Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[TimR]

 

 

[Cato]

Looks like there's more on the way

 

https://news.sky.com/story/today-is-the-big-one-trump-says-he-will-unveil-reciprocal-trade-tariffs-13308449

 

 

[Al Krow]

Question: if another country sells us $billions worth of cars, partly 'cos we only charge them 2.5% tariffs, but they slap on 10% tariffs on our car exports and take hardly any vehicles from us, would we feel that was fair on our domestic car workers?

[Woodinblack]

34 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Question: if another country sells us $billions worth of cars, partly 'cos we only charge them 2.5% tariffs, but they slap on 10% tariffs on our car exports and take hardly any vehicles from us, would we feel that was fair on our domestic car workers?

 

Depends - in chinas case they subsidise their car makers, so it is already unfair on our domestic car workers, same as their aluminium

 

[peteb]

42 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Question: if another country sells us $billions worth of cars, partly 'cos we only charge them 2.5% tariffs, but they slap on 10% tariffs on our car exports and take hardly any vehicles from us, would we feel that was fair on our domestic car workers?

 

It's more about the economic consequences rather just what you think is 'fair'. If you have an inefficient car industry that makes inferior products (like the USA and what the UK was like in the 70s), you still won't sell that many more cars and just drive up the cost for your consumers (who then won't be able to afford other goods, possibly domestically made). 

 

Generally, tariffs just drive up costs / inflation, lower living standards and protect inefficient industries. The exception could be to protect domestic production where certain countries unfairly subsidise exports (as China has done) to generate currency surpluses and attack otherwise efficient industries in competing countries to gain a market advantage. 

 

Edited February 13 by peteb

[Al Krow]

8 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

It's more about the economic consequences rather just what you think is 'fair'. If you have an inefficient car industry that makes inferior products (like the USA and what the UK was like in the 70s), you still won't sell that many more cars and just drive up the cost for your consumers (who then won't be able to afford other goods, possibly domestically made). 

 

Generally, tariffs just drive up costs / inflation, lower living standards and protect inefficient industries. The exception could be to protect domestic production where certain countries unfairly subsidise exports (as China has done) to generate currency surpluses and attack otherwise efficient industries in competing countries to gain a market advantage. 

 

 

Sure, Pete, but what about if you already have a super efficient domestic car industry (eg Germany) but decide to slap on much higher tariffs on imports than the overseas countries do on your exports, anyway?

 

No real grounds for whining if your major export markets decide to match your tariff levels?

 

And what about agricultural produce high import tariffs driving up food prices for everyone?

 

I don't think it's fair to say the USA are the bad guys in everything here?

[prowla]

41 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Depends - in chinas case they subsidise their car makers, so it is already unfair on our domestic car workers, same as their aluminium

 

 

And that's the point - it's not really free trade if one side is being subsidised.

They were selling steel at a loss; not sure if that's still the case.

[peteb]

29 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

Sure, Pete, but what about if you already have a super efficient domestic car industry (eg Germany) but decide to slap on much higher tariffs on imports than the overseas countries do on your exports, anyway?

 

No real grounds for whining if your major export markets decide to match your tariff levels?

 

And what about agricultural produce high import tariffs driving up food prices for everyone?

 

I don't think it's fair to say the USA are the bad guys in everything here?

 

I think that there maybe some lower EU tariffs on cars, but Germany doesn't have specific tariffs to protect it's car industry. Apparently, Germany have actually lobbied and voted against the introduction of European Union tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (according to Reuters). The EU generally has free trade deals with most of the major markets across the world 

 

Actually, I think it is fair to say the USA are the bad guys in everything here. Trump has said that he wants to force German firms to build cars in the USA, despite the higher costs / lower standards of the American car industry. Other countries don't buy American agricultural produce for health & safety reasons rather than tariffs. It's not a question of America matching European tariff levels, Trump is threatening to go way beyond that. There's no getting around that Trump is using tariffs as both an economic and political weapon against countries that didn't support him (or were too friendly with the Biden administration) in the past. 

 

Edited February 13 by peteb

[Al Krow]

The EU levies 10% tariffs on US car imports

The US levies 2.5% on EU car imports

 

Are the US bad guys for looking to match the higher tariffs that the EU levies? 

[TimR]

The point is that Tarrifs aren't supposed to be used as punishments. They're supposed to be used to adjust free trade so that it works. In the same way as having a purely Mercantile system, where everything that's traded has a tarrif on it, doesn't work either. 

 

Countries should stick to what they do best and let other countries do what they do best.

 

Trump is trying to rewind the country to the 1700s where it was ruled by a king and made huge amounts from its exports. The problem is - it doesn't have exports and just installing a King won't have the results he thinks it will.

 

France had a solution to that. 

Edited February 13 by TimR

[peteb]

3 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

The EU levies 10% tariffs on US car imports

The US levies 2.5% on EU car imports

 

Are the US bad guys for looking to match the higher tariffs that the EU levies? 

 

I had a quick look and couldn't find that information.

 

What the USA should do is have a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU. The problem is that the EU will insist on far higher standards than American industry is prepared to accept. If the USA is proposing to put a 10% tariff on cars to match the EU then there's no real problem. Americans will still buy European cars, but just pay more for them. A measly 10% won't save the American car industry, but I thought that Trump was hinting that he would go far beyond that figure. 

 

[peteb]

2 minutes ago, TimR said:

The point is that Tarrifs aren't supposed to be used as punishments. They're supposed to be used to adjust free trade so that it works. In the same way as having a purely Mercantile system, where everything that's traded has a tarrif on it, doesn't work either. 

 

Countries should stick to what they do best and let other countries do what they do best.

 

Trump is trying to rewind the country to the 1700s where it was ruled by a king and made huge amounts from its exports. The problem is - it doesn't have exports and just installing a King won't have the results he thinks it will.

 

France had a solution to that. 

 

In a nutshell

 

[SteveXFR]

55 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

The EU levies 10% tariffs on US car imports

The US levies 2.5% on EU car imports

 

Are the US bad guys for looking to match the higher tariffs that the EU levies? 

 

Matching those tariffs will achieve nothing. We don't buy US made cars because most don't meet EU regulations and those that do, mostly don't suit European tastes. It doesn't matter if they're expensive or cheap, they don't meet our safety or emissions regulations and some are just impractically enormous. 

[Al Krow]

9 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

 

Matching those tariffs will achieve nothing. We don't buy US made cars because most don't meet EU regulations and those that do, mostly don't suit European tastes. It doesn't matter if they're expensive or cheap, they don't meet our safety or emissions regulations and some are just impractically enormous. 

 

Sure they may not achieve anything other than to allow the US government to collect additional taxes on imports?

 

And fwiw, personally I'd suggest that is a better way to raise taxes than (say) by taxing domestic companies on their workers' salaries, which will simply cause them to cut payrolls (pretty basic economics that last one, agreed?)

 

If so, no reason for all the fuss?

[martthebass]

1 hour ago, peteb said:

 

I had a quick look and couldn't find that information.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2025/02/08/eu-unilateral-auto-tariff-offer-to-us-might-shelter-its-car-makers/

[SteveXFR]

3 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

Sure they may not achieve anything other than to allow the US government to collect additional taxes on imports?

 

And fwiw, personally I'd suggest that is a better way to raise taxes than (say) by taxing domestic companies on their workers' salaries, which will simply cause them to cut payrolls (pretty basic economics that last one, agreed?)

 

If so, no reason for all the fuss?

 

But those taxes will be paid by American workers and businesses because they're the ones buying cars. No matter how taxes are applied, ultimately they're all pain by either workers or businesses. 

[MGBrown]

9 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

Sure they may not achieve anything other than to allow the US government to collect additional taxes on imports?

Who do you think pays those taxes? 

[TimR]

28 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

And fwiw, personally I'd suggest that is a better way to raise taxes than (say) by taxing domestic companies on their workers' salaries, which will simply cause them to cut payrolls (pretty basic economics that last one, agreed?)

 

No. You're then taxing everyone the same rate regardless of salary. 

 

You won't raise anywhere near enough money by taxing everyone at 20%.

 

The poor will pay disproportionately more. 

 

Especially as there's then no tax on goods manufactured in the US. 

[TimR]

3 hours ago, peteb said:

What the USA should do is have a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU.

 

Trumponomics is to do away with personal taxation (especially for billionaires) and raise all the money required via tariffs.

 

To do this he first has to eliminate all public spending. So that's all education, health, pension, arts, science research, courts, space programs, highways, police, shut down first.

 

This is ultra right wing thinking. Further right than the US population realise at the moment. It's going to result in civil war if it's not checked. 

[peteb]

18 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

Trumponomics is to do away with personal taxation (especially for billionaires) and raise all the money required via tariffs.

 

To do this he first has to eliminate all public spending. So that's all education, health, pension, arts, science research, courts, space programs, highways, police, shut down first.

 

This is ultra right wing thinking. Further right than the US population realise at the moment. It's going to result in civil war if it's not checked. 

 

Civil war, breakup of the USA, the rise of China as the dominant superpower in the world, war in Europe - who knows? It's not gonna be pretty, whatever happens. 

 

I think that Trumponomics is being driven by his backers, who are shooting for a full blown oligarchy that is beholden to whoever happens to be elected after Trump, with as you say, no personal taxation for the super wealthy. I think that Trump's motivation at the moment is: a) to make sure he doesn't end up going to jail; and b) to be the most famous man in the world and what his legacy will be! Whereas a few years ago, you would have said that in fifty years time, people would be talking about Obama as the first black president who changed the USA for the better. Now you would think that Obama will be largely forgotten and people be talking about Trump and how he changed / destroyed America / the world. 

 

 

 

[TimR]

19 minutes ago, peteb said:

I think that Trump's motivation at the moment is: a) to make sure he doesn't end up going to jail; and b) to be the most famous man in the world and what his legacy will be!

 

I'll watch the video later.

 

I think Elon is on the spectrum and believes he is special and no one else has his intelligence. I'm not sure about Trump. I think he's just a narcissist. 

[peteb]

1 minute ago, TimR said:

 

I'll watch the video later.

 

I think Elon is on the spectrum and believes he is special and no one else has his intelligence. I'm not sure about Trump. I think he's just a narcissist. 

 

I agree - Trump is definitely an out and out narcissist and Musk is just a weird f*** - a narcissistic, nepo-baby billionaire who wants to be a rock star...! 

 

[Beedster]

42 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

I agree - Trump is definitely an out and out narcissist and Musk is just a weird f*** - a narcissistic, nepo-baby billionaire who wants to be a rock star...! 

 

Musk is emotionally one of life’s losers, irrespective of all his wealth. Probably cries himself to sleep every night 

[SteveXFR]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

 

To do this he first has to eliminate all public spending. So that's all education, health, pension, arts, science research, courts, space programs, highways, police, shut down first.

 

You think he's going to eliminate space programs with Musk in charge of cutting spending? 

They're already talking about a manned mission to Mars within 4 years costing a trillion dollars. 

[Russ]

Just been reading some comments on Faceache from American bass players complaining that Dingwalls have just shot up in price by several hundred dollars. 

 

FAFO.