President Trump and US politics catchall

[Sandstorm]

Early reports from US car makers is that Trump's tariffs will add around $6500 to the price of an average family saloon, even if it's "made" in America. So many parts for each car assembled there come from overseas.

[dpedin]

Bit disingenuous linking US tariffs on everyone , with Brexit to fit your agenda. The Brexit related tariffs / end of exemptions , could have been not applied had EU wanted to not retaliate (and in any case mostly the status quo has remained thus far) and uk retaliate to the retaliation… tit for tat rarely works.

However I agree with you 100% that this is merely a start for Trump and it’s his way of bullying deal making. Be interesting to see how this pans out & for us, what Starmer does (probs best if he continues to do fuck all really and let other countries fight the US)

I don't think it is disingenuous at all to use the Brexit example! I was using the Brexit issue as an example of the idiocy of the argument from Trump et al that tariffs impact everyone equally. All goods going into the US from every country in the world, apart from Russia it seems, will have tariffs applied on them and the totality of this will impact hugely on the US economy. It. will drive up prices for consumers. The impact on every other country will be proportional to the amount of trade they have with the US and probably only in specific sectors/industries. Exactly the same issue applied to Brexit - all our goods coming from every EU country were impacted by Brexit whereas for EU countries it was only whatever proportion of exports they sent to the UK, which for some wasn't very much. Both are excellent examples of economic self harm being sold by dodgy politicians to the economic illiterate!

I can see you don’t think it’s dis ingenious :

Us acts versus almost the entire planet, Uk acts versus the Eu (I’m not saying it wasn’t major, but it wasn’t the picking fight with entire planet Trump has)

Us is the instigator of tariffs , Brexit was the scorned party invoking tariffs which it could had it wished not wish to re-employ. But it was feeling some retaliation was needed, Trump has seen this and used a similar thought process only turned the dial up to 11

Uk could have moved some of its economic ties and trade elsewhere , as has happened to an extent with several agreements that certain people swore were going to be impossible to get agreed. US taking on the whole world, doesn’t really leave anywhere else for demand and supply to move elsewhere.

So fairly different really.

The economic self harm mis-sold now that I can agree with, however for the larger section of referendum voters (myself included) it was a price deemed worth paying for political and immagratory reasons (not the sides of buses or bendy bananas).
It should also be noted there were also economic lies told by team remain as well.

Woah dont get your nickers into a twist! I wasn't comparing the whole of Brexit v US imposing tariffs debacles but merely comparing the impact of one country imposing economically damaging barriers to trade and thinking the impact is the same for both sides! In Brexit we came out of the EU and as a consequence lost our favourable trading arrangements with out biggest export market, whereas the EU countries lost one, and in most cases not by any means their biggest, market. The UK economy is now widely agreed to take a 4% hit on GDP. The US have done the same in implementing these tariffs and increased the cost of every single import into their market stoking inflation, disrupting supply chains and their own manufacturing, slowing down the economy, etc. Yes other countries will take a hit but for many ie the UK, the US isnt their biggest market - as I said earlier it is 17% of UK exports and mostly on a small range of specialist goods, luxury cars, whisky, etc. The parallels between the economic bullshit claims spouted about Brexit and Trumps tariffs are very strong and both ignore the basic maths that they take a 100% hit for their actions whereas all the other countries ie the EU or the World, take a proportionally smaller hit to their economy!

The US have gambled that the rest of the world will fold, in much the same way Brexiteers said the EU couldn't do without the UK and we could/would continue to have unfettered access to the EU, goods would flow West-East to Northern Ireland without any barriers, etc. That went really well and our imports and exports with the EU are down post Brexit and as the OBR points put there is little evidence that trade from elsewhere has managed to plug the gap! If China, Canada, EU, etc dont fold to Trumps demands then the economic damage to the US of the tariff barriers will be huge and be felt very quick! At least with Brexit we had a transition period and planned, albeit very very badly for the transition. It could be a significant hit, comparable to the Brexit impact on UK GDP but within the year. It will be interesting to see who folds first but my money is on Trump having to fold but trying to cloak it up as some form of crappy success!

[Rhubarb & Custard]

whether one likes globalisation or not it's a reality, if you want to step back from it there are some things you'd need to do away with, modern shipping, flying, the internet. if you're not willing to give up those things then why take on the Sisyphean task of raging against globalisation rather than trying to swim with the tide and even harness some of its offerings? even if Trump's plan works, and it's a big if, all he'll achieve is a less productive and over time less relevant USA. unless he seeks another means of maintaining primacy which would be destroying economies elsewhere faster than he can hurt his own

Oh I’m a huge fan of globalisation and have personally benefitted from it immensely , I just don’t think it can be blanket said to work and that larger wealthier countries should deffo have more key stuff like food, medicine, power , steel , defence etc domestic capacity. And that would require lots of carrots, rather than Trump sticks.

There is a trade off with comes with such protectionism, even if in isolation it's a good idea.

[lemonhead]

Early reports from US car makers is that Trump's tariffs will add around $6500 to the price of an average family saloon, even if it's "made" in America. So many parts for each car assembled there come from overseas.

For the good of America I hope even the likes of Myanmar give this kvnt the middle finger.

He can even keep his infantile obsession with 'making a deal'. Get the kid a comfortable room and Leavitt can play wet nurse with a bag of Hersheys.

[bok_viking]

whether one likes globalisation or not it's a reality, if you want to step back from it there are some things you'd need to do away with, modern shipping, flying, the internet. if you're not willing to give up those things then why take on the Sisyphean task of raging against globalisation rather than trying to swim with the tide and even harness some of its offerings? even if Trump's plan works, and it's a big if, all he'll achieve is a less productive and over time less relevant USA. unless he seeks another means of maintaining primacy which would be destroying economies elsewhere faster than he can hurt his own

Oh I’m a huge fan of globalisation and have personally benefitted from it immensely , I just don’t think it can be blanket said to work and that larger wealthier countries should deffo have more key stuff like food, medicine, power , steel , defence etc domestic capacity. And that would require lots of carrots, rather than Trump sticks.

There is a trade off with comes with such protectionism, even if in isolation it's a good idea.

the problem with protectionism is that with our modern societies and modern tech and requirements, you just cannot avoid trading with other countries, Globalization has made many countries a lot richer than they would have been without it, it allows countries to grow their economies beyond what is possible with only domestic demand. Take a country like Denmark, they have barely any manufacturing left, little to no raw materials, etc, yet are one of the richest countries per capita, and a lot richer than they were before globalization became a thing, and that is most likely the truth for 90%+ of nations around the world. Globalization was great for the USA until they were not the top dog in exports anymore, then it suddenly became a bad thing.
I believe the USA is longing for the cold war period when they were the ruler of the world and everyone bowed down to them because they "protected" them from the bad commies which basically allowed them to do as they please. Since the fall of the soviet union they have slowly lost that power and control to dictate the policies of other countries and they want it back. That is a big reason in my opinion why they spend $2Billion a year on anti China propaganda, they desperately need a new bad guy to "protect" the world from.
Unfortunately for them I think Trump is undoing a lot of what that anti-China propaganda achieved over the last decade because he is pushing countries back to China and making China look like the more credible economical partner to have. Just look what is happening between Japan, South Korea and China now, suddenly they announced that they will work more closely together and build strong economic ties to counter the USA.
I think these 4 years of the Trump presidency is going to have a lot of negative long term effects for the USA, countries are not just going to forget when he is gone. Countries will start diversifying away from the USA, even if he drops tariffs, etc. I think countries will continue to slowly move away in the background. With a little work, any country can find alternative trade, there are 8 billion people outside of the USA to work with. So yes it will be a shock to the economies of many countries to deal with the effect of tariffs, but any government/business that is willing to put in a little effort should be able to find alternative routes in short order. A friend of mine who's business will be directly affected by the tariffs as he exported 90% of his products to the USA, started looking for alternatives 2 months ago, and he has almost completely covered the demand and as a result will completely scale down his exports to the USA, he was also approached by some US customers who told him that he should absorb any tariffs that come about into the cost of his goods, and he told them that he does not need their business anymore if that is what they expect.

[Yeeb]

The whole ‘asking them to absorb tariffs’ thing where us companies are going to their suppliers , is all a bit weird.

“Errr, no thanks , that’s why your price has gone up by 10/20/37%”

[Yeeb]

I don't think it is disingenuous at all to use the Brexit example! I was using the Brexit issue as an example of the idiocy of the argument from Trump et al that tariffs impact everyone equally. All goods going into the US from every country in the world, apart from Russia it seems, will have tariffs applied on them and the totality of this will impact hugely on the US economy. It. will drive up prices for consumers. The impact on every other country will be proportional to the amount of trade they have with the US and probably only in specific sectors/industries. Exactly the same issue applied to Brexit - all our goods coming from every EU country were impacted by Brexit whereas for EU countries it was only whatever proportion of exports they sent to the UK, which for some wasn't very much. Both are excellent examples of economic self harm being sold by dodgy politicians to the economic illiterate!

I can see you don’t think it’s dis ingenious :

Us acts versus almost the entire planet, Uk acts versus the Eu (I’m not saying it wasn’t major, but it wasn’t the picking fight with entire planet Trump has)

Us is the instigator of tariffs , Brexit was the scorned party invoking tariffs which it could had it wished not wish to re-employ. But it was feeling some retaliation was needed, Trump has seen this and used a similar thought process only turned the dial up to 11

Uk could have moved some of its economic ties and trade elsewhere , as has happened to an extent with several agreements that certain people swore were going to be impossible to get agreed. US taking on the whole world, doesn’t really leave anywhere else for demand and supply to move elsewhere.

So fairly different really.

The economic self harm mis-sold now that I can agree with, however for the larger section of referendum voters (myself included) it was a price deemed worth paying for political and immagratory reasons (not the sides of buses or bendy bananas).
It should also be noted there were also economic lies told by team remain as well.

Woah dont get your nickers into a twist! I wasn't comparing the whole of Brexit v US imposing tariffs debacles but merely comparing the impact of one country imposing economically damaging barriers to trade and thinking the impact is the same for both sides! In Brexit we came out of the EU and as a consequence lost our favourable trading arrangements with out biggest export market, whereas the EU countries lost one, and in most cases not by any means their biggest, market. The UK economy is now widely agreed to take a 4% hit on GDP. The US have done the same in implementing these tariffs and increased the cost of every single import into their market stoking inflation, disrupting supply chains and their own manufacturing, slowing down the economy, etc. Yes other countries will take a hit but for many ie the UK, the US isnt their biggest market - as I said earlier it is 17% of UK exports and mostly on a small range of specialist goods, luxury cars, whisky, etc. The parallels between the economic bullshit claims spouted about Brexit and Trumps tariffs are very strong and both ignore the basic maths that they take a 100% hit for their actions whereas all the other countries ie the EU or the World, take a proportionally smaller hit to their economy!

The US have gambled that the rest of the world will fold, in much the same way Brexiteers said the EU couldn't do without the UK and we could/would continue to have unfettered access to the EU, goods would flow West-East to Northern Ireland without any barriers, etc. That went really well and our imports and exports with the EU are down post Brexit and as the OBR points put there is little evidence that trade from elsewhere has managed to plug the gap! If China, Canada, EU, etc dont fold to Trumps demands then the economic damage to the US of the tariff barriers will be huge and be felt very quick! At least with Brexit we had a transition period and planned, albeit very very badly for the transition. It could be a significant hit, comparable to the Brexit impact on UK GDP but within the year. It will be interesting to see who folds first but my money is on Trump having to fold but trying to cloak it up as some form of crappy success!

Uk didn’t impose extra tariffs though , the remaining EU did, as at the time didn’t need any UK money, military capacity or world influence.

Remains to be seen how Trump lunacy pans out for world trade , right now uk has gained a bit comparatively

[Hal Jordan]

Finding it hard to even laugh at this shit anymore.

What damage will this bunch of tossers wreak, and for nothing.

Many of those who voted for him still cling to the idiotic notion that Kamala as president would have been a disaster for the country.

A black woman who didn't have simultaneous unequivocal support for both Israel and Gaza? The mind boggles at the damage she would have wrought!

I mean, what if, in a moment of feminine weakness, she became infatuated with a brutal dictator and skewed US policy to curry favour? Whatever would we have done?

[Deepsouth]

5 eyes -1

[fishfoodie]

China just announced 34% tariff on all US goods from next week, & restrains around sales of Rare-Earth elements, which they control.

[Yeeb]

Lots of buying opportunity in the markets right now, kind of a shame I had to put my pension top up this tax year but hey ho - hard to catch a falling knife but there are more bargains to be had in near future .

[Biffer]

Trump support nosediving across all groups except self defined MAGA

https://www.ft.com/content/26d15d7e-dd3 ... 8a57bce290

Most negative view of economic policy on record. This was before the tariffs.

[Deepsouth]

China just announced 34% tariff on all US goods from next week, & restrains around sales of Rare-Earth elements, which they control.

China doesn't have a monopoly.

[Hal Jordan]

Early reports from US car makers is that Trump's tariffs will add around $6500 to the price of an average family saloon, even if it's "made" in America. So many parts for each car assembled there come from overseas.

For the good of America I hope even the likes of Myanmar give this kvnt the middle finger.

He can even keep his infantile obsession with 'making a deal'. Get the kid a comfortable room and Leavitt can play wet nurse with a bag of Hersheys.

I believe that when his father got dementia they mocked up an office for him to "work in" so he felt like he was still in control.

Perhaps we could do the same, fake up the Oval Office and a media room and supply him with all the lookalikes and ketchup he needs. He's already got the whores and substances down in Mar-a-Lago.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

China just announced 34% tariff on all US goods from next week, & restrains around sales of Rare-Earth elements, which they control.

China doesn't have a monopoly.

no, but it's way over 50%, some years they're hovering around 75%, so one can't discount the control in supply they have wrought.

then again who needs optronics, or if you're Trump who needs/wants/understands magnets?

[Biffer]

China just announced 34% tariff on all US goods from next week, & restrains around sales of Rare-Earth elements, which they control.

China doesn't have a monopoly.

no, but it's way over 50%, some years they're hovering around 75%, so one can't discount the control in supply they have wrought.

then again who needs optronics, or if you're Trump who needs/wants/understands magnets?

I’ve got a degree in astrophysics and I don’t really understand magnets.

[Niegs]

Finding it hard to even laugh at this shit anymore.

What damage will this bunch of tossers wreak, and for nothing.

Many of those who voted for him still cling to the idiotic notion that Kamala as president would have been a disaster for the country.

A black woman who didn't have simultaneous unequivocal support for both Israel and Gaza? The mind boggles at the damage she would have wrought!

I mean, what if, in a moment of feminine weakness, she became infatuated with a brutal dictator and skewed US policy to curry favour? Whatever would we have done?

[geordie_6]

FTSE 100 was down 4.9% at close of business.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

FTSE 100 was down 4.9% at close of business.

Nasdaq down over 4% today so far, after falling 6% yesterday.

I wonder how many Wall Street companies and pension fund managers are on the phone to the Whitehouse screaming at the fat orange twat to stop fucking the markets (and also the economy).

[lemonhead]

Early reports from US car makers is that Trump's tariffs will add around $6500 to the price of an average family saloon, even if it's "made" in America. So many parts for each car assembled there come from overseas.

For the good of America I hope even the likes of Myanmar give this kvnt the middle finger.

He can even keep his infantile obsession with 'making a deal'. Get the kid a comfortable room and Leavitt can play wet nurse with a bag of Hersheys.

I believe that when his father got dementia they mocked up an office for him to "work in" so he felt like he was still in control.

Perhaps we could do the same, fake up the Oval Office and a media room and supply him with all the lookalikes and ketchup he needs. He's already got the whores and substances down in Mar-a-Lago.

Interesting, did they indeed.

My take on aging dictators since forever. Tell them the war's going great, here's some rare earth jackfruit fritters we liberated from the enemy, your public loves you, have a biccie. Who could tell the difference.

[Niegs]

This was quite good... telling stories about the people who do good work in US Federal roles.

[Hal Jordan]

Looks like spending money on helping kids with autism is out, spending money on Wakefield style "research" into what causes it is in.

An horrendous stench of eugenics comes off this administration.

[dpedin]

I can see you don’t think it’s dis ingenious :

Us acts versus almost the entire planet, Uk acts versus the Eu (I’m not saying it wasn’t major, but it wasn’t the picking fight with entire planet Trump has)

Us is the instigator of tariffs , Brexit was the scorned party invoking tariffs which it could had it wished not wish to re-employ. But it was feeling some retaliation was needed, Trump has seen this and used a similar thought process only turned the dial up to 11

Uk could have moved some of its economic ties and trade elsewhere , as has happened to an extent with several agreements that certain people swore were going to be impossible to get agreed. US taking on the whole world, doesn’t really leave anywhere else for demand and supply to move elsewhere.

So fairly different really.

The economic self harm mis-sold now that I can agree with, however for the larger section of referendum voters (myself included) it was a price deemed worth paying for political and immagratory reasons (not the sides of buses or bendy bananas).
It should also be noted there were also economic lies told by team remain as well.

Woah dont get your nickers into a twist! I wasn't comparing the whole of Brexit v US imposing tariffs debacles but merely comparing the impact of one country imposing economically damaging barriers to trade and thinking the impact is the same for both sides! In Brexit we came out of the EU and as a consequence lost our favourable trading arrangements with out biggest export market, whereas the EU countries lost one, and in most cases not by any means their biggest, market. The UK economy is now widely agreed to take a 4% hit on GDP. The US have done the same in implementing these tariffs and increased the cost of every single import into their market stoking inflation, disrupting supply chains and their own manufacturing, slowing down the economy, etc. Yes other countries will take a hit but for many ie the UK, the US isnt their biggest market - as I said earlier it is 17% of UK exports and mostly on a small range of specialist goods, luxury cars, whisky, etc. The parallels between the economic bullshit claims spouted about Brexit and Trumps tariffs are very strong and both ignore the basic maths that they take a 100% hit for their actions whereas all the other countries ie the EU or the World, take a proportionally smaller hit to their economy!

The US have gambled that the rest of the world will fold, in much the same way Brexiteers said the EU couldn't do without the UK and we could/would continue to have unfettered access to the EU, goods would flow West-East to Northern Ireland without any barriers, etc. That went really well and our imports and exports with the EU are down post Brexit and as the OBR points put there is little evidence that trade from elsewhere has managed to plug the gap! If China, Canada, EU, etc dont fold to Trumps demands then the economic damage to the US of the tariff barriers will be huge and be felt very quick! At least with Brexit we had a transition period and planned, albeit very very badly for the transition. It could be a significant hit, comparable to the Brexit impact on UK GDP but within the year. It will be interesting to see who folds first but my money is on Trump having to fold but trying to cloak it up as some form of crappy success!

Uk didn’t impose extra tariffs though , the remaining EU did, as at the time didn’t need any UK money, military capacity or world influence.

Remains to be seen how Trump lunacy pans out for world trade , right now uk has gained a bit comparatively

EU didnt impose tariffs on the UK ... we asked them to! The UK decided leave the club, to step out of the EU, SM and CU and therefore chose to become a '3rd country' in the eyes of the EU and be subject to all the rules and regulations that brings with it, many of which were designed and voted for by the UK when we were a member. We, by voting for Brexit, decided to impose all the various financial and non financial barriers to trade with the EU upon ourselves. We knew what the consequences were, it was just that many decided to ignore the realities and decided self delusion was a better option than cold hard economics. TO make matters worse we left without a proper deal to help minimize the impact of leaving and ever since we left we have been trying hard to minimize the self harm through things like the TCA but that does require us to become a rule taker rather than a rule maker in areas such as agriculture, etc. As with the US tariffs and the rest of the world, Brexit was a decision to create additional barriers to trade with our biggest, closest and most important markets. Putting aside all the bullshit about Sovrenty etc from a purely economic and trading basis it was taking a shotgun to one of not both our knees!

[GuLi]

EU didnt impose tariffs on the UK ... we asked them to! [cut]

Yeeb said the EU retaliated with tariffs, a few times on this thread - par for the course coming from your average Brexiteer. Although in his case, seemingly ex-Brexiteer? ex-Brexit-curious, in rehab?

[Kawazaki]

I've not heard many people mention it but I don't think these tariffs have anything to do with trade policy per se. This is all about the $36.56 trillion of federal US debt. That's what he wants to eradicate.

[Kawazaki]

EU didnt impose tariffs on the UK ... we asked them to! [cut]

Yeeb said the EU retaliated with tariffs, a few times on this thread - par for the course coming from your average Brexiteer. Although in his case, seemingly ex-Brexiteer? ex-Brexit-curious, in rehab?

Whatever the reasons for Brexit, it's become an advantage at the moment. Let's hope the UK has the strategically adapt politicians to exploit it.

[fishfoodie]

Looks like spending money on helping kids with autism is out, spending money on Wakefield style "research" into what causes it is in.

An horrendous stench of eugenics comes off this administration.

While the Tango Traitor, & Space Karen are grabbing all the Headlines, in the background RFK Jr is the one that is flat out killing children, & might end up killing more than Covid, because he's fired all the people whose job it was to help protect Americans.

Texas children poisoned after RFK Jr touts vitamin A as measles treatment

Vaccine-hesitant parents are taking treatment into their own hands after claims from the US Health Secretary, experts fear

Covenant Children's Hospital is pictured from outside the emergency entrance
The Covenant Children’s hospital in Lubbock is treating measles patients with unsafe levels of vitamin A in their system Credit: Mary Conlon/AP

Texas hospitals are treating children with vitamin A poisoning after Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, promoted the supplement as a treatment for measles.

The Covenant Children’s hospital in Lubbock, a city in north west Texas, is looking after a small number of patients who all required treatment for measles but who also had elevated levels of vitamin A that was causing abnormal liver function, Texas Public Radio reported.

There have also been reports of measles patients with abnormal liver function in neighbouring New Mexico.

Both states have been hit hard by the worst US measles outbreak in years, even though the disease was declared eliminated in the country at the turn of the millennium.

Almost 500 measles cases across 21 states have been confirmed by the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) as of March 28 – a 360 per cent increase from the week before.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... treatment/

Axed Vaccine Chief Reveals RFK Jr.’s Crackpot ‘Data’ Demands

Dr. Peter Marks is being forced to resign from the FDA because the Trump administration does not want someone who is “rigorously science-driven within the organization.”

Dr. Peter Marks, a top vaccine chief at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who tendered his resignation last week, has revealed some of the demands made by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that made his position untenable.

Marks quit his job as director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research last week after being told that if he did not resign, he would be fired. He had been in his post since 2016, and played a key role in overseeing the development and regulation of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal ahead of his last day in the role on Saturday, Marks revealed that Kennedy’s team sought nonexistent data that they could use to justify the anti-vaccine narratives Kennedy has become known for.

Marks told the paper, “I can never give allegiance to anyone else other than to follow the science as we see it. That does not mean that I can just roll over and take conspiracy theories and justify them.”

Since President Donald Trump’s appointment of Kennedy to the role of Secretary of Health and Human Services, thousands of department employees have been laid off as part of Trump and Elon Musk’s general governmental downsizing. In addition, Kennedy hired discredited anti-vaxxer David Geier as a senior data analyst so he can study the “link” between vaccines and autism—a link that has already been widely and thoroughly debunked by numerous other studies.

...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/axed-vacc ... a-demands/

[Hellraiser]

The US stock market has lost $7 trillion in value since Wednesday, and $11 trillion in total since January 20th.

[lemonhead]

Donald Trump had a plan. It was not a good plan, or even a plausible one. But it was, at least, a coherent plan: By imposing large trade barriers on the entire world, he would create an incentive for American business to manufacture and grow all the goods the country previously imported. Whatever chance this plan had to succeed is already over.

The key to making it work was to convince businesses that the new arrangement is durable. Nobody is going to invest in building new factories in the United States to create goods that until last week could be imported more cheaply unless they’re certain that the tariffs making the domestic version more competitive will stay in place. (They’re probably not going to do it anyway, in part because they don’t know who will be president in four years, but the point is that confidence in durable tariffs is a necessary condition.)

Trump’s aides grasped this dynamic. “This is the great onshoring, the great reshoring of American jobs and wealth,” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, declared on “Liberation Day.” The White House accordingly circulated talking points instructing its surrogates not to call the tariffs a leverage play to make deals, but to instead describe them as a permanent new feature of the global economy.

But not everybody got the idea. Eric Trump tweeted, “I wouldn’t want to be the last country that tries to negotiate a trade deal with @realDonaldTrump. The first to negotiate will win - the last will absolutely lose.”
Eric’s father apparently didn’t get the memo either. Asked by reporters whether he planned to negotiate the tariff rates, the president said, “The tariffs give us great power to negotiate. They always have.”

Someone seems to have then told Trump that this stance would paralyze business investment, because he reversed course immediately, writing on Truth Social, “TO THE MANY INVESTORS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE.”

However, there is a principle at work here called “No backsies.” Once you’ve said you might negotiate the tariffs, nobody is going to believe you when you change your mind and say you’ll never negotiate.

Indeed, precisely two hours and 17 minutes after insisting that his policies would never change, Trump returned to Truth Social to announce excitedly that the policies were going to change: “Just had a very productive call with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who told me that Vietnam wants to cut their Tariffs down to ZERO if they are able to make an agreement with the U.S. I thanked him on behalf of our Country, and said I look forward to a meeting in the near future.”

The possibility remains that Trump will revert to insisting that the tariffs are permanent and irrevocable. The day is still young.

To be sure, signaling openness to negotiation on tariffs is also a plan. But it’s a very different plan than attracting massive investment into domestic production. The idea behind this other plan is a game of chicken: We think the balance of trade protection is unfavorable to the United States, and could be made more favorable by leveling the playing field. Threatening a global trade war imposes pain on other countries, making them willing to reduce their tariffs on American goods, leading to freer global trade.

This strategy relies not on convincing businesses that Trump is completely serious, but instead on making other world leaders believe that Trump is willing to endure fantastic amounts of economic pain in order to gain bargaining leverage. “Sometimes the best strategy in a negotiation is convincing the other side that you are crazy,” the investor and pro-Trump social-media influencer Bill Ackman rationalized on X.

Could it work? Like the original plan, this is not a good one by any means. Attempting to negotiate new trade deals with almost every country and territory in the world, some of which are uninhabited, poses a formidable diplomatic challenge. (Do penguins have a trade representative?) There is very little in Trump’s record to suggest that he’s going to pull it off. The fact that he is freezing domestic investment decisions in the meantime and risking stagflation or a recession is going to undermine his leverage rather than increase it.

We’re the ones who are waging a trade war against the entire planet. Attempting to intimidate all other countries at the same time is a bit like a school bully walking into the cafeteria and announcing that everybody has to start handing over their lunch money on an ongoing basis. The strong-arm method is best suited for one-on-one negotiations, rather than giving everyone an incentive to band together in self-protection.

In any case, the madman approach to achieving freer global trade by tanking the American economy, whatever odds it may stand of success, is simply not the same thing as creating a permanent new system of protected domestic industry. That vision had danced in Trump’s head since the 1980s. He decided that now was his chance to finally make it happen. It lasted less than a day.

[Kawazaki]

Donald Trump had a plan. It was not a good plan, or even a plausible one. But it was, at least, a coherent plan: By imposing large trade barriers on the entire world, he would create an incentive for American business to manufacture and grow all the goods the country previously imported. Whatever chance this plan had to succeed is already over.

The key to making it work was to convince businesses that the new arrangement is durable. Nobody is going to invest in building new factories in the United States to create goods that until last week could be imported more cheaply unless they’re certain that the tariffs making the domestic version more competitive will stay in place. (They’re probably not going to do it anyway, in part because they don’t know who will be president in four years, but the point is that confidence in durable tariffs is a necessary condition.)

Trump’s aides grasped this dynamic. “This is the great onshoring, the great reshoring of American jobs and wealth,” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, declared on “Liberation Day.” The White House accordingly circulated talking points instructing its surrogates not to call the tariffs a leverage play to make deals, but to instead describe them as a permanent new feature of the global economy.

But not everybody got the idea. Eric Trump tweeted, “I wouldn’t want to be the last country that tries to negotiate a trade deal with @realDonaldTrump. The first to negotiate will win - the last will absolutely lose.”
Eric’s father apparently didn’t get the memo either. Asked by reporters whether he planned to negotiate the tariff rates, the president said, “The tariffs give us great power to negotiate. They always have.”

Someone seems to have then told Trump that this stance would paralyze business investment, because he reversed course immediately, writing on Truth Social, “TO THE MANY INVESTORS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE.”

However, there is a principle at work here called “No backsies.” Once you’ve said you might negotiate the tariffs, nobody is going to believe you when you change your mind and say you’ll never negotiate.

Indeed, precisely two hours and 17 minutes after insisting that his policies would never change, Trump returned to Truth Social to announce excitedly that the policies were going to change: “Just had a very productive call with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who told me that Vietnam wants to cut their Tariffs down to ZERO if they are able to make an agreement with the U.S. I thanked him on behalf of our Country, and said I look forward to a meeting in the near future.”

The possibility remains that Trump will revert to insisting that the tariffs are permanent and irrevocable. The day is still young.

To be sure, signaling openness to negotiation on tariffs is also a plan. But it’s a very different plan than attracting massive investment into domestic production. The idea behind this other plan is a game of chicken: We think the balance of trade protection is unfavorable to the United States, and could be made more favorable by leveling the playing field. Threatening a global trade war imposes pain on other countries, making them willing to reduce their tariffs on American goods, leading to freer global trade.

This strategy relies not on convincing businesses that Trump is completely serious, but instead on making other world leaders believe that Trump is willing to endure fantastic amounts of economic pain in order to gain bargaining leverage. “Sometimes the best strategy in a negotiation is convincing the other side that you are crazy,” the investor and pro-Trump social-media influencer Bill Ackman rationalized on X.

Could it work? Like the original plan, this is not a good one by any means. Attempting to negotiate new trade deals with almost every country and territory in the world, some of which are uninhabited, poses a formidable diplomatic challenge. (Do penguins have a trade representative?) There is very little in Trump’s record to suggest that he’s going to pull it off. The fact that he is freezing domestic investment decisions in the meantime and risking stagflation or a recession is going to undermine his leverage rather than increase it.

We’re the ones who are waging a trade war against the entire planet. Attempting to intimidate all other countries at the same time is a bit like a school bully walking into the cafeteria and announcing that everybody has to start handing over their lunch money on an ongoing basis. The strong-arm method is best suited for one-on-one negotiations, rather than giving everyone an incentive to band together in self-protection.

In any case, the madman approach to achieving freer global trade by tanking the American economy, whatever odds it may stand of success, is simply not the same thing as creating a permanent new system of protected domestic industry. That vision had danced in Trump’s head since the 1980s. He decided that now was his chance to finally make it happen. It lasted less than a day.

Can you link this article when you cut & paste.

[Kiwias]

Can you link this article when you cut & paste.

Can you not quote long posts such as that in their entirety when you are merely asking for the source?

[Kiwias]

Rachel Maddow explains the source of Trump's fascination with tariffs as economic policy. It is scary in its idiocy.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

EU didnt impose tariffs on the UK ... we asked them to! [cut]

Yeeb said the EU retaliated with tariffs, a few times on this thread - par for the course coming from your average Brexiteer. Although in his case, seemingly ex-Brexiteer? ex-Brexit-curious, in rehab?

Whatever the reasons for Brexit, it's become an advantage at the moment. Let's hope the UK has the strategically adapt politicians to exploit it.

Losing £100 billion a year is not an advantage, this shouldn't need saying. And even if you want to make the case that we're now more competitive than EU nations, and we'll somehow avoid cheaper goods from elsewhere now over supplied with restricted access to the US flowing here and under cutting our producers we in turn sell to those who're now disadvantaged, and that in turn is not good for us.

[geordie_6]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/s/oxZNmR2lEI

Just Obama making very valid points, as per.

[Kiwias]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/s/oxZNmR2lEI

Just Obama making very valid points, as per.

We all remember how much the right lost its collective mind when faced with a disgusting Obama scandal.

[Kawazaki]

Yeeb said the EU retaliated with tariffs, a few times on this thread - par for the course coming from your average Brexiteer. Although in his case, seemingly ex-Brexiteer? ex-Brexit-curious, in rehab?

Whatever the reasons for Brexit, it's become an advantage at the moment. Let's hope the UK has the strategically adapt politicians to exploit it.

Losing £100 billion a year is not an advantage, this shouldn't need saying. And even if you want to make the case that we're now more competitive than EU nations, and we'll somehow avoid cheaper goods from elsewhere now over supplied with restricted access to the US flowing here and under cutting our producers we in turn sell to those who're now disadvantaged, and that in turn is not good for us.

Jesus wept, let it go fella. FFS

[Flockwitt]

I've not heard many people mention it but I don't think these tariffs have anything to do with trade policy per se. This is all about the $36.56 trillion of federal US debt. That's what he wants to eradicate.

If that is the goal and other policies aligned to it, that would be at least a rational strategy. The problem is that it's not some blanket 10% on everybody, but ridiculously skewed in all sorts of irrelevant directions. And then if he focused on cutting federal spending and lowering medical cost in conjunction that would be fine too. It might actually achieve that goal. However, when that tarrif income is used to provide tax breaks, to aleviate the worst of the pain of counter tarrifs (which will bear watching, is Trump going to prop up the soyabean farmers again?), and whack countries like Cambodia which is an excellent example of good globalisation...

There's rightfully sceptism and considerable trepidation. Let's see how this pans out. Personally I'm not convinced at all that the Trump administration understands the supply chain shock this is causing.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Whatever the reasons for Brexit, it's become an advantage at the moment. Let's hope the UK has the strategically adapt politicians to exploit it.

Losing £100 billion a year is not an advantage, this shouldn't need saying. And even if you want to make the case that we're now more competitive than EU nations, and we'll somehow avoid cheaper goods from elsewhere now over supplied with restricted access to the US flowing here and under cutting our producers we in turn sell to those who're now disadvantaged, and that in turn is not good for us.

Jesus wept, let it go fella. FFS

If you want to chip in £100 billion per year, compounding even at our miserly growth rates, then I'd be happy to. Absent you stumping up that £100 bn then that seems like a lot of money to be losing out on, and it'll stay a thing for decades to come

[tabascoboy]

[Kawazaki]

Losing £100 billion a year is not an advantage, this shouldn't need saying. And even if you want to make the case that we're now more competitive than EU nations, and we'll somehow avoid cheaper goods from elsewhere now over supplied with restricted access to the US flowing here and under cutting our producers we in turn sell to those who're now disadvantaged, and that in turn is not good for us.

Jesus wept, let it go fella. FFS

If you want to chip in £100 billion per year, compounding even at our miserly growth rates, then I'd be happy to. Absent you stumping up that £100 bn then that seems like a lot of money to be losing out on, and it'll stay a thing for decades to come

Read what I wrote in my original post again.

Then give yourself an uppercut.

2016 has gone.