Tariff wars

[StrikeOut312]

Globalization was great during the "end of history" period (what a bunch of hubris). For all the virtue signalling that happens in the US, it's funny to me that folks are ok exploiting cheap labor overseas so us Americans can feed our consumerism addiction by ordering more cheap stuff than we know what to do with...go abroad, you'll be hard pressed to find 1/4 of the self-storage places we have here in the US.

If we're anticipating another big conflict, makes sense to me we'd bring back some industrial capacity. There was a time where we made stuff here in the US, then it got cheaper to make it overseas, so we sent manufacturing abroad...at what cost? Got it, life will get more expensive, but we might claw back some self-reliance instead of depending on other folks to make our stuff. This episode was posted in another thread, applicable to this thread, and worth a listen.

 

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, busdriver said:

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. 

 

Perhaps because it was a bad deal. 

 

Globalization ≠ Free Trade. That was the big lie. 

[busdriver]

Yeah, you've said that.  I get it.  

You're wrong, but that's ok.

[Pooter]

On 4/5/2025 at 12:29 PM, arg said:

Every other president knew that the USA was getting hosed in foreign trade

This is the key assumption undergirding trump's entire tariff plan, and apparently also bill oreilly's argument.  The only problem is for the most part it is completely false. The vast majority of countries are not "hosing" us in trade. China and a few others actually have predatory trade practices, but dozens of countries we have now pissed off were pretty solid allies that simply have a trade deficit with us.  Many had free trade agreements with us and near zero tariff levels. And one more time for the folks in the back: A trade deficit is not a ripoff. But that is exactly what trump's tariffs were calculated from.

Just as one example, we already had a free trade agreement with South Korea--a hugely important ally. Their effective tariff rate on imported US goods was 0.002%. But trump's make-believe math says they're tariffing us 50% based on his nonsense deficit formula, so now we're dunking on a close ally that has crucial chip technology and was (until now) very strongly aligned against China. We are literally punching ourselves in the dick and then doing mental gymnastics to try to frame it as a win. 

You guys can rail on the neocons and the globalist elites and whatever other boogeymen all you want, but I know one thing and it's this: until 5 minutes ago, stock market performance was the ultimate bellwether for a president's economic policies in right wing circles. But now that trump has tanked the market, suddenly a lot of people are doing 180 pivot and demanding patience while he enacts some 50-year grand plan to revitalize american manufacturing. GMAFB.

The dude is an illiterate clown who thinks "trade deficit" means we are literally losing money to these countries as if we aren't getting goods and services in return.

Deficit = bad word. Must fix bad word.

It's as simple as that.

[Pooter]

13 hours ago, StrikeOut312 said:

If we're anticipating another big conflict, makes sense to me we'd bring back some industrial capacity. There was a time where we made stuff here in the US, then it got cheaper to make it overseas, so we sent manufacturing abroad...at what cost? Got it, life will get more expensive, but we might claw back some self-reliance instead of depending on other folks to make our stuff. This episode was posted in another thread, applicable to this thread, and worth a listen.

This was literally the goal of the CHIPS act with respect to semiconductor manufacturing. We realized we needed to be less reliant on Taiwan-manufactured chips for advanced military hardware so we wanted to bring some of that capacity back to the US. Problem is the act was passed almost 3 years ago and the chip plants are still under construction. Turns out.. building a megafactory for the world's most advanced microchips takes a while and is a big gamble by companies sinking billions into manufacturing infrastructure, so they need some market stability and predictability from the administration.  They had that from 2022-2025. But if trump's argument is he wants to bring back manufacturing across a variety of sectors, you should be able to see that we can't have the leader of the free world inventing new reasons for tariffs off the cuff and flip-flopping on international trade policy on an hourly basis and expect any company to take any level of risk building up their infrastructure.  It's simply unrealistic.

FWIW I don't actually disagree with some protectionist trade policies surrounding crucial defense capabilities. But I don't think clawing back T-shirt manufacturing from Vietnam or tariffing Madagascar for bananas fits that description.

Oh and by the way Trump openly shat on the chips act less than a month ago so take that for what you will.

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/technology/trump-chips-act.html

Edited Wednesday at 02:53 AM by Pooter

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, busdriver said:

Yeah, you've said that.  I get it.  

You're wrong, but that's ok.

I think the real-time dissolution of the global order we're watching is pretty strong evidence on my side. Economics has always had a theory-vs-practice problem.

 

A system isn't successful if it leads to the participants burning the system to the ground.

 

The globalists are now resorting to a modification of the age-old defense of communism: Well that's not real globalism.

 

You can't argue that bad-actor nations and self-enriching politicians are impediments to the realization of "true" free market globalism. Those are inescapable elements that any system must be able to control. If the result of your system is the quadrupling of the wealth of the top 0.1% while the bottom 90% get cheap TVs... The system is probably not sustainable. And here we are, not sustaining.

Edited Wednesday at 04:14 AM by Lord Ratner

[Pooter]

28 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think the real-time dissolution of the global order we're watching is pretty strong evidence on my side. Economics has always had a theory-vs-practice problem.

 

A system isn't successful if it leads to the participants burning the system to the ground.

 

The globalists are now resorting to a modification of the age-old defense of communism: Well that's not real globalism.

 

You can't argue that bad-actor nations and self-enriching politicians are impediments to the realization of "true" free market globalism. Those are inescapable elements that any system must be able to control. If the result of your system is the quadrupling of the wealth of the top 0.1% while the bottom 90% get cheap TVs... The system is probably not sustainable. And here we are, not sustaining.

This is like saying you have leaky sink in your house, and then decide to burn your house down. "See, my house is burning down! I knew there was a problem!"

Yeah but you didn't diagnose the problem correctly or apply an appropriate corrective action, and ended up hurting yourself more. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:31 AM by Pooter

[Lord Ratner]

12 minutes ago, Pooter said:

This is like saying you have leaky sink in your house, and then decide to burn your house down. "See, my house is burning down! I knew there was a problem!"

Yeah but you didn't diagnose the problem correctly or apply an appropriate corrective action, and ended up hurting yourself more. 

Pretty weak analogy. It's nothing about the leaky sink makes the people living in the house want to burn it down.

 

Maybe if the leaky sink in the penthouse was creating black mold in the lower class apartments below, but at this point that's just me trying to fix your analogy. 

 

We know what the problem is. People, politicians, countries, companies. They all act in their best interests. Within our own country we can manage those interests and punish bad actors. Open it up to the whole world and you lose control of the system.

 

The Qatari and Chinese takeover of academic institutions in America is part of the globalism experiment. 

[Pooter]

56 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Pretty weak analogy. It's nothing about the leaky sink makes the people living in the house want to burn it down.

 

Maybe if the leaky sink in the penthouse was creating black mold in the lower class apartments below, but at this point that's just me trying to fix your analogy. 

 

We know what the problem is. People, politicians, countries, companies. They all act in their best interests. Within our own country we can manage those interests and punish bad actors. Open it up to the whole world and you lose control of the system.

 

The Qatari and Chinese takeover of academic institutions in America is part of the globalism experiment. 

That's the point of the analogy.. the problems are unrelated, and the proposed solution makes no sense. The sink leak is not related to the self induced house fire. So yes, in a way you're right.. there is nothing about our current problems that should make people want to torpedo the economy with blanket tariffs on the whole world. They are entirely unrelated.

[Lord Ratner]

54 minutes ago, Pooter said:

That's the point of the analogy.. the problems are unrelated, and the proposed solution makes no sense. The sink leak is not related to the self induced house fire. So yes, in a way you're right.. there is nothing about our current problems that should make people want to torpedo the economy with blanket tariffs on the whole world. They are entirely unrelated.

But they aren't. This system did not work as promised. We engaged in free trade with the world and the world took advantage of our generosity. And certain Americans took advantage of the regulatory and labor arbitrage to an incredible degree:

 

 

This is only possible because of the many ways globalization allowed what we now call "the elite" the leverage cheap labor, disparate taxation regimes, subsidized industry, and currency manipulation to maximize profits and then keep them sheltered in foreign lands. 

 

Income inequality is irrelevant, but there's no scenario where the distribution of *wealth* should ever look like the chart above. It is the direct result of Fed Reserve money printing, which is only possible because of our status as the reserve currency. Why does that matter? Because without the reserve dollar, trade deficits are almost impossible. 

 

It's so wildly simplistic to say "They are entirely unrelated." Trade is good. For sure, no doubt. But "free trade" is a myth that cost Americans dearly. *If* Trump can stay focused, which I doubt, and if the Republicans can let go of their Atlas Shrugged fantasy long enough to strong arm the rest of the world into "fair trade," which I also doubt, we could have an economic renaissance. Personally, I think Americans like cheap TVs and debt too much to fix it, but I'm hoping to be proven wrong. 

[Banzai]

21 hours ago, brabus said:

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.

You said trillions. 2 of your sources are 1-2 billion and one was apple. The difference between 1-2 billion and 1 trillion dollars? About a trillion dollars. This is nothing.

To apple, if you didn’t know, they do this every presidency to gain favor with the public. They promised 430 billion in 2021 and 350 billion in 2018 that, yep, never materialized:

2021:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apple-commits-430-billion-in-us-investments-over-five-years

2018:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/01/apple-accelerates-us-investment-and-job-creation/

The TRILLIONS in investments are not existent. You’re buying in to either Fox propaganda (that says there are 5T of new investments with no source), or you’re looking to find something that fits your worldview and not question it.

I sincerely hope companies do, I really do, but it’s ridiculous to say they are right now.

[StrikeOut312]

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

This was literally the goal of the CHIPS act with respect to semiconductor manufacturing. We realized we needed to be less reliant on Taiwan-manufactured chips for advanced military hardware so we wanted to bring some of that capacity back to the US. Problem is the act was passed almost 3 years ago and the chip plants are still under construction. Turns out.. building a megafactory for the world's most advanced microchips takes a while and is a big gamble by companies sinking billions into manufacturing infrastructure, so they need some market stability and predictability from the administration.  They had that from 2022-2025. But if trump's argument is he wants to bring back manufacturing across a variety of sectors, you should be able to see that we can't have the leader of the free world inventing new reasons for tariffs off the cuff and flip-flopping on international trade policy on an hourly basis and expect any company to take any level of risk building up their infrastructure.  It's simply unrealistic.

FWIW I don't actually disagree with some protectionist trade policies surrounding crucial defense capabilities. But I don't think clawing back T-shirt manufacturing from Vietnam or tariffing Madagascar for bananas fits that description.

I don't disagree with this sentiment, Trump's "shock and awe" playbook is absolutely disrupting stability. We are in a position now where we get to wait and see how the dust settles. Right or wrong, what's done is done. Maybe Congress will stop ceding power to the executive branch, or the R's will get trounced in '26.

If his strategy is to create chaos and get to a negotiating position, perhaps it's working, or that's my misguided optimism.

[Sua Sponte]

[Sua Sponte]

One hedge is having second thoughts on the genius that is Trump’s tariffs. 
 

 

[bfargin]

The boat comic is exactly the opposite of what’s happening in the U.S. leftist have been setting fire and killing anything that challenges their idiotic anti-human flourishing worldview. Nice try though.

[Sua Sponte]

Aren’t Trump’s tariffs forcing the Fed to eventually cut interest rates, which is what Trump wants, due to the tariffs causing higher inflation? Why would Trump want the Fed to cut interest rates?

[disgruntledemployee]

The US economy

[herkbum]

I guess Ackman feels differently later in the day


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, herkbum said:

 

 

I guess Ackman feels differently later in the day


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

Someone doesn't want to be on the naughty list

[busdriver]

56 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Someone doesn't want to be on the naughty list

Yup

[Pooter]

16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

But they aren't. This system did not work as promised. We engaged in free trade with the world and the world took advantage of our generosity. 

 

I keep hearing this line - "the world took advantage of us" "we are getting hosed by the whole world in trade"

Who, exactly is hosing us? Is it South Korea who imports our goods at near as makes no difference 0% effective tariff rate? Is it Australia with whom we have a significant trade surplus? I was reliably informed that if you have a trade deficit with someone that must mean they're hosing you. So are we hosing Australia? Must be somehow.. And if so why are we slapping additional tariffs on them?  Dude just take a step back and call a spade a spade here. None of this makes any f-ing sense.

It's a nice graph though. The rich indeed are getting richer at a faster rate than the people with less money. That's exactly how compound interest works. Even for regular folks, it takes approximately the same amount of time to accumulate your first $100k as it does to go from $100k to $1M. Isn't it crazy how math works?! That's also exactly what I would expect growth curves to look like when comparing the 0.1% to the rest of the population. Turns out if youre in the 0.1% you're probably pretty freaking good at allocating money and making more of it. To pin wealth inequality in the US on "globalization" and the "myth of free trade" is definitely a new one.

But ultimately the real issue here is your implication that trump's deranged and incoherent tariff plan is going to somehow rectify this wealth problem. What evidence do you have for that? Because so far all I've seen are normie financial dummies panic selling, while the savvy billionaires short the market and use their connections and insider info to capitalize on the insane volatility. The tariffs are also effectively a wildly regressive tax. When you jack up the price of normal goods across the board it's going to hurt regular people far far more, because us normal folks need the same amount of food and toilet paper as billionaires do.

Edited Thursday at 01:44 AM by Pooter

[arg]

Can I post a funny here

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

Who, exactly is hosing us? Is it South Korea who imports our goods at near as makes no difference 0% effective tariff rate? Is it Australia with whom we have a significant trade surplus? I was reliably informed that if you have a trade deficit with someone that must mean they're hosing you.

You do understand there are other ways to influence and bias trade than just tariffs, right? I already gave one example, the subsidized airlines in the Middle East. No tariffs, but it's still disadvantaging our airlines. 

 

In other countries VAT is universally collected, so it seems fair, yet the taxes are used to subsidize specific industries. 

 

Yet another way is the artificial devaluing of a currency. If you don't think this matters, watch what the Fed does when they think a nation is not playing by the rules. 

 

As for trade deficits, they are not inherently bad, but remember that they are only possible because there is a global reserve currency, the dollar. But the reserve currency is made unfathomably complicated by the Eurodollar system, which is way, way beyond the scope of this conversation. 

 

It's just not as simple as "trade good, tariff bad." Sorry.

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

Dude just take a step back and call a spade a spade here. None of this makes any f-ing sense.

I don't think formula they used to come up with the tariff numbers makes sense, but it's pretty obvious they weren't meant to. The order from Trump was probably "just come up with something and hit them with huge tariffs. They'll come to the table." And so far he was right. 

 

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

That's exactly how compound interest works.

Oh boy. You think that's compound interest? Strange that happened during the lowest rate period in the last 50 years. This was asset inflation, pure and simple, made possible by expanding the money supply rapidly and funneling the money through the banks. 

 

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

Turns out if youre in the 0.1% you're probably pretty freaking good at allocating money and making more of it. To pin wealth inequality in the US on "globalization" and the "myth of free trade" is definitely a new one.

You aren't thinking about this clearly. If the *percentage* of wealth held by the top 0.1% is expected to continually increase, exactly what happens as you follow the graph out over time? They just eventually reach 99.9%? What do you think happens to the social order? The nominal amounts can change but the percentage of wealth controlled by a given percentile should be relatively constant.

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

But ultimately the real issue here is your implication that trump's deranged and incoherent tariff plan is going to somehow rectify this wealth problem. What evidence do you have for that? Because so far all I've seen are normie financial dummies panic selling, while the savvy billionaires short the market and use their connections and insider info to capitalize on the insane volatility. The tariffs are also effectively a wildly regressive tax. When you jack up the price of normal goods across the board it's going to hurt regular people far far more, because us normal folks need the same amount of food and toilet paper as billionaires do.

Completely depends on how tariffs are used. Either Bessent or Lutnick mentioned a separate tariff strategy akin to pre-WWI America where tariffs rather than income taxes were the primary revenue source. Removing all income taxes below $150k income and using tariffs instead. This is a step closer to a sales-tax-based system instead of income, and I'm a huge supporter of that. 

 

But that all depends on Trump having a stable policy. Doubtful, but we won't know until the "reciprocal" tariff war phase of the plan is over. We'll see.

[Pooter]

Well that was quick.. tariffs paused now. All part of some genius plan I’m sure.

I’m confused, 5 minutes ago weren’t tariffs here to stay, non negotiable, and we all needed to be patient as trump rebuilt the American economic bargain for the every-man? 

Finally we have someone trying something “different.”

oh wait no never mind we got spooked and reversed our entire global trade policy after 4 DAYS.

More mental gymnastics incoming in 3.. 2.. 1..  

Edited Friday at 04:42 PM by Pooter

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Pooter said:

Well that was quick.. tariffs paused now. All part of some genius plan I’m sure.

I’m confused, 5 minutes ago weren’t tariffs here to stay, non negotiable, and we all needed to be patient as trump rebuilt the American economic bargain for the every-man? 

Finally we have someone trying something “different.”

oh wait no never mind we got spooked and reversed our entire global trade policy after 4 DAYS.

More mental gymnastics incoming in 3.. 2.. 1..  

No gymnastics. It's not worth the time for someone who can't read plain English: 

On 4/10/2025 at 5:29 PM, Lord Ratner said:

But that all depends on Trump having a stable policy. Doubtful, but we won't know until the "reciprocal" tariff war phase of the plan is over. We'll see.