- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/3/25 at 2:20 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Saw an interesting stat today.
Back in Detroit’s heyday, a plant would hire as many as 100,000 workers.
The new Hyundai EV plant outside Savannah is expecting to produce 8,500 jobs.
We’re in a different world, folks. This isn’t 1954 and this isn’t going to make America great again.
Back in Detroit's hey day, auto makers made all of their own parts. For decades that has been outsourced to parts manufacturers and a global supply chain. American auto workers don't manufacture cars any more. They assemble them. You may be right that Americans may not want those factory jobs but you are comparing watermelons to oranges.
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 4/3/25 at 2:22 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:
comparing watermelons to oranges.
Exactly my point.
We have an administration who thinks we can bring back peak Detroit era American manufacturing. It's impossible. That time is gone, no matter how many tariffs you enforce or trade wars you try to win.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 2:23 pm to 3nOut
quote:
Same as trade. Other countries are used to this trade imbalance and it’s how they operate because they’re trying to protect their economy and workforce. When it gets equaled out, it feels like an attack.
How are poor arse places that can't afford anything we make supposed to balance their trade with the US? Stop selling to us?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 2:30 pm to I Love Bama
quote:
In general I agree. But most of these countries can not survive without the USA.
Not so sure about that. But we're about to find out, I guess?
What's going to be interesting is when the dollar gets dropped as the global reserve currency. Hopefully, Congress steps in before then.
Saw today Chuck Grassley is introducing a bill saying all tariffs need to go through Congress with at least 60 days for approval, as well as the right to rescind any existing tariffs. Ya know, the Senate actually doing its job. Of course, it won't pass in the House.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 2:35 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
We have an administration who thinks we can bring back peak Detroit era American manufacturing
GM is assembling cars all over America and in 35 different countries. The jobs don't have to be in Detroit and they don't have to be at assembly plants. Every domestic auto maker should just build massive plants in El Paso.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 3:06 pm to SM1010
If any country can actually have that pompous belief…it’s the USA. We trade with both sides of the globe and have more spending power than most of the rest of the world combined. For as painful as it could become in the US, it’s going to be worse everywhere else.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 9:35 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Saw today Chuck Grassley is introducing a bill saying all tariffs need to go through Congress with at least 60 days for approval, as well as the right to rescind any existing tariffs. Ya know, the Senate actually doing its job. Of course, it won't pass in the House.
While Congress is filled with feckless tits, I believe we have to start clawing power back within its purview. Kill the administrative state, reclaim the power the Executive has taken over the last few decades. We weren’t supposed to be a government of either faceless bureaucrats or kings.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:36 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
How are poor arse places that can't afford anything we make supposed to balance their trade with the US? Stop selling to us?
If they don't have tariff barriers in place, they continue to do business as usual. If they have tariff barriers in place, they need to decide what's more important to them just as we're deciding that trying to rebuild our manufacturing sector is more important to us that cheap, foreign goods.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:39 am to Bard
quote:
If they don't have tariff barriers in place,
That’s immaterial, apparently.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:42 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
That’s immaterial, apparently.
How so? The very heart of Trump's tariff package is reciprocity.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:43 am to Bard
quote:
If they don't have tariff barriers in place, they continue to do business as usual.
Did you even look at what the Trump admin actually did?
"trade barriers" has nothing to do with the numbers they posted. His question relied on analyzing the actual policy pushed by the admin, not the one they promised (Which is what you're using to respond with).
The admin based these numbers on trade imbalance. How are poor countries who can't afford our exports going to balance trade with the US? That was his question (and the proper framing)
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:44 am to Bard
quote:
The very heart of Trump's tariff package is reciprocity.
But...it's not. That's the point.
It's based in trade imbalance, not reciprocity of trade policy
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:45 am to Bard
quote:
The very heart of Trump's tariff package is reciprocity.
I thought it was trade imbalance. Geez.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:05 am to Bard
quote:
The very heart of Trump's tariff package is reciprocity.
Lol
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But...it's not. That's the point.
It's based in trade imbalance, not reciprocity of trade policy
That's not quite right.
He sees much of the trade imbalance as a function of tariffs other countries have on US goods versus the tariffs we place on theirs. For it to be about just trade imbalance, that would mean the U.S. mirrors everything another country does in trade: same tariffs, same rules, same barriers, a tit-for-tat across the board.
Reciprocal tariffs are all about matching specific tariffs on imported goods that other countries put on U.S. stuff. For example, if Canada taxes U.S. steel at 10%, Trump would slap a 10% tariff on Canadian steel coming here.
Trump's plan is far more focused on reciprocal tariffs but leaves room for other issues. For example, the tariff on Canada and Mexico was partly because of their tariffs on U.S. products but also on other issues like border security. For some place like China, he's looking at the trade imbalance being a function of the average tariff on US goods in China being consistently higher than the average US tariff on Chinese goods.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:05 am to Bard
quote:
That's not quite right.
He sees much of the trade imbalance as a function of tariffs other countries have on US goods versus the tariffs we place on theirs. For it to be about just trade imbalance, that would mean the U.S. mirrors everything another country does in trade: same tariffs, same rules, same barriers, a tit-for-tat across the board.
Reciprocal tariffs are all about matching specific tariffs on imported goods that other countries put on U.S. stuff. For example, if Canada taxes U.S. steel at 10%, Trump would slap a 10% tariff on Canadian steel coming here.
Trump's plan is far more focused on reciprocal tariffs but leaves room for other issues. For example, the tariff on Canada and Mexico was partly because of their tariffs on U.S. products but also on other issues like border security. For some place like China, he's looking at the trade imbalance being a function of the average tariff on US goods in China being consistently higher than the average US tariff on Chinese goods.
Trump put a 10% tariff on every country in the world. Cambodia has, roughly, a 10% tariff on incoming US goods. Trump placed a tariff on them of 49%.
If Cambodia reduced their tariff on the US to 0%, please explain with at least some measure of detail what you believe Trump would do in return. Nothing? Lower our tariff to 39%? Lower our tariff to 10%? Drop our tariff to 0% Something else?
From there, we can discuss whether that response is, or is not, "reciprocal".
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:06 am to Bard
quote:
For it to be about just trade imbalance, that would mean the U.S. mirrors everything another country does in trade: same tariffs, same rules, same barriers, a tit-for-tat across the board.
We're talking about the "reciprocal tariffs" Trump proposed. Those are based on nothing more than trade imbalance. The admin lied about them being based in tariffs and other "manipulations".
This also explains why the admin had to levy the tariffs on countries without any tariffs on US goods, or any economic productivity (as stout puts it, to avoid loopholes, which has nothing to do with reciprocity).
quote:
Reciprocal tariffs are all about matching specific tariffs on imported goods that other countries put on U.S. stuff. F
And that is specifically not what the admin did. That's what we keep telling you
The tariffs imposed on US from Trump spreadsheet are literally just the trade ratio
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News