So are they going to stick? Or will Trump declare victory and roll them back in whole or in part?

Whatever happens, I think confusion will reign. If he rolls them back, people will be wondering if they will come back. If he keeps them, people will wonder when they're going to go. It will be bad no matter what happens.

I just want to have EQUAL tariffs between nations. If Zimbabwe (or any other nation) chooses to enact a 25% tariff on all products entering it's nation, the US should do the same.

bbauska wrote:I just want to have EQUAL tariffs between nations. If Zimbabwe (or any other nation) chooses to enact a 25% tariff on all products entering it's nation, the US should do the same.

Do you agree that Trump has done nothing like that? His tariffs are not reciprocal.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:I just want to have EQUAL tariffs between nations. If Zimbabwe (or any other nation) chooses to enact a 25% tariff on all products entering it's nation, the US should do the same.

Do you agree that Trump has done nothing like that? His tariffs are not reciprocal.

Yes, I agree. Do YOU want the tariff percentage to be equal between nations?

Just to note: I did not use the President's talking points as a framework of mine. I am an independent thinker. Trump does not rent space in my head. It is another dream of mine that people of ALL political persuasions could think on their own, and not become a left-bot or right-bot. I want to hear what people think. If I wanted to hear what a certain political commentator thinks, I am able to look that up myself.

First, I think it is absurd that a president has any say on tariffs whatsoever. This bogus derivation from the IEEPA is absurd. The Congress is given SOLE power over the tariffs in the Constitution. The IEEPA delegates power to the president over international commerce in a time of national emergency. There is no national emergency except the one Trump has created himself.

If Congress has delegated any power over tariffs here it would be a limited one, necessary to deal with a real national emergency and only with a limited number of countries at most. In other contexts--namely over agencies with regard to their delegation over power--the Supreme Court has decided that with regard to important issues the delegation of power must be clear. Again, the IEEPA does not say anything about a delegation to the president of power over tariffs. Allowing a president complete power over tariffs--completely usurping Congress's exclusive power over them--citing a made-up national emergency is absurd.

Beyond that, it is completely nuts to give the president sole power over the economy with a one stroke of the pen. This is how you get to crony capitalism. He now has a way to create winners and losers. He can share info on what he is going to do on tariffs to "cronies" who can react accordingly (shorting stock when you know the market is going to go down, putting money into gold, etc.) He can decide to reward those who pay him money exemptions. This is crony capitalism.

In fact, time will tell but I do not think this is ultimately about tariffs. This is about a massive wealth transfer to the tech bros who have invested in Trump. If Trump can sabotage the economy and falls and other assets get reduced in value, those with a lot of money can reap the reward. And then, when the time is ripe (some time before mid-terms?) he can make supposed "deals" on tariffs and that combined with massive tax breaks will "reboot" the economy.

No one can be sure about his motivations and what he is planning. And maybe regardless of whatever he planned he won't be able to stand the pressure. But he has already caused a lot of damage. A president needs a lot of power in the national security area because things need to be done quickly. But it is crazy to allow dictatorial power over the economy. You can bet if he is allowed to have such power here, he will keep trying to extend his power...

On the merits it is highly questionable. The United States has done well quite economically in the past 48 years that it has run trade deficits. We are a wealthy nation that consumes a lot; we would rather provide services than work hard in agriculture or manufacturing. We get raw materials from other countries and use them to make other products. Trying to equalize trade deficits with poor countries is not prudent. Developing countries sometimes need more protection for developing industries. The supply chain problems in 2020 taught us that even the United States should secure self-sufficiency in vital areas.

But there is nothing wrong with a tariff review to make sure we're being treated fairly, particularly with regard to countries with comparable wealth. But that should be done country by country with attempts at negotiation and then if they fail then tariffs should be considered. But not massive one-size fits all tariffs that threaten to collapse the world economy and devastate investments for no reason. There was no justifiable reason for that.

bbauska wrote:Do YOU want the tariff percentage to be equal between nations?

No. If the desperately poor places in the world want to tariff certain industries to encourage their establishment, go for it.

Developed countries should have low and equal tariffs, but developing countries should a right and responsibility to improve the lives of their people and tariffs *may* be a part of such a strategy.

Ahhh, the equity vs equality argument. Never have liked that one. I do understand your point however. Thank you.

I do NOT think it is the responsibility of the United States to look after the citizens of another country. That is the responsibility of the other nation's leaders. I do not ascribe to the Marvel adage "With great power comes great responsibility."

Freeman,
Wow! We agree on this completely! I do think that Congress is the controlling authority on tariffs. As with MANY things, Congress has been weak on it's responsibility of curbing the power of the Executive. This goes to both the Left and the Right. A pox on both of their houses!

Where we do disagree is that there needs to be tariffs. I would rather there be none. If another nation chooses to enact a tariff, we should reciprocate. Let the market decide.

bb:

Yes, I agree. Do YOU want the tariff percentage to be equal between nations?

I don't have a strong view. I would shy away from a formula and use tariffs as part of a negotiation. One can certainly make the case for some tariffs based on other country actions. It could be their tariffs or it could be other anti-competitive behavior.

The real problem here is how poorly the tariffs have been done on so many levels. Too high, too arbitrary, too sudden. We are hitting countries that do not have tariffs and we are hitting countries that have trade deficits with us. It's unbelievable incompetence.

This is not a Bear...or Bull market...it's a grifter's market.

Ray Jay wrote:The real problem here is how poorly the tariffs have been done on so many levels. Too high, too arbitrary, too sudden. We are hitting countries that do not have tariffs and we are hitting countries that have trade deficits with us. It's unbelievable incompetence.

That's the truest said here.

bbauska wrote:Let the market decide.

That would mean setting whatever tariffs you wanted, not applying a rigid formula.

For the most part, blanket tariffs are low or zero (whereas Trump is applying blanket minimum tariffs by nation).

Usually, tariffs are set based on the particular materials/goods/products rather than the source nation, and then there are deals to agree reductions / removal at a bilateral or trade-bloc level.

As each different country has a different import and export profile, and also its own national industries that it may want to protect or grow, absolute reciprocation might not make any difference.

For example, Vietnam exports a lot of clothes, but doesn't import them. Instead it puts tariffs on, say, food to protect domestic agriculture.

If the US follows strict reciprocity, that means hiking tariffs of Vietnamese food exports, which might be nothing, and not on clothes.

Applying the same rate to clothes as to food might not work very well as a response, a higher (or lower) rate might be better as a response to the specific situation.

Global trade is very complicated, and simple solutions to complex problems rarely work.

Ray Jay wrote:The real problem here is how poorly the tariffs have been done on so many levels. Too high, too arbitrary, too sudden. We are hitting countries that do not have tariffs and we are hitting countries that have trade deficits with us. It's unbelievable incompetence.

Agreed

And one outcome is a lot of bad feeling toward the US out here in the rest of the world. Our governments don't need tariffs increases to retaliate, people are starting to boycott US products, which will have a similar effect of reducing US exports.

The other main effect is,of course, that tariffs are going to be collected not from "those other countries" but from US-based importers. Who will pass those costs on down the supply chain to US companies and consumers

A measure of the incompetence is also ttag it seems the changes were just announced rather than being properly implemented, and so due to the necessary changes not being put in place, tariffs weren't even being collected at ports of entry.

And, it's been very tough on businesses over here. Everyone I know has a story. As a consultant I have been able to pick up some extra hours trying to figure this stuff out for clients. (So I guess it's been ok for my business.)

In the real world this is creating a lot of problems. Orders made 2 months ago are arriving now with 145% tariff charges. With complex manufactured items you don't know precisely when shipments will arrive. Customers are refusing deliver because they can't afford it, and the US companies who are using Chinese suppliers are in deep trouble for all the stuff in transit. Businesses will go under and lawyers will be very busy,