Trump finally blinked.

But let's remember that now Trump has that trade war with China and still he has those tariffs with everybody at 10%. That 10% + China trade war will have an effect on the US economy.

It's not going to be the absolute disaster of a lifetime. Just your normal Trump disaster. :wink: — ssu

Something to consider: Economists have pointed out that it isnt tariffs per se that are so damaging to markets and businesses. Tariffs have not historically led to recessions all by themselves, even Smoot-Hauley. It’s the uncertainty associated with an on-again off again policy-making style dictated by the whims of one man. How can businesses plan if they don’t know whether this latest announcement is a just a pause, or an elimination of reciprocal tariffs? How can markets and corporations trust that , whichever way Trump goes, he’ll stick to that plan? Why should they when he has already reversed himself multiple times? Such unpredictability is disastrous for the economy.

Tariffs have not historically led to recessions all by themselves, even Smoot-Hauley. — Joshs

The real cause of the Great Depression was probably concentration of wealth. The trade war and the panic precipitated the collapse. Wealth is pretty concentrated right now, though.

I think the present moment is a test for how leftist you really are. If you're white-knuckling the volatility we've had so far, shaking your fist at stupid Trump, then you have a very conservative mindset. He's handing us an economic revolution. If you're a leftist, you're like: go Trump! Get those tariffs!

The Trump administration might not care about the stock market, but the government does care a lot of the interest on the US debt! — ssu

I'm not so sure they care about that either. The debt has worked wonderfully for the republicans, by playing the Two Santas game. Historically they use it as a cudgel during debt ceiling negotiations, and to deny any legislative win to the dems that actually costs anything. Now they have gone into overdrive, gutting all programs they don't like in the name of reducing "waste and fraud", with the crisis of the debt as the pretext for this urgency. Then, they gut taxes to the wealthy, in total disregard to the debt, while throwing a few breadcrumbs to the masses. They will keep playing this until the system collapses, and likely after.

He's handing us an economic revolution. If you're a leftist, you're like: go Trump! Get those tariffs! — frank

Absolute blithering nonsense. There is nothing remotely "leftist" about completely upending the economic order in order to institute a massively regressive tax on everyone. Which in turn will be used as a pretext for massive tax cuts for the rich. You seem to have the ignorant idea that being leftist merely for change of any sort. And that conservative means resisting change.

I think the present moment is a test for how leftist you really are. If you're white-knuckling the volatility we've had so far, shaking your fist at stupid Trump, then you have a very conservative mindset. He's handing us an economic revolution. If you're a leftist, you're like: go Trump! Get those tariffs! — frank

Are you saying you believe that Trump is producing an economic revolution? And that you believe this revolution he is hatching is a beneficial thing for America?

Are you saying you believe that Trump is producing an economic revolution? And that you believe this revolution he is hatching is a beneficial thing for America? — Joshs

Read Mark Blyth's comments. He agrees with me and the president of the UAW. @ChatteringMonkey mentioned some of this earlier in the thread.

PROVIDENCE – With the Trump administration imposing “insane” tariffs on the rest of the world, many commentators are worried about the problem of “sane-washing”: imputing cogent rationales to policies that have none. Such naive punditry, they argue, distracts from the grift that is unfolding before our eyes. The Trump family’s moves into the crypto sphere – where its meme coins serve as an open invitation for bribes – certainly support this interpretation. But is this the only conclusion to draw, or could something else be going on?

Consider an alternative explanation.

The US project of promoting global free trade had already been abandoned by the time of the 2016 election, when both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump then imposed tariffs on goods from China and other countries, and many of these were maintained or extended under President Joe Biden. One of Biden’s signature policies, the Inflation Reduction Act, was an attempt to promote US reindustrialization in green sectors, which, in addition to being protected by Trump’s tariffs, would be subsidized. Trump’s latest wave of tariffs is also supposed to drive reindustrialization, albeit of a more carbon-intensive variety. Thus, free trade seems to be off the menu for both Republicans and Democrats.

The reason for this bipartisan embrace of protectionist policies concerns the global role of the dollar in promoting structural trade imbalances. As John Maynard Keynes recognized back in 1944, all countries, left to their own devices, would rather be net exporters than net importers. Today’s net exporters in the European Union, Asia, and the Gulf earn dollars that their own economies cannot absorb, because that would raise domestic wages and prices, undercutting their competitiveness. The earned dollars are liabilities for local banks, and the easiest way to turn them into assets is to buy US government debt, effectively handing the cash back to the United States so that it can continue to buy exports.

Why would the US want to end this seemingly magical state of affairs? Because, as Matthew Klein and Michael Pettis argue, defying current-account constraints does in fact carry long-term costs. Countries that are net exporters build up huge surpluses at the price of undercutting domestic investment and local wages, which depresses their economies, while the US “benefits” from unlimited cheap foreign goods, but at the price of hollowing out its own industrial capacity. In 1975, the three largest employers in the US were the Exxon corporation, General Motors, and Ford; in 2025, the biggest employers are Walmart, Amazon, and Home Depot. The first group made tradable goods, while the latter companies by and large sell imports domestically.4

Given these long-term effects, leading figures in both US parties have come to regard the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” as an exorbitant burden. Both parties want to “rebalance” the US economy by promoting domestic production, which entails a forced adjustment on foreign exporters to curtail their demand for dollars.

Why don’t they just come out and say this? Probably because talk of “being ripped off” by other countries is more compelling to the base than arguments about the finer points of trade policy. Moreover, the fact that the Trump administration lacks a comprehensive plan to rebalance the global order doesn’t mean that such a reordering is not already happening.

After all, Germany’s export engine was sputtering even before the pandemic. Its recent loosening of the “debt brake” (a constitutional cap on structural deficits) and embrace of investment suggests that a rebalancing toward domestic consumption is already underway. The Trump-driven surge in EU defense spending will add more momentum to this trend, and the prospect of a more consumption-driven euro area will give global investors a viable alternative to the dollar.

As for China, it seems to have realized that flooding the rest of the world with green exports (electric vehicles, solar panels, and so forth) has its limits. It has already diversified away from the US market, and this has increased the need for greater domestic consumption. Meanwhile, the rest of export-driven Asia seems keen to set up shop in the US to retain market access.

Such a rebalanced world would need fewer dollars. Ending the current system will be massively disruptive, no doubt, and the prospect of US reindustrialization may prove illusory. But it is important to remember that both parties see it as necessary. The rebalancing began before Trump arrived on the scene, and is being driven by forces that may outlast him. — Mark Blyth

I can't wait to hear the first Trumpy laud the market rebound as a great victory for Trump.

I think he realized he fucked up, and that his advisor is even more stupid than he is. Maybe someone told him that the source of reasoning for why to install the tariffs comes from a crackpot who invented an expert for his book to look factual. That all of this is based on that non-existing person. And now that he knows this, he tries to back out in a way that doesn't paint him as a damn moron (more than usual). — Christoffer

If you go back to his videos from the 80s you'll find he was always a big believer in tariffs. I think he genuinely thinks they can be used to replace income taxes like in the 19th century, so we'll probably continue to see him trying to touch the stove like he did the last 2 times.

Something to consider: Economists have pointed out that it isnt tariffs per se that are so damaging to markets and businesses. Tariffs have not historically led to recessions all by themselves, even Smoot-Hauley. It’s the uncertainty associated with an on-again off again policy-making style dictated by the whims of one man. How can businesses plan if they don’t know whether this latest announcement is a just a pause, or an elimination of reciprocal tariffs? How can markets and corporations trust that , whichever way Trump goes, he’ll stick to that plan? Why should they when he has already reversed himself multiple times? Such unpredictability is disastrous for the economy. — Joshs

Indeed that's the biggest risk right now and will continue to be a big drag on the economy as long as Trump continues to float the idea. Personally I wouldn't want to be investing in this market right now, despite all the excitement going on with the pause (and the 100% tariff on Chinese goods that everyone is just ignoring right now).

If you go back to his videos from the 80s you'll find he was always a big believer in tariffs. I think he genuinely thinks they can be used to replace income taxes like in the 19th century, so we'll probably continue to see him trying to touch the stove like he did the last 2 times. — Mr Bee

Definitely, he's no better than any other believer who ignores actual research and knowledge. It's the main reason I am opposed all religions (though value the existential introspection they can help people with). Belief without anything else is never a path to anything but problems. And within politics, we separated the church and state for a reason, the US just didn't get the memo. Not only does it still operate on a religious belief similar to that of a king being appointed by God, the politicians operate on pure belief far more than on expertise, knowledge and wisdom.

We can probably count on one hand, no more, the number of people in US politics who performed their duties as representatives with wisdom, knowledge and listening to actual experts. It's rare in most nations, but more rare in the political halls of the US government. While authoritarian and broken states around the world either operate on authoritarian leaders urge for power, or they operate on being merely incompetent, the US is rather unique in that many politicians are actual idiots.

My jaw is on the floor most of the time when listening to politicians in the US. Seeing through the normal political jargon that any politician in the world keeps blabbering, there shines a void behind the words of a US politician and that's a deep lack of education, knowledge and wisdom.

You know, the memes of US tourists in other nations being absolute hollow heads to understand how to behave in another culture, that's how the rest of the world sees US politicians. Other nations has a few nutjobs, but the US government is so infested by them that it's a damn mystery the US has survived this long in the modern era of clown regimes.

Such unpredictability is disastrous for the economy. — Joshs

:100: And trade policy is only one facet, albeit a highly visible one. There are numerous accounts of DOGE firing a workforce en masse only to realise that highly skilled and indispensable people have been let go (as in the case of the nuclear inspections agency) and then a frantic effort to contact and re-hire them. Everything seems to be ad hoc, made up on the run, according to the whim de jour. It was commented on that in the lead up to the so-called Liberation Day announcments, none of the trade advisors knew what the proposed tarriffs were to be. Likewise when the 90-day stay was announced - via social media! - Trump's main trade representative hadn't been informed and was in fact defending the Liberation Day tarriffs to the press when the announcement was made.

In short: chaotic governance, driven by whim, animus and 'gut instinct'. It will only ever be thus with Trump.

I'm not so sure they care about that either. — hypericin

I think they have to care. At least at some point.

You see, the interest on the debt is already a higher spending issue on the budget than defense spending. At that, no DOGE or whoever can touch (even if they tried), because not meeting the interest payments is default.

The interest on the debt is on the average now 3,3% which is over 1% higher than five years ago. Just an additional 1% of interest and the whole debt thing is worse. Think if it would be double, 6,6% which is on the long run quite normal. That would basically double the expenses. And let's remember that we have come from literally from the lowest historical interest rates of all time and now the cycle is going up.

Adam Schiff announces he's investigating 'insider trading' in the White House - because several hours before his 180, Trump announced on Truth Social 'This is a great time to buy!' And sure enough, it would have been, had you known what was about to happen.

The best part, he's now negotiating from a position of weakness because he admits needing his allies and trade partners. What an insane loser. — Benkei

That's the way to deal with your partners, inflict as much pain as possible, in hopes that the partner will give you what you want to make you stop.

Yeah free trade is typically good for economies that have excess production and trade-surplus. That used to be the US, which is why they created the system we have. Now that the balance has been shifting to the east, economically and thus geo-politically as well, it doesn't really make sense anymore for the US to be the garantor of a system that benefits export-countries in the first place.

Eventually you will need a re-negotiation of the system where China carries more of the burden because they are the prime beneficiaries of it. Tariffs on their own probably won't do it, but it does create space for things that weren't possible previously.

The left, who were the original anti-globalists let's not forget, could see the opportunity of the moment if they weren't so preoccupied with fighting Trump. Or maybe they don't really want to change the system anymore, because they have effectively become the party of the elites who do still benefit from it, at the cost of Main Street.

I heard on live U.K. radio yesterday, a Trump guy say that he had just invested $60million in the stock market and was confident the market would bounce back when Trump negotiated away the tariffs. Well he was right, they were “negotiated” away by the end of the day.

That's a pretty solid analysis. :up:

It's not an analysis but reflects common intuitions that are wrong. This is a classic case of taking a few surface-level truths and spinning them into a deeply confused and wrong position.

Let’s start with the premise: “free trade is good for economies with excess production and trade surpluses.” That is a misunderstanding of how trade works. Free trade isn’t some rigged game that only benefits surplus countries. The US has run trade deficits for decades and still emerged as the most powerful economy on earth. That's not despite those deficits but in part because of the structure that allows them - namely FDI and the reserve currency status of the USD.

The US receives massive foreign capital inflows. Foreigners buy US Treasury bonds, stocks, real estate and invest in businesses. Those inflows keep interest rates low, fund domestic investment and support the dollar’s global role. In other words, the trade deficit is not some evidence of decline. It is the accounting counterpart of America’s central role in the global financial system. That is just how the balance of payments works.

You also claim that the US created the postwar global system because it used to run surpluses and that it should step away now that "the East" benefits more. But that ignores the actual historical logic behind the system. The US didn’t create the global economic order to rack up trade surpluses. It created the order to prevent another world war, contain communism and entrench a rules-based system in which it would remain the institutional and financial center, regardless of whether it was exporting more goods than it imported. That strategy worked. The US became the issuer of the reserve currency, the seat of global capital and the main power in the world. Walking away from that now doesn’t punish China. It vacates the field for them to take over as the second largest economy in the world .

You say China should carry more of the burden. Fair enough. But then what? Are we handing them the keys to the system because the US is tired of leading it? Tariffs aren’t creating “space” for anything coherent. They’re just inflaming tensions and undermining trust in US stability. A real renegotiation of global institutions would require diplomatic capital and credibility; the very things a chaotic trade war destroys and Trump personally lacks.

Your swipe at the left is a convenient distraction that makes me wonder why it's even in there. Yes, parts of the left were historically anti-globalist, but that was in defense of labour standards, environmental protections and democratic oversight: not nationalist economic isolation. And as a leftist I'm STILL in favour of tariffs but to force other countries to produce at the same level of regulations as the EU does so we have a level playing field between local and foreign producers and costs of production aren't unfairly externalised unto poor people abroad and the environment there.

EDIT: to add, a consistent trade deficit is only possible because of offset by FDI. Without it, the deficit will have to balance out at some point and if this cannot be done through attracting FDI, it will correct through currency depreciation, reduction in consumption (skewed towards import), increase in national savings and lower investments. This can also happen in an uncontrolled manner through capital flight or a debt crisis.

It's not an analysis but reflects common intuitions that are wrong. This is a classic case of taking a few surface-level truths and spinning them into a deeply confused and wrong position. — Benkei

No, I think it is quite right. Though, I look at it a bit from a more cynical perspective.

The US has one interest, and one interest only: power. The reason it made the dollar the reserve currency is because of power. The reason it championed an "international rules-based order" is because of power, and so forth.

When it runs a trade deficit, it means other nations - in the case of China, a peer competitor - relatively profit more, turning it into a dynamic that over the long-term cedes power to other countries by virtue of the fact that, even though on paper it is 'mutually beneficial', one side is profiting more than the other. In the Machiavellian terms Washington thinks in, that means losing.

It makes zero sense for the United States to uphold a system that has fed and continues to feed its main geopolitical rival China. The US started this policy way back when China was not seen as a major geopolitical threat. Times have changed.

Moreover, upholding the system is increasingly no longer an option. The United States is sitting on a giant bubble - waiting for the mother of all economic crises to hit - made worse still by the dollar's world reserve currency status being under pressure and probably being history somewhere in the next ten years.

The United States has two options: retreat to its island or go down with the ship.

Did the thread spiral down into the lounge again?

Not spiral but we decided we don't want it on the front page for the next 4 years.

No, I think it is quite right. Though, I look at it a bit from a more cynical perspective. — Tzeentch

What follows in no way, shape or form addresses my comment and just reiterates economic nonsense. Countries with surpluses do not profit relatively more. It's like saying that the seller in a sale, profits more than the buyer. If my posts aren't clear enough for you I'd be happy to give you a reading list to clear up these economic misunderstandings.

Even if the tariffs won't increase more after the 90 days, I'm beginning to wonder what would happen if the EU goes in the other direction and lowers tariffs with other nations, even brining on free trade between the EU and nations outside the EU. Expanding free trade to Canada, Japan, Taiwan, India (get away from BRICS please), Australia, New Zeeland, maybe even Britain as well and many other nations who aren't among the BRICS.

Since the EU is behind on so many technological innovations and collaborations, this may be a golden opportunity to build bridges. Since the US was the largest competitor and they're beginning to alienate everyone, the EU could become a new superpower if playing the cards right.

And I rather have a superpower that's an alliance of diverse nations than a single nation as it's more robust against points of failure. It also incentivize nations to behave better to get closer to the EU as a true collaborator and ally, rather than having some toxic relationship with the US.

It would probably be the best course for the world really.

What follows in no way, shape or form addresses my comment and just reiterates economic nonsense. Countries with surpluses do not profit relatively more. It's like saying that the seller in a sale, profits more than the buyer. If my posts aren't clear enough for you I'd be happy to give you a reading list to clear up these economic misunderstandings. — Benkei

You're not getting my perspective at all.

They shouldn't be likened to buyers and sellers, but to economic and geopolitical rivals; enemies.

The United States has been facilitating China's export-oriented economy for decades, and China has benefitted greatly. You might call that a 'win-win', whereas a political realist might call that 'feeding the beast'.

You're shifting the frame from economics to political realism, fine. But let's not pretend the economic analysis offered earlier was any good. It still doesn’t actually answer the economic point. Even enemies trade. The Cold War didn’t stop the US from selling grain to the USSR, and modern Russia still sells gas to Europe. If you’re serious about "rivalry" as the defining framework, then you need to think in strategic terms, not just emotional ones. And that includes understanding how global interdependence works.

Facilitating China’s export-driven growth wasn’t just charity. It was part of a strategy to integrate China into the rules-based order, stabilize global supply chains and secure cheap goods and capital inflows that benefited US consumers, corporations and investors. You can call that “feeding the beast” if you like, but it also fueled decades of low inflation and higher real incomes in the US (and the West).

If you want to unwind that relationship now, fine - but udnerstand the costs. This approach does not just cut off your enemy. It's cutting off your own economy from the financial and logistical circuits it has been built around for decades. Doing that without understanding how capital flows and trade balances interact is not realism. It’s just self-harm with a flag on it.

Strategic rivalry doesn't mean throwing out your central position in the global economy. It means using it intelligently. Right now, China still needs dollar access, still needs external demand and still holds US Treasury debt. That’s leverage. You don't use that leverage by blowing up your own system.

If your argument is that the US needs a more self-reliant economy and less exposure to adversarial regimes, I agree. But dressing up a dumb tariff war as strategic realism just replaces one illusion with another.

Let’s start with the premise: “free trade is good for economies with excess production and trade surpluses.” That is a misunderstanding of how trade works. Free trade isn’t some rigged game that only benefits surplus countries. The US has run trade deficits for decades and still emerged as the most powerful economy on earth. That's not despite those deficits but in part because of the structure that allows them - namely FDI and the reserve currency status of the USD.

The US receives massive foreign capital inflows. Foreigners buy US Treasury bonds, stocks, real estate and invest in businesses. Those inflows keep interest rates low, fund domestic investment and support the dollar’s global role. In other words, the trade deficit is not some evidence of decline. It is the accounting counterpart of America’s central role in the global financial system. That is just how the balance of payments works. — Benkei

The position of the US economy in the world now is nothing like is was after the world war, or the seventies. Comparatively its advantage has declined steadily over time. It is still the most powerful for now, but if the trend continues it won't be for much longer.

You might say that's fine because a rising tide raises all boats, and so everybody gets more wealthy. But that's not what actually happened. Real wages of workers in the West haven't grow much since the seventies, it's Western elites and Asia that has benefitted from the growth predominantly.

The other problem is geo-political as Tzeentch pointed out. If you only look at the economic aspect this trend might not be that worrying, but the issue is that offshoring your production does mean you lose military industrial capacity and you will eventually not be able to keep up with China. In shipbuilding for instance China flew right past the US in the past decade.

You also claim that the US created the postwar global system because it used to run surpluses and that it should step away now that "the East" benefits more. But that ignores the actual historical logic behind the system. The US didn’t create the global economic order to rack up trade surpluses. It created the order to prevent another world war, contain communism and entrench a rules-based system in which it would remain the institutional and financial center, regardless of whether it was exporting more goods than it imported. That strategy worked. The US became the issuer of the reserve currency, the seat of global capital and the main power in the world. Walking away from that now doesn’t punish China. It vacates the field for them to take over as the second largest economy in the world . — Benkei

Well I'm not arguing that it was the only reason, but it was a reason... the dominant power will not build a system that doesn't work for them economically. Historically it has generally been the well performing established economies that advocated for free trade, and the less competitive economies that tried to protect their emerging industries. And that is what China has done, it has created the system that could maximally benefit from what the West had set up, i.e. protectionism not mainly by tariffs maybe, but by heavy subsidizing of industrial policy initiatives and erecting barriers to their internal market.

You say China should carry more of the burden. Fair enough. But then what? Are we handing them the keys to the system because the US is tired of leading it? Tariffs aren’t creating “space” for anything coherent. They’re just inflaming tensions and undermining trust in US stability. A real renegotiation of global institutions would require diplomatic capital and credibility; the very things a chaotic trade war destroys and Trump personally lacks. — Benkei

The issue is that China wouldn't necessarily want to fundamentally re-negotiate the system that was serving them reasonably well as it was. By threatening to plunge the entire thing into chaos you would think it will make them more amenable for talks about real change. They have the most to lose because their economy relies to most on exports. And finding other markets to sell their products is easier said than done because there aren't that many markets like the US that can buy up their surplus.

I don't know what Trumps plan is, or if they even have a set plan... And it could easily backfire for the US. But I do think you will have to eventually do something to re-adjust the system to a world that has changed fundamentally (the share of world GDP of the US having declined as much). It seems to me they are just throwing stuff at the wall now to see what sticks.

It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. — Franklin D. Roosevelt

They are trying something alright, admitting failure frankly is another matter.

Your swipe at the left is a convenient distraction that makes me wonder why it's even in there. Yes, parts of the left were historically anti-globalist, but that was in defense of labour standards, environmental protections and democratic oversight: not nationalist economic isolation. And as a leftist I'm STILL in favour of tariffs but to force other countries to produce at the same level of regulations as the EU does so we have a level playing field between local and foreign producers and costs of production aren't unfairly externalised unto poor people abroad and the environment there. — Benkei

As a European myself I'm all in favour of those standards too, I like healthy food and and a clean environment. I would say the global system as it is now is a problem for that too because it typically encourages a race to the bottom. That's another reason a re-negotiation is in order. I'm thinking this probably won't happen under Trump, or at least not the way we would want it because he doesn't really care about these things, that's right. My swipe at the left is more an attempt at waking them from their dogmatic slumber. I think they should realize what moment we are in, and not waste the opportunity in little fights defending the status-quo against Trump... this is a transition period and so they should be working towards a real and new plan themselves.

You're shifting the frame from economics to political realism, fine. — Benkei

This is the geopolitical power struggle of the modern age. Everything about this is political first, and various other things second, whether we like it or not.

Even enemies trade. — Benkei

Yes, and it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that trading with enemies is potentially dangerous and the calculus becomes more complex than supply and demand.

If you’re serious about "rivalry" as the defining framework, then you need to think in strategic terms, not just emotional ones. — Benkei

I'm not sure what emotional terms I would be talking in. I assume as a bottomline that whatever American politicians say are narratives meant to disguise the actual policy and sell it to the American people. I'm interested in figuring out what the actual policy is, and what it is meant to achieve.

It was part of a strategy to integrate China into the rules-based order, stabilize global supply chains and secure cheap goods and capital inflows that benefited US consumers, corporations and investors. You can call that “feeding the beast” if you like, but it also fueled decades of low inflation and higher real incomes in the US (and the West). — Benkei

Sure, and there was a time that such perspectives made sense. Now times have changed, and it's not like a Machiavellian to get hung up on past friendships.

If you want to unwind that relationship now, fine - but udnerstand the costs. This approach does not just cut off your enemy. It's cutting off your own economy from the financial and logistical circuits it has been built around for decades. Doing that without understanding how capital flows and trade balances interact is not realism. It’s just self-harm with a flag on it.

Strategic rivalry doesn't mean throwing out your central position in the global economy. It means using it intelligently. Right now, China still needs dollar access, still needs external demand and still holds US Treasury debt. That’s leverage. You don't use that leverage by blowing up your own system.

If your argument is that the US needs a more self-reliant economy and less exposure to adversarial regimes, I agree. But dressing up a dumb tariff war as strategic realism just replaces one illusion with another. — Benkei

This isn't so much about what I want, rather it's about how I believe great powers look at global affairs.

I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod.

It's like saying that the seller in a sale, profits more than the buyer. — Benkei

That's a good analogy. To value the cash paid for the goods as higher than the value of the goods, is to say the seller got a good deal. Likewise, to value the goods higher than the cash is to say that the buyer got a good deal. General economic principles must be based in an equivalence which represents "fair trade". To make the general statement that cash is more valuable than goods is simply faulty economics because it negates the possibility of fair trade.

You might say that's fine because a rising tide raises all boats, and so everybody gets more wealthy. But that's not actually what happened. Real wages of workers in the West haven't grow much since the seventies, it's Western elites and Asia that has benefitted from the growth predominantly. — ChatteringMonkey

This statement is meaningless without a standard of real measurement. If one group of people is living in luxury while the other is living in poverty, it makes no sense to complain that the wages of those living in poverty rose while the wages of those living in luxury stayed the same.

And there has always been capitalist "elites". When the elites already have more money than they could ever possibly spend, therefore are free to do what they want, what does "benefitting the elites" even mean?

This statement is meaningless without a standard of real measurement. If one group of people is living in luxury while the other is living in poverty, it makes no sense to complain that the wages of those living in poverty rose while the wages of those living in luxury stayed the same.

And there has always been capitalist "elites". When the elites already have more money than they could ever possibly spend, therefore are free to do what they want, what does "benefitting the elites" even mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. My claim is that real wages of workers haven't changed that much since the seventies... that is in terms of cost of living (wages compared to buying a house and food etc...) which is what really matters to them. And a further claim that is probably save to make, is that the gap in wealth between workers and elites in the West has only grown.

I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod. — Tzeentch

Statements like these just make me zone out. Who is "Washington"? What evidence do you have for it? The fact that there's no rhyme or reason to the tariff war any way you cut it means nobody competent is in control and not some secret cabal pulling Trump's strings.

In this context, "Washington" is primarily the United States foreign policy establishment aka "the Blob". If you're genuinely interested I can provide some sources, but considering your tone I doubt that you are.

The existence of a political elite that holds a lot of sway behind the curtains isn't really all that controversial among political thinkers, though some ascribe more power to them than others.

Calling the people at the top dummies is a little naive, in my opinion. It's much more likely that you simply don't understand what's going on, because the political elite have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed.

In this context, "Washington" is primarily the United States foreign policy establishment aka "the Blob". If you're genuinely interested I can provide some sources, but considering your tone I doubt that you are. — Tzeentch

Oh, I'm very interested in understanding the rabbit hole you hide in so I can drag you out of it and find some common ground out in the light of reason.