Conflicting Goals on Tariff application

[anatta]

I'll post the comments, but I have heard:
1. Countries are wanting to negotiate their tariffs. ( not China) and some have offered zero tariffs
1a. But countries have been ripping the USA off or decades and they have to pay up for past bleeding
2. Even if the want tariff relief now -the goal is long terms re-shoring of manufacturing jobs, so tariff stay on even if countries want to negotiate fair markets
3. some combination of the 2 ( inherent conflicts)

When your policies have unclear outcomes, ( like mission creep in foreign policy) it not only adds uncertainty to the markets,
It also shows you have no clear metric/goals and policies that may be effective are bypassed for some future "better" (vague) ones

No reason to try the entire world trade around with simply tariffs. Make them reciprocal, and is possible lower for our exports as well as our imports
Then get that tax bill done and lock in lower capital gains and we will grow our GDP and manufacturing

Somebody needs to tell Trump to quit the confused goals, and use tariffs to better "fair trade" not try to use them to turn the entire economy around into re-shoring

Uncertainty Over Tariffs Leads to Wild Swings in Markets

The S&P 500 slipped into bear market territory in early trading but by the end of the day climbed back close to where it opened. President Trump said he would not back off his trade war, reinforcing fears of a global economic downturn.

www.nytimes.com

The threat came as governments around the world raced to schedule phone calls, send delegations to Washington and submit proposals to lower their import taxes to escape the tariffs. Mr. Trump and his advisers have offered conflicting signals on whether the United States is willing to negotiate.

Bessent, who, along with Jamieson Greer, the United States trade representative, was put in charge of negotiations with Japan, signaled in an interview this afternoon that Trump is ready to negotiate. “President Trump, as you know, is better than anyone at giving himself maximum leverage,” he said. Bessent said he had suggested that foreign officials “keep your cool, do not escalate and come to us with your offers.” He added: “And at a point, President Trump will be ready to negotiate.” These comments contradict an interview this morning by Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser, who said there would be no negotiations.

 

[anatta]

Does Trump want to negotiate more then he wants to use tariffs?? another conflict. They gotta clarify this

 

[SCrider]

Now you can see why the rest of us don't trust him at all.

 

[phoenix2020]

I'll post the comments, but I have heard:
1. Countries are wanting to negotiate their tariffs. ( not China) and some have offered zero tariffs
1a. But countries have been ripping the USA off or decades and they have to pay up for past bleeding
2. Even if the want tariff relief now -the goal is long terms re-shoring of manufacturing jobs, so tariff stay on even if countries want to negotiate fair markets
3. some combination of the 2 ( inherent conflicts)

When your policies have unclear outcomes, ( like mission creep in foreign policy) it not only adds uncertainty to the markets,
It also shows you have no clear metric/goals and policies that may be effective are bypassed for some future "better" (vague) ones

No reason to try the entire world trade around with simply tariffs. Make them reciprocal, and is possible lower for our exports as well as our imports
Then get that tax bill done and lock in lower capital gains and we will grow our GDP and manufacturing

Somebody needs to tell Trump to quit the confused goals, and use tariffs to better "fair trade" not try to use them to turn the entire economy around into re-shoring

Uncertainty Over Tariffs Leads to Wild Swings in Markets

The S&P 500 slipped into bear market territory in early trading but by the end of the day climbed back close to where it opened. President Trump said he would not back off his trade war, reinforcing fears of a global economic downturn.

www.nytimes.com

The threat came as governments around the world raced to schedule phone calls, send delegations to Washington and submit proposals to lower their import taxes to escape the tariffs. Mr. Trump and his advisers have offered conflicting signals on whether the United States is willing to negotiate.

Bessent, who, along with Jamieson Greer, the United States trade representative, was put in charge of negotiations with Japan, signaled in an interview this afternoon that Trump is ready to negotiate. “President Trump, as you know, is better than anyone at giving himself maximum leverage,” he said. Bessent said he had suggested that foreign officials “keep your cool, do not escalate and come to us with your offers.” He added: “And at a point, President Trump will be ready to negotiate.” These comments contradict an interview this morning by Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser, who said there would be no negotiations.

Donald isn't interested in your opinions. He got what he wanted out of you, and now you are of no further use to him. Donald will continue to declare, delay, enact and remove tariffs without rhyme or reason, seemingly at random, just as he did during his 2017-2020 term. And, his staff will run around like chickens with their heads cut off, sending conflicting messages and mixed signals in reaction to his sudden and unannounced Truth Social tariff decrees.

You wanted this. You fought hard for it. Now, you get to enjoy it.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I'll post the comments, but I have heard:
1. Countries are wanting to negotiate their tariffs. ( not China) and some have offered zero tariffs
1a. But countries have been ripping the USA off or decades and they have to pay up for past bleeding
2. Even if the want tariff relief now -the goal is long terms re-shoring of manufacturing jobs, so tariff stay on even if countries want to negotiate fair markets
3. some combination of the 2 ( inherent conflicts)

When your policies have unclear outcomes, ( like mission creep in foreign policy) it not only adds uncertainty to the markets,
It also shows you have no clear metric/goals and policies that may be effective are bypassed for some future "better" (vague) ones

No reason to try the entire world trade around with simply tariffs. Make them reciprocal, and is possible lower for our exports as well as our imports
Then get that tax bill done and lock in lower capital gains and we will grow our GDP and manufacturing

Somebody needs to tell Trump to quit the confused goals, and use tariffs to better "fair trade" not try to use them to turn the entire economy around into re-shoring

Uncertainty Over Tariffs Leads to Wild Swings in Markets

The S&P 500 slipped into bear market territory in early trading but by the end of the day climbed back close to where it opened. President Trump said he would not back off his trade war, reinforcing fears of a global economic downturn.

www.nytimes.com

The threat came as governments around the world raced to schedule phone calls, send delegations to Washington and submit proposals to lower their import taxes to escape the tariffs. Mr. Trump and his advisers have offered conflicting signals on whether the United States is willing to negotiate.

Bessent, who, along with Jamieson Greer, the United States trade representative, was put in charge of negotiations with Japan, signaled in an interview this afternoon that Trump is ready to negotiate. “President Trump, as you know, is better than anyone at giving himself maximum leverage,” he said. Bessent said he had suggested that foreign officials “keep your cool, do not escalate and come to us with your offers.” He added: “And at a point, President Trump will be ready to negotiate.” These comments contradict an interview this morning by Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser, who said there would be no negotiations.

 

[Ishm]

Trump just wants to feel like he is king of the world and have people begging to him to shore up his out of control ego. He has no idea where all his tariffs are going to take us, and is rich enough, old enough, and narcissistic enough to not give a damn about anyone else. He will keep playing with these tariffs for as long as they continue to get his ego stroked. Once he start seeing the attention leaving him he will lose interest in tariffs and play even more golf, while the country tries to recover from the immense harm Trump has caused. This is what we elected, and we shouldn't really be surprised.

 

[dmpi]

The end goal is zero-tariffs between the USA and other countries AND roughly zero trade deficit. A byproduct of reaching these goals would be a resurgence of US manufacturing since we have to make stuff to trade back. Trump as to be a hard-ass about tariffs because other countries would not change unless prodded to do so. This gives you an idea how much they have benefited in the past few decades. It must be quite a task to negotiate trade agreements with so many countries simultaneously especially when there's a lit fuse on the stock market. But this is a example of how goverment should actually work. Fast...as in days, not weeks or months.

 

[phoenix2020]

Trump just wants to feel like he is king of the world and have people begging to him to shore up his out of control ego. He has no idea where all his tariffs are going to take us, and is rich enough, old enough, and narcissistic enough to not give a damn about anyone else. He will keep playing with these tariffs for as long as they continue to get his ego stroked. Once he start seeing the attention leaving him he will lose interest in tariffs and play even more golf, while the country tries to recover from the immense harm Trump has caused. This is what we elected, and we shouldn't really be surprised.

Think how much better off we'd all be if the previous administration had enacted the following plan, securing let's say $4B in government funds to:

1. Build an alternate "fake" White House and staff it with actors playing government officials and cabinet leaders.

2. Rebadge a Trump Force One jet to whisk him between the White House and various golf courses.

3. Hire a media company to construct "news" content praising Donald's work, singing his praises and expressing positive voter reaction to each of his executive orders. Needs to be staffed to create roughly ~6 hours of video media and perhaps 30-40 "headline and summary" print articles each day. Obviously, any news about what is actually going on or who is actually President would need to be filtered out, but Donald is fairly gullible so this should not be a tall ask to keep him in the dark.

Then, tell him that Joe Biden, SCOTUS and America decided to appoint him as President for Life because he is so Strong and Tremendous (he'll buy it), fly him to the fake White House after a fake inauguration ceremony (offer Americans $200 to attend so he can feel good about the largest ever crowd) and let him play President for the rest of his days.

Heck, rather than a cost we could even Truman Show it and perhaps make some money!

 

[anatta]

Now you can see why the rest of us don't trust him at all.

It's not a matter of trust, it's about POTUS trying to use tariffs for more then reciprocal equality of trade ( so called fair trade)
at the same time his advisors are putting out conflicting statements of use. It happens with all administrations.

Trump problem in particular is not messaging a clear goal. Thats important as the uncertainty is driving the markets as much as the actual tariffs.
Like I mentioned tariff should be used to level the playing field, not as an instrument of long terms re-shoring.
Trade agreements and tax policy are for those goals

 

[anatta]

The end goal is zero-tariffs between the USA and other countries AND roughly zero trade deficit. A byproduct of reaching these goals would be a resurgence of US manufacturing since we have to make stuff to trade back. Trump as to be a hard-ass about tariffs because other countries would not change unless prodded to do so. This gives you an idea how much they have benefited in the past few decades. It must be quite a task to negotiate trade agreements with so many countries simultaneously especially when there's a lit fuse on the stock market. But this is a example of how goverment should actually work. Fast...as in days, not weeks or months.

I disagree in that tariffs are not a substitute for trade agreements. Nor should they be used for trade deficits. Trade deficits aren't necessarily bad - it depends on the circumstances
Thats where long term trade agreements come into play. Hopefully he scores some negotiations to settle tariff disputes.
And moves on

But Congress must get it together and provide the tax extensions, part of which are capital gains. and tax policy that encourages investing

 

[phoenix2020]

It's not a matter of trust, it's about POTUS trying to use tariffs for more then reciprocal equality of trade ( so called fair trade)
at the same time his advisors are putting out conflicting statements of use. It happens with all administrations.

Trump problem in particular is not messaging a clear goal. Thats important as the uncertainty is driving the markets as much as the actual tariffs.
Like I mentioned tariff should be used to level the playing field, not as an instrument of long terms re-shoring.
Trade agreements and tax policy are for those goals

Donald Trump is literally placing tariffs on nations with whom we enjoy a trade surplus.

This is not about policy. This is not about messaging. This is about our President being an actual imbecile with the emotional maturity of a toddler.

 

[anatta]

Think how much better off we'd all be if the previous administration had enacted the following plan, securing let's say $4B in government funds to:

1. Build an alternate "fake" White House and staff it with actors playing government officials and cabinet leaders.

2. Rebadge a Trump Force One jet to whisk him between the White House and various golf courses.

3. Hire a media company to construct "news" content praising Donald's work, singing his praises and expressing positive voter reaction to each of his executive orders. Needs to be staffed to create roughly ~6 hours of video media and perhaps 30-40 "headline and summary" print articles each day. Obviously, any news about what is actually going on or who is actually President would need to be filtered out, but Donald is fairly gullible so this should not be a tall ask to keep him in the dark.

Then, tell him that Joe Biden, SCOTUS and America decided to appoint him as President for Life because he is so Strong and Tremendous (he'll buy it), fly him to the fake White House after a fake inauguration ceremony (offer Americans $200 to attend so he can feel good about the largest ever crowd) and let him play President for the rest of his days.

Heck, rather than a cost we could even Truman Show it and perhaps make some money!

1. Build an alternate "fake" White House and staff it with actors playing government officials and cabinet leaders.

Biden did that. a miniature oval office in a TV studio! lol ( complete with fake snow)

Why the White House Built a Fake Oval Office for Joe Biden

The set features fake windows that display a digital view of the White House Rose Garden.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Grand Mal]

I'll post the comments, but I have heard:
1. Countries are wanting to negotiate their tariffs. ( not China) and some have offered zero tariffs
1a. But countries have been ripping the USA off or decades and they have to pay up for past bleeding
2. Even if the want tariff relief now -the goal is long terms re-shoring of manufacturing jobs, so tariff stay on even if countries want to negotiate fair markets
3. some combination of the 2 ( inherent conflicts)

When your policies have unclear outcomes, ( like mission creep in foreign policy) it not only adds uncertainty to the markets,
It also shows you have no clear metric/goals and policies that may be effective are bypassed for some future "better" (vague) ones

No reason to try the entire world trade around with simply tariffs. Make them reciprocal, and is possible lower for our exports as well as our imports
Then get that tax bill done and lock in lower capital gains and we will grow our GDP and manufacturing

Somebody needs to tell Trump to quit the confused goals, and use tariffs to better "fair trade" not try to use them to turn the entire economy around into re-shoring

Uncertainty Over Tariffs Leads to Wild Swings in Markets

The S&P 500 slipped into bear market territory in early trading but by the end of the day climbed back close to where it opened. President Trump said he would not back off his trade war, reinforcing fears of a global economic downturn.

www.nytimes.com

The threat came as governments around the world raced to schedule phone calls, send delegations to Washington and submit proposals to lower their import taxes to escape the tariffs. Mr. Trump and his advisers have offered conflicting signals on whether the United States is willing to negotiate.

Bessent, who, along with Jamieson Greer, the United States trade representative, was put in charge of negotiations with Japan, signaled in an interview this afternoon that Trump is ready to negotiate. “President Trump, as you know, is better than anyone at giving himself maximum leverage,” he said. Bessent said he had suggested that foreign officials “keep your cool, do not escalate and come to us with your offers.” He added: “And at a point, President Trump will be ready to negotiate.” These comments contradict an interview this morning by Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser, who said there would be no negotiations.

But the tariffs are about fentanyl, right? No, wait, the tariffs are about illegal immigration, right? No, about human trafficking! Gawd, I'm so confused!

 

[aociswundumho]

Then get that tax bill done and lock in lower capital gains

This is the first I heard about this but it's a great idea. Capital gains taxes discourage investment, and investment is essential for economic growth. The last thing we should want to tax is investment.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It's not a matter of trust, it's about POTUS trying to use tariffs for more then reciprocal equality of trade ( so called fair trade)
at the same time his advisors are putting out conflicting statements of use. It happens with all administrations.

You are just confused, and not seeing the picture even though it has already been pointed out.

Trump has SEVERAL goals when it comes to trade issues.

1. In certain areas when it comes to actual trade and dealing with tariffs and VATs, he want's low to no tariffs and no VAT's at all.

2. In other areas, like Steel production, Mineral mining, oil production, and rare earths development he wants fair trade while also developing those resources at home.

3. In the area of production of trade and use goods he wants to bring production home too. He wants autos, computers, and chips made in the USA, the latter for security purposes.

Trump problem in particular is not messaging a clear goal. Thats important as the uncertainty is driving the markets as much as the actual tariffs.
Like I mentioned tariff should be used to level the playing field, not as an instrument of long terms re-shoring.
Trade agreements and tax policy are for those goals

I disagree. He has always been very clear on the above listed items. He wants America to be less and less dependent on foreign sources for critical production and electronic systems. He also wants good-paying jobs here at home for American citizens.

Those are his trade goals.

 

[aociswundumho]

But the tariffs are about fentanyl, right?

Trump actually used to be a vocal supporter for legalizing all drugs. I used to think it was evidence of perhaps a small libertarian streak in him but I was wrong.

 

[Gozaburo]

The end goal is zero-tariffs between the USA and other countries AND roughly zero trade deficit. A byproduct of reaching these goals would be a resurgence of US manufacturing since we have to make stuff to trade back

Yeah, OR foreign goods would still outcompete domestic goods, it's just that consumers will have to pay higher prices.

The problem with Trump's tariffs (outside of their brute application) is that he's not supporting the tariffs with a robust industrial policy. The US doesn't have the industrial capacity or workforce to re-shore industry at the moment and there's no reason we should suppose the now capital starved private sector would make up the difference. If we assume that re-shoring industry is a good thing (and I'd agree there is some truth in this), then we also need an intelligently managed, robust industrial policy with heavy investment from the public sector.

The problem is we're getting almost no investment from the public sector and even if we were, I see no reason to believe it would be intelligently managed.

 

[aociswundumho]

He wants autos, computers, and chips made in the USA, the latter for security purposes.

That sounds less secure to me, since the state could now collude with private firms to install backdoors for cops and the feds.

 

[aociswundumho]

If we assume that re-shoring industry is a good thing (and I'd agree there is some truth in this),

I wouldn't. Punishing taxpayers in order to prop up a failing industry is not a good thing on net.

then we also need an intelligently managed, robust industrial policy with heavy investment from the public sector.

You're just begging for graft and corruption. How the hell do you think they determine who to give the money to? Politicians are just as greedy and self-interested as the rest of us if not more so.

 

[Gozaburo]

You're just begging for graft and corruption. How the hell do you think they determine who to give the money to? Politicians are just as greedy and self-interested as the rest of us if not more so.

Certainly there would be waste and poor allocation of resources. Anyone who has actually worked a good deal in corporate America will tell you the same thing happens in the private sector.

And while I will even grant you (for the sake of argument) that the private sector is still more 'efficient', I'd maintain the public sector is far better at grand projects and long term planning, especially during times of conflict. One could imagine how the current situation could be articulated as-such.

I wouldn't. Punishing taxpayers in order to prop up a failing industry is not a good thing on net.

I'm not sure if it's strictly accurate to call offshored industry 'failing'. Keep in mind that for geostrategic purposes the question might not always be what is most efficient in terms of capital, the question might be what is most strategically advantageous decision. Serious arms production issues in the Russo-Ukraine conflict (on the side of NATO) revealed some frightening gaps in our ability to produce armaments. I could be convinced that it is within the national interest to subsidize this industry or - at the very least - hold an open discussion on how we plan to close this apparent gap in industrial capacity as we move into a multipolar world.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Does Trump want to negotiate more then he wants to use tariffs?? another conflict. They gotta clarify this

now that Trump's insanity is hitting MAGA's pocket book, now they care

His lawlessness, Capitol riots, felonies, being an all around asshole, fraud, sexual assault, none of it mattered... until $$$$$$$

Because cons have no true core principals.

$$$ & power

And this whole tariff madness (get ready for Iran bombings) is finally hitting those two things: $$$ & power

Don't worry though - if shit really hits the fan, you can join the special army unit to start rounding up more brown people & send them to foreign prisons without due process (Make sure you check below the floors and in the attics)

MAGA

 

[aociswundumho]

Certainly there would be waste and poor allocation of resources. Anyone who has actually worked a good deal in corporate America will tell you the same thing happens in the private sector.

Yes, but in the private sector those who make bad decisions have to pay when things go wrong. In the public sector, a politician can make a decision that kills 5 million people and he will suffer no consequences. That very thing has happened, many times.

Only politically connected firms will have access to those taxpayer dollars. Like Solyndra. There is no reason to believe politicians will invest the money wisely, since they are playing with money that doesn't belong to them, and will suffer no consequences even if they blow every penny of it.

I'm not sure if it's strictly accurate to call offshored industry 'failing'. Keep in mind that for geostrategic purposes the question might not always be what is most efficient in terms of capital, the question might be what is most strategically advantageous decision. Serious arms production issues in the Russo-Ukraine conflict (on the side of NATO) revealed some frightening gaps in our ability to produce armaments. I could be convinced that it is within the national interest to subsidize this industry or - at the very least - hold an open discussion on how we plan to close this apparent gap in industrial capacity as we move into a multipolar world.

Look what Hitler accomplished regarding rearmament in just six years, starting with an economy in shambles. The US would have no problem producing weapons if it needed them.

 

[Gozaburo]

Yes, but in the private sector those who make bad decisions have to pay when things go wrong. In the public sector

Were you born in 2009? You won't believe what happened the year prior.

Only politically connected firms will have access to those taxpayer dollars. Like Solyndra. There is no reason to believe politicians will invest the money wisely, since they are playing with money that doesn't belong to them, and will suffer no consequences even if they blow every penny of it.

I'll note that while you can easily point out outliers, public sector investment does work. China does a shitload of it and they're eating our breakfast. All things in moderation, as they say.

Look what Hitler accomplished regarding rearmament in just six years, starting with an economy in shambles. The US would have no problem producing weapons if it needed them.

Well sure but Hitler did that through massive amounts of subsidization via the central government. If anything this is a shout in favor of state investment lmao.

The broader point is that the financialization of the economy is a problem that needs addressing in a multipolar world. You either have solutions or you're part of the problem.

 

[dmpi]

Yeah, OR foreign goods would still outcompete domestic goods, it's just that consumers will have to pay higher prices.

The problem with Trump's tariffs (outside of their brute application) is that he's not supporting the tariffs with a robust industrial policy. The US doesn't have the industrial capacity or workforce to re-shore industry at the moment and there's no reason we should suppose the now capital starved private sector would make up the difference. If we assume that re-shoring industry is a good thing (and I'd agree there is some truth in this), then we also need an intelligently managed, robust industrial policy with heavy investment from the public sector.

The problem is we're getting almost no investment from the public sector and even if we were, I see no reason to believe it would be intelligently managed.

The private sector is driven off the profit motive. Trump is trying to lower taxes and remove unnecessary regulations. He's laying off unneeded goverment workers and closing goverment divisions to help staff new private sector factories. He's attracting billions in foreign investments and capital. That said, Trump's not a Biden clone who arbitrarily picks the hot topic of the week spraying money out like a fire hose. Use the Chip Act as an example. Industries winners and losers should not be picked by the goverment, rather the private sector should duke it out.

 

[anatta]

You are just confused, and not seeing the picture even though it has already been pointed out.

Trump has SEVERAL goals when it comes to trade issues.

1. In certain areas when it comes to actual trade and dealing with tariffs and VATs, he want's low to no tariffs and no VAT's at all.

But he has put no actual singular goal for tariffs. He says he wants those element (fair trade) but then he says he wants long term revenues by keeping tariffs in place. those goals conflict.

If the goal to reduce trade barriers and deficits as well as equivalent tariff rates.- then it's relying too much on tariffs instead of trade talks/agreements . Tariffs can even be onerous to get the other party to negotiate (Like the Phase 1 China deal by 45)
but other then using tariffs to reduce trade barriers, it requires bilateral/negotiated trade agreements. Think Robert Lighthizer and his ability to forge agreements

2. In other areas, like Steel production, Mineral mining, oil production, and rare earths development he wants fair trade while also developing those resources at home.

3. In the area of production of trade and use goods he wants to bring production home too. He wants autos, computers, and chips made in the USA, the latter for security purposes.

absolutely. They will come about with favorable trade conditions, and incentives to build here. Not just tariffs.
Over reliance on just tariffs is not using all your leverage//tools

I disagree. He has always been very clear on the above listed items. He wants America to be less and less dependent on foreign sources for critical production and electronic systems. He also wants good-paying jobs here at home for American citizens.

Those are his trade goals.

Supply chain security as well has to be long terms goals powered by more then just tariffs