Tariff Hypocrisy

[Husker_Du]

 

[Husker_Du]

 

[Husker_Du]

 

[scourge165]

I'm just confused...do you guys REALLY honestly not see a theme? What Country did they cite? Did they say just blanket tariffs on every country and make those tariffs up. Don't match the tariffs THOSE nations have in place, just come up with the trade deficit we have and divide it by 2 to come up with a tariff for every other Nation?

 

Are they calling for just arbitrary tariffs against EVERY nation including our allies in Canada and Mexico?

Or are they calling for TARGETED tariffs?

We put tariffs on a country that DOESN'T HAVE ANY PEOPLE LIVING ON IT.

We put massive tariffs on a country that has 6,000 people because of a 3.3M trade deficit.

 

-The WORST policy in 95 years. 
 

Our Commerce Secretary doesn't know what the actual rates are on China. 54%?

What Country, one ONE Country was excluded from the tariffs(while we put tariffs on Penguins)? Russia. 

 

But I guess...if we cripple all the economies...that'll work also, right?

 

 

[uncle bernard]

There's a difference between supporting tariffs in certain situations and the absolute insanity that is the Trump tariff policy.

Putting huge blanket tariff's on almost every country in the world is crazy. We should not have a trade surplus with every country in the world. The United States cannot produce tons of important, everyday products.

For example, America has never had, nor will it ever have, a major coffee industry because it is not a local crop. We do not have the climate to produce it at scale. So, we import almost all of the coffee we drink. Now, Trump has put 10%+ tariffs on Columbia and Brazil, where most of our coffee comes from. All this does is make your morning cup more expensive. It will not result in the booming of a domestic coffee industry.

There is no purpose to this other than virtue signaling to stupid people.

[Wrestleknownothing]

I found this very brilliant post on another thread. Everyone should listen to this guy:

We are being fed a very mixed message on tariffs. Some may call that a lie. Trump has attempted to sell these as retaliation for unfair trade practices (tariffs imposed on US goods, protectionists policies and taxes). If the goal was really to remove those barriers imposed by other nations then you would need to target those nations and those policies to have a chance at being effective.

But that is not what happened. Tariffs are being imposed willy-nilly based on balance of trade. They took a hyper simplistic approach. And the effect was predictable. Now other countries will impose retaliatory tariffs on the US. Imbalance of trade can be the result of unfair practices. But what you describe above is not that. Cheaper labor in other countries is a structural advantage. Tariffs will never solve that problem. Tariffs will only serve to import inflation.

The tariff formula they used makes matters worse. And they knew what they were doing was simplistic so they attempted to dress up their formula with superscripts and subscripts that have no meaning. And they added Greek letters that exactly offset each other (4 x .25 = 1) while citing studies that DO NOT support those values.

This is so poorly executed after being so poorly conceived. That is why the market is selling off hard. A complete unforced error. And Trump will absolutely violate the first rule of holes. Now that he is in one, he keep digging.

[scourge165]

26 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I found this very brilliant post on another thread. Everyone should listen to this guy:

We are being fed a very mixed message on tariffs. Some may call that a lie. Trump has attempted to sell these as retaliation for unfair trade practices (tariffs imposed on US goods, protectionists policies and taxes). If the goal was really to remove those barriers imposed by other nations then you would need to target those nations and those policies to have a chance at being effective.

But that is not what happened. Tariffs are being imposed willy-nilly based on balance of trade. They took a hyper simplistic approach. And the effect was predictable. Now other countries will impose retaliatory tariffs on the US. Imbalance of trade can be the result of unfair practices. But what you describe above is not that. Cheaper labor in other countries is a structural advantage. Tariffs will never solve that problem. Tariffs will only serve to import inflation.

The tariff formula they used makes matters worse. And they knew what they were doing was simplistic so they attempted to dress up their formula with superscripts and subscripts that have no meaning. And they added Greek letters that exactly offset each other (4 x .25 = 1) while citing studies that DO NOT support those values.

This is so poorly executed after being so poorly conceived. That is why the market is selling off hard. A complete unforced error. And Trump will absolutely violate the first rule of holes. Now that he is in one, he keep digging.

But wait...I don't get it. 

30 years ago Pelosi and Shummer said something about tariffs on China and then in 2008 Bernie and McCain agreed, so...hypocrisy, right?

 

[billyhoyle]

2 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

 

Following the economic policies of Bernie Sanders is how you crash the economy. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

21 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

Following the economic policies of Bernie Sanders is how you crash the economy. 

I am no fan of Bernie Sanders' economic theories, but they have also never been followed. I am no fan of Trump's economic theories. And now that I see the results, I absolutely hate them.

Comparing this reality to some past theoretical world is useless.

[scourge165]

15 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

Following the economic policies of Bernie Sanders is how you crash the economy. 

I like Bernie...Bernie means well. 

There's a reason Bernie hasn't won the primaries. 

 

But hey, for people that like moderate politics, Cory Bush/Bowman losing, just know...the GOP is NOT going to do well in the Midterms and this will...probably help people of their ilk. 

 

 

If only there was some way to get the point across(as I tried in the post about Reagan) how EVERY tariff isn't bad, it's only across the board tariffs that are damaging. If there was some way for people to read that, digest it, understand it and then stop pointing out how at one time or another a Democrat suggested we put tariffs on China or on...Steel. I remember Tammy Baldwin did that. She passed a law, everything built by the Govt' HAD to be built with American Steel(not quite a tariffs, but...akin to one). 

But it doesn't seem like people can differentiate these two lines of thinking. 

 

[billyhoyle]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I am no fan of Bernie Sanders' economic theories, but they have also never been followed. I am no fan of Trump's economic theories. And now that I see the results, I absolutely hate them.

Comparing this reality to some past theoretical world is useless.

You don't think people have tried socialism before?

[red viking]

Biden actually increased tariffs but no president in modern history has done anything close to as ridiculous as Trump. These actions have different levels. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

30 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

You don't think people have tried socialism before?

No one governed by Bernie Sanders

[lisa morales]

The fat man is the laughing stock of the world.  Meanwhile Justin Trudeau is banging his wife.

[JimmySpeaks]

4 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I like Bernie...Bernie means well. 

There's a reason Bernie hasn't won the primaries. 

 

But hey, for people that like moderate politics, Cory Bush/Bowman losing, just know...the GOP is NOT going to do well in the Midterms and this will...probably help people of their ilk. 

 

 

If only there was some way to get the point across(as I tried in the post about Reagan) how EVERY tariff isn't bad, it's only across the board tariffs that are damaging. If there was some way for people to read that, digest it, understand it and then stop pointing out how at one time or another a Democrat suggested we put tariffs on China or on...Steel. I remember Tammy Baldwin did that. She passed a law, everything built by the Govt' HAD to be built with American Steel(not quite a tariffs, but...akin to one). 

But it doesn't seem like people can differentiate these two lines of thinking. 

 

Ya because he’s a communist 

[JimmySpeaks]

16 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

No one governed by Bernie Sanders

Where do you think Bernie gets his ideas from?

[scourge165]

6 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

You don't think people have tried socialism before?

1-Pretty sure he was talking about in the US

2-Bernie wasn't a socialist. 

He was a social Democrat. 

3-That's been tried, it's actually successful. 

It's not plausible when you have a massive deficit and 90% of your budget is Military Spending, Social Security and Medicare.

 

People call Bernie a socialist. Well...don't call us Free Market Capitalists any longer. 

Virtually all the same arguments used against one are used against the other. It's big Govt controlling the supply with inordinate tax rates. 

You want a new Cell Phones? Get ready to pay 500 more for it, OR build it in the US(that should take 5 years) and then you'll probably pay 750 more per phone(today's money) as you KNOW American's aren't working the hours and for the pay they do in China. 

So how do you think we'll make it work?

 

There are millions of jobs we can't fill now, but we're going to fill the skilled down labor, no unions,...and we're going to do it by letting in as few people as possible and deporting 10M(apparently)?

[scourge165]

6 hours ago, red viking said:

Biden actually increased tariffs but no president in modern history has done anything close to as ridiculous as Trump. These actions have different levels. 

No, these are WELL above Smoot-Hawley.

And this is the thing, this is why the League of Nations had to meet just 2 years before we re-started our OWN tariffs in 1929. 

Again, if you looked at China for example, they stole META's IP with ChatCCP...you could put EXPORT tariffs on them. 

Their FSD and EVs? You don't want BYD to get a Foothold in the US, you could put import tariffs on them. Those would make sense.

If TSM didn't ALREADY plan to spend HUNDREDS of billions to move and diversify away from China, tariffs on semiconductors. Now that's the one that I dislike the most as I've been in NVDA for 6 years, AVGO for 3 years, and TSM for over 2 years now, but hey, that would also make sense. Again, if they weren't already investing in the US, that'd be another area that it'd make sense.

If you were worried about the slave labor in China....you could put 25% tariffs on them. That'd...hurt, but we put twice 54% on them(we think, the guy actually in charge of trade isn't sure). 

 

This is something you do in a video game where you also attack Russia and you just do stupid things because it's a simulation. War of the Worlds type thing(not the movie, some game I've seen advertised). 

 

I have NEVER in my life hoped that a man I dislike so much...ends up being so successful that it's just undeniable. Nothing would make me happier.

 

I do not believe people are grasping the scope of his though. I don't think Trump thinks it's a problem, I think if we just "get through it," it'll work. And I don't think he's afraid of losing both houses...I think we're going to have to strap in for at least an '08 like recession, but I don't think Trump will spend what it takes to pull us out of it(hence why I think a depression is legitimately on the table). 

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

No, these are WELL above Smoot-Hawley.

There you go again, Smoot/Hawley raised tariffs from ~40% to ~60%.

[scourge165]

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

There you go again, Smoot/Hawley raised tariffs from ~40% to ~60%.

Yeah, I didn't expect you to answer my question about his plan, but...no. 

This is above Smoot Hawley(and this is BEFORE he's added Semiconductors, again, the thing that has been DRIVING the market and responsible for about half the gains in the SPX the last two years, the NASDAQ...PHARMA, LUMBER, Energy among other thing that he said he WILL be adding. 

https://www.newsweek.com/smoot-hawley-tariff-act-1930-donald-trump-reciprocal-2055368

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/03/us-tariff-rates-under-trump-will-be-higher-than-the-smoot-hawley-levels-from-great-depression-era.html

 

I don't know what else you need, but what do you mean "there I go again?" I was ridiculed on here about a year ago for saying Trump was calling for "across the board tariffs," and said that was ridiculous.

Now it's "he has a plan." And that plan...apparently isn't to work out better trade deals?

 

That's like playing Russian Roulette with one in every chamber. 

[Offthemat]

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, enacted in June 1930, added about 20% to the United States' already high import duties on foreign agricultural products and manufactured goods. The Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922 previously raised the average import tax on foreign goods to about 40%.
 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp

[scourge165]

9 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, enacted in June 1930, added about 20% to the United States' already high import duties on foreign agricultural products and manufactured goods. The Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922 previously raised the average import tax on foreign goods to about 40%.
 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp

Ok...so you're really not understanding what Trump has proposed or what effective tax rate is.

I'm really seeing ignorance as the driving factor behind a lot of the "so what, he has a plan," responses. 

This is of course, as Krugman pointed out not factoring in that it's going to have an exponentially larger impact due to how much GLOBAL trade we have no...

 

Ignorance has gotten us into this mess(yesterday I had to argue with people that the tariffs weren't passed through the house until after the market crashed, had to explain unemployment was at ~1% when passed, inflation at about .6%, 2.5% unemployment when signed into law and then ~13% by the end of 1930 on their way to over 15% within a year.

Today I guess I need to explain what the actual tariffs were...when we made the worst policy blunder in American History and how Trump has unequivocally said they're going higher. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1557485/average-tariff-rate-all-imports-us/

 

Note...the SHARP increase in tariffs are JUST what he's put into effect already. The actual tariffs don't start until April 9th(which is when we get his with reciprocal tariffs) and then...well, as happens in trade wars, just as we started out at about 15.8% and went up from there, we'll likely do the same here. 

Edited Saturday at 07:48 AM by scourge165

[scourge165]

One more thing I can add here...since a lot of these surface level links just list Smoot-Hawley AMONG the reasons for the great depression...is anyone seeing how the PROMISE of tariffs has a MASSIVE impact?

 

The market has...well, crashed. It's well in Crash Territory now. We worked on this yesterday. 

 

Quote

 

What Was the Great Depression?

The Great Depression was a devastating and prolonged economic recession that followed the crash of the United States stock market in 1929. It lasted through 1941, the same year that the U.S. entered World War II.

 

The period was marked by several economic contractions, including the stock market crash of 1929, banking panics in 1930 and 1931. and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that crashed world trade. Other events and policies helped to prolong the Depression during the 1930s.

 

Economists and historians often cite the Great Depression as the most significant, if not the most catastrophic, economic event of the 20th century.

 

 

 

Ok, so we've seen what happens when you ANNOUNCE tariffs. So now, with that understanding, lets go in chronological order. 

The stock Market Crash of 1929- That was October 1929
Banking Panics, the run on the banks, that was when unemployment hit double digits in 1930 and 1931.

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs? When WAS-THAT-PASSED? In other words, when did the United States signal to the rest of the world that the League of Nations meeting to reduce Tariffs in 1927, they were going to go the OTHER way with that? MAY OF 1929.

 

But hey, keep telling me "there I go again," and that Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the great depression...it MERELY "Crashed World Trade."

 

 

People keep telling me that wasn't the issue. It was...well...just something else. Not that. 

They also keep telling me about this...."plan" that is going to alleviate all the suffering and contraction of the GDP and the TRILLIONS flooding out of the US Markets.

Can someone share with me beyond "Powell isn't selling?"

[scourge165]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, enacted in June 1930, added about 20% to the United States' already high import duties on foreign agricultural products and manufactured goods. The Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922 previously raised the average import tax on foreign goods to about 40%.
 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp

These are the economists that the TRUMP administration clamed these tariffs were a GOOD idea...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-white-house-cited-these-economists-to-justify-its-tariffs-they-arent-thrilled-193615537.html?.tsrc=fin-notif

Tell me when I've used enough sources?

It would also appear you missed the part about the league of Nations met in an  attempt to lower tariffs. 

Also...how else can I explain this to you...

How about this. If I say EVERY person is going to pay 50% taxes on their income and THEN I say if you work in JUST these fields you'll pay 60% taxes, but you actually only collect 13% taxes on the first group and then you collect 24% on the 2nd group...which is higher?

It really shouldn't be a difficult concept, but...you may need to dig deeper than...."Investopedia." 

Kinda like when you repeat the Trump administration is just matching the tariffs and it turns out they're doing anything but that.

 

Quote

“There’s not a lot of trained economists I know of, including myself, who would argue that trade imbalances are an important metric for policymaking. Yet the people who are setting policy have decided it’s a really important metric,” he said. “If we’re going to run with that as our goal, at minimum, we should be able to have a conversation about how to do it efficiently, and with some thought and precision.”

LOL...this is the Trump administration. "Thought and precision?"

Quote

“What extraordinary nonsense this is,” the economics journalist James Surowiecki wrote in a social media post.

Quote

Even with the additional explanation, some economists dismissed the exercise as blatantly amateurish. (Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the conservative American Action Forum called it “malpractice”). Meanwhile, some of the professors who found their own studies cited went public to express their bafflement.

Quote

Alberto Cavallo, an economist at Harvard Business School who co-authored one paper included in the administration’s bibliography, tweeted that if Trump officials had applied his research correctly, the tariffs would have “come out about four times smaller.”

 

[1032004]

Here’s one to add for tariff hypocrisy.  I like this game