Market Losses and Tariffs from the Military Industrial Complex

[eddiememphis]

Trump being Trump and using money as leverage for whatever deals he has in mind for various countries.

What he is citing as reciprocal tariffs are new taxes based on trade imbalance rather than the actual tariffs imposed on US goods by other countries.

How his advisors allow him to get away with calling apples oranges is beyond me but there is either a reason for it or they are all dumbasses too.

The US is the wealthiest country on the planet, and the 3rd most populous. There will always be trade deficits. Trying to tax your way out of them accomplishes little good and a lot of bad.

[.455_Hunter]

Trump being Trump and using money as leverage for whatever deals he has in mind for various countries.

What he is citing as reciprocal tariffs are new taxes based on trade imbalance rather than the actual tariffs imposed on US goods by other countries.

How his advisors allow him to get away with calling apples oranges is beyond me but there is either a reason for it or they are all dumbasses too.

The US is the wealthiest country on the planet, and the 3rd most populous. There will always be trade deficits. Trying to tax your way out of them accomplishes little good and a lot of bad.

There were actual foreign tarrifs on US goods, not just imbalances. I will agree that they were not as extensive as the "chart" indicated. However, the positioning of the US as solely a purchaser of manufactured consumer goods versus a manufacturer of consumer goods needs to change, even if it means higher costs for US made products over Chinesium crap.

[clodhopper]

The US is the wealthiest country on the planet, and the 3rd most populous. There will always be trade deficits.

That is some communist globalist indoctrination you are regurgitating there. By your thinking, anyone who is good at what they do should be expected to just hand over a portion of their success because it is obligatory? Unfortunately, the US population has been fed that same line of bull for so many decades, a large number of people actually believe we need to whip ourselves for just being good at what we do. After decades of letting other countries have a better deal on us, it still hasnt improved thier situation. How long are we required to keep doing that?

The reason we have continued to do somewhat well despite all these countries applying tarriffs on our goods is the US will learn/shift/innovate around a roadblock. That is NOT the same around the globe, even if you think everyone else is as good as the US on this stuff. We have donated military support, paid global trade welfare and taken a huge degree of critical disdain for doing so. I am in favor of levelling that field of play.

There were actual foreign tarrifs on US goods, not just imbalances. I will agree that they were not as extensive as the "chart" indicated. However, the positioning of the US as solely a purchaser of manufactured consumer goods versus a manufacturer of consumer goods needs to change, even if it means higher costs for US made products over Chinesium crap.

Trump has used tarriffs as bargaining chips for as long as he has been in a position to do so. Most get cancelled at some point when the other side capitualates to whatever he was requesting. Yet, all the "OMG TARRIFFS BAD!" analysis focuses on long term effects. Yeah sure, a few might last, but history says much of his tarriffs will be cancelled or reduced. Anything critical for us to import, is just a critical to the country we are importing from. Canada cries like babies, but they know they need to ship to us, and will have to come around to negotiating something more fair.

Beyond the immediate hair on fire stuff, COVID showed clearly that relying on other countries for 100% of manufacturing of ANY critical item is a whopping bad idea. We had best encourage ways to get at least some level of domestic manufacture of critical supplies. The outcome of continuing to do the system of the last many decades leaves us at a risk of falling off a cliff into a seriously bad place.

[eddiememphis]

That is some communist globalist indoctrination you are regurgitating there. By your thinking, anyone who is good at what they do should be expected to just hand over a portion of their success because it is obligatory?

You sure read a lot into one sentence that wasn't there.

People buy foreign goods because they choose to, not because they’re forced to. That’s capitalism.

Tariffs, on the other hand, are closer to socialism. They interfere with the market by artificially raising prices on imports and narrowing consumer choice. That’s price control.

If we're serious about capitalism, we should focus on being competitive—not punishing consumers for making free choices.

[clodhopper]

You sure read a lot into one sentence that wasn't there.

People buy foreign goods because they choose to, not because they’re forced to. That’s capitalism.

Tariffs, on the other hand, are closer to socialism. They interfere with the market by artificially raising prices on imports and narrowing consumer choice. That’s price control.

If we're serious about capitalism, we should focus on being competitive—not punishing consumers for making free choices.

Maybe I did. It sounded as if you were justifying an unlevel playing field simply because we are successful.

I very much disagree with government market controls. IE, better for everyone to have open trade. However, currently that is not what is going on. Nearly every country that trades with us (if not all of em) imposes price controls/tarriff/taxes whatever form, to provide their country with trade leverage over the US. We have taken it on the nose, kicked the dirt with our toe and said "shucks". Why are we not pushing back on that with at least equal veracity? Fear of making trade partners angry is not an adequate excuse. You dont combat socialist trade tactics by just being the nice guy. I dont think it reasonable to fund our over-bloated government spending on tarriffs, never gonna happen. But, using them to back off the unbalance created by other countries.... do it.

The company I work for is a regular target for lawsuits. Big enough to have somewhat deep pockets, small enough to not have a team of lawyers on staff. In the past, leadership felt it best to always settle lawsuits and never fight in court or even really push back, even on situations where we clearly had no part in the problem. What I observed, it simply made us a bigger target and the lawyers figured out how high a number they could propose for settlement that we would just pay. And the lawsuits kept coming. There comes a time when you have to draw a line and push back, even when it costs more to fight than it would to settle. Fortunately, leadership changed and lawsuit evaluation changed. Started fighting some, denying others and whaddya know, the number of suits (both in lawsuit rate and total dollars expended) dropped dramatically. If you dont somehow project that you arent an ATM, it never ends. Small discomforts early can bring improvements to the bigger picture. Trump is pushing back. Doesnt matter if I agree with his tactics, I am still glad someone is finally doing it.