- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: WSJ: WH likely to switch to tiered approach to Chinese tariffs. Overall reduction to 65%
Posted on 4/24/25 at 10:29 pm to GetCocky11
Posted on 4/24/25 at 10:29 pm to GetCocky11
Yes, yes it is. (Insert emoji in effort to make point seem irrefutable)
I’m a professional, certified negotiator. The deal I’ll sign this month started in October and is worth $800m+.
You create dynamic tension and leverage what you have as needed. You concede according to plan.
If America gets a good deal, he’s succeeded. If not, then he’s failed, the recent pain will be for naught, and improvement in border security, reduced wasteful spending, etc. will all be overshadowed.
I’m a professional, certified negotiator. The deal I’ll sign this month started in October and is worth $800m+.
You create dynamic tension and leverage what you have as needed. You concede according to plan.
If America gets a good deal, he’s succeeded. If not, then he’s failed, the recent pain will be for naught, and improvement in border security, reduced wasteful spending, etc. will all be overshadowed.
This post was edited on 4/24/25 at 10:53 pm
2
Posted on 4/24/25 at 11:26 pm to GeekedUp
Go ahead and articulate what a “good” trade deal with china entails.
Posted on 4/24/25 at 11:42 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Boom. Another SP 100pts. Then drop it to 30% in a week and another rally.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 12:01 pm to JohnnyKilroy
Valid question and one I have thought about a lot.
Hard to say without knowing all the details. Probably more of a political conversation as it would likely (or should) involve national security, travel visas, fentanyl exports, etc in addition to trade, currency weaponization, and domestic manufacturing/employment rates.
Improvement (which would also need defining) in any of those areas would be good for America, but have little to do with personal finance, especially in the short term.
Regarding short term personal finance, moving from an income tax to a consumption-based tariff tax would be positive as it applicable to everyone and more discretionary. More control over your own money is generally seen as positive but certainly not by everyone… and who’s to say that is even on the table.
Hard to say without knowing all the details. Probably more of a political conversation as it would likely (or should) involve national security, travel visas, fentanyl exports, etc in addition to trade, currency weaponization, and domestic manufacturing/employment rates.
Improvement (which would also need defining) in any of those areas would be good for America, but have little to do with personal finance, especially in the short term.
Regarding short term personal finance, moving from an income tax to a consumption-based tariff tax would be positive as it applicable to everyone and more discretionary. More control over your own money is generally seen as positive but certainly not by everyone… and who’s to say that is even on the table.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 12:37 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Go ahead and articulate what a “good” trade deal with china entails.
I do believe part of it has to be getting the Chinese government to finally, and legitimately, crack down on the fentanyl distributors within their borders who work to get that shite into American consumption.
I agree this currently looks like, and is possibly if no real plan, a complete Charlie Foxtrot. However, supposedly the tariff threats against Mexico and Canada garnered some concessions of support on the border front from them.
Still in wait and see mode, personally, but I think this is either going to turn out to be a big positive, or a big negative, for the United States. And since American voters can swing one way or the other in such a short time, I hope the positive starts showing evident before the Summer of 2026.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 2:31 pm to GeekedUp
quote:
I’m a professional, certified negotiator. The deal I’ll sign this month started in October and is worth $800m+.
With respect to you and your deal, this is a lot more than just "business".
Posted on 4/25/25 at 3:07 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
With respect to you and your deal, this is a lot more than just "business".
No question. See my post above.
Negotiation fundamentals don’t change. Kind of like stages of grief - you’re going to go through all of them but how fast and the impact of each of one can be very, very different based on circumstance.
Back to the point, success will be judged based on the outcome.
The back & forth, posturing may prove to be effective, but it’s been incredibly disruptive throughout the supply chain.
Posted on 4/25/25 at 3:37 pm to GeekedUp
quote:
No question. See my post above.
Negotiation fundamentals don’t change. Kind of like stages of grief - you’re going to go through all of them but how fast and the impact of each of one can be very, very different based on circumstance.
Back to the point, success will be judged based on the outcome.
The back & forth, posturing may prove to be effective, but it’s been incredibly disruptive throughout the supply chain.
Negotiating fundamentals can change based on the type of negotiation. Do you not think a distinction can be drawn between the following:
1. A business negotiation in which two businesses, which can just walk away from one another and never acknowledge the other's existence again, can choose to voluntarily enter into a binding contract with one another if they can reach mutually agreeable terms.
2. A negotiation between two nation states, that is inherently non-binding, in which both states can do whatever they want, whenever they want, both before and after any agreement is signed, or even absent any agreement whatsoever.
And if a distinction can be drawn, what's the purpose of all the histrionics when the United States can simply say "we're going to do X unless/until you do A, B, and C. Once you've done A, B, and C, we'll then do Y. Please and thank you, have a nice day"?
Posted on 4/25/25 at 5:54 pm to Joshjrn
This may simply be an issue of jargon. Professionally speaking, the fundamentals would not change. They are, well, fundamental. You could probably Google them if you were really interested. Tactics you employ within any given negotiation can and should vary.
For example, your business scenario #1 sounds like buying a car - the financial obligation is binding, but you may not care about the relationship after the sale. Most corporate deals are polar opposite. You need the other party to be successful because you rely on them for your own success.
Very, very different negotiations, but all the same fundamentals still apply.
In any case, I doubt most folks here care about the nuts and bolts of negotiations, and I don’t come to this board for political/policy talk.
The statement was made that the art of the deal was nonsense. I happen to be a subject matter expert and disagree. Your examples illustrated it perfectly. They are all different and each would require an artful negotiation.
I’m going back to having my mind on my money and my money on my mind
For example, your business scenario #1 sounds like buying a car - the financial obligation is binding, but you may not care about the relationship after the sale. Most corporate deals are polar opposite. You need the other party to be successful because you rely on them for your own success.
Very, very different negotiations, but all the same fundamentals still apply.
In any case, I doubt most folks here care about the nuts and bolts of negotiations, and I don’t come to this board for political/policy talk.
The statement was made that the art of the deal was nonsense. I happen to be a subject matter expert and disagree. Your examples illustrated it perfectly. They are all different and each would require an artful negotiation.
I’m going back to having my mind on my money and my money on my mind
Posted on 4/25/25 at 5:58 pm to GeekedUp
I would like to see exactly which fundamentals you would cite, so then we can compare them to Trump’s actions up to this point 
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News