Tariffs

[Cyclotron]

What will happen is that the other nations will cut deals with each other behind our backs.  Trust is an incredibly important thing, and we've flushed it down the drain. 

It may seem like we're "winning," but trade is a long game.

I agree that trust is incredibly important. We in the US trusted our allies to pay their fair share for NATO, for instance.

We did, we went into war that was started by the USA.
The only country that ever needed Article 5 was the USA.
But you also want our money. It's very satisfying to see that almost all EU countries decided to shop around in other EU countries for that 3% spending.

I was very pleased with the response to Rubio's speech and what appears to be the collective agreement to do better by NATO and the combined defenses. I hope the shoppers find what they are looking for, or that EU members start building those things.

The US president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned the US and the world in his farewell speech:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

[Nusa]

...

Yeah.  I agree here.  US politics is polarised to a great degree.  The fact is that the presidential election is usually decided by about 5-10% swing voters in the middle.  Most people are red or blue and don't change.  Turnout is a big factor too. Kamala probably lost not because people liked Trump but because people didn't like her enough to turn out on a cold November Thursday to vote.  (And seriously, what were they thinking with letting Biden continue? So many unforced errors!)

Election day in the US is the first Tuesday in November, not a Thursday.

Unlike the UK, the weather is often considerably different across the more than continental expanse of the US. As it happens, on election day Nov 5, 2024 it was generally warm in most places, shirtsleeve or light jacket weather. Even in Anchorage it was well above freezing. Also realize that the large number of people that vote by mail or in early voting, won't be impacted by election day weather.

Candidate. You left out misogyny and racism. A woman has yet to be the US president. And only Obama has broken the color barrier. Sadly, those are still real problems for elected officials.

[Cyclotron]

...

Yeah.  I agree here.  US politics is polarised to a great degree.  The fact is that the presidential election is usually decided by about 5-10% swing voters in the middle.  Most people are red or blue and don't change.  Turnout is a big factor too. Kamala probably lost not because people liked Trump but because people didn't like her enough to turn out on a cold November Thursday to vote.  (And seriously, what were they thinking with letting Biden continue? So many unforced errors!)

Election day in the US is the first Tuesday in November, not a Thursday.

Unlike the UK, the weather is often considerably different across the more than continental expanse of the US. As it happens, on election day Nov 5, 2024 it was generally warm in most places, shirtsleeve or light jacket weather. Even in Anchorage it was well above freezing. Also realize that the large number of people that vote by mail or in early voting, won't be impacted by election day weather.

Candidate. You left out misogyny and racism. A woman has yet to be the US president. And only Obama has broken the color barrier. Sadly, those are still real problems for elected officials.

Hatred of any kind is a real problem, but I've not seen any data to date that indicates that misogyny or racism played a significant role in the loss of Harris. That's a copout and not owning the issue and working to solve it. Just as Obama has to own part of the blame for Trump's rise, the democrats made this past election far, far too easy.

The Democrats completely fumbled going with Biden to start with, trying to turn the page mid-way, and she then didn't effectively differentiate herself from Biden's administration and only very late even backed away from some of her more polarizing and less popular stances. The selection of her running mate was horrendous and didn't bail the ship out one bit.

While I'm sure the tariffs would have been enacted differently, Biden/Harris continued Trump's prior tariffs and had said she supported more targeted tariffs. Both saw trade problems, though it's certain they would have handled it differently. Specifically, those tariffs that many here have argued were unfair against China would have remained and likely been even more on both watches.

[vk6zgo]

Germany suffering 10k job losses per month is horrible news.

Depends.  Provided they are replaced with productive jobs, 10k job losses per month from unproductive positions, is a good thing.

Facts taken out of context can give a false impression.

The historical context leans towards the other interpretation.
Almost universally, the first jobs to go are those of people who actually do jobs which are part of producing things. The "suits" are pretty well protected.
After all, it is easier to sack 100 "drones" on the factory floor rather than Fred, who you work with every day.

[KE5FX]

You're referring to the proxy war in Ukraine, right?
100% correctamundo there.

I'm tempted to say, "That's not true, and here's why," but I think it'll be quicker, and probably more rewarding, to drive over to the local Church of Scientology and convince them that Xenu doesn't exist.

[Analog Kid]

You're referring to the proxy war in Ukraine, right?
100% correctamundo there.

I'm tempted to say, "That's not true, and here's why," but I think it'll be quicker, and probably more rewarding, to drive over to the local Church of Scientology and convince them that Xenu doesn't exist.

Look: I know all about Xenu, and totally agree with you about the utter insanity (and inanity) of that story. Great counter-argument to anyone who even has a hint of leanings towards the CoS.

But in the case of Ukraine, yes, Russia invaded, obviously. But that wouldn't have happened without the connivances and manipulations of the US (and NATO) over the years, going back well before 2022 (Maidan, Minsk II, etc.). So much of the blame rests squarely on them.

However, as this thread is about tariffs, I'll refrain from any further comment in that direction.

[tautech]

Yeah right, not how I see it.

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and as it was so easy and with so little worldwide disdain, naturally ventured further for more easy pickings.....now 4 yrs later they still haven't had their nose properly bloodied !

[SteveThackery]

That point seems valid only if NATO is understood as protecting members only from the people on the other side of a particular border. 

Yep, fair point. We need to remember that NATO was formed in the context of the Cold War. Many pundits think NATO should have been disbanded when the Soviet Union fell.

I'm no expert, but I think the continued, looming presence of NATO on Russia's borders has almost certainly played a major part in creating the polarised, hostile, anti-West regime operating in Russia.

[Electrodynamic]

Analogkid

But in the case of Ukraine, yes, Russia invaded, obviously. But that wouldn't have happened without the connivances and manipulations of the US (and NATO) over the years, going back well before 2022 (Maidan, Minsk II, etc.). So much of the blame rests squarely on them.

Russia could have invaded Ukraine for other reasons.

Russia's economy sucks and opposition to Putin was growing. Once they went to war martial law is effectively in place and he can do whatever he wants. Now we find out countless people opposing Putin were forced into military service and sent to certain death on the front lines in "suicide assaults". Those who refused to fight were executed and buried in mass graves. In effect, exterminating all opposition under the guise of war to retain power. For Putin it's a win win.

[Cyclotron]

We should get back to the topic of tariffs.

The Canadian milk tariff issue is easy to explain. For many dairy products the tariff can be zero to 7.5% within the quota. However with large imports exceeding the quota the tariffs rise much higher. This prevents foreign countries like the U.S. from monopolizing the Canadian dairy market to destroy small farmers then raise the price much higher later. No surprise here and it's stupid and irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy.

Here's the thing if Canada let the U.S. monopolize our dairy sector they would flood it with inferior crap then triple the price later like they always do. Then laugh about how anyone being stupid enough to let a foreign country take over an industry deserves higher prices. We know better than to let this happen. The U.S. has proven they cannot be trusted and are now a threat to national security. They cannot be trusted to control any domestic sectors including dairy.

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Given your stance, "irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy," and your obvious positive position on Canada's cartel and trade tariffs and so on, does this mean you fully support the US's trade tariffs? You aren't a hypocrite, are you?

It seems you've narrowed your complaint to your personal fear of Donald Trump. Does that now sum up your grievances?  You are a fan of tariffs, right? Or is it only when it's Canadian protectionism?

[PlainName]

You are a fan of tariffs, right? Or is it only when it's Canadian protectionism?

Things aren't always 100% one way or the other. Generally, they are mostly this, some of that. Only someone with an agenda would insist on fully either/or.

Kind of like water: you need it, but not too much.

So, tariffs: they are not bad per se (and I don't receall much hoohaa with prior arrangements). The issue this thread is about is how Trump uses tariffs for all sorts of purposes - making sure his fan gets elected in some other country, for instance. And the silly amounts, across the board. If he did them sensibly this thread wouldn't exist.

[MathWizard]

I want off this planet of the apes

[Cyclotron]

You are a fan of tariffs, right? Or is it only when it's Canadian protectionism?

Things aren't always 100% one way or the other. Generally, they are mostly this, some of that. Only someone with an agenda would insist on fully either/or.

Kind of like water: you need it, but not too much.

So, tariffs: they are not bad per se (and I don't receall much hoohaa with prior arrangements). The issue this thread is about is how Trump uses tariffs for all sorts of purposes - making sure his fan gets elected in some other country, for instance. And the silly amounts, across the board. If he did them sensibly this thread wouldn't exist.

The subject of the thread is "Tariffs". The thread has discussed many countries. Each person has their own bias and view of the tariffs. To propose that the subject wouldn't exist without US tariffs is foolish and indicative of bias.  As mentioned, no matter who landed the presidency, it was likely to happen, and I'm positive someone would have problems with how they were done.  They wouldn't look sensible to others, while your bias might agree with whatever was done.

But ED is able to answer for themselves, right?  Did they bring you for council?

ED has proposed that we in the US are hypocrites for enacting our trade barriers, but the Canadian trade barriers are perfectly logical. I assume somehow ED isn't a hypocrite, too?

[PlainName]

To propose that the subject wouldn't exist without US tariffs is foolish and indicative of bias.

You are being disingenuous. The thread came about because of Trump's 'Liberation Day':

On April 2, a day he called "Liberation Day", Trump declared a national emergency regarding the national trade deficit and announced "reciprocal tariffs" on all countries not subject to other sanctions. A minimum 10% tariff on almost all US imports took effect on April 5

My highlight - this thread started the day after with the question "Any plans? Strategies?".

[Cyclotron]

To propose that the subject wouldn't exist without US tariffs is foolish and indicative of bias.

You are being disingenuous. The thread came about because of Trump's 'Liberation Day':

On April 2, a day he called "Liberation Day", Trump declared a national emergency regarding the national trade deficit and announced "reciprocal tariffs" on all countries not subject to other sanctions. A minimum 10% tariff on almost all US imports took effect on April 5

My highlight - this thread started the day after with the question "Any plans? Strategies?".

I have, on more than one occasion, attempted to engage you in more than just smack talk, and you hang your hat on some word or pedantic minutia and claim your victory lap.
The US member plainly asked about plans for designs related to tariffs.  You said it's about Trump not doing sensible tariffs.  One can immediately surmise that the poster was talking about the tariff impacts on US folks, as US folks made design changes and choices in 2020 related to other tariffs that remain in effect through the other administrations.
If there had been a Harris administration, the tariffs in place would have remained and she had indicated more. Those tariffs would have had the same impact on components that are of interest on this board, and the topic would have remained.

The issue this thread is about is how Trump uses tariffs for all sorts of purposes - making sure his fan gets elected in some other country, for instance. And the silly amounts, across the board. If he did them sensibly, this thread wouldn't exist.

The above is what many call gaslighting.

I don't believe tariffs are generally sensible at all, and many are in the same boat. But you plainly believe they are, and you simply disagree with how Trump enacted them. But how Trump enacted them isn't the subject of this thread, nor the obvious intent of the original poster. Disingenuous? indeed.

My other points are plain, but these thoughtful concepts either aren't within your grasp or, as I truly believe, you're just trolling.

[PlainName]

But you plainly believe they are, and you simply disagree with how Trump enacted them.

You keep doing that: taking some phrase and making it someone's personal view. I didn't give my view; I explained how some of something can be OK while lots is not OK, and that tariffs seem to work in moderation.

You've done this before, and particularly with ED above as a derogatory tactic. You look between the lines to find any thing you can plonk on who you want to diss. And if you can't you deflect instead - that's how we got onto China instead of just sticking with the original subject of the thread.

Go one, have another swing at me. The more you do it the more obvious your strategy is 

[Cyclotron]

But you plainly believe they are, and you simply disagree with how Trump enacted them.

You keep doing that: taking some phrase and making it someone's personal view. I didn't give my view; I explained how some of something can be OK while lots is not OK, and that tariffs seem to work in moderation.

You've done this before, and particularly with ED above as a derogatory tactic. You look between the lines to find any thing you can plonk on who you want to diss. And if you can't you deflect instead - that's how we got onto China instead of just sticking with the original subject of the thread.

Go one, have another swing at me. The more you do it the more obvious your strategy is 

Oh you didn't say this:

Kind of like water: you need it, but not too much.

You just did it again, completely ignored how I destroyed your gaslighting and thought you could take another troll victory lap with this one.
But obviously you don't know how to communicate.

Back to the ignore list for the ignorant.

[Analog Kid]

You just did it again, completely ignored how I destroyed your gaslighting and thought you could take another troll victory lap with this one.

Language Misuse Alert

"Troll" does not mean "anything I disagree with or that annoys me".
At least it hasn't yet been redefined to mean that, even though it's often misused that way.

[Cyclotron]

You just did it again, completely ignored how I destroyed your gaslighting and thought you could take another troll victory lap with this one.

Language Misuse Alert

"Troll" does not mean "anything I disagree with or that annoys me".
At least it hasn't yet been redefined to mean that, even though it's often misused that way.

Uhoh the language popo is here. Gets to define it the way they want and call others out.
Too funny. You two need to get a room and call Mom to report me for a ban. 

[Analog Kid]

Ban? Who said anything about a ban?
I'm against that shit. That's not how I roll.

And who to are you referring to by "you two"? Not clear.

[Cyclotron]

Ban? Who said anything about a ban?
I'm against that shit. That's not how I roll.

Don't worry PlainName has yours and ED's back. They are here to speak up for you and get that ban.
lol

[Electrodynamic]

We should get back to the topic of tariffs.

The Canadian milk tariff issue is easy to explain. For many dairy products the tariff can be zero to 7.5% within the quota. However with large imports exceeding the quota the tariffs rise much higher. This prevents foreign countries like the U.S. from monopolizing the Canadian dairy market to destroy small farmers then raise the price much higher later. No surprise here and it's stupid and irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy.

Here's the thing if Canada let the U.S. monopolize our dairy sector they would flood it with inferior crap then triple the price later like they always do. Then laugh about how anyone being stupid enough to let a foreign country take over an industry deserves higher prices. We know better than to let this happen. The U.S. has proven they cannot be trusted and are now a threat to national security. They cannot be trusted to control any domestic sectors including dairy.

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Given your stance, "irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy," and your obvious positive position on Canada's cartel and trade tariffs and so on, does this mean you fully support the US's trade tariffs? You aren't a hypocrite, are you?

It seems you've narrowed your complaint to your personal fear of Donald Trump. Does that now sum up your grievances?  You are a fan of tariffs, right? Or is it only when it's Canadian protectionism?

We just do things differently in Canada. For example, U.S. dairy subsidies equal 73 percent of producer returns and most would be bankrupt without large socialist government subsidies. Where the dairy industry in Canada has few if any direct subsidies but regulates production and imports through quotas and high tariffs on foreign dairy products. Which is in line with the U.S. gaslighting where they accuse others of the thing they are doing. Few if any here buy your bs.

I'm not against tariffs to protect some key areas just not blanket tariffs with no justification on a whim.

For example, I'm okay with Tesla receiving 60% taxpayer subsidies and a 100% tariff on foreign EV's. If the U.S. taxpayers are okay with getting shafted that's not my problem. Just stop pretending your not socialists subsidizing and protecting your industries when you obviously are.

[Cyclotron]

We should get back to the topic of tariffs.

The Canadian milk tariff issue is easy to explain. For many dairy products the tariff can be zero to 7.5% within the quota. However with large imports exceeding the quota the tariffs rise much higher. This prevents foreign countries like the U.S. from monopolizing the Canadian dairy market to destroy small farmers then raise the price much higher later. No surprise here and it's stupid and irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy.

Here's the thing if Canada let the U.S. monopolize our dairy sector they would flood it with inferior crap then triple the price later like they always do. Then laugh about how anyone being stupid enough to let a foreign country take over an industry deserves higher prices. We know better than to let this happen. The U.S. has proven they cannot be trusted and are now a threat to national security. They cannot be trusted to control any domestic sectors including dairy.

This issue is a good example of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tariffs on almost everything to protect their interests. Like the 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's to protect U.S. EV's because they cannot compete. They whine about foreign tariffs, whine about being a victim, but do exactly the same thing as every other country. The constant whining and fake news is propaganda to gain leverage so they can monopolize sectors in other countries.

Given your stance, "irresponsible to allow any foreign country to monopolize and manipulate any domestic economy," and your obvious positive position on Canada's cartel and trade tariffs and so on, does this mean you fully support the US's trade tariffs? You aren't a hypocrite, are you?

It seems you've narrowed your complaint to your personal fear of Donald Trump. Does that now sum up your grievances?  You are a fan of tariffs, right? Or is it only when it's Canadian protectionism?

We just do things differently in Canada. For example, U.S. dairy subsidies equal 73 percent of producer returns and most would be bankrupt without large socialist government subsidies. Where the dairy industry in Canada has few if any direct subsidies but regulates production and imports through quotas and high tariffs on foreign dairy products. Which is in line with the U.S. gaslighting where they accuse others of the thing they are doing. Few if any here buy your bs.

I'm not against tariffs to protect some key areas just not blanket tariffs with no justification on a whim.

For example, I'm okay with Tesla receiving 60% taxpayer subsidies and a 100% tariff on foreign EV's. If the U.S. taxpayers are okay with getting shafted that's not my problem. Just stop pretending your not socialists subsidizing and protecting your industries when you obviously are.

I don't agree with Canada's or the US's tariffs, but I take responsibility for those of the US and those of Canada because we still do business with Canada.
As pointed out, as a citizen, I have that responsibility no matter how I voted. You own your countries and your countries' continued support of the US, even if you don't agree with it.

[tautech]

Improper indiscriminate use of tariffs will always provoke a political response and as we all know often a tit for tat tariff.

2024 when I last visited Shenzhen, ~50% of cars were EV's and 1 in 10 was a Tesla....apparently assembled in China.
Our yet to be planned 2026 visit will quite likely display a very different state of affairs....

The actions of the bull in the China shop will always have unintended consequences....

[Cyclotron]

Ban? Who said anything about a ban?
I'm against that shit. That's not how I roll.

And who to are you referring to by "you two"? Not clear.

So PlainName reported me previously for a ban for saying something to you that they felt hurt your feelings.
Maybe you weren't aware of that ban?  Anyway, PlainName can take into account your feelings above, and that was the person I was referring to for getting a room, since they defend you and you defend them, and so on. PN has continuously just jumped between conversations because of narcissism, I suppose (something in common with Trump), and when I gave considered answers and points, they proceeded to latch on to some minutia, call into question my intelligence, and not respond to the points.  This is clearly what trolls do.