|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 29 2025 06:03 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently. Why is it a better deal for the US, in your eyes?
Tariffs are not a good thing to have on imports, your taxing your own people to make the goods they buy more expensive.
Now you can certainly have situations where as a country your ok with that to protect/promote your own local businesses from cheap foreign competition but then its still a bad thing, just a bad thing your willing to accept as a consequence. And Trump isn't even encouraging domestic production with this.
Is it a worse thing for Europe? it doesn't cost them money directly. I might make them less competitive with other countries towards selling in the US except everyone is under tariffs so no one takes the advantage there.
So why do you think the US got the better end of the deal here?
|
On July 29 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:03 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently. Why is it a better deal for the US, in your eyes? Tariffs are not a good thing to have on imports, your taxing your own people to make the goods they buy more expensive. Now you can certainly have situations where as a country your ok with that to protect/promote your own local businesses from cheap foreign competition but then its still a bad thing, just a bad thing your willing to accept as a consequence. And Trump isn't even encouraging domestic production with this. Is it a worse thing for Europe? it doesn't cost them money directly. I might make them less competitive with other countries towards selling in the US except everyone is under tariffs so no one takes the advantage there. So why do you think the US got the better end of the deal here?
What is the tariff rate on US goods going into the EU after this deal?
If that isn't equal the US companies got a competitive advantage against EU companies.
Long term deals like this will continue the push against the large US giants outside of manufacturing since they are easier to push back on. Softening up the Swift system. Replacing Visa/Mastercard. Making it harder for google/meta etc to make a profit on EU citizens by giving the people popular protections (most recently trying to limit social media impact on elections which removes a large amount of ad money). Trying to find ways to edge out the dollar as the global trade currency so the US can't print as much money.
|
On July 29 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:03 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently. Why is it a better deal for the US, in your eyes? Tariffs are not a good thing to have on imports, your taxing your own people to make the goods they buy more expensive. Now you can certainly have situations where as a country your ok with that to protect/promote your own local businesses from cheap foreign competition but then its still a bad thing, just a bad thing your willing to accept as a consequence. And Trump isn't even encouraging domestic production with this. Is it a worse thing for Europe? it doesn't cost them money directly. I might make them less competitive with other countries towards selling in the US except everyone is under tariffs so no one takes the advantage there. So why do you think the US got the better end of the deal here?
I don't think the US citizens got a better deal, since the US government isn't very keen on spending this tariff revenue for their betterment, but Trump looks (and to me it's hard to deny it) as a great deal maker, he gets 15 % of everything imported to the US from EU, more investment and more energy sales. EU, as clearly shown in the quotes above doesn't get anything other then him backing down from another arbitrary number.
I think the EU citizens did, in a few different ways.
Short term, sure, EU feels less impact since they aren't imposing the tariffs. The impact will, however, be felt in the companies that are now having less business, when things get more expensive, if there is a similar good that is produced in US or in a less tariffed country, EU company loses that business, perhaps lets some people go if they can't find that revenue somewhere else.
US is a uniquely rich country and a lot of goods EU produces are premium and luxury goods, some people will cut back on French or Italian wine or cheese, those producers get sell less to the US.
I don't really get, honestly how is this even a real question, if it is followed through as it currently stands, US gets 15 % tariff, 600 B in investments and more energy sales, maybe (likely) the EU institutions shoot it down, but if EU worked like US currently does and Kings word is law, we would get a terrible deal.
|
United States42668 Posts
On July 29 2025 02:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 02:30 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2025 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2025 02:15 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. That doesn't really follow. You've turned the American side of the transaction into two components and you're calling them separate but they're not. Let's set the cost at $100 for simplicity's sake. $15 is owed to Trump by the American company that bought it. That's why people always say "Americans are paying the tariffs". The suggestion is that the Americans paying the tariff could ask for a $5 rebate from the foreign exporter. Maybe they could. I don't see why they'd get one but whatever. But for the purposes of our argument, whether or not Americans are paying the tariff, there isn't a third party. The importing company is paying the tariff, consumers aren't involved. There's a separate question of how the American importing company's margins might be impacted by the tariff and how they will attempt to protect their margins but that doesn't make the final consumers a party to the transaction. If we call the consumers a third party in that transaction then there is no business transaction to which they're not a third party. And in any case they're both in the same category, Americans. They are claiming the company will pass $5 on to the consumer by increasing prices by $5, the company choses to earn $5 less per sale and they demand the supplier sells it to them at $95 instead of $100. It sounds like a nice even split on paper, but is actually completely pulled out of someone ass with no evidence. It's not that it's pulled out of thin air, it's the switcheroo between the two actual parties to the transaction during which the tariff is incurred, buyer and seller, to exporter, importer, and consumer. For the purposes of the tariff transaction the American importer is the consumer. It doesn't matter what they do with it, they could resell it, burn it, eat it, whatever, doesn't matter. If you want to be pedantic shouldn’t the greater objection be to the phrasing that the tariff is a tax on the American consumer? I think everyone can understand that the tariff is paid by the importer and it’s a transaction between two parties. The question is how the extra costs will be divided up between all parties in the supply chain.
I don’t think it’s pedantry, especially in the broader context of whether dollars are being extracted from America or elsewhere. Arguing that the American company may be able to recoup some of the additional Trump taxes by extracting additional money from American consumers is pedantry. That’s quibbling over which pocket you took the cash from.
He identified three parties and said they could pay half each. One of his three parties is, if we’re being pedantic, not even remotely involved and, if we’re being generous, the same as another one. The remaining party is under no obligation to pay anything and their costs are unchanged.
|
On July 29 2025 08:06 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2025 06:03 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently. Why is it a better deal for the US, in your eyes? Tariffs are not a good thing to have on imports, your taxing your own people to make the goods they buy more expensive. Now you can certainly have situations where as a country your ok with that to protect/promote your own local businesses from cheap foreign competition but then its still a bad thing, just a bad thing your willing to accept as a consequence. And Trump isn't even encouraging domestic production with this. Is it a worse thing for Europe? it doesn't cost them money directly. I might make them less competitive with other countries towards selling in the US except everyone is under tariffs so no one takes the advantage there. So why do you think the US got the better end of the deal here? I don't think the US citizens got a better deal, since the US government isn't very keen on spending this tariff revenue for their betterment, but Trump looks (and to me it's hard to deny it) as a great deal maker, he gets 15 % of everything imported to the US from EU, more investment and more energy sales. EU, as clearly shown in the quotes above doesn't get anything other then him backing down from another arbitrary number. I think the EU citizens did, in a few different ways. Short term, sure, EU feels less impact since they aren't imposing the tariffs. The impact will, however, be felt in the companies that are now having less business, when things get more expensive, if there is a similar good that is produced in US or in a less tariffed country, EU company loses that business, perhaps lets some people go if they can't find that revenue somewhere else. US is a uniquely rich country and a lot of goods EU produces are premium and luxury goods, some people will cut back on French or Italian wine or cheese, those producers get sell less to the US. I don't really get, honestly how is this even a real question, if it is followed through as it currently stands, US gets 15 % tariff, 600 B in investments and more energy sales, maybe (likely) the EU institutions shoot it down, but if EU worked like US currently does and Kings word is law, we would get a terrible deal.
It's a terrible deal. It's technically still better for the European people than playing hardball and reciprocating the tariffs. All reciprocating would do is cut off your nose to spite your face. But maybe we need to spite our face just to show various rational and less rational hooligansthat we're definitely just as crazy as they are and they need to back the fuck down. It'd hurt in the short term, but maybe be better in the long term. No clue really.
|
On July 29 2025 08:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 08:06 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2025 06:03 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently. Why is it a better deal for the US, in your eyes? Tariffs are not a good thing to have on imports, your taxing your own people to make the goods they buy more expensive. Now you can certainly have situations where as a country your ok with that to protect/promote your own local businesses from cheap foreign competition but then its still a bad thing, just a bad thing your willing to accept as a consequence. And Trump isn't even encouraging domestic production with this. Is it a worse thing for Europe? it doesn't cost them money directly. I might make them less competitive with other countries towards selling in the US except everyone is under tariffs so no one takes the advantage there. So why do you think the US got the better end of the deal here? I don't think the US citizens got a better deal, since the US government isn't very keen on spending this tariff revenue for their betterment, but Trump looks (and to me it's hard to deny it) as a great deal maker, he gets 15 % of everything imported to the US from EU, more investment and more energy sales. EU, as clearly shown in the quotes above doesn't get anything other then him backing down from another arbitrary number. I think the EU citizens did, in a few different ways. Short term, sure, EU feels less impact since they aren't imposing the tariffs. The impact will, however, be felt in the companies that are now having less business, when things get more expensive, if there is a similar good that is produced in US or in a less tariffed country, EU company loses that business, perhaps lets some people go if they can't find that revenue somewhere else. US is a uniquely rich country and a lot of goods EU produces are premium and luxury goods, some people will cut back on French or Italian wine or cheese, those producers get sell less to the US. I don't really get, honestly how is this even a real question, if it is followed through as it currently stands, US gets 15 % tariff, 600 B in investments and more energy sales, maybe (likely) the EU institutions shoot it down, but if EU worked like US currently does and Kings word is law, we would get a terrible deal. It's a terrible deal. It's technically still better for the European people than playing hardball and reciprocating the tariffs. All reciprocating would do is cut off your nose to spite your face. But maybe we need to spite our face just to show various rational and less rational hooligansthat we're definitely just as crazy as they are and they need to back the fuck down. It'd hurt in the short term, but maybe be better in the long term. No clue really.
Depends on how you reason the US will behave next presidency. If this is the new normal then this is a horrible deal. If they move back to normal it is just about minimizing the pain for a few years, especially if you can make that messaging stick so nobody invests in the US over it.
|
United States42668 Posts
On July 29 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:03 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 02:04 Fleetfeet wrote:
It seems clear to me.
UK sells thing to burger king
Burger King pays import tax
Burger King makes the consumer pay 5% of that import tax
Burger King pays 5% themselves because they're royalty
The remaining 5% must have incorporated into the UK's original cost of good in order for them to be competitive.
It isn't a singular final sale, there aren't only two participants. There are at least three - UK, Burger King, final consumer. Thank you, I didn't think it was that hard to get because it's obviously a vast oversimplification but I don't think it's unfounded to say that in some of the cases with some of these goods this will happen, and the underlying conclusion that this is a much better deal for the US then EU seems pretty simple to me, but who knows, I do have issues understanding stuff apparently. Why is it a better deal for the US, in your eyes? Tariffs are not a good thing to have on imports, your taxing your own people to make the goods they buy more expensive. Now you can certainly have situations where as a country your ok with that to protect/promote your own local businesses from cheap foreign competition but then its still a bad thing, just a bad thing your willing to accept as a consequence. And Trump isn't even encouraging domestic production with this. Is it a worse thing for Europe? it doesn't cost them money directly. I might make them less competitive with other countries towards selling in the US except everyone is under tariffs so no one takes the advantage there. So why do you think the US got the better end of the deal here?
I think a point being missed by Jankisa is that the US wants EU imports as much as the EU wants to export to the US. Trump has never understood that trade is mutually beneficial (that's why it happens) because he subscribes to the discredited economic theory of mercantilism in which whoever ends the game with the most silver wins.
Take a simple example of two countries, A and B. Each needs 50 units of food and manufactured goods. A has a 2x multiplier on food production and B has a 2x multiplier on manufactured goods production. The optimal system would be for A to use 50 labor units, produce 100 food units, and trade 50 food units for 50 manufactured goods. B would also only need 50 labor units to produce 100 units of manufactured goods. Minimum work, maximum output.
But under mercantilism that's incorrect. The correct approach for A is to work for 100 hours, make all their own food (25 hours), make all their own manufactured goods inefficiently (50 hours), and then make food for B and sell it for silver (25 hours). The problem they face is that their workers might not want to work twice as hard as they have to and the workers at B might be dumping manufactured goods and so you need to force B to keep their market open for your food exports while simultaneously banning B from selling manufactured goods within A.
That was the dominant economic theory in the era of great empires. It's why Britain fought a war to open China to British exports, it's why Britain and France converted their empires into exclusive economic zones, it's why subjects of the empires existed to buy goods from Britain and France.
The problem is that it's dumb as hell. If you execute it perfectly as A then you're working 100 labor units and B is working 0 and somehow A is winning because it's getting silver from B or something. And if B has no silver then fuck those guys, we still won't let them do what they're good at and we won't give them any food because they have no silver and we won't give them any silver for the things that they're good at because that's our silver so if they want food then they have to grow it themselves even though B is a desert.
That's why Trump says things like that the balance of trade deficit (net change in silver) is a check that Obama had been writing to China each year and that he wasn't going to mail the check. It's why he thinks that cheap Canadian tar sands oil going to American refineries on the gulf to be resold at huge profits by American companies is somehow bad because he doesn't understand why America can't have all of the silver from selling the refined oil. He thinks it's bad that some of the silver has to go to Canada for the crude oil. A sane person recognizes that everyone wins and that the entire chain of transactions doesn't happen without the tar sands oil but for Trump it's exploitation because precious American silver is going to Canada and all the US is getting in return is the crude oil at the base of a pyramid that makes America a lot of money. You cannot understand Trump's pronouncements on trade without understanding the fucking insanity that is mercantilism. It's dumb as hell but so is everything that he says and you can only understand why he says the batshit stuff he says if you understand it.
So, with that said, Americans want to buy things from the EU. There are things America is better at and things the EU is better at and the optimal scenario is that they trade. If barred from trading then Americans will no longer be able to get the cheap stuff that the EU is better at and will therefore have to quit high multiplier jobs to work lower multiplier jobs replacing those EU goods. You don't want every single job in your country, you want the most valuable jobs, and you want to trade your surplus in those most valuable jobs for the stuff from the low value jobs.
If Trump tariffs the EU then that'll artificially distort the market. Americans who should be working high value jobs and importing lower value products will quit those higher value jobs and take up lower value jobs for a net decrease in the total economic output of America. If the US tariffs the EU and the EU doesn't retaliate at all then that isn't a US win, it's a mutual loss. The US will stop producing surpluses of things that it has a higher multiplier for because it will instead produce more of the things that it used to buy from the EU. Simultaneously the EU will have lower demand for their higher multiplier things, have less money for imports, and have to produce more of the lower multiplier things themselves. The appropriate punishment for a tariff is that they've done a tariff, they were benefiting from free trade and they fucked it all up. Meanwhile EU exports will be more competitive globally in sectors that were previously US dominated because the US is pivoting away from what they’re good at and focusing more on things they’re not good at.
Trump sees all trade as zero sum when in reality if either party didn’t benefit from it then it wouldn’t happen in the first place. He has no clue how to make America win in any given deal because the status quo is generally optimal because that’s how free trade works. But he does know how to make things worse for the other party and he generally assumes that if the other party leaves unhappy and poorer then logically America must be happy and richer because everything is zero sum. If previously the other party made money then that money used to somehow be his money and they stole it from him. If they’re no longer making money then the money they would have made must all be his now. It’s the Canadian oil thing again, he genuinely believes that the gulf coast refineries selling petroleum products would be way more profitable if they didn’t have access to Canadian crude oil. He cannot understand the relationship between the purchases of crude oil and the sales of refined petroleum products. He thinks if they no longer bought crude then they’d keep all the money from the refined sales.
Also Trump didn't write The Art of the Deal and he did zero research on what was normally paid to ghostwriters for their services before making a deal with the guy who wrote it. He gave the guy named author credit on the book itself and a cut of the royalties, neither of which is part of standard compensation. Trump is factually terribly at deals. The ghostwriter earned millions for a job that would have been around $10k fixed fee at the normal rate. So the guy who wrote it is great at deals I guess, but Trump is awful at them.
Trump subsequently attempted to renege on his deal, sued, and lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
