US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4918

On April 10 2025 04:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


The S&P 500 rose too, directly after Trump conceded in his little game of economic chicken with some of the countries he stupidly tariffed. It's a relief that he lifted some of the arbitrary taxes that he recently placed on American consumers, but there are still plenty more of other self-inflicted wounds that he needs to heal.

On April 10 2025 04:30 Zambrah wrote:
I feel more comfortable than ever in my belief that finance types are a joke and dont deserve to make nearly the money they make. The stock market is a meme coin, all this shit is gambling for rich spreadsheet nerds, money is fake, etc. etc.

On April 09 2025 17:15 RenSC2 wrote:

.

That flood of factories leaving China would also take years to get up and running. Do you really think factories are going to pick up and leave China for Thailand and Vietnam when the US will fold the second a non-imbecile takes office? So again, they'll do their best to weather the storm while the US suffers. Long term, they may diversify their manufacturing.

However, they also have an advantage over the USA. America is a huge market, but it's not China's only market. There is no global trade war. It's the USA versus everybody. Everybody else is still trading. In fact, they are making stronger trade deals with each other. China can dump their excess goods on Europe, Canada, Mexico, Australia, South America, Africa, and the rest of Asia for small losses or small profits. Not as lucrative as the US market, but they can stay afloat for quite awhile and they know they just have to wait it out until there are riots in the streets in the US.

Trump said he paused the imposition of higher tariffs on many countries because people “were getting a little bit yippy.”

“Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

“They were getting yippy, you know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid, unlike these champions, because we have a big job to do,” the president said while standing with auto racing champions.

“No other president would have done what I did. No other president,” he said. “And it had to be done.”

Trump later said, “You have to have flexibility” in policies.

On April 10 2025 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I hope Trump putting Bessent out there is his signal to the world that he is not the crazy man he has pretended to be the past few months. I do not believe Howard Lutnick believes any of the stuff he has been saying for the past few weeks.

It is time for Canada to put American products back on store shelves and get to the bargaining table.

On April 10 2025 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m way more on board with the idea of a great deal of pain and difficulty so long as it truly harms China. Especially since a targeted approach to China is way less damaging than just blasting the whole world.

China is an adversary and I want them to be crushed the same way I want Russia to be crushed. If we can harm China more than we harm ourselves, I’m on board. It’s a necessary evil and the problem doesn’t go away if we do nothing.

This could also end up throwing a wrench in China taking Taiwan. If this belligerent trade war with China prevents them from having the flexibility to take Taiwan, that in itself is a major benefit. Perhaps a lesser cost than the cost of defending Taiwan.

Ultimately I think it’s not just devils advocate to say the China issue can’t just keep getting kicked down the road. If there’s no way to address China without some level of price to pay, we ought to simply pay that price and accept it.

I am by no means an expert in economics but my understanding has been China can’t take Taiwan unless they’re in a fairly robust and stable financial position going into it. They will be burning a lot of political capital and likely enduring a lot of harm if they do it. It feels like a trade war is exactly the kinda thing that prevents Taiwan from being taken.

On April 10 2025 05:22 SC-Shield wrote:


So what's your vision of US? Should US become a shoes/clothes/etc factory of the world instead of high tech country? Or do you simply want to replace China with India/other country to produce?
Even in my country there aren't a lot of volunteers for this kind of low paying job, I can't imagine why US would want that.

On April 10 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:
The 90-day pause is probably a combination of treasuries spiking which was not part of the plan, countries (hopefully with companies on board) actually reasonably flocking to renegotiate in good faith which does take time and isn't instant, with varying degrees of facesaving, the fact that the blunt numbers did lack certain details/nuance (though weren't entirely bereft, like the de minimis targeting of China), and China's subsequent choices leading to mutual retaliation and focusing on isolating China.

Lamenting billionaires for not pressuring the president more into not destroying them is the funniest sentiment I've seen in a post-2008 world.

On April 10 2025 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m way more on board with the idea of a great deal of pain and difficulty so long as it truly harms China. Especially since a targeted approach to China is way less damaging than just blasting the whole world.

China is an adversary and I want them to be crushed the same way I want Russia to be crushed. If we can harm China more than we harm ourselves, I’m on board. It’s a necessary evil and the problem doesn’t go away if we do nothing.

This could also end up throwing a wrench in China taking Taiwan. If this belligerent trade war with China prevents them from having the flexibility to take Taiwan, that in itself is a major benefit. Perhaps a lesser cost than the cost of defending Taiwan.

Ultimately I think it’s not just devils advocate to say the China issue can’t just keep getting kicked down the road. If there’s no way to address China without some level of price to pay, we ought to simply pay that price and accept it.

I am by no means an expert in economics but my understanding has been China can’t take Taiwan unless they’re in a fairly robust and stable financial position going into it. They will be burning a lot of political capital and likely enduring a lot of harm if they do it. It feels like a trade war is exactly the kinda thing that prevents Taiwan from being taken.

On April 10 2025 05:36 Gorsameth wrote:
Yet another reminder that the last time Trump tried a tariff war with China he had to bailout farmers for 23 billion.

Trump lost round 1 vs China, he is going to lose round 2. China can keep this up a lot longer.

I said to them, was there any sign of love? Did the, Hamas, show any signs of like, help? Or liking you? Did they wink? Did they give you a piece of bread extra? Did they give you a meal on the side? … Like, you know, what happened in Germany?

On April 10 2025 05:52 oBlade wrote:

Trust me I know of Trump's leftist leanings and his lack of hesitance when it comes to spending or subsidizing. Sucks about farming - perhaps our neighbors could allow free trade and buy more dairy instead of quotas on both domestic and foreign dairy. Do China and the US compete in any industries besides farming by chance?

On April 10 2025 05:52 oBlade wrote:

Trust me I know of Trump's leftist leanings and his lack of hesitance when it comes to spending or subsidizing. Sucks about farming - perhaps our neighbors could allow free trade and buy more dairy instead of quotas on both domestic and foreign dairy. Do China and the US compete in any industries besides farming by chance?

President Donald Trump correctly noted Friday, as he has before, that Canada has tariffs above 200% on dairy products imported from the US. But Trump again failed to mention a critical fact.

Those high tariffs kick in only after the US has hit a certain Trump-negotiated quantity of tariff-free dairy sales to Canada each year – and as the US dairy industry acknowledges, the US is not hitting its allowed zero-tariff maximum in any category of dairy product.

In many categories, notably including milk, the US is not even at half of the zero-tariff maximum.

“In practice, these tariffs are not actually paid by anyone,” Al Mussell, an expert on Canadian agricultural trade, said in an email Friday.