Tariff wars

[arg]

Instead of clogging up the President thread.

We seem to have a few tariff experts here and I'm not one of them.

Is this truth?

What say you?

No Spin News; Thursday, April 3, 2025

BILL'S NO SPIN ANALYSIS

Hey, Bill O'Reilly here. Welcome to the No Spin News. Thursday, April 3rd, 2025. Stand up for your country. Well, I'm very glad you're here today. This is an important broadcast for you, your family, all of that. This not a podcast. That drives me nuts. This is a broadcast which conforms to journalistic rules, where facts rule, Donald Trump is taking a big risk, not only with himself and his administration, but with us. Every other president since World War II would not take that risk. Every other president knew that the USA was getting hosed in foreign trade, from Truman to Biden. Every one of those men knew it. No one would do anything about it. Now, Donald Trump says he will. And that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

So, the president is correct. The data is there. Foreign nations make far more money from trade with America than we make from them. It's in the trillions of dollars when you add it up. How do they do it? Well, I'm going to walk through that. I'm gonna tell you exactly how the countries abroad are screwing us. Why aren't Americans aware of this? Two reasons. The press ignores it. It's too boring, it's too complicated. And we live pretty well here. Despite the bad trade deals, we live pretty well. In fact, we live better than anybody else on the planet. So there isn't an urgency like there is with criminal migrants, for example. Donald Trump has now become the biggest president disruptor in the history of this republic. He passes Theodore Roosevelt. The turn of the 20th century, Roosevelt went after the robber barons, the monopolies. He tried to crush them. It was a brawl. I write about it in Confronting Evil. These robber barons were as bad as you could possibly get, exploiting American workers. But they employed millions of people. Even though most of those people were being exploited, they got a paycheck. So, Roosevelt going after these big shots was not popular. Teddy won. He knocked out a lot of the monopolies in this country. Again, people don't know it. History isn't taught anymore. But when you read Confronting Evil, you'll see because that is an interesting chapter.

So Donald Trump has now wiped Teddy off the face of the map by saying to the world, I'm going to fight you all at once to get better trade agreements. He might win like Teddy did. It was painful for Teddy, and nobody knew the outcome for a while. Same thing could happen. Donald Trump could get better trade deals here, that could absolutely happen. But in the short term, today, if you were in the stock market, you lost money. I lost money, I bought a little stock today. Not much. I bought company that I feel a year from now is going to be very prosperous. And I didn't buy many shares, but that company got whacked. I'm not going to tell you what it is because I can't do that. But I bought it a little bit today. I still believe in the American economy and that we are going to do well going forward, but in the next few weeks, boy oh, boy. So the president is making a decision to try to catapult himself up to greatness because if it all comes true, and manufacturing comes back to the United States, and investment comes back to the United States, the American worker will prosper big time. But if it doesn't come true, it's gonna be hard economic times. All right, so we have it, okay. Enter the press. They want Trump to fail, except for Fox News and Newsmax. Everybody else in the press wants Trump to fail. So as soon as the stock market goes down, you get hysteria.

"And so they have taken an economy that was actually in pretty decent shape and moving in the right direction, and they are going to turn it upside down, and I think 50-50 into a recession."

"Wow, 50-50. And you have, as you said, companies like Goldman Sachs using the word stagflation, that combination of inflation and slowing growth."

So that's NBC Comcast, it's gonna be a recession, it's going to be horrible, you're gonna lose your home, your kids will be out in the street, you know, that. And then people who are not informed who aren't watching the No Spin News or listening to it, they don't know. Fear is a great political motivator. So, press is a raid, this is bad, what Trump is doing is bad. All right. Now, there is a segment, a sliver of information that comes out that is fair. That's why this broadcast prospers. Last night on News Nation, I was on with Cuomo as I am every Wednesday, and Geraldo was on too. Geraldo just took his family to Japan. Here's what he said. Go.

"I can tell you, we went the length and breadth of the island archipelago and the big cities like Tokyo and the others, we did not see a single American car on the road in Tokyo. Not a Caddy, not a Buick, not Ford, not Chevy, not a nothing. We have plenty of Toyotas here in my neighborhood and around the country."

And you won't see American cars in China, in South Korea, in Southeast Asia, in Germany, and most of the rest of Europe. You will not see them. Which is why members of the United Auto Workers Union went to the press conference to bolster of President Trump yesterday. So, American cars are shut out, whereas many of us drive foreign cars, not me. I never do that. I have a Cadillac. It's nine years old. It's a good car, and I'm keeping it. All right? I would never buy a foreign car under any circumstances. All right, because I buy American. Rivera told the truth. Countries like Japan, which is our big ally, set up a system whereby American cars are so expensive, once they get on the ground in Japan, no Japanese is going to pay that money. And they do that by tariffs, they do it by taxes, VAT, value added tax, regulations, oh, we don't like this tire, and you've got to do this, and that, so they're shut out. Is that fair? No. It's not fair. That's the best example I can give you. And then you multiply that by 1,000 American products.

Our products go all over the world, but many of them cannot get into the individual countries, like India. India makes it almost impossible. Canada, you can't get dairy in there, American dairy. You can't American crops in there. Mexico is the same way. They don't want certain products. They slap on all onerous regulations so you can't get it down there. That's what it's all about. Do we all understand? Raise your hand if you don't. Now, most Americans not watching this broadcast because they're not really seeking information. They don't understand tariffs. I don't wanna be arrogant, but they don't go out today and just ask anybody, what's this tariff deal all about? Well, we don't like it. Oh, okay, what don't you like? They don't know. People like that are easily manipulated by the far-left hate Trump press. Now I had to set News Nation straight last night about what the core issue is here as far as Donald Trump's mind. What is in his mind? Roll the tape.

"It did affect American markets, but not in the way that people think. So let's go to Bernie Sanders. Let's go the income inequality crew. Well, why do you think there's so much income inequality? Because the high-paying union manufacturing jobs went overseas and were replaced by service jobs that don't pay as much or public service or whatever. So what Trump clearly said is, I'm gonna bring back those manufacturing jobs, people are going to invest in plants in America, that's going to heighten the potential to earn money."

"But that's highly speculative."

Okay, I don't think it's highly speculative, but it is speculative. But that's what Trump wants to do. He wants to bring back the jobs that have fled overseas. Apple already said it's going to relocate billions back to the USA from China. The Gulf nations are now pledging a trillion dollar infrastructure investment in American manufacturing. So, if you are a regular American, all right, and you're trying to earn a living, and you have a choice between getting into a manufacturing plant and earning $75 an hour or driving an Uber, what are you gonna take? But the manufacturing jobs have gone to Mexico and China and Southeast Asia because the workers there work for cheap. Some of them are slave workers. In China, they are actually slave workers So the American companies go, oh, we don't care about American workers, we want to make as much money as possible, we're going over there. Trump wants to stop that. Okay, again, raise your hand if you don't understand it. It's important that you understand what the intent is. Now, Cuomo goes, speculative. All right. So, Trump has one of two choices. He can ignore it like every other president has or he can try to fix it, and he chose to try to fix it. That's where we are. I think that is about as fair an explanation as you will ever get from any person in the media. Here are the other reactions from the media last night.

"It is hard to overstate the potential impact of tonight's breaking news, and it's no exaggeration to say it has the potential to affect more lives and livelihoods in this country and around the world than virtually anything short of wars and pandemics."

"Donald Trump has been on a quest to turn the United States' relationship with our friend Canada, one of our closest allies, on its head, between his manufactured trade war and threats to make Canada the 51st state. His actions are so ludicrous and so deeply unpopular that they are prompting the booing of our national anthem at NHL and NBA games held in Canada over the last couple weeks."

"President Trump calling it a declaration of economic independence. He calls it Liberation Day. It is almost certainly to liberate more money from your wallet."

"It's utter nonsense the European Union charges the U.S. a 39 percent tariff. That's obviously preposterous. It's totally invented. We don't even know where that number comes from."

That's just stupid. He's stupid. Everybody knows that the VAT tax in Europe, which is between 20 and 25 percent in most places, jacks up the price of all imported goods, not just from the USA. You know, this kind of dishonesty, if I'm the head of Comcast NBC, he doesn't work for me. He's just not smart enough to work for me, and he's misleading everybody. And then Wallace, his actions are so ludicrous and deeply unpopular, of course they're going to be deeply unpopulated with Canada and every other country because they're not going to make as much money. If Trump's successful in what he's doing, those countries aren't going to make as much cash. They're not gonna be happy about it. But again, Nicole Wallace, does she know anything? And I hate to get personal because I know these people. I gotta tell you, they don't know anything, and they don' care to know. They don't care. All they want to do is bash and hate Donald Trump. And that's what they do. But this stuff gets out to casual Americans who don't follow the news, who don't understand what this is all about.

All right, let's wrap it up here. So, Short-term pain is going to happen. and Donald Trump is responsible for the short-term pain. That's a fact. Longer term, nobody knows. I don't know. I can't even guess. I'm hoping, not for ideological or party reasons, I'm hoping that Trump makes good deals and the American economy surges, which absolutely could happen as well. And that's what I'm hoping for. Why? Because I want every American to live better, to have more security. That's nothing to do with Donald Trump. I thought his presentation yesterday was pretty good. All right, I know what I'm talking about here. I've been to 86 countries. Rivera told the truth. He's all over there. You're not gonna see any cars made in America in these countries. Trump is a disrupter. Will he win? Place your bets. That's the memo.

[SurelySerious]

The tariffs are all about the stupidity of the President…so no

[Clark Griswold]

The globalists, neocons, corporate shills, rootless billionaires loyal to no nation or people hate it then it’s good for America.

VDH had good words on this policy with also the question if tariffs are so bad for an economy then why did/do other nations have/had them?

MAGA is the voice of the middle, working and professional/entrepreneurial classes saying no more to a trade and economic system that trades our economic position and opportunity so a bunch rich assholes can get some access to an economy for slave labor/no regulations.
Then there’s the migration labor issue but that’s another head of the hydra to slay…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

12 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

with also the question if tariffs are so bad for an economy then why did/do other nations have/had them?

This is precisely the point. Ask any modern liberal (leftist), mutatis mutandis, and they will not be able to answer this question - i.e. they cannot provide a general or abstract answer. Nay, they will not even engage with the argument on that level. It is literal proof of an uninformed argument and an unconsidered position.

All you will get is some variation of he's stupid and/or colored orange.

[busdriver]

 

[Clark Griswold]

No shit senator

Slotkin: ‘Plenty of Countries’ ‘Are Cheating’ on Trade, ‘Particularly China’

If the establishment pols on both sides had been paying attention, prioritizing America first with due deference to the Rules Based Order and reasonable relations with friendly countries you would not have gotten Trump.  Don’t get huffy and pissed that because the people chose somebody who’s “unconventional” who is actually doing what they want.  

[BashiChuni]

[ClearedHot]

It is Blue Chip bargain time.

[bfargin]

On their face these high tariffs seem unwise in the short run, but I’m not an economist. I know the imbalance has caused our industrial base to just about disappear. We bought the cheapest crap when we had a choice, and now most of what was made here has been outsourced to China and other cheap labor countries. We’ve now lost the choice in most products and we’re  addicted to cheap throw away crap.

I like the idea of bringing manufacturing products home and I’m also hoping there are discussions happening behind the scenes so that we don’t face high tariffs (import and export) and the trade market is more fair for the U.S.  We have high labor costs and it might require subsidies to keep some level of competence in heavy industry here in the U.S.A.

Our collective patience level isn’t very high (based on the market volatility). Who knows what the best long term strategy is and maybe Trump is making a terrible policy decision and the markets are letting us know in real time. Either way, we’re in for some volatility over the next few months (I know, I’m just stating the obvious).

[Lord Ratner]

The stock market is overvalued by *at least* 33%. If you factor in the ridiculous earnings expectations, 50% would be completely acceptable. So using the market as a gauge of how good or bad tariffs are is absurd. 

 

We have been overdue for an economic reckoning based on the irresponsible fiscal and monetary decisions of *both* parties since the GFC. Unfortunately, the tariffs will be blamed for it because people don't think I'm terms of decades, but in days.

 

The world has been living off our system for a long, long time. Hopefully that ends now. Everyone is acting like the world can just stop doing business with the US, but deep down we know that's not true. If we put a tariff on Canada, it hurts us a little. If Canada puts a tariff on us, it hurts us a little. 

 

But both actions are devastating to the Canadian economy which is heavily reliant on both selling to and buying from the US. Same for many other nations. The reason you hear such shrill screaming from countries like Canada is that they know if America (as a populace, not just the President) realizes how much we've been funding the growth of everyone else, and that we could have been talking a cut of that action with only minimal pain... Well that represents an existential threat to the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too method of government the West has been living on.

 

If everyone else suddenly has to fund a functional military, and fund their massive social welfare programs, *and* engage in fair reciprocal trade with the US.... They're done. 

 

They will bend the knee so long as the anti-American Americans don't trick we-the-people into backing their failed globalist cosmopolitan utopia. 

 

Edit: A great example is Qatar Airways. They don't tariff our airlines, but they sure do subsidize theirs. Let's slap some equalizing tariffs on those tickets and see what happens to their traffic. 

Edited April 6 by Lord Ratner

[icohftb]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

The stock market is overvalued by *at least* 33%. If you factor in the ridiculous earnings expectations, 50% would be completely acceptable. So using the market as a gauge of how good or bad tariffs are is absurd. 

 

Agree that the market was overvalued relative to the expected earnings pre-tariff relative to historical norms.

But crushing their future estimates doesn't fix that which is what the market seems to be pricing. So it could still be overvalued. Just with lower earnings as well.

 

[waveshaper]

The futures market opened at 5 PM CDT = "Ouch".

 

[SurelySerious]

The stock market is overvalued by *at least* 33%. If you factor in the ridiculous earnings expectations, 50% would be completely acceptable. So using the market as a gauge of how good or bad tariffs are is absurd. 
 
We have been overdue for an economic reckoning based on the irresponsible fiscal and monetary decisions of *both* parties since the GFC. Unfortunately, the tariffs will be blamed for it because people don't think I'm terms of decades, but in days.
 
The world has been living off our system for a long, long time. Hopefully that ends now. Everyone is acting like the world can just stop doing business with the US, but deep down we know that's not true. If we put a tariff on Canada, it hurts us a little. If Canada puts a tariff on us, it hurts us a little. 
 
But both actions are devastating to the Canadian economy which is heavily reliant on both selling to and buying from the US. Same for many other nations. The reason you hear such shrill screaming from countries like Canada is that they know if America (as a populace, not just the President) realizes how much we've been funding the growth of everyone else, and that we could have been talking a cut of that action with only minimal pain... Well that represents an existential threat to the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too method of government the West has been living on.
 
If everyone else suddenly has to fund a functional military, and fund their massive social welfare programs, *and* engage in fair reciprocal trade with the US.... They're done. 
 
They will bend the knee so long as the anti-American Americans don't trick we-the-people into backing their failed globalist cosmopolitan utopia. 
 
Edit: A great example is Qatar Airways. They don't tariff our airlines, but they sure do subsidize theirs. Let's slap some equalizing tariffs on those tickets and see what happens to their traffic. 

I’ve seen less pretzel logic from flat earthers, yet you’re bringing it with religious zealotry over an objectively terrible tool inappropriate for the times. Of course the tariffs will be blamed: because they’re the root cause. Asshat Trump is obsessed with them because he saw someone else get one for their industry in the 80s. Now he wants his own, only bigger and dumber, being implemented by absolute amateurs who asked a LLM to implement a massively simplistic scheme based solely on goods trade differential, and based on internet domains regardless of having an actual trade economy. Ignoring the fact that we “export” a massive services and information technology industry to all of those places that operate at far higher margins than manufacturing marbles in Sri Lanka. And ignoring that 45% of our imports are raw materials. And ignoring that tariffs are a massive self-own tax increase on the people. And ignoring that we don’t really have a massive unemployment problem requiring all this manufacturing to move back. And ignoring that manufacturing won’t move back before companies run the clock out for a different admin. And ignoring how wildly unsuccessful they have been in the past when implemented broadly.

It’s just tanking the market. Penalizing people with higher costs (inflation), and driving people in the middle to trend their support to other political factions none of us want in charge.

But keep blindly supporting your new religion.

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, icohftb said:

Agree that the market was overvalued relative to the expected earnings pre-tariff relative to historical norms.

But crushing their future estimates doesn't fix that which is what the market seems to be pricing. So it could still be overvalued. Just with lower earnings as well.

 

This is entirely dependent on *how* the US tariff policy ends up being implemented. 

 

It's pretty obvious right now that much of the current tariffs are designed to strong arm countries into trade agreements that are more favorable to the US. I have no objection to that, and until we see what the next move is from the Trump admin, I can't say if they will be effective or not. Israel dropped all tariffs immediately. That's a clear indicator that they can be very effective as a weapon. Let's see how the "retaliatory" tariff against Israel is modified in response. 

 

The second factor is using tariffs as a tool to lower taxes on Americans. I believe it was Bessent who mentioned eliminating all income taxes under $150k and replacing them with tariffs. Doing this eliminates the inflationary nature of global tariffs (targeted tariffs are minimally inflationary) as the spending power of the people is increased by the reduction in income tax. It's also a less progressive tax scheme, which I support. 

 

*But* that also requires a coherent long term strategy. I don't expect to see that until the retaliatory tariff regime has fully played out, and with Trump you only get a coherent strategy on very few topics. Immigration, for example. International trade imbalances have annoyed him forever, so it's possible we will have something a bit firmer than normal, but the Trump-haters won't see it because they fundamentally can't ignore what he says and watch what he does. That's not a dig, it's just reality. 

 

I've been harping on the failure of globalist trade on these forums for years now, so to me this is all rather exciting. But anyone using the world's biggest speculative stock market bubble as an indicator of *anything* is in lala land. Valuations (from February) are above the pre-great-depression peak depending on which measures you use, and somehow that was right *after* a global pandemic that stopped business for 1-2 years. Come on, we all know that doesn't make sense. It took $12+ TRILLION of government deficit spending to keep things moving, just in the US. And if you go back a little further we still have $6 trillion of magical printed Fed money since the GFC. 

 

Tariffs may be the needle that pops the bubble, but there was always going to be a needle. 

[SurelySerious]

This is entirely dependent on *how* the US tariff policy ends up being implemented. 
 

Good news! Covered, covered, covered, and covered. Bunch of amateurs panicking the night before their assignment was due asked a LLM to do their homework for them because their dear leader is infatuated with autocracy.

[/url]

[Stoker]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:00 PM, Clark Griswold said:

if tariffs are so bad for an economy then why did/do other nations have/had them?

 

Because the few people who directly benefit from the tariffs have far more incentive to demand them than the many who are indirectly harmed have to fight them. Steelworkers don't give a damn that every steelworker job saved by tariffs costs American consumers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The pitiful handful of American shipyards don't care that the Jones Act has basically strangled one of America's greatest natural advantages (access to internal shipping), they just like producing their handful of insanely overpriced ships every year.

If you concentrate the benefits and disperse the costs, you can accomplish a lot in life (not necessarily to the benefit of the whole of society).

[Lord Ratner]

29 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Because the few people who directly benefit from the tariffs have far more incentive to demand them than the many who are indirectly harmed have to fight them. Steelworkers don't give a damn that every steelworker job saved by tariffs costs American consumers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The pitiful handful of American shipyards don't care that the Jones Act has basically strangled one of America's greatest natural advantages (access to internal shipping), they just like producing their handful of insanely overpriced ships every year.

If you concentrate the benefits and disperse the costs, you can accomplish a lot in life (not necessarily to the benefit of the whole of society).

Yes, but this is why free trade is better than "impeded" trade. I don't think many people are arguing that we are better off if everyone applies tariffs to all trade. 

 

But what has been missed is what happens in an imbalanced trade regime. No, I don't mean one country buying more than the other. I mean when one country imposes trade barriers on another that is otherwise not reciprocating the barriers, the imbalance can create long-term outflows that have delayed effects far more detrimental than the tariff itself. 

 

I recall Yaron Brook making a libertarian argument that almost single-handedly broke my identity as a libertarian. He said if there are two shoe stores in a shopping center, and one is doing business the normal way, but the other has a rich uncle that is subsidizing the shop, allowing them to sell shoes at a much lower price, why should you care? You just get the better price which is better for you. That's it. "The market" will sort out the shoe stores, either by bankrupting the rich uncle or killing the "fair" shoe store, and the survivor will set prices at market rate. Two problems. 

 

First, this is anticompetitive behavior that even the US gets touchy with, for good reason. You can see this with Microsoft today. When a new cool product comes out, Microsoft makes a shitty version and includes it in their inescapable Office bundle knowing companies will not spend more for the better product if they are already getting a weaker version "for free." They wait until the new company collapses, then they raise the price of the bundle to account for the addition of the shitty version. In the short term, yeah, the customer got a deal. But in the long term "the market" suffocated a new product in the womb because a behemoth had the capital to crush them, *not* compete with a better product. This is bad.

 

But more importantly, we aren't a shoe shop. We are a nation, and I *do* care if my nation (or specific industries within) are driven into insolvency by unfair competition. We do not have the option of losing. 

 

There is a lot (most) of international trade that is a great deal for us. But in many cases countries are using the Rich Uncle of government to undercut the US. Obviously China, and once they have a stranglehold on an industry, surprise surprise, up go the prices.

 

We absolutely should punish nations that subsidize their industry. Not with the goal of ending them, but in a manner that ensures they cannot undercut our businesses through the practice. "Reciprocal," if you will.

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Because the few people who directly benefit from the tariffs have far more incentive to demand them than the many who are indirectly harmed have to fight them. Steelworkers don't give a damn that every steelworker job saved by tariffs costs American consumers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The pitiful handful of American shipyards don't care that the Jones Act has basically strangled one of America's greatest natural advantages (access to internal shipping), they just like producing their handful of insanely overpriced ships every year.
If you concentrate the benefits and disperse the costs, you can accomplish a lot in life (not necessarily to the benefit of the whole of society).

Tariffs are not the only options, this is just round 1, don’t see this happening but the BAT is an option also

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/border-adjustment-tax.asp

Tariffs are necessary right now as countries like all people all around the world lie, cheat and steal. While not a precise weapon they are getting the message across.

I’ll concede that they will initially cause some cost increases in the economy, only means we need more internal deregulation, lower and simpler taxes and policy to encourage reindustrialization.

Economic efficiency is not corollary to sound national security. Like insurance, warranties and backup systems, sometimes you pay more than necessary for reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoker]

These tariffs won't do a darned thing to encourage "reindustrialization." No company is dropping a billion dollars on a factory that will open in five years on the assumption that the administration will remain consistent on tariffs for that long.

[brabus]

6 hours ago, Stoker said:

No company is dropping a billion dollars on a factory

You must have missed it, because multiple companies are doing exactly that, in addition to other related investments. Trillions invested, not just billions. Check news source. 

[Banzai]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

You must have missed it, because multiple companies are doing exactly that, in addition to other related investments. Trillions invested, not just billions. Check news source. 

Go with a SINGLE credible source on the investments. A SINGLE one.

 

[Clark Griswold]

Winning

Report: India Wants ‘Equitable Trade Deal,’ Not ‘Confrontation,’ After Trump Tariffs

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2025/04/07/report-india-wants-equitable-trade-deal-not-confrontation-after-trump-tariffs/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NKAWTG]

12 hours ago, Stoker said:

These tariffs won't do a darned thing to encourage "reindustrialization." No company is dropping a billion dollars on a factory that will open in five years on the assumption that the administration will remain consistent on tariffs for that long.

What is a better use of your money, donating to a PAC to change the administration or investing in a factory that will never be competitive due to the high costs of labor and regulations?  I like most of what Trump does, but he's gonna lose this one.  Why start a 5 year project when you can wait 4 years for the conditions to change. 

Our entire economy is set up to provide financial capital and intellectual property.  Apple is the perfect example of this.  They design a consumer product in the US and then source and assemble it in locations where you don't need to worry about providing healthcare for workers or complying with OSHA and the EPA.  Hunkering down to weather the storm seems more prudent for them to than to change direction on how they manufacture their products.     

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

Go with a SINGLE credible source on the investments. A SINGLE one.

 

Took me 3 sec on google, here’s the first three sources that came up:

GE Aerospace

Apple

Industry Select

And I’ll even show you my work for extra credit:

Pretty surprised you’ve been living under that big of a rock and hadn’t heard about any of this, and apparently you were too lazy to google it yourself instead of trying to challenge me to prove the sky is blue.

[busdriver]

Just to be clear, the idea is tariffs will force companies to open facilities in the US, and then?  The tariffs cannot go away, they are the only thing that makes that factory make any sense.  Everything will be more expensive from now on, this is a very obvious trade-off.  For fuck sake, calling someone a "globalist" is a common pejorative within new-right circles (and plenty of people on this board us it as well).

 

You guys are acting like we didn't discuss globalization and whether or not it was good for everyone and job loss/market differentiation is just the natural product of a free market, or whether the US worker got the short end of the stick and paid for the cheap stuff for everyone else.

The words coming out of the president's mouth, and the vice president, and the treasury secretary, etc, etc.  Basically all the language from the administration (except the guy who's leaving to go back to business) lines up with the "globalization was a bad deal" crowd.