• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

10 Tariff Questions Never Asked

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Christian Forums Staff
Moderator Trainee
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,291
5,344
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟310,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war.

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a “trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?


Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours—given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1 trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen—or what is happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and instead spent only 1.37%, would Canada become concerned?

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

 

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,959
4,981
✟307,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. Why do americans think they can demand countries smaller then the US need to buy as much as the US? As already said many times, the true trade deficit between US and canada is 10X's more in the favour of the US. but ouch the raw numbers is 10% deficit lets destroy a century or so of friendship.

2. What actually is wrong with a trade deficit? This isn't wether the US is being ripped off by some countries, but as above, why do you guys think Canada should spend more money when the US isn't spending their fair share.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,959
4,981
✟307,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
hmmmm actually lets have some fun.

canada has a 10X deficit with US
italy has a 5x
france has a 3x
here is an interesting one, the US has a surplus with spain, but still 5X deficit with them.

hmmmm noticing a patern here that the US isn't doing their fair share of trades, and then complains about trade deficits, yet is ripping off other countries massivly.
 
Upvote 0

7thKeeper

Venture life, Burn your Dread
Jul 8, 2006
2,142
2,033
Finland
✟155,696.00
Country
Finland
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
We (the US) doesn't owe anyone anything if we don't want to thats that the point. we have spoiled the world with our riches that time is now passing.
Oh look, empty rhetoric. Who even talked about anyone owing anyone else anything?
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,167
2,965
London, UK
✟954,321.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war.

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a “trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?


Public health in the USA is a disaster and the regulation of Big Pharma not as stringent. Europe wants cheaper, properly tested and medically approved treatments, not what maximizes the bottom line for Big Pharma.

Most of the surpluses of recent years have been to do with global producers making stuff that Americans want more than their local stuff, sometimes because of price and sometimes because of quality e.g. German cars and chainsaws.


2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?


Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours—given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

Americans have been reaping the advantage of the dollar as a global trading currency, You can print more without fear of inflation because of this global demand. So you have been able to run deficits and accumulate debt without the natural corrections that would apply in other countries coming into force. It is American corporations that chose to outsource due to labor costs and because often core competencies in some areas exist elsewhere. In the long run, balance is preferable. Inside Germany, for example, our massive trade surpluses of the last ten years have been criticised as being at the expense of Germans and as having shifted the power to the big corporations. This has not necessarily been good for German growth as the fastest growing and most dynamic sector in the German economy is the Mittelstand, not the big multinationals.

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1 trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

It is better to be a creditor than a debtor. But why should those who had no discipline about their spending blame those who did?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?

Stockholder capitalism is a curse and is all about shareholder profits. Stakeholder capitalism is what makes companies great again. Maybe the USA can learn from the German business model and their workers' councils that act with management to improve the company while protecting the workforce.

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen—or what is happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

Wall Street can see that Trump's strategy is not going to work for their profit margins in the short to medium term. It will require years of painful adjustments to shift the global supply chains, and Trump is trying a big bang approach. Trump is adding to the uncertainty by his art of the deal tactics designed to build leverage for the next stage of the negotiations but this is destroying confidence and creating a bear market.

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

These are all worthy goals. The problem is always implementation and the costs of the transition. Trump is an idealist with a vision, but he does not care about the carnage he is causing to people's lifetime savings and to company models of doing business that do not fit his vision. He is a bull in a China shop and Wall Street is panicked. He backtracked on computer tech, for example, because this is a clear example of where his policies will harm the US economy. A gradual approach to restoring and deficit reduction was never going to be Trump's style, though.

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and instead spent only 1.37%, would Canada become concerned?

Canada needs to pull their socks up on defense. The surplus is stuff that the American economy needs - fossil fuels, crops, cars and services.

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?


It is always easier to blame the rich guy. Mexico never has been the rich guy compared to its Northern neighbor - well, unless you go back to the days of the Spanish Empire. In those days, the locals looked North with contempt for the underdeveloped northern wastelands and the pagan tribes of North America and they had walls and warriors to keep them out.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,959
4,981
✟307,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We (the US) doesn't owe anyone anything if we don't want to thats that the point. we have spoiled the world with our riches that time is now passing.
you don't owe us anything, but claim we owe you something? How mature, and silly of you. Again, look at my list, it's the US that has taken advantage of other countries, not us taking advantage of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,959
4,981
✟307,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war.

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a “trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?


Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours—given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1 trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen—or what is happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and instead spent only 1.37%, would Canada become concerned?

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

oh missed number 7 though did explain it. Are you joking? You seriously think that you have a trade surplus with us? Reality check, your 8X's our size, but only 10% trade deficit, why do you guys think smaller countries should spend as much as you do? We are already per capita spending 10X's more then you, get off your high horse and come back to reality. EVERY country I listed, spends more per capita then you do.

but your right, a country 1/8th yur size should spend as much as you do or were taking advantage.....not how reality works.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
30,225
21,869
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟566,175.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
We (the US) doesn't owe anyone anything if we don't want to thats that the point. we have spoiled the world with our riches that time is now passing.
The time of you having riches appears to be passing, yes. (Except the oligarchs of course)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
12,768
5,108
European Union
✟212,077.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Trade deficits by country for 2023:

1 U.S. -$1.1T
2 India -$245.5B
3 United Kingdom -$233.1B
4 Türkiye -$86.3B
5 France -$82.3B
6 Philippines -$65.9B
7 Japan -$47.9B
8 Spain -$37.5B
9 Greece -$35.7B
10 Romania -$31.3B

Trade deficits are not unusual and many countries have higher trade deficits even higher than the USA, if not calculated in absolute numbers.

Therefore, it is not true that in Europe or Asia are all running surpluses.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
12,768
5,108
European Union
✟212,077.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We (the US) doesn't owe anyone anything if we don't want to thats that the point. we have spoiled the world with our riches that time is now passing.
Actually, the world spoiled you with its riches, but it is starting to be more balanced, now. Because economies are much more stable, globally, and had time to develop.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
6,437
4,462
NW
✟240,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?
This is not a tariff question. Though it may be a valid one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,167
2,965
London, UK
✟954,321.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Trade deficits by country for 2023:

1 U.S. -$1.1T
2 India -$245.5B
3 United Kingdom -$233.1B
4 Türkiye -$86.3B
5 France -$82.3B
6 Philippines -$65.9B
7 Japan -$47.9B
8 Spain -$37.5B
9 Greece -$35.7B
10 Romania -$31.3B

Trade deficits are not unusual and many countries have higher trade deficits even higher than the USA, if not calculated in absolute numbers.

Therefore, it is not true that in Europe or Asia are all running surpluses.

The winners table looks like this:

Rank Country Net Trade Balance 2023 (B)
1 China $593.9
2 Germany $249.9
3 Ireland $168.6
4 Singapore $154.8
5 Saudi Arabia $126.9
6 Switzerland $124.9
7 Russia $121.6
8 Brazil $92.3
9 Netherlands $92.0
10 Australia $83.4
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Richard T

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2018
2,728
1,768
traveling Asia
✟122,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war.

It always has been a trade war to mercantilists. China certainly looks like that, most other nations though are protective on certain goods. The USA is a hegemon in the trading system and in the US dollar. If you want to that type of power and control you have to take some hits. So now Trump is hitting back, though too much on some nations, but perfectly on China.

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?
This should not matter, Equilibrium should arise from currency devaluation in the deficit nations. This usually happens but the USA is a special case. It holds the worlds reserve currency. More trade means more dollars are held by foreign nations. They invest much of that back by buying Treasuries and other investments. This is the side of the coin that many don't see. As long as USA investments are attractive, the trade deficits can continue. Some suggest though there is a tipping point. And the relative size of the USA to carry the entire system is smaller than in the past. As someone just posted this, it is a blueprint of how currency valuations and trade interact. https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/do...o_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/03...ng-taxes-deficits-missing-from-bidens-budget/
4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

Sorry to me not viable question. Investors take risks on money already earned. Wage earners take risks on future earnings. I do not see how you can equate the two. Also, the market does not account for the Kodaks and TWA's of the world because they are purged from the indexes.

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen—or what is happening?

What if it is a fear on what already happened? Extreme valuations never last. The last two years were near record returns that only happened twice before. 1927-28 was one of those times. So a quick hit on the exits before the music dies out. Buffet was out well before Trump came. The US market was an accident waiting to happen, Trump just made it worse.

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?
There is no debt reduction coming. lower deficits at best but 5 trillion more was passed to add to the public debt. budget cuts are slightly worrisome. Government spending stabilizes the economy. When you lay off people there is a multiplier effect to business. Until they find jobs they are drain on the economy. Tariffs will spike inflation. This puts mortgages at a high level for who knows how long. Wall Street and even the dovish Fed has over estimated the interest rate cuts. Fact is the next move could be up rather than down. Consumers expectations are falling and most expect inflation to rise. No good news here.

7. What about North American neighbors?

Best way to handle Canada and Mexico is to partner with them in a common market, including a common currency. Tie that with cleaning up Mexico's cartels, secure border enforcement on the Southern Mexican border and increase the labor supply of cheap workers, The NAFTA region would have strong growth, and less dependence on the rest of the world.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,528
3,338
82
Goldsboro NC
✟238,381.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war.

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a “trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?


Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours—given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1 trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks—and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen—or what is happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and instead spent only 1.37%, would Canada become concerned?

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

Yes, those are questions which economists and other serious observers consider. It's a good sign that you are finally asking them yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,539
6,985
✟322,470.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
1. President Donald Trump’s so-called trade war.

This opinion piece is painfully, excruciatingly wrong. Dr Hanson might be a decent military historian, but he's certainly no economist.

Here's the non-partisan Yale analysis of the impact of US tariffs (as of April 9): https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/fiscal-and-economic-effects-revised-april-9-tariffs

The TL/DR is that it's going to cost US households between $2,000 and $10,000 per year depending on income, and its going to cut disposable income for 4.9% for the poorest households and 2% for the wealthiest. US GDP is going to fall about 0.6% in the long run (that is, every year will be 0.6% lower than it would otherwise be).

Dr Hanson's analysis also ignores the other trade that goes on - in services.

Here's what Dr Ira Kalish, the Chief Global Economist of Deloitte Touche Tohmats, has to say about that:

"Importantly, trade between countries involves not only physical goods, but also services. In fact, services trade is massive. It includes financial services, professional services (such as what we do), tourism and hospitality, transportation, and more. Although the United States runs a trade deficit in goods, it has a trade surplus in services. When trade balances in goods and services are combined, along with net payments and transfers, it amounts to the current account balance, which is the only balance that really matters. The current account plus the capital account is the balance of payments. In the case of the United States, it is usually close to zero. That is, capital flows pretty much offset current account flows. The balance of trade in goods has no real meaning, yet it is the focus of everything that is now happening."

Source: What’s happening this week in economics?

Dr Hanson also ignores the empirical data that shows that tariffs in and of themselves actually do very little to redress trade deficits.

Here's what Dr Ralph Ossa, the Chief Economist at the World Trade Organization and a specalist in international trade has to say:

A topical question is whether tariffs affect trade imbalances. The answer depends on whether one considers aggregate, bilateral or sectoral imbalances. Aggregate trade imbalances reflect the gap between national saving and national investment – a basic accounting identity. The logic is analogous to household finance: if a household (country) saves, it must earn (export) more than it spends (imports).

To improve the aggregate trade balance, tariffs would need to increase national saving or reduce investment, which is a possibility. For instance, households might delay consumption if they expect tariffs to be temporary, thereby raising saving. Alternatively, tariffs could reduce investment by increasing the cost of capital goods, or by creating policy uncertainty, leading firms to postpone spending.

However, most economists expect tariffs to have only limited effects on aggregate imbalances. Macroeconomic fundamentals – such as fiscal policy or the household savings rate – play a more dominant role. This view is supported by empirical studies that have found little impact of tariffs on aggregate trade balances so far.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Christian Forums Staff
Moderator Trainee
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,291
5,344
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟310,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's what Dr Ralph Ossa, the Chief Economist at the World Trade Organization and a specalist in international trade has to say:
I fully expect someone like him to answer the questions from a globalists perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,539
6,985
✟322,470.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I fully expect someone like him to answer the questions from a globalists perspective.

An international trade expert a "globalist"! Quelle surprise!

:doh: :rolleyes:


Here's some analysis from the Harvard Business Review (Understanding the Global Macroeconomic Impacts of Trump’s Tariffs:

An Asymmetric Trade War


To gauge global impacts, it pays to start with an often-overlooked fact: The U.S. has started a trade war with every other country, but each other country is engaged in a trade war with only the U.S. Incorporating this asymmetry into your assessment quickly erodes the assumption that the U.S. holds all the cards.

As the largest economy, and with its sizable trade deficit (importing far more than it exports), the U.S. should have had a strong initial starting position in a narrower trade war, as it stands to lose less from falling trade than each of its trade partners.

But by starting a trade war on all fronts—a 360° trade war—the U.S. may receive global and cumulative blowback, while other countries will only see an impact on their trade with the U.S. Fighting a narrow trade war is not the same as fighting one on all fronts, as the impacts of both supply and demand shocks accumulate.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,167
2,965
London, UK
✟954,321.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An international trade expert a "globalist"! Quelle surprise!

:doh: :rolleyes:


Here's some analysis from the Harvard Business Review (Understanding the Global Macroeconomic Impacts of Trump’s Tariffs:

An Asymmetric Trade War


To gauge global impacts, it pays to start with an often-overlooked fact: The U.S. has started a trade war with every other country, but each other country is engaged in a trade war with only the U.S. Incorporating this asymmetry into your assessment quickly erodes the assumption that the U.S. holds all the cards.

As the largest economy, and with its sizable trade deficit (importing far more than it exports), the U.S. should have had a strong initial starting position in a narrower trade war, as it stands to lose less from falling trade than each of its trade partners.

But by starting a trade war on all fronts—a 360° trade war—the U.S. may receive global and cumulative blowback, while other countries will only see an impact on their trade with the U.S. Fighting a narrow trade war is not the same as fighting one on all fronts, as the impacts of both supply and demand shocks accumulate.
This assumes a united front. Trump has been astutely separating the various national actors from each other. He will have to make special exceptions in the case of China and the EU, like it or not, as these have an equal economic weight to the USA. His best strategy would have been to take on China and Russia with the EU as an ally. It is not too late for him to see sense.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
22,250
14,973
72
Bondi
✟352,504.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I fully expect someone like him to answer the questions from a globalists perspective.
What? What other perspective would you expect any financial expert to take when the tariff discussion is about global trade?
 
Upvote 0