Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[tegs07]

39 minutes ago, Si600 said:

I'm not pretending to understand the ins and outs of it, but what happens if DT puts a 25% tariff on Canadian goods but Canada and the ROTW say, "OK, Whatever" and ignore it without applying retaliatory tariffs of their own?  Is that seen as a political rolling over or doesn't it work financially?  The US raising tariffs on all its imports isn't hurting anyone but its own importers surely?

I struggle to understand anything in Trumpland as it’s a strange and transient place. He appears to have won a landslide majority on the belief that Bidenomics and it’s woke agenda is entirely responsible for the global cost of living crisis (not Covid or QE bailouts or a massive debt based real estate crash).

 

So apparently Tariffs will address the trade deficit with certain countries (a deficit that will be due to complex reasons) and boost home grown manufacturing, reduce imports and simultaneously reduce inflation and make your average joe richer.

 

At the same time Musk will tackle those expensive DEI and woke people who are a drain on expenditure, shrink big government and cut costs and red tape.

 

How this actually works is beyond me. As ever it’s a mixture of revenge, truth, lies, bombast, division, conspiracy and fantasy.

Edited yesterday at 08:12 by tegs07

[SumOne]

I'm no fan of Trump, but he's pretty much doing exactly what he said he'd do and got legitimately voted in to do.....But as Peep Show's Super Hans says 'People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can't trust people'.

 

If I was one of his voters then I'd be quite pleased with the tariff moves. So far, threats of tariffs made Colombia back down on deportation flights, Mexico added 10,000 border guards, Canada agreed to spend $1bn on border control and 10,000 staff. And it has cost the USA nothing (so far).  (It's all theatrics though, those countries were already doing - or planning to do most of that stuff).

 

Here is something not widely reported though:

 

Trump ordered organizations in other countries to stop distribution of HIV medications purchased with U.S. aid, even if the drugs are already sitting in local clinics and are urgently needed, this can lead to:

 

'About one in three untreated pregnant women may pass the virus on to their babies.

 

Interrupted treatment may also lead to the emergence of resistant strains that can spread across the world.

 

One study estimated that if PEPFAR were to end, as many as 600,000 lives would be lost over the next decade in South Africa alone. And that nation relies on PEPFAR for only 20 percent of its H.I.V. budget. Some poorer countries are almost entirely dependent on the program.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/health/pepfar-trump-freeze.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawIOszdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHSxOFaM0K7OUnDlZVd5AcFWv9m_997PQXs4V6EUFP8xVenCTe4KF85-dTQ_aem_p4nkxk4xSz7rLXbpks69gg

 

....even from a selfish 'charity begins at home' attitude, international aid is soft power that benefits for the donors - if you want to reduce global health epidemics, war/political instability, immigration, have economies that buy your goods, and generally have influence across the developing world then government sponsored aid programmes support that with an eye on quid-pro-quo ('aid for trade' being a major objective). Purely private organisation charitable donations don't have that outlook.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:49 by SumOne

[Cato]

Trump's portrayal of Mexico as a willing colloborator in the drug trade is highly dishonest.

 

Arguably the US demand for recreational drugs has caused more harm in Mexico than it has in the US.

 

Mexico came close to anarchy in the drug wars that peaked a few years ago, 100,000s of thousands were killed or are permanently missing.

 

The majority of Mexicans would love to see an end to the power and influence of the drug cartels in their country but it's driven almost entirely by US demand.

[neepheid]

Aye, just say no, America!

[peteb]

2 minutes ago, Cato said:

Trump's portrayal of Mexico as a willing colloborator in the drug trade is highly dishonest.

 

Arguably the US demand for recreational drugs has caused more harm in Mexico than it has in the US.

 

Mexico came close to anarchy in the drug wars that peaked a few years ago, 100,000s of thousands were killed or are permanently missing.

 

The majority of Mexicans would love to see an end to the power and influence of the drug cartels in their country but it's driven almost entirely by US demand.

 

The only thing I would disagree with that post is the use of the word 'arguably'. The American demand for narcotics (and the refusal by the USA to look at the underlying reasons for this) has undoubtedly caused way more harm in Mexico than it has in the USA. 

 

[tegs07]

38 minutes ago, SumOne said:

I'm no fan of Trump, but he's pretty much doing exactly what he said he'd do and got legitimately voted in to do.....But as Peep Show's Super Hans says 'People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can't trust people'.

 

If I was one of his voters then I'd be quite pleased with the tariff moves. So far, threats of tariffs made Colombia back down on deportation flights, Mexico added 10,000 border guards, Canada agreed to spend $1bn on border control and 10,000 staff. And it has cost the USA nothing (so far).  

 

Here is something not widely reported though: Trump ordered organizations in other countries to stop disbursing HIV medications purchased with U.S. aid, even if the drugs have already sitting in local clinics and are urgently needed:

 

 

'About one in three untreated pregnant women may pass the virus on to their babies.

Interrupted treatment may also lead to the emergence of resistant strains that can spread across the world.

One study estimated that if PEPFAR were to end, as many as 600,000 lives would be lost over the next decade in South Africa alone. And that nation relies on PEPFAR for only 20 percent of its H.I.V. budget. Some poorer countries are almost entirely dependent on the program.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/health/pepfar-trump-freeze.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawIOszdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHSxOFaM0K7OUnDlZVd5AcFWv9m_997PQXs4V6EUFP8xVenCTe4KF85-dTQ_aem_p4nkxk4xSz7rLXbpks69gg

 

....and even from a selfish 'charity begins at home' attitude, international aid is basically a form of soft power that is a two way benefit - you want to reduce global health epidemics, instability, immigration then government sponsored aid programmes support that but with an eye on quid-pro-quo. Purely private organisation charitable donations don't have that outlook.

The unintended consequence however is that China as the second largest global economy and defacto leader of the BRICS is increasingly seen as a level headed alternative to US economic and geopolitical dominance. 

 

Mexico and Columbia next to pivot towards the BRICS?

 

Edited yesterday at 09:27 by tegs07

[NancyJohnson]

1 hour ago, Si600 said:

Because he eats the crayons?

 

I love the use of 'stop eating crayons, <insert name here>' that pepper posts across X. 

 

It's not sweary and aptly conveys the childlike rank stupidity that people are posting pro-Trump and from a conspiracy perspective.

[SumOne]

1 minute ago, tegs07 said:

The unintended consequence however is that China as the second largest global economy and defacto leader of the BRICS is increasingly seen as a level headed alternative to US economic and geopolitical dominance. 

 

 

Yeah, I don't in any way support Trump or his policies. But from a purely theatrical standpoint of pleasing his voters (in the short-term) he's doing what they want.

[peteb]

20 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

The unintended consequence however is that China as the second largest global economy and defacto leader of the BRICS is increasingly seen as a level headed alternative to US economic and geopolitical dominance. 

 

Mexico and Columbia next to pivot towards the BRICS?

 

 

What if Europe and Canada were to as well? 

 

[tegs07]

21 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

What if Europe and Canada were to as well? 

 

I would be very surprised if they did TBH. Walking a tightrope already in terms of physical vs economic security. I can’t see the EU or Canada reaching any consensus with China or Russia where military or ideological compromise is possible.

Edited yesterday at 10:08 by tegs07

[peteb]

1 hour ago, tegs07 said:

I would be very surprised if they did TBH. Walking a tightrope already in terms of physical vs economic security. I can’t see the EU or Canada reaching any consensus with China or Russia where military or ideological compromise is possible.

 

You would have thought not, but things are changing... quickly! As America pushes on with Project 25 and moves away from NATO, who is going to be the greater ideological threat and who do we need to come to an understanding with of military matters? 

 

Remember that China has no interest in threatening the West, it just wants us to stop interfering in it's backyard and to stop trying to frustrate its attempts to buy oil, etc. The far east / south east pacific area has no strategic importance to Europe (where it does to the USA) and as the USA starts to be seen as an unreliable (maybe even hostile) partner, who is to say that there won't be an element of re-alignment? 

 

[Cato]

Lets face it neither we or our Western Allies have ever had any issue getting into bed with abhorrent regimes if it's convienient ot even just profitable.

 

Just look at our cozy relationship with Saudi, even when they were caught & recorded red handed murdering and dismembering a  political dissident our government did barely more than give a half hearted 'tut tut' before flogging them yet more weaponry to use on their neighbours.

Edited yesterday at 11:48 by Cato

[PaulWarning]

shock, horror, elected politician carries out the policies he was elected on, not something that would happen in this country 🙂

There is usually rational behind Trumps statements and actions (not always)  he knows the free  world needs the USA, so he uses that instead of diplomacy to try and get what he wants.

[Cato]

I know Trump is framing this as a big win but when you look at the detail it all seems rather performative.

 

Most of the measures touted as Trunp forcing Canada to take action on illegal activity at the border were announced some time ago.

 

Mexico may have agreed to move more troops to the border but there has to be a suspicion that they may have agreed to do so without the threat of tariffs especially given the US quid pro quo to finally crack down on gun running from the US side of the border, which has been arming the cartels with military grade weapons for many years.

 

All in all it seems like a lot of noise to obtain fairly low key results, with all parties making concessions.

 

Were the threats really necessary?

Edited yesterday at 12:09 by Cato

[asingardenof]

On 03/02/2025 at 11:35, Woodinblack said:

 

Unless you can quickly ramp up that manufacturing, no. If you could make iPhones in the US for the same price as you could in china, you wouldn't be making them in China. You can apply a 100% tarrif on them, they would still be cheaper there, but noone would be buying because they would be too expensive (more than they already are).

I think this is a key point that gets overlooked by Trump and his followers. It's all very well saying that they'll bring it all back to the US, "drill baby drill", etc. but they've spent decades dismantling, selling off and outsourcing the infrastructure that would allow them to do this. Just to pick another example, if Canada overnight halted all oil exports to the US, there's no way that the US oilfields would be able to meet the demand. 

[Lozz196]

All this seems to be (to me):

 

USA add a 10% tariff to everyone

In reaction everyone adds a 10% tariff to the USA

 

All consumers now pay 10% more for whatever they buy

 

So what has actually happened that benefits anyone?

[peteb]

7 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

All this seems to be (to me):

 

USA add a 10% tariff to everyone

In reaction everyone adds a 10% tariff to the USA

 

All consumers now pay 10% more for whatever they buy

 

So what has actually happened that benefits anyone?

 

That's the essence of tariffs (or at least at this scale), they don't benefit anyone and just hurt the consumer. This is mainly Trump playing to the MAGA crowd, who are cheering him without realising that they are going be pay the price. He has been brought to heel a little bit by jitters in the stock market that might undermine support for other more important projects (i.e. dismantling the American state and replacing it with a corporate structure). 

 

In a volatile world, these tariffs might also have under other consequences, such as Canada restricting the supply of oil to the USA and selling it to Europe instead to replace the oil they would otherwise have bought from Russia! 

 

[asingardenof]

6 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

All this seems to be (to me):

 

USA add a 10% tariff to everyone

In reaction everyone adds a 10% tariff to the USA

 

All consumers now pay 10% more for whatever they buy

 

So what has actually happened that benefits anyone?

Hypothetically, eventually it'll reach a point where importing goods becomes less economical than producing them domestically. That's a long-term result though; in the short term it'll just make everyone a lot worse off as importers refuse to absorb the extra costs and pass them all on to the consumers. In reality this won't happen because Trump (or rather Musk) has basically cancelled all infrastructure funding so no new factories, etc. can be built, and nobody will be able to hire anyone because the "DEI" and "woke" (deliberate quotes because I doubt those doing this would be able to define what they are if you held guns to their heads) candidates will be unattractive to employers so there'll be a skills shortage. 

[tegs07]

1 hour ago, peteb said:

 

You would have thought not, but things are changing... quickly! As America pushes on with Project 25 and moves away from NATO, who is going to be the greater ideological threat and who do we need to come to an understanding with of military matters? 

 

Remember that China has no interest in threatening the West, it just wants us to stop interfering in it's backyard and to stop trying to frustrate its attempts to buy oil, etc. The far east / south east pacific area has no strategic importance to Europe (where it does to the USA) and as the USA starts to be seen as an unreliable (maybe even hostile) partner, who is to say that there won't be an element of re-alignment? 

 

China has ambitions in the south china seas, Russia in Europe.

Trump wants Europe to pay more for its own security, no doubt with an eye on the south china seas and China. He talks a lot about NATO and obviously has a king sized chip on his shoulder about the USA getting a bad deal but his interest in Greenland suggests he doesn’t view Russia as a harmless entity. I can’t see Poland or any former soviet bloc country wanting to team up with a Russian ally nor Canada.

[tauzero]

16 hours ago, Al Krow said:

 

Does it really matter how it started way back when? Surely what matters is trying to solve a massive and brutal drugs crisis right now that is claiming 100,000 American lives every year. Have you seen what Fentanyl does - it's awful.

I understand Fentanyl is substantially produced and exported from China (please correct me if that is not right). A chunk of that supply is being routed through Mexico. 

 

70,00 lives. China produces the precursor chemicals, which are also used in the manufacture of legal opioids. A couple of Mexican cartels are buying those in and producing fentanyl. Mexico's current president is doing a lot more to oppose the production and smuggling of fentanyl than her predecessor. And might it be a good idea to reduce the trade by better education of those who might be tempted to take it?

[Russ]

12 hours ago, Cato said:

The elephant in the room is that wages in the US are high, much higher than most western countries.

 

For comparison the avergage wage in the UK s around £37,000 pa, in the US it's around £53,000pa.

 

I doubt Trump can ever make tariffs high enough to make it economically desirable for manufacturers to move their factories back to the US, which Trump claims is his ultimate goal with the policy, especially not if they want to sell to the rest of the world at competitive prices.

The cost of living in the US is a lot higher than in the UK. With the exception of petrol and some consumer items, everything else is much, much more expensive - an average grocery shop in a US supermarket can cost double what the equivalent shop would cost in Tesco or Sainsbury's. Most of your bills are higher (phone, internet, car insurance, property taxes, etc). American houses require more maintenance. Your car will need more maintenance because you have to drive it a lot more. 

 

I earn quite a bit more here than I did in the UK, but I have less disposable income (and get less holiday and still have to pay for health insurance). Go figure. It's a similar picture when comparing the US to most European countries too. 

[TimR]

8 hours ago, tegs07 said:

He talks a lot about NATO and obviously has a king sized chip on his shoulder about the USA getting a bad deal

 

NATO funding is based on a country's Gross National Income. Maybe if all those Billionaires weren't so greedy they'd pay a lot less. 

[tegs07]

2 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

NATO funding is based on a country's Gross National Income. Maybe if all those Billionaires weren't so greedy they'd pay a lot less. 

indeed, but he has a point that the EU in general and Germany in particular are not paying the percentage that they committed to pay.

Edited 21 hours ago by tegs07

[Pseudonym]

15 minutes ago, Russ said:

The cost of living in the US is a lot higher than in the UK. With the exception of petrol and some consumer items, everything else is much, much more expensive - an average grocery shop in a US supermarket can cost double what the equivalent shop would cost in Tesco or Sainsbury's. Most of your bills are higher (phone, internet, car insurance, property taxes, etc). American houses require more maintenance. Your car will need more maintenance because you have to drive it a lot more. 

 

I earn quite a bit more here than I did in the UK, but I have less disposable income (and get less holiday and still have to pay for health insurance). Go figure. It's a similar picture when comparing the US to most European countries too. 

 

When are you returning to the UK, Russ?

[Russ]

35 minutes ago, Pseudonym said:

 

When are you returning to the UK, Russ?

When we can afford it. Probably in the summer, let the kids finish their school year here before having to faff about with getting them into schools back over there. Gives us six months to save up. This whole international moving thing is stressful and expensive, but entirely justified right now, given the colossal slow-motion diarrhoea explosion that's happening over here. I won't have our kids growing up around that.