Tariffs

[bson]

What is, in principle, problematic about having a trade imbalance?  It is highly unlikely that any country will have truly balanced trade, so if some imbalance is acceptable, how much should a country aim for? 

It's a drag on the economy.  With a trade deficit around 3% of GDP this means 3% comes off economic growth.  The reason is deficit money used to buy imports never returns to produce demand for goods or services, or for investment in production of goods or services, so is effectively removed from the the economy - which creates a drag.  Basically, in the end, it's lopped off the economic growth.  So while the U.S. might register about a 4% annual economic growth, without the deficit this would be 7%.  This can lead to the problem that a country with a small economic growth gets pushed into depression from a trade deficit.  It's dangerous to be dependent on imports to this degree as it can lead to serious problems.

This has no correlation to the federal budget deficit - that's purely a fiscal problem. A trade deficit is a systematic economic problem.

Fortunately, right now is a good time to start getting ahead of the problem - growth is good, interest rates are high, and the dollar is at historic levels.  Tariffs, and their counter-tariffs, will cool the economy which can be met with lowered interest rates and a weakened dollar.  More money stays in our economy, and the reduced interest rates makes it more available to meet increased domestic demand spurred by the tariffs.

As for the federal deficit, the first step is IMO to return to statutory neutrality, meaning the United States doesn't take sides or partake in military alliances.  This eliminates the need to always be prepared for two simultaneous wars against a peer-level enemy, and hence the need for a permanent presence or the continued occupation of Europe and the ridiculous number of bases there and elsewhere.  By restructuring our military to meet the simple needs of defending our territory against attack from over the seas would probably let us cut 80% of our defense budget.  But this is more complicated and would require, among other things, pulling back our nuclear umbrella - which would lead to significant proliferation.  On the flip side, why should we risk a nuclear war in place of someone else?  That really makes no sense.

[tggzzz]

<snipped points I agree with>
How long did the Roman empire take to fall?  I think it was something like 30-40 years once the cracks started to show.  Not overnight, but pretty rapid in political terms.

How long did the British Empire take to fall? It took 15 years from Indian Independence in 1947 to Dean Acheson's famous observation in 1962, that ‘Great Britain had lost an Empire but not yet found a role’

What will the equivalent "Chinese Secretary of State" be saying about the USA in 15 years?

[dietert1]

Lucky enough China did not declare a strict embargo against USA, but that could still happen. Maybe the US should stop all their embargos and try to export a little more in order to balance their trade.

Regards, Dieter

[TimFox]

Lucky enough China did not declare a strict embargo against USA, but that could still happen. Maybe the US should stop all their embargos and try to export a little more in order to balance their trade.

Regards, Dieter

There was a serious oil embargo against the United States in 1973 to 1974 in reaction to military results in the Middle East:  https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo

Before WW II, the United States enacted an oil embargo against Japan due to their aggression in China.
At that time, Japan had negligible oil production, and about 18 months supply in storage.
They reacted not by changing their activity in China, but by deciding they had an 18 month time frame in which to conquer the Dutch East Indies.
The rest is history.  https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/pearl-harbor

Trying to export more is sometimes called "dumping" by the other parties.

[zapta]

Does "sovereign country" only have meaning when it is yours, and not that of the little guy who's pockets you're trying turn out whilst he's down for the count?

Ukraine is a sovereign country, they are free to defend themselves, and I wish them good luck, even though they have log history racism and antisemitism and they cooperated with the Nazis in a genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ukraine#World_War_II

My advice to their president is to show more gratitude in his next visit to the white house and to dress in a more respectful way. Nobody owe him a thing.

[Monkeh]

My advice to their president is to show more gratitude in his next visit to the white house and to dress in a more respectful way.

Grovel and play dressup, in other words. Sorry, but degrading others isn't how international diplomacy works. This isn't the school yard.

even though they have log history racism and antisemitism and they cooperated with the Nazis in a genocide.

And what of the history of your nation? Why should anyone show you great respect? Again, you're actively supporting a regime in the process of committing genocide.

[BravoV]

<snip>......  On the flip side, why should we risk a nuclear war in place of someone else?  That really makes no sense.

In America, that makes perfect sense, as a simple lie such as ...

"... its Chyynaa that pays the tariffs, the more the tariff, the richer we are ... YAY .. tariff for the win !!" ... 

... and big chunk of population there really believe that, just look around in the net, there are plenty at streetwise interview especially in red states on this matter, its really ... amazing. 

[tom66]

Zelenskyy didn't wear a suit because he never does so since the invasion, it's part of his image as a war time leader.  It would look strange if he did make an exception for Donnie and you just know that the anti-Ukraine press would lose their shit over him -now- wearing a suit.  Anyway, suits are outdated fashion and if you believe that a suit is the difference between making someone worth talking to and not, then I think you have the wrong priorities.

[EEVblog]

If this thread doesn't get back to tariffs quick smart it's going to get locked.

[tggzzz]

... they have log history racism and antisemitism and they cooperated with the Nazis in a genocide.

It seems history isn't taught in US schools. The USA also has a long history of racism and antisemitism and slavery, and they committed genocide all on their own. Or are you just being a crude troll?

Maybe such gross ignorance enables the "terminological inexactitude" that other countries will pay the tariffs. In reality, of course, the ordinary people in the US will pay the tariffs.

[EEVblog]

Last warning.

[MK14]

Last warning.

Too late, I linked to a video which tried to warning the US as well, but the damage is done (Tariffs).

https://archive.is/aEtMK

Explains it further.  That is a loss of something like 20% of aircraft sales, see link for details, thanks to these tariffs.

Bloomberg:

China has ordered its airlines not to take any further deliveries of Boeing Co. jets as part of the tit-for-tat trade war that’s seen US President Donald Trump levy tariffs of as high as 145% on Chinese goods, according to people familiar with the matter.

[tggzzz]

This should affect the tariffs.
"China has stopped exporting rare earths to everyone, not just the U.S., cutting off critical materials for tech, autos, aerospace, and defense "
or
"The official crackdown is part of China’s retaliation for President Trump’s sharp increase in tariffs that started on April 2.
On April 4, the Chinese government ordered restrictions on the export of six heavy rare earth metals, which are refined entirely in China, as well as rare earth magnets, 90
percent of which are produced in China. The metals, and special magnets made with them, can now be shipped out of China only with special export licenses."
https://fortune.com/2025/04/14/china-rare-earth-exports-halt-trump-trade-war-tariff-retaliation/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/business/china-rare-earths-exports.html

I wonder how "comrade nation builder" will spin that? Maybe he will just declare victory.

[themadhippy]

Seems boeing aint going to china anymore.

China has reportedly ordered its airlines not to take any further deliveries of Boeing jets, the latest move in its tit-for-tat trade war with the US.

The Chinese government has asked carriers to stop purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from American companies, according to a report from Bloomberg, which cited people familiar with the matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/15/china-orders-airlines-to-halt-boeing-jet-deliveries-us-tariffs

[zapta]

For US makers that buy from China (Aliexpress, JLC, PCBWay, etc), the main impact is not the increase of the tariff rate but the cancelation of $800 waiver on personal imports of from China and Hong Kong.

It will be interesting to see how the system will readjust to the new conditions.

[tom66]

Boeing losing China is not great but the real risk will be loss of access to the European market.  Boeing is already begging this administration to not tariff Airbus aircraft because they fear counter-tariffs on aircraft which will harm all parties - they'd rather compete with Airbus than lose access to the European market.

In fact I think it was the Delta CEO who has gone on record saying he'd flat out refuse to pay the tariffs (as Delta is buying a load of A321neos), I'm not sure how that would work in practice.

[tggzzz]

In fact I think it was the Delta CEO who has gone on record saying he'd flat out refuse to pay the tariffs (as Delta is buying a load of A321neos), I'm not sure how that would work in practice.

Isn't that exactly what President Chamberlain wants? Go Boeing!

[snarkysparky]

Won't the tariffs be temporary regardless.

I think even king don understands this.  When those prices hit walmart and home improvement centers his support will disappear.

That is why he is thrashing about with daily tariff changes.   Hoping his BIG STRONG personality will scare other nations into making "deals" before he loses his leverage.

Its all nonsense.  With labor remaining cheaper in other countries the tariffs would have to be never ending.  And contrary to what our current government believes there will be a Democrat in the oval office in 4 years.

So who is going to invest in local production capacity?

[TimFox]

Anybody remember a puppet in a children's TV show named Phineas T Bluster?

[tom66]

In fact I think it was the Delta CEO who has gone on record saying he'd flat out refuse to pay the tariffs (as Delta is buying a load of A321neos), I'm not sure how that would work in practice.

Isn't that exactly what President Chamberlain wants? Go Boeing!

I'm sure bailing out Boeing because their commercial airlines business disappeared nearly overnight would look very good indeed.   

Then again, it's not as if Boeing needs much help in shooting their own feet.

[zapta]

I'm sure bailing out Boeing because their commercial airlines business disappeared nearly overnight would look very good indeed.   

They got recently a large contract for the F-47.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-47

[Gyro]

I'm sure bailing out Boeing because their commercial airlines business disappeared nearly overnight would look very good indeed.   

They got recently a large contract for the F-47.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-47

Hmm. Have you actually read their 2024 Annual report or Form 10k submission? It makes the $20bn for the F-47 contract look like small change - especially when you consider that they'll need to spend every cent of that, and probably more, to develop and deliver a high performance next generation fighter. There's no way it could bail-out their commercial division.

P.S. https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/annual-report/2024/2024-annual-report.pdf  They had to raise $24bn for restructuring in 2023 alone.

[Psi]

One of my customers (distributor who buys in bulk) just got hit with 25% tariff. 
This is not the per country ones, its the 25% automotive one.

Distributor was expected it, but now they have to raise their prices and that eats up the discount they were getting from buying in bulk.
It makes it more expensive to use the distributor than to order from me direct (since single international orders are under the de minimis limit and won't get tariffed).

So now I'm forced to decide, do i raise my own single unit price. It would keep the distributors happy but it seems like a dick move to normal customers.
Since i would be raising the price because of tariffs but the money isnt going to pay tariff on goods they are ordering.
This is why tariffs are so annoying to deal with, they cause price increase that are not so obvious.

There are no good choices.... I cant really give the distributor a bigger discount.

[EEVblog]

I wonder how "comrade nation builder" will spin that? Maybe he will just declare victory.

Please stop adding these personal jibes to this thread.
If you can't just talk about the tarrifs, just leave this thread.

[zapta]

There are no good choices.... I cant really give the distributor a bigger discount.

You can block direct orders from the US and refer US buyers to your US distributers.