Why threaten tariffs at all? Why not threaten the removal of US aid to foreign countries and of the US withdrawing from treaties like NATO? One hurts US citizens first and foremost, and the other doesn't.
What just happened in the market?
- Thread starter jethreauxdawg
- Start date
- Status
Why threaten tariffs at all? Why not threaten the removal of US aid to foreign countries and of the US withdrawing from treaties like NATO? One hurts US citizens first and foremost, and the other doesn't.
That would be true if Trump was trying to balance the budget or cut spending, but in his first term, he put the country deeper in debt with deficit spending and he’s on that path now with what he wants to do with the budget. It will put the country even more deeper into debt, so I’m nearly not sure that Trump is any different then Obama or Biden as far as spending goes.
And I know you’re going to point at the doge cuts, but those are really just drops in the bucket.
I don't buy it.
We already had tariffs in place against China, and he could have just raised those if he wanted China's attention. The markets still would have dropped a little, but not like they did.
And, look, if I knew Trump was bluffing, I'm pretty sure most world leaders knew it was a bluff, too.
I think it's clear that there is a group in the inner circle which includes at least Trump and Peter Navarro who think trade deficits are bad and tariffs are the solution to them. Then there is a group that believes free trade is good and tariffs are a way to negotiate the removal of tariffs and actual unfair trade practices (actual as in specific things they can identify; not just, if there is a deficit there must be something unfair; ). If that's not what's going on there is a lot of theatre being played in public by some big egos, and I don't think that's what's happening.
It's less clear who is going to win. I don't think Trump can be convinced that tariffs aren't good and using them to bring down trade deficits isn't good. He might be convinced that the political costs of attacking that will jeopardize everything else he wants to accomplish, and pivoting to negotiating for free trade will still be a win while leaving him political capital to keep pushing DOGE recommendations and continue to deport illegal aliens.
It’s a lot to cut cold turkey. This is the trade between the two countries in 2022 for example
His claims on what a tariff is and what a subsidy is make me question his basic grasp on economics.
His approach of going extreme to cause chaos then backing off or pivoting to what he can get and claiming that was what he wanted all along makes me question how effective his foreign policy is.
You say it usually turns out OK. None of this should be viewed as OK. He has created absolute chaos on a global level and 17ed with people's livelihood and retirement when none of it was likely necessary.
Yeah, but I dont think any of the 6 or 7 statutes that give POTUS tariff power allow for this type of activity.
I won't be happy until the tariff with China is around 500%.
Trump gonna pull off an awesome bait and switch and I'm actually here for it. He's gonna dupe the MAGAs and the rest of the planet into thinking we are going to enter into a generation of protectionism but when it all settles out we will have more free trade and closer/quicker markets than before - except China gets 17ed. Everybody wins except the people that think high headcount factories are coming back. I feel bad for those folks and we have to come up with ways to keep them employed and happy in the future but those low tech / high labor days are gone (not in all applications but enough where you can't build a healthy resilient economy around it). The world is changing and we are either going to participate or die a long slow death.
You are probably right but which court and Congress is going to remind him of this.
Maybe it is. I dont think there is any way for any of us to ever know what he actually aimed for since he has claimed multiple goals thru all this, and some of those goals even conflicted with other goals.
I have questioned at times whether or not he was even aiming at all, or just shooting with his eyes closed.
If he wanted to just kneecap China, he could have just kneecapped China. He didnt need to impose tariffs on unpopulated islands and he didnt need to piss off and hurt long standing global allies.
You think he gave opponents an off-ramp?
First, countries dont need to be viewed as opponents. These are trading partners and mutually beneficial trade is something that should be supported.
Secondly, why is it that Trump didnt blink first and announce a pause? Just because he announced dozens of countries were lined up ready to cave and give in to his trade demands doesnt mean thats real...the guy lies constantly so there is no reason to think that claim is suddenly truthful. His approval rating has tanked, the markets have tanked, and even his yes-men in Congress are rumbling complaints. You dont put a 90 day pause on something you are clearly and universally winning at. If everyone was actually capitulating, then he would have just renegotiated all the deals and then ended the tariff penalties.
Same. It's amazing how many old school folks really think we can recreate 1985 because that's how they grew up in Greenwood or some shlt.
That's my biggest criticism of his approach. IF he really wanted to reshore manufacturing, I think he could politically sell tariuffs across the board against countries we have a trade deficit with tariff that is the higher of 10% higher than whatever tariff they apply on the good in question or 10% higher than than their weighted average tariff. And then basically tell anybody that threatened retaliatory tariffs that they'd just be increasing the total tariff applied to their goods if they wanted to go that route.
I'm not sure that'd be a good policy (I think it'd probably be better at 5%, but that might not accomplish anything noticeable but some additional tax revenue), but I think politically he could sell we are going to be in a lot more pain down the road if we don't start to bring persistent trade deficits down, and that the current path is going to kill the golden goose that everybody's economy relies on. That, and the fact that most countries would be hurt far worse by a trade war than tariffs that are 10% higher than what they put on us and maybe that would be a politically stable approach that would stay in put long enough to gradually make a difference.
I just don't see how a rapid retreat from global trade is going to be stable because the quick and intense pain is going to be bad enough to ensure political changeover that reverses the policy quickly.
i.e. he demonstrated once again that he is bat$**** crazy and has absolutely no plan whatsoever...
No China punched back harder and stopped all companies from investing in the US.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...-investing-in-us-as-tensions-rise/ar-AA1C8RLz
We have a pilot who can't read an altimeter...
I don't know if I'm for 125% tariffs on anyone but China has got to be dealt with. It's amazing to me how our global leaders just look the other way while China poisons the planet and fuels the international drug trade while manipulating their own currency. Hopefully now that Trump has their attention they will think better of seizing Taiwan which would increase their economic and military status for decades.
If I saw any indication of a plan, I would potentially feel better, however, there does not appear to be one...
I honestly can't tell if he truly believes trade deficits are inherently bad and must be "won" and balanced or if positioning himself as being a believer is his negotiating leverage. Could make it more likely to secure a win if the other party also views it as securing better than the initial stance.
Surely he's smart enough to know that not all trade deficits per dollar should be viewed the same?
There is no reason. We have a president who is demonstrably dumber than any international leader he will face. Combine that with the MAGA braintrust he has assembled behind him, and it is rare (impossible?) to find an adult in the room. This is the big reason his second term is nothing like his first. He kept decent people in most positions term one. He has people in high positions now who have three key criteria:
1) They will praise their leader.
2) They will not question their leader.
3) They will put their leader above anything, including law and Constitution and they will attack anyone who questions him.
Guys like this who literally met none of the qualifications for the position and serve only by exception from Trump:
General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who got himself "qualified" with one Trump fellatio session: “I love you, sir. I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir.”
In summary:
- No one joins a cult; they are recruited by systematic social influence processes.
- Destructive individuals and cults use deception and undue influence to make people dependent and obedient.
- Cult leaders are typically malignant narcissists and want people who will be obedient to them.
That's certainly possible and that's what I would have guessed, but he has been complaining about trade deficits for a long time.
We've just had a weird run lately. Obama was your traditional politician. He had no compunction about a bald-faced lie ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"; "we're going to lower the average cost of healthcare by $2,500"; "Benghazi was caused by a film maker", etc etc), but he still mostly acted like he was constrained by trying to maintaining some credibility. He might have lied more boldly because he knew the press would back him up, but he still more or less pretended that he generally told the truth and the people he was talking to would have a memory longer than a goldfish's. Then there's Biden, who says whatever he thinks is most politically advantageous for the next 5 minutes. No concern about relation to the truth, but you basically knew every time what his motivation was for saying whatever he was saying. Then there's Trump, who what he says has nothing to do with the truth, but is whatever he thinks is maximally advantageous for whatever deal he is aiming for, but you don't necessarily know what deal he is aiming for, and unlike Biden he sometimes has goals that extend beyond the current news cycle, although that doesn't mean he won't say two completely contradictory things within 24 hours if what is best for his "deal" changes in that 24 hours. Just zero value put on credibility, which is just 180 degrees from the way most people negotiating deals treat it.
But again, he's been saying the same thing about trade deficits for decades and I don't think he's been dissembling for that long in anticipation of this moment.
Honest question - if the economy is going absolutely gangbusters in a year, will you give him credit?
LOL Well Trump must have hit a nerve, he got the whole SPS "squad" out.
Yes. I don't think the economy takes years to turn - something I heard Democrats try to give Obama credit for Trump's economy in 2018 and 2019. It was Trump's economy. Obama's sucked for 8 years. And it sucked even harder under Biden and I blame Biden for all of the inflation and other poor economic indicators. So yes, if the economy sucks I'll absolutely blame Trump.
Now will YOU answer the question?
I just wish we could return to unfettered immigration and having 4 year old Chinese kids making our nikes.
What metrics are you using to say that Obama and Biden's economies were bad and Trump's was good?
An economy can absolutely take years to turn.
Obama inherited a shitsandwich and it took years to turn around. I think it would have taken years, regardless of who sat in the Oval Office.
This economy was doing quite well when Obama left office. You can claim otherwise, but well accepted metrics dont support your claim.
The economy under Trump was doing quite well too, though economy and markets were too frequently confused for one another when it was pointed out how well the economy was doing.
I dont blame Trump for the economy and markets crashing due to covid.
And I dont blame the economy and markets slowly recovering under Biden.
I also dont blame Biden for inflation since inflation was a global issue for a couple years. Global.
Reality is that one president does inherit what the prior president had.
If the US economy is cookin along in 1 year and I think it is because of Trump, hell yes I will credit him. I will likely still wonder if he could have gotten to that place without total chaos and lies/doublespeak, but I will give him credit for getting us there, if we are there because of him.
I dont see that. I see most people understanding this isn't some ideology dick measuring contest. I think it's mostly adults trying to figure out what sort of impact this one man is going to have on our economic livelihoods. The country sadly has gone all in on letting one guy do the talking for all of us. I could go on and on how that is a bad 17ing idea but if it's going to potentially impact which decade I get to retire in or cause a recession/golden age, I'm gonna root that it works out and hope we don't ever try it that way again.
All I know is that I sold everything two weeks ago and bought back in yesterday. Hell I might could win the Masters if I could get a tee time!
The main thing Biden and Obama's economics had in common was that they both got Trump elected president.
All I know is I had a phone call with a client late this morning and told him how much he needs to pay & he said he'd have to sell some things to raise the money. I get back from lunch & the market is up 2,000 in 15 minutes. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
You have much double speak. You say you'll give him credit, then in the same sentence wonder if we are there because of him. You can't have it both ways. Either he got us there and he gets credit or it's his fault and he gets blame.
And you are wrong about taking years. This is a perfect example. When inflation his because of Biden, businesses didn't take years to lay people off. It started happening quickly. Markets react quickly. Policies do take some time, but not years. We have seen that since Trump has taken office again.
Of course, if you want to play that game, Biden is really to blame for all of this chaos.
I did pretty well in all 3. Which one should I hate economically? They all drove up our debt and made money as cheap as possible to juice markets. Probably more of the same after the trade war stuff settles out.
I have already answered your first question but you refuse to answer mine. Why?
And we weren't doing the same when Biden unilaterally attacked the fossil fuel industry his first day in office and ignited one of the worst runs of inflation in recent history ? Presidents (from either party) governing predominantly with EO's is bad for the country...IMO.
- Status