An articulate pro-MAGA argument for a tariff reset

[Mac1958]

Rethinking Trade Tariffs: Why a Global Trade Reset is Good for Growth

For those of us who are pro-tariff but very much against the way this whole thing has been handled, that's a link to an articulate, intelligent argument for what Trump is doing. Obviously it's one-sided, but it is thoughtful and reasonable.

This is precisely the kind of argument that could have been made to our trading parters and (former) friends behind closed doors from the beginning. We could even have put the hammer down and said something like "America is going to see to it that this reset happens. We very much want to work closely with you on it, but please understand it's time for a reset". But this insane clown show was not required.

That's how it's done in a respectful, intelligent, professional way, instead of resorting to insults, accusations, mockery, anger, intimidation and punishment. We've now seriously damaged our relationships with our (former) friends, they're creating new trade relationships that don't include us, and it never had to happen.

 

[Mac1958]

Unfortunately the EU and UK aren't on the same page. Which is weird to see.

EU targets American aircraft as Trump tariff dispute heats up

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Unfortunately the EU and UK aren't on the same page. Which is weird to see.

EU targets American aircraft as Trump tariff dispute heats up

Not so hard to understand.
We are the descendants of England, culturally. It is natural for us to get along.
By the same token, the English have always distrusted the Europeans..and we carried that on in our culture.
Of course, vice-versa applies. It's quite easy for Europeans to hate on GB and the US.

England and the EU were always an uneasy fit.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No tariff reset is good.

 

[Muhammed]

We could even have put the hammer down and said something like "America is going to see to it that this reset happens. We very much want to work closely with you on it, but please understand it's time for a reset". But this insane clown show was not required.

Have you been living under a rock? That is synonymous with Trump's argument.

He just doesn't say it in such a weak ass wishy washy wussy way like you did. That's no way to negotiate any deal, let alone a deal with $billions on the line.

Being an insane clown beats being a wussy at the negotiation table every time.

 

[Robert W]

Rethinking Trade Tariffs: Why a Global Trade Reset is Good for Growth

For those of us who are pro-tariff but very much against the way this whole thing has been handled, that's a link to an articulate, intelligent argument for what Trump is doing. Obviously it's one-sided, but it is thoughtful and reasonable.

This is precisely the kind of argument that could have been made to our trading parters and (former) friends behind closed doors from the beginning. We could even have put the hammer down and said something like "America is going to see to it that this reset happens. We very much want to work closely with you on it, but please understand it's time for a reset". But this insane clown show was not required.

That's how it's done in a respectful, intelligent, professional way, instead of resorting to insults, accusations, mockery, anger, intimidation and punishment. We've now seriously damaged our relationships with our (former) friends, they're creating new trade relationships that don't include us, and it never had to happen.

Trump commenced by making announcements. But after that he delayed heavy tariffs and used very small tariffs to remind those nations this country is serious. Look, if you are married, it is easy to imagine you married to a woman who has different ideas on things mattering to her than you have and vice versa. No nations will show up telling us, sorry we tariffed the hell out of you and now we are sorry, until Trump has his talks with them. This is a solution to a problem done the slow way in fact.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Higher prices and probably recession will be the effects, and they will affect all of us.

 

[dudmuck]

Higher prices and probably recession will be the effects, and they will affect all of us.

 

[berg80]

Not so hard to understand.

Starmer has been kissing trump's behind since before taking power. Which is why the orange egotist said England treated "us" with great respect. "Us" meaning Dotard.

As disjointed and contradictory as the article is it gets the point across. There is a case to made for targeted tariffs as a redress of trade grievances and to protect industries being taken advantage of. Unfortunately, the Tariff Man conflates trade imbalances with getting screwed. He sees trade as a zero sum game. Either we have a surplus with a nation or we are losing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for the goal of re-industrializing America with protectionist policies, it's doomed to fail. Some manufacturing requiring highly skilled workers could be started here but lower wage jobs have been lost forever to places where labor is cheap. Above all, if some jobs are to come back investors in companies that will employ them need long term certainty that their investment will be rewarded. Not the constant flip flopping of the most fickle, economically meddlesome prez in modern history.

 

[citygator]

Rethinking Trade Tariffs: Why a Global Trade Reset is Good for Growth

For those of us who are pro-tariff but very much against the way this whole thing has been handled, that's a link to an articulate, intelligent argument for what Trump is doing. Obviously it's one-sided, but it is thoughtful and reasonable.

This is precisely the kind of argument that could have been made to our trading parters and (former) friends behind closed doors from the beginning. We could even have put the hammer down and said something like "America is going to see to it that this reset happens. We very much want to work closely with you on it, but please understand it's time for a reset". But this insane clown show was not required.

That's how it's done in a respectful, intelligent, professional way, instead of resorting to insults, accusations, mockery, anger, intimidation and punishment. We've now seriously damaged our relationships with our (former) friends, they're creating new trade relationships that don't include us, and it never had to happen.

I found it an extremely weak argument because it was non-specific and played the “America first” language without answering a litany of questions.

It did not answer:

1. Why onshore? Our employment rate is full employment level with millions of openings. Factory jobs are LOW paying jobs not HIGH paying jobs. Service jobs are easier and pay better and are MORE valuable creating MORE economic benefit.
2. What is unbalanced? The argument assumes trade parameters are wildly unbalanced without offering a shred of proof. Trade for many of the nations in the middle of this trade disaster enjoyed MFN status and practically free trade between our nations except for a few selected industries.
3. What about automation? The author argues against himself claiming we need to onshore manufacturing for jobs then says labor is nearly unimportant because automation is replacing labor. He is wrong. A shoe for instance is too complex for automation.

Targeted tariffs against bad actors to rein them in on specific issues makes sense. A broad and random tax on Americans hidden as tariffs that are “paid by the shipping country” is an economic disaster. People don’t understand trade.

When I buy something it creates consumer surplus. If I buy a six pack for $10 it means it is worth more than $10 to me, so I get consumer SURPLUS = the value of the six pack - $10, the store gets producer surplus = $10 - cost.

This demonstrates why the way we measure the trade deficit is poor. We measure the $10 - cost because it can be objectively measured. & guess what sys maximizes total surplus? Yep, pure competition with no taxes. Taxes reduce both producer & consumer surplus creating a destruction of wealth EVEN counting the cut the gov gets.

 

[Mac1958]

I found it an extremely weak argument because it was non-specific and played the “America first” language without answering a litany of questions.

It did not answer:

1. Why onshore? Our employment rate is full employment level with millions of openings. Factory jobs are LOW paying jobs not HIGH paying jobs. Service jobs are easier and pay better and are MORE valuable creating MORE economic benefit.
2. What is unbalanced? The argument assumes trade parameters are wildly unbalanced without offering a shred of proof. Trade for many of the nations in the middle of this trade disaster enjoyed MFN status and practically free trade between our nations except for a few selected industries.
3. What about automation? The author argues against himself claiming we need to onshore manufacturing for jobs then says labor is nearly unimportant because automation is replacing labor. He is wrong. A shoe for instance is too complex for automation.

Targeted tariffs against bad actors to rein them in on specific issues makes sense. A broad and random tax on Americans hidden as tariffs that are “paid by the shipping country” is an economic disaster. People don’t understand trade.

When I buy something it creates consumer surplus. If I buy a six pack for $10 it means it is worth more than $10 to me, so I get consumer SURPLUS = the value of the six pack - $10, the store gets producer surplus = $10 - cost.

This demonstrates why the way we measure the trade deficit is poor. We measure the $10 - cost because it can be objectively measured. & guess what sys maximizes total surplus? Yep, pure competition with no taxes. Taxes reduce both producer & consumer surplus creating a destruction of wealth EVEN counting the cut the gov gets.

View attachment 1109766

Theoretically, tariffs (if used properly) will protect domestic producers by mitigating imbalances. So used properly and surgically, they simply allow us to maintain our standard of living by allowing producers to keep labor costs (and yes, many prices) higher. IF they are used carefully.

When massive, comical, across-the-board tariffs are applied by an ignorant caveman who has zero understanding of global macroeconomics, they punish both American producers AND American distributors by artificially inflating the costs of EVERYTHING, including multiple swipes at inputs as they cross borders more than once before they're sold.

This could have been done so differently, and in a way that didn't destroy global relationships we've spent 80 years building. The idea of global soft power, so indirectly important to our security and economy (even if the cost is certain concessions on trade) is far too ******* complicated for orange cavemen.

 

[cnm]

Not so hard to understand.
We are the descendants of England, culturally. It is natural for us to get along.
By the same token, the English have always distrusted the Europeans..and we carried that on in our culture.
Of course, vice-versa applies. It's quite easy for Europeans to hate on GB and the US.

England and the EU were always an uneasy fit.

I thought Germans were the major immigrant group to the US.

 

[cnm]

For those of us who are pro-tariff but very much against the way this whole thing has been handled, that's a link to an articulate, intelligent argument for what Trump is doing. Obviously it's one-sided, but it is thoughtful and reasonable.

What we’re witnessing now is a serious reevaluation of global trade mechanisms, led by the U.S. Rather than maintaining a status quo that no longer serves U.S. national interests, the Trump administration is questioning whether the existing rules still make sense—and this is a crucial step in any dynamic restructuring process.​

Does any of Chump's tariff setting logic make sense? The article seems to ignore that.

Jeffrey Sweeney is a lifelong entrepreneur and successful fund manager with decades of experience in corporate finance and asset management. He is Chairman and CEO of US Capital Global (www.uscapital.com), a full-service global private financial group headquartered in San Francisco with primary offices in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, Miami, London, Milan, Zurich, and Dubai.​

​

Now there's a surprise.

 

[Mac1958]

​

Does any of Chump's tariff setting logic make sense? The article seems to ignore that.

Trump has some longstanding and simplistic vendetta against tariffs, that when combined with his abject ignorance of macroeconomics, gives us the moronic moves he's made.

There are obviously individual trade issues that need to be addressed, but Trump can't think at a micro level. So he just turns everything upside down with zero (0) understanding of the implications.

 

[HikerGuy83]

No tariff reset is good.

Great rational.....

Oh wait.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Rethinking Trade Tariffs: Why a Global Trade Reset is Good for Growth

Rethinking Trade Tariffs: Why a Global Trade Reset is Good for Growth

.

But this insane clown show was not required.

That's how it's done in a respectful, intelligent, professional way, instead of resorting to insults, accusations, mockery, anger, intimidation and punishment. We've now seriously damaged our relationships with our (former) friends, they're creating new trade relationships that don't include us, and it never had to happen.

Rethinking Trade Tariffs: Why a Global Trade Reset is Good for Growth
.
But this insane clown show was not required.

.
99% of what we know about the tariffs has been filtered thru the MSM....so to help from opinion.

They have TVs and refrigerators they have to sale and get chicks for free..

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Trump calls emptying U.S. ports a 'good thing' despite ...​

Yahoo
https://www.yahoo.com › news › trump-calls-emptying...
2 days ago — Trump calls emptying U.S. ports a 'good thing' despite supply-chain panic because 'that means we lose less money' · Logistics and trade concerns.

Trump not only acknowledged the shipping slowdown in a Thursday press briefing announcing a trade deal with the UK; he seemed heartened by it.

"We're seeing as a result that ports here in the U.S., the traffic has really slowed and now thousands of dockworkers and truck drivers are worried about their jobs," a reporter said in the press briefing.

"That means we lose less money,” Trump said. “When you say it slowed down, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.”


I'm in the same shape with my grocery store.

I have a trade deficit with them to the tune of give or take $10,000 a year and you know what, they never bought anything from me.

I'll be glad when their shelves are empty.

I'll save $$$.

 

[Mac1958]

"That means we lose less money,” Trump said. “When you say it slowed down, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.”​

What we may never know is whether he's just spinning madly or if he really looks at it that way.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What we may never know is whether he's just spinning madly or if he really looks at it that way.

Spinning madly.
I just gave my parody of his 'logic", above.

Everyone will be rich...........With nothing to buy.

 

[cnm]

There are obviously individual trade issues that need to be addressed

Really, the distribution of wealth in the US is what has to be addressed. Blaming China for Americans' cupidity is like blaming Mexico for fentanyl.