Trump's Tariffs and Possible Trade War

[PaulD]

Are these similar to the financial disclosures of SC justices?

The Act only applies to members of Congress and their staffs and moderately high level executive branch employees. It requires filing of stock transactions over $1,000. I never had to file one myself, but I did have to review filings by our senior people before I retired.

The courts have a similar but separate system, which I suspect is ignored by the justices.

 

[jthomas666]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911238480472264763

 

[selmaborntidefan]

BREAKING: Due to Trump‘s tariffs Vietnamese prostitutes will now only love Americans “medium time”.

IYKYK

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915778011128901990

SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler claims small businesses like tariffs: "What I'm hearing from small businesses is they want that level playing field. They know this is a short-term situation that is gonna be replaced by a much brighter long term."

 

[jthomas666]

Get your Yetis and Stanleys now, folks!

Meet the product that’s arguably the most uniquely screwed by tariffs on China

Stanley and Yeti’s distinctive insulated tumblers come from China. What these big cups could cost after trade war increases might cause you to...

sherwood.news

 

[JDCrimson]

When the supply chains actually start drying up they will be singing a different tune...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915778011128901990

SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler claims small businesses like tariffs: "What I'm hearing from small businesses is they want that level playing field. They know this is a short-term situation that is gonna be replaced by a much brighter long term."

 

[Bamaro]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915778011128901990

SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler claims small businesses like tariffs: "What I'm hearing from small businesses is they want that level playing field. They know this is a short-term situation that is gonna be replaced by a much brighter long term."

More administration lies.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I've stated on this board a dozen times or more that Presidents are like head football (or whatever sport) coaches in that they get WAY too much credit - and yes, too much blame - over something that (in most cases) they can barely address, the American economy. If times are good, we praise the leader and if they're bad, we dump them - and as Al Gore found out, the one who gets the credit is the leader, not his trusty sidekick.

But THIS - well, this is one of those times when it's obviously an exception, not because it's Trump, not because it's the Republicans, but because we have a raging gorilla pounding the cage and trying to disturb and control everything all at once.

GHW Bush was asked about the economy and one of the things that has been the general consensus of his post-Presidency is, "Voters saw what he did in Operation Desert Storm and then wondered why he couldn't do that same thing with economy/unemployment." But as Bush himself pointed out to a number of researchers, "Imagine trying to accomplish Desert Storm with Secretary of State Tom Foley and Secretary of Defense Dick Gephardt - and tell me how I would have done." His point, of course, was a President has much more say in foreign policy than he ever has in domestic politics.

Until the insecure man child got involved, of course.

 

[Tidewater]

"Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that Trump’s tariff rollout has been disastrous. iIt’s the biggest unforced error in American economic history — I really think it deserves that title, Young said. He said he would grade the rollout an F- if that were possible."


The rollout of the tariff issue feels like more of the same from the first term. Chaos and indecision inside the White House. Whoever talked to the president last is what he is going to spout.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to reshore manufacturing," then the next question he should have asked his policy advisors was, "How long would it take for factories to move to the US?" Then, increase the tariffs gradually with that timeline in mind.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to get everyone to reduce non-tariff barriers to US goods," then the next question he should have asked his policy advisors was, "Who are the worst offenders?" Then, increase the tariffs on those countries and ask the leaders of those countries to talk about how they are going to reduce non-tariff barriers.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to isolate China economically," then the policy announcement should have been preceded by quiet and pervasive talks with the countries around China that we wished them to adopt closer trade policies with the US.

After all this, I still do not know what the policy objective is, other than to create global economic chaos and tick off our trading partners.

 

[2003TIDE]

When the supply chains actually start drying up they will be singing a different tune...

I've read people in that business say we are 2 weeks to a month from feeling it based on the container traffic (or lack there of) coming into west coast ports. Even if he backs off Tariffs tomorrow, the damage is done and we will feel it for months.

 

[CaliforniaTide]

"Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that Trump’s tariff rollout has been disastrous. iIt’s the biggest unforced error in American economic history — I really think it deserves that title, Young said. He said he would grade the rollout an F- if that were possible."


The rollout of the tariff issue feels like more of the same from the first term. Chaos and indecision inside the White House. Whoever talked to the president last is what he is going to spout.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to reshore manufacturing," then the next question he should have asked his policy advisors was, "How long would it take for factories to move to the US?" Then, increase the tariffs gradually with that timeline in mind.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to get everyone to reduce non-tariff barriers to US goods," then the next question he should have asked his policy advisors was, "Who are the worst offenders?" Then, increase the tariffs on those countries and ask the leaders of those countries top talk about how they are going to reduce non-tariff barriers.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to isolate China economically," then the policy announcement should have been preceded by quiet and pervasive talks with the countries around China that we wished them to adopt closer trade policies with the US.

After all this, I still do not know what the policy objective is, other than to create global economic chaos and tick off our trading partners.

I think Trump's policy objective is to swing the trade deficit numbers back in the U.S.' direction (where we're green and the others are red) b/c in his mind, that's just not good business. I'm using the phrase "policy objective" loosely b/c he just wants whatever benefits him and his ego.

 

[2003TIDE]

I think Trump's policy objective is to swing the trade deficit numbers back in the U.S.' direction (where we're green and the others are red) b/c in his mind, that's just not good business. I'm using the phrase "policy objective" loosely b/c he just wants whatever benefits him and his ego.

I see he was just quoted saying the goal is to replace income tax which is impossible.

Trump says income tax cuts, and perhaps elimination, coming due to tariffs

President Donald Trump indicated that income taxes will be reduced or even eliminated for many people due to tariffs, with a focus on people earning under $200,000 per year.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Tidewater]

I see he was just quoted saying the goal is to replace income tax which is impossible.

Trump says income tax cuts, and perhaps elimination, coming due to tariffs

President Donald Trump indicated that income taxes will be reduced or even eliminated for many people due to tariffs, with a focus on people earning under $200,000 per year.

www.foxnews.com

You can raise income tax rates (to a point), but you could increase tariffs with a $1 billion tariff on imported Japanese cars and you won't make a billion dollars off that tax hike. You'll get zero because nobody is going to purchase a $50,000 Japanese car for $1,000,050,000. People just won't buy imported Japanese cars at that rate.

 

[Tidewater]

This whole episode reminds of a "Leroy Jenkins,"* just in an economic arena.
A bunch of policy wonks standing around talking about how they should prep and how they should act when the time comes, and then here comes "Leroy Jenkins!" who rushes into the fray without a thought as to prep and consequences.


* I'd link the original LJ video, but the language is too salty. I just rewatched the original LJ video and thought to myself, "Yep, that's about how this has been."

 

[2003TIDE]

You can raise income tax rates (to a point), but you could increase tariffs with a $1 billion tariff on imported Japanese cars and you won't make a billion dollars off that tax hike. You'll get zero because nobody is going to purchase a $50,000 Japanese car for $1,000,050,000. People just won't buy imported Japanese cars at that rate.

Exactly. At some point, these insanely high tariffs are just an embargo on a country. The US gov gets $3T in income tax. We also import about $3T in goods. So we'd have to somehow average 100% tariff on all those goods and somehow collect it to be able to eliminate income tax.

I'm not even going to get into whole "under $200k will see income tax eliminated" part of that Fox News article and how tariffs are a regressive tax which lower incomes will bear the brunt of vs the rich.

 

[Tidewater]

Exactly. At some point, these insanely high tariffs are just an embargo on a country. The US gov gets $3T in income tax. We also import about $3T in goods. So we'd have to somehow average 100% tariff on all those goods and somehow collect it to be able to eliminate income tax.

I'm not even going to get into whole "under $200k will see income tax eliminated" part of that Fox News article and how tariffs are a regressive tax which lower incomes will bear the brunt of vs the rich.

George Catlett Marshall said, "If you get the objectives right a lieutenant can write the strategy."
I have no idea what the objectives are.

 

[cdub55]

This whole episode reminds of a "Leroy Jenkins,"* just in an economic arena.
A bunch of policy wonks standing around talking about how they should prep and how they should act when the time comes, and then here comes "Leroy Jenkins!" who rushes into the fray without a thought as to prep and consequences.


* I'd link the original LJ video, but the language is too salty. I just rewatched the original LJ video and thought to myself, "Yep, that's about how this has been."

LEEEEERRRROOOOYYYYY JENNNNNKKKKKKKIIIINNNNNSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TIDE-HSV]

"Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that Trump’s tariff rollout has been disastrous. iIt’s the biggest unforced error in American economic history — I really think it deserves that title, Young said. He said he would grade the rollout an F- if that were possible."


The rollout of the tariff issue feels like more of the same from the first term. Chaos and indecision inside the White House. Whoever talked to the president last is what he is going to spout.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to reshore manufacturing," then the next question he should have asked his policy advisors was, "How long would it take for factories to move to the US?" Then, increase the tariffs gradually with that timeline in mind.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to get everyone to reduce non-tariff barriers to US goods," then the next question he should have asked his policy advisors was, "Who are the worst offenders?" Then, increase the tariffs on those countries and ask the leaders of those countries to talk about how they are going to reduce non-tariff barriers.

If the president had said, "The policy objective of the United States is to isolate China economically," then the policy announcement should have been preceded by quiet and pervasive talks with the countries around China that we wished them to adopt closer trade policies with the US.

After all this, I still do not know what the policy objective is, other than to create global economic chaos and tick off our trading partners.

Well, I don't have time for a book here, but the short answer is he sees the 70s and 80s as paradise and thinks that can be obtained with tariffs. He doesn't understand nor want to try to understand the impossibilities of that. The irony is that he's proposing a heavy-handed, Soviet-style, managed economy, with government picking winners and losers...

 

[Tidewater]

Well, I don't have time for a book here, but the short answer is he sees the 70s and 80s as paradise and thinks that can be obtained with tariffs. He doesn't understand nor want to try to understand the impossibilities of that. The irony is that he's proposing a heavy-handed, Soviet-style, managed economy, with government picking winners and losers...

Not having the objectives states is like getting in your car and driving without statig what your destination is.
It makes it difficult to assess progress. If I get in my car in Huntsville for a trip to Tuscaloosa, and after some driving, I see "Welcome to Tennessee" I know I have not taken a great route.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Pat yourselves on the back, MAGA. Just six months ago, Canada’s liberal party was headed to defeat, but thanks to a narcissistic, obnoxious, clueless, raging ape who cranked up a trade war and talked about a country becoming the 51st state, Canada has basically turned and rammed the sword through his innards.

A born loser loses yet again.