments. My understanding is legislature has the power to implement tariffs but delegated tariffs to the executive branch only for "national security" reasons, and courts have overwhelmingly sided with the executive branch as you can call anything a "national security" threat. Steel, Aluminum, broad Chinese tariffs, etc, might be fine. I may disagree, but understand the argument of a national security threat. I'm not a lawyer, but calling movies made outside the US a "national security" threat certainly tests these limits. I guess the stretch argument is that it allows other countries to influence the message/propaganda.
I'm increasingly confused by some of these seemingly random directions.
Generally I agree with the motivation behind what Trump is doing. It's essentially an economic embargo placed on China via tariffs. Sin tax on a country, so to speak.
In that sense, it's defendable. The amount of incidental and tangential messaging coming from Trump is tough to reconcile and increasingly so.
China's private economy is levered to the hilt. From 2004 to 2014, they loaned out $27T (not yuan, dollars) to private companies in China. It had taken American banks 200 years to do the same amount of lending. Since 2014, they've doubled the amount. China's banking industry is sitting on something like $70T in debt. This "embargo" is going to put a big hurt on that leverage at some point. The Yuan almost surely has to devalue and it's gonna take a massive effort by the PBOC to hold the currency peg as it does. Who knows, maybe Trump is just throwing spaghetti up against the wall to see what sticks. Maybe he actually believes what he's saying. I have no idea. I think the game of chicken will hurt both sides of this "trade" war. Still not willing to say it's going to hurt the US anymore than it does China. They have major problems as well.
Generally I agree with the motivation behind what Trump is doing. It's essentially an economic embargo placed on China via tariffs. Sin tax on a country, so to speak.
In that sense, it's defendable. The amount of incidental and tangential messaging coming from Trump is tough to reconcile and increasingly so.
China's private economy is levered to the hilt. From 2004 to 2014, they loaned out $27T (not yuan, dollars) to private companies in China. It had taken American banks 200 years to do the same amount of lending. Since 2014, they've doubled the amount. China's banking industry is sitting on something like $70T in debt. This "embargo" is going to put a big hurt on that leverage at some point. The Yuan almost surely has to devalue and it's gonna take a massive effort by the PBOC to hold the currency peg as it does. Who knows, maybe Trump is just throwing spaghetti up against the wall to see what sticks. Maybe he actually believes what he's saying. I have no idea. I think the game of chicken will hurt both sides of this "trade" war. Still not willing to say it's going to hurt the US anymore than it does China. They have major problems as well.
First deal is out. 10% tariff on the UK remains, at current import levels that is around a 6 billion dollar tax on US consumers. Single digit reduction in UK tariffs on the US. We actually had a trade surplus with the UK, haven't seen any comments from Trump accusing us of taking advantage of them.
So, after all this back and forth, what was accomplished? Just a single-digit reduction in the tariffs that were already in place?
We agreed to trade with a country we've been trading with for nearly 400 years. What's not to like?Captain Winky said:
So, after all this back and forth, what was accomplished? Just a single-digit reduction in the tariffs that were already in place?
It sounds like a bit of a nothing burger. Good for beef and auto manufacturers. I'm glad to see UK trade barriers come down, but leaving the 10% baseline tariff for most items isn't great. Still higher than it was when he took office. I'm glad to at least some stability with a trading partner.
Markets like it because it's a signal Trump is willing to negotiate and other deals met be in the works. The UK was one of the more willing and excited to come to the table and negotiate though.
At some point the tariffs will start showing up in the data and create some negative market reactions, but when
I saw one report saying thst could be mid june
Thoughts?
I saw one report saying thst could be mid june
Thoughts?
June sounds about right for some of the economics data. You will see it a bit in Q2 earnings and more in Q3 earnings.
I think more Q3. We aren't raising prices for the most part until August due to having existing inventory. But no one is bringing in anything from China right now so goods that would have been in stock for late Q2 or early Q3 won't be there.
jamey said:
At some point the tariffs will start showing up in the data and create some negative market reactions, but when
I saw one report saying thst could be mid june
Thoughts?
Construction is already baking pricing in since around March/April but most jobs typically lag about 6 months -2 years behind time of quote to when they are actually purchased.
TBF, I haven't seen anything insane like a 125% increase. I have seen 5-10% that were baked into what are traditionally yearly 3-5% increases. I have some anecdotal evidence of factories moving production from China to other places, and some Juarez plants moving machines over to their El Paso warehouses.
Wait, so we managed to increase the tariffs higher than they were on 1/20???themissinglink said:Captain Winky said:
So, after all this back and forth, what was accomplished? Just a single-digit reduction in the tariffs that were already in place?
Still higher than it was when he took office.
Yes, though I'm not sure the specifics on some of the carve-outs and what that does to the average tariff rate. See Trump's post about it.Captain Winky said:Wait, so we managed to increase the tariffs higher than they were on 1/20???themissinglink said:Captain Winky said:
So, after all this back and forth, what was accomplished? Just a single-digit reduction in the tariffs that were already in place?
Still higher than it was when he took office.
From Donald Trump Truth Social 05/08/25 11:02 AM pic.twitter.com/vBMuKdRcLu
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 8, 2025
Color me skeptical of something posted by him
Liberation Day!!!
Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
Quote:
A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump's signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
Coming back to this thread as the Supreme Court considers the legality of Trump's across-the-board tariffs.
What are folks' thoughts/predictions on the Supreme Court's decision on this matter? And, if they strike down his tariffs, what do you think it actually means for the average American consumer?
What are folks' thoughts/predictions on the Supreme Court's decision on this matter? And, if they strike down his tariffs, what do you think it actually means for the average American consumer?
Featured Stories
See All
Cashius Howell and Trey Zuhn III among 2025 SEC Award winners
by Richard Zane
Bobby Shuttleworth hired as Texas A&M's next head soccer coach
by Richard Zane
24:24
3h ago
3.7k
Six Aggies earn All-SEC recognition from the league's coaches
by Richard Zane
TDub
Recruiting staff to HS state title over Aggie playoff game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
172
BetterNotBeChipKelly
TexAgs Should Double Premium Subscription Rate
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
169
rockwalltxag
Recruiting staff to HS state title over Aggie playoff game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
121
tn_ags
Texas A&M's Incorrect Seeding is CFP Committee's Latest Mistake
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
77
txaggie2012
Recruiting staff to HS state title over Aggie playoff game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
76