Tariffs on Chips

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#61 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 12:49 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Apr 09, 2025 3:47 am
It might work, again depending somewhat on how you define work. And yes, all the definitions are a bit fluffy but that's economics and politics for you.

What is largely absent from your analysis is an acknowledgement that the status quo wasn't working either. And not just from a dying rust belt perspective, but from the point of view that a massive trade deficit backed up by massive borrowing is not sustainable. A substantial change was inevitable in the near future regardless of who was in charge, and the standard model is a rather airy fairy idea of doing the same thing better and hoping it's enough. And in fairness historically it has been enough, but the fundamental problems remain and seem to grow.

But instead we have this. I don't think this is good, but that is tempered somewhat in my mind by not thinking what was there before was good. It is entirely possible that there are no good solutions or ways forward.

In short I've been expecting the shit to hit the fan for some time, and what we have from Trump is different shit and a different fan. It's likely going to get messy, but I don't know nearly enough to predict how bad it will be and whether it will be significantly worse than the alternative. I don't think anyone does.
This is mostly right, but it still matters to me that Trump's recent moves have nothing to do with this.

The US has a trade deficit because it borrows more than it saves. That's a fundamental law of economics, literally like gravity, that no one in the Trump admin seems to understand. It's a literal accounting identity that has to be true. The only way the tariffs "fix" this underlying problem is if they decimate the US consumers' buying power so much that people actually save, and if they legitimately cut the federal deficit (which they won't, because DOGE won't touch 80% of spending on entitlements).

The reckoning here could have been good policy. Trump blew up the WTO in his first term by disengaging and failing to appoint appellants — he could have reformed it instead, with the support of basically every other country on earth since basically everyone wanted new rules to restrain China. His admin could actually be doing something about the federal budget — the deficit-financed tax cuts from his first term were a monumental step in the opposite direction. America could help every rust belter directly by actually redistributing the gains from trade with a social safety net like all its allies have, and that would actually work while this trade war won't.

Trump is too often given a pass for "at least he's doing something" in response to huge, real issues. But very often the things he's doing are making that issue worse lol, this trade war is a prime example. He should be castigated for making it worse, not praised for trying something asinine that will foreseeably worsen the problem.

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#62 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 3:26 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Apr 09, 2025 3:47 am
It might work, again depending somewhat on how you define work. And yes, all the definitions are a bit fluffy but that's economics and politics for you.
I'm curious how you define "work" in this context.

For the reasons I've outlined in this thread the tariff war won't "work", since it will impoverish Americans without actually addressing the current account imbalances that cause US trade deficits.

What is the silver lining here? What concessions could America conceivably get that would be worth the self-harm they've already suffered (let alone what's likely to happen in the coming months)?

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#63 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:25 pm

Lol now the "reciprocal" tariffs have been paused for 90 days...kind of. Most countries are still getting at least a 10% tariff imposed on them. China will still face the 100%+ rate.

So did China just save the global economy? By calling Trump's bluff they made the US back off from the insane and unsustainable position of tariffing everyone all at once, while apparently expecting no blowback whatsoever.

This uncertainty is *killing* investment everywhere, but especially in the States. Meanwhile, whatever leverage the US hoped to gain with the tariffs, if that was even the point, is diminishing. And the pause does nothing to restore confidence in the US as a trade and investment partner - it will suffer nearly all of the reputational damage that would have occurred if they had just stayed the course.

This is simply *not* strategic. There is no conceivable way this advances even Trump's own agenda.

User avatar
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 34391
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#64 Post by Jamiet99uk » Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:32 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:25 pm
Lol now the "reciprocal" tariffs have been paused for 90 days...kind of. Most countries are still getting at least a 10% tariff imposed on them. China will still face the 100%+ rate.

So did China just save the global economy? By calling Trump's bluff they made the US back off from the insane and unsustainable position of tariffing everyone all at once, while apparently expecting no blowback whatsoever.

This uncertainty is *killing* investment everywhere, but especially in the States. Meanwhile, whatever leverage the US hoped to gain with the tariffs, if that was even the point, is diminishing. And the pause does nothing to restore confidence in the US as a trade and investment partner - it will suffer nearly all of the reputational damage that would have occurred if they had just stayed the course.

This is simply *not* strategic. There is no conceivable way this advances even Trump's own agenda.
Unless, and this is kind of what Oct has been saying, his "agenda" is just to be seen to be doing something different and challenging the status quo, for the benefit of a poorly informed audience who will praise him for that alone even if it harms their country.....
Fuck Israel

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#65 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:39 pm

Oct will surely disagree with this, but I think even that imputes more strategic thinking than what has been on display in the past few weeks on the trade file. There were simpler and less damaging ways to fool the ignorant about trade policy if that were the goal lol. I strongly suspect they thought China would roll over, in which case they would have continued on with the previous "reciprocal" tariff approach on everyone else.

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#66 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:47 pm

I imagine the big bump in Treasury yields this morning was the straw that broke the camel's back. China proved it can totally fuck the US government by dumping treasuries if the US is also alienating anyone else who might consider buying them (they certainly seem like a much riskier asset today than they did mere weeks ago).

Trump and company can weather equity market fluctuations - most Americans don't have savings and administration insiders stood to make money from the volatility over the medium- to long-run. But rising bond yields, simultaneous to rising recession risk, is a flashing red light for a very deep and hard-to-abate downturn, not to mention the impacts on the debt and deficit.

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#67 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 8:47 pm

Jesus, Trump told all his Truth Social supporters this morning "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT".

Now he's openly manipulating the market to enrich his most diehard fans in order to defray the political consequences of *his* policies which tanked the market in the first place.

Absolute piece of shit.

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#68 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:47 pm

I'm ranting now but what a fucking grift. The President of the US just did a reverse pump-and-dump on the entirety of US equities. How many times can he do that before the US becomes un-investible? Turkey under Erdogan is becoming a very appropriate comparison.

User avatar
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 34391
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#69 Post by Jamiet99uk » Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:47 pm
I'm ranting now but what a fucking grift. The President of the US just did a reverse pump-and-dump on the entirety of US equities. How many times can he do that before the US becomes un-investible? Turkey under Erdogan is becoming a very appropriate comparison.
I have said this already but HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL and America isn't a democracy.
Fuck Israel

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Everything

#70 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Thu May 29, 2025 10:31 pm

Yesterday, a US court suspended most of Trump's tariffs, arguing he lacked the legal authority to impose them. That decision was overturned today by a superior court on appeal, but will likely be appealed further.

Legal machinations around policy aren't new. But between Trump's flip flopping and these court decisions, tariff policy is being turned on and off more than a light switch in a haunted house with ADHD ghosts. What a supremely stupid way to manage the world's largest and most important economy. How could anyone invest under these circumstances?

Octavious
Posts: 4375
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#71 Post by Octavious » Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:52 am

If your analysis of the enemy only makes sense if you assume that the enemy is stupid, the overwhelming likelihood is that you've missed something.

This is true of Diplomacy and real life
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
CaptainFritz28
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:11 pm
Location: Republic... er... State of Texas
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#72 Post by CaptainFritz28 » Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:24 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 pm
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:47 pm
I'm ranting now but what a fucking grift. The President of the US just did a reverse pump-and-dump on the entirety of US equities. How many times can he do that before the US becomes un-investible? Turkey under Erdogan is becoming a very appropriate comparison.
I have said this already but HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL and America isn't a democracy.
America never was a democracy. Wasn't designed to be, shouldn't be, isn't.
Ferre ad Finem!

Octavious
Posts: 4375
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#73 Post by Octavious » Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:54 am

I don't understand the obsession of the American right to try and change the definition of democracy so that America isn't one. Leave semantic word play crap to the left where it belongs. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and has been one for a very long time
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#74 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:10 pm

Octavious wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:52 am
If your analysis of the enemy only makes sense if you assume that the enemy is stupid, the overwhelming likelihood is that you've missed something.

This is true of Diplomacy and real life
Ah yes, the genius strategy of predicating one's entire nonsense economic agenda on the false declaration of an emergency such that it is extremely vulnerable to being reversed by the courts lol.

I'm reminded of Biden's student loan forgiveness program: a bad idea that the president also didn't have the authority to do, which wasted an awful lot of political capital before being shot down by the courts.

Octavious
Posts: 4375
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#75 Post by Octavious » Sun Jun 01, 2025 6:18 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:10 pm
Octavious wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:52 am
If your analysis of the enemy only makes sense if you assume that the enemy is stupid, the overwhelming likelihood is that you've missed something.

This is true of Diplomacy and real life
Ah yes, the genius strategy of predicating one's entire nonsense economic agenda on the false declaration of an emergency such that it is extremely vulnerable to being reversed by the courts lol.

I'm reminded of Biden's student loan forgiveness program: a bad idea that the president also didn't have the authority to do, which wasted an awful lot of political capital before being shot down by the courts.
Except that as it stands it hasn't been reversed by the courts, and I have no idea how vulnerable it is to being so. Seriously, 50-50? 80-20? 20-80? I haven't got a clue and would be surprised if you did either. I also don't know how easy or difficult it would be for Trump to implement tariffs by other methods if the legal challenge is ultimately successful.

But what does seem to be the case is that it is doing Trump no harm to his "fighting the establishment" narrative. Much like the Tories were rather keen on prolonging the fight against the Unions because it gave them a purpose
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#76 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:12 pm

Sounds like we agree completely. The admin forced its flagship economic policy through an emergency provision because it would never be proactively supported in the Senate, which has left its "success" up to a coin toss in the judiciary.

And the policy is not actually aimed at earnestly improving the US economy, but rather serves as a totem for the Trump admin to create political theater about the "swamp" and kiss-the-ring-style displays from the business community and some foreign leaders. You seem to want to excuse this as a normal part of politics — and indeed it is, but people should be upset by it.

Octavious
Posts: 4375
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#77 Post by Octavious » Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:01 pm

Again, what's with all the "you seem to want to excuse it" rhetoric? You seem determined to view everything I say in a pro-Trump light even when you're saying that we agree completely :razz:
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
CaptainFritz28
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:11 pm
Location: Republic... er... State of Texas
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#78 Post by CaptainFritz28 » Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm

Octavious wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:54 am
I don't understand the obsession of the American right to try and change the definition of democracy so that America isn't one. Leave semantic word play crap to the left where it belongs. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and has been one for a very long time
What you call "semantic word play crap" is, at least here, the precise use of terms to accurately reflect their meaning. Democracy is a rule by the majority. It has, in the last, oh, about 100 or so years, had its original definition played with by those who want it to seem more favorable and has been skewed in most people's minds to mean any sort of representation in government. Parts of our government have democracy-like form, such as the electing of representatives to the house and senate, but it was neither originally designed to be a democracy nor is it directly such now. I'll concede that it is becoming more and more like a democracy all the time, as unfortunate as that is. Sometimes representative government is a democracy, sometimes not. In America's case, due to things like the Constitution, Supreme Court, and Electoral College, it is not.

You could cite any modern dictionary and disagree with me, arguing that definitions change. I say that's crap, words have meaning and to discredit that meaning and change definitions just because a majority of society wants to call it something else is ridiculous. I don't believe in the commonly held principle that the use of a word determines its meaning. That makes language entirely relativistic and rather useless when it comes to actual communication. Contrarily, I think that meaning should determine use.

'Democracy' and 'Republic' do, in fact, mean different things. To say that they mean exactly the same thing makes them redundant and useless as separate terms. If you must hold that they are essentially the same, then Republic is at least a more historically accurate term for America's government and is better used.


I didn't make my original reply to Jamie for a "gotcha" or to show how stupid he must be to mistake America for a democracy because that would be stupid to do myself, and it's a very common misconception anyways. Call me a grammar Nazi (or if you're Jamie just call me a Nazi), but I think that the use of terms ought to mirror their actual meaning. Otherwise words lose their meaning and you can define things however you like.

Also... I'm curious where you get the notion that it's an American thing to say that America isn't a democracy. In America, almost every politician on both sides refers to us as one, and most everyone else does too. I am representative of a very small minority of people, a minority among people that share most of my political views even, that prefer to use it in its original sense, as it would've been used by those who formed our government.
Ferre ad Finem!

Octavious
Posts: 4375
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#79 Post by Octavious » Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:47 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
What you call "semantic word play crap" is, at least here, the precise use of terms to accurately reflect their meaning. Democracy is a rule by the majority. It has, in the last, oh, about 100 or so years, had its original definition played with by those who want it to seem more favorable and has been skewed in most people's minds to mean any sort of representation in government
For the last few thousand years or so democracy has meant rule by the people. Demos meaning the people, kratia meaning power/rule. The question of whether or not a country is a democracy is simply one of whether or not political power is granted by the people. In the US it clearly is. I'm not sure where your confusion regarding this comes from.
CaptainFritz28 wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
'Democracy' and 'Republic' do, in fact, mean different things
As someone who has lived in a democracy that is not a republic for my entire life I assure you I'm aware of this ;). A republic is a flawed democracy typically born of the frustrations of left wing malcontents. Humanity's efforts to find a type of democracy without flaws has thus far proved unsuccessful.
CaptainFritz28 wrote:
Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:03 pm
Also... I'm curious where you get the notion that it's an American thing to say that America isn't a democracy.
Because literally the only people I have ever heard doing so are certain types of American right wingers, and it is a fashion that seems to have grown out of nowhere over the last decade or so. America is a democracy, is very obviously a democracy, and that is using the definition of democracy that has been pretty constant since before Jesus. You could argue that to be a pure democracy then Congress or Parliament or whatever should be made up of people drawn by lottery from the population and all major decisions put to referendum, but that is typically only a topic of historians. That form of democracy was also flawed, which is presumably why it didn't last.
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
Esquire Bertissimmo
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 05, 2023 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Tariffs on Chips

#80 Post by Esquire Bertissimmo » Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:10 pm

Fritz, you said quite a bit without actually explaining why this distinction matters.

It seems obvious to me that the United States is a constitutional republic that operates as a representative democracy. Leaving out either term misses part of the picture.

As Oct pointed out, basically no “democracy” is a “democracy” if you exclude representative democracies.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users