LIBERATION DAY: USA and China agree to a 90 day pause on most new tariffs

[The Psychic Observer 498]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What an ignorant comment.  I guess Mexico doesn’t make anything we once made and sell it here now. 

You don't understand supply chains and labor costs.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

9 minutes ago, The Psychic Observer said:

You don't understand supply chains and labor costs.

I understand that Mexico agreed to pay a good wage and adhere to environmental regulations and they don’t.  Like the president says , they cheat.  

[The Psychic Observer 498]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I understand that Mexico agreed to pay a good wage and adhere to environmental regulations and they don’t.  Like the president says , they cheat.  

Maybe he should take it up with the guy who negotiated the USMCA.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Just now, The Psychic Observer said:

Maybe he should take it up with the guy who negotiated the USMCA.

Like I told you shitlibs all last year , Trump 2.0. No more Mr Nice Guy. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Just bought a Toro lawnmower, made in the formerly great state of Minnesota.  Not a fan, but it’s better than Mexico. Is that technology outdated too? 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s like you didn’t comprehend anything I just wrote. So let me make it simple for you: 

1. Yes China is screwing us around. 
2. We’re making a lot of money anyhow, too much money to blow it all up even though they’re screwing us around. 
 

Is that simple enough for you? 

If you had devoted years of your earning life to creating and patenting a product or a process and China stole it and was now manufacturing it with Uigher labor and undercutting you, putting you out of business, you would think otherwise.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes the rust belt has lost money. But you can’t deny that overall the USA profited. It’s been a net gain. 

When you give me $5 and i give you $2 back you have not profitted $2, you have lost three, that's math.  Same thing here.  the U.S. has not profitted.  The U.S. has lost.  Some segments of the U.S. have profitted, but our country as a whole has not.

 

Now, add in the interest payments on our debt, much of which China holds and see if you can now draw the correct inference.

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

7 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

When you give me $5 and i give you $2 back you have not profitted $2, you have lost three, that's math.  Same thing here.  the U.S. has not profitted.  The U.S. has lost.  Some segments of the U.S. have profitted, but our country as a whole has not.

 

Now, add in the interest payments on our debt, much of which China holds and see if you can now draw the correct inference.

Look I get the arguments you have made in your last two posts. And yet there are plenty of positives as well and I think they far outweigh the negatives, 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship

Here is a lengthy and thoughtful article on our trade relationship with China. I think it honestly portrays both the positives and negatives. But it also makes the same argument I am making: that the positives outweigh the negatives. Am I 100% sure about this? I am not sure. But this is the way I lean. 

 

[The Psychic Observer 498]

12 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

When you give me $5 and i give you $2 back you have not profitted $2, you have lost three, that's math.  Same thing here.  the U.S. has not profitted.  The U.S. has lost.  Some segments of the U.S. have profitted, but our country as a whole has not.

 

Now, add in the interest payments on our debt, much of which China holds and see if you can now draw the correct inference.

Trading $5 for $2 does sound bad.  Is that what we've all been doing?  I've never done that.  Maybe just stop doing that.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Look I get the arguments you have made in your last two posts. And yet there are plenty of positives as well and I think they far outweigh the negatives, 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship

Here is a lengthy and thoughtful article on our trade relationship with China. I think it honestly portrays both the positives and negatives. But it also makes the same argument I am making: that the positives outweigh the negatives. Am I 100% sure about this? I am not sure. But this is the way I lean. 

 

Math belies your feelings on the matter.

 

None of what i have written is an endorsement of Trump's methods in this matter which I find provocative, even dangerous.

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

6 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

Exactly why do you think China wouldn't win a trade war with the US, they need us more than we need them. We can't make products as cheaply as they can. The U.S. amounts to less than 15% of their exports total.  I don't think their citizens will suffer the loss of goods from the US as much as we will from them. And even if the Chinese population did suffer, their govt. is less likely to be moved by it than the US govt.

So what advantages does the US have in this war and negotiations? 

My understanding is that China is already suffering economically and cannot afford not trading with the USA. i think your point about the government there being unmoved by suffering is a valid one though. How many millions died during the Great Leap Forward? 
 

But I really don’t look at this trade war in terms of winners and losers. I don’t see any winners. I think both sides lose. 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Math belies your feelings on the matter.

 

None of what i have written is an endorsement of Trump's methods in this matter which I find provocative, even dangerous.

But I don’t accept your math. It doesn’t apply because we are not one entity. Thousands of American companies trade with China. Some make a lot of money. Some have lost money. On the whole it’s a net benefit according to the statistics discussed in the article I linked. Statistics and facts, not feelings. 

[The Psychic Observer 498]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

But I don’t accept your math. It doesn’t apply because we are not one entity. Thousands of American companies trade with China. Some make a lot of money. Some have lost money. On the whole it’s a net benefit according to the statistics discussed in the article I linked. Statistics and facts, not feelings. 

I think he's trying to say that you can't have a mutually beneficial trade relationship if you have a trade deficit which is an infantile argument.

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

31 minutes ago, The Psychic Observer said:

I think he's trying to say that you can't have a mutually beneficial trade relationship if you have a trade deficit which is an infantile argument.

I still don’t understand how a trade deficit is a loss. 

[The Psychic Observer 498]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I still don’t understand how a trade deficit is a loss. 

It's not.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

>>Even after the president’s partial U-turn – freezing tariffs at 10% on all US imports except those from China for 90 days – markets swung from relief rally to fresh rout, as investors questioned the once unthinkable: could the US dollar be losing its unassailable safe haven status?

“The damage has been done,” said George Saravelos, the head of foreign exchange research at Deutsche Bank. “The market is reassessing the structural attractiveness of the dollar as the world’s global reserve currency and is undergoing a process of rapid de-dollarisation.”<<

Mistakes were made.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

48 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>Even after the president’s partial U-turn – freezing tariffs at 10% on all US imports except those from China for 90 days – markets swung from relief rally to fresh rout, as investors questioned the once unthinkable: could the US dollar be losing its unassailable safe haven status?

“The damage has been done,” said George Saravelos, the head of foreign exchange research at Deutsche Bank. “The market is reassessing the structural attractiveness of the dollar as the world’s global reserve currency and is undergoing a process of rapid de-dollarisation.”<<

Mistakes were made.

Stfu Germany. We don’t care what you have to say 

[The Psychic Observer 498]

Tariffs have driven up bond rates.  That means mortgage rates go back over 7% now.  Auto rates up.  This is not good for growth.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

30 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Stfu Germany. We don’t care what you have to say 

Iirc DB is Trump’s bank.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

17 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Iirc DB is Trump’s bank.

Trump owns a bank?  cool story

Deutsche Bank - Wikipedia

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

12 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

But I don’t accept your math. It doesn’t apply because we are not one entity. Thousands of American companies trade with China. Some make a lot of money. Some have lost money. On the whole it’s a net benefit according to the statistics discussed in the article I linked. Statistics and facts, not feelings. 

I appreciate you don't accept that a massive trade disparity is a net loss for our country.  You seem to believe that wealth flowing out of our country is a good thing.  I maintain that funding the rise of our biggest global competitor, a self-avowed enemy, one many are predicting a proxy war with, and one who has stated their goal is to replace us as the world's economic superpower is a bad thing for our country.  We have literally built up and funded our competitor/enemy.  The hope back in Nixon's time was that by engaging China we would open up massive markets for our goods and we would bring them into the world economic fold creating interdependence and enhancing peace.  For a brief time it seemed to be working,  China, however, retrenched in its own unique system.  It has rejected mutual benefit seeking instead world domination.  Our trade practices, our endless desire for cheap goods we throw away with a country which steals our tech, our intellectual property, a country which uses slave and child labor to produce those goods, a country which ignores all environmental concerns and which props up regimes antagonistic to us while engaging in an arms race with us is funding our own demise.  It might be one thing to have a trade deficit, but one of this scale, based on unfair practices under international law and norms is not a positive.  I suggest that instead of looking for articles which echo your preconcieved opinion that you consider the matter afresh, but you do you.

[The Psychic Observer 498]

The irony is the tariffs have eroded trust in the US and the dollar as the world's reserve currency positioning China in a more powerful place than ever.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

12 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Trump owns a bank?  cool story

Oh please, it’s the bank that gave him money when no one else would. Saved him from the sheriff sale at least a couple times.

[jerryskids 6,798]

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I appreciate you don't accept that a massive trade disparity is a net loss for our country.  You seem to believe that wealth flowing out of our country is a good thing.  I maintain that funding the rise of our biggest global competitor, a self-avowed enemy, one many are predicting a proxy war with, and one who has stated their goal is to replace us as the world's economic superpower is a bad thing for our country.  We have literally built up and funded our competitor/enemy.  The hope back in Nixon's time was that by engaging China we would open up massive markets for our goods and we would bring them into the world economic fold creating interdependence and enhancing peace.  For a brief time it seemed to be working,  China, however, retrenched in its own unique system.  It has rejected mutual benefit seeking instead world domination.  Our trade practices, our endless desire for cheap goods we throw away with a country which steals our tech, our intellectual property, a country which uses slave and child labor to produce those goods, a country which ignores all environmental concerns and which props up regimes antagonistic to us while engaging in an arms race with us is funding our own demise.  It might be one thing to have a trade deficit, but one of this scale, based on unfair practices under international law and norms is not a positive.  I suggest that instead of looking for articles which echo your preconcieved opinion that you consider the matter afresh, but you do you.

I've got the courtroom scene from Animal House playing in my head, with Otter saying the above.   

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

35 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Oh please, it’s the bank that gave him money when no one else would. Saved him from the sheriff sale at least a couple times.

Sure it did

[jerryskids 6,798]

15 hours ago, The Psychic Observer said:

I think he's trying to say that you can't have a mutually beneficial trade relationship if you have a trade deficit which is an infantile argument.

 

14 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I still don’t understand how a trade deficit is a loss. 

Let's ignore the strategic issues that @Engorgeous George mentioned for a second.  I agree that on a micro scale (one trading partner), a trade deficit means nothing.  We might buy more coffee beans from Ethiopia than they buy iPhones, and end up with a trade deficit.  Who cares?  

Pivoting to an analogy, I as a person have a trade deficit with Amazon -- I give them more money than they give me.  But I also have a trade surplus with my employer (I'm retired, but work with me here).  If I add up all the deficits and surpluses though, I should end up with a net surplus.  If I have a net deficit, there is a problem which in the long run is unsustainable.

That, I hope, is the issue that gets resolved, on a global scale -- we push other countries to buy from us where they can, but in the background realizing that perfection is the enemy of the good.  If instead Trump really believes we need a surplus with Madagascar and every other country, he's getting some poor advice.

Circling back to China, they are a special case for all of the reasons George mentioned.  I don't know if Trump's approach will end up being the right one, but I do know that doing nothing and hoping China just went away wasn't it.

[jerryskids 6,798]

45 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Oh please, it’s the bank that gave him money when no one else would. Saved him from the sheriff sale at least a couple times.

I'd say they made some good investments there.   

[The Psychic Observer 498]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

Let's ignore the strategic issues that @Engorgeous George mentioned for a second.  I agree that on a micro scale (one trading partner), a trade deficit means nothing.  We might buy more coffee beans from Ethiopia than they buy iPhones, and end up with a trade deficit.  Who cares?  

Pivoting to an analogy, I as a person have a trade deficit with Amazon -- I give them more money than they give me.  But I also have a trade surplus with my employer (I'm retired, but work with me here).  If I add up all the deficits and surpluses though, I should end up with a net surplus.  If I have a net deficit, there is a problem which in the long run is unsustainable.

That, I hope, is the issue that gets resolved, on a global scale -- we push other countries to buy from us where they can, but in the background realizing that perfection is the enemy of the good.  If instead Trump really believes we need a surplus with Madagascar and every other country, he's getting some poor advice.

Circling back to China, they are a special case for all of the reasons George mentioned.  I don't know if Trump's approach will end up being the right one, but I do know that doing nothing and hoping China just went away wasn't it.

One thing that Trump et al ignore when it comes to trade is services.  When America changed from being a manufacturing economy we became a services economy.  America exports a trillion dollars in services each year for a $280B surplus.

This 1950s romanticism that Trump has about manufacturing is strange.  The fact that he has conned young men to think that working in a factory all day is manly is even more strange.

The US has the world's largest GDP.  It's comical to think that we're being "ripped off" and that trade deficits are inherently bad.  They can be bad on a case by case basis but the trump approach is juvenile and asinine.

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

4 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I appreciate you don't accept that a massive trade disparity is a net loss for our country.  You seem to believe that wealth flowing out of our country is a good thing.  I maintain that funding the rise of our biggest global competitor, a self-avowed enemy, one many are predicting a proxy war with, and one who has stated their goal is to replace us as the world's economic superpower is a bad thing for our country.  We have literally built up and funded our competitor/enemy.  The hope back in Nixon's time was that by engaging China we would open up massive markets for our goods and we would bring them into the world economic fold creating interdependence and enhancing peace.  For a brief time it seemed to be working,  China, however, retrenched in its own unique system.  It has rejected mutual benefit seeking instead world domination.  Our trade practices, our endless desire for cheap goods we throw away with a country which steals our tech, our intellectual property, a country which uses slave and child labor to produce those goods, a country which ignores all environmental concerns and which props up regimes antagonistic to us while engaging in an arms race with us is funding our own demise.  It might be one thing to have a trade deficit, but one of this scale, based on unfair practices under international law and norms is not a positive.  I suggest that instead of looking for articles which echo your preconcieved opinion that you consider the matter afresh, but you do you.

So now you’re changing the discussion from economic concerns to strategic concerns. Nobody has been able to demonstrate why trade deficits are bad for us in terms of economics. But you make the argument that they are bad for us in this case with China, due to long term strategic and moral issues. 

Putting aside the obvious fact that these sort of issues do not motivate President Trump ( and therefore if the final outcome, whatever it is, turns out in your opinion to be a positive one it will at best be accidental) you raise good points. This is an issue that really  frustrates me. I am a believer in free trade and capitalism. Like so many others I thought that Nixon’s decision was a good one and that eventually our trade would cause the Chinese communist system to self-destruct. Back when Tiammenen square happened I figured this is it, won’t be long now. But damn that was nearly 40’years ago and somehow China kept itself a dictatorship. It’s an odd country. 

And yet…what is the alternative to still hoping for trade leading to a freer China? War with them is unthinkable. We can’t isolate them economically but even if we could that wouldn’t guarantee success (look how long Fidel Castro’s Cuba survived our embargo). Trying to make them suffer, as these tariffs will no doubt do, will make them more nationalist, hostile, and perhaps threatening to invade Taiwan. In short it makes the world a more dangerous place. 

Conclusion: despite your valid arguments, every alternative to continuing to trade with China would IMO be a worse outcome. Our policy since 1973 has been trade with China and hope they eventually become a free nation. I think we should continue that policy. 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

Update: Trump has now announced that smartphones and computers are exempt from the tariffs. 

This is a good thing; the consumer will be hurt just a little less. But I have to say that once again these decisions appear to be arbitrary and improvised, How anyone could still believe that this is part of a grand strategy is a mystery to me. 

[The Psychic Observer 498]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Update: Trump has now announced that smartphones and computers are exempt from the tariffs. 

This is a good thing; the consumer will be hurt just a little less. But I have to say that once again these decisions appear to be arbitrary and improvised, How anyone could still believe that this is part of a grand strategy is a mystery to me. 

So he wasn't serious about manufacturing these products after all.  He wasn't serious about raising money to pay off the debt.

It's becoming increasingly obvious as he now starts to cut deals that this is a personal game to him, enjoying people coming to him asking for deals so he can gain favor.

That or he has no idea what he's doing 

[MDC 7,426]

43 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Update: Trump has now announced that smartphones and computers are exempt from the tariffs. 

This is a good thing; the consumer will be hurt just a little less. But I have to say that once again these decisions appear to be arbitrary and improvised, How anyone could still believe that this is part of a grand strategy is a mystery to me. 

They desperately want to believe. The alternative is admitting Trump is a con man and they’ve been had.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Oh please, it’s the bank that gave him money when no one else would. Saved him from the sheriff sale at least a couple times.

They must have raked him over the coals then. You know the terms? 

[Grace Under Pressure 114]

46 minutes ago, MDC said:

They desperately want to believe. The alternative is admitting Trump is a con man and they’ve been had.

Narrator: Trump was in fact a con man, and the gullible had been duped (again).

[Grace Under Pressure 114]

1 hour ago, The Psychic Observer said:

It's becoming increasingly obvious as he now starts to cut deals that this is a personal game to him, enjoying people coming to him asking for deals so he can gain favor.

This was always plainly obvious.

What’s funny, for lack of a better word, is watching the dopes simp for Trump whatever he does, in cult like fashion. The ardent posts about how tariffs are good (they aren’t) and necessary, and then he just calls them off after someone gives him $5 million or whatever. 

Rubes. Get a clue. He doesn’t care about you, he doesn’t care about America. He cares about Donald Trump. Painful how dumb it all is. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Just now, Grace Under Pressure said:

This was always plainly obvious.

What’s funny, for lack of a better word, is watching the dopes simp for Trump whatever he does, in cult like fashion. The ardent posts about how tariffs are good (they aren’t) and necessary, and then he just calls them off after someone gives him $5 million or whatever. 

Rubes. Get a clue. He doesn’t care about you, he doesn’t care about America. He cares about Donald Trump. Painful how dumb it all is. 

Ha! You simped for Biden when he flooded our borders in the midst of a pandemic. Please, check yourself. Defund the police! 

[MDC 7,426]

1 minute ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

This was always plainly obvious.

What’s funny, for lack of a better word, is watching the dopes simp for Trump whatever he does, in cult like fashion. The ardent posts about how tariffs are good (they aren’t) and necessary, and then he just calls them off after someone gives him $5 million or whatever. 

Rubes. Get a clue. He doesn’t care about you, he doesn’t care about America. He cares about Donald Trump. Painful how dumb it all is. 

The best part was watching the dullards last week talk about the short term pain we’d have to endure for long term growth. Just give it 6 months and the economy will be booming!

Days later and Trump calls it off because people got “yippy” and stands there bragging about how his friends made a lot of $ off the rebound from the stock crash he created. 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

Pretty good article explaining why, no matter what happens now, the last two disastrous weeks have screwed our economy for a long time to come: 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/trump-tariff-chaos-unfixable/682419/

Simply put nobody trusts our word anymore: New supply chains are going to be developed and the world will trade without us. 

[Grace Under Pressure 114]

Nobody in the world trusts Donald Trump is more accurate, but the rest is true: they will forge new deals without us. Also, they’re right not to trust him. If only the gullible supporters would have had one brain cell, anyone could have seen this coming. 

Countdown to why “this is actually good” incoming. 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

2 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Nobody in the world trusts Donald Trump is more accurate, but the rest is true: they will forge new deals without us. Also, they’re right not to trust him. If only the gullible supporters would have had one brain cell, anyone could have seen this coming. 

Countdown to why “this is actually good” incoming. 

Well they don’t trust the USA either. After all we chose as a people to elect him again, knowing what he is. What are the other nations to conclude other than this is exactly what we want?