"For Fain, tariffs address a historic wrong. "We've sat here for the last 30 plus years, with the inception of [the North American Free Trade Agreement] back in 1993-94, and watched our manufacturing base in this country disappear," he said." --NPR link
Yep. — frank
Maybe nuking that system will cool their jets because that kind of revolution was their pie-in-the-sky goal long before Trump moved towards accomplishing it. — NOS4A2
Capitalism has no care about patriotism/nationalism. What matters are cheaper labor / lower wages, competitiveness, less environmental regulations, less health + safety protection, buy lower / sell higher, profitable resources, etc. — jorndoe
It’s true that what the U.S. takes from China in trade is 16% of the 16%. But this obscures the real impact of what Trump is doing here. He’s pushing China into a position of competing superpowers while shooting himself and his country in the foot and poking himself in the eye. It’s akin to a Laurel and Hardy sketch, where Trump is both Laurel and Hardy and the rest of us are the audience, in hysterics of laughter. People can see through his charade now, which is why the markets are not too worried.16% of total imports into the US are from China. Total imports are about 16% of the GDP.
There's no way to turn China into the US's main trading partner even counting value-added transactions. BTW, moving parts in and out of the US was mentioned in the article I posted about the UAW. Is that where you came across that issue? — frank
Unless Apple takes less. — creativesoul
People can see through his charade now, which is why the markets are not too worried. — Punshhh
The markets haven’t reacted as much as I was expecting, considering the size of the tariffs — Punshhh
Everyone who has the slightest understanding of world economics and the dynamics of politics in China and the US can see this. Trump doesn't have the cards, to use his own rhetoric.
In my country, age is actually enough because for any adult citizen of the country voting is a Constitutional right. How severely handicapped a person is doesn't limit this at all.One person, one vote. Fair enough. Why not give the vote to infants, then? The idea is that a minimum competency is required to vote. I'm suggesting that age is not enough. In a society where pretty much everyone receives a standard education, I think it's reasonable to require some mastery of that education, and a relatively easy test. — tim wood
Look, this is simply a problem with all democracies. It does ask a lot from it's citizens. End of story. In my country the Parliament can change the Constitution, so basically there is no limitation on the laws they can make. They can decide that all naturally redhead women and witches and thus are a threat to the security of the nation, thus they have to be imprisoned.Either that or the incompetents get to vote, and may even get to run the asylum. Which is happening as we speak in the USA! — tim wood
Assassination culture? Sorry, but sounds quite similar to the "rape culture" that suddenly had become so widespread when we had the "the woke" saying earlier.But even on this humble forum, authors are promoting or are otherwise cheerleading for the ostracism of human beings on the basis of whom they voted for. — NOS4A2
The US runs persistent trade deficits because global investors funnel capital into the country. — Benkei
So since this led us to this point, let's assume for a moment that this is the goal; getting rid of the dollar's reserve currency status. — Benkei
In the end, everywhere I look, I only see inconsistencies, which means this has not been thought through. — Benkei
1. Undermine the dollar by creating alternatives to settle in non-USD currencies; — Benkei
This might be changing now. Saudi-Arabia's financial minister said already in 2023 that the Kingdom was open for selling oil in other currencies than the dollar. Note that the Saudi currency Rial, as the other currencies are pegged to the dollar.Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy. — Benkei
(the Guardian, Feb 16th 2025) “We’re even looking at Treasuries,” the president told reporters. “There could be a problem … It could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought.”
The suggestion was that opening up the US Treasury’s data to Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” team had identified a money-saving wheeze: why not walk away from some of America’s debt obligations – a “selective default”, as economists call it.
Because I genuinely think that Trump believes in the false idea of trade being a bad thing, when the US has a trade deficit. He truly believes in tariffs having the effect of luring in manufacturing into the US. With a default, it might be that even the fringe thinkers like Peter Navarro see it as a bad idea. But who knows. It can be the next thing Trump does after this.Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt? — Benkei
Why do we ought to assume this? What could you give evidence for this. This doesn't seem like a bluff or only a negotiating tactic. If countries want to make deals, Trump might go with those, but he looks to be perfectly happy having the tariffs and truly assumes that the tariffs will lure manufacturing back to the US.We ought to assume that Trump is informed, and actually knows this. Therefore we can ask what is his real intention behind the use of tariffs. — Metaphysician Undercover
Basically in a democracy, this can be done if people really are OK with this. Far easier it is to think of this from the perspective of who can run for a political position in elections. The case of Marine Le Pen in France shows that this is a current issue.My only suggestion to require that a prospective voter show he can function as an adult, either through education, service, or work, a one-time basic test that a person can take as many times as it takes to pass, if they fail. A person needs a licence to drive a car, both the car and himself required to keep and maintain certain standards of ability and care. Is it so outrageous or difficult to have similar standards to drive the state? — tim wood
Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. — ssu
↪Benkei Bravo.
I’ve just heard a respected economist explaining how if the bond markets run away the federal reserve will have no choice but to raise interest rates, which may lead to an inability to service U.S. debt and will drive inflation. — Punshhh
…even though stock prices are dominating the headlines, the real, scary action is in the bond market. The nightmare scenario, which we saw play out in 2008, is that falling asset prices cause a scramble for cash, which leads to fire sales that drive prices even lower, and the whole system implodes. Suddenly, that scenario doesn’t look impossible.
The question: given what he is doing and has done, and what he says and how he says it, and the company he surrounds himself with and what they say and do, what makes sense as to what is ultimately intended? Putting all the parts together, what is the most likely structure that they all fit? — tim wood
I think he doesn't understand it. A political leader who thinks that enlarging the territory of the USA is a great idea at this time of age isn't the brightest one around, even if he can communicate so well with his base. People shouldn't themselves go down the rabbit hole and believe some deep conspiracy here.Question: does anyone think that Trump knows what a tariff is or how it works? — tim wood
I think we are witnessing a story of a quite ignorant yet great populist orator with ardent followers, who is unfit for the positions he is in now. And power has simply gone to his head, because of the acolytes and the yes men around him, who follow every whim he makes.The question: given what he is doing and has done, and what he says and how he says it, and the company he surrounds himself with and what they say and do, what makes sense as to what is ultimately intended? Putting all the parts together, what is the most likely structure that they all fit? — tim wood
And when have existing laws have limited the actions of Trump? He already has the idea of ruling by executive decree and then fighting in courts, if it comes to that.As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei
If there is the ability to have sanctions, to freeze assets, why not this then? If there's no law specifically against it.There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei
Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis? — Joshs
the overuse of false analogies such as these only reveal to me how far they have to reach to justify their acts. — NOS4A2
Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis?
— Joshs
That was because $55 Trillion disappeared overnight. Trillion with a T. We're just experiencing uncertainty associated with a looming recession with possible stagflation. You're comparing a thunder storm to a hurricane. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.