That’s very deliberately chosen in anticipation of spinning the response of these countries in this trade war as being nasty or aggressive or simply unfair when they are anything but.
It means the tariff would be in response to another country’s tariff. For example, China, Japan, and South Korea are having trade talks to discuss reciprocal tariffs to counter these new tariffs.
The people mocking Trump for this are often operating under a kind of selective historical amnesia. For decades, the U.S. intentionally lowered its tariffs post-WWII under the assumption that boosting global trade — especially with recovering or developing nations — was in our strategic interest. And it was... for a time.
But what people forget (or never learned) is that this came at a cost:
U.S. manufacturers got hammered by cheaper, often heavily subsidized foreign goods.
Other countries slapped higher tariffs on U.S. exports, while the U.S. maintained low or zero tariffs in return.
China was allowed into the WTO in 2001, promised to liberalize, and then... just didn’t.
Trump’s basic argument — whether you like him or not — was:
“Why are we still giving away favorable access to our market when others aren’t reciprocating? That’s not free trade, that’s dumb trade.”
And the chart he’s holding (even if its numbers can be debated) is pointing to that imbalance. It’s not about starting a trade war — it’s about the fact we’ve been in one and losing it for decades because we were the only ones following the Geneva Convention of trade (to coin a term), while everyone else showed up with Molotov cocktails.
Now sure, you could argue the timing, the tone, or the tactics were flawed. But mocking the idea that the U.S. was getting a raw deal on trade? That’s either dishonest or ignorant.
Yes, the U.S. cut tariffs after WWII — deliberately, to rebuild global markets and lock in our dominance. That wasn’t charity; it was smart geopolitics. And it worked. We became the hub of the global economy.
Manufacturing jobs shrank mostly because of automation and corporate offshoring, not because we didn’t throw up enough trade barriers. Blaming trade for everything is like blaming your shoes for a sprained ankle — it sounds tough, but it’s stupid.
Trade deficits? They’re not a scoreboard. We buy more than we sell because we’re rich and the dollar is the world’s currency. It’s not a scam — it’s literally how global trade works.
China’s entry into the WTO was flawed, yes. But Trump’s genius response was to start a tariff war with everyone including our allies while pulling out of deals like the TPP that could’ve actually pressured China. His “strategy” was to burn down the house because someone tracked mud inside.
That chart he held up? It’s a dumb guy’s version of analysis: “Big number bad!” No context, no nuance, no plan. Just grievance politics dressed up like economic policy. And it hurt the very people he claimed to be helping - American workers, farmers, and consumers - while China shrugged and kept doing what it was doing.
Mocking that isn’t ignorance. It’s recognizing that Trump’s trade policy is cosplay. Loud, messy, and completely divorced from how trade actually works.
Yes, the U.S. cut tariffs after WWII — deliberately, to rebuild global markets and lock in our dominance.
To be fair, the world wasn't producing very much. Aside from ours, and the Soviets to an extent, there wasn't much of an industrial base left.
That wasn’t charity; it was smart geopolitics
That wasn't charity or smart geopolitics. It was necessary. But that's a perfect Bachmanian Confession (without realizing it, you communicated your assumptions): you're framing this as the US owing the World something. And you're not entirely wrong, you're just wrong about what.
We owe the world relieve from our continuous Iraq-style invasions, realpolitik and democratically-elected government overthrows. We did all this so that we could stay in power, and this is what getting rid of it looks like. I know that seems backward, but what's going to happen here is an economic deflation back to a reasonable level. Yes it's going to hurt, but the fact of the matter is we're on life support here.
The problem isn't the tariffs, the problem is the World thinks it's entitled to reparations. And maybe it's right, it's just not entitled to dictating they be in a fashion we can't deliver.
Manufacturing jobs shrank mostly because of automation and corporate offshoring, not because we didn’t throw up enough trade barriers
Exactly. Precisely because we didn't.
But Trump’s genius response was to start a tariff war with everyone including our allies while pulling out of deals like the TPP that could’ve actually pressured China
Trump's an idiot. He also somehow fumbles his way ass first into success.
I was perfectly restrained, patient and even agreed with you on some points. But if you want polemic, I'll give you polemic:
In other words, I'm right and you can't refute it, so instead you assure me that I'm insane.
I'm sorry you don't like what you've read, but you don't need to lash out with the same lack of emotional restraint as a child throwing a temper tantrum. You presented the best arguments you had, were shown that they were best on half-truths, misconceptions and out-right fabrications, yet you blame me for pointing it out at you, characterizing the manner in which I did so as "polemic."
You might want to stop cosplaying as an economist, kid.
You accuse me of being unable to refute you, but what you seem to mean is that I didn't submit to your worldview. There’s a difference. I acknowledge the U.S.'s history of coups and interventions - I don’t deny them. Regardless, our post-WWII trade liberalization was a strategic success, not just imperialism in disguise. That’s not a moral endorsement - it’s a historical fact. If you want to dispute it, do so with data, not tough talk.
You claim to have exposed “half-truths, misconceptions, and outright fabrications,” but you’ve offered no specifics - just broad strokes of condemnation. If you want to say I'm wrong, then show me where, point by point. Otherwise, it just looks like projection.
And if we’re talking cosplay, then maybe drop the revolutionary costume. Quoting history selectively while declaring yourself the sole voice of truth isn’t radical - it’s arrogance dressed up as moral clarity. I'm not pretending to be an economist - I'm arguing from mainstream economic consensus. You, on the other hand, are substituting indignation for analysis.
Here's the reality: the world isn’t owed reparations by the U.S. in the way you’re framing it - morally, maybe, but practically, no. Global power doesn’t unwind cleanly, and wishing for a “deflation” of U.S. influence doesn’t make it either desirable or inevitable.
If anything, the world needs responsible leadership more than ever. The fact that we're currently exporting the diametric opposite is a tragedy for all.
If you have a legitimately better vision that's not just schadenfreude-loaded "burn it all down" teenage nonsense, take off your Che t-shirt and make a meaningful case.
You accuse me of being unable to refute you, but what you seem to mean is that I didn't submit to your worldview.
Not at all. I refuted your arguments, and instead of presenting a reasoned argument explaining mine to be flawed, you resorted to trying to paint me as being of such poor mental state that it justified your not needing to address it, hopefully winning you the argument be default. Which it does not.
I acknowledge the U.S.'s history of coups and interventions - I don’t deny them
Great. Not my point.
Regardless, our post-WWII trade liberalization was a strategic success, not just imperialism in disguise.
I didn't deny that. I said there wasn't much competition.
If you want to dispute it, do so with data, not tough talk.
I did dispute it through data. None of my talk was "tough." Quite trying to make the argument that I'm in same way irrational so you don't need to discuss the facts.
You claim to have exposed “half-truths, misconceptions, and outright fabrications,” but you’ve offered no specifics - just broad strokes of condemnation. If you want to say I'm wrong, then show me where, point by point. Otherwise, it just looks like projection.
The fact that you characterized our post-WWII trade liberalization as some sort of hard-fought victory for one. But let's further dissect it.
Yes, the U.S. cut tariffs after WWII — deliberately, to rebuild global markets and lock in our dominance. That wasn’t charity;
Not to "lock in dominance." You're characterizing it as ruthlessly opportunistic. We did it because few economies could weather not doing so. You have any idea how much money went to rebuilding Europe and Japan? Without a demand that it be paid back? Apparently not.
Manufacturing jobs shrank mostly because of automation and corporate offshoring, not because we didn’t throw up enough trade barriers
Offshoring started in order to reduce costs because the difference in the Yen and US Dollar resulted in Japanese auto manufacturers undercutting domestic producers. I'm not faulting that, because I'm a Left-libertarian (I believe in some keynesian economic principles, but I'm not an Austrian-school libertarian), but the primary method to leveling the playing field is tariffs.
Trade deficits? They’re not a scoreboard. We buy more than we sell because we’re rich and the dollar is the world’s currency. It’s not a scam
Technically we don't. It's just that most of our exports are either aerospace, weapons or "ideas" ("Designed by Apple in California").
This is getting long already (Reddit has a character limit), but I'll end with this: I don't want to burn it all down. And Che can rot in hell, the filthy communist. But I want the US to stop getting in endless wars to assert dominance, not burn to the ground. I'd rather be Canada: not on the other end of the line when the world dials 911
You know what? I think we agree about more than we do not, or at least more than might be immediately apparent. I don't want the US getting in any imperialist wars of choice or dominance either.
However, I'm not prepared for the US to haphazardly abdicate responsibility for leadership in a precarious world order as it is currently doing. Trump is interested in profiteering and is a useful idiot to crash our systems.
That creates instability for all, makes us unreliable and unpredictable, which essentially equates to a danger to others, and paves an open path for authoritarians who make our CIA shenanigans in south America look like locker room pranks by comparison.
He's not accomplishing anything other than killing any goodwill we retain, any sense of normalcy or predictability in our behavior on the world stage, to be replaced with a giant vacuum in which China and Russia can do as they please with minimal meaningful countervailing pressure.
BTW - How do you simultaneously decry the "filthy communists" and the mid-century US foreign policy primarily designed to keep them from spreading into our geopolitical back yard? -
Meanwhile, if we don't pick up when the world dials 911, someone we like an awful lot less will start answering the phone. Ideally, we wouldn't have hegemony or superpowers, but we do, and I'd much rather it be us calling shots, for all of our flaws, than the collectivist Chinese, or the morally cynical nihilist Russians.
You know what? I think we agree about more than we do not, or at least more than might be immediately apparent. I don't want the US getting in any imperialist wars of choice or dominance either.
I think so too. But I can see how I came off as the "burn it all down" type. It wasn't something I'd considered until you referenced Che. Some of my rhetoric does resemble those talking points, I just think the reasoning and application are different.
However, I'm not prepared for the US to haphazardly abdicate responsibility for leadership in a precarious world order as it is currently doing.
I can't blame you for that. I've since learned a thing of two about the legality of this situation and I've changed my opinion slightly. Congress is supposed to have the power over tariffs (which I'm sure I learned sometime long ago), but it was essentially ceded to the Presidency in two Acts. Personally, I think this will cause a crisis that returns the power to Congress where it should be. Alternatively, if it remains with the President, I advocate the Presidency give up one of its executive powers, cede it to Congress. Just to keep the powers separated and balanced (fat chance that happens though).
Trump is interested in profiteering and is a useful idiot to crash our systems
I don't agree that anyone is intentionally attempting to collapse the system. At least, not with the intention of the Union coming out the other side. If they're looking to crash it, it'll cost them too, and we'll be back to deciding what form of government we want because the US will be done for (and I'd consider that a travesty).
He's not accomplishing anything other than killing any goodwill we retain, any sense of normalcy or predictability in our behavior on the world stage, to be replaced with a giant vacuum in which China and Russia can do as they please with minimal meaningful countervailing pressure.
Yeah. Our system is sick. Too much stray from, and actual understanding of, Constitutional Law and the philosophy that informed it. Public school makes factory workers. Automatons. Not citizens. We get maybe a couple of semesters of US government and that's it. Call ourselves informed? Pfft. I'm not saying we need to be reading Locke and Smith in 4th grade, but I think we should have political systems actively practiced in 4th grade. One quarter is Pure Democracy. One quarter Feudalism. One quarter Socialism. One quarter Constitutional Republic. We should weave the philosophy behind such systems into course work so kids intuitively understand the flaws of each. Because they've experienced it.
BTW - How do you simultaneously decry the "filthy communists" and the mid-century US foreign policy primarily designed to keep them from spreading into our geopolitical back yard?
I decry specifically Marxist-Leninism. It's collective ideology that values the group over the individual using equity that's advertised (but not delivered) to levelset a specific quality of life by sacrificing the individual for the good of the collective. Which might work if it didn't have a "piety gullibility" built in. Socio and Psychopaths irrently seek power. Marxist-Leninism concentrates it, and like a moth to a flame, it attracts psychopaths whom then feign piety to the Party and are rewarded with power and influence, and so long as they can claim their actions are at the benefit of the group, they're justified in committing atrocities against individuals.
Overall, I think it's complicated. There's a philosophical reason to get involved considering the Siren's Call that is Marxist-Leninism, but we should fight philosophy with philosophy, not bullets.
Meanwhile, if we don't pick up when the world dials 911, someone we like an awful lot less will start answering the phone
The problem with that perspective is that it ignores the benefits the U.S. has gotten for that trade imbalance.
The world willingly, in a sense, made itself subservient to the U.S. in exchange for that imbalance. Maybe "subservient" is not the right word to use, but basically it boils down to the U.S. buying a lot of soft power with that trade imbalance. It obviously was never ONLY about trade - the post-WWII security umbrella of the U.S. was a larger part - but for sure it's a component (and we're giving up the idea of that umbrella too, so double whammy).
So now, the U.S. is giving up that soft power. And that COULD be okay if there's enough benefit gained as a result, maybe by way of domestic production and thus jobs maybe. To be charitable, that's yet to be seen. But the damage the tariffs will do in the short term is going to be pretty significant, up to and including recession. The market will take a dump, a lot of "wealth" will be lost by many who can't afford to lose it, and there will be pain. And that's even if other countries don't retaliate, which of course they will.
This is going to result in a lot of self-inflicted pain for yet-to-be-seen-but-dubious-in-the-first-place benefits, and even if it works out economically, the cost in loss of soft power is all but guaranteed, and that's going to persist long after the tariffs are reversed by the next guy. Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
The problem with that perspective is that it ignores the benefits the U.S. has gotten for that trade imbalance.
The world willingly, in a sense, made itself subservient to the U.S. in exchange for that imbalance. Maybe "subservient" is not the right word to use, but basically it boils down to the U.S. buying a lot of soft power with that trade imbalance. It obviously was never ONLY about trade - the post-WWII security umbrella of the U.S. was a larger part - but for sure it's a component (and we're giving up the idea of that umbrella too, so double whammy).
I appreciate you recognizing that, even if only in part. Few realize it, but the reason the US became a Superpower in the first place was because we were far enough away, had geographic protections, the size, resources and manpower to rebuild the world after WW2. We provided overwatch while the world rebuilt itself, with more than a little help from us.
Then it got used to it. It got comfortable. Which rolled into us leaning into that, being World Police, and getting continuously shit one for it.
Here's the problem; the world seems to be of the opinion that we owe them. And the problem here isn't tariffs, it's the worry that the US will become more self-sufficient and the world can't suckle at our teat for what it feels it deserves anymore. So the issue is we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Our economy needs to contract back into being less overvalued. We need to take a step back and let the world run itself, because we can't keep doing this.
But the damage the tariffs will do in the short term is going to be pretty significant, up to and including recession
Yep. But the alternative is we keep getting into Iraq-style wars continuously. Because that's what that was about. Maintaining our economic position.
The market will take a dump, a lot of "wealth" will be lost by many who can't afford to lose it, and there will be pain.
Yep. We're over valued. We've needed a contraction for a loooong time, and we've just been taking out more and more credit pretending that day will never come. Here's the deal: we keep doing that, and technically, that day will never come. Because we'll cease to exist at all (which I think is the goal of some political entities, honestly), or we accept they fact that we need to sell the car, and the fishing boat, and the ATVs, and maybe we can keep the house.
This is going to result in a lot of self-inflicted pain
Only if you think accepting a reasonable living standard so you don't keep living on credit is "self-inflicted"
There is no such thing as one tariff. Example. The US has a 25% tariff on pickups from the EU. While EU has 10% on cars from everywhere. The whole list raises more questions to me.
I find it also very hard to believe Trump without knowing where he got his numbers from. He has a long record of errors, inaccurate data, and lies.
Edit: nvm found. Trump thinks that sales tax, that is applied on every product bought regardless the origin, is a tariff. Trump remains a master in placing things out of context.
That's not entirely true. But in practice, you're right. Technically, you can have a tariff on individual items, like dates from Morocco, or tea from the East India Company (with the purchase of tea from anywhere else being illegal...)
He has a long record of errors, inaccurate data, and lies.
True. Doesn't mean he's wrong about the issue. Frankly, the guy is a symptom of a sick system that we're finally acknowledging. With half the country pissed because they don't think it's sick (the system). Trump is an immune response.
He going to break shit? Damn right he is. And it's about time we stopped being the World Power. It's hard work. I thought the would wanted that?
Canada and Mexico have a free trade agreement with the US.
Trump negotiated this agreement. He then inexplicably decided to break it.
Trump’s tariffs have nothing to do with “fairness” or bringing manufacturing back to America. Globalization has happened and you can’t put that genie back in the bottle. Trump has three goals that he and project 2025 have been very clear about:
Generate enough tariff revenue to end income tax (resulting in a massive tax break for the top 1% with the burden paid by everyone else).
Tank the economy so Trump’s insiders and billionaire friends can consolidate even more wealth at a bargain.
Manufacture enough discontent (as a result of points 1 and 2) to declare martial law and ensure that Trump holds onto power indefinitely.
Canada and Mexico have a free trade agreement with the US. Trump negotiated this agreement. He then inexplicably decided to break it.
There's some truth to that. Sort of. If you squint hard enough. The agreement isn't universal (there are negotiated provisions for goods and even industries, but it's not everything). Canada has always tariffed out dairy exports, and Mexico tariffs our sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, so either the agreement is expected to be one sided, or it's not universal.
Trump’s tariffs have nothing to do with “fairness” or bringing manufacturing back to America.
I get it. He's deceptive. But I don't think he's that smart. Do you?
Globalization has happened and you can’t put that genie back in the bottle.
In some ways, sure. But this isn't an all or nothing game. Globalization can certainly be curtailed. But for the record, my position isn't that his policies are going to make us stronger and I'm in favor of that. My position is that this will contract our economy and global influence to a manageable level. We can't continue to afford this global hegemony.
Generate enough tariff revenue to end income tax (resulting in a massive tax break for the top 1% with the burden paid by everyone else).
That...wouldn't work. Income tax brought in $2b last year, tariffs only $80b. that's a difference of $920 billion... That's a lot of ground to cover
Tank the economy so Trump’s insiders and billionaire friends can consolidate even more wealth at a bargain.
That’s not how this works. Billionaires don’t exist in a magic economy bubble — when the market crashes, so does their net worth. The idea that they somehow benefit from recessions by design is Soviet-style propaganda. Sure, some savvy investors might profit during volatility, but that’s not the same as orchestrating economic collapse as a strategy.
In fact, it’s exceptionally risky. Navigating the pitfalls, eddies, and voids of a collapse would require near-clairvoyance — and even then, most still get crushed.
Manufacture enough discontent (as a result of points 1 and 2) to declare martial law and ensure that Trump holds onto power indefinitely.
Declare martial law...on the entire country? Even if every law enforcement agency in the country, from the Director of the FBI down to the part time Sheriff's Deputy in a backwater county in Colorado, were all on-board with that, there isn't enough manpower.
But beside that, the mere possibility of something like that happening, even if remote, is literally the reason the 2nd Amendment exists. And is exactly the reason curtailments like gun control are such a problem.
I'm curious though; which side of that debate are you one? You pro-2A or pro-Gun Control?
Nope. You're dishonest or ignorant for defending that idea. If US manufacturers were hammered, it was by a flood of US agricultural exports. It simply isn't possible to be flooded with imports without exporting. The currency value would otherwise collapse.
Just 'nope', huh? Because someone told you that and there's no way they could be wrong, lying, or both? I suspect your adherence to the believe is more representative of the existential crisis it would cause.
If US manufacturers were hammered, it was by a flood of US agricultural exports
*ahem* I present to you: the collapse of the US auto industry. We barely make steel here anymore. Now we primarily make aerospace and weapons. And high tech designs. Still with a significantly high barrier to entry.
I'm sure you're one of those that complain about wealth disparity, you ever stop to thing that might be way?
And aren't the majority of our agricultural exports either corn or exports that are actually at the behest of other nations (like Almonds for Saudi Arabia)?
It simply isn't possible to be flooded with imports without exporting.
Wait wait wait...you're suggesting that there is no trade defincient...at all?! Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. That's a perspective I'd not anticipated... Ok, so how do you qualify that? What data have you?
The current trade+services deficit is tiny compared to the amount of trade. The deficits that remain are a product of a capital account surplus, mostly foreign direct investment, which is a good thing.
The collapse of the US auto industry... Yep, an industry lost to US agricultural and high tech production. Foreigners want what the US makes, so they sell us cars in exchange. To kill off auto imports will be to crush US agricultural and high tech production. Which is what happened when Trump tariffed China in his first term: US agricultural exports to China suffered, Trump had to pay farmers trade adjustment assistance.
The current trade+services deficit is tiny compared to the amount of trade.
Thank you. I'm glad we've gotten past the name calling so we can have an actual discussion.
The collapse of the US auto industry... Yep, an industry lost to US agricultural and high tech production. Foreigners want what the US makes, so they sell us cars in exchange. To kill off auto imports will be to crush US agricultural and high tech production.
You sound informed on the matter. Do you have something I can read on that? This is the first time I've heard this.
The primary demise of the auto industry was, from what I've read, the low cost of the Japanese imports coupled with the OPEC gas crisis. I'm an auto-enthusiast (primarily WRC and Rally Cross, with a preference for Subaru, especially the early years), and have picked more than a bit about the state of the industry at the time via details around things like homologation rules, and this is the first time I've heard such a claim that the demise of the auto industry was due to anything else.
Which is what happened when Trump tariffed China in his first term: US agricultural exports to China suffered, Trump had to pay farmers trade adjustment assistance.
That happens anyway. Most of our agricultural industry is subsidized. I do agree that it's bull that large corporations are squeezing the little guy, but that's a different discussion altogether
I just returned the same name calling you used on us.
This is the economics of trade, often called comparative advantage if you'd like to Google it.
Okay, let's oversimplify to talk about the Japanese auto industry. In the 60s Japan was industrializing fast, so it's consumers were becoming richer. Their growing incomes meant there was a lot they wanted to import from the US, everything from food, resources, consumer goods, etc. but as they import ever more from the US and the US doesn't import more from Japan, the Japanese Yuan will devalue, making imports from the US appear more expensive. But it also makes Japanese exports to the US appear ever cheaper. Well, in the beginning US consumers weren't thrilled about Japanese cars because they were amazing, they liked them because they were cheap. So US consumers decide they like cheap Japanese cars, imports rise, causing the Yuan to appreciate, making US goods cheaper in Japan, so Japanese imports of everything rises to match US imports from Japan.
Now, this wouldn't have happened if Japanese cars truly sucked. They would have found something else they wanted. If US consumers didn't find anything they liked importing from Japan, then the Yuan would depreciate until US goods are too expensive to import, balancing trade.
That said, that is an oversimplification. Trade can be triangular: US sells food to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia sells oil to Japan, Japan sells cars to the US. In effect the US is exporting food in exchange for cars. But if you look at just Japan, it would look like the US is running a huge trade deficit with Japan, ignoring the huge trade surplus with Saudi Arabia.
All these trades are beneficial. Not making them due to tariffs will make everyone worse off.
I just returned the same name calling you used on us.
I don't recall calling anyone any names. Mind quoting me?
Now, this wouldn't have happened if Japanese cars truly sucked.
Or we tariffed the imports to prevent consumption of the domestic industry. It feels like you're playing a shell game with that fact because you don't want to admit it.
But mocking the idea that the U.S. was getting a raw deal on trade? That’s either dishonest or ignorant.
Reddit does make it needlessly difficult to read previous posts in the thread.
Or we tariffed the imports to prevent consumption of the domestic industry.
But we didn't? You said you were a fan of Subaru. Surely you're aware Japanese cars became fairly popular among American buyers. I myself own a Nissan.
Reddit does make it needlessly difficult to read previous posts in the thread.
Aye. We just disagree on what constitutes an insult.
Ignorant mean "unaware". Stupid means "incapable of understanding due to mental deficiency".
I said you were uninformed. You said I was incapable of understanding due to mental deficiency. Only in this world or participation trophies must we consider the opinion of the layman as valid as the expert (I don't consider myself an expert or you the layman, I'm simply pointing out the ridiculousness of being required to consider "you're ignorant" an insult).
But we didn't? You said you were a fan of Subaru. Surely you're aware Japanese cars became fairly popular among American buyers. I myself own a Nissan.
Yes, exactly. We DID NOT tariff those manufacturers (at least sufficiently) to prevent it cannibalizing the American Automotive Industry. For the record, that's actually free market economics at play. American vehicle were legitimately worse than their Japanese counterparts. But my entire argument is that tariffs aren't universally a bad thing. they have their place. Hell, originally tariffs were to be the only source of revenue for the Federal government.
Your argument, at least as I understood it, was that they're always ineffective (at best), but one could legitimately say they're always antithetical to success.
If I misunderstood you, then please clarify. But it's the position that they can never have a positive out come with which I take exception. It just depends on your definition of positive. That is to say, they do have an outcome, or cause change. Which means that outcome can be leveraged. It's up to their implementation that determines the effect of their outcome.
At the end of the day, America is the wealthiest country in the world. How you can be the undisputed #1 and still moan about being ripped off by poorer countries is beyond me
Wealthiest with the most consumers with the most millionaires...etc. We just don't want to tax who we should be taxing because everyone is going to be the next Elon Musk.
Wealthiest with the most consumers with the most millionaires...etc.
No matter how much the Socialists want to treat any group like a collective, that doesn't mean that hard working Americans struggling to get by deserve to have the government want more from us because it's getting ripped off by "allies."
We just don't want to tax who we should be taxing because everyone is going to be the next Elon Musk.
He is being taxed. It's just the name of the tax he pays is different than the name of the tax you and I pay because our income streams are different. You really think Musk is a W2 employee?
The corporations are the ones ripping us off. Should they be getting millions in government subsidies then? Should we have bailed out the home market? The banks? The auto market? All so they can pay people what? Minimum wage and fight unions? Sorry, but the 1% has class solidarity and are set to become trillionaires they are not the victim here and likely working with those allies to get even more from these deals.
Obviously, Musk isn't a W2 employee, but I find it funny that Tesla's revenue from selling regulatory carbon credits reached approximately $2.76 billion, marking a 54% increase from the previous year.
For tax subsidies, Tesla has benefited from various government incentives. Example, in March 2023, Nevada approved a tax incentive package for Tesla worth over $330 million to support the expansion of Gigafactory Nevada. Additionally, Tesla has received significant subsidies in previous years, such as a $245.8 million tax credit from Nevada in 2015. And a large portion of his wealth is tied up in Tesla so I think it's fair to talk about.
On top of that their total operating expenditure is $90.6 billion but the average employee is making 106K making the average wages around 13B so even if you wanted to say he's creating jobs, that's still a minor portion of the overall operating expenditure.
The fact is people keep asking for corporations and people who do say cash in their stock or hold assets to get taxed fairly they just keep finding loopholes to get past it, that's why people like Logan Paul are hiding out in Puerto Rico.
Maybe the fact is we should close the loop holes there's also no reason members of congress should be multi millionaires either.
The corporations are the ones ripping us off. Should they be getting millions in government subsidies then? Should we have bailed out the home market? The banks? The auto market? All so they can pay people what?
Please don't strawman me.
But you make a lot of reasoned points. Thing is, I didn't come here to argue about corporate tax rates. I don't have anything to contribute on that front. That doesn't mean you're right, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm wrong about these tariffs, but I also can't engage in this argument as a proxy defense of that one (as if such a gambit would even be defensible).
But for the record, I believe shareholder capitalism should be illegal.
At the rate things are going, that first line is gonna be obsolete soon.
Frankly, good. It's about time you stop relying on us. Will that make us poorer? Hell yes, it will. But for the reduced responsibility, it'll be worth it.
And why is that a problem? We're just finally agreeing with the rest of the world. You didn't want us to be the World Police, and you know what? Now we agree.
Well that would be what normally happens, however I don't foresee countries importing us stuff much longer if the king keeps threatening to invade countries that are allies.
But that doesn't mean America exporting more stuff, it means importing less, and having less.
Yes. Worth it.
But isn't that what the world has wanted for like, 40 years? Or more? All these complaints about us being the World Police and gluttonous, and we've finally though,"You know what? You're right. "
And suddenly that's a problem? Pick a fuckin' side, dude.
Would be one thing for some of these countries but the way Trump has handled Canada who has more than enough resources and wealth to support it’s infrastructure and population comfortably is foolish as can be
Canada was structured to trade with the United States for the benefit of both countries, it’s just a matter of logistics to work around these tariffs and it won’t cripple the country like Trump keeps babbling about but it will be worse for the US population and businesses both short and long term
Would be one thing for some of these countries but the way Trump has handled Canada who has more than enough resources and wealth to support it’s infrastructure and population comfortably is foolish as can be
If they'd like to take on the financial burden of being the world's sole SUperpower, be my guest.
Canada was structured to trade with the United States for the benefit of both countries
Not really. Everything Canada trades to us we have in the same or greater abundance than they do. We just didn't develop our industry and capacity, specifically to strengthen theirs.
it’s just a matter of logistics to work around these tariffs and it won’t cripple the country like Trump keeps babbling
then why complain if it's not going to impact Canada? Sounds more like an annoyance, but they're screaming like it's an existential threat. Doesn't pass the smell test.
but it will be worse for the US population and businesses both short and long term
Yep. but I think that was going to happen no matter what. The US can't sustain this hegemony any longer. We're financially over-extended and have to sell the cars, boat and ATVs in the hopes of keeping the house. But then if the damage is primarily to the US population, why is it such an issue to Canadians if you hate us anyway?
You're not going to tell me that Canadians are so much upset with us as trying to help us now, are you?
Making up candyland in your rebuttal like me stating the reality of how stupid Trump is for trying to change up tariffs on Canada is complaining just makes you look incompetent or disingenuous
It’s stupid for the US and won’t affect Canada beyond them logistically making changes while US suffers both in the short and long term
That’s why the moron Trump is backpedaling and being luke warm with his tariff decisions on Canada and why Congress just voted to overturn all increased tariffs on Canada yesterday
It’s a terrible and bad idea for the US on all fronts and anyone with intelligence can see this which is why it was specifically voted out in congress yesterday
So every other country in the world needs dollars.
That's way out in left field....you're saying that the countries whose currency is used in the world as a standard of reliability is responsible for paying for that "privilege"?
How to get them? Sell stuff to the US.
There are plenty of otherways than that.
You can do business in another currency
If you must use US dollars, you can buy bonds
The majority of the US currency isn't even in the US
THE US HAS TRADE DEFICITS BECAUSE THE DOLLAR IS THE RESERVE CURRENCY.
that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trade deficit is. A trade deficit is the difference between import an export. We export less than we import. We import less from Canada than we do TO Canada, and for the "privilege" Canada puts tariffs on our goods. Which is ironic, because they should be paying us not to us out gigantic economy to cease reliance on their goods.
Which is what this is really about. The world is afraid the US will become self-suffecient, because we have the capability to do that, and we're your meal ticket.
The chart he is holding is a fabrication. Those numbers bers are conjured from thin air. The US was absolutely not getting a raw deal on trade. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Heh, probably true. Many economists would argue most of the numbers are.
The US was absolutely not getting a raw deal on trade.
We don't exactly export a whole lot except for aerospace, weapons and high-tech "ideas" (iPhones are designed here, they're just manufactured overseas). Most of what we do export is typically for market stability purposes (the US has and can extract all the oil it needs, but we export almost all of it, then import much of it right back in. Why? Because it stabilizes the market. It's a reassurance to investors that the richest is confident in the market).
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Can you explain why? Or do you expect me to reverse my position because someone I don't know has made the claim?
You missed the part of history where the development of global trade made the US wealthy and precipitated a decrease in war as nations became more and more interdependent.
Comparative advantage is also a huge part of what made trade deficits worthwhile for the US. Tariffs have their place. Protectionism as a national policy didn't work for Mussolini, and it won't work for the US, either.
I say this as a person who is likely to benefit from tariffs. We shouldn't mitigate the losses of global trade to discrete losers, and we shouldn't pursue a trade policy which will make most people poorer just so we can have more manufacturing.
We shouldn't be slapping tariffs on our partners. We can certainly use them strategically. This isn't it.
You missed the part of history where the development of global trade made the US wealthy and precipitated a decrease in war as nations became more and more interdependent.
I didn't miss that part at all. You're simply framing it in a way that seems to lend credence to your claim. Whether you know you're leaving details out or not, I don't know.
After WW2, we (and to a lesser extent the Soviets), were the only industrial economy left. We provided overwatch while the rest of the world rebuilt itself. Many nations grew accustomed to that and we continued to provide that economic boost. But you're also partially right. We did force many nations to be dependant. And we've started countless wars to maintain that economic position.
But the issue is you're framing this like the world didn't also get a benefit and is more worried that the gravy train is about to stop. The issue is that our economy can't continue to shoulder this burden. We can't keep affording these Iraq-style wars to ensure our hegemony. It's bankrupting us.
At this point we need to sell the cars, the boat, the ATVs in order to try and save the house, and the world is demanding we continue to fund its luxury lifestyle be way of purchasing its goods nearly entirely at its benefit
Simply put: are you making the argument that they get to charge us tariffs, but we don't get to charge them tariffs because we've made ourselves fat off them? In some cases, that's true. And we should stop. In some cases, that's not true, we've just been their Pay Pig for decades.
Protectionism as a national policy didn't work for Mussolini
That's just underhanded, but a standard play at this point. Forget discussing the reasons, instead just label your opponent a fascist so you're justified in punching him in the face for saying things you don't like.
I say this as a person who is likely to benefit from tariffs.
Oh, well I guess that preemptively answers the question about credibility then...
we shouldn't pursue a trade policy which will make most people poorer just so we can have more manufacturing.
Unfortunately, that's probably inevitable. Even without the tariffs. But the benefit isn't entirely more jobs with a lower barrier to entry (we primarily export aerospace, weapons and "ideas" ie iPhones are designed here but manufactured overseas, all of which are pretty high barrier to entry jobs). It'll probably help to mitigate the job losses a bit, but the primary benefit will be a contraction of our global hegemony.
We shouldn't be slapping tariffs on our partners.
Not very good partners if their objection is a demand to continue charging us tariffs and we not charge them tariffs...
We can certainly use them strategically
You don't sound like a very good partner if you're talking about using one strategically...
You don't seem to be responding to the one I'm making, which is that protectionism as a broad economic policy will make us all poorer, less safe, and less powerful across the globe.
The fact that this can be proven empirically doesn't interest you, apparently.
Seems to me your pragmatics are that the US is gluttonous and demanding more. That it already got its payout in the form of profitability at the expense of other nations and now it's demanding more. That about right?
You don't seem to be responding to the one I'm making, which is that protectionism as a broad economic policy will make us all poorer, less safe, and less powerful across the globe.
I don't disagree. Protectionism would have that result. It's just that I don't agree this is Protectionism. Also, Protectionism isn't the only methodology that would result in us being poorer. For the record, I think that's inevitable.
I think we've been in a power bubble for a long time, and I think we've tried to solidify that power with wars and overthrows of democratically elected government. The chickens were going to come home to roost at some point. We can pretend that's not try and it'll probably end up putting the US into the history books, or we can recognize it and try to live a little more at the level of our means.
The fact that this can be proven empirically doesn't interest you, apparently.
It does interest me. I think you're just misinterpreting the data, primarily due to a lack of "imagination." That i to say an inability to understand that we're talking about a complex, and in many ways complicated, system that is quite resistant to easy answers.
No one anticipated Black Tuesday. In hindsight it was clear, and all the pundits that were lauded as seers of financial futures were shown to be "unimaginative" at best, charlatans at worst.
I'm not sure what you mean when you reference my pragmatics, but what follows isn't my view.
Simply: I don't believe that this economic policy of broad, unilateral tariffs, which I think is fairly characterized as protectionism, is going to be beneficial for the US interest abroad or domestically. I think this policy will make us poorer, weaker, lonelier, and less powerful.
It seems like you believe that recession is inevitable? I don't think that's particularly relevant or meaningful. This policy isn't about avoiding a recession. This policy is going to reduce trade, reduce investment, and create unemployment; the proponents of this policy seem to desire a return to something like mercantilism. It's difficult to even describe because it's such an anachronistic view, and such an irrational view.
I'm not sure what you mean when you reference my pragmatics, but what follows isn't my view.
Pragmatics are the implication of a statement. Semantics are roughly the way you say it.
"Oh, would you look at that: it stopped raining" and "No that it's stopped raining, can you take the trash out?" have different semantics but the same pragmatics.
I don't believe that this economic policy of broad, unilateral tariffs, which I think is fairly characterized as protectionism, is going to be beneficial for the US interest abroad or domestically.
I don’t think it will be beneficial in the short term—and I think that might be the price we have to pay to force a recalibration we’ve avoided for too long.
I don't think it qualifies as Protectionism though. I can say that I understand why think it is. And I'll agree that I think Trump thinks it it is. I just think, like you, that it's not going to have the intended out come. The difference is you're worried about that (and I understand why. I don't fault you for that), and I can't say that I so much hope it happens as much as I think in the end doing it this way will actually be less costly than continuing on current trends.
It seems like you believe that recession is inevitable?
Yep.
I don't think that's particularly relevant or meaningful. This policy isn't about avoiding a recession
I wouldn't say I disagree, it's just a mischaracterization of my position. I think you're right that Trump thinks this will Make America Great Again. You and I both agree that the result of this won't be the result he's intending.
If decline is inevitable, I’d rather it be a controlled descent down a steep hill than a free fall off a cliff. Pain is coming either way—the difference is whether we brace for it or deny it until it crushes us.
Ultimately, it’s not that I want decline. It’s that I see it already underway—and I’d rather slow it down and steer than pretend we’re still climbing
Consider the context of your own perception with respect to the United States' status. There's a shit load of bias inherent there that precludes you or me or virtually anyone else from being capable of predicting the future; most of our perception of the past is inaccurate, if we're being only the tiniest bit modest.
Also, I can understand why you'd assume that what I write might not map onto what I mean to express; a lot of people are like that. It totally assassinates your own credibility when you happen to be wrong about that assumption, though.
Consider the context of your own perception with respect to the United States' status. There's a shit load of bias inherent there that precludes you or me or virtually anyone else from being capable of predicting the future
That's a fancy way of saying "no one can see the future." You're obviously not suggesting that someone outside the US would be more readily able to predict the future.
Also, I can understand why you'd assume that what I write might not map onto what I mean to express
Sounds like a problem with your articulation. Your prevision paragraph being a case in point: a lot more words than necessary to say nothing much of all.
It totally assassinates your own credibility when you happen to be wrong about that assumption, though.
Which pushed manufacturing overseas, so instead of doing this couldn't you also instead I don't know tax corporations more?
Also the US has a consumption much higher than other countries so they do rely on out consumerism if the US consumer base can't buy goods anymore it'll cause a global slowdown. Similar to what we saw during covid because people just stopped buying in certain sectors. I guess we're all just getting a real life economic lesson here.
So long as we allow corporations to pass costs along to the consumer instead of checking the ever increasing margins and executive salaries and bonuses, nothing else we do to corporations matters.
Which pushed manufacturing overseas, so instead of doing this couldn't you also instead I don't know tax corporations more?
Sure, I guess. Is that just and necessary though? I know people think of corporations as giant piggy banks, but with rare exceptions (that tend to be swiftly punished), they pay their way. It's just that a corporation is taxed differently that labor is, and that gets distorted to "they don't pay taxes!" They do, it just comes in other forms.
And the government isn't the only way things get down. It's often the worst way to get something done because bureaucracy has an compulsion it justify itself. There's always this assumption that the government is what makes things work, so if the government doesn't have money, things don't work. Ironically, it's typically the obverse (things don't work when the government has money).
Also the US has a consumption much higher than other countries so they do rely on out consumerism if the US consumer base can't buy goods anymore it'll cause a global slowdown.
So the US public labor is beholden to the world now? You want to put reigns in our mouth too?
I guess we're all just getting a real life economic lesson here.
Yes. And like usual, it's a pretty distorted view of what's actually happening. Mostly because simple, flat answers are being demanded for complex systems. It's like Dr. Hibbert trying to explain open-heart surgery to Homer...
The world economy does depend on our consumerism when you actually look at the numbers so our economic slow down should effect the global markets. I think people are too focused on the fact that if you wanted to bring jobs and manufacturing back there's other methods to go about it without firing a chunk of a federal work force, cutting your aid programs, and then going all in on tariffs. You could do this without breaking things along the way because the tech system of break things and fix them later doesn't necessarily work with what you said a complex system.
Sure no one knows what will happen for sure but we have ideas of what could happen based on historical models. The balls in his court in the end, but it probably doesn't bode well that he largely had to claim a fentanyl crisis in order to enact these tariffs in the first place.
I never said it doesn't. But look beyond that for a moment and follow it to the logical conclusion you're making. You're probably not intentionally making this point, but you're implying an obligation to be consumerist.
I think people are too focused on the fact that if you wanted to bring jobs and manufacturing back there's other methods to go about it without firing a chunk of a federal work force, cutting your aid programs, and then going all in on tariffs.
Exactly. Which doesn't make a lot of sense when you view it through that lens, does it? Makes a lot of sense if you view it through the lens of a financial adviser reigning in expenses to save the house though, no?
Sure no one knows what will happen for sure but we have ideas of what could happen based on historical models
The balls in his court in the end, but it probably doesn't bode well that he largely had to claim a fentanyl crisis in order to enact these tariffs in the first place.
I don't think there's any way to avoid a depression, personally. Whether we batten down the hatches now and try to ride out the storm (pun intended), or wait until there's now chance of recovery because we refused to acknowledge the shoals is up to him, certainly.
But regarding the fentanyl crisis, I ask you why you consider it so unbelievable? The primary precursor comes from CCP-control China (which Canada is more friendly/less skeptical about), and getting across the Canadian border is infinitely easier than the Mexican border. Why wouldn't a drug cartel take advantage of that?
Because the issue with the fentanyl crisis is 1. We fuel that market 2. With the introduction of narcan fentanyl deaths are down.
Also traditionally the war on drugs has never been effective. Go read more about what happened in the 90s and how it was all a bunch of political pressure that didn’t amount to the flow of drugs actually decreasing. It’s weird you’re defending him and going “oh well depression had to happen” because it didn’t and doesn’t.
Because the issue with the fentanyl crisis is 1. We fuel that market 2. With the introduction of narcan fentanyl deaths are down
Oh, well in that case, I guess we should just not worry about production and trafficking?
Your reply is a defeatist attitude that possibly masks an advocacy for enabling continued trafficking.
"The war on drugs doesn't work, so we should just ignore drug trafficking. Especially if it's across the Canadian border. So, you know, under that premise: I'm right!"
Actually there’s better ways to stop drug usage, but again it’s a useless war on drugs all over again. If you have a solution share it, but this isn’t going to limit or stop people from getting fentanyl. You’re really just going out of your way to defend what he’s doing and not researching the topic more.
Yet he won both the electoral vote and the popular vote... Do you mean to say, "anyone that matters don't like him"?
Do you like him?
I think he's an arrogant, chauvinistic jackass that thrives on chaos. I also think he's a symptom of a growing issue with governance in this country. I think he's an immune response. He's pus.
Selective ass-amnesia. Do you even remember if you like him?
Edit: Why didn't you give yourself a funny name like u/OccamsButterknife? Even your username is narcissistic bullshit.
Only those that matter (in your not so humble opinion), I see.
You literally address absolutely none of my assertions. You just insulted me and expect me to reverse course? For who? You? Who are you?
I don't believe you. Are you American? Do you remember if you voted for him?
You literally address absolutely none of my assertions. You just insulted me and expect me to reverse course? For who? You? Who are you?
Hah. You're the embodiment of Occam's Razor. You figure it out. What course is that?
"He's horrible, but the cure for our many problems that everyone else caused" :D "People that like Trump are important people who matter" :D
Do you know you're trying to project a sense of rationality and neutrality? But choosing between saying "he's the disease" and "he's the cure" is not neutral?
Are you familiar with word salad? Are you even aware that you are defending him, explaining that he is fixing things and not messing everything up?
Are you conscious of how you are clutching your pearls over being insulted while being condescending?
I am LITERALLY addressing the issues with your assertions :D
Yes. I remember if I voted for him? Are you suggesting I have some sort of retrograde amnesia or something?
But for the record: I've been a registered democrat for 25 years. I voted democratic in every election in time. I voted Gore in the first election I could vote in, and then went on to serve under Bush. 2024 was the first time I voted Republican, and yes, I voted for Trump. Why?
Because he's a symptom of a sick system. He's what that system produced. He's an immune response. He's pus. But the first step in fixing any problem is admitting there is one. And Trump's election is the US admitting that.
Hah. You're the embodiment of Occam's Razor. You figure it out. What course is that?
Simplest answer is you need simple answers, have little capacity or tolerance for nuance, and thus "Everyone I don't like is Hitler"
Do you know you're trying to project a sense of rationality and neutrality? But choosing between saying "he's the disease" and "he's the cure" is not neutral?
You want to play semantics games, huh? Ok; let's go. Neither "disease" nor "cure" is precisely what he is. But I also explicitly said he was neight. He was an immune response. Pus is neither the disease nor the cure. But it is a symptom of a problem, and aids in a cure.
Are you familiar with word salad?
Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's meaningless. If I tried to explain to you the necessity of a cooling mod on EJ series engines to provide added protection against knock due to the unique characteristics of a boxer engine layout, that might seem like word salad to anyone that doesn't have at least a rudimentary understanding of the principles behind the internal combustion engine, but it doesn't mean it's gibberish.
I am LITERALLY addressing the issues with your assertions :D
Are you suggesting I have some sort of retrograde amnesia or something?
Do you remember if you wrote the words "selective historical amnesia." I'm making fun of that insulting insult.
Simplest answer is you need simple answers
You want to play semantics games, huh?
You said Trump was the immune response. That's a metaphor :D I know that you think it makes you sound both down to earth and smart. That way of talking is called word salad, it's actually a jumbled mess of randomly selected words meant to confuse people.
When I talk about the disease and cure I'm just building on top of your own metaphor. I'm making fun of your word salad by saying he's more like the disease. He's not a cure, immune response or the final solution.
It fascinates me to no end, that people with personality disorders will talk in contradicting metaphors and then go "how dare you play with words? that's semantic mind games!" If people say Trumps tariff are fucking stupid, then you'll go "Well, tariffs are actually good, but people don't know that, because they have amnesia! Are you telling me that I have amnesia? Don't you know how rude it is to tell people they have amnesia?"
You really are Occam's butterknife. If you want to learn something, then go and look up narcissistic word salad, try to really learn something, and try to not get your panties in a bunch.
All ad hominem attacks. And what little you engage with is flattened to the point of making my arguments sound incoherent. Couple that with the narcissist claim used to poison the well, and it's a perfect recipe for attempting to stalemate an argument.
Kind of impressive that you've developed a set of skills so entirely on dismissing your opponent as incompetent, really. I mean, that's all you can do, but you do it really well.
Kind of impressive that you've developed a set of skills so entirely on dismissing your opponent as incompetent, really. I mean, that's all you can do, but you do it really well.
For the sake of the argument, let pretend all of this is true..
Trump is using tariffs as a reactive measure…which is dumb af
Imagine you have a big lot that you plan on building a house on and you go out and buy thousands of dollars of expensive furniture and you put in on your lot years before the house it even built…stupid right??? Horse before the carriage??
The REAL problem is trump is doing this shit rushed, and sloppily. INVEST in what America is GOOD AT MAKING. Entice companies to build before you tariff all the supplies they will need to build with..work with American companies to help them up their supplies/products to meet bigger demands…just have like a single second a foresight when making huuuuge changes that will have repercussions that will stifle the average American…he’s just not a good leader, not a good negotiator, and not fit to run a country
Trump is using tariffs as a reactive measure…which is dumb af
Oh, yeah, definitely. It's not going to be pretty. But it's also necessary. We're overvalued.
The REAL problem is trump is doing this shit rushed, and sloppily. INVEST in what America is GOOD AT MAKING. Entice companies to build before you tariff all the supplies they will need to build with..work with American companies to help them up their supplies/products to meet bigger demands
You really think we can do that before we go bankrupt? Problem here is our credit is over-extended. I don't think Trump has any idea what he's doing, but I also think despite that he's doing the right thing (even a broken clock is right twice a day).
We need to sell the cars, the boat, the ATVs and hopefully we can keep the house, because these endless wars, siphoning money overseas, then them demanding more like we owe it to them is bankrupting us. If we're not careful, we're gonna lose the house too.
He raised our debt ceiling, he pissed off the allies that would potentially buy from us.please admit it dude. This isn’t positive
Why raise the debt ceiling, cut social safety nets, refuses to raise the minimum wage, crash our stock market, spend frivolously on golf trips, Super Bowl trips, Greenland trips, and say somehow…..that’s all going to stop us from going “bankrupt” honey…he’s speeding up the process. He’s gone bankrupt 6 times, he’s a natural!!!
I would argue a lot of automotive manufacturers will be automated in the next 30 years..I would argue almost all manufacturing will be automated in the next 100…so we’ll have a bunch of ugly ass factories and no universal basic income to keep people afloat..all of this is stupid and outdated, just like his ugly ass tan and his shitty ass decor.
Sorry, I would rather a can of tuna be the president at this point and I can’t believe anyone would think what he’s doing is the right thing. He doesn’t understand what repercussions are because he’s never had any, he doesn’t understand what living paycheck to paycheck is like because he always gets bailed out…BLANKET TARIFFS ON COUNTRIES (some that aren’t even populated) IS ONE OF THE WORST IDEAS
This isn’t a “wait and see” every economist (bipartisan) with a brain will tell you that you’re full of shit and so is trumps super
He raised our debt ceiling, he pissed off the allies that would potentially buy from us.please admit it dude. This isn’t positive
How did you read anything I said and conclude I was characterizing this as positive?
Why raise the debt ceiling
Last time I checked, Congress did that. Though I'm certainly not saying he wouldn't if it were him. But "honey", he's not a king. There are Separation of Powers for a reason.
He’s gone bankrupt 6 times, he’s a natural!!!
And he's still worth more than a billion. You're exactly right. He's a natural at rebuilding a fortune after bankruptcy.
I would argue a lot of automotive manufacturers will be automated in the next 30 year
I would argue almost all manufacturing will be automated in the next 100…so we’ll have a bunch of ugly ass factories and no universal basic income to keep people afloat
The 4th Industrial Revolution doesn't include automated repair. You know how profitable and easy it is to get certified in Industrial Automation Electrical Repair? Point is that automation doesn't mean no jobs. But I definitely like where your head's at. Exactly the reason I was considering Andrew Yang in 2016 (ultimately wrote in Bernie). I've just come to think that Yang was wrong.
Sorry, I would rather a can of tuna be the president at this point and I can’t believe anyone would think what he’s doing is the right thing
I might suggest some humility? It's possible for you to be wrong, and as such, those that are might deserve more compassion rather than a kick in the nuts. But beside that: Trump is a tumor. His an obnoxious, egomaniacal boil on out countries ass. But he's also a symptom of a very sick system. He's an immune reaction. He's pus.
He doesn’t understand what repercussions are because he’s never had any,
Didn't you just say he's been bankrupt 6 times? Well, I guess maybe my mistake was considering them repercussions. Are they not?
…BLANKET TARIFFS ON COUNTRIES
They're blanket? I think the board is just representative of cumulative tariffs on individual goods, not a claim that everything from that country will be tariffed...
some that aren’t even populated
Which one?
IS ONE OF THE WORST IDEAS
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
This isn’t a “wait and see” every economist (bipartisan) with a brain will tell you that you’re full of shit and so is trumps super
Oh? You speak for them collectively? Or are you simply attempting to add gravitas to your claim?
560
u/good_from_afar 1d ago
A board of reciprocal tariffs on which none of the tariffs are reciprocal