Tariffs

[TimFox]

Many years ago, when US party politics had not yet degenerated to our current extremely polarized partisan politics, someone suggested a general knowledge exam for candidates.  I don’t remember the source, or the full contents, but I believe it contained these:

Recite from memory a poem written after 1900.
Explain the “infield fly rule” (this is for US politics, other countries can substitute analogous sports topics).

To this we should add elementary math questions, such as how to compute percentages.

[floobydust]

china has the Central Party School where they study Western Democracy and its weaknesses, to find exploits.
We have no formal education like that, I haven't seen anyone with a Political Science background lead anything. Corruption is the limiting factor in politics.

"It's whataboutery because UK politicians have bugger all to do with how the US does tariffs."
Local politicians (here) are scrambling to save industries that are getting decimated by the tariffs. Numbers are way down, many layoffs are happening.
You can't just lie there and take it, the tariffs. But pushback is not possible because Trump is all about reciprocal tariffs.

So we have inept politicians floundering about trying to keep things running. Of course they are just revealing more of their inability to be uh useful.

[themadhippy]

A degree in ppe seems to be the fast track into uk bolitics,and considering there always covering there arse from risk it seems quite appropriate

[Monkeh]

Essential items are Food, water, shelter, clothing. All of them are made locally in the US, and the imports are minimal, or they can be made locally.

Imports of clothing and construction materials are huge. Local production of affordable clothes is almost non-existent, because it's too expensive. That.. won't change because the cost of importing goes up, unless wages go down until people can't afford essentials at the lower prices..

TV and computers and phones are luxury items, where you spend your extra, disposable income to buy them.

For most people, some sort of computing device and a phone are essentials. It's 2025, have you tried getting any sort of job outside of a town of 50 people without a phone number and the ability to fill in forms online? And then we should talk about cars.. you know what car dependency is, and how it's been built into infrastructure in the US, right?

They aren't worse off because income tax is reduced.
He actually is planning to reduce income tax to zero up to 150K per year. This was the plan all along, and it was communicated in simple plain English.
As I said already here, I would take this deal without thinking a second about it.

But it isn't reduced yet, he's 'planned' lots of things he's never done. You're free not to think about things, but not everyone is as free from thought.

[Zero999]

Isn't that the same with any politician?

Irrelevant.

Just listen to what our prime minister says [...]

Whataboutery.

Very relevant. Not wataboutery: all politicians are the same.

It's irrelevant because it is not about politicians - it is about tariffs and their effects. At most, it could be about how those tariffs come about, and in that case it's a specific person or administration. No-one else.

It's whataboutery because UK politicians have bugger all to do with how the US does tariffs.

Who is responsible for the tariffs? Politicians, who all do their best to distract from the negative impacts of their actions.

[Monkeh]

I wonder what the response would have been if the Democrats decided to have a sales tax? Whilst not the same thing i.e. it's applied when goods are sold to the end user and not by companies, it would have a similar effect.

I can't help but notice, whether certain people agree with a policy or not, often depends on how it's framed, rather than the policy in itself or whether it's a good or bad idea in general. Make China pay and bring back American industry, will gain more support from the right and criticism from the left, whilst raise taxes to spend on services will be supported by the left, but be opposed by the right.

Note: I don't support either of the above.

The response to a general sales tax would probably be rather poor no matter who suggested it. In general they strongly dislike taxation - but of course are incredibly vocal about having the tax-funded services they rely on like say, roads, or emergency services. A lot of very critical response to, say, poor funding for military veterans care, but god help you if you want to tax them to pay for it, that money should just, I don't know, be generated out of thin air..

Framing and intent are of course critical. The 'left' are critical of 'make China pay' because it's a fucking lie, not because they're opposed to industry and jobs (so long, of course, as industry is reasonably regulated, not left to pollute and endanger people as it has been historically and will be under the ignorant guidance of certain people, and the jobs actually pay enough for people to live..).

[Zero999]

I wonder what the response would have been if the Democrats decided to have a sales tax? Whilst not the same thing i.e. it's applied when goods are sold to the end user and not by companies, it would have a similar effect.

I can't help but notice, whether certain people agree with a policy or not, often depends on how it's framed, rather than the policy in itself or whether it's a good or bad idea in general. Make China pay and bring back American industry, will gain more support from the right and criticism from the left, whilst raise taxes to spend on services will be supported by the left, but be opposed by the right.

Note: I don't support either of the above.

The response to a general sales tax would probably be rather poor no matter who suggested it. In general they strongly dislike taxation - but of course are incredibly vocal about having the tax-funded services they rely on like say, roads, or emergency services. A lot of very critical response to, say, poor funding for military veterans care, but god help you if you want to tax them to pay for it, that money should just, I don't know, be generated out of thin air..

Framing and intent are of course critical. The 'left' are critical of 'make China pay' because it's a fucking lie, not because they're opposed to industry and jobs (so long, of course, as industry is reasonably regulated, not left to pollute and endanger people as it has been historically and will be under the ignorant guidance of certain people, and the jobs actually pay enough for people to live..).

I think many on the left would welcome an increase in tax in order to pay for services.

Yes, of course it's a lie that China will pay. Who would have guessed it? Politicians lie!

[TimFox]

There are several features of the role of US President, or analogous office in other countries.

1.  Beliefs and opinions.
Trump, for example, has strong beliefs and opinions:  enough of them are shared by sufficient voters that he won the 2024 election fair and square.
2.  Intentions for actions.
At his and my age, we can change our minds.
Some intended actions are wise, and some are unwise.  That's politics.
Some intended actions (such as raising tariffs) are physically possible, others (such as reducing pharmaceutical prices by more than 1000%) are obviously not possible.
3.  Statements of fact.
These are stated separately, usually to justify intended actions.
I have found that quantitative statements of fact from Mr Trump can almost always be assumed to be downright false, or at least exaggerated by a large factor.

[floobydust]

Today, "The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!"
Lip-Bu Tan took over in March as Intel CEO, replacing Pat Gelsinger.

[tszaboo]

Essential items are Food, water, shelter, clothing. All of them are made locally in the US, and the imports are minimal, or they can be made locally.

Imports of clothing and construction materials are huge. Local production of affordable clothes is almost non-existent, because it's too expensive. That.. won't change because the cost of importing goes up, unless wages go down until people can't afford essentials at the lower prices..

TV and computers and phones are luxury items, where you spend your extra, disposable income to buy them.

For most people, some sort of computing device and a phone are essentials. It's 2025, have you tried getting any sort of job outside of a town of 50 people without a phone number and the ability to fill in forms online? And then we should talk about cars.. you know what car dependency is, and how it's been built into infrastructure in the US, right?

The entire country is built on "2 by 4"-rs , like the middle piggy. And you can get a "dozen T shirt for 5 bucks". Clothing is really just a drop in a bucket, tariff it and people are going to be just fine.
You can get an Android phone for like 50 dollars, now it's going to be 60, you buy one every 3 years? Meanwhile you save thousands of dollars in taxes.

But it isn't reduced yet, he's 'planned' lots of things he's never done. You're free not to think about things, but not everyone is as free from thought.

But it is. The "Big Beautiful Bill" already introduced several tax cuts.

Some intended actions (such as raising tariffs) are physically possible, others (such as reducing pharmaceutical prices by more than 1000%) are obviously not possible.

Why? Why can I buy the same drug, insulin for 9EUR, which cost 100 dollar for you? It's essential for people, you die if you don't take it. Just ELI5 for me. BTW the production cost of it is 2 dollars.

[Cyclotron]

. When we talk about food, it's going to be grain and corn, not avocado toast and banana

and homegrown coffees is gonna be a bit scarce.Still the key ingredients for the national dish (big mac,fries.large coke)all appear to be available homegrown

Coffee is grown in Puerto Rico, California, and Hawaii. As I think was covered, only essential item for the privileged.

[TimFox]

Essential items are Food, water, shelter, clothing. All of them are made locally in the US, and the imports are minimal, or they can be made locally.

Imports of clothing and construction materials are huge. Local production of affordable clothes is almost non-existent, because it's too expensive. That.. won't change because the cost of importing goes up, unless wages go down until people can't afford essentials at the lower prices..

TV and computers and phones are luxury items, where you spend your extra, disposable income to buy them.

For most people, some sort of computing device and a phone are essentials. It's 2025, have you tried getting any sort of job outside of a town of 50 people without a phone number and the ability to fill in forms online? And then we should talk about cars.. you know what car dependency is, and how it's been built into infrastructure in the US, right?

The entire country is built on "2 by 4"-rs , like the middle piggy. And you can get a "dozen T shirt for 5 bucks". Clothing is really just a drop in a bucket, tariff it and people are going to be just fine.
You can get an Android phone for like 50 dollars, now it's going to be 60, you buy one every 3 years? Meanwhile you save thousands of dollars in taxes.

But it isn't reduced yet, he's 'planned' lots of things he's never done. You're free not to think about things, but not everyone is as free from thought.

But it is. The "Big Beautiful Bill" already introduced several tax cuts.

Some intended actions (such as raising tariffs) are physically possible, others (such as reducing pharmaceutical prices by more than 1000%) are obviously not possible.

Why? Why can I buy the same drug, insulin for 9EUR, which cost 100 dollar for you? It's essential for people, you die if you don't take it. Just ELI5 for me. BTW the production cost of it is 2 dollars.

Did you read what I posted?  Trump wants to reduce US drug prices (a useful goal) but can't help exaggerating to the point of absurdity.
August 4:  TRUMP: “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.”
Reducing insulin from 100 USD to 9 EUR = 10.50 USD would be a mathematically-realizable reduction of 89.5%.
Trump made that statement a few days earlier:  possibly a simple misstatement, but he repeated it later on camera.
Earlier, he lied about reductions in insulin prices during the Biden administration.

[Cyclotron]

Did you read what I posted?  Trump wants to reduce US drug prices (a useful goal) but can't help exaggerating to the point of absurdity.
August 4:  TRUMP: “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.”
Reducing insulin from 100 USD to 9 EUR = 10.50 USD would be a mathematically-realizable reduction of 89.5%.
Trump made that statement a few days earlier:  possibly a simple misstatement, but he repeated it later on camera.
Earlier, he lied about reductions in insulin prices during the Biden administration.

I agree that Trump isn't trustable on face value of the quality of his statements. I think I've seen some consistency in the alignment of his "intent" with his grand statements though. Maybe I'm just not aware but I think that he generally intends to do what he says and, at least for the most part, that's somewhat different than the common refrain or criticism of politicians never delivering on their promises.

But, imagine the gibberish that came out of the previous President's mouth.  I mean, was he lying?  Probably but you might now know it given it was unintelligible.

As countries have decided to negotiate, we have seen the intent of the tariffs. That's to negotiate better terms for the US.  We can debate if the negotiated terms are better or worse but is it bad to pursue better terms for your nation?

Trump is a terrific trolling machine. He pisses people off and I'm sure he does it intentionally. The media can't get enough of him.  He loves the attention and the media and people that hate give it to him in spades. An example is that we have a thread about tariffs but it seems to be specifically about the US'es use of them to negotiate better trade deals.  That's Trump trolling.

[TimFox]

Did you read what I posted?  Trump wants to reduce US drug prices (a useful goal) but can't help exaggerating to the point of absurdity.
August 4:  TRUMP: “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.”
Reducing insulin from 100 USD to 9 EUR = 10.50 USD would be a mathematically-realizable reduction of 89.5%.
Trump made that statement a few days earlier:  possibly a simple misstatement, but he repeated it later on camera.
Earlier, he lied about reductions in insulin prices during the Biden administration.

I agree that Trump isn't trustable on face value of the quality of his statements. I think I've seen some consistency in the alignment of his "intent" with his grand statements though. Maybe I'm just not aware but I think that he generally intends to do what he says and, at least for the most part, that's somewhat different than the common refrain or criticism of politicians never delivering on their promises.

But, imagine the gibberish that came out of the previous President's mouth.  I mean, was he lying?  Probably but you might now know it given it was unintelligible.

As countries have decided to negotiate, we have seen the intent of the tariffs. That's to negotiate better terms for the US.  We can debate if the negotiated terms are better or worse but is it bad to pursue better terms for your nation?

Trump is a terrific trolling machine. He pisses people off and I'm sure he does it intentionally. The media can't get enough of him.  He loves the attention and the media and people that hate give it to him in spades. An example is that we have a thread about tariffs but it seems to be specifically about the US'es use of them to negotiate better trade deals.  That's Trump trolling.

Biden suffered from a stammer or stuttering for his entire life.  see  https://www.stutteringhelp.org/content/president-joe-biden
Trump's big problem during that period is unconcern for facts, which are for losers.

[Zero999]

Did you read what I posted?  Trump wants to reduce US drug prices (a useful goal) but can't help exaggerating to the point of absurdity.
August 4:  TRUMP: “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.”
Reducing insulin from 100 USD to 9 EUR = 10.50 USD would be a mathematically-realizable reduction of 89.5%.
Trump made that statement a few days earlier:  possibly a simple misstatement, but he repeated it later on camera.
Earlier, he lied about reductions in insulin prices during the Biden administration.

I agree that Trump isn't trustable on face value of the quality of his statements. I think I've seen some consistency in the alignment of his "intent" with his grand statements though. Maybe I'm just not aware but I think that he generally intends to do what he says and, at least for the most part, that's somewhat different than the common refrain or criticism of politicians never delivering on their promises.

But, imagine the gibberish that came out of the previous President's mouth.  I mean, was he lying?  Probably but you might now know it given it was unintelligible.

As countries have decided to negotiate, we have seen the intent of the tariffs. That's to negotiate better terms for the US.  We can debate if the negotiated terms are better or worse but is it bad to pursue better terms for your nation?

Trump is a terrific trolling machine. He pisses people off and I'm sure he does it intentionally. The media can't get enough of him.  He loves the attention and the media and people that hate give it to him in spades. An example is that we have a thread about tariffs but it seems to be specifically about the US'es use of them to negotiate better trade deals.  That's Trump trolling.

Biden suffered from a stammer or stuttering for his entire life.  see  https://www.stutteringhelp.org/content/president-joe-biden
Trump's big problem during that period is unconcern for facts, which are for losers.

Trump was also known for exaggeration and making outlandish claims before he became president. I doubt many of his supporters take everything he says at face value. They take delight in what he says because upsets those they hate and that he doesn't give a toss about the insults they throw back at him.

Regarding the subject of tariffs along with taxes. The US certainly is a big enough consumer that it has some power over its suppliers. We have to wait and see what the effects will be.

[TimFox]

Many of Trump's supporters say "take him seriously, but not literally".
Too many American voters took him literally, and therefore not seriously.
The rest is history.

However, I disagree with your statement  "He doesn't give a toss about the insults they throw back at him."
Like most bullies, he has a thin skin for insults directed at him, although he insults widely.
In elementary school, we said, "You can dish it out, but you can't take it".

[Cyclotron]

Biden suffered from a stammer or stuttering for his entire life.  see  https://www.stutteringhelp.org/content/president-joe-biden
Trump's big problem during that period is unconcern for facts, which are for losers.

While Biden may or may not have had a stuttering problem. His cognitive abilities were impaired and obviously so. Hence him being pushed out and the CNN folks coming out with the book.

There were serious concerns about Biden running originally.  Obama expressed them as I recall.  That's not to say he would be first president that had a brain that was out-to-lunch ex: Reagan. 

But lies are the currency of politicians. The inflation reduction act was not. The lead of the minority in the senate lie about who will fund the ball room at the white house.

[tszaboo]

Did you read what I posted?  Trump wants to reduce US drug prices (a useful goal) but can't help exaggerating to the point of absurdity.
August 4:  TRUMP: “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.”
Reducing insulin from 100 USD to 9 EUR = 10.50 USD would be a mathematically-realizable reduction of 89.5%.
Trump made that statement a few days earlier:  possibly a simple misstatement, but he repeated it later on camera.
Earlier, he lied about reductions in insulin prices during the Biden administration.

That might be a deliberate mistake, given that people don't know how % works.
Or he will get it right 9 out of 10 times, one time he will exaggerate, and legacy media will clip 10 seconds from a speech, have it on repeat ad nauseam.

[Monkeh]

And you can get a "dozen T shirt for 5 bucks".

Not made in the USA you can't. And you never will, because people like to be paid enough to eat.

That might be a deliberate mistake, given that people don't know how % works.
Or he will get it right 9 out of 10 times, one time he will exaggerate, and legacy media will clip 10 seconds from a speech, have it on repeat ad nauseam.

"deliberate mistake" also known as lying. I've never seen him get things right more than one time out of ten. And yes, I've watched whole speeches and interviews and read entire statements and announcements. Just about every time he says something it's flat out wrong, exaggerated, or a deliberately misleading lie. He repeats the latter over and over and over again, and you believe them.

[TimFox]

One definition of lying, as opposed to other false statements, includes “with intent to deceive the listener “.

[tszaboo]

And you can get a "dozen T shirt for 5 bucks".

Not made in the USA you can't. And you never will, because people like to be paid enough to eat.

That might be a deliberate mistake, given that people don't know how % works.
Or he will get it right 9 out of 10 times, one time he will exaggerate, and legacy media will clip 10 seconds from a speech, have it on repeat ad nauseam.

"deliberate mistake" also known as lying. I've never seen him get things right more than one time out of ten. And yes, I've watched whole speeches and interviews and read entire statements and announcements. Just about every time he says something it's flat out wrong, exaggerated, or a deliberately misleading lie. He repeats the latter over and over and over again, and you believe them.

But is it really? Do you believe that he thinks you will get paid to take drugs?
Or you just have TDS.
Probably 9 out of 10 times, or 900% of the time he is saying it right. 
Besides I would rather have a politician that does the right thing and said the wrong then vice versa.

[Monkeh]

But is it really? Do you believe that he thinks you will get paid to take drugs?

No, I think he doesn't have a clue what's coming out of his mouth apart from it sounding good to people who know even less.

Or you just have TDS.

Yes, label people to dismiss them. "They don't agree with me, they have TDS and can be ignored!"

[TimFox]

And you can get a "dozen T shirt for 5 bucks".

Not made in the USA you can't. And you never will, because people like to be paid enough to eat.

That might be a deliberate mistake, given that people don't know how % works.
Or he will get it right 9 out of 10 times, one time he will exaggerate, and legacy media will clip 10 seconds from a speech, have it on repeat ad nauseam.

"deliberate mistake" also known as lying. I've never seen him get things right more than one time out of ten. And yes, I've watched whole speeches and interviews and read entire statements and announcements. Just about every time he says something it's flat out wrong, exaggerated, or a deliberately misleading lie. He repeats the latter over and over and over again, and you believe them.

But is it really? Do you believe that he thinks you will get paid to take drugs?
Or you just have TDS.
Probably 9 out of 10 times, or 900% of the time he is saying it right. 
Besides I would rather have a politician that does the right thing and said the wrong then vice versa.

Even he can't literally think that drugs will have negative price to the consumer.
However, your estimate about truth in his "statements of fact" is inverted:  look back at the address to a joint session of Congress early in his second term and then go to different fact-checking sites to evaluate the truthiness.

[Cyclotron]

Not made in the USA you can't. And you never will, because people like to be paid enough to eat.

Haynes, produces goods in places like Puerto Rico (US) and with US produced cotton.
Surprisingly Amazon has a sale on right now for 6 Haynes T-shirts for 10 dollars.
That's $1.66 US each.

Not 10 for 5 but still not a bad price. I don't know why folks think that manufacturing isn't done in the US.  The shoe factory that sits beside my highschool is still there and still producing shoes. The amount of manufacturing has reduced and that's disproportionately impacted people that have little skills or abilities to find work in other areas.

I like that the US is a manufacturing country and I hope it remains so.

[PlainName]

One definition of lying, as opposed to other false statements, includes “with intent to deceive the listener “.

What about deceiving oneself?