Post New

Lots of good arguments here have shown the insanity of many of its provisions. This article does a good job of explaining why the entire bill is a shit sandwich for the US (and the EU as well)

Trump announced a “trade deal” with the EU, and the pattern continues with lots of goals, targets, and promises with few specifics - except that American consumers will ultimately pay more for imported products. I read tons of articles and commentary from solid sources in Europe and US, so I begin this Bulletin with a breakdown of the various takes.

… NYT: “The EU and the US agreed on Sunday to a broad-brush trade deal that sets a 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars and pharmaceuticals, averting what could have become a painful trade war with a bloc that is the US’ single biggest source of imports. Trump said that the EU had agreed to purchase $750 billion of American energy, which Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU’s executive branch, told reporters would be spread out over 3 years.”

… “Not all higher tariffs were eliminated. A senior US official said the 50% tariff the Trump admin had imposed on steel and aluminum globally was not part of the deal. Like many preliminary agreements Trump has announced, this one had few details. For some of the ‘deals’ that Trump reached, other govts have seemed to lack clarity on what exactly they agreed to, and it remains unclear which tariff rates will apply to which products as of Aug. 1.”

… Patrick Anderson, CEO of Anderson Economic Group, said the deal for autos could lead to “a cost penalty of thousands of dollars per vehicle for numerous models assembled in the US that use foreign parts. How can the admin square a 15% tariff on cars from Europe and Japan, while manufacturers in the US, Canada and Mexico are laboring under 25% tariffs?”

… Fox Business Analyst Charles Gasparino had Trump fans upset with his take on Fox & Friends: “The stuff they are buying from us they probably would have bought anyway. They’re cutting back on natural gas from Russia. They’re building out their military because of Russian expansionism. So they were going to do that anyway. And when you say we get 15%, true. But that means US consumers are paying 15% more too so it's kind of like a tax increase on US consumers.”

… Irritated Fox host Brian Kilmeade: “What about the 50% tariff on EU steel and aluminum. How is that going to affect all of us? Gasparino: If we need to buy steel from them. It's going to cost us more. Again, put this in context. Every penny we get from them is being passed to the US consumer. Kilmeade: Not necessarily. Gasparino: Yes necessarily. Companies don't report to president. They report to shareholders and they have a fiduciary responsibility for profit margins and at some point and that point is coming. You can see it. There are price increases on certain goods. Let’s be real clear here. Tariffs cost, they’re a tax. That tax often gets passed on to consumers.”

… Gasparino: “You do have to ask yourself why the rush to get a deal like this done? They didn’t agree to that much for us. Why did they go from DEFCON 1 to this? One reason is that there is a federal appeals court that is ruling on Trump’s use of the emergency power to impose tariffs and that court could rule against him. If it rules against him, the whole tariff scheme is up in the air.”

… Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore: ”We’re a little queasy about the Trump argument that tariffs don’t filter down like sand in an hourglass to consumer prices. Sure, some of the cost will be borne by the importers. But businesses with thin profit margins can’t eat the whole extra cost of taxes imposed on them.”

… Denmark MP Rasmus Jarlov: “There is nothing to celebrate. Moving from average tariffs of less than 2% on trade between the US and Europe to 15% under today’s deal will inevitably lead to inflation.Almost everything will become more expensive in both Europe and the US, and we will all be worse off. The economic illiteracy in the White House is doing serious damage to the West.”

Those last two sentences keep rolling around in my head. Why would anyone propose a deal that is doing serious damage to the west?

Certainly, stupidity would explain it. We all know that an avaricious Trump has established the pattern of dropping the gold coin in his hand in order to grasp for the mirage of a golden boulder. And perhaps he HAS insured that he will personally profit.

But “serious damage to the west”?


Qui Bono? Who profits?


And that question leads us back to RUSSIA! Russia! Russia!

https://open.substack.com/pub/meidastouch/p/today-...

since some of the major deal details conflict with real world physical and financial limits, simpler explanation is that trump is being played by EU and japan. path of least resistance.

donny want $1trillion? $2trillion? $10trillion? sure, anything for my pal !

"...this is just another day of golf for Trump: dream up some big, gaudy numbers to generate headlines, rally the domestic base and US energy stocks, proclaim economic dominance, etc.
It’s a re-run of his 2021 China trade farce: inflate the target, declare victory, and then forget all about it before the blame game starts.
The Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019 envisaged China buying more than $50b of extra American coal, oil and LNG by the end of 2021. Actual imports fell well short of that, but by then the world had moved on. The same fate awaits the EU-US trade deal.
For the EU, this is strategic capitulation. European officials know they can’t physically import the volumes they’ve pledged, and nor can they force EU companies to do so. But they’re playing along, desperate to mollify a volatile White House and avoid reigniting market-melting tariff threats on Truth Social."

https://www.energyflux.news/geopolitical-theatre-p...

In the meantime, Governor Cooper - an able decent Democrat throws his hat in the ring.

And has to withstand the barrage of illegal immigraiton, woke, and other Sheeple stuff.

While people who *supposedly* want Democrats to win ---do this kind of stuff instead.

Hey Mr North Carolia Voter, which appeals to you?


1.)Your medicaid is gonna get tough. Your hospital might shut down. Your ACA premium is all gonna go up because of the Vance Health Scheme.

OR

2.)EPSTEIN! GAY! GUN! EU TRADE DEAL!

Maybe look at 2016 and 2024 for a clue as to the answer.

Even look at 2020 for the answer - when a fine candidate ran and won who, according to Hunter Biden and just plain ol fact was ditched by Club 401K and sheeple.



Even the most clue-imparied amongst the Sheeple, eventually, I just gotta believe - wants to win elections.

Those last two sentences keep rolling around in my head. Why would anyone propose a deal that is doing serious damage to the west?

I've mentioned this before - not sure if it was here or TMF.

Trump does not agree with the concept of a win-win deal. It's only win-lose. Worse, he sees any deal where the opposing party loses as a win - EVEN IF he also loses. The only important metric is that the other party must lose.

And it's also his personal win - not his businesses (which are always legally separate from him personally), or in this case, the people of the country he "leads".

In this specific deal, he got von der Leyen to accept a 15% tariff on goods exported from the EU to the US, while the EU tariffs on US goods are much lower. In his eyes, he looks strong, so that's a win. She looked weak, so that's a lose. In his deficient view of the world as revolving around him personally, that is a perfect deal. He sees himself as the stronger leader because of this deal, propping up his fragile ego. What happens to the American or European people is irrelevant to him.

--Peter

What happens to the American or European people is irrelevant to him.

I think he also genuinely believes that trade deficits in goods mean the other country is ripping us off. That has no economic basis, of course; he just genuinely believes that.

So if we're running a trade deficit with Lesotho, because they have diamonds and we're rich and want to buy their diamonds, and they're poor and can't afford to buy anything from us, somehow that means Lesotho is cheating us. Even though we're getting to purchase diamonds that we want to buy, presumably at a price we want to buy them at - and we gain nothing if we stop buying diamonds from them.

It doesn't make any economic sense, of course. But Trump really seems to believe that Trade Deficit Bad. So I think he actually thinks that this will be good for the American people.

I think he also genuinely believes that trade deficits in goods mean the other country is ripping us off. That has no economic basis, of course; he just genuinely believes that.
...
It doesn't make any economic sense, of course. But Trump really seems to believe that Trade Deficit Bad. So I think he actually thinks that this will be good for the American people.

So Trump really is a moron after all. ∎

So Trump really is a moron after all.

Not necessarily a moron - just wrong about economics. Lots of very smart people are. Wrong about economics, that is. You can find smart people advocating almost any economic theory. Lots of dumb ones, too, of course.

But just being a neo-mercantilist, and believing that having a positive balance of trade in physical goods means "winning" in some nebulous way, doesn't mean that someone is dumb or not.

So I think he actually thinks that this will be good for the American people.

Has Trump ever said the words "good for the American people?"

I have him say one thing or another is "good for America," or good for "American industry," or "good for Wall Street," or "good for the economy."

He may have said "good for the American people," but I didn't hear it. Honestly, I have such a hard time listening to his incoherent word salads I tune him out.

I think he also genuinely believes that trade deficits in goods mean the other country is ripping us off. That has no economic basis, of course; he just genuinely believes that.

You're making the same mistaken assumption that most economists are making. That is the following:

American goods have the same access to other countries' markets as those same countries have to the United States'.

Were you aware that prior to Trump the Euros charged US cars and trucks a 10% tariff vs. the US only charging them 2.5%?

Congrats to the WSJ for finally figuring this out:

Past presidents have compartmentalized American negotiations, keeping security relations and trade negotiations on different tracks. Mr. Trump thought this was stupid. The combination of access to the American market and American security guarantees was so valuable, he believed, that foreigners would pay a much higher price than his predecessors ever got. The recent deals with the EU and Japan support his view.

The president also believes that global institutions like the World Trade Organization don’t serve American interests as well as bilateral or, in the case of the EU, regional agreements. One doesn’t need to be pro-Trump or pro-tariff to see that the WTO has disappointed the high hopes with which it was launched. The new EU and Japan trade agreements demonstrate the potential of Mr. Trump’s divide-and-conquer strategy.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-trade-deal-triu...

But just being a neo-mercantilist, and believing that having a positive balance of trade in physical goods means "winning" in some nebulous way, doesn't mean that someone is dumb or not.

How about someone who apparently believes that foreign countries pay tariffs to the U.S.?

How about someone who apparently believes that foreign countries pay tariffs to the U.S.?

Same thing. If you don't have a background in economics, you might not really understand how tax incidence works. Lots of very smart people believe the analogous thing about corporate taxes, and will vigorously dispute that taxing corporations involves imposing some amount of cost on those corporations' customers. Or that imposing taxes on fossil fuel companies might result in higher energy prices.

Plus, one of Trump's political "gifts" is understanding that you're better off saying things that might be wrong in the details, but communicate your point - and a lot of politicians do this. Progressive politicians deny that imposing taxes or other regulatory burdens on companies will increase the prices of their goods - and if you sat them down with a gun to their heads, the ones who have a background in economics will admit that yes, the price elasticity of their products probably isn't zero and there might be some incidence of the regulatory or tax burden that falls to end users. But that's not their point. They know that it's dumb to say that businesses will pay 94% of the cost of a "windfall" tax (or whatever). It's better to just round that up and simplify, and have your message be that you're taxing bad companies and not the American people. Because even though it's wrong in the details, it right in the message.

So too with Trump. I think he believes that the tax incidence that will fall to American end users of products is super-low. So rather than saying something wonky like, "Foreign firms located abroad will absorb 93.4% of the economic impact of this tariff," he just says something simple that "other countries will pay the tariff."

Same thing. If you don't have a background in economics, you might not really understand how tax incidence works. Lots of very smart people believe the analogous thing about corporate taxes, and will vigorously dispute that taxing corporations involves imposing some amount of cost on those corporations' customers. Or that imposing taxes on fossil fuel companies might result in higher energy prices.

Hmm. I think most liberals would agree that taxing corporations more is a good thing. I honestly never thought about how much of a corporate tax gets passed on to consumers.

Hmm. I think most liberals would agree that taxing corporations more is a good thing. I honestly never thought about how much of a corporate tax gets passed on to consumers.

So if you just take that understanding that you have about yourself, and apply it to Trump's view of tariffs, it might help get a sense of where he's coming from.

Imagine that he believes that "taxing [imports] more is a good thing, and has honestly never thought about how much of an [import] tax gets passed on to consumers." It's the same formulation.

It doesn't necessarily mean he's a moron. It might only mean he hasn't taken that step of interrogating the consequences of his beliefs to see if there's some negative consequences to what he thinks is good. Or, more likely, he might be aware that there's some possible negative consequences, but believes that they are so small and so outweighed by the benefits that they're not worth mentioning or caveating his policy preference.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.