[HN Gopher] Trump temporarily drops tariffs to 10% for most coun...
___________________________________________________________________
Trump temporarily drops tariffs to 10% for most countries
Author : bhouston
Score : 506 points
Date : 2025-04-09 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| bhouston wrote:
| If anyone had advanced warning, you could have made a fortune
| today:
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-...
| sigwinch wrote:
| Learned their lesson and formed a whole new Signal group.
| carabiner wrote:
| I bought VOO and AMZN yesterday. First time buying an
| individual stock since pandemic. Kicking myself for not buying
| more. Still waiting a week to possibly buy more if there's
| another shock, but if the market's up, I'll buy less.
| ackbar03 wrote:
| That's stock speculation for you, everything you do is wrong
| in retrospect
| carabiner wrote:
| I just buy during big fucking crises, either individual
| stocks or index funds. Front page of the NYT type shit,
| "existential threats" to 100+ year old concerns. Boeing,
| Toyota, pandemic. Such opportunities only come up every 2-3
| years or so. Sell after 1-2 years to get the lower tax
| rate.
| fragmede wrote:
| DCA and time in market beat trying to time the market. If
| you're doing nothing all day but refreshing Twitter and
| Robinhood maybe there's some alpha but that's too much
| involvement for me.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Feels equally plausible that there would have been an
| across the board increase in tariffs just to look tough.
| There is no logical analysis of the current situation.
| outer_web wrote:
| Be careful with Amazon, the algos seem to have not realized
| China is still being tariffed.*
|
| * Observation valid for the next 30 seconds. Certain
| restrictions apply.
| bgirard wrote:
| Lots of stocks are up 10-15% instantly after this announcement.
| Curious if we'll get reports of suspicious options volume
| capitalizing on this information.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| why do people still trust stock markets if manipulating them
| is that easy?
| NewJazz wrote:
| As easy as winning the presidency and having enough loyalty
| within your base to say "I could stand in the middle of 5th
| Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." then
| win reelection just 8 years later?
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-
| avenue-...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Your question presupposes something I think that most
| people do not believe.
| taeric wrote:
| To be clear, here, this form of "manipulation" is kind of
| impossible to really deal with? Or do you have something in
| mind that should be able to more smoothly work with this?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| SEC has reversed suspicious trades in the past.
| taeric wrote:
| From the president of the united states? Especially
| knowing that controlling tariffs and such are easily
| argued to be in his core powers, in the current setting,
| what authority would they possibly have to do something
| on this?
| mdhen wrote:
| they can reverse the options trades that look like they
| had insider info. This is a thing that the SEC does.
| taeric wrote:
| But they would have to prove insider info? Which would
| require discovery against communications to/from the
| president. Which you know they would argue against.
|
| So, let me rephrase, do you think it is likely that they
| would do anything?
| zerd wrote:
| > easily argued to be in his core powers
|
| I'd say arguably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_i
| n_the_second_Trump_ad...
| taeric wrote:
| Any action they are taking around deciding whether or not
| there is a national security interest in managing tariffs
| is easily covered by everyone's understanding of what is
| in the presidential duties. As such, it is fully off
| limits for any review, per last year's immunity ruling.
| No?
|
| Now, congress can take away that delegation. They could
| also cancel any declarations. But actions taken by the
| admin in pursuing this will almost certainly be seen as
| core duties by the supreme court. As such, I don't see
| any real opening for review in this?
| ta1243 wrote:
| Traditionally US stockmarkets are not that easily
| manipulated. This type of blatent grift and insider trading
| was for banana republics, and that's why stock markets in
| those places aren't serious.
| outer_web wrote:
| I don't think they do and you have to be president or Elon
| to do it.
| mschild wrote:
| Because even with crises, over the long term the only
| direction is up.
|
| Its probably not so much that people trust it but either
| you invest broadly (index funds) and trust long historical
| data that the likely direction is up or you think you have
| more information than other people and can beat the market.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > over the long term the only direction is up.
|
| Only if you look at American stock market data. And
| that's extreme cherry-picking, because the American stock
| market is by far the best performing over the last
| century. What are the chances the American stock market
| will be the best performing next century?
| torlok wrote:
| [delayed]
| MammaMia2025 wrote:
| In nominal terms it always goes up. In real terms, like
| priced in gold, DJIA is cheaper today than in 1929. (13
| ounces of gold today vs. 14 ounces of gold in 1929).
| mywittyname wrote:
| But how often is that true? Gold prices doubled in the
| past 5 years, with 10% of that coming in the past few
| months, after declining for most of the 2010s.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Because everything other investment is worse?
| BJones12 wrote:
| Because you don't have to play this game. If you buy and
| hold long term you could ignore every news article this
| year and you'd be fine.
| bluGill wrote:
| I trust the stock market only after at least 5 years have
| passed, preferably 10. Short term (less than that) the
| stock market has always been about popularity, but long
| term the most profitable companies always rise to the top.
| dboreham wrote:
| Well I bought this morning (not a large trade), based not on
| insider information but on the obvious outcome. Also the
| dynamic signal that Trump spent 2h spewing utter nonsense at
| a donor dinner last night, but the market didn't go down this
| morning. Signaling that something was in the works one way or
| another.
|
| Edit: best to note that Trump is still doing plenty to
| destroy the US economy, so be careful out there.
| outer_web wrote:
| Yesterday the indexes started up 3-4% and finished down at
| least as much. Risky move but congrats.
| archagon wrote:
| Frankly, everything is "obvious" in retrospect. I assumed
| Trump would triple down regardless of the consequences. My
| only conclusion is that the fluctuations of the market are
| going to be completely arbitrary during this
| administration.
| matteoraso wrote:
| Wouldn't be too suspicious, since Trump people told people to
| buy into the stock market before announcing this.
|
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1143082727259.
| ..
| vkou wrote:
| Do you really think he didn't tell his friends to buy
| options an hour before the tweet?
| conductr wrote:
| Of course not, he told them to trust/act on his tweets.
| That way they are acting on public info
| JAM1971 wrote:
| Do you have any evidence that he did?
| Vivtek wrote:
| Who would report it?
| jajuuka wrote:
| I'm sure this will be a talking point for the next couple
| years. "I caused the biggest surge in the stock market in 5
| years."
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| Like if the president had posted that "now is a great time to
| buy DJT" 15 minutes before announcing the pause?
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Spy went from 497 to 505 by 1:05pm (announcement was later at
| 1:18pm). Then onwards to 530+.
|
| Clearly some listened or simply had knowledge the
| announcement was coming.
| BJones12 wrote:
| Regardless of whatever happened today, it's never a good time
| to buy $DJT because 1) it's not profitable and 2) holders are
| slowly continually liquidating in a complicated manner
| explained by past Money Stuff articles.
| torlok wrote:
| The actual quote is "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT",
| which makes DJT either a signature and a call to buy the
| market if he can form a valid sentence, or a call to buy
| NASDAQ:DJT if he can't form a valid sentence. Take your
| pick. It's market manipulation either way.
| dboreham wrote:
| Actually you did have advance warning because there has been
| several days of wall-to-wall finance bro and republican heads
| on TV saying the tariffs were batshit crazy. Under those
| conditions there are only two outcomes: 1. the tariffs were
| rolled back or 2. Trump is removed from office (and the tariffs
| rolled back).
| prisenco wrote:
| Those aren't guaranteed. I do believe Trump is in danger of
| being removed if the economic damage of the tariffs becomes
| too great since the one thing truly sacrosanct in America is
| the economy.
|
| But the timeline would hardly be immediate. We'd have to go
| through considerable pain before the government would act.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Those aren't guaranteed.
|
| Yeah, if we lived in that world, Trump would have been
| removed from office during his first term for all the
| crimes.
|
| It's worth noting that impeaching and removing Trump from
| office now would actually _take fewer votes_ than the
| business of overriding the import taxes he 's trying to
| impose with "Canadian fentanyl is scary" emergency powers.
|
| As a big bonus, voting to remove him entirely leaves
| everyone _far_ safer. He 's gonna have a guaranteed tantrum
| of scorched-earth revenge no matter what you do, but this
| way he won't have official power to do it with.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| 3. Carve outs are made for high dollar donors like AAPL
| (which went up with everything else even though it is now
| subject to an even more terrific tariff)
|
| Trump's whole schtick was that #1 - - get countries to
| negotiate.
|
| Except China. The USA gets 25% of it's bandages from there,
| and that's no way to prepare to defend Taiwan.
| whalesalad wrote:
| By the same token, 24 hours and a tweet can have it all come
| crashing down once again. Nothing is real anymore.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Remember how every other President put their assets into a
| blind trust?
|
| Shit like this is why! It deterred them from firebombing the
| entire goddamn economy to make a buck for their friends and
| followers!
| fragmede wrote:
| Jimmy Carter's peanut farm remembers.
| WillAdams wrote:
| I remember how Jimmy Carter had to sell the family farm
| because it was viewed as a potential conflict of interest and
| how Mitt Romney's father, when making his run, when asked for
| a single year of tax returns made them all public, arguing
| that a single year could easily be manipulated to show
| anything, and that only by seeing the entirety of multiple
| years could an accurate evaluation be made.
| opo wrote:
| >I remember how Jimmy Carter had to sell the family farm
| because it was viewed as a potential conflict of interest
| ...
|
| Are you sure you remember that? Jimmy Carter put his farm
| in a blind trust, he didn't sell it.
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/02/24/fa
| c...
| WillAdams wrote:
| Fair.
|
| https://www.tastingtable.com/1204239/why-president-jimmy-
| car...
|
| notes:
|
| >Carter sold all his personal stocks, and he put his
| interest in Carter Warehouse and Carter Farms into a
| blind trust.
| grandempire wrote:
| Trump is already a billionaire and is in his 70s. No
| explanation of his behavior in terms of gaining money makes
| sense.
| MammaMia2025 wrote:
| he just wants more social media followers. So people feel
| like they're not missing out next time he posts something
| like this.
| grandempire wrote:
| This is honestly more believable to me than money.
| rescripting wrote:
| You do not become a billionaire unless you have a
| pathological obsession with obtaining wealth. They have
| structured their entire lives, often at the expense of
| everything else, to increase their wealth. It isn't a goal,
| its a lifestyle. There is no number that is "enough".
| grandempire wrote:
| Indeed. But the path he chose since 2016 is a bit
| suboptimal for making money. Don't you think? Or do you
| think the long con was to become president for this week?
|
| I'm not trying to ascribe moral character either. Power,
| status, fame, etc are just so much more compelling.
| rescripting wrote:
| I agree, which is why I used "wealth" and not "money",
| since power/status/fame is just another form of wealth.
| Trump seems to be a special mix of rich kid who didn't
| get hugged enough as a child.
| m0llusk wrote:
| That is easily disproved. A good counterexample is in the
| book Copy This by Paul Orfalea. He had trouble in school
| and couldn't hold a job so he started a copy place. This
| became Kinko's after his nickname and grew large in part
| because of his systematic way of having employees and
| customers all treated with respect. When he got tired of
| the business he sold it to FedEx and shared he five
| billion with his family.
|
| We need to do something about out of control inequality,
| such as in the past when we had strong regulations on
| industry, high taxes on the rich, and pervasive union
| membership, but lying about what is going on helps no
| one.
| rescripting wrote:
| Im sure there are counter examples, of course.
|
| I'm trying to address the narrative I've seen a bunch
| lately that billionaires in this administration already
| have enough, so we can trust that they wont be
| financially motivated.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| I remember when presidents used to divest themselves of their
| private holdings. That went out the window in 2017
| chevman wrote:
| Learn about limit and stop loss orders, come in handy in times
| of high volatility I am finding :)
| thrownaway561 wrote:
| when the market dropped 1100 points in a day was the time to
| buy. Buy the DIP!!!
| mnky9800n wrote:
| Always buy the dip. Because if the dip keeps dipping long
| enough you got other problems to deal with.
| outer_web wrote:
| Uh if tariffs weren't paused it would have kept dipping.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Catch the falling knife!
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Notably, there was a headline that went viral on Twitter
| earlier this week that the White House was considering this,
| but after they denied it it was widely understood at the time
| to be fake news. How many of the people spreading it, I wonder,
| knew it was really true?
| cm2187 wrote:
| Probably lots of happy white house staffers and congressmen
| today.
| kart23 wrote:
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1143082727259...
|
| > THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!
|
| - @realDonaldTrump today at 6:37 AM PST
| java-man wrote:
| How is this legal??
| echoangle wrote:
| Doesn't matter if it is, he would just pardon himself.
|
| Edit: On second thought, he wouldn't even have to, since he
| already has immunity anyways.
| glitchinc wrote:
| Using a personal account to post comments to social media
| is not an official act.
| dralley wrote:
| The entire concept of "official act" does not actually
| exist. It wasn't defined in the Constitution, and neither
| was it defined by the Supreme Court when they invented it
| from whole cloth.
| blasphemers wrote:
| Courts have already determined it's an official act by
| Congressman and Senators to shield them from defamation
| lawsuits.
| echoangle wrote:
| How sure are you that the supreme court agrees with you?
| tintor wrote:
| Because US is not a democracy anymore. Checks and balances
| are gone.
| c0redump wrote:
| It's not.
|
| > For my friends, anything. For my enemies, the law.
|
| - Oscar Benavidez, Peruvian dictator
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Dumbasses spent 50 years voting for Republican politicians
| who refused to hold their own accountable for things like
| outright fraud and crime.
|
| Who would stop them? Certainly not their voters.
| parliament32 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, on what basis would this be illegal?
| Given that it was posted publicly and all.
| lysace wrote:
| My dream scenario: The rest of the world would band together and
| upper the mininum tariffs levels against US imports to 10% for 90
| days.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| My dream remains a global common market
| timewizard wrote:
| Without global regulation? I think you'd need a lot of luck
| to survive in that environment.
|
| Even with global regulation. I think it would take a decade
| to do what the federal governments could otherwise do in a
| year. The EU is an instructive example here.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The fundamental problem is that tariffs are a tax on the
| citizens of the country that charges them. Retaliatory tariffs
| that are high enough or specific enough to shape immediate
| consumption decisions can move the needle (which is why you do
| see such responses happening). A universal 10% tariff can
| affect its target in the long term, but as a short term measure
| it does nothing but take money out of the pockets of local
| businesses.
| doener wrote:
| [flagged]
| rvnx wrote:
| I'm tired of winning.
| p_ing wrote:
| At least I'm "winning" my 401k and stock portfolio back...
|
| Sigh
| ta1243 wrote:
| I made a fortune. Sold my play account about 3 weeks ago,
| put 50% back into the S&P yesterday morning. Just sold it
| again.
|
| It's great if you're up for some gambling.
| doener wrote:
| No, we have to keep winning. We have to win moooore!
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| He only wins when his competition throws the game on
| purpose.
| slashdev wrote:
| Textbook. His textbook. Art of the deal.
|
| He's not unstable, just very aggressive. He did have a plan.
|
| We can argue about the merits of his plan, but dismissing him
| and his advisors as stupid or insane is underestimating them.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Exactly. He has run a lot of businesses in the past, with
| consistent results. When running the US, he'll apply similar
| strategies, and we'll have a similar result.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| It is absolutely _not_ textbook. It is massively self-
| destructive. In no universe is this a win.
|
| This is a retreat by Trump. It's him _losing_. It makes him
| look like a joke. Or, more correctly, _more_ like a joke.
|
| Trump desperately wants tariffs. He thinks they're free
| money. He has been saying this for years and still people
| desperately try to sane wash it into some masterful 4D chess.
| The only reason this laughable 90-day pause happened is
| because the US house of cards is on the precipice of absolute
| collapse, so Trump had to bow into Bessent's attempts to turn
| this into some sort of China containment.
|
| So are all those factories coming back...or aren't they? Are
| tariffs going to replace income tax, or aren't they?
| Something something war with China. Just absolute insanity by
| a group of charlatans, self dealers and clowns who have no
| idea what they're doing.
| slashdev wrote:
| On the contrary, I think he got everyone's attention and
| they're coming to the bargaining table willing to make a
| good deal for the US. It's exactly the tactics espoused in
| Art of the Deal.
|
| I think there are two things at play here.
|
| 1) Narrow the gap between the wealthy and the rest: attempt
| to reduce the US public sector, backtrack on globalization,
| and enact policies to benefit the median American, not the
| mean American [1].
|
| 2) Prepare the US for possible conflict with China (maybe
| over Taiwan) and avoid supply chain disruption that would
| make Covid look mild.
|
| I think both of these things are sensible positions to
| take.
|
| When you look at it through this lens, it starts to have
| some logic to it. Again we can debate the merits and
| drawbacks of this strategy, but I think it's what is behind
| everything. Things like his stance on Panama start to fit
| into the picture when you look at it this way.
|
| It is not the actions of someone stupid or insane.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/bzWrA6jRbTM?si=uwvgpg0RprDBPEeU&t=253
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Narrow the gap between the wealthy and the rest
|
| Your lens needs cleaning.
|
| > Prepare the US for possible conflict with China...
|
| By pissing off every close ally we have?
| slashdev wrote:
| Let's see who time proves right
| outer_web wrote:
| Eliminating entitlements and deregulating (particularly
| consumer protection) is not a great way to narrow the
| wealth gap. Nor is semi-firing the federal workforce and
| advocating for onshoring of unskilled jobs. Nor is
| demanding interest rate cuts. Nor is treating the stock
| market like a yo-yo. Nor is ignoring people without
| medical insurance. Nor is attempting to eliminate social
| security.
|
| This could absolutely be all about asserting dominance
| over China. It could be a great way to deter or blunt the
| threat of war. It might backfire horribly. We shall see.
|
| He is stupid. You just have to listen to him speak to
| understand that. But he doesn't invent policy, he has
| people for that.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > His textbook. Art of the deal.
|
| It ain't his.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Schwartz_(writer)
|
| > We can argue about the merits of his plan, but dismissing
| him and his advisors as stupid or insane is underestimating
| them.
|
| Pretending the man didn't repeatedly bankrupt his own
| companies and stiff his vendors is underestimating him. We've
| decades worth of knowledge about how "his plan" goes.
| outer_web wrote:
| Wait what's been accomplished except huge losses for people
| trading behind the curve?
| slashdev wrote:
| See my other comment in this thread.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Absolutely nothing was accomplished but the undermining of
| the US as a stable partner. US treasuries and the US dollar
| both have taken a _colossal_ hit that is going to
| reverberate into much greater consequences. It is the hit
| on TBills that forced Trump 's retreat, which his weird
| cult now need to spin into some 4D chess.
|
| Like, listen to what Trump himself says to justify the
| pause-
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmfosw5usb2f
|
| Basically "everyone was saying this was really stupid --
| getting "yipeee" -- so I paused it". Not "Haha now I've got
| them where I want 'em!"
|
| These pauses and this chaos is literally the _worst of both
| worlds_. Christ, he would have done better either
| cancelling them or going full bore.
|
| Congress needs to remove his ability to levy tariffs under
| his imaginary emergencies.
| martinky24 wrote:
| How can anyone take him seriously on this sort of stuff? He
| flip/flops constantly. If he isn't a serious negotiator, other
| countries/companies aren't going to take his threats seriously.
| lysace wrote:
| *How can anyone take the US seriously?
|
| Also see: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yrr0e7499o
|
| > Confidence in the US economy is plummeting as investors
| dumped government debt amid growing concerns over the impact of
| Donald Trump's tariffs.
|
| > Governments sell bonds - essentially an IOU - to raise money
| from financial markets for public spending and in return they
| pay interest.
|
| > The US does not normally see high interest rates on its debt
| as its bonds are viewed as a safe investment, but on Wednesday
| rates spiked sharply to touch 4.5%
| jeetoid wrote:
| Any reasonable person does.
| lysace wrote:
| Well, we used to.
| justin66 wrote:
| In the sense that people "take seriously" a drunkard waving
| a gun around.
| werdnapk wrote:
| And that's a problem... reasonable people now don't.
| meepmorp wrote:
| > How can anyone take the US seriously?
|
| we can wipe out humanity if we get cranky
| lysace wrote:
| Yeah, Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping can do that "if they are
| cranky".
|
| The reasonable world doesn't take Russia or China
| seriously. US is about to be added to that list.
|
| Also, we're now busy building nukes. Morons.
| matteoraso wrote:
| Doesn't help America as much as some people might think. The
| world has seen that Trump is erratic, and America imports too
| much from China to just ignore the 125% (!!!) tariff on the
| country.
| linguae wrote:
| Exactly. The damage has been done; the fact that economic
| policy could dramatically change day-by-day makes investing and
| planning very difficult. In addition, the tariffs on China are
| insane.
|
| One of my biggest concerns is the value of the dollar. If
| foreigners are discouraged from doing business with America
| either due to tariffs or due to other matters, how does this
| affect the dollar, which is a fiat currency? The US dollar is
| currently the world's reserve currency, which is the result of
| the United States' emerging victorious from WWII while Britain,
| holder of the world's previous reserve currency (the pound),
| had to contend with rebuilding as well as dealing with the loss
| of its empire. Fiat currencies, by definition, are not backed
| by assets, but are instead backed by "faith"; not in the
| religious sense, but in the faith that people have in the
| government issuing the currency. How will the world keep the
| faith if the custodian of the dollar acts so recklessly?
|
| For many years I've been concerned about deficit spending and
| easy-money policies from central banks. However, for the past
| few months I've become very concerned about Trump's policies
| that alienate our allies and partners. What Trump and the rest
| of MAGA simply do not understand is that the United States is
| part of an interconnected world. American strength is more than
| just weaponry; it's also in our economy and our reputation.
|
| Unfortunately Trump and his cabinet have done extraordinary
| damage to our nation in less than three months. He's like an
| angry man with a baseball bat smashing up irreplaceable
| artifacts in a museum, and sadly there is no police to stop
| him, because he is the chief of police. He is by far the worst
| president America has ever had to endure, and if this continues
| our nation will end up at war, either with itself or with other
| nations.
| misantroop wrote:
| Trump couldn't care less about America. He treats the
| presidency as his private business. This was all a ploy to make
| a lot of money, nothing else.
| loevborg wrote:
| The Chinese are warning their citizens about travel to the U.S.
|
| > China issued an alert warning its citizens and students of the
| potential risk of traveling in the U.S. and attending schools
| there. > > "Recently, due to the deterioration of China-US
| economic and trade relations and the domestic security situation
| in the United States, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism reminds
| Chinese tourists to fully assess the risks of traveling to the
| United States and be cautious," the ministry said in an alert.
|
| Can't blame them honestly
| fifilura wrote:
| Nah, this is just opportunism from their side. They used to
| threaten people who went to work/study abroad. It is easier to
| just scare them.
| bllguo wrote:
| yea the government is scaring them, not anything the US is
| doing. sure. the mental gymnastics know no bounds
| pb7 wrote:
| What is the US doing to Chinese visitors?
| StefanBatory wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/06/chinese-
| woma...
| gmuslera wrote:
| The citizens of other countries should be concerned too. Even
| short term plans could end badly for some disruptive measure
| Trump because whatever, as he did basically every week since he
| got in charge.
| mtremsal wrote:
| Many EU countries have done the same in recent weeks. This is
| less about putting diplomatic pressure, and more about warning
| people to avoid traveling to the US due to real danger.
| pb7 wrote:
| There is no real danger so this is mostly diplomatic
| pressure.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Have you ever experienced being detained by CBP?
| pb7 wrote:
| No I haven't because the odds of it happening to an
| ordinary person are a rounding error, now and at any
| other point in time.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Nobody wants to be that rounding error.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| German and another Europeans were detained by ICE and ended
| up spending weeks in solitary confinement, past their plane
| back.
| sebtron wrote:
| Multiple European countries have issued travel warnings for the
| US too.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I have a trip to China on Saturday and I'm worried about:
|
| a. Chinese retaliation. I don't think they are going to start
| arresting Americans, but it might get uncomfortable if I don't
| have my passport in the subway station.
|
| b. American retaliation. My wife has a greencard, this is
| actually worrying me more than anything, although as far as I
| have heard so far, we should be OK.
|
| Trip is still on. I'm really interested in how China has
| changed since I left 8 years ago.
| pb7 wrote:
| Neither of these concerns are real. Turn off the propaganda
| faucet.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I don't think you have lived experience to back that up.
| There are definitely people being turned away at customs in
| the US, and China has targeted nationals of other countries
| they have disputes with (e.g. during the Huawei daughter
| incident and putting two Canadians in jail for two years
| while she got house arrest in her mansion). And anyways,
| having your passport in a Beijing subway station is just
| the way things are now (never was needed before, but they
| random check all the time before I left in 2016).
| pb7 wrote:
| There have been people turned away at customs for as long
| as you have been alive. These are only stories because
| they're effective at manipulating you into believing the
| narrative du jour.
| noname120 wrote:
| What quantitative evidence do you have of that?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Yes, and I've always been the "it could never happen to
| me" person. But now things are volatile and chaotic. That
| is elevated risk, and you just shouldn't ignore it.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Hmm curious that they gutted SEC before pulling this nonsense
| rather than afterward.
| outer_web wrote:
| I think the DOJ handles these things. Oh, also gutted. And also
| it doesn't matter because immunity.
| davidw wrote:
| One thing companies love is lots of uncertainty like this. It
| keeps their accountants entertained! "Maybe we should build a
| factory in the US" ... 24 hours later ... "well, not today".
|
| What's really amazing is all the muttering from "Very Important
| Wall Street" type people who are saying that he's insane. Like...
| with that kind of salary, weren't you paying attention? We've
| known he wasn't right in the head for a while now. Maybe they
| should be replaced by AI.
| thrance wrote:
| It's a confirmation to those that still needed it that finance
| people are stupid and ideologically blinded. Trump's been
| speaking of tariffs for years, what made them think his mandate
| would be good for them?
| vkou wrote:
| They always knew he was an idiot, the reason they are muttering
| is to give ammunition and support to anyone who will push back
| on this insanity.
| valzam wrote:
| Absolutely no one was seriously considering building a factory
| in the US based on the insansity of last week
| timewizard wrote:
| Thailand is a good example. They have about $40b (USD) in
| balance of trade going the wrong way. Their initial ideas
| were simply to import more american petroleum, vehicles and
| aircraft. This likely could have accounted for more than half
| the difference and significantly reduced their tariff rate by
| just changing suppliers of already imported products.
|
| The US news is pretty useless here. It's more nuanced than
| they would like to admit. Foreign sources of news are the
| most instructive as they're actually covering the options
| realistically.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Which way is "going the wrong way"?
| mooreds wrote:
| > Foreign sources of news are the most instructive as
| they're actually covering the options realistically.
|
| Curious about what your go-to sources are?
| croes wrote:
| There are more consequences if you change the supplier
| because different supplier often means different product
| midtake wrote:
| The market is huge. Absolutely someone was considering it.
| Whether they had time to put plans in motion is a separate
| matter altogether.
| croes wrote:
| The costs are huge too which makes the margin small
| echoangle wrote:
| The market is huge but the actual capital is held (or at
| least controlled) by relatively few (probably more rational
| than average) people, no?
| andrethegiant wrote:
| Why would a company go through the trouble of building a
| factory when the next administration could just reverse the
| decision four years from now? Building factories will take
| years
| slg wrote:
| How confident are we that there is a "next
| administration... four years from now"? I don't know what
| the number is, but it ain't 100% like it used to be.
| baggachipz wrote:
| I would put it at less than 50% at this point. It
| entirely depends on whether or not he's alive.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The market is huge enough that the fact that something is
| being considered somewhere doesn't mean much, right? If I
| consider building a factory in the woods, but I don't have
| two pennies to clack together, does anybody hear it?
| numpad0 wrote:
| Cost differences by everyone's gut estimate is like >10^3
| or however many digits. Tariffs are cheaper until it starts
| T2D3ing.
| davidw wrote:
| That was part of the entire purported purpose of this lunacy.
| They went on TV and everything about having people operating
| robots screwing in iphone screws and stuff.
|
| Whether anyone bought into it is another matter, but opening
| factories is part of what they said they wanted.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| The number of people who are paid to be "professional knower of
| things" and "professional predictor of things" who are now
| saying "I never could have predicted that Trump would do
| something as crazy as this" is just baffling.
|
| In a sane world all these people would be ignored by media
| outlets moving forward.
| davidw wrote:
| The media outlets are part of the problem. Lots of
| sanewashing and "both sides". Many of them also love "CEO
| says a thing" articles where they act as stenographers. You
| see that with a certain car company's wild promises.
| croes wrote:
| In a sane world Trump wouldn't be president
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I sold my stocks just barely in advance of this whole
| debacle. I remain confused that it wasn't already priced in
| by that point. I am not a savvy investor by any standard.
| tombert wrote:
| At this point, I do wonder if long-dated (2-3 months) American-
| style Puts are a good idea.
|
| The weirdness of this administration has created a lot of
| volatility. With American-style options you are allowed to
| exercise early, so if you think there's going to be a ton of
| ups and downs in the next few months, I wonder if this could be
| lucrative.
|
| I might try this just as an experiment with one of the cheaper
| options.
| fortran77 wrote:
| The only way to know is to wait 3 months and see.
| hervature wrote:
| Exercising early only makes sense in some pathological
| examples that do occur but practically never happen. In
| general, very loosely, a put is worth something for the hedge
| plus the amount you could get for exercising it right now.
| Thus, if you want to exercise it right now, you just sell it
| and get the hedge premium.
|
| Also, the current VIX is the same as January of 2020. If you
| believe the current state of the world is less certain than
| the outbreak of a global pandemic, I have some options to
| sell you.
| tombert wrote:
| Yeah, misspoke, I meant selling the option, not exercising.
|
| > Also, the current VIX is the same as January of 2020. If
| you believe the current state of the world is less certain
| than the outbreak of a global pandemic, I have some options
| to sell you.
|
| I don't know if it's _more_ volatile, BUT it it has shot
| way up since yesterday, and it doesn 't seem too weird to
| think that it will go down to the numbers we had yesterday.
| d0odk wrote:
| You can just sell the options. You don't need to exercise.
| tombert wrote:
| Yeah, that's actually what I meant, sell the option. I
| misspoke.
| Aperocky wrote:
| Given my exposure I've loaded up with long puts right after
| this news.
|
| Puts are a necessary hedge now for your 401ks or stock
| grants.
| keeganpoppen wrote:
| i doubt you're the first person to think of this. not to be
| an "it's priced in" guy, but... something to consider
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| They knew he was a moron. Their mistake was thinking he was
| _their_ moron.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| If I had any appreciable assets in the stock market OTHER than
| my retirement savings, I would sell like hell right now.
|
| The market is absolutely delusional right now. It's not pricing
| in how devastating this general uncertainty is, nevermind the
| fact that massive tariff hikes _are_ still in effect.
| whatever1 wrote:
| The stable solution to this problem is infinite tariffs
| everywhere.
|
| But then these are politicians they will declare 2*infinity
| tariffs.
| Vivtek wrote:
| Threaten people with a 49% national sales tax, and suddenly they
| celebrate when it's only 10%.
| sampton wrote:
| It also makes it easy for Chinese manufactures to circumvent
| tariffs. Completely pointless theater for the MAGA crowd.
| some_random wrote:
| How though? Obviously there will be tariff evasion but doing
| so at scale is impossible.
| mwest217 wrote:
| Import to another country then the US?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They setup more factories in vietnam to assemble chinese
| parts. But this isn't really a thing they can do in 90
| days.
| croes wrote:
| You just need a address in Vietnam, who checks if the
| factory exists?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Fraud is fraud no matter what. But I don't think Vietnam
| will risk America's ire if they help China cheat.
| xracy wrote:
| How would they be risking it?
|
| Who is incentivized in this system to say that this
| product is actually coming from China? Is it the US
| government regulators who just lost their jobs? Or the
| Businesses themselves who don't want to pay higher
| tariffs? Is it China who avoids the tariff? Is it Vietnam
| who just got paid for doing nothing?
|
| The answer would typically be that the US gov't would
| monitor this. But that is not a muscle this
| administration is capable of. That would require nuance
| and strategy, and it's _very clear_ from this move that
| this administration doesn 't have that capability.
| cwillu wrote:
| "The people who care don't know, and the people who know
| don't care." The Lord of War, describing military
| corruption in the aftermath of the fall of the USSR.
| xracy wrote:
| I feel like people need to understand how they are
| impacting the path of least resistance when they make a
| change. Your change is only successful if the path of
| least resistance must now go where you want it to go.
| bluGill wrote:
| You need a few people in a "living room" to put "made in
| Vietnam" stickers on things. That makes the living room a
| factory and so you are not legally tricking anyone even
| though your only part in the process is putting that
| sticker on.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| Reminds me of the old rumor that the city of Usa, Japan
| exists so they can print "Made in Usa" on exports. They
| actually don't do that and Usa has held its name longer
| than the actual United Stats has existed but it still
| makes for a good story.
| foogazi wrote:
| Why 90 days ? Don't the tariffs take effect now -
| although with the flip-flopping who even knows anymore
|
| The foreign factory system is already in place for those
| that use it
| snickerbockers wrote:
| if tariffs are applied based on the date of departure and
| not the date of arrival you can definitely get away with
| falsifying the date. And on the off-chance you get caught
| you feign confusion on account of the rapidly fluctuating
| circumstances and the customs guy lets you just pay
| whatever you owe without sanction because he has a
| million other people saying the same thing and even if he
| can tell you're lying he really doesn't care anyways.
|
| I have a friend who had to get something shipped from
| Australia to Germany via freight, he told me
| intercontinental freight shipping generally takes
| multiple months if you aren't Wal-Mart/Amazon and you
| aren't willing to pay out the ass for express handling.
|
| >The foreign factory system is already in place for those
| that use it
|
| ah but there's the small kernel of genius within the
| corncob that is trump's insanity: which foreign factories
| do you use and who will they take the shipment from and
| and wait fuck he just gave a 90-day extension less than a
| week in, will the factory let me have my money back if i
| cancel?
| matwood wrote:
| Apple has been preparing in this exact manner since Trump
| was POTUS last time.
| Aurornis wrote:
| If this pattern holds (high tariffs on China, low tariffs
| everywhere else) there will be a booming industry of pass-
| through "factories" that receive shipments from China and
| then re-sell them as having come from Vietnam or some other
| intermediary country.
|
| This exact thing happens frequently at scale. When
| countries put export controls in place on shipments to
| Russia recently, they had a sudden spike in exports to a
| number of countries known to re-ship products into Russia.
| mikrl wrote:
| I bought ocean fish roe from my local Euro store.
| "Product of Belarus" which is of course landlocked.
|
| I thought it was highly suspicious when I noticed, like
| evasion of sanctions on Russia. However, food products
| aren't covered by sanctions in Canada and apparently, the
| Belarus packaging is to make it easier to sell German
| fish in Russia!
| bee_rider wrote:
| I still wouldn't want to buy food that is packaged with
| the intent to trick people, even if the tricksters were
| German. (I think Germany is a pretty trustworthy and
| transparent country but that doesn't apply to every
| single individual there).
| chrisco255 wrote:
| This already happens but we actually can observe this
| quite easily and apply expanded tariffs to any country
| which attempts this.
| avidiax wrote:
| Does the US Customs office have inspectors that go to
| Vietnamese factories and check that the factory exists, and
| that 51% of the assembly was actually performed there?
|
| If not, what stops a Vietnamese shell company from sending
| "Vietnamese" goods through a port in China, or worst case,
| a port in Vietnam?
| Dakizhu wrote:
| Sounds like they'll have to rehire some of the federal
| employees fired by DOGE.
| kkarakk wrote:
| China has already been transshipping saying they assemble
| in vietnam with the only thing being done is stuff like
| taking labels that say made in china off the products.
| Vietnam does not care as long as vietnamese people are
| getting paid something.
|
| https://redarrowlogistics.com/international/dodging-
| tariffs-...
| layer8 wrote:
| How so? By lying about the country of origin?
| criddell wrote:
| Chinese manufacturers don't pay US tariffs, the entities
| importing the goods do.
| cwillu wrote:
| They will still play games to access a large-but-
| protectionist market at a discount.
| codedokode wrote:
| With their prices do they need to make a discount?
| tlogan wrote:
| And China which accounts for about 20% of our imports have 130%
| tariffs.
| digianarchist wrote:
| Brings the average rate up to 33%.
| anon291 wrote:
| Well we now know which countries are willing to work with the
| United States.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I'm only "celebrating" congress getting more time to reel this
| chaos in. Hopefully we have 20 pissed off enough GOP senators
| to realize that they never should have let Trump singlehandedly
| start yet another tarriff war.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's not like people stopped being mad or are calling this
| good. Starting with a big number and dropping lower
| (temporarily!) was not a good negotiating strategy here.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| So we're all in for another ride like this in 3 months? How are
| businesses supposed to plan anything in this environment?
|
| As nice as this surge is, I'm more focused on upping my cash
| reserves and bracing myself for a recession.
| dayvid wrote:
| There's definitely going to be another change before 3 months
| are up.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Yep. He flip flops like a dying fish. There is no way to
| predict what idea he's going to have 90 days from now.
| dcow wrote:
| Responding in good faith to other countries' willingness to
| negotiate fair trade terms isn't exactly flip flopping. In
| fact he did the same thing with Mexico. If _the market_ was
| paying attention it would have accounted for this...
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's interesting how person's nakedly obvious dump and
| pump corrupt opportunism is another's "responding in good
| faith."
|
| The problem remains. Anyone who imports from China -
| which covers a lot of the economy - is screwed.
|
| And Rest of World no longer trusts anything he says.
| thfuran wrote:
| He is pathologically incapable of operating in good
| faith.
| ajross wrote:
| > other countries' willingness to negotiate fair trade
| terms
|
| This is a fabricated justification. There has been
| literally zero public reporting of any trade negotiations
| post-tarifpocalypse. The only people saying there are
| deals being made are the White House, who have produce
| zero evidence of deals.
|
| No, Trump was responding[1] to the movement of the market
| and in particular to the sudden spike in federal bond
| rates. This was absolutely not a win for Art of the Deal.
| There was no Deal.
|
| [1] In "good faith", to be sure.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Good faith would have included
|
| - not lying about tariffs being taxes on other countries
| that would replace us paying taxes
|
| - not calling trade deficits tariffs and pretending to
| impose reciprocal tariffs
|
| - negotiating ahead of time like normal people and
| clearly communicating the path forward
| outer_web wrote:
| Bessent said this was the strategy from the beginning.
| guelo wrote:
| Why cash when inflation is coming?
| randunel wrote:
| You need liquidity when recessions come. Less liquid assets
| go for lower than usual since cash is king during those
| times.
|
| But nobody can predict recessions.
| ghaff wrote:
| Cash often refers to Money Market funds and the interest they
| pay tends to track inflation. There are also ibonds but you
| can invest a fairly limited amount in them.
| muzani wrote:
| Cash can bleed slower than the others, especially if there's
| stagflation. Liquidity is nice too during uncertain times.
|
| Also nearly 100% tariffs on one of the biggest trading
| partners is unlikely to hold for very long. There's probably
| a lot of options because of that.
| spacephysics wrote:
| Think the hope and idea is there's concrete agreements
| established before the 90 days are up
| jwilber wrote:
| What makes you think this?
|
| Separate, possibly unrelated question: what was trump's goal
| when he created and rug pulled the Trump coin?
| dcow wrote:
| The fact that what they've been saying all along is that
| the goal of the reciprocal tariffs is to renegotiate with
| all countries for a more fair economic playing field. Many
| people aren't so fickle as to just assume everything the
| party they don't like is doing is insane and a big
| conspiracy to insider trade and ruin the world.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| That's what they say but we literally went through this
| whole mess not even two months ago with Canada and
| Mexico. He's already showed he's insane and cannot be
| negotiated with.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > The fact that what they've been saying all along
|
| They weren't saying that all along. They were saying that
| tariffs are a tool that will be used to reindustrialize
| the USA.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| While also saying they were going to be a replacement for
| the IRS and to stop illegal immigrantion and drugs and
| force Canada to become the 51st state.
|
| Full on grandmas off her meds level nonsense.
| apical_dendrite wrote:
| The President's advisors are saying multiple
| contradictory things. You're right that they're saying
| that the reciprocal tariffs are a negotiating ploy, which
| implies that they'll negotiate a much lower rate. But at
| the same time they're also saying that they're going to
| use the tariffs to raise enough revenue to replace income
| taxes as the main way of funding the government, which
| implies that the tariffs will stay high. Then they're
| also saying that the tariffs will be used to support
| domestic manufacturing, which implies that the tariffs
| will stay high and predictable.
|
| It doesn't make sense that the tariff policy can be both
| leverage in a negotiation with the ultimate goal
| eliminating trade barriers and also so high and
| predictable that they can raise something the 10-20% of
| GDP.
|
| The logical conclusion is that there is no plan here -
| we're living in a world like England under Henry VIII,
| where everything is done based on the whim of the king,
| and the advisors try to justify it ex post facto.
| netsharc wrote:
| And if he has one of his McDiarrhea's, what's going to stop
| him from using that newest agreement as toilet paper?
| danieldk wrote:
| Even if that was the idea, the agreements are worth less than
| the paper they are written on. He is boo-ing and shredding
| trade agreements that he made himself during his first term.
| He says one thing one day and the complete opposite the next
| day.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| The USMCA agreement wasn't worth the paper HE SIGNED on when
| he decided he wanted to change the terms of that concrete
| agreement.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Oh, like CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC/NAFTA2? Canada and Mexico say hi.
| coldpie wrote:
| > How are businesses supposed to plan anything in this
| environment?
|
| Who cares? Business leaders & the politicians they helped elect
| are stripping the copper from the country. Whatever's left when
| they're done is someone else's problem.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I care?? Much of my family works in trades, have their own
| small businesses with employees and are very much subject to
| tariffs for their supplies. They did not vote for any of
| this.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| (2^ that was sarcasm)
| squigz wrote:
| I think GP meant, "Who in power cares"
| coldpie wrote:
| > They did not vote for any of this.
|
| Me either. I'm afraid you'll have to ask the people who did
| elect the copper thieves for an explanation.
| solid_fuel wrote:
| If they voted for Republicans, they did in fact vote for
| this. It doesn't need to be like this, congress and
| specifically the Republican majority which controls it can
| act to reclaim the power of tariffs from the president _at
| any time_.
|
| All of this chaos is specifically because they have chosen
| to be complicit instead of opposing the president. If you
| want the madness to stop, call your representatives. Speak
| to your family and ask them to do the same.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| > _congress and specifically the Republican majority
| which controls it can act to reclaim the power of tariffs
| from the president _at any time_._
|
| After overriding a veto, which Trump has already stated
| he'll use, to block Congress taking back the power of
| tariffs:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/sahilkapur.bsky.social/post/3lma
| k2w...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| If it passes under a Republican Congress and it's a
| simple bill (primarily revoking presidential emergency
| tariff authority), then it'll probably have enough
| bipartisan support in the Senate, but maybe not House, to
| be veto proof.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Democrats need about 4 GOP senators to get the bill
| passed.
|
| Theyll need 19 or 20 to get the inevitable veto override.
| I guess we'll see how these events have shaken congress
| and if thars enough to take trumps toys away.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Also note that they could also impeach Trump at any time.
| The sort of crimes that justify impeachment are pretty
| easily demonstrable at this point so all they need are
| the votes. They'll have just under half in the House and
| Senate from the Democrats, so they only need a handful of
| Rs in the House and (the hard part) a bit over 1/3rd of
| the Rs in the Senate.
|
| So if they can find like 20 R senators who realize that
| they no longer support a Mad King, they're all set.
| Teever wrote:
| It might be time for you and your family to consider moving
| to a more stable country.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| The US did vote for this.
| tim333 wrote:
| Well, they voted for Trump but I'm not sure the random
| tariff generator was mentioned as part of the platform.
| outer_web wrote:
| He definitely yelled the word tariff a lot and has a
| reputation for being an rng.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I don't think Trump was known for being an exceptionally
| stable candidate.
| ryandvm wrote:
| I think the "who cares?" was rhetorical. I suspect the
| commenter you're responding to is in the same place that am
| - politically exhausted and, for the time being, apathetic.
|
| We didn't vote for any of this to happen. We voted for the
| adult. But the reality is that this country held fair
| elections and the population democratically elected someone
| that is a somewhat ambiguous melange of amoral, stupid,
| craven, venal, and selfish.
|
| Many of us knew shit like this was going to happen and that
| it's going to be a very long 4 years. We are getting
| exactly what we collectively asked for.
|
| I'll poke my head out for the 2026 elections and see if
| there's anything worth saving...
| root_axis wrote:
| Maybe not all of them as individuals, but them as a public.
| It's not just a fluke of the last election, over the past
| two decades the u.s. has given control of all branches of
| government to Trump.
|
| Beyond that, IMO, the public doesn't really care about
| tariffs. Right now there is a lot of noise because this
| kind of capricious threat/application of tariffs is
| something new, but the tariff chaos will become boring
| background noise in a few months and people will move on to
| the next thing.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| You should care because uncertainty leads to cancelled &
| deferred projects, which leads to reduced demand, which leads
| to reduced jobs.
|
| If I don't know if Trump is literal or serious about re-
| shoring to normalize trade deficits, or its just a revenue
| gimmick, or if its all going to be delayed, or negotiated
| away ... am I moving any production back to the US? No.
|
| Plants are cancelling orders as they are uncertain what the
| tariff might be by the time goods ship.
|
| Etc.
|
| Burn it all down is not a governing philosophy.
| coldpie wrote:
| I'm not a billionaire. What I care about doesn't matter.
| fragmede wrote:
| individually, sure, but maybe you have some friends and
| family that feel the same way?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| It's a democracy still and we do get to vote, so
| hopefully we can remain engaged
| coldpie wrote:
| Woo, I get to vote for yet another slate of billionaire-
| picked, barely functional, walking corpses repeating the
| same bland pro-corporate slogans and accomplishing
| nothing of value for four years before we hand the
| country back over to the nutjobs for another round. So
| engaging.
| bluGill wrote:
| If everyone who stayed home had voted for a third party
| that party would have won. Even if they split between two
| third parties, they would have sent a powerful message.
| Instead they made it clear they don't care. Now add in
| those who thought the major party was the only way to
| make a difference. BTW, if you votes for Harris you
| wouldn't have lost anything by voting third party and it
| would have sent a message to the Democrats.
| coldpie wrote:
| Oh, I looked. To my knowledge, Harris was the best choice
| even including third parties. Stein and West are both
| whackos and no one else even made it on enough ballots to
| win.
| jfengel wrote:
| If everyone who stayed home had voted for the _same_
| third party, it would have won. That 's unlikely.
|
| It's also unlikely that it would have been split between
| only two additional parties. In my state we had 5 parties
| on the ballot. Colorado (to pick one at random) had 12.
|
| If there was any real movement to get non-voters to vote
| for a third party, there would likely be even more of
| them. As it is, each of those parties took a fair bit of
| effort to get on the ballot, knowing that at best they
| would "send a message".
|
| If the message is "we don't like you", then the message
| has been received, for many years. But the reply is "OK,
| go get people to agree on somebody else", and that's the
| sticking point.
| xracy wrote:
| I'm gonna say 'yes, but' instead of 'yes, and'.
|
| Yes, but the big problem is that these same business leaders
| and politicians are going to be the ones who get first bite
| at the apple. And so how they plan is going to impact what's
| left for everyone else.
|
| I don't care because they burned the system to the ground, I
| care because they're gonna salvage what _they_ need and
| nothing else.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I guarantee lots of people in The Swamp are getting word on
| planned announcements so they can make their stock market
| bets before the news is announced.
| xracy wrote:
| I think this makes my comment more relevant. I have no
| doubt this administration is telling the people it likes,
| ahead of time, what they're doing.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Sadly, trickle down economics does work for headwinds. Us
| private citizens feel the full windfall when the stocks and
| businesses are down.
|
| We don't necessarily feel it when it's up though. As seen
| from 2024.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The administration has signaled that they expect to negotiate
| acceptable balance-of-trade deals with the US's Asian allies
| over the next few weeks. _If_ that happens, I can see
| businesses being certain enough to make investments. Until then
| I 'm bracing for a recession too.
| re-thc wrote:
| > If that happens
|
| How does that help? The steel and auto tariffs are still in
| place. There are plans on tariffs for other industries.
| You'll be hit 1 way or another.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| The idea would be that different parts of the supply chain
| would build factories in the US to avoid tariffs. Money
| collected on tariffs would be redistributed in the form of
| tax cuts.
|
| The end goal would be 0% corporate and income taxes, funded
| with high tariffs. Over time the US re-industrializes.
| re-thc wrote:
| > The idea would be that different parts of the supply
| chain would build factories in the US to avoid tariffs.
|
| Right, because the US doesn't have diamonds, vanilla,
| coffee beans or the many other things it needs? How do
| you avoid tariffs like this?
|
| The US still needs fish from the penguins. What's the
| plan? To tell penguins to stop fishing and come to the US
| and work in factories?
|
| > The end goal would be 0% corporate and income taxes,
| funded with high tariffs.
|
| Well you have that right. When there's 0% of the people
| working no 1 will be paying corporate and income tax.
| It'll just crash.
|
| > Over time the US re-industrializes.
|
| Like it's gone? You do know the US is the 2nd largest
| global manufacturer right? That is even today. So do we
| need to blow that up 1st in order to re-industrialize?
| mcculley wrote:
| No such plan has been documented. This is just wishful
| thinking.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I am giving the steel man of why this may work. Whether
| it does or not, well, you can play the stock market as
| well as anyone
| mcculley wrote:
| You are constructing a fantasy.
| cyberax wrote:
| > The idea would be that different parts of the supply
| chain would build factories in the US to avoid tariffs.
|
| Building a factory is a 3-5 year task, with a decade-long
| payback time. And at any point, tariffs can be removed,
| making all that investment futile.
|
| And even then, there's no guarantee that the factory is
| going to help people. If it's a lights-out facility
| staffed with robots, then it'll just be producing more
| expensive goods, with all the profits staying in its
| owners' pockets.
|
| > Over time the US re-industrializes.
|
| Or just becomes another Argentina.
| grey-area wrote:
| Who would trust the US after this? Why would a company
| build a factory in a lawless state run by a moron like
| this who thinks blanket tariffs work and could replace
| taxes?
|
| No part of your plan will happen.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| You'll definitely be hit one way or another. The question
| is whether businesses can predict what their tariff hit
| will look like next year and plan around it, or can't and
| need to hold onto their cash until they know which
| investments are or aren't worth it.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| You mean like he railed against the Canada/Mexico trade deal
| that he negotiated during his first term?
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I feel like you're arguing against something I didn't say.
| I agree there's a good chance the president will make up
| new tariffs or fail to negotiate some of the current ones.
| If that happens then trade deals with Asian allies won't
| reassure anyone. That's why I'm still preparing for a
| recession.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Like wanting EU to drop VAT for US import sales or forcing EU
| to buy oil/gas/coal. None of that is happening.
| petre wrote:
| The EU is very slooow to act. It might happen during the
| next administration but only if each 27 of them are
| convinced it's a good idea. Like the 2% fot NATO which now
| is insufficient. How about 5%, since Russia is prepared for
| war and we have China to worry about.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| None of what I said is happening. It's more likely that
| we spend a trillion on clean energy, in part on china.
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't get this take. We _already_ negotiated trade
| agreements. That's what got ripped up with all this tariff
| nonsense. Why would anyone expect the US to respect the next
| negotiation? The damage here was reputational. That can only
| be repaired with time. It can't be negotiated.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It's easy for us on the Internet to talk about how
| untrustworthy the US is and how little a negotiation means.
| It's a lot harder for trade authorities in a country to
| tell all their US exporters "hey, the Americans are being
| obnoxious, so your business is probably going to fail and
| we're not gonna do much about it". If you asked me to
| negotiate with the US in this situation, I absolutely would
| refuse, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening in
| practice.
| petre wrote:
| Sure. Thr only thing certain with a character like him at the
| helm is _interesting times_ , so brace yourself.
| RyanOD wrote:
| I'd say you should brace yourself for rides like this for the
| next 45 months.
| dmd wrote:
| Aren't you optimistic!
| bluGill wrote:
| What makes you think OP will die in 45 months?
|
| Rides like this have happened regularly for longer than I can
| remember. The details always change, but there is nothing
| new.
| anthomtb wrote:
| We are in for this ride, at indefinite intervals, for the next
| 3.75 years. Well, unless congress grows a collective sack
| (unlikely) or President Trump comes to his senses on macro
| economics (past experience suggests this is impossible).
|
| > How are businesses supposed to plan anything in this
| environment?
|
| They cannot. This is how you can tell Trump was never a real
| businessman, but rather a TV host and a celebutante. I'd
| venture nearly all major American business, public and private,
| depend on stability in the American government. Trump's actions
| make it painfully clear he is not, and never was, really part
| of the "business" or "deal making" world.
| netsharc wrote:
| I joked to a friend that Trump is going to cause a new
| religion to start. One that makes people pray that today he
| does what they want (e.g. just shut up and not yell "China,
| 500% tariffs!")
|
| Or one that makes people pray that one of those cheeseburgers
| he's been eating finally does something...
| the_af wrote:
| > _Well, unless congress grows a collective sack (unlikely)
| or President Trump comes to his senses on macro economics_
|
| We in Argentina feel for you: it's exactly the same for us,
| replacing Trump with Milei. And with the added humiliation of
| Milei being a lapdog to Trump.
|
| This phrase of yours "unless congress grows a sack" is
| _exactly_ how we feel about our own congress in Argentina.
| layer8 wrote:
| It seems unlikely that the next 90 days will remain calm and
| stable.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Ya, I don't know what Trump is going to do in the next 90
| days, but it will probably not just be working on his golf
| game (although we can hope).
| mullingitover wrote:
| He needed to take some time to work on his other passion
| project, kidnapping US citizens and disappearing them
| permamently into third world gulags[1].
|
| [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/07
| /trum...
| 1659447091 wrote:
| That's a Stephen Miller passion project, Trump only cares
| about it in so much as it get's him votes for his real
| passion project: the money grift with a side of staying
| front & center in the news.
| tim333 wrote:
| The 125% on Chinese imports effective immediately in itself
| doesn't seem that calm or stable.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| The President can only legally set tarrifs in an "emergency".
| Planning tarrifs 90 days out is really stretching the
| definition--I'm not holding my breath, but maybe the courts
| will uphold the constitution on this one?
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| Normally there are rules regarding how long an emergency can
| last. This is why, I kid you not, the Republican controlled
| Congress declared there are no more calendar days in this
| session of Congress. Every day is March 11. So they'll let
| him do it as long as he likes.
| cyberax wrote:
| Ah. So that's why it looks like the Groundhog day with the
| tariffs.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| /s
|
| This is also how this shambling ghoul gets what any actual
| citizen of earth would consider a third term. It's already
| done! This is why he said "you'll won't have to vote
| again."
|
| The president is only 50 days into his term forever; time
| is stopped. Hell upon us eternal.
| fsniper wrote:
| As a European I have no idea what that means. How and why
| that kind of decision can be taken?
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| House Resolution 211 of the current Congress[1]:
|
| > Each day for the remainder of the first session of the
| 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for
| purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act
| (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution
| terminating a national emergency declared by the
| President on February 1, 2025.
|
| Referring to 50 U.S.C. 1622(c) [2]:
|
| > (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national
| emergency declared by the President shall be referred to
| the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives
| or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint
| resolution shall be reported out by such committee
| together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar
| days after the day on which such resolution is referred
| to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise
| determine by the yeas and nays.
|
| > [and so on and so forth with fairly stringent time
| limits all the way through the legislature]
|
| (As somebody who's never been to the US--come on, am I
| the only one who finds legal questions like this to be
| basically irresistible RTFM bait?)
|
| [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-
| resolutio...
|
| [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622#c or
| https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:50%20secti
| on:...
| fsniper wrote:
| For the extended RTFM: IT's another country's laws and
| politics. Why am I expected to read their laws and logs
| of their whatever houses they have to understand
| something that would not even improve my life? Let alone
| when their own citizens would have trouble finding these
| an understanding the meaning down below?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I've seen my share of "well ackshually, this cool
| technical hack will circumvent the law and outsmart the
| judges", but thought judges wouldn't fall for such
| bullshit. Now, I'm not so sure. This is the stupidest
| thing I've seen in a long time.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Notably, not the first time this legal fiction has been
| used, but I don't really get what the previous uses were
| for. E.g., for the 2021-2022 Congress, section 7 of the War
| Powers Resolution[1], as well as House rules[2] XIII clause
| 7, XXII clause 7(c)(1), and XV clause 7 (all of which
| require something to be done within a prespecified number
| of either calendar or legislative days) were all
| suspended[3] from 2021-01-03 to 2021-01-28
| by HR 8 [4], from 2021-03-13 to 2021-04-22 by HR 118,
| from 2022-08-01 to 2022-09-30 by HR 1289, from
| 2022-10-03 to 2022-11-11 by HR 1396, from 2022-11-21
| to 2022-11-28 by HR 1464, from 2022-12-22 until the
| end by HR 1529,
|
| which looks like vacations, campaigning and such? I'm not
| really sure, but it's evident the formula had already been
| out there and was not a momentary fit of insanity and/or
| legislative genius (the Congress before that one used it
| too, for example), I'm just not sure what it was used for
| before.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1546
|
| [2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CLERK-RULE-
| PAMPHLET-...
|
| [3] https://www.congress.gov/quick-
| search/legislation?wordsPhras...
|
| [4] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
| resolutio... ( _mutatis mutandis_ for the others)
| re-thc wrote:
| > Planning tarrifs 90 days out is really stretching the
| definition
|
| Anything that distracts the president from playing golf is an
| "emergency".
| SkyeCA wrote:
| >I'm more focused on upping my cash reserves and bracing myself
| for a recession.
|
| I'm doing the same because I'm legitimately in fear of both
| economic troubles and/or losing my job as a result of all this
| uncertainty.
|
| I have cut my personal spending to nearly zero aside from
| essentials and have been hoarding my money. It's the only
| sensible option when planning for one's future becomes
| impossible.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| We have nine months of expenses in cash outside of retirement
| accounts and working up to 12 by the end of next year. But
| besides that, I'm not changing anything about our investment
| plans or our travel plans.
|
| I have been in the job market since 1996 and had to find a
| job both last year and the year before. I'm on my 10th job.
| None of the fundamentals ever change:
|
| Live below your means so you can take a job that pays less
| than you are making, keep an emergency fund, keep an updated
| resume and career document. Also keep an active network and
| always be interview ready.
|
| Also play the political game at your job and be sure to be in
| profit centers not cost centers. Market yourself both
| internally and externally.
| ghaff wrote:
| As someone semi-retired, I was already reasonably
| conservatively invested. When all this kicked off dumped some
| more equities. Maybe I could have done a bit better waiting.
| Who knows? I know I'm happy being that much more liquid.
| re-thc wrote:
| > How are businesses supposed to plan anything in this
| environment?
|
| Plan on relying less on the US market. Grow customers
| elsewhere.
| VectorLock wrote:
| >How are businesses supposed to plan anything in this
| environment?
|
| They're not supposed to. The only people who are planning
| anything in this scenario are Whitehouse insiders coordinating
| stock frontrunning from Signal group chats.
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lmf...
| poormathskills wrote:
| Trump tweeted "it's a good time to buy" right before the
| tariff drop announcement.
| whycome wrote:
| I guess truth social is now a critical investment tool as
| well?
| tim333 wrote:
| Guess so, for serious speculators.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| It'll be "fun" to see all the "negotiations" that happen with
| other countries, where they offer a crazy array of bribes /
| emoluments to WH insiders.
|
| Which is perfectly fine, now that we have Executive Order 63,
| _Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further
| American Economic and National Security_. This is no longer
| something the DOJ looks for or tracks, with AG Pam Bondi
| having to sign off on any potential investigations after a
| 180-day pause.
|
| Trump also all but disbanded the DOJ Public Integrity
| Section, that watches for public corruption.
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-
| department/justice-...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > How are businesses supposed to plan anything in this
| environment?
|
| How did they do it in the past?
|
| Do you believe that, if the environment stays this way,
| businesses will just cease to exist as a phenomenon?
| fifilura wrote:
| > focused on upping my cash reserves and bracing myself for a
| recession.
|
| And exactly there is a recipe for recession. A self fulfilling
| prophecy.
|
| Not that you are to blame but the reason why politicians
| usually avoid projecting uncertainty.
| palmotea wrote:
| > How are businesses supposed to plan anything in this
| environment?
|
| Honestly, that's one thing that makes me happy about these
| tariffs: big business is used to getting its way, and tariffs
| are very much _not_ what they wanted. I 've enjoyed the
| articles about Wall Street Billionaires getting mad and feeling
| helpless.
| thrance wrote:
| [flagged]
| whimsicalism wrote:
| the lesson to be learned is we are all humans and should get
| rich together, not to lean further into tit-for-tat anti-
| globalization.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| [flagged]
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The thing about stupid policies that make us poorer is they
| are self-punishing. The same is true of unnecessary
| retaliation after a backdown.
| adamrezich wrote:
| The Prisoner's Dilemma is a very easy game for everyone to
| win at if everyone cooperates. Unfortunately, everyone
| doesn't want to cooperate.
|
| It's a good idea to recognize and internalize this, as it's
| quite inherent to human nature, and won't be going away
| during any of our lifetimes.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| It's not a prisoners dilemna because you also lose by
| defecting while everyone else is cooperating.
|
| The thing to recognize and internalize is that the world is
| a lot more win-win than our psychology has been evolved to
| recognize. Nationalism, realpolitik, xenophobia - all of
| these are ideologies that make you poorer and worse off,
| not giving you some secret insight into the truth of human
| nature.
| adamrezich wrote:
| Everyone else is not cooperating though. Just because you
| think nationalism, realpolitik, and xenophobia (and slave
| labor, for that matter!) are all bad things that one
| shouldn't partake in, doesn't mean the rest of the world
| feels the same way, such that they will extend you the
| same courtesy.
| masijo wrote:
| So he's basically gaming the market with insider trading.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Did you expect something else?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Great way to get money loving sycophants closer to you and
| subservient to you and to shut up potential powerful critics.
|
| If you want wealth, stay close to where the secret knowledge
| is.
| thrance wrote:
| He literally did a pump and dump crypto scam on his first day
| in office. That he is a scam artist only motivated by personal
| wealth and power gain is obvious to any and all remaining sane
| individuals on this planet. Too bad the majority of American
| voters aren't.
| esalman wrote:
| He was doing similar stuff during his first term. It's just
| more blatant now.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Did you expect anything less?
|
| Remember when presidents used to put their family farm into a
| blind trust to avoid any accusation of impropriety?
| outer_web wrote:
| This is what immunity buys you.
| seydor wrote:
| I wonder if the stock markets will learn to disregard the US
| president for the next 4 years
| wtcactus wrote:
| His actions have real consequences for all the economy, stock
| markets can't simply disregard him.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| He's turned the US stock market into the same model as China's -
| the entire up/down rests on the leaders words.
|
| Which makes them fairly uninvestable.
| ronsor wrote:
| This isn't a good example because a lot investors are (or were)
| looking at China recently.
| abirch wrote:
| You can look at China; however, if you invest in China you're
| assuming counterparty risk with Xi, as he can destroy any
| Chines company that he wants.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| You also cant actually legally own most Chinese stock. IE
| "internet" stocks. What you can buy is an instrument
| intended to track them. Its called a VIE.
|
| That Alibaba stock you have? No, its a share from a
| seperate company setup in the Cayman Islands which should
| track the Alibaba stock. They are circumventing a Chinese
| law that makes foreign investment in Chinese companies
| illegal. It's a bad idea to own these.
| cbhl wrote:
| That doesn't stop people from trying -- according to
| Yahoo Finance, FXI (iShares China Large-Cap ETF) was one
| of the most-traded (by volume) ETFs yesterday.
| ronsor wrote:
| I'm well aware--not saying it's a good idea to invest in
| China, but many investors are trying it now thanks to the
| success of companies like DeepSeek. I have a feeling many
| of them will be eating large losses in the not-so-distant
| future.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| The Chinese stock market...is not a fun place. It hasn't done
| very well in the last 5 years (unlike the US stock market)
| and is still way too subject to insider trading to be very
| accessible to most people. You can go with an emerging
| markets fund, but I would only do that as a hedge.
| benjiro wrote:
| Very sure that he (or family members) are shorting stocks and
| then rebuying. This really feels like somebody deliberately
| creating market reactions, to benefit from them.
| j_maffe wrote:
| Idk Xi is much more consistent with the CCP than Trump is with
| anything.
| netsharc wrote:
| It's amazing what Trump's accomplished for the US, isn't it..
| he's dragged the country so fast downhill that China is
| looking more and more the better business partner.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| The markets were already like that but with federal reserve dot
| plots.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| There are structural differences between the US and Chinese
| stock markets that remain unchanged. The policy changed but the
| relationship between the President and the stock market did not
| change.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| Legally no, but normatively, yes. It was previously expected
| that the president wouldn't deliberately ruin the American
| economy for his own ego. That can no longer be expected.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| Despite the media tantrum the market only dropped back to early
| 2024 levels at the most.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| A president should not be essentially day trading the
| economy.
|
| The volatility levels are unseen since Covid and GFC.
|
| People's livelihoods will be at stake soon enough.
| coldpie wrote:
| > A president should not be essentially day trading the
| economy.
|
| US voters disagree.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _US voters disagree._
|
| Some polls would disagree with your assessment:
|
| > _A Wall Street Journal poll released Friday[1] found 52
| percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy,
| compared to 44 percent who approve. The disapproval is 12
| points higher than the 40 percent who said in October
| that they had an unfavorable view of Trump's economic
| plans._
|
| > _Pollsters found 54 percent said they oppose placing
| tariffs on imported goods, while the percentage who said
| tariffs will raise prices on consumer products rose from
| 68 percent in January to 75 percent in March._
|
| * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5236712-trump-
| tariffs-...
|
| [1] "Americans Were Souring on Trump's Economic Plans
| Even Before Tariff Bloodbath":
|
| * http://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/a
| meric...
| dralley wrote:
| >Despite the media tantrum the market only dropped back to
| early 2025 levels at the most.
|
| A) This is _obviously_ wrong if you spend even 5 seconds
| looking it up, unless you misspelled "2024"
|
| B) You can't just ignore that they spent several days telling
| financial journalists it was just a negotiating tactic and
| leading them to believe this might be peeled back quickly.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| Oops that was a typo. Yes 2024 levels. Market is
| unbelievably overvalued anyways.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes, but I don't think we've ever had a president pop a
| market bubble at a date & time of his choosing. Funny for
| the party of "don't let the government choose winners &
| losers" and all that.
| trhway wrote:
| >He's turned the US stock market into the same model as China's
| - the entire up/down rests on the leaders words.
|
| Not only stock market. The whole "Project 2025" point is to
| turn everything from the "rule-based" approach to "unitary-
| executive's-really-a-King's-whim" approach.
|
| Just today - the export control or lack of it on specific
| Nvidia chips isn't really result of security needs of US,
| instead it is just a result of Jensen getting a dinner at Mar-
| a-Lago. Just like in Russia.
| dingnuts wrote:
| I remember reading Unqualified Reservations ten years ago and
| thinking "this guy is a fucking nut!" and now his (Curtis
| Yarvin's) monarchist ideology seems to have walked right into
| the white house
|
| Trump 2 isn't Trump 1. These are uncharted waters indeed
| tehjoker wrote:
| The Chinese stock market is flat while their GDP rises because
| their economy is not based around the stock market. US economic
| management is entirely based around pumping the stock market.
| byearthithatius wrote:
| He said FAKE NEWS literally just a day ago.... This man cannot be
| trusted about anything
| java-man wrote:
| Announce tariffs, the buddies buy. Announce pause, the buddies
| sell. Someone just made a truckload of money.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| The stock market got almost down to reasonable values based on
| price to earning ratios.
|
| Nevertheless, it was still a good time to buy, and also a good
| time just to ignore it and go about your daily business.
| tucnak wrote:
| When you say "buddies" what you really mean is "banks", "hedge
| funds" and "people to whom it was obvious that announced
| tariffs were bonkers". If you had the foresight and market
| sense, you could have made money, too. But you were scared,
| sold low, and now when it came back up, you suddenly found
| yourself at a loss (or the so-called "unrealised profit")
|
| Don't blame the markets.
| bmandale wrote:
| Of course they were bonkers. You still had to know when the
| bottom was and when he was going to announce the reversal.
| Many people assumed he would keep it up for at least a week
| before pulling back. If he had the market would have pulled
| back even more. It's easy to time the market when you're from
| the future.
| tucnak wrote:
| Honestly, HN is obsessed with finance; it seems at times
| like it's all you think about. But when it comes to basic
| trades, suddennly it's all excuses and "easy to time the
| market when you are from the future".
|
| A lot of people made money today; no, they are not all
| Trump "buddies"
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| But Trump's buddies and hench creatures made sure zero-
| risk money.
|
| Which is absolutely catastrophic for all kinds of
| reasons.
| tucnak wrote:
| Why is that?
| krona wrote:
| Probably the bond market reaction caught the admin off-guard,
| possibly indicating a liquidity crisis. As usual, wont someone
| think of the overleveraged hedge fund managers?!
| bmandale wrote:
| if you think he wasn't going to do something like this from the
| start then I have a bridge to sell you
| krona wrote:
| Who's 'he'? Stephen Miran?
| HaZeust wrote:
| The blatant market manipulation is what really kills me about
| this. Just 2 hours prior he posted on Truth Social that it's a
| "good time to buy". Nothing really matters anymore, and 90-day
| pause is already showing his cards that the same bear-bull market
| run is happening in July. It's just crazy to discredit the full
| faith and credit of the US Stock Market and dollar in such a
| brazen fashion.
|
| Not to mention, with increasing China's tariffs - he STILL hasn't
| made compelling domestic policy to bring manufacturers here, and
| has put the cart before the horse by punishing U.S. companies for
| doing offshoring, before giving them a chance to build
| domestically. He's only made the super-cheap offshoring approach
| more expensive (but not more expensive than domestic production).
| Post-tariff offshoring is STILL a lower expenditure than (A) the
| investment of domestic infrastructure, (B) the runway of cash it
| takes before becoming sustainable, and (C) the ongoing wages,
| maintenance, and taxes to continually maintain it.
| InkCanon wrote:
| I believe it's some bizarre ploy so his supporters will say,
| "You should listen to Trump!"
| xyst wrote:
| [flagged]
| lawn wrote:
| Unfortunately, there's a number of folks that think otherwise
| and they're more than a fringe.
| krapp wrote:
| >Or is there a fringe number of folks that think otherwise?
|
| If about 30 million people count as a fringe number, yes.
| propagandist wrote:
| Illiteracy is common.
| adamrezich wrote:
| If social confirmation of your worldview is what you seek,
| you're certainly in the right place.
| thuanao wrote:
| Being an illiterate moron isn't fringe. It's quite commonplace.
| Educated and intelligent is fringe.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I think he's well aware that the reasons he is giving for his
| actions make no sense. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a
| plan, he's just lying about it.
|
| As for the actions themselves, they're pretty much his standard
| operating procedure:
|
| > I think I can get away with bullying these people, so I will
|
| When he talks about the existing agreements being unfair, he
| means that we have leverage that we're not using. The proposed
| tariffs are proportional to the trade deficit because the trade
| deficit is a reasonable proxy for how invested that country is
| in its economic relations with the US. You can extort more from
| somebody who is heavily invested, and less from somebody who is
| lightly invested. It's a classic protection racket, just on a
| sliding scale.
|
| He's trying to look ignorant because it's at least a better
| look than showing the malice that actually drives him.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Him and his friends
| are making boatloads of money doing it.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Ever since the tariffs were first announced I've been trying to
| understand if there is any method to the madness.
|
| There is sound reasoning behind the tariffs, and I can at least
| understand the motivations. However, to execute the vision
| behind the tariffs would be tantamount to severely contracting
| the American economy, and the voters would never agree to go
| hungry in order to militarily independent.
|
| He knows what he's doing, but him and his ilk are openly lying
| to the American public because no one would ever agree to it.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't break the site guidelines like this.
|
| I'm not saying you owe the person in question better, but you
| owe this community better if you're participating in it.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| StormChaser_5 wrote:
| It's not like the tariffs are gone. It's still 10% for everyone
| but China. That only seems small in comparison to what was being
| proposed before. I wonder will EU and others wait out 90 days
| while negotiating or match the 10% in kind
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Hopefully EU will still go ahead with the tariffs. We should
| not be dancing at the tune of the mad king.
| jopsen wrote:
| Yes, but what's the rush here?
|
| The EU should do what does best: make things boring.
|
| If retaliatory tariffs is the way to go, maybe do it the
| boring way: considered bit by bit, no flashy announcement.
|
| Or just make a 10 year deal on LNG so Trump can say we're
| paying the US money every year.
| delusional wrote:
| That seems to be the current strategy, and I happen to
| appreciate it.
|
| I'm pretty mad a the US for fucking up the entire world
| right now, but I also realise that acting on that anger is
| a bad idea. I appreciate the EU having some long
| discussions while the emotions fade.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| EU has already had tariffs on US goods for a long time.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Not as broadly to that extent though. Trump's tariffs are 10%
| of anything, so Europe will reciprocate in kind.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Trump's tariffs are 10% of anything
|
| What percentage is VAT in Europe? Typically around 20%?
| Maybe Trump should enact a 10% sales tax instead of a
| tariff and then everyone would obviously be completely fine
| with it, problem solved.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| VAT are not tariff, we pay it on domestic products as
| well.
| olejorgenb wrote:
| Maybe you should learn how VAT work? If you actually know
| better then all the economists, explain in detail how VAT
| is like a tariff instead of repeating this trite lie?
|
| The world wouldn't care if he introduced a federal 10%
| sales tax (provided it was implemented similar to VAT,
| ie. non-protectionistic)
| matwood wrote:
| > repeating this trite lie
|
| The WH repeats this lie constantly. Anytime they get
| pushed on the absurdity of tariffs they mention VAT like
| it's in anyway related. The right wing outlets then
| amplify and we further dumb down America.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yes, because that would apply equally to US businesses.
| ks6g10 wrote:
| I would presume that EU products sold in the US are
| charged sales tax already(for those states that have it).
|
| The difference between sales tax and tarrifs is it
| applies to all products within the same category
| irrespective of its origin.
| Zanfa wrote:
| Obviously other countries would be fine with Trump
| enacting a sales tax / VAT on everything. Why wouldn't
| they be?
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Because it would reduce US consumption of their exports.
| Just as a tax on consumption of up to 27% in Europe
| massively reduces Europe's consumption of US exports.
| michpoch wrote:
| > Just as a tax on consumption of up to 27% in Europe
| massively reduces Europe's consumption of US exports.
|
| Same way it reduces the consumption of domestic goods?
| Seems like fair level?
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Seems like fair level?
|
| No, it does not seem fair for Europe to take measures to
| dramatically reduce European consumption of US exports
| when the US does not take measures to dramatically reduce
| consumption of European exports. To be fair, the US would
| need to do something to dramatically reduce US
| consumption of European exports.
|
| And I happen to know just the guy to do it.
|
| Seems like fair level?
| ks6g10 wrote:
| I think you have the wrong understanding, VAT is applied
| irrespective of origin, so the same reduction would apply
| to domestic products.
|
| To simplify,
|
| US product for sale for PS100, then VAT would be PS20 (
| assuming 20% rate)
|
| UK product for sale for PS100, then VAT would be PS20 (
| assuming 20% rate)
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > Just as a tax on consumption of up to 27% in Europe
| massively reduces Europe's consumption of US exports.
|
| Uhm, it also reduces consumption of locally produced
| goods, not just something imported into Europe. Its
| like...a sales tax, the only reason it is treated
| differently from a sales tax at all is because of its
| more fair rebate system.
| matwood wrote:
| MAGA really has gotten people to believe all the VAT BS.
| VAT is basically a sales tax for _all_ products. It does
| not typically advantage import or domestic products.
|
| If Trump wants to implement a 10% sales tax on everything
| purchased in the US that would not be considered a tariff
| and no one would retaliate.
| layer8 wrote:
| Those amount to only around 3% on average.
| consp wrote:
| Per ratio closer to about 1 to 1.5 percent. It differs a
| bit per country due to deduction rules and additional
| tariffs. If you leave those out and only look at regular
| tariffs it is 1.39%.
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| * The EU has had comparatively very small and targeted
| tariffs on US goods for a long time
|
| Just so we're all on the same page, instead of maga talking
| points.
| mk89 wrote:
| If USA keeps 10% tariffs for everyone equally, why should we
| interfere? Serious question.
|
| I believe that Trump is shaking things off, but his goal is to
| introduce a fixed "tariff" like a soft VAT.
|
| He is just testing (and profiting with $$$$$) what happens when
| you do things like 30% there, 24% there, etc. But his long term
| goal is a fixed tax. In that context, who are we to judge them?
| We also have VAT on imports.
| cwillu wrote:
| You have VAT on more or less everything, imported or not. A
| "VAT" that _only_ applies to imports absolutely still
| deserves retaliatory measures.
| mk89 wrote:
| Not true. VAT is not applied on exports outside of EU.
| cwillu wrote:
| I think you misunderstood: VAT is applied to
| (approximately) everything a citizen of a country buys:
| imports and domestically produced products. Exports from
| a country are entirely irrelevant to whether applying VAT
| to imports is unfair to US imports to that country, as
| compared to the US charging a "VAT" on _only_ its
| imports.
| mk89 wrote:
| VAT is applied to services too, at least here in Europe.
|
| Now, if we were to split VAT in two: 1. tax on imports,
| 2. tax on whatever goods/services people in that country
| pay/buy, you could keep just the 2 and have free trade
| with other countries with zero tax. Or the opposite, do
| tax on imports and free trade inside your country.
|
| The fact that VAT has always been like that (1 and 2
| together), it doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
|
| Not sure why we should care about how a country decides
| to apply taxation in their own country, especially if
| that country sets a more or less equal tax for everyone -
| that's understandable.
| cwillu wrote:
| > 1. tax on imports, 2. tax on whatever goods/services
| people in that > country pay/buy, you could keep
| just the 2 and have free trade with > other
| countries with zero tax.
|
| That is completely ridiculous. Why would there a VAT on,
| say, domestically produced pasta on the grocery shelf,
| while the Italian import pasta right next to it has none?
| mk89 wrote:
| To allow free trade of certain goods which your country
| needs more.
|
| This is why tariffs are much more flexible, because they
| allow you to, let's say, trade oil at a cheaper price,
| while pasta (widely produced in europe) at a higher
| price.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| You cannot possibly make imports VAT excempt, that's just
| instantly destroying your domestic market for no gain
| anywhere.
| tim333 wrote:
| There a lot to be said for ignoring other countries tariffs
| and just having free trade. Hong Kong and Singapore basically
| did that for decades and grew fast and became wealthy.
| Tariffs mostly hurt the countries introducing them.
|
| There are some exceptions. Sudden changes can be painful if
| you built a factory to service some market and they block the
| sales all of a sudden. But a 10% across the board tariff may
| not make it worth retaliating.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Hong Kong and Singapore basically did that for decades
| and grew fast and became wealthy. Tariffs mostly hurt the
| countries introducing them.
|
| Wouldn't you say the same thing about VAT?
| tim333 wrote:
| VAT is basically just a fancy sales tax. You've got to
| get money for education, health and the like somehow.
|
| HK and Singapore did have low tax and small government
| which probably helped them.
| rvnx wrote:
| It's not a fixed tax where there is the same rate everywhere:
| when you check the tariff table, you can see that there is a
| different rate for each item (e.g. 9.4% for Cotton Jeans) and
| then it says in Chapter 99 that you pay "9.4% + xxx%" where
| xxx is the special rate for the country.
|
| So it's xx% that goes on top of a rate defined by the type of
| the item.
| michpoch wrote:
| > We also have VAT on imports.
|
| And the US has sales tax.
|
| VAT is paid on all products, it doesn't matter if it's
| domestic or imported!
| mk89 wrote:
| Who cares? From the standpoint of someone selling you
| something, their product will be sold for 20% more (and
| they don't get 1 cent out of it).
| notahacker wrote:
| Importers care because unlike VAT or sales tax, it makes
| them x% more expensive than competitors. Consumers care
| because tariffs paid are _in addition_ to sales taxes or
| VAT.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > It's still 10% for everyone but China.
|
| There's actually some confusion about that. They said they
| paused the global tariffs but didn't mention the Canada and
| Mexico tariffs.
|
| If the 10% global tariff is in addition to the Canada and
| Mexico tariffs, the net tariff rate on those countries could be
| quite high. Combined with 125% tariffs on China and we would
| have very burdensome tariffs on 3 of our largest trading
| partners.
|
| The rally is because Trump caved to pressure and is
| backtracking earlier claims that he wasn't going to change his
| policy.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Question posed to ChatGPT4o:
|
| > Why is the effect of tariffs said to go as the square of the
| tariff rate?
|
| Longish reply returned. Next prompt:
|
| > Provide web links to standard references to the above?
|
| "Deadweight Loss From Taxes is Proportional to the Square of
| the Tax Rate" by David Henderson on Econlib:
| This article provides a detailed explanation and proof that the
| deadweight loss from a tax increases with the square of the tax
| rate. Henderson illustrates how doubling the tax rate
| quadruples the deadweight loss.
|
| "Tariffs - Principles of Microeconomics" by BCcampus Open
| Publishing: This resource discusses the
| impact of tariffs on market equilibrium, illustrating how
| tariffs create deadweight loss by reducing the quantity of
| imports and increasing prices, leading to inefficiencies in the
| market.
|
| "Trade Restrictiveness and Deadweight Losses from US Tariffs"
| by Douglas A. Irwin: This paper analyzes the
| deadweight losses associated with U.S. tariffs, emphasizing
| that the welfare loss from a tariff is proportional to the
| square of the tariff rate, highlighting the significant
| inefficiencies introduced by higher tariffs.
|
| EDIT: Dropped reference to Wikipedia, because quoted extract
| conflates power law vs. exponential growth.
| buffington wrote:
| I obviously can't say for sure, but my guess for why you're
| being downvoted: we don't need humans telling us what the AIs
| think. We're all capable of knowing that for ourselves.
|
| What I'd guess most of us are interested in is what _you_
| have to say.
| freetanga wrote:
| The stock exchange and the tariffs are not the battleground.
|
| Asia started dropping US treasury bills. 30 year bills reached a
| max in decades
|
| Trump blinked.
|
| Edit: this was front and center in Financial Times, WSJ three
| hours ago. Now suddenly pushed back, exchange rally being front
| page news. People don't understand how close to financial
| apocalypse we have been. Somebody in the WH scared the shit out
| of Trump.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| You will never convince any of his apologists that this is the
| case.
|
| His first round with Canada back in February, and MAGA insisted
| "he won"
|
| Then came back and tried the same thing again two months later.
| Same response from the Canadian side. Same slight backing off,
| reorganizing, but confusion, and nobody seems to actually know
| which tariffs apply and which do not.
|
| It sounds now like 10% for the whole world, but still 25% steel
| and aluminum and other tariffs on Canada, the US's biggest
| trading partner and customer? How insane is that?
|
| They're "flooding the zone" with confusion and chaos, and
| making money in the process. Anybody who wants to maintain
| power and influence and money has to get close to him, avoid
| criticizing him, and then they get the inside scoop.
|
| It's mafia level crap.
| somanyphotons wrote:
| Do you have a link or article title for reading about the
| dropping of tbills
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| It was in the FT but they reported it as rumour.
| embeng4096 wrote:
| From CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/09/us-treasury-
| yields-investors...
|
| > "Perhaps even more alarmingly, U.S. Treasury markets are
| also experiencing an incredibly aggressive selloff..."
|
| > The largest holders of Treasurys are Japan, China and the
| U.K.,...
| freetanga wrote:
| The scary part is that it has been scrubbed in many sites
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/0005e091-930d-46ff-9e81-8591704a9.
| ..
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Incredible write up. I don't understand a lot of it, but:
|
| > _" Hedge funds have trillions tied up in this kind of
| strategy," he said. "As things spiral, they're being forced
| to sell anything they can -- even good assets -- just to
| stay afloat . . . if the Federal Reserve doesn't step in
| soon, this could turn into a full-blown crisis. It's that
| serious."_
|
| > _One hedge fund manager said: "Those huge hedge funds
| with trillions of dollars of Treasuries relative value
| trades will blow up today if the Fed doesn't bail them
| out."_
|
| https://archive.ph/ArGLp
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| Because the t-bill auction came in incredibly strong. Their
| conclusion analysis wuickly looked foolish and their
| embarrassed.
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-eyes-turn-to-
| treasurys...
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Trump didn't back down until _after_ the 30 year auction went
| well, which doesn 't support your hypothesis.
| xnx wrote:
| So Trump destroyed the hard-earned 80-year history of the United
| States for strength and stability for what exactly?
| thuanao wrote:
| Because he can, and because "owning the libs" is the whole
| modus operandi of the Republican Party that put him there.
| Seems obvious to me that the reason Trump uses tariffs is
| simply because that's the only tool available to him to exert
| his power.
|
| Tariffs let him wave his dick around. Cutting taxes requires
| passing legislation. Raising other taxes requires passing
| legislation.
| java-man wrote:
| ... and because 75,000,000 voters approved it. I fear what's
| coming next.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Could be (a bit) worse. Lyndon Johnson named his dick
| "jumbo", and on occasion would take it out in front of
| journalists etc.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Would that be worse? Compared to drastically increasing the
| number of people who are able to afford to put food on the
| table, that's downright whimsical.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I assume it was part of the deal he made to get elected: Take
| the US out of the game internationally, and you can be in
| charge of whatever's left over. Nothing else adequately
| describes his actions.
| McDyver wrote:
| Apparently, for insider trading
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Imagine being able to trade, knowing what he was about to say.
|
| On margin.
|
| Both the ups, and the downs (short trades).
|
| Imagine being able to make it an open secret that if someone
| pays you and publicly kisses your ass a little, you'll send
| some of those advance hints their way.
|
| Imagine how much money you could make in a matter of weeks.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Apparently he's been bragging today that world leaders are
| "kissing his ass", which seems to be just as likely to be his
| motivation as anything else.
|
| He's also planning a $100M military parade in DC, apparently on
| his birthday (although he denies that point).
|
| He's a wannabe dictator - seems same motivation for Greenland,
| Panana, Canada (51st state), maybe also strikes on Houthi.
| daxfohl wrote:
| At least we got the Gulf of America. The only question now
| is, now that we've alienated our allies, shown our
| unwillingness to cooperate on anything, demonstrated our
| inability to back up our show of strength, openly laid out
| our lack of solidarity, and established our irrationality and
| volatility to the world, how long will it take China to
| decide to waltz a few battleships into Hawaii and claim the
| Pacific as the Gulf of China.
| paganel wrote:
| > He's also planning a $100M military parade in DC,
| apparently on his birthday (although he denies that point).
|
| This would be straight Roman Emperor stuff.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| Without the slave reminding him of his mortality.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Yeah, it's so dumb that it's kinda funny, even if he's
| wasting $100M on it.
|
| Makes me think of Woody Allen in "Bananas". Maybe Trump
| will play dress-up as general too? Would a fake Castro
| beard be too much to ask ?
| xnx wrote:
| More Kim Jong-Il/Un than Julius Caesar.
| tim333 wrote:
| I seem to remember the previous Trump term being a bit nuts
| too.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Are we really going to not consider Trump really being a
| Russian Asset and this is just WAI (destroy America's
| credibility) as far as he is concerned? What else even makes
| sense at this point?
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| Too late for everyone who spent massively on flying in stock
| ahead of the tariff deadline. Too late for those forced to sell
| financial assets in order to pay margin calls. Too late for those
| working on projects involving foreign manufacturers which have
| now been cancelled due to tariff uncertainty. Too late for those
| who lost sales while they figured out pricing. Too early for the
| people fundraising to build US manufacturing capabilities. What a
| mess.
| skyyler wrote:
| It's almost like the whole point is just to enable insider
| trading on a scale we've never seen before.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Is there any reliable instrument to find out? This seems so
| obvious, given the only alternative option seems to be
| believing they are completely insane.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The independent IGs installed after all Nixon's criming
| might be in a good position to check up on that.
|
| But he illegally (without required notice period and
| specific reason provided to Congress) fired them right at
| the beginning of his term.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| I mean it's all right there out in the open. He fired
| anyone who could hold him accountable and now he is openly
| manipulating the markets.
| layer8 wrote:
| The alternative you mention is more likely, given all we
| know. On the other hand, why not both.
| pstuart wrote:
| Ah, there's the rub. Even with a smoking gun there's no
| political will to do anything about it.
|
| > are completely insane
|
| More likely detached from reality, laser focused on
| personal gain, and punishing perceived enemies.
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| You could look at https://www.capitoltrades.com/ in a few
| days. Of course you'd probably expect the average
| senator/congressional representative to be smart enough not
| to go insider trading on their own monitored account...
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Anybody who could investigate probably got fired. After the
| pardons of Blagojevich and the Nikola guy it's pretty clear
| that scamming is ok now.
| paganel wrote:
| TIL that the Nikola guy got pardoned.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| Doesn't make much sense, if you're insider trading you profit
| more if you move one stock a lotlotlot vs all the stocks
| merely a lot.
| skyyler wrote:
| Like I said, on a scale we've never seen before.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Derivatives had huge moves based on these announcements.
| Out-of-the money SPX E-mini puts went up 10x after tariffs
| were announced. Near-the-money E-mini calls doubled after
| today's announcements. These are zero-risk insider
| strategies.
| cyral wrote:
| SPY 530 calls for today went from literally 2 cents to
| $2, $3, maybe $4 if someone timed it right.
| jeffbee wrote:
| They're at $9 on my delayed screen. Obviously I don't
| have the optimal insider derivatives strategy at the tip
| of my fingers!
| acdha wrote:
| Buy the NASDAQ at 1:17PM. Sell at 2PM. You've just made 10%
| without doing any work. If you're doing any kind of
| leveraged play, you can get even higher returns.
| dralley wrote:
| https://x.com/Ike_Saul/status/1910028885460148427
| astral_drama wrote:
| He does all the above!
|
| He owns his own social media stock (DJT), where he post
| this morning "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT" to his
| followers. Attracting more to his social media company.
|
| He has a meme coin in cryptoland, and now via tariff
| manipulation, he can guide select people to place big bets
| on the largest derivatives market.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| They're also creating a "crypto national reserve".
|
| Grifter crypto scams aren't necessary when it's possible
| to fleece taxpayers directly.
| nialv7 wrote:
| Remember that "debunked" rumor tweet on Monday that created a
| market rollercoaster ride? The one that predicted exactly
| this?
|
| What the hell is even going on
| mcphage wrote:
| > What the hell is even going on
|
| What if the Stock Market was entirely converted to Meme
| Stocks?
| bdangubic wrote:
| it is not already?! :)
| mcphage wrote:
| Apparently not 100%. But they closed that little
| loophole. :-)
| Why_O_My wrote:
| Just a dry run before the real event. Working as intended,
| nothing to worry about...
| dralley wrote:
| https://x.com/Ike_Saul/status/1910028885460148427
| cmurf wrote:
| https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lmf.
| ..
|
| "Alright, I think people knew of the tariff pause and traded
| it beforehand ... "
| pixelesque wrote:
| https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lmf.
| ..
|
| Seems to show people knew it was going to happen a few
| minutes before he posted.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Biggest pump and dump ever.
| xenospn wrote:
| It's now called just "trading".
| bamboozled wrote:
| I believe that's what is going on as well.
| sleepyguy wrote:
| Markets are celebrating. How long before they realize that the
| China tariffs will destroy the profits of companies like
| Walmart, Apple, Dollar Store, Harbor Freight, etc, and a 10%
| tax hike on consumers across the board on all other imports? We
| are still headed for a recession, and the destruction from the
| greatest deal maker who ever lived will be lasting.
|
| Let's not forget everything else he's doing because there is
| nothing good in the plan.
| louthy wrote:
| It's clear the China tariffs (in their current form) won't
| last the week.
| MammaMia2025 wrote:
| unless President Xi calls him tomorrow invites to Beijing and
| turns out to be "great guy". Followed by tariffs for China
| lowered to 20%.
| amirhirsch wrote:
| No one will make long-term investments in US manufacturing
| capabilities in response to policy that will revert in 4 years.
| arrrg wrote:
| It's worse than that. Everything leading up to this and this
| reversion right now is a perfect demonstration that the
| current US administration cannot be trusted and behaves in
| irrational ways. You cannot expect consistency and enduring
| policies. It's all fickle and capricious. How are you
| supposed to do any planning with this?
|
| This is all so obviously dumb and I'm frankly astounded by so
| many people (especially here on HN) playing devils advocate
| or, I don't know, honestly believing that this all makes
| sense.
|
| Even if you agree with the stated (also somewhat incoherent,
| by the way) goals why do you think this implementation can
| achieve any of that?
| nilkn wrote:
| I believe the point is power, and from that lens everything
| makes perfect sense. Trump is exercising available levers
| of global influence -- for good or for bad -- in a way that
| hasn't occurred since Hitler initiated World War II.
|
| Tariffs are appealing to him because they are incredibly
| forceful blunt instruments over which he alone has almost
| complete control. They give him immense, immediate
| influence over the entire world. What we're seeing is that
| the US President today, if the full capacities of that
| office are pushed as far as possible without violence, is
| arguably one of (if not the) most powerful human beings
| ever.
|
| Beyond this, Trump has said that one of his greatest
| weapons is uncertainty. He wants to be feared. Having
| people genuinely afraid of you is the next step of power
| that he is already flirting with by posting videos of
| people being blown up in warfare on social media.
| MammaMia2025 wrote:
| And what will he do when China and rest of the world
| tired of his untreated Narcissistic Personality Disorder
| will start selling US debt, like $trillions in bonds in
| say less than a week? I bet you finally someone broke the
| secret to him today, so he reverted the policy.
| brundolf wrote:
| Or 4 days
| grandempire wrote:
| Oh no. Stock isn't risk free automatic gains?
|
| I know that with RSUs etc people treat it that way. But no the
| risk is real.
| mikeocool wrote:
| The US President intentionally crashing the market wasn't
| part of the risk profile until recently.
| grandempire wrote:
| I wouldn't pretend things that are outside my circle of
| influence are.
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| And everything is still inflating in cost.
| grandempire wrote:
| Source?
| listenallyall wrote:
| > Too late for those forced to sell financial assets in order
| to pay margin calls
|
| Yea, I want my president looking out for financial vultures
| leveraged to the hilt
| brundolf wrote:
| And who knows where his whims will go tomorrow
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Too late for those forced to sell financial assets in order
| to pay margin calls.
|
| That's the true aim behind all of this constant course
| shifting. The ultra rich, those who have large amounts of
| liquid assets or outright cash, can make bank at the moment...
| buy the dip. Even if the markets dip another 20%, they'll
| rebound soon enough.
| dtquad wrote:
| >Too early for the people fundraising to build US manufacturing
| capabilities.
|
| It's a good idea to hedge against future trade uncertainties.
|
| After COVID some Danish and German companies began looking for
| non-Chinese alternatives for electronics manufacturing. The
| only area where China is the absolute better alternative is PCB
| manufacturing without mounting chips/components. The Danish and
| German companies get tens of thousands of these bare PCBs from
| China. The chips/components are from Taiwan, South Korea, the
| US, Italy, and Germany and can be cost effectively mounted in
| Denmark and Germany.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Not really sure why you left out the tens of thousands of
| people who were almost immediately laid off when companies and
| their suppliers idled factories?
|
| In the automotive sector alone - GM, Ford, and Stellantis all
| flipped the master breaker to "off" on a number of plants and
| sent everyone packing.
|
| That hire-back will not be instant. People are going to miss
| payments for rent/mortgage, car loans, utility bills, etc.
|
| Let's not forget that many companies hit the brakes, hard, on
| exporting goods to the US - so there's going to be the shipping
| equivalent of those traffic "waves" because two hours ago
| someone on the highway panic-braked
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| In my defence I mentioned it was "Too late for those working
| on projects involving foreign manufacturers which have now
| been cancelled due to tariff uncertainty" which I think
| covers these auto workers?
|
| Still I'm sure I unintentionally missed many examples of
| people who've been negatively affected by this saga. I didn't
| mean anything by that, it's just ignorance or lack of thought
| on my part.
| xg15 wrote:
| Surprise cutscenes can be interesting in games, not so much in
| reality.
| tlogan wrote:
| So we celebrate 10% tariffs. Lol
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| So, it was all a bluff? (As many people suspected it would be.)
| spacephysics wrote:
| It brought a large number of countries to the negotiating
| table, and shows he's willing to execute on threats of keeping
| tariffs high for an individual country.
|
| Now is the ripe time, 90 days, to make a deal with the US and
| offer the best terms.
|
| The whole point of Trump is to leverage uncertainty, make an
| unrealistically high water mark, then go down from there (to a
| point thats still very favorable)
|
| This rationale can explain many actions he's taken. Is it
| reckless? Risky? For sure. Does it work? It has in the past,
| let's hope it does for the global financial system, for
| everyone's sake.
| louthy wrote:
| > It brought a large number of countries to the negotiating
| table
|
| Did it? They said it did, but I wouldn't trust a word they
| say.
|
| What concessions has he actually got from the rest of the
| world? Was it worth it? It seems to me the two biggest
| trading 'partners' (China and EU) were escalating, not
| conceding.
| affinepplan wrote:
| stop normalizing this idiocy. there was no country that
| wasn't already willing to negotiate trade relations with the
| US.
| linguae wrote:
| This reckless way of negotiating has a cost: our
| trustworthiness. The more recklessness Trump does, the more
| other nations will strongly consider naming some other
| currency the global reserve currency, such as the euro, the
| yuan, or something else, maybe even something new.
|
| This isn't 1946 when the United States was heads-and-
| shoulders the most prosperous nation on earth, with most
| other developed countries having to rebuild. Other regions
| such as the European Union, China, and the bloc of East Asian
| democracies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) also have strong,
| competitive economies with a high standard of living for many
| of their residents. If they got together, it's possible that
| they could move to some alternative to the US dollar should
| they wish, and with Trump's bullying, this might just be the
| push.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| It's going to push the EU and China closer together --
| exactly the opposite of what the USA should be trying to
| make happen.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > Now is the ripe time, 90 days, to make a deal with the US
| and offer the best terms.
|
| What terms? Remember, the tariffs were not reciprocal -- that
| was a boldfaced lie. They were based on trade imbalance. So
| what, Cambodia is supposed to pledge to buy ... what exactly?
| ... from the US in order to balance its trade?
|
| The reason Cambodia or Vietnam have a trade imbalance is
| because US/other companies have factories there to produce
| the goods. You think those companies are going to set up
| garment and shoe factories in the US? With what labor?
|
| The whole thing reeks of a shockingly inept understanding of
| global trade and economics.
| bdangubic wrote:
| _This rationale can explain many actions he's taken. Is it
| reckless? Risky? For sure. Does it work? It has in the past,
| let's hope it does for the global financial system, for
| everyone's sake._
|
| Global financial reacted to the idiocy adequately enough to
| tell you what it thinks of it... You are trying to
| rationalize something that is as far from rational as it
| gets...
| behole wrote:
| GOLD in Mental Gymnastics
| yxhuvud wrote:
| 10% is still a lot. Counter tariffs will still happen.
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| EU and many other counties have already had tariffs on the US
| for a long time.
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| * EU and many other counties have had comparatively small and
| targeted tariffs on the US for a long time
| IX-103 wrote:
| Just like the US has had small and targeted tariffs on the
| EU for a long time (such as pickup trucks).
| acdha wrote:
| You've been repeating that a lot but as many people have
| corrected you, they're nothing like this broad or high: only
| 1%, and that's balanced by the EU's trade deficit on services
| since we don't make things like good cars for Europe but they
| buy a lot of software, entertainment, etc.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_.
| ..
| regularjack wrote:
| On specific products
| jollyllama wrote:
| Would triggering counter tariffs be deflationary as net result
| will be less money coming into the US?
| digianarchist wrote:
| 10% only applies to countries that have not retaliated. I
| assume (dangerous in these times) that any retaliation will
| cause reinstatement of the previous rates.
| askvictor wrote:
| The UK and Australia, which had 10% from the start, and
| didn't retaliate, get... 10%. Brilliant.
| codedokode wrote:
| Well if the countries don't take any action, doesn't it mean
| that they believe current situation is better than any other
| choice (and anyway, the tariffs will be paid by American
| buyers) and therefore the previous tariffs were too low?
| me2too wrote:
| This man's absurdity never ceases to amaze me. How can his
| supporters appreciate all this - constant - chaos?
|
| Moreover, from the outside (European here), it looks like the US
| president can literally do whatever he wants without being
| subject to regulations or facing any consequences - pretty much
| like a dictatorship. No discussion, no parliament, no opposition
| taken into account. Crazy.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Evidently Congress gave the presidency emergency powers to do
| what he wants with tariffs, all he has to do is declare an
| emergency. Just one more example of how Congress is completely
| broken.
| me2too wrote:
| He literally created the emergency himself. What the hell. I
| can't understand how one of the most powerful countries in
| the world doesn't have a system in place to prevent the
| president to act like a dictator
| consp wrote:
| > He literally created the emergency himself.
|
| Classic right wing playbook. Here they defunded immigration
| services and then called for a crisis because there was not
| enough space to put all asylum seekers and there was too
| great a backlog to get it all processed in time.
| vel0city wrote:
| That power is only supposed to last for some number of days
| before review by Congress. But Congress decided a day isn't a
| day anymore, at least for the rest of the year.
| moogly wrote:
| Did he even declare an emergency for the latest near world-
| wide tariffs? Are they even pretending anymore? If so I
| missed it.
| ativzzz wrote:
| The US currently has 49 ongoing national emergencies, that
| are renewed every year by the president
|
| The last 8 or so were created by Trump. Like you said, he's
| just doing what is already allowed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i.
| ..
| krapp wrote:
| Only Republican Presidents get that kind of carte blanche.
|
| They would already be impeaching if it was a Democrat.
| myko wrote:
| True, because if Democrats had an anti-American POTUS hell-
| bent on destroying the country they would be helping the
| impeachment process, not defending them
| blasphemers wrote:
| The democrats just allowed a dementia patient to run the
| country for four years
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I have no idea how Republicans still make that claim with a
| straight face. We literally have someone who doesn't know
| what groceries are running the country right now.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| Cuz it's true? Mind you, the dementia patient did a
| better job.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| If you put Joe Biden and Trump side by side, and asked a
| random person who didn't know either who was the most
| likely to have dementia, they would pick Trump. I'm not
| sure I've ever heard him say something that didn't sound
| like word salad.
| pavlov wrote:
| It now feels quaint that, not long ago, people used to
| speculate what Godel's loophole was:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel%27s_Loophole
|
| We're witnessing that there doesn't need to be any single
| clever actively exploited loophole. A two-party presidential
| system can become a dictatorship if one party holds just enough
| power across all branches of government to not resist what
| their leader wants.
| me2too wrote:
| Hey, thanks for the link - I added it to my reading list.
| From the introduction, it seems to fit the current situation
| (and that's not good).
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > How can his supporters appreciate all this - constant - chaos
|
| A lot of people in USA felt they were entitled to their slice
| of the American dream, did not achieve it because we stopped
| building houses therefore you can't buy one on a high school
| education like our parents and grandparents did. Add in what
| appears to be somewhat of a collapse in people starting
| relationships/families and you suddenly have a massive segment
| of the population with little to lose.
|
| I presume many on the HN community are insulated from this
| reality of life in USA.
| orangecat wrote:
| There's some truth to that, but then the solution is to build
| more housing, not impose tariffs which only make houses and
| everything else less affordable.
| bluGill wrote:
| Nobody was offering that option though.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| For real, what would an election look like if one party
| was proposing building 5 million housing units,
| overriding local zoning when it's in the way, making
| preferential deals for bulk construction materials,
| training a workforce, and some mechanism to not erode
| existing equity -\\_(tsu)_/-
| moogly wrote:
| That explains one part of his base, but not the part that
| lives in McMansion suburbs.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| Why the poor look at the people sitting on giant piles of
| money, and believe them when they say that China took the
| money, is another story.
| DFHippie wrote:
| This is also how it looks from the inside. It's baffling.
| Apparently all our vaunted checks and balances are useless if
| one vindictive and incompetent political party controls all
| three branches of the government.
| some_random wrote:
| Dude was elected on the platform of "I'm going to tariff the
| fuck out of everyone", unambiguously won, then did it and that
| sounds like a dictatorship to you? If the common European view
| is that the more bureaucracy the less dictatorship-y that would
| definitely explain some things but I struggle to understand
| that point of view.
| me2too wrote:
| From the outside, it looks like he's doing whatever he wants
| without control.
|
| He starts to tell that everyone is maintained by the US - lol
| what?
|
| He starts blaming Europe for being a parasite (thanks!) and
| treating Zelensky like everyone has seen live.
|
| No one is telling him that his actions will have consequences
| for the US in their international credibility (gone) and
| relationships with partners (ruined)?
|
| One day, he does a totally broken linear regression and
| applies no sense tariffs to every country in the world (no
| Russia - weird enough).
|
| It's well known that tariffs are not a way to attract
| investment in your country - there's a lot of theory and
| historical examples that demonstrate that.
|
| Moreover, it's just absurd to think that these kinds of
| actions are going to make American (!) corporations, now
| producing elsewhere, back in the US. No supply chain ready,
| lack of resources, ...
|
| I don't know - it looks like a single man has too much power
| and no one around him is helping him make better decisions
| (for the country) in the long term. On the contrary, it looks
| like all the decisions are pretty much market manipulations
| in order to make some "friend" get some money.
|
| But again, this is what it looks like from the outside - and
| it's quite worrying
| orangecat wrote:
| _How can his supporters appreciate all this - constant -
| chaos?_
|
| "Burn it all down" is popular on both the far right and far
| left.
|
| _it looks like the US president can literally do whatever he
| wants without being subject to regulations or facing any
| consequences_
|
| Yes, presidents have been given far too much power to do
| whatever they want by declaring a fake "emergency". It's
| inexcusable that Congress hasn't put a stop to this.
| gmd63 wrote:
| So if you cozy up to the mad king, he'll tell you what he plans
| to do with appropriate notice. This is the least American
| tyrannical bullshit I've ever seen in this country, and nobody
| should be condoning it.
|
| The most important thing that can be done for the prosperity of
| America right now is to put an end to the senseless fraud and
| nonsensical policy promoted by the snake oil salesman of the MAGA
| movement.
| louthy wrote:
| Trump has now shown his hand. Even with the tariffs on China
| remaining, it's clear that Trump will back down on any extreme
| positions he takes. So, expect the china tariffs to be backed off
| soon too (once he gets some concession that he can brandish as a
| win).
|
| In 3 months, sell your positions, let him play his stupid games
| and re-buy once he backs down, because he will. Or just hold and
| ride it out.
|
| 10% sounds like where we'll default to in the long-term because
| that was the 'base rate' for everybody anyway. He just wants to
| rattle his sabre, especially with China.
|
| It's quite pathetic, really, but weirdly I feel slightly more
| calm about the situation now that I realise he hasn't got the
| bottle to follow through.
| trash_cat wrote:
| > it's clear that Trump will back down on any extreme positions
| he takes.
|
| That has always been the case with him. That's literally his
| negotiation tactic.
| adamrezich wrote:
| If only someone had written a book on this exact topic, back
| in the 80s.
| louthy wrote:
| I think that's a fair comment. The only reason why I was not
| entirely convinced that that would be the case is that
| tariffs seem to be one of the positions that Trump was truly
| ideologically bound to.
|
| I couldn't tell whether he would really go through with this
| or not. Now it's clear he has no bottle at all. So weirdly is
| more of a comfort.
| jeffbee wrote:
| SPX E-mini futures calls near the money doubled in the space of
| 1h. Everyone Trump tipped off potentially doubled their money
| with zero risk
| tmaly wrote:
| If Trump is hoping to push the 10 year treasury rate down so he
| can roll the 9 trillion coming due in June, he is in for a
| wakeup. China is selling their holdings and driving the rates up.
| He is going to actually have to have a grownup negotiation with
| them rather than going scorched earth.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Art of the deal. Thank you President Trump!
| i80and wrote:
| Gotta be careful -- Poe's Law is in full force rn in American
| Politics. People might read this seriously
| jurgenaut23 wrote:
| What a shit show...
| Huntsecker wrote:
| The reality is that countries like spain have come out and said
| they need to move closer to China as USA is not a stable trading
| partner, within 24hrs of this Trump has back tracked, I'm sure
| MAGA will say this is all part of the mega master plan but at
| least to me its more the realisation this was turning into a car
| crash and he still has a window to somehow in trumps mind blame
| it all on the chinese
| ck2 wrote:
| Congress could end this in 24 hours with a one paragraph/page
| bill
|
| and regardless who is in power next decade the dems should anyway
|
| It's like some blackhat is trying to find every loophole in
| government and exploiting it, like a fuzzer test
| bluGill wrote:
| The democrats has the president for 4 years, and plenty of
| power in congress. If they cared they would have done
| something.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Mid term elections are November next year. Some time between
| now and then, republican house and senator members will start
| getting more than a little bit anxious about not losing their
| seats. The current chaos is not great for their chances. The
| closer that election gets, the more likely it is that something
| like what you suggest might happen.
|
| The problem of course is that any move like that is going to
| result in chaos inside the republican party. I imagine that
| might delay the moment before e.g. Mike Johnson (speaker of the
| house) puts such a thing up for vote in the house. Because it
| sounds like that would be a career ending move for him. Until
| that changes, Trump can do as he pleases essentially unopposed.
| outer_web wrote:
| Lot of whiplash with these tariff policies. I'm wondering if
| maybe it'd be a better idea to give* Congress this power instead.
| SoyAnto wrote:
| Congress does have the power (article I, section 8), however it
| delegated this power to the president for "extraordinary"
| situations with certain laws.
| sitkack wrote:
| > The nondelegation doctrine is rooted in certain separation
| of powers principles.1 In limiting Congress's power to
| delegate, the *nondelegation doctrine exists primarily to
| prevent Congress from ceding its legislative power to other
| entities* not vested with legislative authority under the
| Constitution. As interpreted by the Court, the doctrine seeks
| to ensure that legislative decisions are made through a
| bicameral legislative process by the elected Members of
| Congress or governmental officials subject to constitutional
| accountability.2 Reserving the legislative power for a
| bicameral Congress was "intended to erect enduring checks on
| each Branch and to protect the people from the improvident
| exercise of power by mandating certain prescribed steps."
|
| https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-5-1/A.
| ..
|
| Any democrats with working brain stems and genitals should be
| taking this to supreme court.
| outer_web wrote:
| Agreed however this court has shown it can dance between
| originalism, textualism, and tossing both of those to the
| wind (Trump v Anderson) when it aligns with policy goals.
|
| Also it probably wouldn't even fly with anyone since so
| many other emergency powers are generally accepted as
| necessary (i.e. defense). The immunity decision is full of
| rhetoric about the legislature being too slow for crises.
|
| Their best bet is to invent a time machine, go back to
| Obama, have Obama pass emergency tariffs, then lobby to
| repeal that act.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The list of law firms with the expertise, resources, and
| _will_ to take on the administration is getting shorter and
| shorter, because he 's targeting the ones that piss him off
| with EOs aimed to wreck them if they don't pay up and shut
| up, and that strategy is _working_.
| peeters wrote:
| "Extraordinary", such as a fictional fentanyl emergency at
| the northern border (despite the fact that a trivial amount
| of fentanyl enters the U.S. from Canada, and more enters
| Canada from the U.S.).
|
| Of course, you have Congress to keep the President in check
| that these are real emergencies. Which is why the House will
| _definitely_ be bringing S.J.Res. 37 to the floor, right?
| Because it 's their sworn duty to act as a check on executive
| power, right?
|
| https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/119-2025/s160
| alabastervlog wrote:
| There's a reason the saying, "in America we have three
| coequal branches of government: the Supreme Court rules,
| the President crimes, and Congress is just for fun" has
| become popular since some time after his first
| inauguration.
| cma wrote:
| He first announced tariffs on China over fentanyl something
| like 2 or 3 days after pardoning the biggest heroin by mail
| operator in world history (Ross Ulbricht).
| bluGill wrote:
| I wrote my congressperson (house and both senators) to take
| back the power. If enough others do the same they will, but if
| it is just talk on forums they assume nobody cares.
| nineplay wrote:
| My takeaway from what I've read and heard in the last few weeks
| is that his only actual motivation is to 'win'. He bragged
| yesterday that other countries are kissing his ass to negotiate
| deals on the tariffs. I think that was all he wanted, I think he
| now thinks that this whole tariff thing was a success and he's
| going to move on to the next crazy idea.
|
| The rest of us suffer for it, except for the sad portion of the
| republican party who's only motivation is to own the libs and who
| now are congratulating themselves on how thoroughly the libs have
| been owned.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > other countries are kissing his ass
|
| Notable exception: Xi Jinping. So it's a contest of wills.
| Trump vs. the man who enforced a "zero-Covid" lockdown on 1.4
| billion people.
| nineplay wrote:
| I like to believe that no other countries are kissing his ass
| and all the calls were from the few true patriots that are
| hiding out in his administration.
|
| "Hello President Trump, I am the leader of Bigorgia. I know
| you are a big strong manly man and I will beg you to stop the
| tariffs please."
|
| But I agree, Xi Jinping is a real strongman, not a sad old
| man with delusions of grandeur.
| hydrogen7800 wrote:
| From an article written in 1979:
|
| >He once told me: "I won't make a deal just to make a profit.
| It has to have flair." Another Manhattan developer said it
| differently: "Trump won't do a deal unless there's something
| extra -- a kind of moral larceny -- in it. He's not satisfied
| with a profit. He has to take something more. Otherwise,
| there's no thrill." [0]
|
| [0]https://www.villagevoice.com/how-a-young-donald-trump-
| forced...
| croes wrote:
| He also bragged that the tariffs bring 2 billions a day and the
| crowd cheered.
|
| They do realize who pays that 2 billions?
| Hojojo wrote:
| Or that none of them will ever see any of that money and none
| of it will ever go towards helping them in any way?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| The answer to that is far more complex than you realize.
| Tariffs generally force export-driven countries to devalue
| their currencies.
| muzani wrote:
| It's literally in his book. He does a crazy thing. Big.
| Massive. Then gets the other party to negotiate it down to what
| he really intended. 10% is a lot, but now it looks smaller.
| He's also fighting back very hard on a few fronts, as per the
| book.
| consp wrote:
| And it is entirely predictable which is why most countries
| did not kneejerk into action.
| muzani wrote:
| Exactly. I would be surprised if most kings and prime
| ministers haven't hired a Trump expert by now. If there's
| one skill democratic leaders are good at, it's figuring out
| what the other party wants. It probably just plays out like
| a game of checkers.
| trgn wrote:
| aestheticism is a feature of fascism. the late night phone
| call, the strong words in the oval office, boarding air force
| one with retinue in tow, hurry hurry... it's less about what is
| being achieved, and more about the pageantry that something is
| being achieved. change, action, disruption, violence
| (metaphorical or not) are good in and of itself, pomp is the
| reification of these impulses. i disliked succession precisely
| for this reason, the idolization of these processes (whether it
| was under the guise of irony is irrelevant).
|
| these fetishes can start to supplant material reality, real
| banana republic stuff. we should give the wasps and neoliberals
| credit to always have been somewhat immune to and disdainful of
| these practices.
| plaidfuji wrote:
| Correct take. Any attempt to find a rational objective behind
| the tariffs is foolish.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Pulling stunts like this just makes the USA even less investable.
|
| Markets operating at the whims of a capricious King (is there
| even a functioning government right now?)
| the_arun wrote:
| Without taking sides, what if we think this wasn't a stunt but
| a genuine experiment?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| What's the difference?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| What do you propose was learned from it that wasn't already
| known?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, pretty sure the markets will "re-adjust" from their good-
| news swoon when they realize nothing has really changed.
| grandempire wrote:
| Do you recommend any alternative markets to be more investable?
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Somewhere with a predictable economic policy that doesn't
| flip flop from week-to-week.
| solardev wrote:
| Wait, I thought true random numbers were hard to generate?
| udev4096 wrote:
| Nothing is truly random. It's all just an illusion!
| pikminguy wrote:
| I'm pretty sure radioactive decay is truly random in the
| deepest possible sense.
| foobarian wrote:
| It could be a simulation
| misantroop wrote:
| Insider trading, pure and simple. You can bet his son-in-law and
| all his buddies made hundreds of millions here. America is a 3rd
| world country, nothing else.
| thih9 wrote:
| Announce a controversial decision. See if it sticks. If not,
| claim it was a joke and you never meant that.
|
| Drama, manipulation, and a US government tactic, all in one.
| dcow wrote:
| Except they _implemented_ the decision and are responding to
| countries' willingness to negotiate fair trade terms, just like
| with Mexico. Nobody is saying "just joking". If people weren't
| 1000% dismissive of the leader's stated intentions they might
| be able to follow along. It's been crystal clear to me that the
| goal has always been to renegotiate trade terms not to live in
| a world with persistent reciprocal tariffs.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| This is a hilarious assertion. Their stated objectives have
| been all over the map, so any outcome can fit at least _some_
| of their statements.
|
| Admin proxies have said tariffs are to pay for tax cuts,
| they've stated they're intended to bring back manufacturing
| jobs, they've stated we should prepare for a lengthy trade
| war and accept the higher prices like men, and while _some_
| proxies have said this is a negotiation tactic _others_ have
| stated unequivocally that this is _not_ a negotiation tactic.
|
| Bold assertions like yours are easy to make with the benefit
| of hindsight. What do you predict tariff rates to be in a
| week? A month? A year?
| davidguetta wrote:
| Not sure why this is downvoted, this is absolutely the kind
| of power play Trump did his entire business career on.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| I don't believe it's being done so strategically. He's not
| Franklin D Roosevelt.
|
| I forget all the details, but some constituency once came to
| FDR to ask him to do something. He likely leaked that he was
| planning on doing so to major Catholic organizations in
| America, and when there was outrage, turned to the first party
| and told them that he'd love to, but his hands were tied. He
| never intended to do anything in the first place, he just
| wanted a convenient scapegoat.
|
| This doesn't make any sense. Why not just go with 10% tariffs
| across the board? There wasn't going to be any pushback, it
| should be clear at this point. Or why not just leak the plan,
| and then say "I guess it has to be 10% because business leaders
| won't accept higher."
|
| This isn't masterful juggling, it's improv comedy.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Like chess[1], Trump had his finger on his head. Not official
| move until he removes his finger.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cv9n0QbLUM
| robin_reala wrote:
| The best way to stay clear from this insanity is to divest from
| the US as much as possible / reasonable. It won't help second-
| order effects, but it reduces your exposure.
| dachris wrote:
| I wouldn't go that far (there's still the possibility that
| things change for the better for whatever reason), but those
| 60%-70% of the US in global stock indices really do look like
| single country risk now.
| tim333 wrote:
| Seldom a dull moment with the present government. He's still
| saying 125% on China so it's not back to normality. Also I guess
| the penguins still face 10%.
| mandeepj wrote:
| With today's rollback, the glitz and glam event - Liberation Day
| - held last week, was not really a Liberation Day? :-)
| jdlyga wrote:
| Trump is like your father who overreacts to everything but
| changes his mind when he calms down. "You're grounded for a
| year!". 1 hour later. "Ok, you're not grounded. But you can't go
| out with your friend this weekend".
| volkk wrote:
| poor analogy since this implies that Trump has everyone's best
| interests in his heart
| daxfohl wrote:
| I'd liken him more to some rich kid trying to show off some
| made-up street cred by going over the top on everything.
| Eventually walking everything back while shouting dumb threats
| once he realizes he's in over his head. Then somehow he forgets
| it all and does the same dumb thing the next day. Every single
| time.
| usaar333 wrote:
| VIX is still at 35%. We are still in quite unstable territory,
| just not insanely unstable.
| compumike wrote:
| Is it just the historical legacy of international trade that
| tariffs apply only to physical goods, but not to something like
| software-as-a-service subscriptions, digital media, or
| intellectual property?
|
| As the latter categories are more representative of US exports,
| it would surely be an interesting escalation if other countries
| were to start including them in their "retaliatory" tariffs.
| benob wrote:
| This is exactly what EU is discussing
| davidguetta wrote:
| I still wonder why this was not done instantly by EU.
|
| US has an imbalance on goods that was used to calculate the
| tariff amount, but it has the opposite imbalance on service
| from what I've read
| kansface wrote:
| The EU effectively backdoors tariffs against US software
| vendors via fines and the occasional if ineffective subsidy
| for local competitors in the local language.
| piva00 wrote:
| No, fines are for breaking the law, if they don't break the
| law there's no way for the EU to collect the money. It's
| like speed traps, people can be mad at them because they
| broke the law and were caught, it doesn't alleviate the
| fact they could have just followed the rules.
| magicloop wrote:
| Sadly this is not the case in relation to EU laws.
|
| In the US system of law, it is based on codified "rules".
| If you follow the letter of the rules you are fine - no
| fines.
|
| The system of regulation at play here is the EU digital
| markets act. These laws are based on the effect of your
| actions, not the specific actions you undertake.
|
| If the effect of the steps you take produce unacceptable
| outcomes, you pay fines even if you follow the
| requirements. The converse applies as well. If you ignore
| the rules but the outcome is in the spirit of the laws,
| then no fine.
|
| The idea is to avoid malicious compliance but the cost of
| this is ambiguity in interpretation and also the market
| response to your actions might be genuinely surprising.
|
| Here is a technical example to highlight the problem:
|
| Apple were asked that you should allow independent
| browser technology implementations. They did this (to
| allow Google's technology to be employed as an example).
| But due to practical complexity they could not make
| progressive web apps work on iPhone (since they would
| need to route through the API which can be provided by
| Google's browser technology). So to comply with the
| rules, Apple disabled full screen PWAs and instead
| allowed them instead the web view area inside a browser,
| not full screen like a native app is experienced.
|
| The EU regulatory body said revert that, and allow PWAs
| despite their own rules being then violated (as it would
| be using only Apple's browser technology) because the
| effect of allowing PWAs is a competitive marketplace for
| native app alternatives (web apps).
| piva00 wrote:
| I prefer a system of rule of law that covers the spirit
| of the law rather than the letter.
|
| I do not like the idea that law can become a game of
| finding loopholes that go against the spirit of it, it's
| whack-a-mole that costs the State a lot to keep patching.
| I much rather have the system most of the EU has where
| subjectivity can play into decisions since some loopholes
| can be clever enough to work around terminology, jargon,
| and non-specificities to skirt around what's written
| while being opposed to the intent of the rule.
|
| Companies can still contest, and bring forth cases to be
| reviewed to check if those solutions comply with the law,
| their lack of cooperation is a choice to drive a wedge
| between the citizenry and the regulations by non-
| complying and crying foul to the public to gather
| sympathy. That's an active choice, the companies could
| work with regulatory bodies to cooperate, and find a
| solution (I work at a company who did that for DSA) but
| most would much rather give a bad rap to regulations to
| turn the public against it.
| genericone wrote:
| "Why don't you just read my mind and do what I wanted you
| to do in the first place?"
|
| Rule by law rather than rule of law?
| piva00 wrote:
| What's a better system that allows patching loopholes of
| the letter without requiring extensive bureaucracy and
| potential gridlock in legislature?
|
| There's no mind reading, most of EU's fines only happen
| after a pattern of non-compliance, complain as much as
| you want about EU's bureaucracy but it's quite
| cooperative if you want to figure out a solution. I
| prefer this system than one where the written laws are
| worth nothing since well paid corporate lawyers can
| figure a way out, or hell, they might even be paid to
| write the laws themselves as it happens in the US.
| davidguetta wrote:
| I mean it's never going to be perfect right away tho.
| Trying to mitigate outcomes is still better than being an
| law autist.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| They have laws like GDPR where they try to assert
| jurisdiction outside of their borders. Not sure if fines
| collected through that have been a significant cost of
| doing business but my point is they definitely _can_ take
| money from you in situations where you aren 't breaking
| laws that you are nominally under the jurisdiction of.
| davidguetta wrote:
| => subsidy for local competitors in the local language
|
| I'd like to know if you know what's you're talking about.
| In france the local subsidies are really low and the
| inversely the big rebates like "Tax Credit For Research &
| Dev" are for everybody, US companies like EU ones.
| foepys wrote:
| Easy: because next to 100% of EU government computers run
| Windows and MS Office.
| alickz wrote:
| Seems like a vulnerability
| alpha_squared wrote:
| Some part of me feels like (and hopes?) this could create
| a golden era for tech in the EU. Competing operating
| systems, productivity software, SaaS solutions. If I had
| any say in the EU right now, I'd look at ways to increase
| visa access for disaffected tech workers looking to leave
| the US turmoil.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> If I had any say in the EU right now, I 'd look at
| ways to increase visa access for disaffected tech workers
| looking to leave the US turmoil._
|
| We're lacking VC funding, not skilled tech workers.
| Increasing visas for tech workers without increasing the
| funding just lowers wages which are already low.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| That might be true, I wouldn't know -- but I do know a
| lot of EU countries have visas for skills shortages and
| software is listed among those skills. I assumed that
| meant there's an opportunity to expand and expedite
| access if the need was more imminent.
| Kamshak wrote:
| If you have a job offer for 50k and a university degree
| you can get an EU "blue card". Went through the process
| and it's pretty easy, I don't think this visa is a big
| issue for tech workers
| davidguetta wrote:
| It's Ubuntu time !
| nisa wrote:
| It would be a just a hefty fee for most EU companies and not
| much more. From what I've seen Azure is pretty popular in
| most bigger companies and smaller shops and websites use
| often AWS or Google cloud. Microsoft Windows and Office is
| also everywhere - it would be a tax on European business with
| little effects on the USA because moving away from big clouds
| won't happen because there is no realistic alternative.
|
| Last I've looked "Lidl Cloud" from Schwartz-IT that is often
| mentioned as alternative is basically managed Kubernetes for
| more than double the price of Azure/AWS before rebates. They
| have that idiotic meaningless TUV button on their websites
| and unfortunately it's not technical excellence but rather a
| trap for boomer CEOs...
|
| Europe missed that boat unfortunately and I don't see that
| changing soon. Hetzner/OVH and so on only provide bare metal
| or virtual machines for little money but there is no European
| cloud with serious IaC and managed services that are stable
| and battle tested as far as I know.
|
| Changing taxation rules is the interesting topic but
| unfortunately EU countries are competing on that and that
| would destroy the business model of countries like Luxembourg
| or Ireland - I'm all for changing it and it would be better
| in the long-term but it's probably impossible to pull off at
| the moment.
| davidguetta wrote:
| Yeah sure but then you do promote EU alternatives out of
| necessity.
|
| On the long term this can really make EU more sovereign,
| less dependent and it's not a crazy thing.
|
| I have never understood the argument of "yeah tariff would
| hurt us because we are dependent on foreign tech". Yeah
| that's precisely a problem at a country level. Promoting
| local alternative is best than winner takes all.
|
| There's also a price in not looking tough when you're
| getting bullied sometimes.
| Epa095 wrote:
| Both OVH and scaleway provide managed k8s (and both have
| terraform providers). But yes, definitely much less
| sophisticated than the hyperscalers. But if you use k8s,
| maybe s3 and Kafka, and some databases, it's definitely
| possible to do the switch.
| erulabs wrote:
| Swapping an enterprise's cloud provider is _at least_ a 6
| month endeavor and that would be with all hands on deck,
| I estimate two years at least and that's still with
| significant tail wind. While things are crazy, best bet
| is to hold tight and sign the checks and prepare.
| codedokode wrote:
| It seems to me that replacing foreign computer services is
| actually easy compared to physical goods: no need to build
| factories, no need to buy expensive machinery etc, just
| wrap some open source solution and sell it. For example,
| China has domestic computer services, from messengers to AI
| models. And by observation, once you ban foreign services,
| local competitors start appearing like mushrooms after
| rain.
| nisa wrote:
| It's this attitude that is common in Europe, at least in
| Germany that is the reason we are so behind. Worked for
| so many companies that just wrapped some open-source and
| sold it. Never worked well, nobody understood how it
| worked. No money for competent devs and so on. Both times
| the product was what made the company money. Say what you
| want about USA tech companies but at least some actually
| have technical excellence. I've lost hope that Europe,
| especially Germany will understand that.
| amelius wrote:
| What I don't understand is why other countries didn't make
| the threat to make any tariffs hold for a year or longer.
| That would scare Trump away from doing these stupid
| experiments.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Yes, that makes sense for Europe but it doesn't help China,
| because China already prevents a considerable amount of US
| media consumption and much of what is consumed is bootlegged
| anyways.
| kowabungalow wrote:
| I'm also not sure why other countries aren't moving to
| criminalize trading crypto to try to tank him and his cronies
| since the US has given up on preventing presidential conflict
| of interest.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| uhhhhh if you want bitcoin and etherium to moon the best
| thing you could do for the crypto-community would be to
| present it as a tangible threat to your country's political
| and financial elite due to existing outside the confines of
| their regulatory powers.
| kowabungalow wrote:
| When the IRS left it in the grey zone it wasn't really
| going to the moon because every financial advisor couldn't
| say 5% of you retirement should be in an investment we
| can't sell you. It would take a lot more and richer people
| with oppositional disorders to make up for some universal
| retirement "just in case" advice.
| tow21 wrote:
| Much harder to enforce against services.
|
| Physical goods you can hold until tariffs are paid.
|
| Services are paid for by invoices between two corporate
| entities whose legal domicile may have nothing to do with the
| real country of origin of the services.
|
| Lots of European SaaS providers invoice US customers from their
| US subsidiary - impossible to distinguish the transaction in
| order to put a tariff on it.
| taeric wrote:
| I'm curious what sort of "as a service" things you would have
| applied this to in the past? Seems like a simple answer of
| "yes" as to whether how we collected taxes in the past were
| largely a legacy of how trade happened?
| ianferrel wrote:
| I think partly the historical legacy, but also the ease of
| enforcement and the fact that lower tariffs and services have
| trended together.
|
| Collecting taxes on goods flowing through a limited number of
| physical locations is much much easier than trying to audit the
| client list of a huge number of foreign service providers.
|
| Agreed that other countries are considering this.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| >software-as-a-service subscriptions
|
| when people in other countries use that at a non-trivial scale,
| aren't the servers on the other end of the connection still
| located in their region?
| mort96 wrote:
| Sure, but when we pay our AWS bills, that money still goes to
| Amazon which is US-based, even though we servers we rent are
| in Frankfurt.
| johntb86 wrote:
| Does it actually go to the US corporation, or to some
| European subsidiary?
| delusional wrote:
| The EU is discussing it, but are currently debating if that
| would be seen as an escalation of the conflict.
|
| Yes it would be a strong response, but unlike the US we are not
| interested in appearing like the strongest idiots, the EU would
| rather we all get along and trade. We'd rather work on real
| issues instead of this self damaging garbage.
| Animats wrote:
| Possibly because lawsuits challenging the power of the President
| to impose tariffs under the Emergency Economic Powers Act are
| underway.[1] GOP support for Congress taking back control of
| tariffs is building.[2] At some point, Congress or the courts
| will take his toys away.
|
| [1] https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariffs-hit-lawsuit-group-
| his...
|
| [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5236142-congress-
| tariff-...
| hello_computer wrote:
| Seems kinda crazy that so much power was ever vested in the
| president.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435
| eftychis wrote:
| Laziness and fear of the closet monster beget tyrants.
| enaaem wrote:
| The best way to sabotage Trump is doing exactly what he
| wants (and make sure he takes all the credit).
| etiam wrote:
| How would you manage the bit in parenthesis?
|
| It's a foundational part of the sickness in people like
| Trump that anything bad is _by definition_ somebody else
| 's fault, and clearly his cultists just keep lapping up
| his lies no matter how insane and transparent.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| This. Anything (accidentally) good was totally intended
| by Trump. Anything bad was because of evil ultra-leftists
| sabotaging his intended good, and not because Trump made
| even the tiniest of mistakes.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Sure if you have no skin in the game, but I however live
| in the US and also own stock so that's not going to work
| for me.
| Animats wrote:
| How to handle emergency authority in a democracy has been a
| hard problem back to the Roman Empire. Read up on Roman
| dictators.[1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
| tshaddox wrote:
| I mean, it may not be a completely solved problem, but you
| don't have to be too clever to think that perhaps rules
| similar to the War Powers Act ought to also apply to the
| President's authority to apply tariffs.
| MrMember wrote:
| Roman dictators have always fascinated me. It worked (for a
| while at least) because both sides agreed it was necessary
| and temporary. The people who appointed the dictator knew
| extreme measures were needed to navigate them through some
| crisis. The dictator knew if they tried to hold on to power
| longer than was necessary they would simply be removed or
| killed, their supreme power only extended through the
| crisis in which they were needed.
| rurp wrote:
| We've all been learning just how much of the US system runs
| on assumption of there being some baseline level of
| competence and good faith. It hasn't been a pretty lesson.
|
| I'm honestly not sure there is another way since laws can't
| cover all possible future edge cases with effective
| enforcement mechanisms. The simpler fix is to not elect
| blatantly corrupt and incompetent leaders, but voters failed
| that task and now the country is paying the price.
| stevage wrote:
| It's interesting to see it as an answer to the question, how
| long does it take to turn a well regulated democracy with a
| powerless head of state into an autocracy.
| antognini wrote:
| I've seen relatively little discussion about these lawsuits,
| but I do think there is a pretty good chance that SCOTUS will
| rule these tariffs unconstitutional. (It's certainly more
| likely than Congress rescinding the powers they've ceded to the
| presidency.)
|
| Constitutionally, the power to set tariffs resides with the
| Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. Congress has
| delegated some authority to set tariffs under certain
| conditions (namely, emergencies and matters related to national
| security). But the Court is clear that one branch cannot
| delegate _all_ of its powers to another. The Court is pretty
| deferential to the Executive branch, especially in matters of
| national security. But no matter how much you squint, it 's
| hard to see how setting broad based tariffs on all goods from
| every foreign countries qualifies under the Emergency Economic
| Powers Act.
| magicloop wrote:
| It is a sound analysis but I think there are other non-legal
| factors at play.
|
| If the president tries to do X, then the lawyers block X,
| then in political game theory the president "wins" in the
| eyes of the electorate because the president can argue "my
| plan was perfect, the execution failed due to the opposition,
| so I am not accountable to what has now happened".
|
| The left might want to see a disaster play out to capitalize
| in the mid-term elections, laying the accountability directly
| on the president. The right might not have freedom of action
| because they fear a well-funded challenger for their seat.
|
| In am interested in other people's opinions and ideas in this
| area. I agree it is too little discussed and analyzed. Please
| share your insights!
| delecti wrote:
| The people on the left who want to see a disaster play out
| are mostly accelerationists. I think most on the left would
| worry more about the harm that economic disaster would be
| inflicted on people.
|
| And more pragmatically, I think that Trump is so committed
| to causing disasters that he's likely to succeed at enough
| of his attempts that there should be pushback to as much of
| it as possible.
| ilamont wrote:
| > I do think there is a pretty good chance that SCOTUS will
| rule these tariffs unconstitutional.
|
| Unlikely. SCOTUS is cowed, as shown by the latest batch of
| rulings (https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-5351799/scotus-
| probatio...). They want to avoid his ire, and interference.
|
| Possibly, they are saving dry powder for a bigger fight.
| piva00 wrote:
| I'm starting to subscribe to the idea this was blatant market
| manipulation.
|
| Trump is only out to make money, the guy never had any other
| thought in life since money gives him status, fame, and power.
|
| It's a grift, as any other of his grifts, but now he can
| manipulate the whole stock market with his power.
|
| There's nothing else that I can rationally come up with to
| explain this absurdity.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| There's your problem - the word "rationally". NOTHING about
| MAGA / Trump is rational - it's all based on feelings.
| pera wrote:
| - April 7th: Spread rumours of a 90 days tariff pause which
| immediately triggers a market really, then claim it was "fake
| new", markets go down
|
| - April 9th: "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT", then 4 hours
| later announce a 90 days tariff reduction, markets jump nearly
| 10%
|
| This level of market manipulation orchestrated directly by a head
| of state is something you only see in totalitarian states.
|
| The US is moving into a very serious situation. These people
| won't ever voluntarily leave the Oval Office.
| stellalo wrote:
| Luckily the founding fathers thought of this
| skyyler wrote:
| If you're referring to 2A then I suggest you start building
| anti-aircraft weapons in your militias five years ago.
| sirbutters wrote:
| Did you forget "/s"?
| mateus1 wrote:
| It's direct wealth transfer to his supporters, paid by
| opponents and people who can't play the market...
| maronato wrote:
| The situation is so absurd that I'm starting to believe the
| entire Musk vs. Navarro feud was just a ploy, and they're all
| popping champagne bottles together now.
| hello_computer wrote:
| It's Elon's dogecoin pump & dump all over again. I should have
| kept an eye on twitter!
| ryzvonusef wrote:
| On the one hand, this entire exercise has been (and continues to
| be) batship insane
|
| ....Otoh this is good in a meta sense, tells about the level of
| resilience of the capitalist system, I think we should treat this
| entire fiasco as one of those controlled forest fire sort of
| things.
|
| Like...anytime someone tries to mention JIT or other corporate
| 'efficiency' nonsense, we can refer to these sort of shenanigans
| and shut them down.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| I wouldn't call it the lede but also in this article is that he
| increased China tariffs to 125% which is funny. Let's just keep
| it going, 200% China tariffs! Why not? People weren't going to do
| business at the 54% tariff anyway.
| glitchc wrote:
| Trump is using fuzzing to find weaknesses in global trade. He's
| basically a security researcher at this point.
| neogodless wrote:
| Time to delete the production database to test our disaster
| recovery plan!
| glitchc wrote:
| Fail early, fail often.
| wickedOne wrote:
| i wonder why the rest of the world doesn't just come together for
| a while and stop trading / providing raw materials to the u.s.
| for let's say a year or so.
|
| isn't this all just a huge pile of bluff poker?
| tim333 wrote:
| A lot of people have jobs dependent on business as usual. You
| don't want to just fire the workers for a year.
| mppm wrote:
| The stock market today seriously reeks of insider trading. Most
| stocks were down pre-market, but suddenly went up at 9:30 when
| the big boys joined the trading. And that right after the
| announcement of further escalation with China. I was really
| wondering about that, but it seems clear in retrospect that some
| people were ahead of the curve by a few hours.
| maronato wrote:
| Trump posted on social media this morning that it was a great
| time to buy. A couple of days ago, he said people should be
| buying low and that it was a great time to get rich.
|
| I'm convinced this was his plan all along, and his friends were
| all in it.
| picafrost wrote:
| Very sad to see what is happening to the US. Sadder still to see
| it celebrated and defended by a large portion of the country.
| From over here in Europe, the apparent lack of accountability in
| the US right now is unbelievable. Where are the adults?
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The supposed adults are making bank.
|
| The political subtext is "Follow me and I will make you
| extremely rich."
|
| Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court won't touch him
| after this.
| m0llusk wrote:
| It is sad that opposition is not being acknowledged. There was
| a determined effort to restore Canada's tariffs to what they
| were that passed the Senate and was then blocked by an unusual
| maneuver from the speaker of the house which in turn got him
| excoriated by some Republicans in congress. Some of the biggest
| conservative power players and possibly the most famous and
| successful conservative lawyers are teaming up to challenge
| emergency executive tariff powers in court. Meanwhile US
| citizens retain high confidence in elections and Republicans
| nationwide are complaining in a panic that these moves will
| turn their precincts Democratic for decades.
|
| But of course you are totally right. No adults anywhere. Keep
| thinking that Europe can count on others to pay for its defense
| while buying all the energy they need from Moscow. At least you
| have adults in the room, right?
| magicloop wrote:
| "It's the T-bills wot dun it."
|
| That's my read on why the U.S. just paused the global tariff hike
| to 10%.
|
| From the beginning, I've believed the executive branch's real
| goal was to push down the yield on the 10-year Treasury. Why?
| Because Uncle Sam has to refinance a mountain of debt this year,
| and the cost of that depends heavily on Treasury yields --
| especially the 10-year. That's the rate that sets the tone for
| everything from mortgages to corporate borrowing.
|
| So they tried to spook markets. Introduce global tariffs. Stir up
| uncertainty. And it worked--at first. Yields dipped. Traders
| moved to Treasuries as a typical flight-to-safety.
|
| But then something flipped.
|
| Instead of being seen as a safe haven, U.S. debt itself started
| to look shaky. Maybe it was the deficit outlook, maybe the global
| response to tariffs -- but whatever it was, yields started
| climbing. Fast.
|
| At that point, the strategy backfired. The executive branch had
| no choice but to walk it back. So they paused the tariffs.
|
| Because when your national budget depends on cheap debt, you
| can't afford a crisis of confidence in your bonds.
| jddj wrote:
| Yeah, the bond market started saying firmly "stop fucking
| around" and an adult seemingly appeared in the room
| pixelpoet wrote:
| I realise I'm asking for an imagined scenario but- who would
| this adult be, that somehow escaped the purge of competence
| and oversight in favour of sycophants, and how would they
| broach the topic with Trump (who of course wants to be the
| Big Boy and loves supplication)?
| thfuran wrote:
| That doesn't pass muster. If they had much interest in
| balancing the books, they wouldn't be ripping huge holes in
| revenue collection.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| If they wanted to balance the books they'd print money and
| distribute it to US citizens.
| bluGill wrote:
| They care about inflation too though. Trump is old enough
| to remember the high inflation 1970s well so he won't make
| that mistake. Kids today probably won't remember it other
| than an item from "ancient history" and might make the
| mistake, but Trump won't.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Does he? He really wants the Feds to lower interest rates
| on top of everything else. He might have gotten that wish
| if he did absolutely nothing with economic policy and
| rode off the "bidenomics" he chastised for years.
|
| There's definitely not 100% logic involved in his plans.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Inflation is a tax but if there is selective
| redistribution it is a selective tax.
| matwood wrote:
| > They care about inflation too though.
|
| Trump cares about inflation as a talking point to get
| elected and for no other reason.
| Uehreka wrote:
| Any assessment of Trump's actions that implies that he
| personally has a cogent strategy immediately loses
| credibility in my eyes. If you want to say the people
| around him think or feel a certain way and are
| influencing him based on that, fine. But he's clearly
| just doing things that hit some nexus of "people around
| me say this will work" and "I personally, on a vibes
| basis, think this will be fun."
| cutemonster wrote:
| Or, "everyone is talking about this, so I want it, it's
| mine"
| verzali wrote:
| I think he does whatever he thinks will get the most
| views.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Trump is old enough to remember the high inflation
| 1970s well so he won't make that mistake.
|
| He's already done it; he pioneered the strategy of
| sending out covid lockdown checks.
| outer_web wrote:
| The money supply figure from his first term makes me
| doubt this very much.
| guywithahat wrote:
| I mean he's old enough to remember Biden's inflation,
| following his trillion dollar spending bills
| rat87 wrote:
| I mean these tarrifs will cause inflation. We already
| know that
| rat87 wrote:
| If they cared about inflation they wouldn't have
| instituted massive inflation causing tarrifs. Economists
| are saying there is a chance 70s style stagflation might
| come back into fashion
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-09/fed-
| offic...
| magicloop wrote:
| That's fair but I suggest that they are actually deficit
| hawks for the _long term_. In the short term, they 've got
| financing troubles hence they care about the yield.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Didn't they just announce a 1 trillion budget for defense?
| gsanderson wrote:
| Yep, apparently that's in the works. They aren't going to
| reduce the deficit or debt. It soared during Donald's
| first term and will again.
| matwood wrote:
| About to go to war, possibly on 3 fronts (Iran,
| Greenland, Canada).
| fragmede wrote:
| Yemen Taiwan Ukraine
| outer_web wrote:
| Panama Gaza California
| monkeywork wrote:
| I can't tell if ppl are joking or if they actually
| believe statements like that when they make them.
|
| There is not going to be a war between Canada and USA.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| We can't either.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Who's going to stop him?
|
| You?
| notatoad wrote:
| right, just like all the other crazy things that Trump
| said he would do, and people dismissed as outside the
| realm of possibility.
|
| like 100% tariffs on china.
| bdamm wrote:
| How can you be so sure? Trump's rhetoric would basically
| guarantee it.
| bchasknga wrote:
| Just like when Trump said he knows nothing about Project
| 2025 and has done everything by the book for the past 3
| months. Keep cranking that copium.
| outer_web wrote:
| Subtext: $1T executive slush fund.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Back to the days of the military acting like thugs,
| slightly worse than acting as the world police.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Gotta be honest, I think it's more likely that Trump just
| has a strange fixation on tariffs. I don't really think
| there was a whole lot of planning around them other than "I
| want them".
|
| How he's deployed them and spoken/written about them makes
| me think he thinks it's a good way to strong arm countries
| and he wanted to strong arm everyone.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Well congress has until July to reign them in before they
| (and the people) lose even more money in their savings.
| They better be swift.
| edoceo wrote:
| What's in July?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That's 90 days from now.
| xgb84j wrote:
| Could you elaborate on what will happen in July?
| cogman10 wrote:
| That's 90 days from today when the tariffs are supposed
| to take effect again.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| There's no actual commitment here. He could reverse again
| _tonight_. He signaled ongoing dissatisfaction with
| countries that had retaliated, so may well take further
| action there during the 90 days, which 90 days are,
| again, meaningless in that they don 't bind him at all,
| and even if they did, he's done a bunch of things he's
| "not allowed to" and so far has gotten away with tons of
| it.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| You're right. But as we see with TikTok, he loves to talk
| big but keep kicking thr can down the road instead of
| backing off. There will inevitably be more spats in the
| meantime (especially with the EU), but I wouldn't be
| surprised if he extends it more when July looms (assuming
| that congress bill is still struggling to pass).
| gsanderson wrote:
| I think it's because it's one thing he can control all by
| himself. Look at all the attention he's receiving. The
| "will he/won't he" reality TV. Put a tweet saying X%. No,
| they won't be cancelled. Yes I'm suspending them for 90
| days. And so on.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| He has a long record of advocating for tariffs. He thinks
| they're a good idea.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Except he can't. They're abusing a legal loophole that
| probably can be easily defeated in court if anyone
| interested can actually locate their balls to do it
| SteveNuts wrote:
| All the way up to the SCOTUS, at which point it'll be a
| 7-2 vote in Trump's favor.
| Spivak wrote:
| I'm not saying he won't win the case but you're daft if
| you think it won't be 5-4 on the grounds that congress
| actually has to pass something to signal their intent to
| the courts.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| The question here is not whether congress has to pass
| something, the question is can congress delegate this
| authority which is explicitly set by the constitution.
|
| There were a bunch of sentences regarding non delegation
| of powers of congress, mainly for federal agencies, and
| courts deciding that congress can't delegate those
| faculties, so, by the book, this would be a similar
| situation. There is actually an ongoing case for this
| aspect of the discussion:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/07/trump-
| tariff...
| dilyevsky wrote:
| The are a few republican judges that dont seem too keen
| on having their names attached to the demise of American
| empire
| bdangubic wrote:
| maybe 2 which is not enough
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I believe that particular ship has sailed.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| Even fewer that won't fall in line if threatened to be
| doxxed to the MAGA mob via Xitter.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| How many of them are on the SCOTUS?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I don't believe he can get a 7/2 ruling in SCOTUS. But I
| do believe he can get Republicans in the current Congress
| to jump for him, and to try to ensure their majority by
| disenfranchising people before the midterms.
| csomar wrote:
| > I think it's more likely that Trump just has a strange
| fixation on tariffs
|
| It's the only "powerful" thing he can use that doesn't
| require him going back to congress.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| That's obvious. You can find news clips from the late
| 80's/early 90's where he is mouthing off about tariffs.
| That rut is eroded deep in his brain...
| danaris wrote:
| He definitely does, and has since at least the '80s.
|
| That and his self-image as The Best Negotiator (while his
| actual "negotiating tactics" are really just mob-boss
| intimidation and bullying) are a huge part of what's
| going on here.
| watwut wrote:
| Deficit hawks would not lower taxes for richest segment,
| which were sure money in exchange of maybe money. Nor would
| they slash IDS
|
| No, they are nor deficit hawks. They don't care about
| deficit, except when trying to blame it on someone else.
| cogman10 wrote:
| There are very few politicians that are actually deficit
| hawks. The majority that claims that position are
| actually entitlement hawks. That is, they use fear of the
| deficit to talk about the need to reign in social
| security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and any other
| form of government assistance regardless the size or
| impact on the government budget.
|
| Meanwhile the DoD, CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA, DHS, and ICE have
| never had a politician seriously consider reducing their
| funding.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| What if (and I realize this is an extremely pessimistic
| take) their plan is to just default on the debt and rely on
| military blackmail? Sure, there's a Constitutional
| prohibition on questioning the validity of USA debt, but
| the administration shrugs at the Constitution on a weekly
| basis. The endless whining about how 'unfairly' other
| nations are treating the US, 'ripping us off', 'laughing at
| us' etc is a precursor for aggressive action, and I think
| it's quite likely that at some point they'll come out and
| say 'we don't have to pay debts to countries that have been
| scamming us the whole time.' About one quarter of the
| population will support MAGA no matter what, and if things
| get bad enough the administration can just announce they've
| been 'forced' to take over Greenland and Canada.
|
| A flashing negative warning sign of this would be issue of
| new kinds of Treasury securities with new complex rules.
| overfeed wrote:
| > If they had much interest in balancing the books, they
| wouldn't be ripping huge holes in revenue collection
|
| That can be explained by the fact that the cabal also doesn't
| like paying taxes.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| And that they'd use tariffs as a regressive tax to replace
| income tax increases.
| overfeed wrote:
| 2 step challenge to die downvoters:
|
| 1. Find instances where Trump or the billionaires backing
| him and/or in his cabinet are open to increasing tax as a
| solution to the deficit
|
| 2. Explain why the the administration and it's members are
| deadset against an effective IRS & Biden's effort to
| increase staffing at the IRS.
| csomar wrote:
| If your rate is 0% fixed (just a hypothetical), you can roll-
| over your bonds indefinitely for free. This means, in
| practical terms, your debt is 0.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| These "here's the _actual_ reason they 're doing this!"
| things rarely hold up under any amount of scrutiny.
|
| Then again, they're tempting because the things they're doing
| are also really bad ways to accomplish Trump's _stated_
| goals.
| miltonlost wrote:
| The "actual reason" always seems to be virtuous in the end.
| Like "omg Trump had such good intentions!!! He just made a
| lil implementation booboo". It's always giving mountains of
| good faith to people who have lied for decades and lie
| today. Nothing about the clear market manipulation or greed
| of the party.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| I don't even think the market manipulation argument
| stands. That gives them too much credit.
|
| Trump's hand was forced and he had to retreat. Like the
| market kept having little bursts before this, based
| simply on the core reality that this is a trade war that
| the US cannot stomach without extraordinary financial
| damage, so everyone just kept waiting for the out. It is
| far more exposed and doesn't have the "cards", as Trump
| says, that they think they have.
|
| The guy really, really wants his tariffs, so who knows
| where we even are now. He will not, under any
| circumstance, back down. We saw that with Canada --
| various pauses, then steel and aluminum tariffs, then car
| tariffs, then a 25% across the board tariff for non USMCA
| compliant goods. First he even targeted USMCA. Based upon
| a lie. He _desperately_ wants these tariffs, and as the
| very special person he is, he has learned absolutely
| nothing from today and will be back at the trough when he
| thinks he gets another go.
|
| The most amazing thing are the Trump faithful who hold
| this as a win. This is quite possibly the _most_
| disastrous outcome of all -- the uncertainty. It is going
| to be economic calamity for the US.
|
| But maybe Trump can announce that Uganda has removed a
| tariff or something.
| teamonkey wrote:
| Humans struggle to find meaning where there is none to
| find.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I disagree. Trump has been threatening tariffs since 2016. Each
| step he gets closer to significant tariffs. This time he
| stepped back after they seemed real.
|
| Now businesses know he really, super means it this time, so
| they get another reprieve. But next time it would be hard to
| claim Trump didn't warn them.
| magicloop wrote:
| I agree it's classic brinksmanship and the tariff views he
| has are genuine and long held. But his numerous signals to
| the Fed to ask to lower interest rates and the commitment to
| DOGE (which has the effect of lowering yields) is another
| strand in his thinking. The two are in conflict causing the
| flip-flop effect in short term policy.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Trump has been talking about tariffs since the eighties.
| wk_end wrote:
| Trump has been on Team Tariff for 40 years. "There is no 3D
| chess, he's just eating the pieces."
| eigart wrote:
| It remains to be seen to what extent this restores confidence.
| neilwilson wrote:
| The only aggregate alternative to holding T-bills is to hold
| dollar bank accounts. At which point the bank holds the T-bills
| instead or the Fed does as balancing assets to the account
| liability.
|
| It could all be refinanced to three month bills without any
| issue at all.
|
| Ultimately balance sheets have to balance. In a floating
| exchange rate system there is no aggregate out.
| magicloop wrote:
| You are correct on the mechanism here. But my point is
| adjacent to that. Whilst you always get a buyer for the debt
| (here the bank), it is the yield that matters as the re-
| financing cost cannot be escaped irrespective of the owner.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >From the beginning, I've believed the executive branch's real
| goal was to push down the yield on the 10-year Treasury
|
| You're making it seem that there's a plan ... but what if this
| is just regular incompetence coupled with capricious behavior
| from a chaos agent?
|
| I'm watching various officials give interviews and all of them
| are non-committal as it pertains to expectations. Why? Because
| none of them actually know!!! Trump has arbitrarily and
| capriciously changed "the plan" many times.
| magicloop wrote:
| I'd like to expand out why I hold this belief.
|
| The political cohort behind the president is roughly in two
| halves. The first half are the original MAGA crowd (looking
| out for the working class, pro-liberty, anti-woke, etc.). The
| second half are the billionaire crowd.
|
| The second group are active on pod casts, on Twitter/X, and
| are partly represented in government (directly or as
| advisors). An easy way to follow up on these people is to
| watch the All In Podcast or their related social media
| connections.
|
| What these folks have said for a long time is that if USA
| stay on the same path, the USA goes broke after 10 years. So
| if you have long term investment in the USA, you lose your
| fortune in 10+ years.
|
| This is the key motivation for their involvement in the
| current executive branch of government. This is why the DOGE
| program is so well supported by them.
|
| If you lose the battle to reduce the 10-year Treasury yield,
| you lose the billionaires because they stand to make
| meaningful losses on a 10 year horizon.
|
| I recognize the plight of the common citizen here; they are
| the plurality. But the big political levers come from these
| billionaires (absent a grass roots supported leader in the
| wings).
| jjgreen wrote:
| I wonder who of those will prevail, a second Rohm purge
| maybe?
| zopa wrote:
| If the goal to drive the yield on T-notes down, then cut
| spending and raise taxes. Get the budget into something
| like balance and the Fed will cut rates, and borrowing
| costs will fall. You don't need some 3D chess with a
| manufactured financial crisis.
|
| When your rational explanation involves people shooting
| themselves in the head to cure a headache, something's off.
| There's nothing to explain here besides a weak and
| incompetent leader with a deep need for attention,
| surrounded by lots of enablers.
| notahacker wrote:
| This belief seems to disregard the fact that the
| billionaire crowd _hates_ markets being spooked far more
| than it cares about 10 year Treasury yields (which in any
| case went up precisely because markets were spooked; if you
| wanted to do something about reducing long term bond
| yields, committing to just about any other economic policy
| would be more credible). Even some of the most sycophantic
| billionaires were evidently furious about the tariff
| policy.
|
| Also, Trump has been obsessed with the idea of tariffs
| since the 1980s.
| rat87 wrote:
| I think only thing likely to make US go broke is Trump's
| actions.
|
| DOGE doesn't save any money. Not only because it's created
| many legal messes that will take forever to work out in
| court but because most of those jobs are important and will
| eventually need to be replaced at great cost and with worse
| results. Also some of those jobs are for auditing
| inefficiency and prosecuting corruption resulting in more
| money spent. And on top of it all they'll be using these
| non existent savings to justify much larger tax cuts for
| the rich.
|
| The reason it looks stupid is because it is. It's not that
| Trump is purely dumb he's just intellectually lazy and
| doesn't care about policy. He long ago decided he likes
| tarrifs on instinct so he put massive tarrifs despite the
| warnings that they would be disastrous
| jpmattia wrote:
| James Carville in the 90s: "I used to think that if there was
| reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the
| pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come
| back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
| magicloop wrote:
| I agree. The bond markets are the ultimate heavy hitter. They
| have government level impact. See also: The French
| Revolution.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_vigilante
| notahacker wrote:
| Or Liz Truss, the shortest serving Prime Minister in
| British history less than 3 years ago...
| slg wrote:
| Genuinely wondering why so many people are still giving the
| Trump administration this much benefit of the doubt that their
| moves are strategically sound? We're really still doing the
| whole "3D chess" thing with this guy after he has shown over
| and over again that he mostly just acts on impulse and the
| primary qualification for his advisors is loyalty over any type
| of intelligence or expertise?
| muzani wrote:
| A lot of this stuff is on a YouTube education level, not even
| a degree. I would be shocked if the US does not have a bunch
| of economic advisors who tell them what problems there are
| and what should be done. They've probably mapped out all the
| next steps. Most US presidents are Harvard-level smart, but
| the White House has been around long enough to find a way to
| deliver reports to the simpler ones.
|
| There's a lot of obvious big problems - confidence in the
| USD, debt rising faster than GDP can catch up, military
| overextension, China's rise outpacing US, inequality,
| inaccessible education and health care, opioid crisis, etc.
|
| Trump has a good eye for identifying this - that's why he won
| the election despite all his weaknesses. It's clear he knows
| some of this but doesn't understand it - his comments on a
| BRICS currency, for example. Yes, a "BRICS currency" would
| threaten Pax Americana but it's on literally nobody's mind.
|
| I feel like, if anything, he's an overplanner. A smarter
| leader would think, these moves will have unplanned side
| effects. Trump makes a lot of roundabout moves like DOGE.
| These moves have a target, but he hasn't thought about the
| side effects. And when a crisis like COVID hits, it disrupts
| the complex plans, which is why he reacts so poorly to them.
| shigawire wrote:
| >I feel like, if anything, he's an overplanner.
|
| Trump is famous for ad libbing and making up whatever he
| wants in the moment. His first administration was not
| prepared to govern. I'm not sure how this is seen as over
| planning.
| slg wrote:
| This just reads like pure fantasy to me. Have you not seen
| the account from numerous former Cabinet and White House
| officials about how lazy and incurious he is or how
| difficult it is to get him to read the reports put in front
| of him? Have you missed the way he has forced countless
| career officials out of the government through layoffs,
| firings, or pushing people to resign in protest? I don't
| even know what to say to the idea that Trump is an
| "overplanner", you even literally said "he hasn't thought
| about the side effects" a few sentences later. That's
| "overplanning"?
| muzani wrote:
| I'm saying he thinks 4 steps ahead but not the next step.
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| << I would be shocked if the US does not have a bunch of
| economic advisors who tell them
|
| Oh, US does have its share of economic advisors[1] of all
| stripes. And, I would love to be corrected on this, when
| SHTF, they immediately argue for NOT the very thing they
| normally argue for. They can tell what should be done for
| sure.. just not when it comes to their money..
|
| (edit)Therein lies the issue or at least a part of the it.
|
| [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/12/larry-
| summ...
| Herring wrote:
| Because they consider him as one of them, in a way Kamala or
| any Canadian/European/Chinese will never be. The
| racism/tribalism/nepotism overrides everything with these
| people. Red states have had the worst outcomes for
| generations but they still vote Republican like lemmings
| solely because of it. Trump just has to mention
| trans/illegals/DEI and they instantly switch off their
| brains.
|
| Like you said, it's loyalty over any type of intelligence or
| expertise. Also see: How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and
| Makes Risky Times More Dangerous
|
| https://bigthink.com/articles/how-tribalism-overrules-
| reason...
| dmonitor wrote:
| That's not it at all. I'm sure there's lots of sycophants
| out there, but a lot of people just don't find "he's stupid
| and it's random" a satisfying explanation for his actions,
| even if they disagree with them.
| Herring wrote:
| That's weird, cause they sure smeared millions of people
| real fast as undesirables trans/illegals/DEI/woke, but
| Trump gets a million chances and coup do-overs and please
| explain take your time sir: What is the amazing 4D
| strategy behind telling people to drink bleach?
|
| Nepotism feels good all the way until it sinks your
| company.
| gsanderson wrote:
| Baffles me too. His ignorance is astonishing.
| mrandish wrote:
| > Genuinely wondering why so many people are still giving the
| Trump administration this much benefit of the doubt that
| their moves are strategically sound?
|
| Since I'm one of 'those people' who's been willing to grant
| Trump _some_ benefit of the doubt in the past, I 'll respond
| with my take. tl;dr Trump's handling of the tariffs have been
| such disaster, there's simply no possibility it was based on
| a strategically sound plan.
|
| To be clear, while I've tried to remain open-minded re: Trump
| I've never felt that he's especially smart and certainly not
| someone I'd ever personally like or hang out with but I'm
| also one of those contrarians who doesn't think every
| politician or public figure needs to be someone I personally
| like or a moral paragon. I've also been willing to concede
| that some things done by the executive branch during his
| first term were generally positive (whether because of or in
| spite of Trump isn't clear). I also think his policies and
| statements have been subject to an unprecedented degree of
| negative spin in the media - sometimes well-deserved but
| always hyped overwhelmingly to the negative. So I made an
| effort to look past the constant headlines of, essentially,
| "orange man bad in all possible ways." I also decided to
| ignore Trump's own bizarrely extreme pronouncements and focus
| only on what he really put into practice and, most
| importantly, the tangible real-world impact of those actions
| on the broad population and economy over time (not the
| extrapolated predictions in the media).
|
| However, even to me, how he's handled this tariff thing has
| been a complete shit show. I've spent a fair bit of time
| trying to understand the various explanations,
| contextualizations and even 'hidden grand plan' theories
| proposed by some and they simply aren't plausible. It's not a
| 'master negotiator strategy' because he asked for concessions
| but never made any concrete proposals of quid pro quo. There
| was no attempt at serious negotiation with most major trading
| partners (according to the WSJ) and thus no possibility of
| meaningful deals.
|
| Now suddenly (somewhat) reversing course like this a few days
| after going so extreme and then publicly doubling down on his
| long-term commitment to the 'grand strategy' is unbelievably
| damaging to any remaining shred of credibility his
| administration may have had. It _nukes_ any possibility that
| he was doing a 'crazy guy on the subway' strategy of
| punching his adversaries in the face and making them believe
| he was so nuts he'd saw off his own arm just to keep beating
| them over the head with it - all to cleverly convince them to
| make meaningful concessions they'd never make any other way.
| Yeah, well now that he blinked in less than a week, nothing
| he can do will ever make them believe that. I mean, if that
| was the plan, it was a terrible plan and poorly executed to
| boot, but flipping like this is even worse.
|
| All I can figure is that it was a 'crazy guy' plan but that
| he intended to keep it going for several months and then,
| when his opponents were bloodied enough he'd open
| negotiations and "win" in a master stroke. Except he
| completely miscalculated the degree of economic destruction
| he'd cause in U.S. markets and has now had to not only fold
| but reveal he was playing a weak bluff all along. I'm
| struggling to come up with any way this could have been
| _worse_ for the U.S. and Trump 's interests. After this, it's
| hard to imagine any trading partner negotiating in good
| faith, or perhaps, at all with Trump over tariffs in the next
| 90 days. The only rational strategy for them is to play along
| and gather info while conceding nothing meaningful and simply
| wait and see what Trump's ultimately going to do long term.
|
| As far as I'm concerned, I bent over backward to grant Trump
| some benefit of the doubt and give him a chance to prove
| himself but the tariffs have been so bungled they're
| impossible to put it in any positive light. So far, it
| appears to be an epic disaster of hubris and naive
| miscalculation.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| This makes some sense... but they didn't pause the tariffs.
| There's still a 10% tariff on everybody (including on top of
| Mexico and Canada, who were previously exempted from the
| tariffs announced last week) and the tariff on China continues
| to rise to preposterous proportions.
| matt-p wrote:
| Would it have been too inflationary/recessionary to impose
| these crazy tarrifs on 'rest of world' AND increase china to
| 125% at the same time so he simply had to sacrifice one to do
| the other?
| greatpatton wrote:
| exactly and I think it's shocking that everyone is just
| repeating lies without putting them in context.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Because when your national budget depends on cheap debt, you
| can't afford a crisis of confidence in your bonds.
|
| Well the US is still having a dick measuring contest with its
| largest importer, so no worries. We'll still get plenty of
| crisis from that alone.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I'm not saying you're wrong. But 10-year yields are up for the
| day, so if he was trying to calm the bond markets, it didn't
| work.
| roland35 wrote:
| I have a feeling the real reason is just that trump is a moron.
| I think a lot of people are reading it like poop sneered on the
| bathroom wall.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It's scary to think he's just not got a clue and doing whatever
| he thinks of in the moment isn't it?
|
| I mean the guy who doesn't understand tariffs, at all, but has
| publicly loved tariffs for 40 years in charge of tariff policy.
| That's disturbing to contemplate head on.
|
| Much better to invent some comforting fantasy of secret plots
| being carried out semi-competently to achieve nebulous but
| vaguely noble goals.
| gsanderson wrote:
| Donald is weak. He was always going to fold. Once China and the
| EU called his bluff and retaliated, he was done. Lasted less
| than 24 hours.
| matt-p wrote:
| Sir, the tariff on china has just increased to 125%.
|
| I don't know why he held off on the other countries, but
| choose to go to "war" with China.
| gsanderson wrote:
| I assume because of Peter Navarro (and of course Ron Vara).
| blitzar wrote:
| 14d chess of course.
| matwood wrote:
| The EU actually executed some strategy. First they said they
| would love 0/0 tariffs, which sounds fair to pretty much
| anyone. And when that didn't fly they put on selective
| reciprocal 25% tariffs. What Trump did looks even more like a
| clown show.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| They floated 0/0 tariffs before the reciprocal tariffs (and
| again after), and their tariffs this morning was in
| retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs, not for the
| reciprocal tariffs.
| watwut wrote:
| Nah, no reciprocation. America calling things
| reciprocation is just America lying.
| mercutio2 wrote:
| I am normally all in favor of metonymy, it's perfectly
| fine and well understood style.
|
| In the case of Trump-as-Mad-King tariffs, it sure would
| be nice if the world didn't conflate America, the
| historical land of twisting other nation's arms to reduce
| tariffs, with Trump and his fake-emergency tariffs.
|
| I can understand if you do, and if America has
| permanently lost a lot of good will by electing this
| buffoon for you, I can hardly argue with you.
|
| But still. In my mind, these are Trump's tariffs, not
| America's.
|
| And specifically the idea that Trump's tariffs are
| reciprocal, that is even more "Trump is just a liar" than
| something any honest American would argue.
| shawn-butler wrote:
| The EU "selective" tariffs seem to be targeted at red or
| purple states even specifically targeting products made
| only in home states of current leadership as evidenced by
| an internal document claimed to be obtained by journalists
| that specifically states the reasoning.[0]
|
| If true, this seems more like sanctions and even borderline
| electioneering / interference than an economic calculation
| by a membership of union states that seems quite sensitive
| to external entities influencing the elections of their own
| member states.
|
| [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-
| tariff...
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| It's a smart strategy designed to exert maximum pressure
| on someone who is publicly saying they want to annex some
| of your territory (Greenland), and generally acting in an
| irrational manner.
| baq wrote:
| The tariffs that he kept on would be nothing to sneeze at in
| more... civilized times. The market overreacted, as was
| priced in the vix at 50+. We are not out of the woods yet.
| matt-p wrote:
| 125% tariff rate on your biggest importer isn't something
| I'd say is "nothing to sneeze at" personally. Particularly
| when the expert economist used to justify it is made up.
| matwood wrote:
| > But then something flipped.
|
| The bond market is always the adult in the room. The UK PM
| lasted like 44 days when the bond market pushed her out [1]. In
| this case, the flip was that all the chaos led to people
| leaving behind the USD completely. Trumps view of the US/World
| is ~30+ years out of date. There are other stable places to put
| money now where it used to only be USD.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/20/uk-prime-minister-liz-
| truss-...
| sschueller wrote:
| The cabbage outlasted her...
|
| https://x.com/jaayjayAT/status/1908793907976040839?t=aP60h4w.
| ..
| blitzar wrote:
| It was lettuce, an iceberg lettuce, the fastest wilting
| lettuce money can buy.
| hatthew wrote:
| Isn't iceberg lettuce so common in part because it's one
| of the _most stable_ lettuces? Still absolutely hilarious
| that Truss was outlasted by a head of lettuce, but I want
| to make sure that we 're being accurate.
| throwaway20174 wrote:
| The refinance is a real issue, but it doesn't matter too much
| cause the Fed can (and will) always intervene. They can soak up
| any supply to push the 10 year down.
|
| Same reason why it doesn't matter if China etc.. wants our
| treasuries. Fed is always there to buy them.
| jdc0589 wrote:
| im not an economist, I have no valid opinion on if this is
| right or not.
|
| BUT, I actually started looking at moving more of the stable
| bond/treasury holding bit of my portfolio to foreign funds
| recently (in addition to moving more of the stock/mutual fund
| balance to international stuff).
|
| If I'm thinking about that as an individual private citizen of
| the US, I can't imagine what actual professionals are thinking
| about.
| seo-speedwagon wrote:
| Trump's obsession with tariffs dates back to 1988 when he lost
| an auction for the piano from the movie Casablanca to a
| Japanese buyer. Afterwards, he started complaining about how
| all these other countries are ripping America off, and here we
| are.
| lysace wrote:
| _sigh_
| csomar wrote:
| Yeah... if that was their reasoning then they are as dumb as a
| sack of rocks. The rates went up further after the tariffs
| pause today.
|
| > Instead of being seen as a safe haven, U.S. debt itself
| started to look shaky.
|
| No shit. Having an inconsistent policy because of clear
| incompetence (xx Dimensional chess) _is_ a very bad sign for
| the world largest economy. At some point this will hit the
| bonds which is the foundation of this economy.
| watwut wrote:
| Trump floating the idea of defaulting on debt on purpose
| certainly did not helped.
|
| Generally the president acting like an insane maniac about to
| become dictatoe makes bonds look less trustworthy.
| justin66 wrote:
| > Instead of being seen as a safe haven, U.S. debt itself
| started to look shaky.
|
| Owning US debt is also simply less relevant to countries that
| are going to be trading less with the US. Countries which are
| ratcheting up tariffs with the US, for example.
| digianarchist wrote:
| The T-Bill auction today went off without issue and that was
| before this announcement.
|
| https://www.barrons.com/articles/treasury-bond-auction-today...
| magicloop wrote:
| That's a great data point. Thanks!
| sethammons wrote:
| so the uncertainty in the market drove investors to T-Bills,
| driving up their price and lowering their yield, effectively
| making servicing the national debt marginally cheaper. By
| 0.03%, which I imagine stacks up with trillions of dollars
| compounding.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Incompetence is way more dangerous than people realize.
|
| These tariffs are China's Four Pests campaign. Mao, a very
| trump like figure, decided to protect Chinese crops by
| destroying sparrows that were picking at them. Killing sparrows
| killed a predator of insects which did more damage to crops.
| This coupled with reality denying policies and ignoring experts
| led to one of the most devastating famines the world has ever
| experienced.
|
| Hand waiving away this policy that denies reality and hurts
| America as a rational plan that went wrong is absolutely
| dangerous. Killing sparrows was "rational" in the same way
| these tariffs are. Authoritarians believe in power over reason.
| They do not like submitting to the authority of those who have
| studied problems because it is an attack on their own
| supremacy, so they fail to predict second order effects, which
| were likely obvious.
|
| The damage this administration is doing to trust will be felt
| for generations. An agreement with America will have no value.
| No world leader will care what we say, they will only look at
| what we do. They will see power we have not as potentially
| being used for their own defense, but as a potential attack on
| their own sovereignty and they will wish to see us weakened so
| that they can spend less resources trying to determine our
| intentions.
| magicreadu wrote:
| Both you and OP are not looking at this from the right angle.
| The goal here is to decouple US from China. In the meantime,
| tariffs are raised on every country to gauge which side they
| are on. Once US knows who the allies are, they will negotiate
| to have those allies put up massive tariffs on China as well
| to prevent transshipping.
|
| US wants nothing to do with China. As the biggest consumer
| economy in the world, the have that right.
|
| And China has shown that agreement with them has no value.
| Remember that China promised trump in term 1 to massively
| import US goods and reduce fentanyl, in part to slow trumps
| tariff down. They did neither of those things. Trump hasn't
| forgotten that.
| throw16180339 wrote:
| Trump imposed tariffs on every country so that he can
| collect bribes for removing them. He raised the tariff on
| China because they offered an insufficient bribe.
| permo-w wrote:
| has no one considered that it could be simple market
| manipulation? have Trump's friends and allies been buying
| stocks in the last week or so?
| throw16180339 wrote:
| That also seems pretty plausible.
| boyanlevchev wrote:
| Did you see this? Unusually good timing...
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-08/gutsy-
| tra...
| permo-w wrote:
| to be fair, I also made quite a lot of profit in stocks
| in the last few days without any inside knowledge of the
| whitehouse. it was a fairly safe bet that these tariffs
| were not going to last forever, and even if they were,
| there'd be reprieves
| margana wrote:
| Why not both?
| MVissers wrote:
| Decoupling from China will lead to China annex Taiwan
| sooner. China will have the USA and the world by the balls
| then, so not sure we want that to happen quicker.
|
| And I don't think anyone is calling themselves allies of
| the USA right now. The whole world is looking to decouple
| from the USA. Europe is completely over the USA, they can't
| rely on them for leadership, protection or for trade.
|
| From a tech perspective, expect Europe to decouple from the
| USA from an economic and cultural perspective in the next
| decade. Smartest thing Europe can do is to create
| alternatives to US services, build its own defense industry
| and stop looking at the USA for any leadership.
| permo-w wrote:
| is TSMC not currently building a plant in the US? and
| ASML are Dutch, so they're not at risk. I'm not saying
| that China taking Taiwan wouldn't be a massive strategic
| boon, but I don't think it would be "having the world by
| the balls" by any means
| robocat wrote:
| A knowledge economy depends on information. TSMC will
| keep key knowledge within Taiwan as part of their Silicon
| Shield[1].
|
| Look closely at a business you know well and notice how
| much the profits depend upon information in people's
| heads.
|
| Everything runs on a combination of money (capitalist
| profits) and non-money gains (other gains that people
| really care about).
|
| [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tsmc+silicon+shield
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I suggest reading this before getting too excited about
| shiny new manufacturing plants that will require years to
| stand up.
|
| https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/03/23/
| wha...
| nsteel wrote:
| I think the last 6 years have shown how shakey
| electronics supply chains are. One factory in the US
| isn't going to come close to avoiding chaos.
| rat87 wrote:
| If the goal was to decouple from China then tarrifs would
| only be on China and we would encourage trade to move from
| China to other countries. The administrations actions have
| the opposite effect. It says the US is untrustworthy even
| to it's allies and maybe siding with China is not so bad.
| Note I don't like or trust the Chinese government and don't
| think other governments should try to get closer to them
| but Trump's actions make such moves much more likely
| timeon wrote:
| Isn't this bit naive? Because in order to decouple, one
| would expect that there would be policies to actually
| prepare for production inside US and then apply tariffs.
| Not other way around.
| spacemadness wrote:
| People are so desperate for this to be rational. Which itself
| is entirely irrational given the information at hand.
| sneak wrote:
| It could be a very straightforward dump and pump scam, as
| well. We know this admin isn't above petty monetary graft.
|
| It seems to be the simplest possible explanation, too. Then
| again, never attribute to malice...
| braebo wrote:
| It's scary to think that the reality is as simple as
| "Trump is just an idiot that is incapable of
| understanding even the fundamentals of global trade and
| has been obsessed with what he thinks tariffs are for 30+
| years and is too stubborn to listen to non-stupid
| people", while the rest is just hopeless attempts to
| rationalize his stupidity. But when you're in a
| billionaire bubble isolated from reality, and a dumb
| grifter who rips off every party in every deal you've
| ever done, it makes sense to assume that global trade is
| just countries ripping each-other off.
|
| The people around him with zipped mouths who know better
| could very well be treating it as a pump and dump
| however.
| beezlewax wrote:
| It is very obviously this. These same people made meme
| coins. Shameful behaviour.
| MajimasEyepatch wrote:
| That's not the simplest possible explanation. The
| simplest explanation is that he did this because he
| believes in it. Trump has been saying the exact same
| thing about tariffs since the 1980s--there's video of him
| talking to Larry King about it in 1987, using exactly the
| same phrasing and logic that he uses today.
|
| Donald Trump fundamentally believes that everything in
| life is a zero-sum game, and moreover that everyone is as
| crooked as him: either you're screwing someone else or
| you're getting screwed. That's why he's so obsessed with
| trade deficits specifically, because to him, that
| negative sign screams "you're getting ripped off."
|
| There are other benefits. By imposing the tariffs like
| this and wielding them through executive power, he can
| extort countries and corporations to give him what he
| wants in exchanging for releasing the hostages, so to
| speak. And I'm sure people in his orbit _also_ used this
| as a get-rich-quick scheme, because these people are all
| grifters. But that is all secondary to the fact that he
| has believed this for forty years and finally got a
| chance to do it.
| breadwinner wrote:
| > _finally got a chance to do it_
|
| He could have done it in his first term.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| He tried to, but his advisors stopped him. Bob Woodward
| reported that Gary Cohn snatched papers off his desk on
| multiple different occasions to stop him from starting
| trade wars at the beginning of his first term.
| Arubis wrote:
| In this case, I think it's fair to say that it's both
| incompetence and malice. It doesn't have to be just one.
| It can be two things.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| "very stable genius," indeed
| ajross wrote:
| There is _absolutely_ a Cultural Revolution feel to the
| communication by and around the president. See e.g. Bill
| Ackman 's fully-prostrated worshipful response on Twitter
| this morning. The guy is a successful billionaire! And he
| needs to sound like a literal cult member in public lest he
| lose influence.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Yes, project 2025[1] is our own cultural revolution/great
| leap forward.
|
| The authors said: "We are in the process of the second
| American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the
| left allows it to be."[2]
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 [2] https://w
| ww.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/03/heritage-...
| milesvp wrote:
| > Instead of being seen as a safe haven, U.S. debt itself
| started to look shaky
|
| There's also a more basic answer to why US debt got more
| expensive. There is no such thing as a "trade deficit". You
| cannot import something without exporting something else. That
| something else, in almost 100% of the situations, is dollars.
| What do you do with dollars, if there's nothing you want to
| buy? You buy debt. So, every trade deficit ultimately tends to
| export debt. We have long known that government debt is
| proportional to trade deficits.
|
| The problem with tariffs, in this context, is that they are
| being used as a signal that we don't want to sell people
| dollars anymore, explicitly saying "no more trade deficits". In
| doing so we are choking off the supply of dollars used to buy
| debt (rather abruptly), so that US debt is chasing fewer
| dollars and has to give a bigger yield as a result.
|
| What's worse, is that because we are signalling that the
| tariffs are meant to be permanent, and we're seeing reciprocal
| tariffs as a result. When that happens, it means that using
| dollars in the future will purchase fewer US goods, so the time
| discount of money has gone up too. Further driving up yields to
| make bonds attractive enough to sell.
| lawlessone wrote:
| isn't this also kinda opposed to having the dollar as the
| dominant world currency?
|
| Lots of countries settle trades between each other using
| dollars.
|
| Making it harder to get those dollars will leave them seeking
| to use something else to trade.
| magicreadu wrote:
| Having dollar being the worlds currency is not necessarily
| a good thing. Yes, you can borrow at low interests rate for
| a while. But guess what? Those are still debts. And
| eventually rates rise due to inflation. Now you have
| hollowed out your industrial base and you are stuck with
| tons of debts.
|
| Even if dollar gets weaker, better to have less debts and
| more industrialization
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Inflation reduces the effective cost of debt.
|
| Inflation and the "hollowing of your industrial base" are
| not inevitably connected, and in the case of the USA,
| have almost no connection to each other at all.
| rat87 wrote:
| Not being the world's reserve currency can be argued over
| but having these massive economy crushing tarrifs is just
| stupid
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| Leaving the euro! Authoritarian currency is as good as
| their word.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > You cannot import something without exporting something
| else.
|
| This is incorrect when your national currency happens to be
| the global reserve currency. All it requires is for the other
| country to be willing to accept dollars in payment.
|
| [ EDIT: even that's wrong. All it requires is someone being
| willing to accept dollars, either in payment or as part of a
| currency exchange. ]
| Retric wrote:
| Exporting dollars is exporting something. Combine a
| constantly depreciating dollar with constant rates of trade
| and you could end up in a steady state.
|
| However, we define trade deficits to exclude financial
| transactions for various reasons.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| If by "exporting something else" you include dollars then
| fine, but I don't believe that was what the GP was
| saying.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it's exactly what they were saying.
|
| _You cannot import something without exporting something
| else. That something else, in almost 100% of the
| situations, is dollars._
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > _That something else, in almost 100% of the situations,
| is dollars._
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| The real issue is people are still treating this reactionary
| buffoonery as if it's a trade policy that warrants critique.
| It isn't. Trump is a fucking idiot and he has surrounded
| himself with other fucking idiots and they and the
| reactionary base of fucking idiots they've created are
| cheering him on for doing fucking idiot things.
|
| A journalist successfully reverse-engineered the likely
| formula used to arrive at the figures for each nation, and
| it's not only implemented stupidly, it's also wrong from
| first principles. It's the same thing an actual school child
| might come up with if you asked them to. This is the same
| kind of "economic policy" cooked up by dumbasses on reddit
| who sincerely believe they are qualified to "fix US trade."
|
| If our congress wasn't also packed full of ineffectual
| liberals and other fucking idiots, he'd be impeached by now
| for sheer incompetence.
|
| It's the same issue we had in the last Trump admin. This
| nonsense is elevated to undue credibility by serious people
| discussing it seriously. It shouldn't be debated, it should
| be mocked, relentlessly, mercilessly, cruelly. As should
| Trump himself, as should his supporters, as should his
| sycophantic followers. Mock, belittle, make fun of, bully,
| parody, just continuously until every single one of these
| people refuses to approach a microphone.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > We have long known that government debt is proportional to
| trade deficits.
|
| And so far we've been cool with that because it:
|
| - continues to make the USD the dominant global reserve
| currency, strengthening our economic and political clout
|
| - allows us to borrow cheaply to finance our military and
| whatever else we're spending $ on
| creer wrote:
| US debt was mostly being bought because "safe". The US being
| seen as politically and economically stable and the center of
| the world. Right now that argument is much harder to make.
|
| And meanwhile there is always a lot of US debt that needs to
| be rolled over (i.e. re-issued to a willing buyer.)
|
| Except for the data point of today's 10-Year Treasury Auction
| which had a normal, usual result.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| You are assigning too much rationality to this group of people.
| The cruelty is the point, not some hare-brained scheme to push
| down yield or whatever.
| mfitton wrote:
| I think this would be expected though, no? Sure, there's flight
| to safety, but you're also reducing exports to the US, reducing
| the number of dollars flowing to foreign nationals, which
| reduces the demand for treasury bills, which an excess of
| dollars would often be used to buy to have an inflation-"proof"
| store for your dollars without currency risk. You would also
| expect devaluation of the dollar from tariffs / trade-war,
| which I would also expect to cause selling of t-bills in favor
| of local currencies
| maxerickson wrote:
| The yield really isn't that big a deal. It's hundreds of
| billions of dollars over decades if it moves by 1 percent.
| Compare that to tax cuts leading to trillion dollar annual
| deficits.
|
| I mean, it could well be that they are risking the stability of
| the US economy to save money on refinancing the debt, but that
| would be a stupid thing to be doing.
| louthy wrote:
| > Maybe it was the deficit outlook, maybe the global response
| to tariffs
|
| Or, maybe, and hear me out on this, maybe it was Donald Trump
| literally saying he might default on US debt.
|
| Maybe.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I think you're projecting more advanced thinking here than you
| can give them credit for. The administration doesn't have
| military guys keeping discipline.
|
| You have Trump who has an instinctive affinity for tariffs, and
| a wack pack of various characters doing whatever. I'd guess
| they thought the Chinese would roll over rather that start
| dumping bonds.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Uncertainty is a massive problem and may itself bring on a
| recession more than any tariffs. It's a huge factor in the oil
| market crash that's currently going on. I've seen one oil
| expert say that Obama was the best president for the oil
| industry because he did... nothing. There were no kneejerk
| policy changes on a weekly basis. And anything requiring large
| capital investments thrives on certainty.
|
| As for Treasury yields spiking, that was no accident. As part
| of China's (justified) retaliation to the tariffs, they started
| selling off 10 year Treasuries intentaionlly to spike the rates
| because that's one thing the Trump administration seemed to
| care about.
|
| I still don't know what the endgame is/was here. Some seem to
| think devaluing the dollar was the goal to boost exports but
| also to effectively devalue US soverieng debt. There's
| precedent for this eg FDR's sovereign devaluation of the dollar
| and Reagan's Plaza Accord.
| solfox wrote:
| No. This isn't an economic policy.
|
| It's time to stop bending over backwards pretending that
| Trump's tariff threats are part of a coherent economic
| strategy. They're not.
|
| When you drop the economic lens and view tariffs as a political
| tool for consolidating power, everything suddenly makes sense.
|
| Here's how it works: - Tariffs hurt corporations. They jack up
| costs, raise costs. Executives know this. The markets know
| this. - But there's a loophole: carve-outs. Trump has the power
| to exempt individual companies or industries from these
| tariffs. That means if you're a CEO and your business is on the
| line, your only option is to go to Trump and ask for mercy. -
| That's not policy. It's leverage. It creates a system where
| corporate leaders must show loyalty to get relief. Not because
| it's good for the economy, but because it's good for Trump.
| Maybe it's public support for his initiatives, attacks on his
| enemies. Whatever it is, it gives him political power.
|
| This mirrors the playbook used by authoritarian leaders
| throughout history. Look at Putin. His use of tariffs wasn't
| about growing Russia's economy--it was about punishing enemies,
| rewarding loyalty, and projecting control. Tariffs became a way
| to rewire power dynamics.
| MVissers wrote:
| Also, this trade war pushes the USA close to a war with China
| over Taiwan and maybe Panama Canal, which is exactly what you
| want as an authoritarian to stay on longer. Find an enemy and
| use emergency powers to maintain control.
| derangedHorse wrote:
| I don't think this checks out. They didn't walk any tariffs
| back until _after_ the auction saw strong demand. It went
| opposite the way one would think setting the fall in bond
| prices the previous night.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Being boring is profitable.
|
| You want to do tariffs for national security reasons? Okay. I
| get it. Now get congress to pass a bill levying the tariff,
| have that bill be smart, encourage not just on-shoring, but
| also near-shoring (Mexico, Canada) of key manufacturing and
| minerals, apply the tariffs more strongly against the key
| geopolitical rivals (China), implemented in a graded,
| predictable manner. Do not piss of every ally in the world, in
| general pursuing this hierarchy U.S. > Mexico, Canada >
| European, African, and Pacific Allies > China, Russia. Finally,
| for key , and highly specific strategic industries, provide
| subsidies.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| I'd believe you if he hadn't already flipflopped on tariffs
| recently. I think it's much simpler than that: he's pulling
| whatever levers he has to squeeze everyone and then letting up
| the pressure on people who do what he wants. He already did
| this with Canada and Mexico, using tariffs to get them to make
| a show of border secy=urity.
| mcshicks wrote:
| I find the most consistent explanation for Donald Trump is he
| does whatever is going to keep himself the top news story in
| the media. I don't think there's any deeply held belief other
| than if he doesn't think people are talking about him that's
| bad
| rurp wrote:
| I am extremely skeptical that a president and a party that
| massively increase the national debt every time they hold
| unified control, and whose single legislative goal this year is
| to do exactly that once again, is engaging in a sophisticated
| conspiracy to lower interest payments. If Trump and the GOP
| actually cared about the debt payments they wouldn't be arguing
| about how many _trillions_ of dollars to add to it this year.
|
| The much more likely scenario is that this is exactly what it
| looks like: an incompetent and corrupt president flailing
| around. Tariffs are an excellent tool for soliciting bribes
| since there are any number of ways various groups can be
| exempted, and this type of abuse has often happened
| historically. The ham-fisted way they have been implemented has
| done a great job of getting Trump attention. I've never seen
| anything to make me think that Trump cares more about the long
| term health of the country over getting bribes and attention
| for himself.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > Because when your national budget depends on cheap debt, you
| can't afford a crisis of confidence in your bonds.
|
| True. The odd thing is that the previous tariffs announcements
| on supposed allies, plus all the other sabre-rattling that
| Trump has been doing, NATO-bashing, flipping on Ukraine, etc.,
| had already triggered a crisis of confidence. So what did they
| expect? That unexpectedly unleashing of wildly unreasonable and
| poorly-calculated tariffs would inspire _more_ confidence? If
| getting investors to flock to T-bills was the goal, it was
| always bound to fail. (It only worked in the short term because
| T-bills are the default in a time of market uncertainty; but
| when it became clear that the uncertainty was caused not by the
| market, but by the government's behavior, well then T-bills
| don't look so good anymore).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Correct. It seems to me the increased bond yields payments will
| significantly exceed revenue raised from tariffs. This is imho
| a bad long-term signal. I very much doubt the markets will just
| return to normal after the extreme volatility of the last few
| days - the huge tariffs on China will cause a lot of economic
| pain within weeks, and the administration's bellicosity toward
| Canada and NATO do not project stability and rational decision-
| making.
|
| Besides the financial uncertainty, I doubt businesses want to
| make huge capital investments within the US to re/build
| factories in such a febrile environment. Will they be
| 'encouraged' to make 'donations' or purchase Trump golf club
| memberships? Will their foreign management staff be abruptly
| deported if someone in the administration sours on their
| country of origin? Will they wake up one day to find they've
| been denounced by conservative influencers?
| kenjackson wrote:
| "From the beginning, I've believed the executive branch's real
| goal was to push down the yield on the 10-year Treasury. Why?"
|
| None of leaked conversations or prior discussions indicate
| anything like this. Peter Navarro has no even slightly nuanced
| agenda. He's been on record for years about this. I think their
| position was much more that they'd drive foreign tariffs down
| and would be able to make other demands against other
| countries, and they underestimated the tolerance even their
| base would have.
| straydusk wrote:
| The idea that Trump had a goal as sophisticated as that is just
| hilarious.
| addicted wrote:
| Yeah but the damage is done.
|
| A safe haven isn't much of a safe haven if that's where the
| fire has started.
| confidantlake wrote:
| Why is this weird conspiratorial 5d chess theory voted to the
| top?
| udev4096 wrote:
| Oh boy, HFTs made a fuck ton of money in the last few days.
| Probably as much as they make in a year even
| snarf21 wrote:
| Maybe, just maybe, this is all about a secret wealth transfer.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Yeah, Trump basically told before he announced the pause. I
| made a lot of money in the past week doing very little but
| pay close attention to this flaky dude.
| mfitton wrote:
| Do you think normal people (think, your average investing
| American) are trading based on this news? They probably
| shouldn't be... I would think that by far most of the trading
| these past few days has been institutions, so, a big transfer
| from some financial institutions to others?
| delusional wrote:
| Aren't your 401k's tied up in stocks and bonds? Index funds
| too will probably have been fleeced too on the volatility.
| kcb wrote:
| But surely you didn't sell off your 401k.
| ein0p wrote:
| Art of the deal. 10% seems "reasonable" to everyone now. That was
| not the case a week ago. Meanwhile a bunch of overleveraged stock
| market buffoons were taken to the cleaners.
| dcow wrote:
| I don't get the outrage. Trump did this with Mexico. He imposed
| tariffs and then immediately eased them when Mexico started
| negotiating. It _worked_. Wouldn't a rational market understand
| his behavior by now (not agree with it, but understand it).
| Especially since his stated goal has been "impose tariffs to spur
| renegotiation of trade terms". Why would a rational market actor
| be acting like Trump isn't doing what he's said he's doing?
| zombiwoof wrote:
| So much stability
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Pretty clear Trump shorted the market, now going pump and dump
| mmphosis wrote:
| _Brawndo 's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes_
|
| -- Idiocracy [movie]
| macspoofing wrote:
| Chaos agent. It's great to go through this every month.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Month?
|
| Day at best, hour at worst.
| robofanatic wrote:
| I almost bought some bluechip stocks yesterday but changed my
| mind thinking it may dip further. But my luck is such that it
| would have actually dipped if I had bought. With my luck these
| days no matter what I choose, I lose. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| rectang wrote:
| If it was that easy to "catch a falling knife", everyone would
| do it.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| > "This was his strategy all along," Bessent said at the White
| House, where officials, including him, had denied for days that
| the tariffs would be suspended.
|
| And why should we believe them? If it was the strategy, you could
| have made the tariff announcement into an acrostic or something.
| RevEng wrote:
| Not 24 hours ago he said the tariffs were non negotiable, now
| he says this was always the plan. There's no reason to believe
| a word he says.
| sixstringninja wrote:
| This is a money grab. Someone or a bunch made a lot of money
| layer8 wrote:
| The 10% apparently also apply to Canada and Mexico now, which
| they didn't before:
|
| > In a strange turn of events, the president seems to have added
| another 10 percent tariff to Canada and Mexico. Asked earlier if
| the 10 percent tariff extended to those countries, Scott Bessent,
| the Treasury secretary, said that it did. And a White House
| official clarified for me just now that that was the case.
| Previously, Canada and Mexico had been exempted from this round
| of "reciprocal" tariffs, though they still faced a 25 percent
| tariff that the president imposed last month on many of their
| goods.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/04/08/business/trump-tarif...
| matt-p wrote:
| Also china has 125% tarriff but the reason that they couldn't
| originally give 10% to Vietnam was trans-shipment of Chinese
| goods.
|
| If it wasn't happening before, it certainly will be now.
|
| What's actually wrong with them.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| I'm coming to the conclusion that the tariffs are a
| distraction. The 10% across the board appears more like a tax
| hike without calling it one while the focus on China is just
| the same old trade war from the first term with louder chest-
| beating.
| Spivak wrote:
| But a distraction from what? There doesn't seem to be any
| kind of obvious other thing they're trying to do with the
| cover. They're not exactly being secretive with ICE
| arrests, the mass layoffs from the federal government, or
| their weird campaign against DEI that the administration
| seems to have all but forgotten about.
| ozmodiar wrote:
| I think they're distracting from the fact that it's a
| huge tax on the general public. You might say it's
| obvious, but people just don't process it the same way
| even though that's what a tariff is.
| matt-p wrote:
| Ok, but why would you tarrif friendly nations who you
| have a surplus with?
|
| If you tarriff them 10% they'll tarriff you 10% which
| means your companies lose out more than theirs and you've
| also pissed off an ally?
|
| Why?
|
| I'm thinking about Australia, UK those kind of folks.
| tpurves wrote:
| They literally have no idea what they doing from one
| moment to the next. Obviously they are making up facts
| and strategies on the fly maybe minutes before press
| conferences. Just look all the math errors, irrational
| formulas and tariffing penguins. The malevolent
| incompetence is staggering.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I believe at this point it's a simple game of leverage.
| Look how much damage I can inflict. Now let's negotiate.
| maxerickson wrote:
| He only has political leverage over Congress. If they
| chose to act, they could stop him. Seems weird to kick
| off negotiations with them by inflicting damage on their
| constituents.
| bdangubic wrote:
| damage to himself you mean? he came with a knife to a
| gunfight...
| delusional wrote:
| And then decided to stab himself for some reason.
| dongobread wrote:
| The US has crashed its own stock market, tanked its own
| government's approval ratings, and had its own business
| leaders speak out against the government. This definitely
| does not increase leverage.
| gmueckl wrote:
| But these are all internal to the US. Trade partners
| still have to deal with the current administration and
| don't have any recourse.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| >The US has crashed _everyone 's_ stock markets
|
| look at global trends. no one thinks anyone can make
| money without the world's leading per capita consumer
| spender fully on-board. That _is_ leverage.
| robocat wrote:
| Was the plan to incentivise Korea, China and Japan to
| work together? You know you've screwed up when bitter
| rivals decide to cooperate together.
|
| Every government that has to do something undesirable to
| their citizens have been given something to blame: a
| beautiful excuse that will be milked relentlessly to the
| disadvantage of the US.
|
| Businesses get screwed by flaky management - and now we
| get to see the US get screwed by its unreliable self-
| centered Prez.
| matt-p wrote:
| make _as much_ money which by the way is totally obvious.
| FTSE was down 3.2% at it 's worst.
| rurp wrote:
| This is like shooting yourself in the foot to splatter
| blood on your opponent. It "works" in a sense, but is
| about the stupidest approach possible.
|
| There's a reason the dollar weakened in this crisis
| instead of strengthening like usual. Everyone can see
| that the US will be hurt far more by this idiocy than
| other countries will.
| gambiting wrote:
| How is this a negotiation tactic.
|
| "I bought $200 worth of stuff from your store and the
| store bought $0 worth of stuff from me. To punish them,
| I'm going to pay myself $100 every time I buy anything
| from the store in the future - that will show them!"
| magicreadu wrote:
| The reason they have reduced all tariffs back down to 10%
| even for the countries that were obviously transshipping
| (Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia) is that they need time
| to negotiate with those countries, to make sure these
| countries now put similarly high tariffs (100%+) on China, so
| that transshipping is reduced to nothing
| matt-p wrote:
| Wouldn't it be smarter to do that before increasing the
| tarriff to 125%? That doesn't make sense to me either..
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| If Trump did not counter China's retaliation, then that
| would've significantly weakened the US's position with
| every other country.
| bdangubic wrote:
| If China doesn't counter whatever the F we "counter" that
| would significantly weaken its position with every other
| country... and the wheel turns with this line of
| thinking...
|
| except of course Trump brought a knife to a gunfight :)
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| Only, China isn't actively negotiating tariffs with every
| other country right now, so whether they retaliate won't
| impact their situation the same as it does from the US's
| point of view.
| bdangubic wrote:
| I really hope you are joking thinking China isn't
| negotiating everything with everyone other than USA right
| now, starting with the very today publicly EU...
| junto wrote:
| The user you're replying to is a brand new account with
| MAGA written all over them.
| timeon wrote:
| There are many people supporting MAGA here (who have
| their own goals) but seeing true believer, with naive
| takes, is not that common.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's like saying China's strategy is to get Ecuador and
| El Salvador to inflict high tariffs on the USA.
| delecti wrote:
| > What's actually wrong with them.
|
| Market manipulation. 1. Sell. 2. Threaten tariffs. 3. Buy. 4.
| Walk back tariffs threats. 5. Repeat.
|
| With the secret step 0: Pay enough of an Indulgence to get in
| the loop of when those are going to happen, and to stay in
| their good graces so the DoJ doesn't hit you for insider
| trading.
| munificent wrote:
| Trump thinks of himself as a powerful, insightful deal-maker.
| He pathologically needs to feel like he is _doing something_
| and his comfort zone for what kinds of things to do is
| "stuff that feels like business deals".
|
| He knows very little about government and policy, but tariffs
| and dollars and percentages feels familiar to him. He's got a
| lever, and he can't resist yanking on it to show that he's in
| charge.
|
| Whether yanking on the lever actually benefits the country or
| him is entirely besides the point. He's a narcissist and
| narcissists can't let go.
| sva_ wrote:
| Like when an LLM does a tiny coding error that isn't too
| noticeable though.
| neogodless wrote:
| "Oh! Well this is not a mundane detail, Michael!"
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Idiots, all. This feels like the sort of mistake I'd make. As
| in, me, myself, without a team of people planning and reviewing
| who could comfortably doublecheck when they thought I was
| getting something a little wrong in my orders. Which suggests
| to me that this is being done by one or two guys who do not
| have such a team. Which is insane.
| Sgt_Apone wrote:
| Seems they reversed course on that. Or, they don't know what
| they're doing.
|
| > It's been a confusing day.
|
| > As Verity said, it turns out Canada and Mexico are not
| getting a new 10 per cent tariff after all.
|
| > The White House reversed its earlier announcement in a new
| statement just now. Here's the bottom line: No new developments
| for Canada and Mexico today.
|
| > That means there are still worldwide 25 per cent tariffs on
| steel and aluminum, on some auto parts in North America, and on
| some goods traded within North America outside the rules of the
| Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA).
|
| > The bottom line here: Trump is starting an economic war on
| China, and U.S. allies are all taking some friendly fire. But a
| large swath of Canadian trade is spared.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/trump-pauses-most-gl...
| ilamont wrote:
| > Or, they don't know what they're doing.
|
| Occam's Razor.
| parliament32 wrote:
| This seems to have been clarified to not be the case, as of 30m
| ago -- no change to Canada/Mexico:
|
| >There's no change to Canada and Mexico tariffs, indicating
| that their levies aren't going down to the 10% baseline. Recall
| that Trump initially threatened a 25% surtax on each of them.
| That morphed over time to affect non-USMCA compliant goods --
| and it's not crystal-clear exactly what proportion of Canadian
| and Mexican shipments that then affects. Canadian energy
| products also got a smaller rate.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2025-04-08/trump-ta...
| beloch wrote:
| The U.S. ambassador to Canada has since informed the government
| that this is not the case, and the tariff's currently in place
| will remain unchanged for now[1].
|
| However, with this administration, who really knows?
|
| Perhaps Trump is staying quiet to avoid aiding Carney in the
| election. Perhaps he'll announce harsher tariff's on Canada
| tomorrow. Canada _did_ retaliate and hasn 't been hit with
| retaliation for retaliating, which gives the lie to Trump's
| statements that countries should refrain from retaliating if
| they don't want to be treated even worse.
|
| There is not one whit of consistency or logic on display here.
|
| [1]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-
| will...
| foogazi wrote:
| If the country gets rich from tariffs why stop them?
| rvnx wrote:
| This is where I don't follow Trump's logic. Trump and Musk were
| claiming that the US will push super high tariffs, that it will
| make the US rich, and hinting that it will maybe even be
| possible to suppress the income tax.
| RevEng wrote:
| Because it's not the country getting rich - it's the government
| getting rich from its citizens. It's another form of taxation,
| but one with no plan and crazy fluctuations day to day that
| affect first and foremost businesses, who will put off
| investments are start layoffs in order to make themselves more
| resilient to the chaos, which affects the whole economy. And
| this long term downturn in the economy doesn't make the country
| rich, but rather poor.
|
| If what Trump was saying about making the country rich were
| true, then sure, why would people complain? But it's not true;
| just a lie told to placate his followers. It's another version
| of "diamond hands" or "ride the dip" that you hear from people
| pumping and dumping crypto stocks.
| karim79 wrote:
| Is anyone sure this is _not_ stock manipulation? Honest question.
| misantroop wrote:
| This is pure manipulation. It was engineered to just that from
| the start. Since it's America, no investigation will be done to
| look into who profited here - possibly billions off regular
| people who had margin calls. 3rd world country.
| stouset wrote:
| > billions off regular people who had margin calls
|
| Thanks, Robinhood!
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I like the ironic name. Robinhood is where the poor go to
| send their money to the rich.
| mort96 wrote:
| The president told his Truth Social followers that it's a great
| time to buy stock just a few hours before this announcement:
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1143082727259...
|
| It's probably many things, but one part of it is for sure stock
| manipulation.
| etcet wrote:
| This is wild.
|
| 8:37AM "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT"
|
| 12:18PM "I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a
| substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period,
| of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your
| attention to this matter!"
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| No. Honest answer.
| sigwinch wrote:
| "...I guess they say it was the biggest day in financial
| history,"
|
| A finance whiz could tell you that it wasn't the biggest day in
| _the market 's_ history, but maybe a cause for extra
| celebration among a more select few.
| y04nn wrote:
| Indeed, the 90 days delay leaked in the morning before being
| denied and at the end of the day there was the official
| announcement. So some people new before the official
| announcement and shared the information.
| PeakKS wrote:
| Up and down and up again. The entire US economy is being used as
| a pump & dump scam.
| jmward01 wrote:
| Why does the market like this? Tariffs are in place and
| unpredictability is now the norm. Tomorrow something new crazy
| will come out and then the next day and the next day. Even if US
| markets like this right now, the long term damage has been done.
| Betting on the medium-long term seems questionable at best.
| ohgr wrote:
| The market doesn't like this. All the professional investors
| got out ages ago (check out Berkshire's dumping) and are
| dumping to bagholders. Large fund holders are hanging on
| because they still make fees and it keeps their AUM up there
| and everyone else is dying at the same rate. Foreign investors
| are pulling bonds out because the currency is at risk. The
| market is being manipulated daily and there is no involvement
| from SEC. There is only risk left. Confidence is gone.
|
| It is the textbook definition of a fucking shit show.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Dead cat bounce.
| BuckRogers wrote:
| May God bless and protect him. I serve Christ first, but Trump is
| my President and he is doing what we voted for. People don't
| realize, things have already changed forever. We aren't going
| back. It's not possible. The belief that we are going to back to
| zero tariffs, even if a Democrat is elected again, is gone for
| good. The world knows it can't trust in that, and the only safe
| way to do business in the USA is to produce here. Your America,
| the one you hollowed out for 35 years, is gone forever.
|
| For all you richie rich leftists and MAGA "resistance", Trump
| sided with us, the working class. Wall Street's day is over, it's
| Main Street's turn. You can arrogantly mock me and laugh now at
| me but it's short lived. The man is going down in history as the
| greatest president in over 100 years. I'm stomping on the gates
| and on the grave of free but unfair trade. MAGA now, MAGA
| tomorrow, and MAGA forever.
| jjcm wrote:
| For those curious, it looks like this comment is not satirical,
| given BuckRogers' comment history.
|
| It's a good reminder that there are a strong cohort of Trump's
| followers who will always side with him (to a religious
| degree), and who have a deeply held us-vs-them mentality.
| BuckRogers wrote:
| Of course it's not satirical. Why do you guys think you're
| cute pretending that everyone thinks like you in some sad
| attempt to mock someone? Let alone in the arrogant assumption
| that you have it right, and we have it wrong. Introduce a
| shred of doubt and gain some humility. Care to address
| anything actually in my post?
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| You said Trump sided with the working man and against Wall
| Street. Which is really cute because actually thousands of
| auto workers have been put on leave [1] whereas the market
| volatility is expected to drive bumper profits for banks
| [2]. I am starting to doubt you are being serious but if
| you aren't then I'm humbled by the quality of the satire.
|
| [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/03/business/tariff-
| related-l...
|
| [2] https://www.thebanker.com/content/250b43e2-67e2-46ba-93
| ea-8a...
| BuckRogers wrote:
| Another wise guy. You do realize this change is the
| biggest change to the trade relationship in 100 years
| right? You do, you're just fooling around pretending 1
| week and all is smoothed out.
|
| Since you like being cute, you do realize that all those
| factories that were supplied in Canada and Mexico need
| to, and will be, brought home. Much to your chagrin. Your
| way, free and unfair trade is over. If you hate America
| there's no going back now bud. The warning shots have
| been fired.
| fedsocpuppet wrote:
| There are many other sites you can visit where they won't
| think you're certifiable. Infowars, breitbart, daily
| stormer, etc.
| BuckRogers wrote:
| You guys may bully others here with no pushback, but this
| is not a left-wing site. I know you want it to be.
| christkv wrote:
| It will be very interesting to see what deals are made in the
| next 90 days. There is a lot of speculation that the US will push
| to isolate China as part of any deals made.
|
| Who knows.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| Shaking the economy like a snowglobe is sure to make businesses
| conservative and fearful of spending. There is no path to this
| being a good thing for the United States.
| misantroop wrote:
| So much different analysis for something as simple as insider
| trading. Remember, Trump always said stock market performance was
| everything. Then this week suddenly, stock market doesn't matter.
| In retrospect, it's all so obvious. Neither me nor anyone else
| could expect them to be so bold about it.
| jeswin wrote:
| Contrarian opinion.
|
| Irrespective of what you think of Trump, decentralization of
| production capacity is a good thing -- maybe even essential. If
| this continued for, say, another twenty years, the West and the
| rest of the world would be completely stripped of all ability to
| defend themselves. Literally everything from picket fences to
| rolling stock to tableware is coming from one country.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| This is not a contrarian opinion. This is a problem that was
| recognized long ago and production capacity for strategically
| important industries has been in the buildup both in Europe and
| the US.
|
| Trump's actions will probably boost European, Canadian and
| Australian industries a bit more now. Investment in the US will
| be a hard sell for companies that care about the stability and
| level-headedness of governments where they operate.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Genius move. Set the trap (massive global tariffs that seem
| irrational) and wait for target (china) to retaliate. Once the
| bait is taken, alienate china and take the pressure off everyone
| else. New reality still departure from previous order but feels
| better and gives everyone 90 days to figure it out. Meanwhile
| china is trapped and isolated.
| wtcactus wrote:
| Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
|
| These universal tariffs were imbecile? Sure. Trump's ego made him
| shot himself in the foot and put USA's economy in danger? Sure.
|
| But let's not pretend it isn't high time for the West do do
| something drastic about China. We can't continue imposing more
| and more absurd regulations on environment, working conditions,
| moral issues about AI and whatever some apparatchik in Brussels
| and Washington decides it's fanciful that week, while we depend
| more and more on China - that doesn't care at all about any of
| this - to produce for us. We need to massively cut China imports
| and to do so we need no massively cut our regulations.
|
| Probably that was what Trump wanted to achieve - together will
| massaging is massive ego - but he did it all wrong.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There were a lot of smart things that could be done "about
| China" and then there are a lot of dumb things...we chose the
| dumb things.
|
| We could...oh...increase are R&D on automation, AI, green
| energy, electric vehicles dramatically, we could focus on
| better education and better infrastructure for our cities (like
| lightrail in Seattle to where I live that doesn't take $200
| billion and 2 decades to build). We could have just fought
| China with a better product. We could lean into our chip
| advantage that will only last at most a decade anyways. And
| many of those fit in with Conservative philosophy even (who
| doesn't want less regulation and cheaper/quicker construction,
| well, at least moderates like me would).
|
| But no, we doubled down on culture wars and going back in time
| to when America was more self sufficient but less rich.
| nottorp wrote:
| But can you trust him to keep them at 10% for more than 12 hours?
| shmerl wrote:
| What a clown. Luddite level of policy making, inspired by "Ron
| Vara" aka Peter Navarro, who in a Kafkian fashion quoted himself
| as a backing for his lunatic theories.
| yibg wrote:
| With the whiplash of tariffs, upping tariffs, pausing tariffs, I
| don't know how companies can do any planning.
|
| A lot of earnings are coming out next couple of weeks. Take Apple
| for example, how would they forecast Q2 numbers? They have 125%
| tariffs on all imports from China. Maybe it'll go up more as
| China increases their own. Or maybe it gets paused. I feel for
| the FP&A team there.
| meinersbur wrote:
| Does someone know how companies handle these short-term changes
| of tariffs? Like, when your shipment from oversees eventually
| arrives, a 50% tariff is due that makes your entire accounting
| unprofitable, e.g. a contract with another party to sell it to
| might already been signed. Do the companies usually ensure
| against these kind of things?
| thund wrote:
| Before announcing it he suggested to buy stocks, ie insider
| trading.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-09 23:01 UTC)