re: CBO: Trump’s Tariffs Could Slash Deficit by $4 Trillion

quote:

---

Hold them accountable. No one is doing that.

---

Congressional approval is about 20% and re-election rate is about 95%

quote:

---

I would argue there is a method to this you may not be able to comprehend

---

I didn't read every word of that, I briefly skimmed it, but it didn't look that complex. What I got is that Trump's policies are designed to correct trade imbalances so as to reduce national debt while remaining confident that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency as there is no other viable alternative.

Is that correct?

If so, the conclusions and assumptions rolled up in all of that are opinions, not facts, and many if not most economists disagree with those opinions.

A trade deficit is not necessarily bad. To wit:

quote:

---

Some economists argue that the singular role of the U.S. economy in providing liquidity to the global economy and driving demand around the world makes a U.S. trade deficit important to global economic stability. The dollar’s role as the global reserve currency and primary tool for global transactions means that many other countries rely on holding dollar reserves, creating massive demand for U.S. financial assets. This means that the United States pays little for its foreign borrowing, allowing it to finance its high consumption at low cost, which boosts global demand.

---

Even if your article is correct that the dollar will remain the reserve currency, it could still lose value relative to other currencies (and likely will if the deficits are corrected).

And if the idea is really to reduce the deficit, tariffs aren't necessarily the best way in the world to do that.

quote:

---

...higher tariffs lead to both reduced imports and exports, as well as less total income, noting that tariffs “ultimately lead to less business innovation, slower productivity growth, and lower household living standards.”

---

Some economists think that we should be engaging in policies and agreements designed to emphasize increasing exports, changing the tax code, or using currency exchange rate policy, etc. rather than using tariffs to achieve this goal.

The point being, Trump's opinion is just one of many in an inexact field on a subject that isn't about right and wrong so much as picking your poison (I believe that was the last line of your article) in a landscape of pros and cons.

Could he be more right than the economists who disagree? Yeah, that's possible.

Could this exercise be worth it in the end? That's logically possible.

But pretending like there are no negative consequences while being completely unable to articulate or even understand what Trump's trying to do here (which, if you are correct, is the case) is what drives so much opposition.

I get that Trump's natural communication style is not at all conducive to clearly communicating complex ideas. He always has spoken in sound bytes and it's not realistic to think we're going to get a one hour educational Ross Perot flip-chart style presentation out of him on this ever.

But if this is what it's all about, Vance or someone needs to articulate it.

quote:

---

Not one single company is going to willingly give up market share because that cuts into profits. They will absorb or take the offered route..... open here.

---

Again....it's not about whether or not the company is passing their tariff costs onto the consumer or not. If they aren't passing those costs along, I can guarantee you they are finding those costs somewhere - from hiring (which sucks), expansion, CAPEX, maintenance, etc are all being cut.

Y'all are treating these tariffs liker some sort of magical pot of gold that mysteriously appears without consequence or effect, and that is just silly.

What!? You don't like these gas prices, meat, housing, etc? You're crazy. Trump is fixing everything!! Libtard

quote:

---

Because you risk losing your #1 consumer. Are you going to take that risk? If you lose the US, your prices will really take a tumble.

---

But you won’t lose the US customer.

If LL Bean keeps making their stuff in Indonesia or Vietnam, do you really think they’ll lose the American consumer even with tarrifs?

Think about it from a business standpoint

I’m LL bean and I sell clothes all over the world. I make my stuff in Vietnamese, China and Brazil. Labor is cheap as hell, and I have little regulatory headache. I ship my clothes to the US and they slap 35% tarriff so my $50 shirt is now $67.50 off the rack in stores.

Alternatively, I invest $250,000,000 in a factory, pay high wages and expense massive regulations and I ship my stuff all over the world and still have tariffs to pay in other countries….and still have shirts that cost $67.50 off the rack in stores But I have loyal Americans who’ll pay the higher cost of production because it has a label that says “made in America”…..

Does it make sense to build that factory?

quote:

---

But I have loyal Americans who’ll pay the higher cost of production because it has a label that says “made in America”…..

---

No, you don't. Not enough.

quote:

---

Does it make sense to build that factory?

---

Absolutely not, especially with that stability of the tariffs so far. And they could all vanish in 3 years.

quote:

---

Y'all are treating these tariffs liker some sort of magical pot of gold that mysteriously appears without consequence or effect, and that is just silly.

---

Over and over again.

quote:

---

How the frick can you post that number and not link where it came from?

---

He said it's "napkin math". Likely a cocktail napkin and calculated after a few drinks.

Ugh. It is always shady as hell when some no-name "news source" (and yes "Slaynews.com certainly counts) posts a summary of an official report that doesn't link to the original report.

Here is the CBO update: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61697

Most important parts:

quote:

---

We project that increases in tariffs implemented during the period from January 6, 2025, to August 19 will decrease primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) by $3.3 trillion if the higher tariffs persist for the 2025-2035 period. By reducing the need for federal borrowing, those tariff collections will also reduce federal outlays for interest by an additional $0.7 trillion. As a result, the changes in tariffs will reduce total deficits by $4.0 trillion altogether.

---

Fair enough. But note that is $4 trillion over 10 years. Or an average of $400b a year. Still a big number though.

However, this is also important:

quote:

---

We estimate that the changes in tariffs, both by the United States and its trading partners, will reduce the size of the U.S. economy. That reduction in output reflects both negative and positive effects: the negative effects of higher tariffs through channels such as reduced investment and productivity, and the positive effects of additional revenues from tariffs on U.S. imports, which would reduce federal borrowing and increase the funds available for private investment.

---

quote:

---

See what the McD CEO said this morning. Inflation is what is causing the rise in prices, not tariffs.

---

Two types of inflation here. Monetary and price inflation. You seem to think this is being driven by monetary inflation. Which would make Trump's begging for more money printing even more disjointed.