|
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 States43510 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 States43510 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.
|
Honestly it's pretty sad you have to write all that in order to justify attacking a pretty simple and surface level (and stated as such) analysis of how this affects EU.
Europeans came into this negotiations and walked away with absolutely nothing, it's pretty simple.
You just wrote 2 pages of something that everyone (explaining how Trump didn't write his book in 2025, jesus) knows and about stuff that actual economists have been writing and talking about for a year, jeez.
Trump sees it as zero sum game, he wants to bring back mercantilism, he didn't write his book and he's not great at deals, next you'll reveal to us he bankrupted a few Casinos.
He still humiliated and got the better of EU, simple.
|
"America taxes itself in humiliating move to the EU"
sorry buddy, still not seeing it.
|
On July 29 2025 17:45 Jankisa wrote:
Honestly it's pretty sad you have to write all that in order to justify attacking a pretty simple and surface level (and stated as such) analysis of how this affects EU.
Europeans came into this negotiations and walked away with absolutely nothing, it's pretty simple.
You just wrote 2 pages of something that everyone (explaining how Trump didn't write his book in 2025, jesus) knows and about stuff that actual economists have been writing and talking about for a year, jeez.
Trump sees it as zero sum game, he wants to bring back mercantilism, he didn't write his book and he's not great at deals, next you'll reveal to us he bankrupted a few Casinos.
He still humiliated and got the better of EU, simple.
You're coming at this with the assumption that the importer and exporter are going to share the costs of the tariff to keep the same level of business. If you want to argue this point, it would be great to see some data backing it up. I would love to see your sources for this.
In my experience (see Brexit, for example), when the importer gets hit with higher costs, they just tack on that extra cost to the price of the item. It is also a great opportunity for importers to increase their profit margin because everyone else is also increasing their prices. The end result in my experience (see Brexit, for example) is just less trade and lower economic growth for both and the joys of inflation for everyone.
|
Even if you are not importing anything you will still raised your prices because your competition just got more expensive.
I think a real problem for EU and the rest of the world could be that AI takes out a lot of current jobs. If unemployment goes critical mercantilism makes a lot of sense since labour isn't limited. Might as well make it yourself even if it's less effective.
|
On July 29 2025 17:53 Gorsameth wrote:
"America taxes itself in humiliating move to the EU"
sorry buddy, still not seeing it.
EU CEOs want to slash their central-european workforce anyway, they gonna eat the tariffs by killing jobs seems to be on the menu for us.
German steel? Dead.
German cars? Made in Hungary.
German Defense Industry?: Hiring in Romania.
German plastics and chemicals?: Call the Chinese office for orders.
|
On July 29 2025 20:22 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 17:53 Gorsameth wrote:
"America taxes itself in humiliating move to the EU"
sorry buddy, still not seeing it. EU CEOs want to slash their central-european workforce anyway, they gonna eat the tariffs by killing jobs seems to be on the menu for us. German steel? Dead. German cars? Made in Hungary. German Defense Industry?: Hiring in Romania. German plastics and chemicals?: Call the Chinese office for orders. except, once gain, the EU doesn't eat the tariffs. the US does. A German company does not pay 15% extra to ship steel to the US. The US client pays 15% extra to the US government.
|
On July 29 2025 18:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 17:45 Jankisa wrote:
Honestly it's pretty sad you have to write all that in order to justify attacking a pretty simple and surface level (and stated as such) analysis of how this affects EU.
Europeans came into this negotiations and walked away with absolutely nothing, it's pretty simple.
You just wrote 2 pages of something that everyone (explaining how Trump didn't write his book in 2025, jesus) knows and about stuff that actual economists have been writing and talking about for a year, jeez.
Trump sees it as zero sum game, he wants to bring back mercantilism, he didn't write his book and he's not great at deals, next you'll reveal to us he bankrupted a few Casinos.
He still humiliated and got the better of EU, simple. You're coming at this with the assumption that the importer and exporter are going to share the costs of the tariff to keep the same level of business. If you want to argue this point, it would be great to see some data backing it up. I would love to see your sources for this. In my experience (see Brexit, for example), when the importer gets hit with higher costs, they just tack on that extra cost to the price of the item. It is also a great opportunity for importers to increase their profit margin because everyone else is also increasing their prices. The end result in my experience (see Brexit, for example) is just less trade and lower economic growth for both and the joys of inflation for everyone.
I like how I keep, in every post I make mentioning the other part of these "negotiations", bigger investment in the US and more purchases of energy but you guys keep on attacking the point that not all of the 15 % will be on the US customers / importers.
I stated a few times that EU got humiliated and got literally nothing out of this, after months of negotiations. In the one before this one I also wrote out how if the prices go up 15 % and there are equivalent products in the market people will start buying less, which is just common sense, but that also keeps being ignored.
My sources are common sense, that 15 % doesn't just fade into the void and has no effect on anything, saying it does seems like a fantasy.
There have been tariffs in place on a bunch of countries for months now, the baseline 10 % is there for everything, Canada and Mexico have more, where are all the price increases, who is eating them? Do you have sources on this?
I don't think the onus is on me to prove to you guys that putting unilateral tariffs on a trading partner is a bad thing for that partner because that is just what common sense implies.
Last year EU exported $605 B to the US, at 15 % that is $ 90 B, that figure is real and it's going to come from somewhere and end up in the US treasury.
The EU also pledged $600 billion investment in the U.S. and buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy.
Let's just scratch the energy because after Russian invasion of Ukraine that was something that was happening anyway.
White House said on Monday that the “massive” pledge would be “in addition” to current investment flows from the bloc, which it said exceed $100 billion a year.
Just to re-titerate because everyone keeps ignoring this no matter how many times I say it, I'm taking the deal at face value because it was signed by the EU and US, I am not naive enough to think that it will be 100 % the same as I stated multiple times, but we are talking about it as it is.
If EU companies invest $ 200 B every year for the next 3 in the US, on top of existing $ 100 B that were planned / done anyway, that means that they will not have that money to invest it in EU countries.
My country has a BDP of just under $ 100 B, and I'm supposed to not be pissed off at EU capitulating and promising 2 times my country's BDP worth of investment to US?
This is, as stated and signed, a terrible deal for EU, we get nothing, it's very, very simple.
|
On July 29 2025 20:22 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 17:53 Gorsameth wrote:
"America taxes itself in humiliating move to the EU"
sorry buddy, still not seeing it. EU CEOs want to slash their central-european workforce anyway, they gonna eat the tariffs by killing jobs seems to be on the menu for us. German steel? Dead. German cars? Made in Hungary. German Defense Industry?: Hiring in Romania. German plastics and chemicals?: Call the Chinese office for orders.
Uhm, what?
Steel: The US can't manufacture the quality of steel required for fintech atm. So for ~5-10 years this is a surefire way for the US to shoot itself in the foot.
German plastics and chemicals? Uhm... China is also under tariffs? What are you on about?
The german car industry is having issues cause they were slow with adapting to e-mobility and therefore losing their market shares in China. For sure a giant problem for germany but not directly related to US Politics or these tariffs in any way.
The defense industry atm is mainly waiting for an actual order by the german state, not to open a plant or workers coming from Romania...
In general, all of these issues are german made and have nothing to do with the tariffs.
My country has a BDP of just under $ 100 B, and I'm supposed to not be pissed off at EU capitulating and promising 2 times my country's BDP worth of investment to US?
I wouldn't worry too much about such "promises".
|
The US Clients won't have to do that. The germans will eat the tariffs, lower the prices, lower their margin, and shed another 100000 jobs crying very loud that "it must be done because of Putin/Trump/Energyprices/Corona".
If you are let go now, usually you get whatever years you had been with the company times your monthly salary, often times 1,5 or 2 that, and then you sign the termination contract. That's usually popular with boomers who now will retire comfortably.
This is silently killing off all "above average" jobs in Germany... that can be outsourced to hungary or romania or china.
For the german demographics.. retiring boomers early.. is bonkers. Only 27% of people pay into social insurances... soon we will hit 25% of pensioners ..paid from the social security.
Cut 100k normal Jobs, and you lose 150 Million Euros in pension payments per month.
Uhm, what?
I opened a list of stuff that is exported by germany to the US.
Cars, Machines, chemicals/plastics are top 3.
All those pretend to struggle right now.. while casually opening new plants all over the world.
In Germany an unskilled worker on a production floor earns about 4000€ - in Hungary it's 1500€
Thats why your Audi-Motor for the US is assembled in hungary. They will close down the german plants, and eat the tariffs.
Yes, the chinese domestic market has - in 10 short years - overcome the dependency on german branded, chinese made cars. Porsche Sales though still okay. But who buys a VW mobility Blob when you can have a BYD electric car? It's perfectly normal for people to prefer domestic brands.. that's what is propping up VW in Europe/Germany, despite being of questionable quality for years.
|
Yes, the german car manufacturers fucked up big time in the last ~20 years. How has this anything to do with the tariffs or us politics in general?
That VW is still existing after the Diesel scandal is comical enough.
|
On July 29 2025 20:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 20:22 KT_Elwood wrote:On July 29 2025 17:53 Gorsameth wrote:
"America taxes itself in humiliating move to the EU"
sorry buddy, still not seeing it. EU CEOs want to slash their central-european workforce anyway, they gonna eat the tariffs by killing jobs seems to be on the menu for us. German steel? Dead. German cars? Made in Hungary. German Defense Industry?: Hiring in Romania. German plastics and chemicals?: Call the Chinese office for orders. except, once gain, the EU doesn't eat the tariffs. the US does. A German company does not pay 15% extra to ship steel to the US. The US client pays 15% extra to the US government.
Can you please explain to us why is Germany desperate to sign the deal and get the tariffs down from 25 % to 15 % if this is such a non issue, the US is paying it, why would they care?
www.ft.com
Here are some quotes from industry and leaders in EU, even Mertz who praised the deal getting done is saying it will have negative consequences on the EU and German economy, why is this so difficult to understand?
Why did EU humiliate itself and gave all these concessions if all tariffs are doing is making shit more expensive for the US?
Where is the logic in this?
|
On July 29 2025 21:00 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 18:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 29 2025 17:45 Jankisa wrote:
Honestly it's pretty sad you have to write all that in order to justify attacking a pretty simple and surface level (and stated as such) analysis of how this affects EU.
Europeans came into this negotiations and walked away with absolutely nothing, it's pretty simple.
You just wrote 2 pages of something that everyone (explaining how Trump didn't write his book in 2025, jesus) knows and about stuff that actual economists have been writing and talking about for a year, jeez.
Trump sees it as zero sum game, he wants to bring back mercantilism, he didn't write his book and he's not great at deals, next you'll reveal to us he bankrupted a few Casinos.
He still humiliated and got the better of EU, simple. You're coming at this with the assumption that the importer and exporter are going to share the costs of the tariff to keep the same level of business. If you want to argue this point, it would be great to see some data backing it up. I would love to see your sources for this. In my experience (see Brexit, for example), when the importer gets hit with higher costs, they just tack on that extra cost to the price of the item. It is also a great opportunity for importers to increase their profit margin because everyone else is also increasing their prices. The end result in my experience (see Brexit, for example) is just less trade and lower economic growth for both and the joys of inflation for everyone. I like how I keep, in every post I make mentioning the other part of these "negotiations", bigger investment in the US and more purchases of energy but you guys keep on attacking the point that not all of the 15 % will be on the US customers / importers. I stated a few times that EU got humiliated and got literally nothing out of this, after months of negotiations. In the one before this one I also wrote out how if the prices go up 15 % and there are equivalent products in the market people will start buying less, which is just common sense, but that also keeps being ignored. My sources are common sense, that 15 % doesn't just fade into the void and has no effect on anything, saying it does seems like a fantasy. There have been tariffs in place on a bunch of countries for months now, the baseline 10 % is there for everything, Canada and Mexico have more, where are all the price increases, who is eating them? Do you have sources on this? I don't think the onus is on me to prove to you guys that putting unilateral tariffs on a trading partner is a bad thing for that partner because that is just what common sense implies. Last year EU exported $605 B to the US, at 15 % that is $ 90 B, that figure is real and it's going to come from somewhere and end up in the US treasury. The EU also pledged $600 billion investment in the U.S. and buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy. Let's just scratch the energy because after Russian invasion of Ukraine that was something that was happening anyway. Show nested quote +
White House said on Monday that the “massive” pledge would be “in addition” to current investment flows from the bloc, which it said exceed $100 billion a year.
Just to re-titerate because everyone keeps ignoring this no matter how many times I say it, I'm taking the deal at face value because it was signed by the EU and US, I am not naive enough to think that it will be 100 % the same as I stated multiple times, but we are talking about it as it is. If EU companies invest $ 200 B every year for the next 3 in the US, on top of existing $ 100 B that were planned / done anyway, that means that they will not have that money to invest it in EU countries. My country has a BDP of just under $ 100 B, and I'm supposed to not be pissed off at EU capitulating and promising 2 times my country's BDP worth of investment to US? This is, as stated and signed, a terrible deal for EU, we get nothing, it's very, very simple. universal tariffs are bad for the country imposing them, more then for the partner they are imposed on. That is why no one does it, except a moron like Trump who has no concept of what a tariff even is.
Again, a tariff doesn't make it more expensive for a foreign country to sell you things, it makes it more expensive for you to buy a thing. Its use is to protect domestic industries from cheap foreign goods flooding the market by artificially raising the price of said foreign goods.
Tariffing the EU is not punishing the EU, its punishing yourself.
No one is talking about the investment and energy 'commitments' because its meaningless numbers and Trump talking like Trump.
you talk about the EU buying 750 billion worth of US energy. The EU spend 76 billion in 2024. The US's total energy export to the entire world was 318 billion in 2024.
So what is this number even? Does the EU buy double the US global export in 1 year? seems bullshit and impossible.
Is it over 10 years? then that's just the number the EU spends anyway.
Trump doesn't understand what numbers mean, the guy is a fucking moron. You can't talk about what the numbers mean because its just shit pulled from his ass.
here is literally one of the first results on looking at EU investments into the US.BRUSSELS — The European Union has admitted it doesn’t have the power to deliver on a promise to invest $600 billion in the United States economy, only hours after making the pledge at landmark trade talks in Scotland.
That’s because the cash would come entirely from private sector investment over which Brussels has no authority, two EU officials said. https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-600bn-us-investment-will-come-exclusively-from-private-sector/
So in an absolutely brilliant negotiation move the EU has 'sold' Trump on a 600 billion investment made entirely by private businesses, over which it has no control. Its a promise of literal air and utterly worthless but Trump eats it up like a kid in a candy store and runs to shout it to the press because he is an actual fucking moron.
That is why no one is talking about meaningless bullshit numbers.
|
On July 29 2025 21:08 Velr wrote:
Yes, the german car manufacturers fucked up big time in the last ~20 years. How has this anything to do with the tariffs or us politics in general?
That VW is still existing after the Diesel scandal is comical enough.
General public is at large missinformed about that.
1. Every car maker selling Diesels circumvented various NOx emission compliance, only VW was crucified by the EPA.
(VW had Audi engineers write software for the transmission control box, cutting into the catalytic converter control unless a Test Load-Profile was detected - Fiat simply complied for 23 minutes Ignition on, or one lenght EU-Regulated Test cycle, and then shut down the catalytic "AdBlue" to reduce NOX). Even 2006 Mercedes had to be recalled and re-programmed for a longer duration of the EGR-Valve openings.. and so on)
2. Rules are Rules.. but NOx rules still objectively suck.
WHO is monitoring NOx levels in cities and products, because NOx is appearing everytime something is on fire and thus likely putting out emissions that could harm health.
NOx usually goes away quickly when nothing is on fire.. so it's even showing an hourly dynamic in localized measurements, displaying rush hours.
But NOx are THE MARKER for the polluting event.. not the pollutant that's the most harmful.
The only hard science that WHO is quoting on the effects of high NOx concentration for mamals were done in the 1970-90s.
(WHO's "Air Quality Guidline" is the main source for thresholds of pollutants set by EPA and the EU)
Back then Humans and small animals where exposed to very high concentrations of nitrous oxides over Days and weeks.
In Lab animals, no lung tissue was altered. In Humans, even asthmatic ones, no impairment of the lung function was found.
(Pure nitrous oxides)
BUT! Using Nitrous Oxides are easy to measure and a by product of things on fire, emitting other pollutants.. that usually coming of in compareable ratios.
So many countrys deploy NOx measuring for Air quality, as to the WHO "Air Quality Guideline" that, in every release has slashed down the NOx concentration.. without further Science, but in good concience that half of what you deemed "safe" is even safer.
At some point it got hard for cities to meet the newly suggested 24hour averages and 1h peaks in NOx by the EU guidelines.
In Roll the cars: The car makers are now tasked with masking the marker for burning fuel with selective catalytic converters for the NOx.
Again: They weren't tasked with selling less cars, burning less fuel, or emitt less toxins.. they were tasked with especially masking the marker that is now the pars pro toto stand in to measure the health risk of burning a fuel.. when people are breathing the exhaust gases.
And that's what VW famously cheated (as well as most other diesel-engine sellers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
