Trump conflates trade deficits with tariffs, resulting in the ridiculous figures on the chart he presented.
Switzerland does not imposes a 61 percent tariff on American goods; nor does Vietnam impose a 90 percent tariff rate against our products. These figures were calculated using a formula based upon America’s existing trade deficit in goods, which is a completely different matter.
Suppose our trade in goods with the rest of the rest of the world were totally in balance, just as Trump wishes. Under those circumstances, the US would naturally have trade surpluses with some countries and trade deficits with others, with net result being a wash.
But according to Trump’s framework, countries with which we have a trade surplus would have a new 10 percent tariff, while those countries with which we have a deficit would have much larger tariffs imposed, and those tariffs would be increased if they imposed retaliatory tariffs.
Apparently, the goal of Trump’s tariffs would sharply reduce, even eliminate, all of our trade with the rest of the world.
Economic growth requires individual freedom, including freedom of production and trade. It requires zero controls on prices and wages. It requires sound money, and zero theft of income by tax-thievery in all of its forms, including tariffs--legalized theft, but theft nonetheless. It requires people being masters and controllers of their government, not the other way around.
And this interview between Danny Haiphong and Pepe Escobar, on his return from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's "Shanghai Spirit" gathering, discussing the present attitude of the Chinese people on Trump's tariffs:
As a former Certified Financial Planner with an MBA in finance, the initial tariff announcement was stupider than anything I could have imagined.
Targeted, industry-specific tariffs have their place. Punishing countries and American consumers because other countries are too poor to afford our goods makes no sense whatsoever.
The biggest, most beautiful own-goal in my lifetime.
"Targeted, industry-specific tariffs have their place."
What, exactly are their place? In what contexts in the real world do tariffs benefit both producers and consumers?
How do tariffs in those contexts increase efficiencies, reduce costs of production, increase producers' revenues, and decrease wholesale costs and retail prices?
How do tariffs in those contexts expand freedom of trade?
Following is an excerpt from Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s 04/17/25 essay "Trumps Insane Tariff Policy" at Mises Wire:
"Eric Schliesser, who teaches political science at the University of Amsterdam, suggests that Trump is seeking to concentrate power in himself and to advance his own financial interests and those of his cronies:
'...[T]ariffs are an expression of mistrust against individuals’ judgments; they limit and even deny us our ability to shape our lives with our meaningful associates as we see fit. And tariffs do so, in part, by changing the pattern of costs on us, and, in part, by altering the political landscape in favor of the well-connected few. Of course, in practice, tariffs are always hugely regressive by raising costs on consumer products. This is, in fact, a familiar effect of mercantilism and has been a rallying cry for liberals since Adam Smith and the Corn league. That is, some of the most insidious and dangerous effects of tariffs are evidently political in character. They create monopoly profits for the connected few, who can, thereby, entrench themselves against competitors, regulators, and consumers. It is well known that once a tariff is entrenched it is incredibly difficult to remove. They create permanent temptations to bribe the executive and those with access to him.'"
Tariffs can help boost domestic production, which in certain sectors can help with employment. Also, domestic production of certain items can be important for national security purchases.
Biden put a 100% tariffs on EVs from China. There was nary a whiff of discontent there.
Also, as someone with a background in finance and plenty of practical experience in American politics, I really don't care what a poli sci professor in Amsterdam thinks. Sorry.
Price and trade controls, including tariffs, and minimum and maximum price edicts, have been government-imposed blights on peoples' lives and freedom for thousands of years.
Kind of depends on who actually pays the freight on those tariffs. "Conventional wisdom" -- an often unreliable source -- says that it is the importer who does so.
For example, say that US car dealers import cars from Canada and that Trump puts a tariff, an import tax, of, say 25%, on those cars. So those dealers either pay all of that tax and then pass it all along to their customers. Or they decide either to take less profit or decide not to import those cars if the tax is greater than the profit. Or those dealers negotiate a lower price from the Canadian manufacturers who likewise have to make the same decision, i.e., whether the required reduction in selling price is greater than their profits.
The question then is whether US consumers will pay at least something extra for Canadian made cars -- and other products under similar tariffs -- or do without them if they can't get the same or equivalents elsewhere including within the US
But whose? Trump's? Can't say that I've listened in great detail to his -- my response was something of a general comment. Will need to take a closer look at the transcript -- more bang for the buck than listening -- but the fellow you had at the beginning seems to make a good point about the deficit. Been some time since I read much history, but that of the 14th to 17th or so seems characterized by societies and civilizations collapsing because of debt.
But kinda think too many are overreacting to many of his policies and EOs -- tariffs and "restoring biological truth to government" in particular. He's certainly thrown the fox in amongst the chickens with more justification in some cases than others. Relative to tariffs and Canada, though this applies to other countries as well, I'm not sure that countervailing tariffs aren't a case of overreacting at best, if not a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Ultimately those other countries have decide whether they'll take a lower price for the goods they sell or not sell them at all to US consumers.
As for "biological truth" -- one of Trump's better policies which even Richard Dawkins has endorsed -- people will have to decide whether those definitions are more accurate and useful or not. You may wish to take a position on that as your "good buddy", Colin Wright, is peddling a set of definitions that are in some significant and problematic variance with that "biological truth".
Trump conflates trade deficits with tariffs, resulting in the ridiculous figures on the chart he presented.
Switzerland does not imposes a 61 percent tariff on American goods; nor does Vietnam impose a 90 percent tariff rate against our products. These figures were calculated using a formula based upon America’s existing trade deficit in goods, which is a completely different matter.
Suppose our trade in goods with the rest of the rest of the world were totally in balance, just as Trump wishes. Under those circumstances, the US would naturally have trade surpluses with some countries and trade deficits with others, with net result being a wash.
But according to Trump’s framework, countries with which we have a trade surplus would have a new 10 percent tariff, while those countries with which we have a deficit would have much larger tariffs imposed, and those tariffs would be increased if they imposed retaliatory tariffs.
Apparently, the goal of Trump’s tariffs would sharply reduce, even eliminate, all of our trade with the rest of the world.
Economic growth requires individual freedom, including freedom of production and trade. It requires zero controls on prices and wages. It requires sound money, and zero theft of income by tax-thievery in all of its forms, including tariffs--legalized theft, but theft nonetheless. It requires people being masters and controllers of their government, not the other way around.
Peter, Here is an excellent substack by Eric Zuesse. It is long but very worth reading.
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/the-asian-century-has-begun-its-being
And this interview between Danny Haiphong and Pepe Escobar, on his return from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's "Shanghai Spirit" gathering, discussing the present attitude of the Chinese people on Trump's tariffs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHtUMQ2cYV4
As a former Certified Financial Planner with an MBA in finance, the initial tariff announcement was stupider than anything I could have imagined.
Targeted, industry-specific tariffs have their place. Punishing countries and American consumers because other countries are too poor to afford our goods makes no sense whatsoever.
The biggest, most beautiful own-goal in my lifetime.
"Targeted, industry-specific tariffs have their place."
What, exactly are their place? In what contexts in the real world do tariffs benefit both producers and consumers?
How do tariffs in those contexts increase efficiencies, reduce costs of production, increase producers' revenues, and decrease wholesale costs and retail prices?
How do tariffs in those contexts expand freedom of trade?
Following is an excerpt from Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s 04/17/25 essay "Trumps Insane Tariff Policy" at Mises Wire:
"Eric Schliesser, who teaches political science at the University of Amsterdam, suggests that Trump is seeking to concentrate power in himself and to advance his own financial interests and those of his cronies:
'...[T]ariffs are an expression of mistrust against individuals’ judgments; they limit and even deny us our ability to shape our lives with our meaningful associates as we see fit. And tariffs do so, in part, by changing the pattern of costs on us, and, in part, by altering the political landscape in favor of the well-connected few. Of course, in practice, tariffs are always hugely regressive by raising costs on consumer products. This is, in fact, a familiar effect of mercantilism and has been a rallying cry for liberals since Adam Smith and the Corn league. That is, some of the most insidious and dangerous effects of tariffs are evidently political in character. They create monopoly profits for the connected few, who can, thereby, entrench themselves against competitors, regulators, and consumers. It is well known that once a tariff is entrenched it is incredibly difficult to remove. They create permanent temptations to bribe the executive and those with access to him.'"
Tariffs can help boost domestic production, which in certain sectors can help with employment. Also, domestic production of certain items can be important for national security purchases.
Biden put a 100% tariffs on EVs from China. There was nary a whiff of discontent there.
Also, as someone with a background in finance and plenty of practical experience in American politics, I really don't care what a poli sci professor in Amsterdam thinks. Sorry.
I don’t think you’ll get to the truth from “the wisdom of crowds“.
We are in uncharted territory here.
You will only discover the truth about Trump‘s trade, tariffs through the lens of history.
Did you find his arguments persuasive?
Hardly "uncharted territory".
Price and trade controls, including tariffs, and minimum and maximum price edicts, have been government-imposed blights on peoples' lives and freedom for thousands of years.
"The People" have to pay for the services they demand from government one way or another. Or maybe you think "Other people" should do so? 🤔🙄
Kind of depends on who actually pays the freight on those tariffs. "Conventional wisdom" -- an often unreliable source -- says that it is the importer who does so.
For example, say that US car dealers import cars from Canada and that Trump puts a tariff, an import tax, of, say 25%, on those cars. So those dealers either pay all of that tax and then pass it all along to their customers. Or they decide either to take less profit or decide not to import those cars if the tax is greater than the profit. Or those dealers negotiate a lower price from the Canadian manufacturers who likewise have to make the same decision, i.e., whether the required reduction in selling price is greater than their profits.
The question then is whether US consumers will pay at least something extra for Canadian made cars -- and other products under similar tariffs -- or do without them if they can't get the same or equivalents elsewhere including within the US
Did you find his arguments persuasive?
You say that to all the girls? 😉🙂
But whose? Trump's? Can't say that I've listened in great detail to his -- my response was something of a general comment. Will need to take a closer look at the transcript -- more bang for the buck than listening -- but the fellow you had at the beginning seems to make a good point about the deficit. Been some time since I read much history, but that of the 14th to 17th or so seems characterized by societies and civilizations collapsing because of debt.
Not all of them. Some of them.
👍😉 Good -- now I don't feel so "slighted" 😉🙂 As Monty Python once put it, "Were all individuals (no, I'm not)":
https://youtu.be/BgaBuMv_BvA?si=Wk5b2qrDxUm7htEZ
But kinda think too many are overreacting to many of his policies and EOs -- tariffs and "restoring biological truth to government" in particular. He's certainly thrown the fox in amongst the chickens with more justification in some cases than others. Relative to tariffs and Canada, though this applies to other countries as well, I'm not sure that countervailing tariffs aren't a case of overreacting at best, if not a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Ultimately those other countries have decide whether they'll take a lower price for the goods they sell or not sell them at all to US consumers.
As for "biological truth" -- one of Trump's better policies which even Richard Dawkins has endorsed -- people will have to decide whether those definitions are more accurate and useful or not. You may wish to take a position on that as your "good buddy", Colin Wright, is peddling a set of definitions that are in some significant and problematic variance with that "biological truth".