4 ms·

I'm coming to the conclusion that the tariffs are a distraction. The 10% across the board appears more like a tax hike without calling it one while the focus on

I'm coming to the conclusion that the tariffs are a distraction. The 10% across the board appears more like a tax hike without calling it one while the focus on China is just the same old trade war from the first term with louder chest-beating.

Spivak 1y ago
But a distraction from what? There doesn't seem to be any kind of obvious other thing they're trying to do with the cover. They're not exactly being secretive with ICE arrests, the mass layoffs from the federal government, or their weird campaign against DEI that the administration seems to have all but forgotten about.
- tpurves 1y ago
  They literally have no idea what they doing from one moment to the next. Obviously they are making up facts and strategies on the fly maybe minutes before press conferences. Just look all the math errors, irrational formulas and tariffing penguins. The malevolent incompetence is staggering.
- ozmodiar 1y ago
  I think they're distracting from the fact that it's a huge tax on the general public. You might say it's obvious, but people just don't process it the same way even though that's what a tariff is.
  - prawn 1y ago
    The fact that opponents haven't successfully branded this as a tax is remarkable.
  - matt-p 1y ago
    Ok, but why would you tarrif friendly nations who you have a surplus with? If you tarriff them 10% they'll tarriff you 10% which means your companies lose out more than theirs and you've also pissed off an ally? Why? I'm thinking about Australia, UK those kind of folks.
    - prawn 1y ago
      Broadens the tax?
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      You know how in a game of Risk, at the early stages you form strategic alliances, but toward the end you inevitably have to break them because eventually someone has to win? That's a little like what's going on now. Pissing off your allies is good because if they're happy, that means you didn't squeeze them enough. And it may hurt us and our companies more than theirs, but it doesn't hurt Trump personally, and that's all he cares about. He's going to be fine, so he's more than happy to cause us pain if it cause them pain as well.
      - SpaceNugget 1y ago
        Do you not believe that there can be mutually beneficial trade situations where both/all parties involved might be happy? Pissing off your allies is good because if they're happy, that means you didn't squeeze them enough. Is incredibly simple minded, self centered, and also just not true.
        ModernMech 1y ago
        I of course believe that. But Trump does not. Trump believes a good deal is one in which he gets everything he wants, and the opposing party gets nothing. It's a philosophy of domination and control. It's the reason a "trade deficit" is seen as a bad thing by him. Trade deficits are the result of a mutually beneficial transaction, but that's not enough for Trump. It can't just be mutually beneficial, it has to be beneficial more in our direction than theirs. Or look at how he treats contractors. He hires a person to do a job, they agree and deliver the work, and that should be the end of the mutually beneficial deal. But not for Trump, his MO is to stiff contractors, force them to sue, mire them in a legal quagmire, and get them to settle at a loss. This is the kind of deal Trump likes because it's a win for him -- he gets the contracted work at a fraction of the price; and a loss for them -- they probably wouldn't have agreed to do the work had they known what they were in for upfront. Is this a great way to run the largest economy in the world? Of course not! But that's how it's happening now because that's the kind of guy who is in charge.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
barbazoo 1y ago
I believe at this point it's a simple game of leverage. Look how much damage I can inflict. Now let's negotiate.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  He only has political leverage over Congress. If they chose to act, they could stop him. Seems weird to kick off negotiations with them by inflicting damage on their constituents.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- bdangubic 1y ago
  damage to himself you mean? he came with a knife to a gunfight…
  - delusional 1y ago
    And then decided to stab himself for some reason.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- dongobread 1y ago
  The US has crashed its own stock market, tanked its own government's approval ratings, and had its own business leaders speak out against the government. This definitely does not increase leverage.
  - gmueckl 1y ago
    But these are all internal to the US. Trade partners still have to deal with the current administration and don't have any recourse.
  - 1y ago

Spivak 1y ago

But a distraction from what? There doesn't seem to be any kind of obvious other thing they're trying to do with the cover. They're not exactly being secretive with ICE arrests, the mass layoffs from the federal government, or their weird campaign against DEI that the administration seems to have all but forgotten about.

tpurves 1y ago
They literally have no idea what they doing from one moment to the next. Obviously they are making up facts and strategies on the fly maybe minutes before press conferences. Just look all the math errors, irrational formulas and tariffing penguins. The malevolent incompetence is staggering.
ozmodiar 1y ago
I think they're distracting from the fact that it's a huge tax on the general public. You might say it's obvious, but people just don't process it the same way even though that's what a tariff is.
- prawn 1y ago
  The fact that opponents haven't successfully branded this as a tax is remarkable.
- matt-p 1y ago
  Ok, but why would you tarrif friendly nations who you have a surplus with? If you tarriff them 10% they'll tarriff you 10% which means your companies lose out more than theirs and you've also pissed off an ally? Why? I'm thinking about Australia, UK those kind of folks.
  - prawn 1y ago
    Broadens the tax?
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    You know how in a game of Risk, at the early stages you form strategic alliances, but toward the end you inevitably have to break them because eventually someone has to win? That's a little like what's going on now. Pissing off your allies is good because if they're happy, that means you didn't squeeze them enough. And it may hurt us and our companies more than theirs, but it doesn't hurt Trump personally, and that's all he cares about. He's going to be fine, so he's more than happy to cause us pain if it cause them pain as well.
    - SpaceNugget 1y ago
      Do you not believe that there can be mutually beneficial trade situations where both/all parties involved might be happy? Pissing off your allies is good because if they're happy, that means you didn't squeeze them enough. Is incredibly simple minded, self centered, and also just not true.
      - ModernMech 1y ago
        I of course believe that. But Trump does not. Trump believes a good deal is one in which he gets everything he wants, and the opposing party gets nothing. It's a philosophy of domination and control. It's the reason a "trade deficit" is seen as a bad thing by him. Trade deficits are the result of a mutually beneficial transaction, but that's not enough for Trump. It can't just be mutually beneficial, it has to be beneficial more in our direction than theirs. Or look at how he treats contractors. He hires a person to do a job, they agree and deliver the work, and that should be the end of the mutually beneficial deal. But not for Trump, his MO is to stiff contractors, force them to sue, mire them in a legal quagmire, and get them to settle at a loss. This is the kind of deal Trump likes because it's a win for him -- he gets the contracted work at a fraction of the price; and a loss for them -- they probably wouldn't have agreed to do the work had they known what they were in for upfront. Is this a great way to run the largest economy in the world? Of course not! But that's how it's happening now because that's the kind of guy who is in charge.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

barbazoo 1y ago

I believe at this point it's a simple game of leverage. Look how much damage I can inflict. Now let's negotiate.

maxerickson 1y ago
He only has political leverage over Congress. If they chose to act, they could stop him. Seems weird to kick off negotiations with them by inflicting damage on their constituents.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bdangubic 1y ago
damage to himself you mean? he came with a knife to a gunfight…
- delusional 1y ago
  And then decided to stab himself for some reason.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
dongobread 1y ago
The US has crashed its own stock market, tanked its own government's approval ratings, and had its own business leaders speak out against the government. This definitely does not increase leverage.
- gmueckl 1y ago
  But these are all internal to the US. Trade partners still have to deal with the current administration and don't have any recourse.
- 1y ago