Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Parafox

General News

By Parafox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

This BBC Verify on the calculation of Trump's tariff rates is worth reading: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o

It links to the explanation given by the Office of the US Trade Representative: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations

 

So, the tariff rates are not reciprocal at all - and are not even based on the tariff and non-tariff barriers deployed by other countries.

 

The US tariff calculation is essentially:

- Whack a minimum 10% on everyone, even if the US has no trade deficit with them

For countries where the US has a trade deficit:

- Take the trade deficit figure

- Divide it by the total goods imports figure to get a percentage

- Halve that percentage and impose that figure as the US tariff rate, falsely claiming it is reciprocal and generous lol

 

In most cases, the US trade deficit has little to do with tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade imposed by other countries.

The trade deficits have various causes (excess US consumption, climate, natural resources...), but particularly cheaper production costs.

It costs a lot less to produce clothing or tech hardware in Asia than in the US (cheaper labour, land and plant). Likewise, cars from Mexico. So, there's a trade deficit in goods (not services).

 

This isn't merely an aggressive form of protectionism (which can sometimes be justified). It's the 21st century economic equivalent of Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy.

On the face of it, it's an attempt to deploy "might is right" as a strategy, using US economic might to try to force other countries to serve US economic interests - including by reversing decades, if not a century, of increasingly global trade networks and by financially coercing corporations into returning major manufacturing sectors to the USA.

 

I say "on the face of it" as I'm not sure that's really the motive. Is it, as others have suggested, motivated by a desire to massively increase tariff revenues (in the knowledge that most manufacturers will not return to the USA - meaning that US importers and/or consumers pay much more to federal funds? If so, to what end, given that it will make US people and corporations poorer? A few tax cuts for Joe Public and bigger handouts for the elite/big corporations? Or is it simply a manifestation of the power of an ultra-nationalist autocrat with a narcissistic personality disorder?

 

By all accounts, the more limited tariffs Trump introduced in his first term did very little to return manufacturing to the USA, so why would such action succeed this time?

I suppose it might work for a few simpler operations/sectors: e.g. increased Californian wine production to replace tariff-hit European wine imports.

But large-scale manufacturing investment is usually complex, expensive and time-consuming:

- Acquiring suitable land, buildings and plant

- Ensuring you have a suitable workforce, often needing experience or training (not to mention the cheap workforce shrinking due to mass deportations)

- Establishing reliable supply chains, logistics, transport et.

- Having the certainty that all this work and expense is justified and economic circumstances won't quickly change (due to Trump reversing his tariffs via negotiations or under pressure from an economic crisis, not to mention the fact he might be replaced by someone with different ideas within 4 years)

If you were running, say, an automotive corporation making cars in Mexico and importing them, would you really want to gamble on all the hassle, time and expense of shifting production back to the USA, in those circumstances?

 

There's also the issue of whether the USA is guilty of hubris, over-estimating its position of economic power?

Of course, it ultimately has the military power to get us all blown up, but does it really have the economic power to force the rest of the world to serve its interests?

It's the largest single economic power as a nation, but it isn't even the largest single market (the EU is). Although we all stand to lose from this, if counter-measures by large parts of the rest of the world are mutually complementary (not even necessarily coordinated), this could rebound badly on the US, couldn't it? Not that I'm proposing a confrontational response - negotiating this down remains the better response, or we all stand to lose even more - God knows how much more.... :blink:

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Raj

Raj

Posted
Posted

2 trillion TRILLION off the global stock markets.

Trump is the Ruud VN of politics.

Thefox81

Thefox81

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Raj said:

2 trillion TRILLION off the global stock markets.

Trump is the Ruud VN of politics.

I thought Putin was going to end civilisation as we know it. No no no step forward Mr orange man baby.

Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

This BBC Verify on the calculation of Trump's tariff rates is worth reading: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o

It links to the explanation given by the Office of the US Trade Representative: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations

 

So, the tariff rates are not reciprocal at all - and are not even based on the tariff and non-tariff barriers deployed by other countries.

 

The US tariff calculation is essentially:

- Whack a minimum 10% on everyone, even if the US has no trade deficit with them

For countries where the US has a trade deficit:

- Take the trade deficit figure

- Divide it by the total goods imports figure to get a percentage

- Halve that percentage and impose that figure as the US tariff rate, falsely claiming it is reciprocal and generous lol

 

In most cases, the US trade deficit has little to do with tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade imposed by other countries.

The trade deficits have various causes (excess US consumption, climate, natural resources...), but particularly cheaper production costs.

It costs a lot less to produce clothing or tech hardware in Asia than in the US (cheaper labour, land and plant). Likewise, cars from Mexico. So, there's a trade deficit in goods (not services).

 

This isn't merely an aggressive form of protectionism (which can sometimes be justified). It's the 21st century economic equivalent of Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy.

On the face of it, it's an attempt to deploy "might is right" as a strategy, using US economic might to try to force other countries to serve US economic interests - including by reversing decades, if not a century, of increasingly global trade networks and by financially coercing corporations into returning major manufacturing sectors to the USA.

 

I say "on the face of it" as I'm not sure that's really the motive. Is it, as others have suggested, motivated by a desire to massively increase tariff revenues (in the knowledge that most manufacturers will not return to the USA - meaning that US importers and/or consumers pay much more to federal funds? If so, to what end, given that it will make US people and corporations poorer? A few tax cuts for Joe Public and bigger handouts for the elite/big corporations? Or is it simply a manifestation of the power of an ultra-nationalist autocrat with a narcissistic personality disorder?

 

By all accounts, the more limited tariffs Trump introduced in his first term did very little to return manufacturing to the USA, so why would such action succeed this time?

I suppose it might work for a few simpler operations/sectors: e.g. increased Californian wine production to replace tariff-hit European wine imports.

But large-scale manufacturing investment is usually complex, expensive and time-consuming:

- Acquiring suitable land, buildings and plant

- Ensuring you have a suitable workforce, often needing experience or training (not to mention the cheap workforce shrinking due to mass deportations)

- Establishing reliable supply chains, logistics, transport et.

- Having the certainty that all this work and expense is justified and economic circumstances won't quickly change (due to Trump reversing his tariffs via negotiations or under pressure from an economic crisis, not to mention the fact he might be replaced by someone with different ideas within 4 years)

If you were running, say, an automotive corporation making cars in Mexico and importing them, would you really want to gamble on all the hassle, time and expense of shifting production back to the USA, in those circumstances?

 

There's also the issue of whether the USA is guilty of hubris, over-estimating its position of economic power?

Of course, it ultimately has the military power to get us all blown up, but does it really have the economic power to force the rest of the world to serve its interests?

It's the largest single economic power as a nation, but it isn't even the largest single market (the EU is). Although we all stand to lose from this, if counter-measures by large parts of the rest of the world are mutually complementary (not even necessarily coordinated), this could rebound badly on the US, couldn't it? Not that I'm proposing a confrontational response - negotiating this down remains the better response, or we all stand to lose even more - God knows how much more.... :blink:

From what I’ve seen online, the reason these uninhabited islands are getting tariffed is because they just got a list of countries based on internet domain names, as if it’s spat out by an AI programme. I think, given the 14 year-old tech bro mentality they seem to have, there’s more than a small chance that they just asked ChatGPT to churn out a spreadsheet for their tariff table, and have decided to base the economic practice of the richest country in the world on a ChatGPT churned-our spreadsheet. 

Edited by Sampson
  • Haha 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yrpvggyyet

 

South Korea's constitutional court has unanimously voted to uphold the impeachment of president Yoon Suk Yeol.

 

Took a bit longer than expected/desired, but the right result in the end.

 

Note to other nations currently dealing with highly misogynist and seemingly autocratic leaders; this (for the most part) is how you deal with it.

 

 

286a01b2-0268-4588-9dfe-51b5e1021730.jpg

 

It may be yet, Song-nim. It may be yet.

  • Like 2
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Md9 said:

This guy is so good at predicting his future isn’t he 

IMG_2747.jpeg

He says his tariff are working very well.

 

Stock markets aside, how you can say such a thing less than 24 hrs after implementation is beyond rational explanation.

bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Sampson said:

From what I’ve seen online, the reason these uninhabited islands are getting tariffed is because they just got a list of countries based on internet domain names, as if it’s spat out by an AI programme. I think, given the 14 year-old tech bro mentality they seem to have, there’s more than a small chance that they just asked ChatGPT to churn out a spreadsheet for their tariff table, and have decided to base the economic practice of the richest country in the world on a ChatGPT churned-our spreadsheet. 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revealed-how-trump-tariffs-slugged-norfolk-island-and-uninhabited-heard-and-mcdonald-islands

  • Haha 1
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted (edited)

This. A million times this. Plenty want the same, they are just put into different divisive buckets by the media and politician ideology to divide and conquer us. My opinions have not changed but now I would be considered a left leaning lunatic.

 

 

 

Edited by Dahnsouff
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

This. A million times this. Plenty want the same, they are just put into different divisive buckets by the media and politician ideology to divide and conquer us. My opinions have not changed but now I would be considered a left leaning lunatic.

 

 

 

Good piece this. Trace a lot of the bad stuff to Thatcher. Going back to Macmillan when he was a young Guards officer in Ww1 (he was badly wounded) he had to read his soldiers letters home for sake of security. From those he learnt a lot about the worries and concerns of men from a different social class and this plus sharing the dangers stayed with him in politics 

  • Like 3
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

This. A million times this. Plenty want the same, they are just put into different divisive buckets by the media and politician ideology to divide and conquer us. My opinions have not changed but now I would be considered a left leaning lunatic.

 

 

 

I think what analyses like this miss is that the world has changed since the 50s and 60s and Britain is not able to maintain the kind of society it created after the war because of those changes and how badly we have responded to them. 

  • Like 1
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bovril said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revealed-how-trump-tariffs-slugged-norfolk-island-and-uninhabited-heard-and-mcdonald-islands

 

:crylaugh:

 

Incredible levels of personal and institutional incompetence......or maybe not?

 

One of the few gems of wisdom I've gleaned from life is that human civilisation functions and progresses (with major provisos) despite many people and many institutions being a lot more incompetent than most of us realise. 

 

I wonder if this supports the theory that the Trump regime is explained as much by cock-up theory as by conspiracy theory? Namely, that its actions are partly explained by incompetent sycophants and lackies on the make running scared of a popular, all-powerful and unpredictable leader, not just so much by a thought-through strategy of Far Right nationalist-populism?

 

If so, things might get politically interesting very quickly if - as seems likely - the US economy and US living standards take a big hit from the tariff wars and Trump rapidly loses popularity.

If US voters start turning against Trump, maybe the lickspittle Republicans in Congress will see it as in their self-interest to stop kow-towing to his every whim?

Of course, it could have less benign consequences - classic Far Right stuff like blaming foreign govts, migrants and "the enemy within" for US voters' loss of economic security and living standards.

  • Like 1
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

Reality kicks in next week on April 9th in the usa

clearing agents will be asking questions re the tariffs now because this has to be done before goods arrive in port - from what i hear, there are inconsistencies with the replies from govt. I wonder if there may be a delay in bringing them in whilst the administration get their ducks in a row!  In the interim there are opportunities for ‘deals’ to be done and some of the tariffs to be removed. ( not real deals but stuff that can be sold to his electorate as deals) 

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

This. A million times this. Plenty want the same, they are just put into different divisive buckets by the media and politician ideology to divide and conquer us. My opinions have not changed but now I would be considered a left leaning lunatic.

 

 

 

 

My late ex-father-in-law was a prime example of this phenomenon. He was a working-class grammar school boy who became a successful, moderately wealthy businessman.

Throughout the 50s, 60s & 70s, he was a Tory party member. But he was what, in the late 70s or 80s, would've been described as a "Tory wet". He ended up defecting to the SDP in the 80s and then to New Labour under Blair in the 90s, without ever changing his views.

 

Some fair comment in that video, but he's overcooking it when he describes Labour as "Hard Right", I feel. They might have done some things that I disagree with, but their acceptance of free markets is still tempered by some strong social democratic instincts (spending boost for NHS, school breakfast clubs, housing plans, big boost to minimum wage & employment rights etc.). The fact that they're not doing more might be partly over-caution, but is also partly acceptance of the reality of existing within a globalised economic/financial system with low growth (unlike in the 60s), the reality of already high taxation and high public debt, which can't be easily added to - thus the emphasis on growth (good luck with that one!) - as well as a political strategy to front-load unpopular policies in the hope that growth will allow more generous, social democratic policies later in their term of office. Can't say I'm optimistic about their chances of achieving that, mind...

 

36 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Good piece this. Trace a lot of the bad stuff to Thatcher. Going back to Macmillan when he was a young Guards officer in Ww1 (he was badly wounded) he had to read his soldiers letters home for sake of security. From those he learnt a lot about the worries and concerns of men from a different social class and this plus sharing the dangers stayed with him in politics 

 

Likewise, Attlee, who came from a middle-class professional family, was on active service at Gallipoli - and both Heath (Tory PM) and Healey (Lab Chancellor) served in WW2, Normandy landings and Italian campaign, including Anzio landings, respectively.

 

On a personal level, as a wild youth in the 80s, I did a lot of hitch-hiking. The most surprising - but frequent - category of people to give me lifts were quite proper, china-and-doilies middle-class folk in their 50s & 60s who had done military service in the 1950s. During their military service, they'd hitch-hiked to and fro around the country themselves, as well as meeting a wider cross-section of folk than they would otherwise have done.

 

I'm not suggesting that another war would be beneficial for social cohesion, but it's an argument in favour of some form of national service, perhaps?

  • Like 3
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think what analyses like this miss is that the world has changed since the 50s and 60s and Britain is not able to maintain the kind of society it created after the war because of those changes and how badly we have responded to them. 

Probably depends what you take from it, as personally I take the recognition that public sector spending in the face of a stale private sector, is absolutely essential.
 

To fund public spending on armed forces, public services, housing, perhaps even relevant clawback (not some fetid mini-doge move), etc is very beneficial both to the nation and to tax revenue in the longer term.
 

If the private sector can’t or won’t invest, then they must be overlooked in favour of public funded investment in my mind.

Edited by Dahnsouff
  • Like 1
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Probably depends what you take from it, as personally I take the recognition that public sector spending in the face of a stale private sector, is absolutely essential.
 

To fund public spending on armed forces, public services, housing, perhaps even relevant clawback (not some fetid mini-doge move), etc is very beneficial both to the nation and to tax revenue in the longer term.
 

If the private sector can’t or won’t invest, then they must be overlooked in favour of public funded investment in my mind.

You could raise money by imposing tariffs? :ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Sampson said:

From what I’ve seen online, the reason these uninhabited islands are getting tariffed is because they just got a list of countries based on internet domain names, as if it’s spat out by an AI programme. I think, given the 14 year-old tech bro mentality they seem to have, there’s more than a small chance that they just asked ChatGPT to churn out a spreadsheet for their tariff table, and have decided to base the economic practice of the richest country in the world on a ChatGPT churned-our spreadsheet. 

No, it's proactive.

 

If you were thinking of moving to an uninhabited island to escape US tariffs, you can't. One step ahead, ole Don.

  • Haha 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...