Trump finalizes tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, triggering likely trade war

That's not an answer. That's empty rhetoric.

How are we getting screwed and how do tarrifs fix that screwing?

 

you don't really think I give a damn whether you like my answer or not do you

 

This is all very much about feelings for you. So yes. I think you do care.

Regardless, I'm not asking about anyone's emotional outlook on the situation. I'm asking you to explain yourself. Can you do so?

 

But, those are just fear & feelings. You can't demonstrate how they are screwing us financially. This guy shows how OUR tariffs screw us financially. Do you not even want to understand? Just spout leftist nonsense as fact?

• What is the impact of the tariffs on U.S. jobs? Because production can increase in domestic firms whose products are protected from foreign competition by tariffs, estimating the jobs impact of tariffs has to take into account jobs gained, as well as those that are lost due to retaliation. The study of the tariffs on washing machines estimates that about 1,800 U.S. jobs have been created as a result of the safeguards on washing machines, with an average cost to consumers of $815,000 per job created, net of tariffs collected. A recent study by Hufbauer and Jung finds that increased costs for steel users due to U.S. steel tariffs amount to $650,000 per steel job created, with total costs of the steel tariffs as high as $900,000 per job created. The Trade Partnership estimates that steel and aluminum tariffs plus a 25 percent tariff on the goods in the first three stages of China tariffs ($250 Billion total) may create 126,900 jobs over 3 years, but cause 1,061,400 workers to lose jobs due to retaliatory tariffs and other costs, with a net cost of $490,900 for each job created. The U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration estimates that just under 1 million U.S. jobs were supported by U.S. exports to China in 2015. Many of these could be put at risk due to retaliatory tariffs. In fact, Fajgelbaum, Goldberg, Kennedy, and Khandelwal show that retaliatory tariffs have eroded real wages in the most exposed local labor markets.

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051420-110410

&, do you have ANY thoughts on the Yuge capital account surpluses that tariffs create which = direct investment in the US.


Do you even know how the "value" of exports & "imports" is calculated?

Do you not care about your country & your countrymen to even try to understand?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you think trade deficits are bad. Well, then that should make you oppose tariffs too.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/why-higher-tariffs-wont-shrink-trade-deficit



&, yes this does not prove a causal effect; I can provide plenty of causal evidence too.

 

Get out of here with that liberal gobbledygook. You know darn well China has been screwing us for years and paying Biden to do it.


Don't worry, Bill. I got you.

 

perhaps a Cato, LOL is in order.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1984/1/cj3n3-9.pdf

 

I assume you know who Phil Gramm is.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-lette...tariffs-policy-protectionism-economy-9a063b69

The primary argument for the implementation of broad-based tariffs is that they will reverse the hollowing out of American manufacturing and reduce the trade deficit, which is causing a “hemorrhaging of America’s lifeblood.” Contrary to the repeated claim, there has been no hollowing out of American manufacturing. Industrial production in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The U.S. is producing 2.5 times as much real industrial output as it did when we last ran a trade surplus in 1975. We are producing that record output with the smallest percentage of the labor force involved in manufacturing since America became fully industrialized. The percentage of the civilian nonfarm labor force employed in manufacturing peaked during World War II and has been in secular decline ever since. This has been a great success for productivity and not a failure of trade, as today’s full employment attests.

It is telling that the Trump tariffs implemented in mid-2018 and the Biden expansion of those tariffs didn’t stop the secular decline in manufacturing employment as a percentage of the total labor force. The decline in manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment is being driven by the same secular forces that caused employment in agriculture during the 20th century to fall from 40% to 2% of the labor force: a vast increase in labor productivity and a decline in the demand for manufactured products relative to services. This is a worldwide phenomenon occurring in both developed and developing countries.

In the long history of the country, there is little evidence to substantiate the claim that America prospers more when trade deficits fall than it does when they rise. During the Reagan recovery, as the level of economic growth surged, foreign investment rushed into the U.S. and the trade deficit soared. The same phenomenon occurred during the Clinton boom: So strong was the attractiveness of investing in America that the trade deficit continued to grow even as the federal government ran budget surpluses. The annual real trade deficit nearly doubled during the four years in which the U.S. government was running a budget surplus. When the economy started to grow faster in 2017 and 2018 during the first Trump term, the trade deficit rose despite the tariffs that were imposed in mid-2018.

The tariffs on steel and aluminum created only a small number of jobs, but since for every worker in the steel and aluminum industries there are 36 workers employed in American industries that use steel and aluminum in production processes, those modest gains were offset by the jobs losses in industries that use steel and aluminum as inputs. With foreign retaliation, the estimated cost to the economy of jobs created by the 2018 tariffs on washing machines, steel and aluminum clearly amounted to many times what the jobs paid in wages.

 

Chinese exports, aided by tariff dodging, defy Trump’s trade pressure
President Donald Trump’s effective trade embargo on China has not dented exports from the world’s largest manufacturer, which offset plummeting shipments to the United States with a surge in sales to Southeast Asia, boosting Beijing’s defiant stance ahead of talks this weekend.

The rise in exports to Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand — all countries identified by analysts as rerouting hubs — shows how China is increasingly shipping products through third countries to keep goods flowing.

“The thing about trade is when there are huge arbitrage opportunities, people are going to find a way to take advantage of them, legally or illegally,” said Caroline Freund, an expert on international trade at the University of California at San Diego. “It’s like a river. You can keep putting rocks in, but the water’s going to keep flowing down.”

 

can't stop a ship, but surely we can stop Fentanyl.

 

LOL. We were doing so poorly compared to everyone else.

 

It sounds more like negotiations that may lead to a deal have begun rather than an actual final deal has been reached.
Top U.S. officials allude to potential 'agreement' with China on trade
Top White House officials alluded to a potential trade agreement with China on Sunday after representatives from the two countries held talks in Switzerland over the weekend.

In remarks to reporters in Geneva, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer struck an optimistic tone regarding the state of a potential trade agreement with China, noting that the administration would provide additional details on Monday.

“I’m happy to report that we made substantial progress between the United States and China in the very important trade talks,” Bessent told reporters, adding that “the talks were productive.”

The brief remarks — just over two minutes — were thin on details, but Greer appeared to reference an agreement between the two sides as he touted the talks as constructive.

I would also add that even if a final agreement provides more reasonable tariffs like 25% than the 100% plus or even the 80% that Trump has recently mentioned in the end American consumers and businesses will be paying much higher prices on goods from China than they were before Trump decided to launch his trade war.

 

I’ll take anything over the insanity we have today.

US, China reach deal to cut trade deficit, US officials say, details on Monday -

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-china-talks-defuse-trade-row-resume-geneva-2025-05-11/

GENEVA - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday reported "substantial progress" in U.S. talks with China's top economic officials to de-escalate a damaging trade war, but offered no details of an agreement reached as two days of negotiations wrapped up in Geneva.

 

An interesting article on whether Americans are willing to pay extra for products made in America. Americans say they would much rather buy American-made, and are willing to pay extra to do it, but is that true? A showerhead costs three times as much to make in the U.S. as it does in China. A businessman put American showerheads next to showerheads made overseas. Customers did not buy a single U.S.-made showerhead.

Final score: Foreign-made: 584, U.S.: 0.

A business owner tested if customers would pay more for American-made. The results were 'sobering.'

 

Why am I not surprised? When asked a hypothetical question Americans may say that they would be willing to pay more for an American-made product than an imported version. When confronted with the reality the results are far different. American consumers may be willing to pay slightly more for American made products than imported products. As the example in your linked article indicated given the choice they're not going to pay significantly higher prices.

 

We either have a concept of a plan or a concept of a concept

 

It does tell us that even a 145% tariff isn't going to persuade Americans to buy American-made. So, either you jack the tariffs up much higher (it would take a 350% tariff to make the two prices equal, according to my calculation), or you accept the fact that China is the better country to make this kind of product, and you move on. IOW, pick your battles more carefully. It makes much more sense for the U.S. to focus on high-end, value-added products (like cars and aircraft) than simple things like showerheads. You don't get to win all the battles in life. A smart person doesn't try to.

 

If quality is equal I’ll pay the lower cost. If quality isn’t slightly better I’ll pay the lower cost. If there’s a significant quality difference I’ll pay a higher cost. Shower heads…I’d go with a lower cost

 

If you were to run any test that pits greed/self interest vs something that helps anyone else, 100% of MAGA voters will will pick greed and self interest every single time.