Trump is going to do a great deal apparently. It was only posturing prior to a negotiation.This is what Trump expects to force China into, while insulting them. This is backing down, but China is not playing ball. I heard a report from the Canton trade fair which opened today, China’s biggest trade fair. Everyone they spoke to said they have already stopped all trade with the U.S.

Trump is going to do a great deal apparently. It was only posturing prior to a negotiation — Punshhh

I missed that. Do you know when Trump mentioned it?

Everyone they spoke to said they have already stopped all trade with the U.S. — Punshhh

That makes sense.

I heard Trump say both those things, it’s over a week ago now. I wouldn’t be able to find the quotes. That he was going to do a great deal with China and that the high tariffs where to “incentivise”countries, including China, to come to the table.

He said this 6 days ago:

Speaking at a Republican Party dinner in Washington, Trump acknowledged the 104% rate for China "sounds ridiculous" but insisted that Beijing wanted to "make a deal" to avoid it.

But here, he's not saying that the point of the tariffs was to make a deal with China. He's saying that China wants to end the trade war. I honestly don't think he has framed the latest tariffs as a method of extortion. I think he truly wants to shut down imports. But I learn something new everyday. :cool:

Trump's attacks on Harvard University are a direct attack on higher education and academic freedom. This is where Trump is going fully authoritarian - trying to dictate educational policies and standards to Universities, including the most prestigious, oldest and largest University in the USA, Harvard University. It's an outrage against democracy and a fight that Trump must loose.

and a fight that Trump must loose. — Wayfarer

How?

I'm seeing daily stuff everywhere on how he oversteps all over the place, but nothing is happening. How many months of this before the riots begin?

Bernie Sanders and AOC pulled a crowd of 35,000 in LA last weekend. But the real conflict will begin when it's clear the economy is going to shit and prices start rising due to tarrifs. That's when 'the base' might begin to turn. I'm expecting June-July.

That's when 'the base' might begin to turn. I'm expecting June-July. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that the real pain will come after the next quarter. Then people will feel it and the companies earnings will show it. Basically, it's gonna get calmer for a while and then a big collective "what the f...!?" from everyone who didn't understand how tariffs work.

Also it shouldn't be lost sight of that an enormous number of extremely powerful and intelligent people are furious with Trump. Trump loves to pick fights, from behind the security of the Resolute Desk. From law enforcement, political institutions, Wall St, education sector, public services - he's seriously pissed off and aggravated a lot of major figures in US society. And I think he's completely over-playing the hand he's been dealt. James Carville, a wily Democrat political operative, says that the Trump administration will basically collapse under the weight of its own malfeasance and stupidity. I hope and believe that he's right.

Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" and geopolitics is about "potential" instead of well, grounded in fact. If it's not true in 3 years, we must wait 5, if it's not true then it must be 10, but maybe in 20. Not very convincing. To put it differently, if my dad had a vagina he would've been my mother.

I outlined the most direct route to a stable progressive world. I know it’s not realistic, or likely in the near term. But only a few years ago, say 10years, that is what we had. U.S. EU and China cooperating and providing stability and a safe arena for global trade.

Now if we are talking about the geopolitical situation right now. It’s simple in my view. China is becoming the new dominant superpower and the U.S. is turning in on herself having lost that status. The rest is just the pieces falling as they fall around that new reality.

Once that reality is accepted by the world, then we can go back to that. China, U.S. and the EU cooperating and providing global stability.

But here, he's not saying that the point of the tariffs was to make a deal with China. He's saying that China wants to end the trade war. I honestly don't think he has framed the latest tariffs as a method of extortion. I think he truly wants to shut down imports. But I learn something new everyday. :cool:

And a few days later he exempted IT products from the China tariffs. A very stable genius.

Nothing the US has done in the past week suggests the existence of a grand geopolitical master plan. — Benkei

I wasn't suggesting as much. But only a fool would assume there isn't one.

Sorry! I was mixing two answers, ignore that. It was meant as a reaction to Tzeentsch.

I wasn't suggesting as much. But only a fool would assume there isn't one. — Tzeentch

The plan is at most grift and at least anchoring in negotiations. Other than that, there's nothing sensible to find there.

Yes, I thought that’s what had happened, but it did focus my mind though, and I came out with a response that surprised myself. And I’m sticking to it now.

Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" [...] — Benkei

On the contrary, I am actively hypothesizing possible reasons for the things we see, while the rest of the forum cannot seem to produce anything beyond "it's stupid".

In the military there is a common axiom that says you must always be prepared for at least two scenarios: the enemy's most likely course of action, and the enemy's most dangerous course of action.

And this translates well into conducting geopolitics.

Imagine where Ukraine would be, had they taken into consideration what the United States' most dangerous course of action could be.

Instead they assumed surface-level appearances told the whole story, and now they are being hung out to dry while their country is being wrecked - something which people have said would happen years in advance, and this forum would undoubtedly dismiss as "reading too much into it".

Trump neemt enorm risico met handelsoorlog, maar kan die wel winnen

(translation: Trump takes huge risk with trade war, but is able to win it)

Trumps escalerende handelsoorlog in vijf scenario’s: impact op de Nederlandse economie (en breder)

(translation: Trump's escalating trade war in five scenarios: impact on the Dutch economy (and broader))


Oh boy... TPF looking mighty silly once again. Ya'll gotta stop basing your opinions on regurgitating below-average media slop.

On the contrary, I am actively hypothesizing possible reasons for the things we see, while the rest of the forum cannot seem to produce anything beyond "it's stupid". — Tzeentch

I've not seen a working hypothesis from you and how what is happening now supports getting to your theorised end goals. As I said, I expect policy ideas or something tangible. So far, you're not giving much other than restating in various ways it's a long game. I take it that you now subscribe to the theory of the USA pursuing a team USA and team China and wanting to increase US production to ? But there's an inherent contradiction there, when you're undermining trust, you are not creating a team USA. Which actually there already is but we see clear dismantling of it.

Oh boy... TPF looking mighty silly once again. Ya'll gotta stop basing your opinions on regurgitating below-average media slop. — Tzeentch

Read: I disagree with what others say, here's something that does agree with my view. People like you are searching for meaning where there is none. It's the same when interpreting books, where readers read things in it that the author never intended. Trump is stupid as exemplified in almost everything he does from the way he treats other people, his inability to speak coherently, a modicum of honesty, the number of convictions, etc. etc. What he has, is power, and as a result does not have to bear the consequences of his stupidity.

To the article then. While the article delves into the effects of trade policies and protectionist measures, it does not address how FDI interacts with trade deficits or the broader balance of payments. This omission is notable, as FDI plays a significant role in financing current account deficits and influencing long-term economic dynamics.​

By not considering FDI, the article overlooks a critical component of the international financial system that can affect the sustainability of trade deficits and the overall economic impact of trade policies. Incorporating FDI into the analysis would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential consequences of escalating trade conflicts. What will not hold true in the article with continued strong FDI in the US is:

1. it's trade deficit will remain. If FDI into the US stays robust, the US can continue running a trade deficit without economic collapse or adjustment pressure. The article assumes escalating tariffs are aimed at reducing the trade deficit, but doesn’t account for the fact that persistent FDI neutralizes that pressure.

2. FDI helps reinforce the dollar as a global reserve currency. If that status isn't under threat, financial flows into the US may actually increase during trade instability, contradicting any suggestion of a weakening US position due to its deficit.

3. If companies continue to invest in the US despite the trade war (perhaps to produce inside tariff walls), this blunts the long-term negative impact of trade disruptions and may even partially localize value chains rather than destroy them. This would temporarily increase FDI.

4. Strong FDI inflows into the US reflect continued confidence in American institutions and markets, even amid trade tensions. With sustained FDI inflows the macro-economic risks are much lower.

The article is economics only and only considers it from that angle and it ignores that the US could've used diplomacy in relation to its allies to reach more or less the same goal. So there's no explanation for why do exactly this to reach that.

Finally, and probably the worse part of the analysis is that it does not question whether the proposed end goal is feasible. Because it is again, a party of contradictions. The end-goal assumes the US can "out-export" China or reassert global dominance. The structural conditions do not allow it.

1. Demographic scale favours China. The US would need to leverage automation, innovation and high-value exports to compete because it cannot on volume cost alone. Meanwhile China continues to climb the value chain so US will be confronted with diminishing returns trying to stay ahead.
2. Rebuilding the industrial base in the US requires massive investment, time and political consensus and except for time, they don't have it.
3. As the last few decades have shown, being a dominant exporter is not the only measure of power. Being the reserve currency, having the most liquid and trusted capital markets, leading tech companies, military reach and cultural and soft power are involved as well. Focusing on trade only misunderstands the kind of power the US already holds (but is relinquishing in its aggressive trade policies).
4. If FDI does decline it will result in lower growth, weaker dollar, austerity or inflation and loss of global influence. It's not strategic at all.

The problem is, as I've explained before, that to reduce the trade deficit you must reduce FDI. To reduce FDI global trust in the USA must diminish. But at the same time trust is essential if you want to lead a global alliance of "team USA". It's contradictory crap as usual with Trump.

Next time you want to call everybody here "silly", you might start by being more critical of what you read.

I've not seen a working hypothesis from you and how what is happening now supports getting to your theorised end goals. — Benkei

I've given you plenty of suggestions. You're just refusing to read them, apparently.

Read: I disagree with what others say, here's something that does agree with my view. — Benkei

I don't feel one way or the other about the article. But it's clear to me that the situation is scarcely as cut and dry as you pretended.

Your argumentation means nothing to me if at the end of the day all you're doing is calling the White House stupid.

Who do I trust? Benkei, who thinks the governing body of the world's most powerful nation is stupid, or the people who put in an effort to understand what's actually going on?

I've given you plenty of suggestions. You're just refusing to read them, apparently. — Tzeentch

No, I haven't seen any suggestions beyond the "pivot to China" which in and of itself means nothing. I've asked you for policies; I got nothing. If people criticise your teet-weening point on Russia, it's "no, it's a long game". When I just decisively explained there's no long game through trade wars, I get, well, nothing.

Who do I trust? Benkei, who thinks the governing body of the world's most powerful nation is stupid, or the people who put in an effort to understand what's actually going on? — Tzeentch

It's not about trust. Maybe try to read my post and understand the actual arguments in it and just perhaps, maybe, learn a thing or two about economics?

Your argumentation means nothing to me if at the end of the day all you're doing is calling the White House stupid. — Tzeentch

Why? What's it to you I call them stupid? I call them stupid for very clear reasons, reasons I have regularly articulated founded on arguments. Arguments you have not addressed.

I don't feel one way or the other about the article. But it's clear to me that the situation is scarcely as cut and dry as you pretended. — Tzeentch

You should. I've given you three very good reasons not to like it.

If people criticise your teet-weening point on Russia, it's "no, it's a long game". — Benkei

If you reduce my argument as such, there should be no problem with me reducing your argument to "The White House is stupid".

Well, Benkei, experts seem to disagree. And I think it is vastly more likely that you are wrong, than the White House being stupid.

Maybe you should contact the NOS and give them your take.

As a longtime observer of American shenanigans, I can tell you that the first step is always to look on the surface. Look at what the president actually says. If you look too deeply, you'll miss it. There is no deep state.

There is no deep state. — frank

Yes, the deep state narrative is a conspiracy theory. Such disinformation should not be taken seriously in any discussion.

This law is making its way in, but we'll see:

H.R.1526 - NORRA of 2025
^{— Darrell Issa · US Congress · Feb 24, 2025}

To me, it looks like more power concentration.

ACLU Responds to House Passage of H.R. 1526, Limiting Courts’ Ability to Rein in Abuses of Power
^{— Mike Zamore · American Civil Liberties Union · Apr 9, 2025}

Is Team Trump, or someone in his vicinity, setting up (prerequisites for) authoritarianism, or is there nothing to worry about here?
Having different branches of government, with their own power, is more democratic.

(as an aside, Season 6 of The Handmaid's Tale has started :wink:)

“No one is above the law”.

Racist anti-Trump prosecutor Letitia James appears to be in hot water for possible mortgage fraud and for living in Virginia while serving as AG for New York, which would mean her AG office is vacant according to New York law. The Trump administration hit her with a federal criminal referral yesterday.

https://www.newsweek.com/letitia-james-attorney-general-new-york-residence-2060152

It’s great seeing people get what they deserve.

Is Team Trump, or someone in his vicinity, setting up (prerequisites for) authoritarianism, or is there nothing to worry about here? — jorndoe

When should society worry? After it's been installed or before it is installed or before even the risk of it?

I would argue that there shouldn't even be a risk for it. That even moving in that direction should be treated as a disqualification of the duty of office.

I honestly don't think he has framed the latest tariffs as a method of extortion. I think he truly wants to shut down imports. — frank

His administration want desperately to frame it as a negotiation tactic. That it was planned all a long to happen like this.

Perhaps Trump wants the trade balance to be just positive for the US, but in the end 145% tariffs are basically a trade embargo. But this was what he has wanted since the 1980's: tariffs! And just to put into context that this "retreat" is still that is in place now is far more bigger than Smoot-Hawley tariffs were, here's Paul Krugman and just how bad the situation is.



And are nations lining up to "kiss his ass", as Trump publicly put it, to get better deals? I don't think so. I think they will just wait for the pain to get in from the China trade war and the high 10% tariffs. The effects of policy usually can be seen in six to twelve months, but I guess now three months will do.

Yet we shouldn't forget just why Trump did his famous 180 degrees and call his Tariff-the-World program off for 90 days. It was the bond market. By Trump words, it was "qeesy", yet it seems this was a full panic. Everybody in Trump realm is denying this, but it's obvious what happened and it was the events in the treasury market.

The most alarming issue is that many in Trumpworld would like to see the dollar having a lower value. The argument would be that this would improve the competitiveness of American manufacturing. Here lies are threat. The dollar isn't just your average currency, it's one pillar that makes the US to be so prosperous in the first place. And if it considerably loses value, the reserve currency role is threatened. If US treasuries isn't the place markets go for the safety trade, then it puts the US in a bad situation. Usually when the stock market plunges, the safety trade is treasuries. This time it wasn't. That is very telling.

And let's see how bad that Trump stagflation will be.

It's been noted (by the reddit crowd) that tariffs can't bring in revenue and simultaneously increase incentives to manufacture in the US. Those are the two things the administration identified as the goals of the tariffs. If some entity wants to negotiate better access to the American market, they can, but that doesn't really work as a goal of the tariffs. From the US's point of view, it doesn't matter how an entity is paying for access, with tariffs or by smooching Trump's butt. They're still paying more than they were.

Yes and the only way is down from now on. Until he’s kicked out of office.

Yes and the only way is down from now on. Until he’s kicked out of office. — Punshhh

What do you mean "down"?