Trump's Tariffs and Possible Trade War

  • HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two)

    Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation)

    if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!

US Postal Service suspends incoming packages from China, Hong Kong

The U.S. Postal Service will temporarily suspend accepting inbound parcels from China and Hong Kong Posts until further notice, the USPS website showed.

The change, effective from Feb. 4, will not impact the flow of letters and flats from China and Hong Kong, according to the website. USPS did not immediately comment on whether this was tied to President Donald Trump's change to ending "de minimis" shipments from China and other countries.
A de minimis shipment is one where the value falls below the threshold set by a country’s de minimis rule. This value allows goods to enter without paying duties or taxes. The exact threshold varies by country and can be influenced by trade agreements.
 
A de minimis shipment is one where the value falls below the threshold set by a country’s de minimis rule. This value allows goods to enter without paying duties or taxes. The exact threshold varies by country and can be influenced by trade agreements.
One the main reasons Temu was started by the Chinese was to skirt tariffs. Under the existing tariff rules, products sold direct to U.S. consumers are not subject to tariffs. I'm pretty sure those rules are going to be revised.
 

Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn't actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us.

So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.

1743636174793.png
 
It’s almost like someone who’s daddy bought them an economic degree from Wharton, who nobody ever confirmed seeing attend a class at Wharton, doesn’t actually understand economics. I’m shocked.
 
Except in true cases of retaliation, tariffs are generally a bad idea for all the reasons cited.

In this case, Trump is saying that tariffs will eventually lead to increased domestic production capacity, employment in manufacturing jobs, payrolls, etc., etc.

Three problems with that.

First, we don't have the organic domestic growth to absorb a bunch of increased production capacity. Plus, he's making it harder to immigrate. We need immigrants for growth to drive a whole lot of things, and he's choking it off. As I've said before in multiple threads, we need controlled immigration. Neither a wall nor open borders are the answer.

Second, tariffs isolate domestic production from competition, leading to higher prices and lower quality production. The consumer takes it on the chin. Look no further than the auto industry of the 1970s for instruction.

I'm not saying that Reagan's rollback of tariffs was the only driver of the expansion of the 1980s and 1990s. There were other drivers as well. But it's no coincidence that rollback of tariffs preceded that expansion.

Third, I don't believe for a nano-second that Trump really believes what he's saying about increased production capacity and the resulting positive fallout. I think he's doing it strictly for the feeling of personal power it gives him. He couldn't care less about what he's doing to the economy or the financial markets.

While Trump can enact tariffs without anyone's consent, I'm wondering if Congress can enact rebates of tariffs, essentially making them a net zero.

Of course, it would have to be over Trump's veto. But if the populace screams loud enough, Congress might be able to get 2/3 of both houses on board.

Even if that's a pipe dream (and it probably is), it'd still be fun to poke that bear.

Late Add: There's a fourth problem with tariffs, and I can't believe I left it out of the original post. Other countries don't just meekly accept them. They fight back with retaliatory tariffs. Which raise the prices of American goods in their markets, which makes American stuff less attractive in those markets. Which means that Americans don't sell as much stuff. Which undermines the idea that tariffs will eventually lead to expansion of American production capacity, payrolls, etc., etc.

It's the dumbest economic move I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:
Except in true cases of retaliation, tariffs are generally a bad idea for all the reasons cited.

First, we don't have the internally-generated domestic growth the absorb a bunch of increased production capacity. Plus, he's making it harder to immigrate. We need immigrants for growth to drive a whole lot of things, and he's choking it off. As I've said before in multiple threads, we need controlled immigration. Neither a wall nor open borders are the answer.
We have many more than we need already. Constantly increasing population of any kind is an unsustainable solution. More buildings, more highways, more paved surfaces, more polution, less open and natural spaces is not what we need .
 
We have many more than we need already. Constantly increasing population of any kind is an unsustainable solution. More buildings, more highways, more paved surfaces, more polution, less open and natural spaces is not what we need .

While I don’t agree, I understand your thought process and wish there were an economic Santa Claus to make it possible.

The concept of no growth lays waste to every pension fund (including SSI), every life insurance policy, every P&C insurance, every health insurance (including Medicare) every annuity, all equity markets, all bond markets, and is deflationary.

If you think inflation is bad, try deflation.
 
Last edited:
There are a bunch of dumb people in Trump's ear pushing around some really bad math...

And I'm sure the rest of the rest of the world is breathless seeing this lunacy in action...

I’m not sure there’s anybody in his ear, JD. I think Trump comes up with this lunacy on his own — because it makes him feel powerful.

And because he’s purged anybody with three digits to their IQ, there’s nobody in the room smart enough to dissuade him.

Some of the alleged goals — like reducing a bloated government payroll, getting Europe to pay more for its own defense, and stemming the unchecked flow from open borders — are valid.

But the methods, overreach and resulting fallout are beyond moronic. And there’s nobody in Trump’s circle smart enough to articulate that.
 
Last edited:
This is the USFL all over again. Trump shows up, insists everything was going to hell until he got involved, and then makes all of the dumbest moves imaginable to destroy what already exists.

In that trial, Trump’s lawyer used a seminar that some lower level NFL people had seen that told how they could put the USFL out of business. One of the tactics listed on there sounds like something drawn, right out of Trump’s idiotic brain: give ABC a terrible Slate of Monday night, football games as retaliation for airing the USFL.

when Pete Roselle was confronted with this on the stand, he set the record straight rather bluntly: “If we wanted to put ourselves out of business, that would be a good way to do it. If your ratings go down, you lose your leverage, and you get less money in the next TV deal.”

but you have to admit that the very tactic sounds like something Trump would think would be genius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Its On A Slab

Trump is right: Everyone will remember the day he launched a total trade war.


…he’s gone all-in on a policy that will make almost everything people buy — from fast food to electronics, cars to new homes — pricier. Poorer people will get hurt more than Trump’s rich friends, as will those who live on fixed incomes and can’t bear to look at their plunging 401ks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maudiemae
@Tidewater, if you have the time, I’d like to hear your thoughts on Trump’s “Liberation Day” actions.
I think it is bad policy.

The best thing I can say about it is that the larger the economy, the more pain can be tolerated, but it is going to hurt the US as well as every one of our trading partners. Like hammering your thumb in exchange for someone breaking your neighbors shinbone. How about we don't hammer any thumbs or break any shinbones?

The thing about protective tariffs is that nations protect imports that are different from their exports, so, if Finland imports oranges from Spain, it does no good for Spain to slap a tariff on imported oranges from Finland because Finland obviously does not export oranges. Obviously tariffs cannot be exactly symmetrical.

Taking a step back from this particular issue, it comes from modes of thinking. I told the economist's joke earlier, but I believe what made the West so dominant around the world was in large measure the ability to think clearly and objectively about things (sometimes more honored in the breach than the observance). This tariff debate is an example of not thinking clearly and objectively about a topic.
 
And Trump's biggest weakness is that he thinks no one will respond or react to any of his decisions or moves. He anticipates that his decisions and actions are just accepted and capitulation is the only response.

It's the retaliation or moving away by the other party that really delivers the pain. All I can say is we are about to find out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maudiemae
Advertisement

Trending content

Latest threads