22 ms·
Trump's Tariff Formula Makes No Economic Sense. It's Also Based on an Error
- deepfriedchokes 1y agoTrump was the emotional vote, and he is governing emotionally.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 1y agoApparently he's been upset by the trade barrier imbalance since the 1980s. https://youtu.be/6BJYbn4MppM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/6BJYbn4MppM?feature=shared
- colechristensen 1y agono, this is not emotional government it's just incompetence real estate allows a lot of bullshit from a leader like this because they're not going to go in and give orders to the structural engineers or the electricians that can actually cause huge problems, the only thing a bullshit artist is going to influence are the outward appearances which are easy and you can't do so wrong that the building falls over. the thin facade can really just be whatever and you can always screw over a new set of suppliers or go bankrupt again and keep going now the lifelong real estate scammer is taking that facade bullshit attitude which basically couldn't go wrong and directing towards the very impactful machinery of the global economy expecting the same kind of bluster to be the same kind of effective it's not emotional reactions it's just stupidity, people who didn't understand things voted for the guy that puts on a much better show and didn't vote for the people who put on a terrible show, displayed zero hutzpah, and have the attitude of "i know better than you" and "i told you so" and make no effort to hide it
- more-nitor 1y ago[flagged]
- titaniumtown 1y agoThis post reads like its an AI generated bot trying to stur something up.
- more-nitor 1y agoI'm sorry but Americans including democrats were really harsh on biden on the last election. Arrange a political debate right after a diplomatic tour, with huge jet-legs sleep loss? free-trans-surgery with tax payer money? no wonder that man went "fck this" I just wonder if democrats simply gave up on the last election
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- klooney 1y agoI feel bad for Lesotho- 50% is tough.
- walkingthisquai 1y agoWell you've got to get those diamond manufacturing jobs back to the US somehow
- tetrisgm 1y agoThat is a brilliant joke
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y agoGood one
- baxtr 1y agoAskshually… I thought it was possible nowadays to manufacture diamonds?!
- usrusr 1y agoUnfortunately, now that some people appear to think that annexations are something to be considered, this joke has a very unexpected element of not funny.
- oblio 1y agoLesotho is a landlocked enclave. The US would have to chew through South Africa, first. Also, would MAGA want a new US state from Africa?
- theGeatZhopa 1y agomake lesotho great again!
- renewiltord 1y agoA pity about the tiny islands with their own TLDs.
- input_sh 1y agoAm I surprised they used a list of ccTLDs to get a list of countries? No. Am I mildly amused to know someone somewhere had to manually remove Soviet Union (.su) from a list of countries to put a tarrif on? Absolutely.
- charcircuit 1y agoWhy wouldn't they use ISO 3166 directly which doesn't contained outdated countries?
- input_sh 1y agoI mean, any "definitive" list of countries is gonna be inaccurate in some way. For example, according to ISO 3166, Kosovo is not a country, but Antarctica is, which isn't particularly useful in real-world scenarios. Kosovo does have its own ccTLD (.xk, although it's supposed to be a temporary one) and were tariffed. The reason I've mentioned Soviet Union in particular is that its domain is still active. You can go and buy .su right now, unlike say .yu (Yugoslavia), .dd (East Germany) or .cs (Czechoslovakia), which were deprecated.
- Lindby 1y agoAmericans and ISO? That sounds like an oxymoron.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ilrwbwrkhv 1y agoCan't wait for the sniffling Marc Andreessen to claim this is blue skies for small tech.
- user1241320 1y agoFunny he put like Martinique which is a territory governed by France
- dragonwriter 1y agoIt is even worse than that as Martinique is a “territory governed by France” in much the same way that Hawai’i is a territory governed by the USA. Martinique is a region and department of France—and administrative subdivision of the same type as those in the French mainland, differing only in that the the top two levels of subdivision (region and department) are coextensive rather than nested in Martinique and the other overseas region/departments.
- user1241320 1y agoPotentially France could have all imports from US pass by Martinique and they’d save a lot of money
- qwertox 1y agoAnd offer a loophole to any European company.
- user32489318 1y agoLike putting HQ in the Netherlands to avoid corporate tax of all other EU counties
- throw0101d 1y ago> Potentially France could have all imports from US pass by Martinique and they’d save a lot of money The EU shares a border with the UK (island of Ireland) and the UK also has lower rates: just drive a truck over the border.
- overdrive110 1y agoFirst I thought it could make sense considering the territories have some differences in taxes on imports. But in that case, why is Åland missing then?
- croes 1y ago> if the US imports $100 million worth of goods and services while exporting $50 million to a country, then the Trump Administration alleges that country levies a 50 percent tariff on the United States The Trump Administration ignores the services and only looks at goods. So the base is already wrong.
- rusk 1y agoThey’re also rolling up local taxes like VAT as Tariffs it seems
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoIt makes plenty of sense if you consider that it wasn't designed to benefit the US, but rather to drive US trade to our competitors.
- tombert 1y agoConsidering how open they've been about their clear conflicts of interest (Trump launching a cryptocurrency on day 1 of his presidency, being in charge of a publicly traded company that he's made no effort to remove himself from, and the Diablo cheater being in charge of a department that gets to determine "efficiency" while also bidding on government contracts), I think we should really consider the possibility that Trump and Musk shorted or bought Puts on companies that would be hit especially hard by tariffs. I debated doing that. I wish I had, I would have made a bit of money in the last few days.
- jayd16 1y agoToo bad oversight is "inefficient"
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoWould the tariffs make more sense if this were true? I mean, I don't doubt that it's true, but it seems more like an opportunity to make some money on the side than a reason to do it in the first place.
- mandeepj 1y ago> I debated doing that. I wish I had, I would have made a bit of money in the last few days. The details weren't public. You can stop feeling being bad about yourself.
- tombert 1y agoWell, he announced when “liberation day” was going to happen. I debated buying one that expired on Friday.
- jmyeet 1y agoThere are two silver linings to all this: 1. The evisceration of American soft power will really diminish the direct and indirect harm the US intentionally and unintentionally causes. Just look at China, South Korea and Japan deciding to respond to tariffs together [1]. That is an absolutely astonishing event given fairly recent history. Future retellings of history will correct portray the US as the actual Evil Empire; and 2. All of these actions are doing a ton to break the myth of meritocracy. The people involved in this, at the highest levels, are clearly demonstrating just what complete and utter morons they are. This is why fascism flames out: valuing loyalty above all else results in an administration of sycophantic morons. This is going to do untold economic harm in the interim but ironically it's accelerating the rise of China as a global power, despite the fact that this administration are China hawks and see these tariffs as a means reducing China's power, which it won't. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china-japan-south-korea-will-jointly-respond-us-tariffs-chinese-state-media-says-2025-03-31/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china-japan-south-korea-will-j...
- jeeeb 1y agoFrom the first paragraph of your linked article: > BEIJING, March 31 (Reuters) - China, Japan and South Korea agreed to jointly respond to U.S. tariffs, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media said on Monday, an assertion Seoul called "somewhat exaggerated", while Tokyo said there was no such discussion.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- paradox242 1y agoGiven the amount of military and economic power wielded by the US compared to our nearest competitor, we are one of the most benign great powers in history, which is saying a lot about considering the harm that we have caused. Calling the US "the real evil empire" is puzzling when we have still have the regimes in Russia, China and North Korea still at large.
- jmyeet 1y ago
- charcircuit 1y ago>The trade deficit with a given country is not determined only by tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, but also by international capital flows, supply chains, comparative advantage, geography, etc. All of those other things, minus geography are influenced by the terrifs. Terrifs make economic incentives to invest in America, for America to gain comparative advantages, etc.
- tdb7893 1y agoI mean yeah those are influenced by tariffs a bit (I think it's a safe assumption that the writers of the article know that). It doesn't change the fact that those are mostly driven by things besides US tariffs.
- rramadass 1y agoThis is what i was thinking of yesterday after folks on HN pointed me to the "official formula" from the govt. I could not understand why the "elasticity" parameters were chosen in such a manner as to cancel out. Now it seems it was chosen deliberately to give "room for maneuvering" when the concerned countries inevitably come to the negotiating table; never mind that the formula itself is not economically sound. It also explains why Trump and his Team keep saying the "economic hardships" will be short-term and will get better soon.
- kristopolous 1y agoI wonder if he and his friends opened a bunch of options the morning of and are now collecting their winnings... he does have a bunch of crypto pump and dumpers as advisors.
- adharmad 1y agoOr short sell one day before the tarriff announcements.
- tombert 1y agoI would think that it would be put options wouldn't it? Aren't puts the ones where you want the stock to go down?
- kristopolous 1y agothey have terrible names. I can never remember. A put option I think gives me the right to sell you a stock at a price. So say, ACME is trading at 110. I can buy the right to sell you ACME at 100. You say ok because it's at 110. But then ACME crashes to 50. I buy it at 50 and you are on the hook to buy it from me at 100.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoYou're thinking of Puts and Put-ins. However it would be funny if they did calls.
- jayd16 1y agoNot only that, but I assume they'll take more bites of the apple as they go down the list country by country and negotiate better rates for some kind of kickback and market manipulation opportunity.
- kristopolous 1y agoit's kinda strange that the largest tariff is in a landlocked country a 5 hour drive from elon musk's hometown. All the numbers on what a country is supposedly charging america appear to be a complete fabrication so we're forced to find other motivation for setting the numbers the way they did.
- fblp 1y agoI don't quite understand the error this article is pointing out and how it could lead to a four fold inaccuracy. Can someone try explain with an example?
- roenxi 1y agoThey used a 0.25 constant in a formula and the article is arguing they should have used 0.945 instead (difference of ~4x). The constant the Trump administration used seems to have been the one for estimated effect of tariffs on retail prices (ie, consumer facing) and it was more appropriate to use the one for the effect on prices at the border. I assume that is similar to me being a computer company importing chips, a 25% tariff on microprocessors will make the imported cost of microprocessors go up by ~24% (because some really expensive ones don't get bought) but it would increase the price of the computers I build by ~5% because most of the computer isn't a microprocessor. It is an exciting time to learn about the country of Lesotho.
- adamredwoods 1y agoMy understanding is they are saying the elasticity of the price (what can be absorbed by tariff increase) comes from the transaction in the retail market it ultimately sells to, yet the "equation" was using elasticity of the import costs. In other words, Trump's equation thinks that import price will absorb (elasticity) the tariff's impact, but that's not true. It's passed on almost entirely (the 0.945 number, so 0.055 may be absorbed). So it's using wrong numbers to justify the effective tariffs. IMO, I don't think Trump cares. I think the equation was a "straw-man".
- walterbell 1y ago> The formula for the tariffs, originally credited to the Council of Economic Advisers and published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, does not make economic sense. There is a 2024 paper (40 pages) by Stephen Miran, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43589350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43589350 The root of the economic imbalances lies in persistent dollar overvaluation that prevents the balancing of international trade, and this overvaluation is driven by inelastic demand for reserve assets. As global GDP grows, it becomes increasingly burdensome for the United States to finance the provision of reserve assets and the defense umbrella, as the manufacturing and tradeable sectors bear the brunt of the costs... Tariffs provide revenue, and if offset by currency adjustments, present minimal inflationary or otherwise adverse side effects. https://financialpost.com/news/stephen-miran-economist-trump-economic-advisory-team https://financialpost.com/news/stephen-miran-economist-trump... > Miran.. points to Trump’s application of tariffs on China in 2018-2019, which he argues “passed with little discernible macroeconomic consequence.” He adds that during that time the U.S. dollar rose to offset the macroeconomic impact of the tariffs and resulted in significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury.. “The effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased by 17.9 percentage points from the start of the trade war in 2018 to the maximum tariff rate in 2019,” the report said. “As the financial markets digested the news, the Chinese renminbi depreciated against the dollar over this period by 13.7 per cent, so that the after-tariff USD import price rose by 4.1 per cent.”
- nprateem 1y agoThis is the most important doc to read. I'm surprised even the FT don't mention it (although commenters do). Next step is currency devaluation. Think I'm going to sell all my US stocks despite the recent battering as they're likely to fall further.
- tvb12 1y agoI'm still reading the paper, but Stephen Miran must regret writing this... A sudden shock to tariff rates of the size proposed can result in financial market volatility. ... A second Trump Administration is likely therefore take steps to ensure large structural changes to the international tax code occur in ways that are minimally disruptive to markets and the economy
- DarknessFalls 1y agoTrump said he is open to negotiation on these tariffs. The factor of four difference is likely intentional padding. This way, he can: 1.) Shock the market into dropping several hundred points on the S&P and Nasdaq indices, thereby making quite a bit of money on the way down and then back up again. and 2.) Lower tariffs in exchange for patronage from countries or specific businesses that want a port opened in this new trade firewall.
- pinkytoe 1y agothis is a classic way that kings and other authoritarian leaders demand patronage.
- lostlogin 1y agoA fair few kings also got their heads chopped off due to getting too unpopular with the masses. I don’t think can attribute the actions of Trump to intelligence or cunning.
- Balgair 1y agoIssue is that Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba visited Donny in February already to avoid tariffs and talk security. Ishiba gave him a one of a kind golden samurai helmet even. It was kind of a big deal. Donny reneged on that. Other countries know that Donny is not trustworthy when it comes to deals. He will go back on them at any time. You can't negotiate with a pigeon. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/02/b4067f888d9e-japan-pm-gives-trump-golden-samurai-helmet-as-gift.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/02/b4067f888d9e-japa...
- ArtTimeInvestor 1y agoCould it be that Trump's main goal is to stay in power? I mean not only for the next 3 years. But beyond. If we look at his actions from this angle, could they make sense?
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoNo? The tariffs aren't popular with anyone, have already produced multiple defections from his own party in Congress, and severely undercut the rationale business and financial leaders had for supporting him in 2024. His co-consul Musk, who normally spares no effort to hype up Trump's decisions, has spent the past few days carefully avoiding even indirect acknowledgement of the tariffs. It's really hard to see how this policy could possibly lead to consolidating power.
- abraxas 1y agoAt this point he gives no fucks about what anyone thinks because the plan is to consolidate the oligarchic power to its maximum, russia style. Winning the hearts and minds is not and never was a part of his plan. And the sad thing is that they will probably succeed. I have no idea why you Americans are so naive about someone who staged a putsch to give up power voluntarily now that he's got it. You will be a russia style full on kleptocracy by the time he's done with you. And then his heirs will lord over you for generations (unless one of them fucks something up). Godspeed.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoI'm just not sure what people mean when they talk about "consolidating power" as something distinct from convincing people that you should have lots of power. "Russia style" consolidation of power under Putin involved quite a lot of winning hearts and minds. Rather than inducing a recession, for example, Putin doubled the Russian GDP over his first 4 years. I'm not naive about the fact that Trump would like to stay in office after 2028 (he doesn't exactly keep it a secret), but the desire doesn't make him any good at it.
- greaber 1y agoDoesn't this formula also punish circular trade patterns in a strange way, like if the US imports $X of good from country B and country B imports $X of goods from country C and country C imports $X of goods from the US, and there are no flows in the opposite direction, then the US would impose an infinite tariff on country B since US imports from B are zero?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoYes. It also only looks at physical goods and not account for services. It's utter incompetence and laziness. But when you vote in lazy incompetence, then that's what you get.
- tim333 1y agoAlmost but the formula actually says trade with B is X, deficit is X, their effective tariff on the US is X/X =1 or 100%, the US tariff on them would be half or that or 50%. There's a list of real tariffs for various countries here https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1908609257756336239 https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1908609257756336239 The circular situation seems not so common but countries like Camboidia don't import much from the US because the people there don't have much money, so the Trump formula makes their 'effective rate' 97% whereas their actual tariffs are 7.9%. The net effect is to hammer the poorest countries. Ironically the Cambodians don't have much money to buy US stuff because of terrible governments that got in partly as a result of the US destabilizing things by bombing the country. They don't seem to have much luck with the US.
- olelele 1y agoThere are a long list of countries that haven’t had much luck with the US.. Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, El Salvador, chile, Colombia, Iran and on and on. Now it seems there is just one country benefiting from their relationship to the States…
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- qwertox 1y agoBy the time companies decide to open factories in the US, these factories will be run with Chinese robots by companies which wouldn't care about a 500% tariff on Chinese robots if they are still cheaper than the work of an American worker.
- hayst4ck 1y agoTrump is only confusing if you think his policies are meant to benefit America. If you don't believe that, then his policies are terrifyingly not confusing. If you believe his policies are primarily meant to benefit American oligarchs or Russia, his policies are even less confusing. Withdrawing support for Ukraine and not putting tariffs on Russia, despite putting tariffs on uninhabited "Heard Island and McDonald Islands" is probably the least confused I've been since his inauguration. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/donald-trump-tariffs-antarctica-uninhabited-heard-mcdonald-islands https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/donald-trump...
- Paradigma11 1y agoI disagree on Russia. If that tariff madness goes on for more than a few months Russia is dead. Russia's economy is already completely unsustainable and on the brink. Brent is currently traded at 66USD and if oil prices fall a bit more and stay there that's it for Russia. It will be fascinating to see what is going to happen with that purely mercenary army recruited from the poor when the money is worth nothing any more.
- ttyprintk 1y agoI’ve been thinking about your second point. Some speculation: Assuming that Trump, Musk, and Putin each need something from one of each other. Assuming that the siloviki want to quietly rule Russia. A mercenary uprising would be convenient cover for Putin to endure exile in, say, the Caribbean. Security by FSB, siloviki split up their rule across Russia, etc. Operating from Guyana, Putin could deprive ESA of access to the French Guiana spaceport, handing it over to Musk. The entire Caribbean fell into 10% tariffs except for two: Guyana (38%) and Cuba (0%).
- nprateem 1y agoNo. His policies are all aimed at fighting China. - He wants to choke them with tariffs (and now has leverage to get the rest of the world to join in). - They want Greenland to defend the North - He wants to onshore manufacturing as a strategic wartime capability Once you understand this, his policies make sense. And the whole business of putting tariffs on everywhere is so countries can't export from them to evade the tariffs. So because of this he seems to think effects on markets will be a one time correction that's worth the cost (not to mention is probably shorting it to pieces)
- foxglacier 1y agoCan anyone explain the reversal of positions on free trade between left and right since the 2000s? Back then, the biggest bogeyman of leftists was globalization and they would protest against free trade agreements and wanted to boycott imports from poor countries because it was exploiting workers there and taking jobs from poor people in rich countries. At the same time rightists loved free trade because it was good for economic growth everywhere. Since Trump 1 when he cancelled some trade agreements, that somehow turned upside-down and leftists since then love free trade while rightists (or at least Trump) oppose it. Trump seems to be like part of a 2000's leftist dressed up as a rightist. I wonder if the change in leftists is just a reaction to Trump who they didn't like because of his personality. Now everybody's making economic arguments which is nothing like what the older type of leftist would do.
- deagle50 1y agobecause the constituencies have been largely reversed.
- Auracle 1y agoAny time one party focuses their attention on one thing, the other will generally greatly oppose it. Republicans weren't the antivaxxers - that was largely hippie type democrats - prior to 2020, and weren't really even until the government mandates, just to give one example. Hell, it isn't even an idea but look what happened to Elon Musk. Liberals loved him until he started publicly sharing some conservative ideas, which made them waffle a bit, and now they absolutely loathe him. This is going to sound like peak HN head-up-own-assery, but I've come to realize that 90% of the population has basically no capacity for nuance, at least politically.
- watwut 1y ago> Hell, it isn't even an idea but look what happened to Elon Musk. Liberals loved him until he started publicly sharing some conservative ideas, which made them waffle a bit, and now they absolutely loathe him. I mean, this one is just being reasonable. Liberals were for a person X as long as that person pretended to favor the same policies and ideologies. When that person turn out to be conservative, well actually far right political player, they changed opinion on the person. Both Trump and Musk dabbling in the democratic politics and then being rejected by them is a sign of more consistent politics of that side. When liberals were antivaxxers, issue was not much political. And democrats and other liberals largely criticized these. Politically, liberal antivaxers were minority that lost the political fight in their own party. They were not putting in anti-vaccers into power.
- seydor 1y agoI believe the idea was "Very High Tarrifs" and the formula was some kid in MS Excel . They are definitely not reciprocal. They don't need to be, since the plan was to use the high tarrifs as negotiating tool to somehow reduce the US national debt
- watwut 1y agoI think that is just sane washing. Original idea was that tariffs are good and America is being ripped off whenever it buy stuff. The rest are mutually exclusive rationalizations by Trump loyalists trying to make it sound reasonable. There are multiple of these explanations and none od them is consistent with actual decisions.
- ttyprintk 1y agoI believe the forensic credit should go to James Surowecki: https://xcancel.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1907559189234196942 https://xcancel.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/19075591892341969...
- nxobject 1y agoI'd put my chips on the formula being $(LLM_OF_CHOICE), given the lack of attention paid to details like, say, uninhabited islands near the Antarctic. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/critics-suspect-trumps-weird-tariff-math-came-from-chatbots/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/critics-suspect-...
- iJohnDoe 1y agoI think this is really interesting and would be fun to find out what really happened. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revealed-how-trump-tariffs-slugged-norfolk-island-and-uninhabited-heard-and-mcdonald-islands https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/04/revea... I have three theories, based this article. 1. The administration used an LLM on certain data and it incorrectly conflated the countries. 2. Certain companies listed regions of export to avoid customs, duties, or for other reasons and it now indirectly got exposed. The article alludes to this without saying so? 3. The administration listed what seemed like inconsequential regions for the purpose of preventing Australia, for this example, of just saying it was exported from Norfolk Islands to dodge tariffs. Although, this is giving the administration way too much credit and if they are reading this don’t steal this as reason. :-)
- hello_computer 1y agoThe global economy is a complex system. Far more complex than software. All of the nerds will adjust their pocket protectors and spew their dubious word-salad (for or against), but the fact of the matter is that nobody truly knows what the nth-order effects will be until they happen. AEI is just another church of Austrian economics--still burning incense for the ghost of Milton Friedman. If you told any of them, "Tariffs, or your mother dies in her sleep tonight.", they would reply in chorus, "Oh well, that's why I keep a picture to remember her by." If any of these people actually knew what they were talking about, they would be fabulously wealthy hedgies like Dalio or Simons, rather than "think-tank" shills.
- tzs 1y ago> All of the nerds will adjust their pocket protectors and spew their dubious word-salad (for or against), but the fact of the matter is that nobody truly knows what the nth-order effects will be until they happen It doesn't really matter if they analyze the nth-order effects correctly because there is enough wrong with these tariffs that the 1st order effects will be bad enough that the higher order effects won't matter. Even if Trump is right that the US should not have a trade deficit it only makes sense to apply that to US trade a whole, not to trade with each individual country. If you apply it to each country independently then you cannot trade with a country that has something you need but doesn't need anything from you. That would exclude circular trade (US buys from A, A buys from B, B buys from the US) for example.
- hello_computer 1y agoThat is a very long way to say, "That's why I keep a picture to remember her by."
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- whatever1 1y agoThe funny part is that China yesterday imposed a 34% tariff on US imports. The “reciprocal” formula does not even consider this. China can impose a 1000% tariff and the formula will not move :facepalm:
- maeil 1y agoWonder why this has been flagged.
- mizzao 1y agoBookmark https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active and you won't have to wonder if you're missing flagged posts with discussion.
- EasyMark 1y agonice, didn'tknow about that one :)
- roflyear 1y agoIt is weird that HN isn't talking about tariffs at all - since this is probably the biggest economic mixup since COVID.
- krapp 1y agoWhy would HN be talking about tariffs? That's the sort of mundane concern you'd find covered on TV news, and good hackers shouldn't find such things interesting. Let's talk about... umm... set theory? Graphics cards? Python?
- roflyear 1y agoIt's going to be really interesting!
- johnnyanmac 1y agoSome people really Will try to avoid politics at all costs, even if their own savings crater from it.
- raffael_de 1y agoMost people's thinking here seems to be clouded by political ideologies and anger over their stocks being down. Game theoretically Trump has a long history of basically playing the perfect strategy of extreme unpredictability, willingness to take a loss for the purpose of making a point, but sufficient reliability if a deal is agreed upon that he benefits from the most. He's the one who'll brake the last in a game of racing to the edge of a cliff - always. That's why he will succeed and the US will keep the upper hand geopolitically and economically. But the world will change also - that's actually why he's playing so tough. The cake is being divided anew and China _will_ get a much larger portion. His goal is not to prevent this - because he can't - his goal is to secure an as large as possible piece for himself and the US. The tariffs are for forcing the entire world to renegotiate anything that he is interested in. And that plan will work. They will ALL negotiate, with him holding the upper hand. PS: Many of the replies suggest that countries can achieve independence of US companies and the US Dollar. While that is possible they forget a key weakness of democracies. Politicians are elected based on short-term benefits and avoidance of suffering. All those required actions to reach independence require serious long-term efforts that detrimentally impact the comfort of the respective voting population at least short-term. That's why those adjustments probably won't happen. Trump knows that and takes advantage of it. Countries not governed by a democratic system are usually led by an elite who'll be indifferent of pretty much anything we are debating here - they just want to obtain more power and wealth. And they'll be achieving this easier when they cooperate with who is factually the most powerful man on the planet.
- tyleo 1y agoOr people won’t want to deal with him, route around the US, and let us drive off the cliff alone.
- raffael_de 1y agoWho is people and why wouldn't they want to deal with him when they'll at least short term benefit from it? All those supposed "people" are like your celebrities who promised to leave the country if Trump gets elected. Nobody left. This is also a good example of a bad strategy from a game theoretic perspective. They want X and threaten: if I don't get X then I'll do Y which is going to be bad for you and me. They don't get X and think: well, what's the point of sticking to my threat if I lost anyway. And that's a bluff. Trump would do X nonetheless and by that prove he's willing to suffer himself just to make you suffer as well. This is going to be remembered next time he makes a threat.
- barkingcat 1y agoInstead of trying to make sense of the formula, it's much more likely the administration needed a global 30% and then they made up the formula (and the constants, etc) to get to that number. Anyone who's trying to make arguments based on the formula itself is the dog being wagged.
- senectus1 1y agocould this possibly be a long term strategy to eliminate china as a threat? ie, Huge tariffs on China means US doesnt buy from china, Huge tariffs FROM china means us doesnt SELL to china... a country isolated is a country that slowly chokes...
- timka 1y agoTrying to make economic sense of a political action makes no sense. Trumps's goal is to disrupt global trade.