dwy000

Why are we looking to random guests on Tucker Carlson (nuff said) to articulate possible strategy for a policy that is wreaking havoc on global markets? Shouldn't the administration (or god forbid the President) be able to articulate it in a way that doesn't have commentators guessing and members of his own party saying they don't like it?

When Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are willing to come out publicly against the tariffs there are serious cracks forming. If there are more stock declines next week (remember the adage that the market never bottoms on a Friday) or layoff announcements, the wave will grow and congress are likely to act. If there's no strategy or message for Fox to rally around it makes crazy, painful moves very difficult to support. And it appears Fox is hiding - there isn't a message about the stock declines on their web page and they removed the ticker. The only way Trump can hold this plan is if there's a strategy to get behind. And what I keep hearing from both sides is a lack of understanding of why he's doing this.

Think you're right. As Howard Menkin once said "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"

What? This is literally the administration that put Musk on stage with a chainsaw and wreaking havoc and disrupting entire agencies for almost no meaningful result.

I'd argue that even if that was the case (which i think is zero), the collateral damage and long term ramifications well outweigh any sort of benefit from those intended outcomes

This is a good example of the lack of strategy. They used fentanyl as an excuse (from Canada!!!), tore up a trade agreement (that Trump put in place!!!) and now have tariffs being paid by US companies (steel, nickel, cars, etc). For what? How is the US better off in its trade with Canada than before? And now Canada is seeking closer ties to Mexico, the EU and China. Where is the win for the US??????

Suggesting anyone in this administration does anything with nuance implies not being familiar with any of their actions. That's the kind of justification that's given after the fact when people are trying to rationalize why a bazooka was used instead of a .22 and led to massive collateral damage.

Like literally, 25% tariffs on cars were imposed already. Stellantis laid off 900. Whirlpool laid off 600. And $6trillion of additional tariffs go into place in 5 days. And China has put a 35% tariff on US imports. To say people are overreacting because nothing has burned down yet while gasoline has been poured on the house and someone is actively trying to light matches is an interesting take.

Rates and oil prices come down because the economic damage stimulated a reaction. For the short term. It's like burning down your house to cook a steak. Claiming we need to cut the deficit and then tanking the economy and raising prices thru tariffs to support tax cuts to the wealthy is the definition of insanity.

Negotiating leverage for what though? Nobody is making clear the end game. In fact the closest argument given so far is to bring manufacturing back to the US - which anyone with half a brain knows is never going to happen and most of those goods are not jobs we want. Stoking chaos as a strategy is only positive if there's actually an end game. Here we have chaos and uncertainty at home and we are pissing off all of our trading partners and allies.....for what exactly?

What exactly is there to negotiate with Vietnam? They buy $15b of stuff from the US. We buy $150b of goods from them, which now has a 50% tax for US companies. Shooting ourself in the arm instead of the head isn't exactly a win.

I think you're giving way too much credit to secondary and tertiary thinking. Trump is just reactionary revenge. Just look at how the numbers were calculated and you get some sense for the amount of thought that's gone into it. There's no strategy. There's no master plan. There's no 3D chess or even checkers. Hes just eating the pieces because he think it makes him look powerful.

1. Could be 4 years. Could be 4 months. Could change later tonight. Yes, it matters for valuations because you don't know how your customers are going to react. Market hates uncertainty more than firm negatives. 2. Yes. They literally have started (cars) and the rest come in on Apr 9th. Just because the calculations seem arbitrary doesn't mean they don't apply. 3. That's tough to say. Also doesn't factor in international reaction which is still unknown 4. Of course not. Buy American what? We don't make much anymore because it's too expensive. And.nobodys rebuilding manufacturing capacity based on tariffs that could be gone soon (see question 1)

This exactly underscores how there is no underlying strategy for tariffs and that US companies would be stupid to invest in bringing manufacturing onshore. If they are subject to whims and daily changes, there's zero ability to plan or invest.

But that implies that Malaysia and these other nations have the ability to purchase more stuff. And whatever they buy is meaningless in the scheme of things for the US. The US economy and consumers benefit way more from the inexpensive goods they produce than whatever meager sales they purchase from the US. As it stands, the US consumer is the only one hurt. These countries aren't impacted that much because even with tariffs they're probably the cheapest available.

This would make sense if there was a rational logic to the amounts and rates. But a lot of these countries have no tariffs on the US or they are restricted to a limited number of products. What exactly is Malaysia and Bangladesh supposed to "negotiate"? They don't buy American good because they don't have the capital and we don't make goods they want or need. So we are punishing American consumers for wanting to buy cheap clothing. What exactly do you "negotiate" on that?

So "reciprocal" tariffs on countries where the US has a trade surplus. Is there anyone competent anywhere near the levers here?

Telecom and health care doing well.

Nothing wrong with it and agree we should be focused on these types of high tech industries. But we should do it not thru protectionist measures that offset the need for efficiency and competiteness but by making our industry globally competitive. Which is what the CHIPS act was driving for example.

Because in a global economy nobody is going to invest billions in uncompetitive, high cost jobs that are only held in place by current policy. Even with permanent tariffs, nobody is building plants to make clothing or toys here. I'm actually more upset that I can't access those BYD cars that seem better than anything we have at 1/3 the price. We are effectively subsidizing and overpaying low tech labor jobs while depriving Americans of better products. We are becoming the copycat instead of the innovator. Mostly I'm shocked at who is arguing for this. It's shocking to hear the GOP as the new socialist, protectionist party over free markets. When did the roles change?

Instead of trying to onshore jobs that both suck and we will never be competitive at we ahould be investing in our strengths - innovation, research, new tech, software etc. Because those are the high paying, value add jobs that are tough to replace with cheaper labor. It's the whole reason China and every up and coming country is investing in those areas. While we are now cutting research and education.

What? So the response to the loss of jobs from globalization is to raise prices on the very people impacted most? The jobs are not coming back. And there's no plan for it, no messaging, no support, no management. People are going to be pissed off and not understand why or what the end game is.

How have we been ripped off? We have trade deficits because we want tons of cheap goods that can't be made here for anywhere near those prices. And the US doesn't export manufactured goods because it's uncompetitive at it. So where's the ripoff? This will in no way change the trade imbalance. The US will never be globally competitive on manufacturing, nor will most of Europe or most developed countries. Our value is innovation, research and technology (use of, not making). The idea that tariffs will onshore all kinds of manufacturing is just naive and false. And that's even if the tariffs were stable and long term. This is simply going to make those cheap goods less cheap and change almost nothing (except the price) It would help if there was some tangible strategy being deployed that tariffs were a part of but its not. Its just like a drunk lurching down the street making no sense.

No, you don't need to worry about the opposition party rating. You need to worry about the governing (and I use the term loosely here) rating. People don't vote for candidates, they vote against them. How is it 10-0? Where are the wins? And I'm not talking about changing the name of Gulf of Mexico.

Confused as to how tanking the economy (along with his approval rating) is "winning"? For anyone other than Trump. Where is the winning here?