Post New

So much for the “everybody else will just wait” hot take.

Is it a full deal or a framework? Guess we’ll see.

So much for the “everybody else will just wait” hot take.

This isn't much of a surprise. The UK is one of the countries that we run a trade surplus with. It's the easiest to reach a deal on, because there's nothing we're demanding of them. In fact, by Trump's logic, we're obviously treating them unfairly. It's an "ordinary" trade deal - and one that's been in negotiations since Brexit, when they went out from under agreements with the EU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom%E2%80...

With a lot of the work already done over the last several years, this is one that could be rushed to completion (or at least was far enough along that you could make an announcement of the overall terms).

With a lot of the work already done over the last several years, this is one that could be rushed to completion (or at least was far enough along that you could make an announcement of the overall terms).

But I was told the US economy is on the brink of collapse and everyone knew it. Not sure why an ardent conservative like Kier Starmer would rush into this.

Or maybe he was able to secure a market for British steel…they don’t produce much anymore and having access to the US could help revitalize things for a valuable partner.

But I was told the US economy is on the brink of collapse and everyone knew it. Not sure why an ardent conservative like Kier Starmer would rush into this.

The most likely explanation is that the Administration really needed to have something to announce. They might have given way on some points to be able to announce a deal that was already nearly done anyway.

No one has said the US economy is on the brink of collapse. What we've said is that the tariffs are going to cause immense political pain for the Administration as their effects are felt in the US, including a strong possibility of a recession. Therefore the Administration will therefore have a pretty weak negotiating position with our major trading partners - and thus is exceptionally unlikely to be able to extract any concessions that are worth the massive dislocation caused by the trade war.

None of that is really applicable to the UK discussion, though. We run a trade surplus with them, and we've been in discussions to create a framework for US-UK trade ever since Brexit took them out from under the EU umbrella. So this is just an "ordinary" trade agreement - the UK wasn't hit with any "reciprocal" tariffs, and there had been years of negotiations already in place laying out the various asks and gives of each party.

It is an entirely feasible path for the Administration to accept fig leaf concessions and trivial adjustments from these other countries, declare it a massive victory, and retreat from his tariffs. Or, as in the case of the UK, to take a years-long series of trade status negotiations and claim that it's a deal that results from his tariffs. In fact, I think that's still a very likely outcome. Trump will eventually climb down from his tariffs, and either negotiate face-saving deals that get the US trivially little in the way of concessions from countries that know they can outlast us or just unilaterally reduce them to mitigate the pain they cause us. He'll declare it a major victory, and his supporters will echo those claims and point to his brilliance.

But I was told the US economy is on the brink of collapse and everyone knew it.

Who said it? AND, what was the CAUSE of the alleged "collapse"?

The most likely explanation is that the Administration really needed to have something to announce

You just said they’d been working on this for years. Doesn’t sound like something they’re rushing through.

No one has said the US economy is on the brink of collapse.

Another poster made that very claim last night. The words were along the lines of “the US economy is on the brink of collapse and everyone knows it”. Kier Starmer, being a total conservative wouldn’t want to take advantage of that /s.

He'll declare it a major victory, and his supporters will echo those claims and point to his brilliance.

And his detractors will call it a big nothingcheeseburger and still claim that the US economy is DOOMED. DOOMED I TELL YOU even as more countries sign up.

what a deal... 10 % tarffs still in place and any ag goods bought cant be onward shipped to EU due to pesticide and chemical use, and the Brits will not eat chlorinated chicken... yeah... big deal.....

You just said they’d been working on this for years. Doesn’t sound like something they’re rushing through.

Rushed a bit to the point where an announcement can be made - not rushed over all. Again, this is a trade deal that was already in the works for years, not something that was prompted by the 'reciprocal' tariffs. So if it was 95% done (or whatever), you can get through that last 5% if you're sufficiently motivated. And taking a bit hit in the polls because of fears about your tariff strategy is a pretty good motivator.

Another poster made that very claim last night. The words were along the lines of “the US economy is on the brink of collapse and everyone knows it”. Kier Starmer, being a total conservative wouldn’t want to take advantage of that /s.

No one's seriously advocating that the U.S. economy is on the brink of "collapse" - though we do face a serious likelihood of recession. Don't confuse message-board hyperbole for the actual positions that people take.

As for Starmer, I would hardly be surprised if he did take advantage a bit of the sticky situation the Administration put themselves in. The Administration needed a deal to announce. The UK is one of the few countries that had already been in serious process of negotiating a deal even before the whole tariff scheme. That gave Starmer a lot of cards to play - he could help Trump with a political problem (of Trump's own creation), and thus get some concessions from the U.S. on this trade deal that he might not otherwise have been able to get.

The problem, again, with imposing these tariffs on everyone in a stupid way is not that they will prevent us from getting deals altogether. It's that we're negotiating those deals from a position of weakness, because the strategy is so daft. You can always still reach a deal from a position of weakness, but it won't necessarily be a very good one.

Is it a full deal or a framework? Guess we’ll see.

The UK committed economic suicide with Brexit.

Trump did the same for the US with his tariffs.

So two drowning rats swimming in shark infested waters found a sheet of styrofoam and climbed aboard.

That gave Starmer a lot of cards to play - he could help Trump with a political problem (of Trump's own creation), and thus get some concessions from the U.S. on this trade deal that he might not otherwise have been able to get.

Starmer knew HE had the cards--so was able to negotiate a FAR better deal for the UK than Spankee could for the US. Be interesting to see what concessions Spankee had to give up in order to get Starmer to agree to a "rushed closing" Spankee needed.

sub text of speeches :

USA "See what a great negotiator Trump is "

UK " you needed a deal in 90 days, we gave you one, but we're not done yet"

EU (in the wings ).. " see ,Told you we couldnt trust Perfidious Albion. No more fish for them"

“the US economy is on the brink of collapse and everyone knows it”

Lets revisit what I said:
Inflation in Trumps first three months was higher than in the last three of Bidens.
Q1 also saw a drop in GDP (usually takes two quarters of this before a recession call though).
-> The US economy is teetering on the edge right now, and other countries know it.

Implied but not stated is "recession". I have no idea where the "everybody knows it" came from. I am not sure how technically a "collapse" differs from a recession, but it sure sounds worse.

You believed the lack of an interest rate change by the fed implied they were not worried about recession, but OTOH, the fed specifically stated they remained unchanged due to the concern over inflation.
Alan

Again, this is a trade deal that was already in the works for years, not something that was prompted by the 'reciprocal' tariffs.

Indeed. MY explain why the Brits never lost their minds over “the US launching a trade war in 200 fronts” or something.

No one's seriously advocating that the U.S. economy is on the brink of "collapse" - though we do face a serious likelihood of recession. Don't confuse message-board hyperbole for the actual positions that people take.

Nah, people never engage in hyperbole on the internet!

The economic numbers have been questionable for years. Propping up GDP with government spending is the worst kind of economic sugar high one could conjure up yet that’s what’s been going on for a while.

As for Starmer, I would hardly be surprised if he did take advantage a bit of the sticky situation the Administration put themselves in.

Heh. The UK, thanks to their Green Everything policies, cannot make anything anymore. While still a big economy they have virtually no ability to make virgin steel. This deal will hopefully help revitalize a strategic need for a key partner.

Funny…I thought we never negotiated anything that helps anyone else…

That gave Starmer a lot of cards to play - he could help Trump with a political problem (of Trump's own creation),

It’s questionable if Trump ever had a “political problem”. There are no elections of consequence this year. Had he waited until next year to do this with the midterms looming there might have been one but after 1 month of tariffs…there’s not much there.

It's that we're negotiating those deals from a position of weakness,

Uh, huh. The world’s #1 economy may not be dealing from a position of its *maximal* strength levels but never deals from a *weak* position.

The UK committed economic suicide with Brexit.

Lol.

Trump did the same for the US with his tariffs.

You should read what al just posted about hyperbole.

So two drowning rats swimming in shark infested waters found a sheet of styrofoam and climbed aboard.

This funny.
If you want to see what economic suicide looks like, look to the Germans.

Implied but not stated is "recession". I have no idea where the "everybody knows it" came from.

You mean besides your saying “other countries know it”. You realize that’s basically a distinction without a difference?

You believed the lack of an interest rate change by the fed implied they were not worried about recession,

The Fed’s job is to balance inflation and unemployment.

Inflation is handled by increasing rates and taking money out of the economy.

Unemployment is handled by lowering rates, thus lowering the cost of capital.

More details:

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick outlined some of the points in the trade agreement with the U.K. during Trump's Oval Office announcement.

"So here's what we've got," Lutnick said. "We've opened up new market access, ethanol, beef, machinery, all the agricultural products. They've agreed to open their markets, and that will add $5 billion of opportunity to American exporters."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administrat...

Under the deal, the United Kingdom will reduce non-tariff barriers to U.S. products, including beef, ethanol fuel, machinery and chemicals, Trump said. The 10% baseline tariff that Trump has applied to dozens of countries will remain in place, but tariffs on vehicles imported from Britain will fall from 25% to 10% to match that baseline, his commerce secretary said.

It’s questionable if Trump ever had a “political problem”. There are no elections of consequence this year. Had he waited until next year to do this with the midterms looming there might have been one but after 1 month of tariffs…there’s not much there.

His polling numbers took an almost immediate hit - at a time when he needs to be twisting arms to get his BBB through Congress despite serious disagreements between the moderate and conservative caucuses in the House, and between the House and the Senate. Those folks don't start worrying about the midterms in 2026 - they're worrying about the midterms now. Many of them know they're going to be asked to take a painful vote that will impact their midterm prospects, perhaps the most consequential vote of this Congress, sometime in the next two months. They want to know that Trump has a plan to get the "transition" pain wrapped up before voters start forming their opinions next year, because that affects their decisions on whether they can go on a limb with this vote. They want to know that this is going to get resolved before it affects Christmas.

Many of them know they're going to be asked to take a painful vote that will impact their midterm prospects,

“Painful” vote? It’s a budget bill. Barasso says they’re not that far off (between the House and Senate).

And go out on what limb?

Started at 10%, ended at 10%, and caused supply chain disruptions and sowed distrust in our relations with the world.

The US is now a high tariff country for the foreseeable future, and the trade war continues...

REPORTER: "The 10% baseline tariff is remaining in place. Is that a template for these future deals?"

TRUMP: "No. That's a low number. They made a good deal. Some will be much higher because they have massive trade surpluses. (And Trump does not know how trade surpluses work.)"

"Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had!" ~Wharton Professor William T. Kelley

And BTW.

Every deal we sign means more pressure on China to get to the negotiating table.

“Painful” vote? It’s a budget bill. Barasso says they’re not that far off (between the House and Senate).

And go out on what limb?

How much to trim Medicaid. How much to shift SNAP and Medicaid obligations onto the states. Whether to raise SALT caps. Whether to reduce the tax cuts or make them temporary.

Have you not been following? There is still a significant amount of disagreement in the House about how to get to the spending cuts that the budget hawks have insisted on, and how to square that with the measure that increase the deficit (higher military spending, higher ICE/border spending, SALT expansion, all Trump's tax-free promises).

Moderates are terrified to take a hard vote to cut federal spending on Medicaid and SNAP that will end up being thrown out when it goes to the Senate (who isn't having any of that). Budget hawks are refusing to take a vote that wouldn't cut that spending, insisting that it be part of the deal. Etc.

Trump's going to have to wade in here and force nearly all those people to take a vote they don't want to take. Which will be much harder for him to do if his favorability is underwater and we're in recession and those Congressbeings don't see a clear path out of the tariff fighting.

Every deal we sign means more pressure on China to get to the negotiating table.

Quite a bit different message here from the one you were stating 2-3 days ago. Your readers could be forgiven for believing that China already was at the negotiating table.
So, are they or aren’t they at the negotiating table?

Every deal we sign means more pressure on China to get to the negotiating table.

Nope-a-Dope.

Don't confuse message-board hyperbole for the actual positions that people take.

We are likely headed into recession. When does recession become depression? We may get there, also. As prices go up (they will have to), people will spend less. IMO, that will create less demand, and so workers will have to be laid-off. Assuming all the government layoffs stick (after all the lawsuits, since they are supposed to be protected by law), that will be tens of thousands of workers added to the unemployment rolls even before the tariff layoffs.

...how to get to the spending cuts that the budget hawks have insisted on...

In the past, if a Rep is in the White House, the "hawks" are whipped into compliance (mostly), and the deficit balloons (mostly due to tax cuts). What's different this time? The Reps own the WH, the "hawks" will be forced to toe the Felon's line. No?

Nobel Prize Winning Economist Paul Krugman sums up the "big news"...

"So “Trump” just made a “deal” with “Britain.” Trying to emulate his style, with random quotation marks.
I GUESS I SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A SENTENCE IN BLOCK CAPS.
Anyway, the deal was almost substance-free. The goal of policy seems to be to goose the market for a few days, with no long-term plan." ~Paul Krugman

How much to trim Medicaid. How much to shift SNAP and Medicaid obligations onto the states. Whether to raise SALT caps. Whether to reduce the tax cuts or make them temporary.

Zero, a little, unlikely, no and they’ll be permanent. There you go!

Have you not been following? There is still a significant amount of disagreement in the House...

Of course he hasn't - just preconceived notions.

There are also a few House hardliners who want nothing less than a $2T (yes, trillion) cut to the budget. Difficult to square them.

Pete

the deal was almost substance-free.

IMO, the important part was the 10% tariff on cars imported from the UK. IF TRUE, then that nails Spankee to a hard wall.

Chinese EV builders can build in the UK and ship to the US (meeting US vehicle requirements) and undercut US mfrs by a large factor.

So, watch for "backsliding" on this one. And maybe the rest as well. What Spankee DOES !!

How much to trim Medicaid. How much to shift SNAP and Medicaid obligations onto the states. Whether to raise SALT caps. Whether to reduce the tax cuts or make them temporary.

Zero, a little, unlikely, no and they’ll be permanent. There you go!

It can't be zero. They need $880 billion in savings from that committee, and Medicaid is one of the very few places big enough to take from.

It can't be "a little" for the same reason.

The SALT caucus, and the five Rep Reps from the areas that have the highest SALT-eligible population, have insisted they will not vote for the final bill if there isn't a major increase to the SALT caps. So that has to be solved - or they have to be convinced to fail to deliver for their constituents.

Even solving for all of the above, it doesn't look like there's enough money in cuts to keep the tax cuts the same size and make them permanent. Which makes it harder for some Rep Reps to vote for them.

It can't be zero. They need $880 billion in savings from that committee, and Medicaid is one of the very few places big enough to take from.

If they cut Medicaid - which they’ve said they won’t do, the only people talking about curing Medicaid are democrats - THEN they’ll have a political problem.

The SALT caucus, and the five Rep Reps from the areas that have the highest SALT-eligible population, have insisted they will not vote for the final bill if there isn't a major increase to the SALT caps.

They’ll negotiate something.

If they cut Medicaid - which they’ve said they won’t do, the only people talking about curing Medicaid are democrats - THEN they’ll have a political problem.

They have to reduce Medicaid spending. That's a given. What they're trying to do is find ways to reduce the amount of spending on Medicaid while being able to plausibly deny that they're cutting Medicaid. They're having a hard time doing that, because moderate Republicans aren't going along with the rhetorical sleight-of-hand (and some are constrained by red-state trigger provisions on Medicaid expansion).

They’ll negotiate something.

Well, not exactly negotiation - more like capitulation. Johnson has apparently given up trying to get to the $2.0 trillion in spending cuts. They're going to aim for $1.5 trillion. He's bowing to reality. Which means that one of the things you thought would happen (they wouldn't reduce the tax cut package and they would be permanent) is now officially dead. The tax cut package has to also shrink, and a fair number of the provisions will have to be temporary:

Speaker Mike Johnson told House Republicans behind closed doors Thursday that he is pursuing $1.5 trillion in spending cuts as part of the GOP’s party-line megabill, resulting in a smaller tax cuts package of $4 trillion.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/08/c...

And of course, it's not a certainty that they'll find a way to make that package work. Only having a $4 trillion tax cut package means that the caucus will have to pick and choose some of the priorities (again, the SALT caucus wants their proposed tax cuts in there, along with everyone else). The moderates still might balk at the measures to reduce spending on Medicaid and food stamps.

Dropping the spending cuts by a quarter is also going to piss off the hardcore conservatives in the Freedom Caucus no end, who already didn't trust Johnson to follow through on the cuts that they had been insisting on in order to get their votes. Relying on temporary tax cuts again will irritate the budget hawks, who know full well that "temporary" tax cuts are always permanent.

It's going to be hard for them to square the circle, which is why they need Trump to have a lot of political capital in order to make this happen. Someone's going to have to tell the SALT Reps, the moderate Reps, and the budget hawk reps to all vote for the bill even though they'll all have something they deeply hate about it and would otherwise not vote for it.

They have to reduce Medicaid spending.

They do? democrats have been saying everything’s great for as long as I’m alive. Why all of a sudden do we need to do something?

They do? democrats have been saying everything’s great for as long as I’m alive. Why all of a sudden do we need to do something?

Not an abstract "they" - they, meaning the Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In order to meet the instructions in the reconciliation bill resolution, they have to come up with about $880 billion in spending reduction in that Committee. There isn't enough other stuff under that committee's purview to get close to that number other than reducing Medicaid spending.

Back when they wrote the reconciliation instructions, they felt that they could push the moderates to go along with one or more proposals that would reduce what the federal government spent on Medicaid, as long as it wasn't structured as a "cut" to eligibility or benefits. These were proposals like limiting state taxes on Medicare services or imposing caps (per capita or otherwise) on the federal contribution to Medicaid. Measures that Republicans could plausibly claim didn't involve the federal government cutting off anyone's access to Medicaid....just things that the CBO determined would result in several million fewer people being covered by Medicaid. But the moderate wing has pushed back - in no small part because that sort of measure would end up blowing a hole in the budgets of both state governments and a whole lot of rural and poorer-district hospitals.

Hence the problem. To get the full tax cuts without increasing the deficit, it is necessary to cut a lot of Medicaid spending. They're having trouble getting buy-in for big Medicaid cuts. So now the head of Ways and Means (who's writing the tax part of the bill) has to go to the White House tomorrow to tell Trump that he's not getting all the tax cuts he wants:

House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) is set to meet Friday with President Donald Trump at the White House with the tax portion of the GOP megabill at risk of unraveling, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the private plans.

Smith will have to inform Trump that the tax portion of the megabill has been limited by the GOP’s inability to build support for deep spending cuts. That means Republicans will have to leave out some of Trump’s tax priorities, according to the people.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/08/c...

No, Republicans have been claiming for two decades that they could continue to cut taxes and balance the budget without deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, SS or defense.

That is a lie.

The dog has caught the car.

The Republicans now control all three branches of the government and are trying to figure out how to keep promises that they knew they could not keep.

They are trapped by their own lies.

Johnson has apparently given up trying to get to the $2.0 trillion in spending cuts.

Hang on, hang on, hang on!

I thought Musk and Big Balls found $42 quadrillion in savings.

Anyway, the deal was almost substance-free. The goal of policy seems to be to goose the market for a few days, with no long-term plan." ~Paul Krugman

Krugman's a fav of mine. Keep postin him.

I thought Musk and Big Balls found $42 quadrillion in savings.

I’d say something about Big Balls not being able to find his own testicles with a microscope, but that would be crude, so I won’t.

but that would be crude, so I won’t.

I appreciate your self-restraint there.

--Peter

I thought Musk and Big Balls found $42 quadrillion in savings.

They did !! Only that is THEIR money. Share $$$??? NOPE !!! They share LOSSES ONLY. The bill with be coming VERY soon....

not being able to find his own testicles with a microscope

They were taken a LONG time ago....

No, Republicans have been claiming for two decades that they could continue to cut taxes and balance the budget without deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, SS or defense.

That is a lie.

The dog has caught the car.

The Republicans now control all three branches of the government and are trying to figure out how to keep promises that they knew they could not keep.

They are trapped by their own lies.

Sadly, though, the same thing happens to Democrats as well.

Democrats have been claiming for many years that it is possible to materially fight climate change or provide single-payer universal health care in a way that allows everyone to benefit, save a few designated villains (like fossil fuel companies or pharma companies, respectively). That there's so much waste and inefficiency in the current system that it would be costless to switch to something better.

But then when they had their own trifectas in 2008 and 2020, they couldn't actually keep those promises.

So we end up with a very disillusioned electorate.

their own trifectas in 2008 and 2020

In name only. Munchkin (from WV) did NOT vote to support Dem policies. He voted AGAINST.

In name only. Munchkin (from WV) did NOT vote to support Dem policies. He voted AGAINST.

Not in name only. Manchin was a Democrat. He was a conservative Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless. Plus, in 2008 Manchin wasn't necessary to the Democratic majority in the Senate - they had 58+ seats.

The reason that Democrats can't enact their promises on climate and health care are the same reasons why the GOP can't enact their promises on the budget. Even though the parties claim that it's possible to achieve their agenda with no pain to anyone (except the folks who deserve that pain), it's simply not true.

So when they actually have to go out and get votes, various portions of their coalition balk - because the proposals will end up hurting some of their constituents, and they don't want to do that. It isn't a win-win. You can't materially cut taxes and keep current government services without piling up the deficit - there just isn't enough money being wasted to make the math work. You can't switch to single-payer health care without making most people pay more or slashing health care worker compensation - there just isn't enough money being wasted in private insurance to make the math work. Etc.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

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